Gates warns of militarization of US foreign policy

[Marcus Marulus]

Gates warns of militarization of US foreign policy

Gates warns of militarization of US foreign policy, cites lack of success in Afghanistan

LOLITA C. BALDOR

AP News

Jul 15, 2008 19:47 EST

The U.S. military's growing role in rebuilding war-battered nations has fueled concerns about a "creeping militarization" of American foreign policy, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Tuesday.

As the conflict in Afghanistan shows, coordinating war-fighting with diplomacy, job creation and road-building often doesn't work well, the Pentagon chief said in remarks prepared for delivery at an international policy dinner.

"Getting all these different elements to coordinate operations and share best practices has been a colossal — and so far an all too often unsuccessful — undertaking," said Gates.

He added that the increased involvement of the military in jobs that historically were done by civilian agencies has led to concerns of "a creeping militarization of some aspects of America's foreign policy."

In both the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, U.S. troops have been doing far more than fighting insurgents and securing borders. They've coordinated reconstruction projects and filled transition teams that bolstered fragile local governments and rebuilt industry.

Gates has repeatedly said that the State Department and some non-governmental organizations have been underfunded and understaffed for too long. And he has warned that military might alone cannot win wars.

Instead, he has called for more support for so-called soft power, with civilians contributing more in nonmilitary areas such as communication, economic assistance and political development.

As the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have dragged on, many have argued that the Bush administration missed opportunities early on to head off insurgents by failing to focus on economic development, promotion of internal reconciliation and training of police forces.

On Tuesday, Gates expanded on that theme, using the worsening situation in Afghanistan as an example of the problem. A recent spate of deadly attacks in Afghanistan has underscored the resurgence of the Taliban there — more than six years after they were ousted by the U.S.-led invasion.

The surge in violence has led to calls for the U.S. to send more troops to Afghanistan, shifting them away from what has been an improving security situation in Iraq.

Military leaders, however, are not yet ready to say how many troops can be pulled out of Iraq, stressing that the gains there are fragile.

Gates on Tuesday was introduced by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice — a choice that reflected their generally strong working relationship and his vocal support for giving her more resources.

"We cannot kill or capture our way to victory," Gates said, adding that military operations should support measures that promote economic and political growth. That effort, he said, must be coordinated with the U.N., NATO, other nations and agencies such as United States Agency for International Development.

"The Foreign Service is not the Foreign Legion, and the U.S. military should never be mistaken for a Peace Corps with guns," said Gates.

In the future, Gates said, the U.S. may not be toppling a regime and rebuilding a nation, but there will be a need to help countries that are struggling with insurgents, failed governments or natural disasters.

The most persistent threats, he said, will come from failing states that can't meet the basic needs of their people.

Gates was speaking at a dinner of the U.S. Global Leadership Campaign, a coalition of businesses, non-governmental organizations and community leaders that support international affairs programs.

Defense Department: U.S. Department of Defense Official Website

Source: AP News

[source]

[bombadillo]

What is the ulterior motive for this speech? Is it meant for public consumption? The same tired old refrain that USA's motives are pure but that because of lack of forethought and resolve, not enough has been done in non-military areas? More than any other country, US foreign policy and diplomacy has been tied up with military operations. The country is a militarised national-security state, with a colossal military-industrial complex, whose military actively searches for new enemies (all fabricated) to justify its size. I know of almost no honest "reconstruction" efforts in either Afghanistan or Iraq. What there is has been awarded as no-bid contracts to administration cronies (e.g., Bechtel and Halliburton,) who have siphoned the money into private coffers and have virtually no roads, no sewers, no schools, and no electricity to show for the money they've taken (but that was the game plan from the first day).

Broadly speaking, all foreign policy and diplomacy is really about the mailed fist and credible threats. But the USA, unlike the European powers in history, has been an unusually maladroit diplomat, and has relied on crude and overweening military might to accomplish ill-conceived purposes (e.g. the war in Vietnam).

[Heimdallr]

Originally Posted by bombadillo

What is the ulterior motive for this speech? Is it meant for public consumption? The same tired old refrain that USA's motives are pure but that because of lack of forethought and resolve, not enough has been done in non-military areas? More than any other country, US foreign policy and diplomacy has been tied up with military operations. The country is a militarised national-security state, with a colossal military-industrial complex, whose military actively searches for new enemies (all fabricated) to justify its size...

The ulterior motive may well be to caution all listeners that the 'war effort' abroad is going poorly, as one might expect any ill-conceived illegal occupation of a sovereign nation replete with ill conceived before-and after policies would be.

Dwight Eisenhower warned of the perils of the military industrial complex a half century ago, yet it still flourishes 'til this day... A good argument can be made that the only significant manufacturing base remaining in the USA is military oriented.

Broadly speaking, all foreign policy and diplomacy is really about the mailed fist and credible threats. But the USA, unlike the European powers in history, has been an unusually maladroit diplomat, and has relied on crude and overweening military might to accomplish ill-conceived purposes (e.g. the war in Vietnam).

"War is an extension of policy by other means." ~ Carl von Clausewitz


Carl Philipp Gottlieb von Clausewitz
(1 July 1780 – 16 November 1831)
.
.
.