Michael Clauser at Politico ("published every day that Congress is in session") get this mostly right.
Money quote(s):
"(A) key Washington budget debate: the proportionality of military spending relative to nonmilitary international affairs spending.
The U.S. spends roughly 20 cents of every tax dollar on defense, compared with slightly more than a penny for nonmilitary-related international affairs activities.
Advocates of soft power bemoan Washington’s overly militarized approach to the world, while conservatives are critical of what they view as an ineffective bureaucracy run by establishment elites in Foggy Bottom. Yet of all national budget debates, the fratricide for funds between State and Defense is most puzzling as their roles are so intrinsically complementary."
As Mr. Clauser notes, SecDef Gates didn't exactly take a parochial approach to this dichotomy. He knew that there were some things that the military shouldn't do, at least not in more than a supporting role.
"Deficit and debt reduction are necessary, but not sufficient, to ensure long-term U.S. strength and well-being. And the price should not be forfeiture of essential hard or soft U.S. national security capabilities or America’s leadership role in the world."
Usually we wait until a war is over before cashing in on a peace dividend. The Clinton administration crippled the military services doing this, while shrinking our diplomatic force multipliers just when they should have been growing them.
What' do you call doing this when the wars are still ongoing?
"U.S. leadership requires both hard and soft power working in concert.
The past 10 years of unconventional conflict have reminded the military and its congressional overseers of the inherently political nature of war and the importance of nonkinetic capabilities — like civil affairs teams, humanitarian assistance and disaster relief, rule of law educators, development and reconstruction specialists, counter-drug personnel and police trainers. These capabilities are as vital to contemporary conflict as some major weapons systems. Cutting funding for them is, therefore, a kind of unilateral disarmament."
Preach it. "(U)nilateral disarmament." And he doesn't see that as a feature; be secure in your appreciation that it is indeed a bug.
USAID (and the former USIA) need to be re-established as more than contracting and out-sourcing entities, and as independent agencies. The stealth assimilation of USAID into State is just as bad an idea as absorbing USIA was.
"(F)ederal and nongovernmental aid groups are coming to realize how much they rely on the military to provide security for aid workers in pre-, post- and active conflict zones. Human rights watchers admit that the use of force, as in Libya, can stave off grave human rights atrocities. U.S. diplomats know that their ability to “speak softly” hinges on the presence of “a big stick.” " (Bold typeface added for emphasis. - CAA.)
Being a superpower means people return your calls in a timely manner. Which is nice.
They don't need to necessarily fear you, just respect that you're big enough that you can squash them by accident if you're not careful.
"Federal budget politics remain the quintessential zero-sum game. As Congress considers where to identify savings, it must acknowledge that defense, diplomacy and development cannot be devolved to state or local-level government. Instead, Congress should redirect its scalpel to departments and agencies whose missions are not as intrinsic to the federal government and to key drivers of long-term debt."
Yeah, good luck with that.
"Granted, this is far easier said than done.
With so many domestic political constituencies benefiting from federal programs in housing, health, education, labor, pensions and agriculture, it is all the more important for advocates of strong and balanced U.S. leadership in the world to work together — and work harder to be mutually reinforcing about the importance to each other’s roles."
Defense and State lack domestic constituencies for their missions except in time of war or international crisis, when American citizens are forced to look beyond their normal everyday lives to the wider world. And State lacks the big ticket items like large domestic bases, expensive procurement programs, and the like that make it a cash cow for legislators looking for a little pork.
Being a continental power that is in fact continent-wide, America is fortunate to be so large that for many of us the outside world is just so far away it hardly seems real. You just have to drive across too many states to even reach an international border for other countries to seem more than something you watch on National Geographic.
_____
Hat tip to the Editors at Small Wars Journal ("facilitates the exchange of information among practitioners, thought leaders, and students of Small Wars, in order to advance knowledge and capabilities in the field").
6 comments:
Good points - my concern is that State is an easy place to cut since there is no domestic voting block that puts donations in politicians' pockets. With what I assume to be a decline in visa-based immigration to the US thanks to the current economic climate, I'm also concerned with the Fed deciding to shrink the Foreign Service by closing down consulates. Do you have any feel for where the budget cuts might go?
Is there, in fact, a decline in legal immigration to the U.S.?
State lacks support because it does zero for American citizens abroad or for American businesses. The American Embassy in Mexico City has over forty consular officers and four economic officers while the smaller Japanese Embassy has forty economic officers involved in trade promotion and one part time consular officer.
If you want to see waste look at USAID. An organization that has an amazing record of spending billions and producing zero in the way of measurable improvements. For example hundreds of people are sent to the US to attend college at the expense of the US taxpayers yet the government does not select these lucky students. Host government selects them. So they tend to be the drooling son in law who couldn't be a bathroom attendant at home who goes.
Yet USAID can't tell you how this program benefits the host nation or the US. Theybcan't even tell you how many of such students who come to the US (often with their spouses, total expenses paid for) return.
Now why do you think that is?
State's budget could be cut by half and no one would even notice it. State apparently thinks holding gay celebrations in Pakistan and Iraq are the way to win hearts and minds.
I'm sure it is.
CAA,
Hard to find any hard numbers on recent immigration trends from govt sources - here's a link:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/14/immigration-us-slowed-recession_n_898828.html
@fsowannabe: My _impression_ is that, overall, immigration to the U.S. is fairly inelastic, at least in the absence of major changes to our immigration laws.
Non-immigrant travel has, in recent years, proven somewhat elastic (but not as much as you'd think) in terms of tourist, business, and student travel to the U.S. But it always seems to bounce back.
@Anonymous: Your comment raises some interesting points.
Economic officers aren't, to my knowledge (and I haven't worked as one despite a business background), assigned to work as business consultants abroad. That's not really their function. You're looking for _commercial_ officers/attaches.
I'm not being snarky; the people you're looking for are FCS (Foreign Commercial Service). You see, the Dept. of Commerce (really) has its own mini-foreign service of FCS folks who do what you're talking about. It's not a very big service.
Consular officers in the American Citizens Services (ACS) section _may_ be able to provide some assistance, although their demanding workload providing consular services to American travelers-in-distress, &tc., means they may not be as helpful as you (or they) would like. At a minimum, they can put you in touch with a local U.S. chamber of commerce, which may be able to provide the assistance you seek.
USAID is a bit out of my area of expertise; I think it's a great idea in principle, I wonder why it's been allowed to be run down to its current state, and I know its budget is a drop in the federal budget compared to domestic "entitlements." As are the entire foreign affairs and the defense budgets themselves.
Lastly, I _get_ what you're saying about "gay celebrations in Pakistan and Iraq." Really, I do. That's all a part of promoting a particular version of American culture (and it's hard to define a _single_ American culture nowadays) that many Americans aren't all that comfortable (to say nothing about being enthused) about, and frankly do nothing but inflame local sensibilities.
On the other hand, letting little girls go to school without being killed upsets some folks in places like that, so sometimes a little "in your face" is appropriate.
Post a Comment