Gates is Right on "Soft Power"
In an address delivered yesterday at Kansas State University, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates took the unusual step of advocating major increases in non-military tools of national power, from diplomacy to development assistance.
As noted in an article in the Los Angeles Times, Gates graphically underscored the relative resources involved, noting that the State Department's current roster of 6,600 foreign service officers is "less than the manning for one aircraft carrier strike group."
Where Gates falls short is in neglecting the fact that the bulk of these new resources for civilian instruments of statecraft can and should come from our bloated military budget, which Gates himself acknowledged is running at nearly half a trillion dollars per year, not counting the costs of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. That's over 13 times as much as the $36 billion the State Department receives on an annual basis.
Another flaw in the Gates vision is his suggestion that diplomacy, economic assistance, intelligence gathering and other non-military tools should merely be "add-ons" to what would continue to be mostly military missions. For example, he outlined the ways he thought a more robust civilian "corps" of experts in everything from rebuilding to language skills to anthropology could improve the prospects of the United States "winning" conflicts like the current war in Iraq. Instead, he should be asking whether we should ever engage in another Iraq-style occupation.
These criticisms notwithstanding, Gates has made an important first step. It is probably too much to expect that a sitting Secretary of Defense would suggest reductions in his own department's budget. That is a job for others to advocate. How this might best be done will be a subject of a future post.
I just saw Guiliani addressing the New England Council in Bedford, NH, on C-SPAN and he was asked what our foreign policy should be. Not long into his answer he said we have to expand the military, adding 20 more brigades, 200,000 Marines, the 300 ship Navy, fighter planes....". He of course priased Ronald Reagan and bashed Clinton for decimating the military and said 'we have to stay on offense against the terrorists not on defense as in the past' (that line is childish). He also mentioned the Patriot Act as a weapon.
This guy is so full of shit his eyes are brown. How is this gigantic military he proposes going to protect us from terrorists?
This guy may be more an authoritarian than Bush, if that's possible.
November 27, 2007 10:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
What about all the civilian contractor's that have been in and out of Afghanistan and Iraq? How much more money does he want to spend on Blackwater mercs?
Looks like breathing the "rarified" air at the Pentagon that caused Rummy to get so weird is now beginning to cloud Gate's mind.
Pass that nitrous hose, Mr. Gates........
Alphonse ( Al ) Kada
Iranians are fighting the Americans in Iraq so they don't have to fight them on the streets of Tehran
November 27, 2007 11:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
One of the possible silver linings of the Iraq war is that we may possibly begin to cash in the peace dividend that we lost at the end of the cold war. Of course, as pointed above we will have to argue with the War Party that we lost Iraq because our forces were too small.
There are some very obvious places to begin reductions.
The US maintains over 700 military bases in nearly 100 countries. We should discuss which of those should be closed. Closing these bases will also make American diplomacy an easier job as there is considerable native resentment to being occupied by a foreign power. Okinawa and Korea being the two examples Chalmers Johnson has documented so well. Removing the Naval bases in the Persian Gulf would also be nice, but maybe not possible in the near term.
We have absolutely no need for a dozen Aircraft carrier groups. These are ostentatious displays of American militarism and where ever they go they carry the threat violence. Every time we assemble these battle groups in the S China Sea or the Formosa straights military spending in China shoots up. Respect for America, as opposed to fear of America, would greatly increase if we confined these monsters to their home ports. We could begin by reducing their numbers by half.
It would be wonderful if we could genuinely have such a discussion today in the open political arena. Unfortunately, the War Party is too powerful for it to happen now. Perhaps we can if there is a major financial crisis with the dollar and it loses its reserve status
November 27, 2007 11:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hard power destroys soft power when it fails.
Having failed to make the world cringe and whimper under the whip, having failed to bloody and bow Osama Bin Laden, or Afghanistan, or Iraq or Ethiopia or Lebanon or Venezuala or North Korea or Turkey or Iran or China...
Having been met with defiance, resistance and mockery, having seen America's unstoppable armed might ground to pulp in a pointless guerilla war.
Having seen the impotence of the mailed fist, having watched as the Empire dissolves in bitter prejudice and grandiose idiocy.
Having spent billions to kill semi-literate villagers, having ruined the economy and the dollar and bashed away at the infrastructure.
Having proven untrustworthy and unreliable, having broken and repudiated treaties, dishonoured the geneva conventions, committed war crimes, insulted and punished allies, and broken its word...
What soft power does America have left?
Inquiring minds want to know.
November 27, 2007 11:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
Holster that weapon, soldier.
November 27, 2007 12:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly my point, Tom.
All of the consultants that I know that have been and returned and been again (and some that are headed back) were heavily guarded, even if it was to consult with the Afghan's or the Iraqi's on solid waste or utility regulation.
I think Gates is driven off this cliff by the idea that it all is under the control of the military in the context of the conflict, not offered prior to the conflict as a way of defusing it.
Alphonse ( Al ) Kada
Iranians are fighting the Americans in Iraq so they don't have to fight them on the streets of Tehran
November 27, 2007 12:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm stumped as to your point. Seems to me the above is saying we need diplomacy experts etc. not paramilitaries. And the security issues in Iraq are not what's being referenced, it seems obvious. It's about having competent foreign-service personnel to do those foreign-service jobs.
November 27, 2007 12:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Most people in the world consider the US a desirable place to visit. Our universities remain attractive to the rest of the world. Obviously, there is tremendous respect for the our culture, internal freedoms and way of life. Thus promoting tourism, visiting scholars and immigration especially of the highly educated would strengthen America.
The damage you describe has been done and a process of repair must begin. This would be most easily accomplished if the US reduced its military foot print around the world and stopped threatening others with military violence whenever they defy our will. It would take time but if rest of the world began to see that we really were sincere in reducing our military presence, it would allow the more positive aspects of America to prevail.
November 27, 2007 12:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
What do you see as the mission for carrier battle groups? Cutting to 6 would mean that a maximum of 2 could be forward deployed. If you have a mission statement, fine. If the mix might go more toward amphibious/STOL units, for doing such things as noncombatant evacuation, fine.
I just get nervous when I hear about arbitrary numbers, both up and down, and no mission statement.
It's not intuitively obvious that China diverting resources is necessarily a bad thing. It may be. It may not be. In neither case is it a throwaway line.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]
November 27, 2007 2:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe the past few years have clouded my thinking, but I thought that diplomacy was the thing done before the shooting war. Once hostilities start, we've seen the effect that bringing in the experts under the military occupation has rendered.
I guess the point was that if Gates sees these things as having value in themselves, they would be part of foreign policy and not military policy. Hartung points out that they are mostly "add-ons" in the context of the conflict. In everything that I read about Gates and his tenure at T A&M, he was a change agent, and his opening actions at Defense seemed to echo that. Taking the idea, however, that diplomacy is an afterthought of military conflict seems a step backward....
Alphonse ( Al ) Kada
Iranians are fighting the Americans in Iraq so they don't have to fight them on the streets of Tehran
November 27, 2007 2:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Point to you.
I think the cadre of skills he is talking about was in fact available before Iraq, but was either ignored in-house or turned away from being hired. Before Iraq, State, even with limited personnel, at least had a plan. Too bad. Then again, too bad we invaded at all.
November 27, 2007 2:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why are we in Iraq?
We're in Iraq because we spend over $500 Billion per year on the military.
Why isn't Switzerland in Iraq?
Because their military budget is only $3.1 Billion per year.
November 27, 2007 3:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Democrats have to force them to say how much it's going to cost. Well, they would have to if they weren't buying into the same fantasy that only war is a free lunch.
November 27, 2007 3:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
The current mission of American military is to dominate the globe so that no power center can counter American hegemony. Thus the requirement for a dozen Aircraft carrier battle groups and 700 overseas bases. I think we should definitely change that mission statement.
The new mission statement would be the the role of the US military is to protect this country from foreign invasion.
If world domination is not the goal then it obviously follows that fewer aircraft carriers and foreign bases are needed. Let the experts determine the numbers but the current numbers are way too many.
November 27, 2007 3:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
If you have decided the policy that the number is too many, than you need to give policy guidance to the experts. Are you saying that the only threat to defend against is a physical invasion of North America? Are there parts of the world, and I'm not referring to the Middle East, that are essential to security?
The usual figure, given maintenance, training, deployment, etc., is that you need three carrier groups for each one that is forward deployed. Do you believe there is ever a reason for forward deployment? Why? Why not? Is, for example, the security of Japan critical to the US? Should there be a policy that Japan should take over more of its own defense responsibility? These are all variables.
Sorry, I don't deal any better with not wanting to dominate the world for not-hegemony than dealing with dominating the world to make it safe from terrorism. The experts can define force levels, but I'd like more specifics on what you see as presence of the US outside its continental borders (I'll throw in Alaska and Hawaii). Is Guam strategic, for example?
Should the Monroe Doctrine or the right of self-determination have applied to the Falklands, whose residents considered themselves Britons? Is the Monroe Doctrine still meaningful? To what risk should the US go to defend with the very real special relationship with Britain, who is very, very sorry for burning the White House?
I suspect that if the number of 700 overseas bases is accurate, a reasonable number of them are for intelligence sensors and communications. We don't have enough tactical units to garrison 700 bases. Some, not a huge number, but some are in places that are geographically required to support a satellite downlink (e.g., Alice Springs, Australia), foreign missile tracking (Shemya Alaska, if you consider that overseas, otherwise I can name some obscure bases in Japan), etc. Are these valid missions? How is this to be decided?
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]
November 27, 2007 5:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
I know an American professor of microbiology who would strongly disagree with you. He argues that America has already lost its edge in academic excellence, and that increasingly, the centers of research and scholarship are moving to Europe and Asia.
There isn't even tremendous respect for America's internal freedoms inside America... "First Amendment zones" "Persecuting bridge players" "Imprisonment without arrest" "Denial of right to trial, right to counsel" "Illegal telecommunications surveillance."
November 27, 2007 6:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Unless it is jealousy, I am baffled why GWB has it in for bridge players, for it is a game in which he can excel 1/4 of the time, in the vital position of of dummy.
OTOH, I stopped playing competitive bridge because the fights reminded me of hockey, with cards instead of pucks and no protective clothing.
November 27, 2007 6:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Don't ever change.
November 27, 2007 7:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
If you take this to mean less war and more diplomacy, you're misunderstanding what Gates said. He merely wants more help in governing and rebuilding occupied territories, plus an expanded propaganda capability for "shaping behavior".
The reconstruction of the damage from the US invasion and occupation of Iraq, with infrastructure and whole cities taking major hits, is beyond the capacity of the military to manage. Plus there is also the building of domestic economic and political structures--nation building--which the military is not qualified to do. It has been called disaster capitalism.
There's a lot of money to be made in war. "War is a racket", as Smedley Butler said. Now the US has discovered that there's also a lot of money to be made in reconstruction and nation-building, so look for new budget proposals. As our expanded military destroys and conquers new lands, the rebuild and reconstruction corps will be right behind them. Who could ask for anything more?
ecotourism
WeGoEco.com
November 27, 2007 10:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
I watched the Republican debate and the candidates pandered to the audience by babbling about pork/earmarks. The budget this year was $2.8 Trillion, we spend close to $1 Billion a day interest on the deficit and National Debt, which is $9 Trillion, but hey, all this will take care of itself if we cut the $20 Billion in pork, but not the $550 Billion for the military. (Actually, we want a raise in military spending.) See Giuliani's proposals.
Oh, did I forget to mention they'll cut your taxes too?
November 29, 2007 12:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
I believe Hillary the Hawk also intends to increase military spending. She reserves fiscal responsbibility for social security. Not so much to choose from.
November 30, 2007 4:46 PM | Reply | Permalink