The Foreign Service Journal, April 2009

A P R I L 2 0 0 9 / F O R E I G N S E R V I C E J O U R N A L 7 Right Problem, Wrong Solution Ambassador David Passage rightly highlights the worsening militarization of U.S. foreign policy in his February Speaking Out column, but prescribes the wrong solution. He is correct that the U.S. Agency for International De- velopment, not DOD, should lead U.S. development activities. And I agree that military dominance over the diplo- matic and development branches of government is not the example Amer- ica should project. However, eliminating the U.S. Africa Command and U.S. Southern Command is not the solution. Policies are at fault, not structures. The ongo- ing and unacceptable civil-military im- balance in U.S. foreign policy is driven by congressionally granted authorities and funding for DOD to conduct ac- tivities that rightly are the responsibility of civilians. This “authorities creep” is exemplified by the presence of special operations forces in East and Sahelian Africa as Military Information Support Teams and Humanitarian Assistance Teams. Using psychological operations and civil affairs soldiers in place of public diplomacy and USAID Foreign Serv- ice officers is both expensive and inef- fective. And linking information sup- port and humanitarian assistance to the activities of combat troops who work out of the same embassies dangerously muddies the distinctions among devel- opment, diplomacy and defense. Diplomacy and development are professions, just like the conduct of mil- itary operations. We shouldn’t use USAID officers to hunt terrorists, nor special operations forces to implement development policy. To be clear, however, DOD is not at fault: our military is acting with full con- L E T T E R S