How closely shouldAmericanembassies workwith the Pentagon?
Are U.S. Embassies Becoming Semi-Military Posts In Counterterror Campaigns?By Cliff Montgomery – Feb. 5th, 2007Is it wise for the Bush Administration to continue embroiling U.S. embassies around the globe into the military side of its “war on terror“? And if so, how far should it go? Is it possible the embassies are slowly becoming as much units of the Defense Department as they already are of State?The Senate Committee of Foreign Relations asked such questions last year, and released some eye-opening findings in a December 15th, 2006 report. We offer some quotes below:EMBASSIES AS COMMAND POSTS IN THE ANTI-TERROR CAMPAIGN”Protecting Americans from terrorist attacks within the United States depends, to a great extent, on U.S. success overseas. The task is vast and worldwide. It requires enlisting host country police to track and capture terrorists, uncovering terrorist financing, sharing intelligence with foreign partners, strengthening border surveillance in remote and unpopulated regions and building partnerships with foreign militaries.”In the longer run, it requires convincing entire societies to reject terrorist propaganda and recruitment. A successful counterterrorism policy depends on strong relationships with foreign governments and the people residing in countries on every continent.”Embassies are on the frontline in the overseas campaign against terror and demands on ambassadors, staffs, and physical facilities have increased exponentially. Since September 11, 2001, embassies have hosted a continuing influx of inter-agency personnel tasked with the full range of counterterrorism activities.”Under the direction of Chairman Richard G. Lugar, Senate Foreign Relations Committee majority staff visited selected embassies in Africa, Asia, Latin America, and the Middle East, as well as the headquarters of four combatant commands, to focus specifically on the civilian/military nexus. He asked staff to assess whether the State and Defense Departments are working together overseas in a way that contributes to overarching U.S. foreign policy goals in the individual countries and in the regions.FINDINGS”1. The number of military personnel and Defense Department activities in non-combat countries is increasing significantly. Left unclear, blurred lines of authority between the State Department and the Defense Department could lead to interagency turf wars that undermine the effectiveness of the overall U.S. effort against terrorism. It is in the embassies rather than in Washington where interagency differences on strategies, tactics and divisions of labor are increasingly adjudicated.”2. While finding, capturing, and eliminating individual terrorists and their support networks is an imperative in the war against terror, it is repairing and building alliances, pursuing resolutions to regional conflicts, fostering democracy and development, and defusing religious extremism worldwide that will overcome the terrorist threat in the long-term. It has traditionally been the military’s mission to take direct action against U.S. adversaries while the civilian agencies’ missionhas been to pursue non-coercive measures through diplomacy, international information programming, and foreign and economic assistance.”As a result of inadequate funding for civilian programs, however, U.S. defense agencies are increasingly being granted authority and funding to fill perceived gaps.”Such bleeding of civilian responsibilities overseas from civilian to military agencies risks weakening the Secretary of State‘s primacy in setting the agenda for U.S. relations with foreign countries and the Secretary of Defense‘s focus on war fighting.”3. The increases of funding streams, self-assigned missions, and realigned authorities for the Secretary of Defense and the combatant commanders are placing new stresses on inter-agency coordination in the field. Currently, overlapping missions and inter-agency frictions are, for the most part, refereed by the U.S. ambassador and other State Department leadership in the embassy with intermittent referral to headquarters for guidance.”But, as the role of the military expands, particularly in the area of foreign assistance, embassy officials in some countries question whether the Department of Defense will chafe under the constraints of State Department leadership and work for still more authority and funding.”4. There is evidence that some host countries are questioning the increasingly military component of America‘s profile overseas. Some foreign officials question what appears to them as a new emphasis by the United States on military approaches to problems that are not seen as lending themselves to military solutions.”Host country militaries clearly welcome increased professional contact and interaction with the U.S. military. However, some host countries have elements in both government and general society who are highly suspicious of potential American coercion.”There is no sense so far that foreign hosts believe the U.S. military is dominating U.S. policy in-country, but if such a perception were to gain hold, it would give ammunition to U.S. adversaries.”More importantly, it would weaken the bilateral relationships that are necessary to win the war against terror. Likewise, one misstep or poorly calculated military or other operation can significantly set back the full range of U.S. counterterrorism efforts in an entire region.”
