Leading Through Civilian Power

[aegisnavy]

I heard the NPR report driving home tonight, and the following quote from Sec. Clinton perked up my ears and set me to pondering what is the deeper meaning of this policy change?

"So we are pressing very hard on one of the key ideas which I mentioned in my remarks: Our ambassadors and chiefs of mission are truly the CEO of the American presence, and that includes everybody. We feel that way about the military’s CINCs. If you’re a regional commander in the United States military and you are going to be operating in a country in your region, the ambassador in that country needs to know and needs to approve. And we feel that that has to be the way we proceed, and I’m looking forward to the many challenges of implementation that that presents."

Source:
http://www.usaid.gov/qddr/

Sec. Clinton's Remarks:
http://www.usaid.gov/press/speeches/2010/sp101215.html

[Razor]

Someone want to remind the good secretary that the term CINC hasn't applied to combatant commanders for many years now? Under current terminology, her proposal puts the military decisions of the President under the approval of an ambassador.

[1stindoor]

Originally Posted by Razor

Someone want to remind the good secretary that the term CINC hasn't applied to combatant commanders for many years now? Under current terminology, her proposal puts the military decisions of the President under the approval of an ambassador.

Current lingo aside...this whole mindset is very disturbing. That's all we need in theater...an ambassador to approve our mission. I can see it now, a bunch of middle management beaurocatic idiots wanting to dissect our decision making process.

[Sigaba]

Originally Posted by aegisnavy

I heard the NPR report driving home tonight, and the following quote from Sec. Clinton perked up my ears and set me to pondering what is the deeper meaning of this policy change?

A,

IMO, Secretary Clinton answered your question in the paragraph previous to the one you quoted.

We’ve had examples – and I see some heads nodding – where you have contradictions about American policy between the presence of intel personnel, DOD personnel, State, USAID, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. And we can’t afford that. We have to work out whatever differences there are among the United States Government representatives behind closed doors and, under chief of mission authority, present a unified front.

Otherwise, as we now know, it’s not the world of 10 years ago, let alone 50 or 100 years ago. Everybody is a potential source. Everyone is a potential blogger. Everyone is a potential leaker. (Laughter.) And therefore it would be, I think, beneficial for American foreign policy if we demonstrated as strong a presence as possible in a country after having worked through all the various and sundry jurisdictional turf problems that we know exist. This is a work in progress. It’s not going to happen overnight. But we have had enough examples in the past whereas if we don’t have that unified U.S. Government position, we are working at cross-purposes to our own ends, and that is just not going to cut it in the 21st century.

More generally, I see Secretary of State Clinton's efforts as another chapter in a decades' old effort to re-establish Foggy Bottom as a focal point of American national security policy rather than just the West Wing or the Pentagon. Now, if only the folks on the Hill and members of the Fourth Estate would get more serious about their roles, we'd be cooking with gas.

My $0.02

[Richard]

Meh...guess nobody's ever heard of a "Country Team" - we used to have them, you know.

Richard

[CSB]

Thank you Richard ...

I was warming up my fingers to type "Country Team" when I saw your post.

Done right, there is a hell of a lot that the concept of the ambassador as leader of the "country team" can do, once the military has secured the country and effected an end of hostilities. And the ambassador has to be a professional, not a political patronage job (Shirley Temple, anyone?).

Damn, that reminds of me of what I said after Gulf War Number One (aka, Desert Shield/Desert Storm):

"The military has won the war, now it is the duty of the State Department to win the peace. Let's watch them fuck it up."

In a larger sense, it was the duty of entities other than the military to prevent Gulf War Number Two. Those entities included the State Department, the IAEA, the United Nnations, the Commerce Department, the AID, the CIA, etc. They didn't do it, and so the military had to return.

[Richard]

In a larger sense, it was the duty of entities other than the military to prevent Gulf War Number Two. Those entities included the State Department, the IAEA, the United Nnations, the Commerce Department, the AID, the CIA, etc. They didn't do it, and so the military had to return.

Ain't that the truth - and so it goes...

Richard

[aegisnavy]

It caught my attention because the sound bite on the radio played like an attempt to insert the State Dep't in the operational chain of command in a theatre of operations. Google Fu provided much info about the "Country Team" directive from JFK.

[Richard]

Best I ever saw and experienced was during my time at the AmEmbassy-Bonn during the period of German Unification, our removal of chemical weapons from Europe, and our involvement in GW1 and Provide Comfort.

POTUS - George HW Bush
SecState - James Baker
US Ambassador FRG - Vernon Walters
CJCS - GEN Colin Powell
SACEUR - GEN John Galvin followed by GEN John Shalikashvili

Look at their bios and think of the times - if only we were always so fortunate.

And so it goes...

Richard