Home » Intelligence » Afghan Strategy Marks Soft Power Shift

Afghan Strategy Marks Soft Power Shift

By Colin Clark Friday, March 27th, 2009 7:21 pm
Posted in Intelligence, International, Land, Policy

If you read the tea leaves around Washington the beginning of the shift in power from the Pentagon to the State Department, US AID and other centers of soft power is easy to see.

First leaf: The Obama administration decides to send 4,000 soldiers to Afghanistan to train and help rebuild the national police and military and committed to beefing up the civilian forces to help rebuild the country. A key House Democrat immediately pledged to help fund a beefed up State Department and AID. “For far too long, we have failed to provide adequate funding for the State Department and the U.S. Agency for International Development, the civilian national security and stabilization agencies that will be at the forefront of our efforts in Afghanistan,” said Rep. Howard Berman, chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee.

Second leaf: When Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Michele Flournoy helped to unveil the Army’s new stability operations doctrinal manual, FM 3–07, she made it very clear today that USAID and other civilian agencies must grow substantially in size and capability so that the US can handle the demanding job of stabilizing and eventually leaving Afghanistan.

When Flournoy, who played a major role in designing the new Afghanistan-Pakistan strategy, discussed it at the Brookings Institution today, she listed the means for achieving the three Ds: disrupting, dismantling and defeating Al Qaeda and its allies. Few of those means had much to do with kinetics: the US must reverse the Taliban’s gains (OK — this will mean some dead people); provide the Afghan security forces with training and resources and provide Afghans with a secure environment.

“Defeating the insurgency will also mean breaking the link between drugs and the insurgents,” she said. Improving Hamid Karzai’s government will be crucial as well, combating corruption and improving transparency so that Afghans gain trust in the government. “This is not just America’s war,” Flournoy said, adding that administration representatives will soon be “fanning across the globe” to build support for this big push.

The Army leader who oversaw creation of the stability operations manual, Army Lt. Gen. William Caldwell, said that at least 70 percent of what commanders are doing on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan “is helping to provide services and a stable environment.” Caldwell made the case very clear when he said “the military is necessary but it’s not sufficient” to accomplish national security goals.

Flournoy put the case simply when she said the country must answer the question to each war: how does this end. Soft power is most of the answer. No doubt that kinetics — AKA hard power — will continue to be a crucial instrument of national power. But watch for the money and policy focus to begin migrating to soft power.

This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.

Join the Conversation

	Chief Houston March 29th, 2009 at 1:24 pm Kinetically speaking cost allocation should not be trimmed for soft intervention since all components are necessary for joint perfect battalion motives. Soft power is essential as long as it is targetted and effective with mutual hard power actions. Think defensive half court press with offensive fast breaks.
	Silver Fox March 30th, 2009 at 10:45 am It’s sounds wonderful that more effort and funding will be afforded the State Department, however one crucial piece still missing in our national power toolkit is information dominance. We are still missing the ability to provide information to developing countries, emerging nations and countries not necessarily our allies. We need a replacement for the USIA.
	Chief Houston March 31st, 2009 at 11:13 am Silver Fox, What do you think is the best suggestion for a replacement conceptually in lieu of informational security concerns? Recent history shows the need for “informational dominance.” Russia and China are playing Cold War again, or never stopped for that matter. I think it is a vital asset to use situationally.
	Ken White April 1st, 2009 at 10:25 pm ‘Kinetics’ and ‘hard’ or ‘soft’ power are sort of inane terms. Force, Military and Diplomacy worked well as terms for years. Regardless, the “tea leaves” being read have been laying about for a long time. DoD has been in the forefront by default, not by design. State consistently got emasculated (pun intended) by a series of Congresses who would rather support big buck programs for DoD than provide money for the proper conduct of Foreign Affairs. The Senate in particular is not very supportive of any foreign involvement. So what is now happening is no more than an overdue cyclical swing. Been building for some time so this isn’t really news. Not least because Gates and Rice testified last year that it was long overdue. Agree with the need to bring back both the USIA and US Aid — preferably as separate agencies and not part of State. Chopping them was not one of Maddy’s or Clinton’s brighter moves. Jesse Helms did not help but EO13118 was not smart… The blurb on the front page refers to fixing the mess in Afghanistan. It’s no more a mess than any US nation building program has ever been at this stage. I also doubt current moves are going to ‘fix’ it as I note there is still no definition of exactly what would constitute ‘fixing’ it.
	Steven April 2nd, 2009 at 7:32 am I worked in Afghanistan with the locals for several years. Their chief concern were getting thru the Afghan police who were right outside the gate waiting for them without getting rob by them on payday. I do agree with training the Afghan security force better. However, these were the same NATO trained Afghan security forces that are committing the crimes. Most of the Afghans I worked with love our presents there and to my surprise had a lot in common with we Americans, e.g work, family community and God. I feel with proper support and education the Afghan people would run the Taliban and Al Qaeda out of Afghanistan.
	anthony April 2nd, 2009 at 8:56 am The main concern seems corruption.That has to rooted out as drugs those two are the thorn in eyes of many.Once they can live together wich must be soon they can fight allong side helping their country.Afgan is a empty place lots to built and it wont take months years afew generations before they are used to westernized. from freeways to gas stations to airports etc lots have to be done..LETS HOPE THEY WAKE UP!
	John Grant April 8th, 2009 at 7:11 pm Call it “soft power” or call it whatever the latest PC buzzword may be, the fact remains we’re still a “foreign” intervening military force in what amounts to “Pashtunistan,” a place known as the “graveyard of empires” for good reason. In Viet Nam, we also knew better than the European colonial occupiers that couldn’t sustain their occupation. Those driving the military-industrial machine that Eisenhower warned the nation of need to do more re-thinking on this.