New missions for military and civilians

David Ignatius has a pretty on target article in today's Washington Post about military transformation. (Via Praktike)
The first recommendation by the Defense Science Board was that the military apply its genius for logistics and management to peacemaking as well as war-fighting. The study urged a new contingency planning process to identify countries where U.S. intervention might be necessary -- and to make sure U.S. forces have the necessary language skills, area knowledge and civil affairs expertise. Again, these were precisely the reconstruction tools U.S. forces lacked as they raced to Baghdad in March 2003. The study noted pointedly that in 2004 the Defense Department had 6,723 French speakers, 6,931 German speakers, 4,194 Russian speakers -- and only 2,864 Arabic speakers.

In a recommendation that surely gave heartburn to Army generals who hold tight to their traditional war-fighting mission, the study stressed: "Stabilization and reconstruction missions must become a core competency of both the Departments of Defense and State. The military services need to reshape and rebalance their forces to provide a stabilization and reconstruction capability."

This op-ed is quite obviously similar to the thesis of Tom Barnett, who Ignatius credits for the ideas behind some of the transformation initiatives.

The other interesting plug was for the State Department led Office of the Coordinator for Reconstruction and Stabilization. In spite of having a limited budget, an undefined mission, and several government agencies fighting against it to protect their turf, this office is beginning to generate a buzz in the media and government circles. People are recognizing that we have a problem with civilian run reconstruction efforts, and some are starting to believe that this office may provide a mechanism for a solution.

0 comments: