Posted By Tom Mahnken Share

By Thomas Mahnken

John Barry, one of the nation's most insightful defense reporters, has posted a piece for Newsweek arguing that the Pentagon should be put in charge of the Haiti relief effort. As he notes, the only institution capable of meeting the demands of the Haiti crisis is not the United Nations, but the U.S. military.

As in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, the U.S. armed forces have once again become the responder of first resort. In this case, the U.S. Navy is front and center: the USS Carl Vinson's heavy-lift helicopter and the USS Bataan and USS Ft McHenry's air cushioned landing craft are bringing needed supplies to the people of Haiti. 

There are three lessons here. First, for all the talk of whole-of-government solutions, the U.S. military remains the most competent national security institution we have. In recent years, the men and women of the U.S. armed forces have time and time again responded admirably when called upon to conduct missions far beyond those for which they were trained.

Second, the very competence of the military has become a sort of trap. Time and time again, the military has taken up the slack when other national security institutions do not perform as well as they can or should. Tasks better performed by the State Department or U.S. Agency for International Development, state or local governments, or non-governmental organizations too often wind up being performed by soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines.

Third, when the American taxpayer bought today's Navy, he got a lot more than he thought he was getting. He not only got a force capable of defending American interests on the high seas, but also one possessing the flexibility to respond rapidly to contingencies across the spectrum of conflict. Let's hope that the Obama administration's Quadrennial Defense Review, to be released next month, reflects this reality.

The Obama administration has two choices. First, it can continue to hope that, with more funding and some presidential leadership, the other parts of the national security community will finally rise to the occasion. Both Secretary of Defense Gates and Secretary of State Clinton (both at Foggy Bottom and before that in the Senate) have been articulate advocates for whole-of-government approaches. I very much hope they succeed.

If not, the logical alternative is to do what John Barry says and give missions like Haiti to the Pentagon. Such an approach would, however, be undesirable; it would further dilute U.S. military capabilities while also delegitimizing those institutions that should be bringing their unique talents to bear on crisis situations.

Alex Wong/Getty Images

 
Facebook|Twitter|Reddit

DREW

8:17 PM ET

January 19, 2010

Gates

one of the bright spots in sec. Gates tenure at defense has been his quite vocal support of increased funding/ resources for the state dept.
of course he realizes the military is asked to do way too much.

 

TIAN

1:29 PM ET

January 20, 2010

Military Performance in Disaster Relief

Yes, our military does indeed do MOST excellently at damned near everything -- correction, EVERYTHING -- they're called upon to do. And thank goodness for people like SECDEF Gates and SEXSTATE Clinton for their vocal support for spreading the responsibility that currently ends up falling directly on the military's shoulders.

I've long toyed with an idea of which I'm unsure, since I have little knowledge, really, of this area. Let me mentioon it here.

How about a civilian equivalent. one with a pay and benefits structure equivalent to that of our armed forces? That is, a civilian group with it's own helicopters (heavy lift, search-and-rescue, and observation), cargo aircraft, even smaller vessels on the order of Coast Guard ships, etc.? If members of this group needed physical protection, that's something our armed forces could provide, but their doing so would require much fewer actual military personnel -- presumably -- than is now required for the military to do the boots-on-the-ground relief work *and* provide security for those doing the relief work.

This could even be offered as one possible choice for young people wanting to serve the country for an entire career but either not interested in performing or not able to perform military duties. I know we already have the Peace Corps, but unless a person is a career federal civil servant, the front-line jobs that basically are volunteer ones with a minimal monthly stipend can't attract people for long-term commitments. However, the Peace Corps might provide a starting point since it's already there. I realize this would be a serious departure from the Peace Corps' decades-old mission, so maybe using it isn't such a great idea; experts would have to decide one way or the other.)

I suppose such a corps would most logically come under either the Department of Defense or the Department of State. (Before someone objects and argues it should go to the Department of Health and Human Services, consider the mission of the HHS: purely domestic -- and the idea I have is one with global reach and responsibility.) I specifically would *not* put it under the Department of Homeland Security -- it's far too controversial, rightly or wrongly. (Which side I fall on is utterly irrelevant in this context. I'm just saying the DHS generates a whole lot of heat on all sides.)

Another plus to such a corps is that foreign governments might be less suspicious of accepting U.S. aid in times of great need since these folks wouldn't be military. For instance, think about how strongly Burma resisted U.S. aid, in part because it depended on our providing it in large measure via our armed forces. (Yeah, those fruitcakes are suspicious of *everybody,* but even they make a distinction of degree!)

Planners could even look back at the Depression-era WPA and CCC for pointers, looking for anything that might translate to an international setting.

Again, I don't know if this is even workable, much less desirable. But it's a thought I wanted to throw on the table.

 

TIAN

1:32 PM ET

January 20, 2010

OOPS!

What an embarrassing type! NOT "SEXState" -- "SECState"!!!

With deep and embarrassed apologies to Secretary of State Clinton.

 

Shadow Government is a blog about U.S. foreign policy under the Obama administration, written by experienced policy makers from the loyal opposition and curated by Peter D. Feaver and William Inboden.

Read More