re: "Defense Secretary Urges More Spending on the "Civilian Instruments of National Security" "

MountainRunner ("Public diplomacy, unrestricted warfare, privatization of force, and civil-military relations") comments on coverage of the SecDef's Kansas State speech.

Money quote(s):

"Secretary of Defense Robert Gates wants other agencies to step up, get funded, and do the work they excel at. He wants the other parts of government to not only start participating in the national security of the United States, but doing a better job if not simply starting to do something. Speaking at Kansas State University today, SecDef Gates sounded like a man truly concerned with national security, as he should, and concerned other parts of government are not being mobilized and funded to do their part.

There's a change a comin'."

"SecDef Gates' predecessor was often asked about resurrecting USIA, substantially more frequently I believe than Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. On communications, while the SecDef didn't exactly say "America should hire Al Qaeda's PR Agent," he made his position clear and I'm quite sure he's not saddened by Karen Hughes' departure. On Rice, Gates highlighted not just SecState's failure to prioritize or failure to mobilize, but he reinvigorated the theme of a Civil Response Corps"

"SecDef Gates statement mocking his lobbying for increased budgets for other agencies would be humorous if it weren't so true."

"Gates is active and demanding the rest of the government step up. Where is State, the biggest, but not only, partner in the war and partner in national security in general? It would be interesting to see a response to Gates (or the Shanker article) on DipNote, State's blog, preferably an affirmative statement of support.

I, for one, would like to see the resurrection of a USIA-agency led by a new cabinet member that works closely with both SecState and SecDef. This triumvirate would be the primary tools of national security. The CIA would return to its consultative role to the President and his departments (i.e. DOD, DOS, DOA, etc)."

&

"State is necessary to continue to work state and supra-state arrangements. DoD does not have the same personnel time horizon (too quick of rotations... hard to build an empire when you rotate so often and lose knowledge and relationships, this is one of many areas the British were really good at) and, to be blunt, the image of the U.S. we want to project does not wear combat boots. We need to DoD'ify State and USAID/USIA'ify DoD. The latter has been in the works for years (this is key to counterinsurgency) but the former hasn't started except in small areas due to force of personality and will power."


Hat tip to the Denizens at Castle Argghhh!!!