John Govern
“Defense is from Mars, State is from Venus.” For diplomats and military leaders, this saying speaks to the apparent futility of interagency cooperation, with the two departments separated by seemingly intractable differences in character and organization. Yet, both diplomacy and military force have their own unique limitations that necessitate collaboration, difficult as it often proves to be. One important constraint of military force is that military operations should be transitory. Setting exit criteria is critical for US military planners, especially with a security handover to a local partner. To this end, interagency cooperation between the Defense Department, State Department, and other agencies is essential.
Unlike a military presence, diplomatic contingents are permanent and can further US foreign policy goals long after conflicts have ended. Civilian agencies are vital in transitioning from combat operations to stability and reconstruction. One of many examples is the work by the State Department and USAID—the US Agency for International Development—during the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan on civil reconstruction efforts through the two organizations’ Joint Strategic Plans. If Defense Department goals include transitioning to civil authority, US civilian agencies must be part of the plan. Nonetheless, current models of interagency cooperation can experience tension, as was the case recently during the Combined Joint Task Force–Operation Inherent Resolve (CJTF-OIR) campaign in Iraq. Learning from examples like this can help integrate agencies in future conflict zones.
No comments:
Post a Comment