Wednesday, January 28, 2009
An Expertise Pipeline?
Dov Zakheim observes that the State Department needs more than just budget increases if it is going to take on some of the missions that the Defense Department has assumed in recent years.
I am genuinely interested to know whether there is serious consideration about creating a pipeline that would take retiring active duty military officers who have many of the nation-building skills needed by State--as well as the relevant management experience, and oftentimes language and cultural expertise--and be able to transition them into the Department of State? After years of promises, the civilian response corps that was supposed to be able to step up to the plate has what, a few dozen people assigned to it?
I will happily stand corrected--but right now an officer or NCO with relevant experience still goes through the same bureaucratic hiring process that ends up taking months.
If I recall, at least in the 19th century, the British had provisions to transition overseas active duty officers into their Colonial Service.
Otherwise, no matter even if Secretary Gates can help Secretary Clinton get budget increases--without cadres now, then the military remains the default "go-to" option.
I am genuinely interested to know whether there is serious consideration about creating a pipeline that would take retiring active duty military officers who have many of the nation-building skills needed by State--as well as the relevant management experience, and oftentimes language and cultural expertise--and be able to transition them into the Department of State? After years of promises, the civilian response corps that was supposed to be able to step up to the plate has what, a few dozen people assigned to it?
I will happily stand corrected--but right now an officer or NCO with relevant experience still goes through the same bureaucratic hiring process that ends up taking months.
If I recall, at least in the 19th century, the British had provisions to transition overseas active duty officers into their Colonial Service.
Otherwise, no matter even if Secretary Gates can help Secretary Clinton get budget increases--without cadres now, then the military remains the default "go-to" option.
Comments:
<< Home
"If I recall, at least in the 19th century, the British had provisions to transition overseas active duty officers into their Colonial Service."
I'm not sure Americans accept the premise that we need a permanent cadre of this kind. We have tried to keep the employment of people in such capacities as ad hoc as possible.
"Otherwise, no matter even if Secretary Gates can help Secretary Clinton get budget increases--without cadres now, then the military remains the default "go-to" option."
My impression is that Gates has called for a different kind of skill set in State Department personnel and not a lateral transfer of military people. But you raise a good question in asking exactly what he means.
I'm not sure Americans accept the premise that we need a permanent cadre of this kind. We have tried to keep the employment of people in such capacities as ad hoc as possible.
"Otherwise, no matter even if Secretary Gates can help Secretary Clinton get budget increases--without cadres now, then the military remains the default "go-to" option."
My impression is that Gates has called for a different kind of skill set in State Department personnel and not a lateral transfer of military people. But you raise a good question in asking exactly what he means.
Nikolas: Could you shoot me an email when you get a chance. I have a foreign policy project that I would like to discuss with you.
Thanks.
Eric Martin
ericred55 - at - hot mail
Thanks.
Eric Martin
ericred55 - at - hot mail
For once I agree with David Billington - "Colonial Service" = "Natgion Building".
So are you suggesting that State Department is now to be permanently be subordinated to DoD? (which was the pratice during the frist GB administration?)
US does not need develop "Nation Building" as a skill-set. Her primary skills ought to be (as the Big Cheese of the global pecking order) in the area of avoiding Nation Busting (in order to maintain stability).
Dr. Najib, had he been supported by US, Iran, and Pakistan, was leading the best government that Afghanistan had ever had or was ever likely to have in 50 years time. Yet his government was destroyed and his country fractured subsequently.
Ditto for Somalia, for Yugoslavia, and now for Pakistan (perhaps).
Post a Comment
So are you suggesting that State Department is now to be permanently be subordinated to DoD? (which was the pratice during the frist GB administration?)
US does not need develop "Nation Building" as a skill-set. Her primary skills ought to be (as the Big Cheese of the global pecking order) in the area of avoiding Nation Busting (in order to maintain stability).
Dr. Najib, had he been supported by US, Iran, and Pakistan, was leading the best government that Afghanistan had ever had or was ever likely to have in 50 years time. Yet his government was destroyed and his country fractured subsequently.
Ditto for Somalia, for Yugoslavia, and now for Pakistan (perhaps).
# posted by 
: 12:29 PM
: 12:29 PM << Home
