The Foreign Service Journal, June 2007

tary staffing costs, than to the USAID development budget, even in coun- tries like Afghanistan or Iraq. So while the Pentagon is seeking $1 billion in CERP funds for FY 2008, State and USAID operating expense ac- counts have been slashed. These have been the policy choices over the past several budget cycles. The question now is which of the following three broad options the new Congress, controlled by the Demo- crats, will pursue: • Give State and USAID the resources, staff, bureaucratic and leg- islative authority to do the develop- ment and political tasks required in conflict zones; • Split the missions (which is the de facto situation today in Afghanistan and Iraq), but increase the equality and improve the partnership between the Foreign Service and military; or, • Accept an increasing military role in political diplomacy and devel- opment. The first option would require a major reorientation both in terms of policy and budgeting. This somewhat radical approach could essentially mean cutting in half the “two armies” Thomas Barnett writes of in Blueprint for Action and creating something akin to his “Department of Global Security.” Recent developments con- cerning the State Department’s new Office of the Coordinator for Recon- struction and Stabilization indicate baby steps in this direction. Even so, this is the least likely scenario of the three to be adopted, at least in the short term— despite the fact that it is arguably the closest to the “3-D” approach of the NSS. This is a classic case of a good strategy on paper not being supported by necessary bud- getary and institutional realignments. The third choice entails accepting a growing military role in political diplo- macy and development. Although this appears to be the trend, Barnett and others argue it is not in the military’s best long-term interest. Not only does it diminish what he terms the “Levia- than” or fighting-force ability of the military; it also contributes to the cur- rent stretch the military is feeling. I suspect few Foreign Service personnel would welcome such a trend, either. And others are concerned, as well: the Pentagon’s growing role in foreign assistance has drawn criticism from observers ranging from Senator Rich- ard Lugar, R-Ind., to former House Speaker Newt Gingrich. According to a recent report in the Washington Post , 16 F O R E I G N S E R V I C E J O U R N A L / J U N E 2 0 0 7 S P E A K I N G O U T