Halting The Militarization of Foreign Policy

By Cernig

Admiral Mike Mullen says American foreign policy is too militarized:

“I believe we should be more willing to break this cycle, and say when armed forces may not always be the best choice to take the lead,” he said. “We must be just as bold in providing options when they don’t involve our participation or our leadership, or even when those options aren’t popular.”

American national security and foreign policy requires “a whole-of-government approach to solving modern problems,” Admiral Mullen said. “And we need to reallocate roles and resources in a way that places our military as an equal among many in government — as an enabler, a true partner.”

Good stuff. As Spencer Ackerman points out, his predecessor Pace used to say stuff like this too and it was probably a contributing factor to his firing. Now, though, Mullen probably expects this speech to help him keep his job in an Obama administration.

Spencer has two good posts segueing off Mullen's speech at the Washington Indy, writing "For the Pentagon to take a reduced role, civilian agencies of government have got to stand up," and that:

"It’s one thing to give the State Department a bigger budget. But it’s quite another to give it a bigger budget and instruct it to take charge of certain things the military does, like, say, outreach to tribal groups far from embassies and consulates in the middle of shooting wars."

In an economic crisis, involved in two occupations and with the MIC's vested interests lobbying hard for an expansion in military funding its unclear just how easy that's going to be. Obama's planned military surge in Afghanistan will doubtless be the deciding factor.

Comments

[Peter G.]

I've always wondered why one would let the military take the lead in any endeavor that called for diplomacy. This is an organization that sacrifices much needed expertise because of the "crime" of gayness. Not exactly the model of open mindedness or cultural sensitivity are they. When ones adds the creeping Christianization of the military that has been evident under the Bush administration one has to wonder how effective they'd be in Iraq or afghanistan or anywhere else in the Middle East. The only virtue they might have in those situations is the willingness to go where diplomats fear to tread.

[Spencer]

Pace wasn't fired for any such statement -- after all, it was Gates, who agrees with that sentiment, who nudged him aside. Gates calculated in June 2007 that Pace couldn't make it through a confirmation hearing led by a Democratic Senate, and he was probably right.

[Steve Hynd]

Spencer, I've always wondered if that was true. Pace refusing to back the IED's from Iran story was another moment where he went against the WH. I've always wondered if Gates was told to dump him and the confirmation stuff was just cover.

Regards, C