tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8755035051021414780.post5214421620544349230..comments2023-11-17T03:55:40.736-05:00Comments on Ink Spots: Why "drafting the U.S. civil service for counterinsurgencies" is either a really dumb idea or an awesome piece of satireLilhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18373158801523577733noreply@blogger.comBlogger13125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8755035051021414780.post-46420175713738918752011-02-16T14:29:02.711-05:002011-02-16T14:29:02.711-05:00Mike -- Thanks for weighing in. I'll respond i...Mike -- Thanks for weighing in. I'll respond in greater depth later, but for the time being I just want to say that I appreciate the ballsiness and character that it takes to respond to pseudonymous internet criticism at the source. <br /><br />As an aside, I stumbled across your (reasonably new?) blog last night and I'm pleasantly surprised to say that I like what you're doing there. The whole issue of executive/legislative tension in the foreign and security policy sphere is a subject that I find really interesting and important, and that I actually deal with a lot here (though perhaps it's not explained as such).<br /><br />Anyway, thanks for stopping by.Gulliverhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12558335790019565924noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8755035051021414780.post-76814101289359425952011-02-16T13:48:22.954-05:002011-02-16T13:48:22.954-05:00Gulliver,
I appreciate you taking the time to rea...Gulliver, <br />I appreciate you taking the time to read my article and provide feedback. I assure you my intentions were pure and patriotic. I started off on the premise that America wants to be successful in Afghanistan. Consensus is now that to be successful it must strengthen traditional governance structures (national and local) and security in Afghanistan. USD(P) Flournoy has said as much during hearings. Coalition military personnel and military trainers are present in Afghanistan in large numbers to buttress security. But how to improve governance? The QDDR reaffirms "civilian power." It seems that the State Department and/or USAID do not currently have the resident expertise in enough numbers, doctrine, culture (etc) sufficient to deploy in a critical mass to transform the civilian governance situation--which is in part why they created S/CRS in the first place. But should they? I think they should. Regrettably, that does not seem to be in the 150 budget's cards. So from there, I was left wondering, how do we do this? How does America find an enduring capacity to improve governance given these limiting parameters? I appreciate that you're not a fan of my solution. But I want to make sure you understand my vision. I'm not calling for a mass "mobilization" and deployment of 100,000 untrained mid-rank civil servants. What I envisioned (and looking back could have done a better job articulating) is a single resume database. The database would be filled with the professional details of civil servants who have registered under the legal requirement for which I advocate in the article. When our national security leadership determine they need a certain expertise, background, education, they could turn to a database of millions to find the right government employee "needle" in a haystack of 3 million. So I advocate a scalpel solution--not an axe. Not something that would utterly disrupt the day-to-day or manning of USG's domestic agencies. I should have gone into more detail (but didn't) on what happens from there. From there the employee would go through an intensive training to prepare him/her for their temporary assignment. Such training doesn't presently exist. It could. I know Chairman Skelton introduced the "INSPEAD Act of 2010" just before the end of the 111th Congress that could serve as one training model. PNSR has recently written a report on another. It was just an idea. I would hope you agree that's high time to get creative. And PS: I have volunteered repeatedly to deploy to Iraq and Afghanistan as a civilian. Still willing. And about to join the Reserves. <br /><br />I appreciate what y'all do on this blog. I look forward to more dialogue with everyone. Thanks for being discriminating on my bio. I also ask that you leave my former boss out of it. All the views were and are my own. Let me know if you find an idea or post on my blog you don't think is "colossally, catastrophically bad." Happy to team with you. VR/ MikeAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8755035051021414780.post-17851814738741318612011-02-12T07:45:47.487-05:002011-02-12T07:45:47.487-05:00Great piece. I especially loved your point about ...Great piece. I especially loved your point about DOD's inability to capacity build in ministries. I worked for CSTC-A/NTM-A with the MOI. There were many fine officers, but almost none with previous SFA experience, and none at ministerial level. The contractors were rarely better--an ex lieutenant from the Chicago PD mentoring the chief of strategy at ministerial level?<br />And for many of them the default setting became "how we do it". Making the MOI do their budget planning through PPBES, for example, while ignoring what it takes to make that happen--the personnel capabilities from the zone/district level on up, the computer and network infrastructure (hey, the only place there was constant electricity was the Minister's building), the staffing capacity, etc.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8755035051021414780.post-7731177261875292242011-02-07T22:51:12.520-05:002011-02-07T22:51:12.520-05:00Apparently, MC has got the ear of Sec. Clinton.
U...<em>Apparently, MC has got the ear of Sec. Clinton.</em><br /><br />Um, I'm not sure the QDDR and its digressions on "civilian power" do anything to even remotely confirm that suggestion. Everybody knows that State and AID, among others, want to send civilians overseas; it's Clauser's particular route to accomplish this objective that I take issue with.Gulliverhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12558335790019565924noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8755035051021414780.post-75193984429906537442011-02-07T21:41:40.384-05:002011-02-07T21:41:40.384-05:00Apparently, MC has got the ear of Sec. Clinton.
ht...Apparently, MC has got the ear of Sec. Clinton.<br />http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/153109.pdf<br /><br />Oy.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8755035051021414780.post-49479224210333638782011-01-28T20:43:10.212-05:002011-01-28T20:43:10.212-05:00Michael isn't volunteering himself, now, is he...Michael isn't volunteering himself, now, is he?<br />Heh.<br /><br />I have no idea how a person with Religion and Philosophy majors comes through thinking the same ridiculous way he did in high school.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8755035051021414780.post-48741078225171289232011-01-06T12:22:28.594-05:002011-01-06T12:22:28.594-05:00Gulliver,
No worries and I did not consider it a ...Gulliver,<br /><br />No worries and I did not consider it a criticizism. Let me know if you and Jason would like to write an Op-Ed for SWJ on SecState's Civilian Approach. Y'all certainly have the perspective of working with both the military and civilian sectors. The broader question is- how do we implement, resource, and recruit such an effort.MikeFnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8755035051021414780.post-14878628109096058812011-01-06T12:03:44.354-05:002011-01-06T12:03:44.354-05:00Mike -- I'm not criticizing you for running th...Mike -- I'm not criticizing you for running the piece. The guy ended up being really effective, but not in advancing the policy approach he was advocating. Rather he highlighted many important issues and pressing questions about appropriate roles and missions as we reconceive what "security" means (even a reconception as simple as the generally-accepted 3Ds construct). There's plenty of fodder for useful dialogue in there, there's just not a whole lot to commend the author's particular position.Gulliverhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12558335790019565924noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8755035051021414780.post-48019289098342844032011-01-06T11:54:56.802-05:002011-01-06T11:54:56.802-05:00Gulliver, sorry to get you riled up. I published ...Gulliver, sorry to get you riled up. I published the essay as an initial start to the conversation on what SecState's QDDR means as far as our indirect, civilian led approach. We've got some other essays coming on that topic, but it's going to need a serious discussion on ways, means, and ends.<br /><br />BTW, Happy New Years Inkspots. Even though I don't comment to much anymore (my on-line time is consumed with editing for SWJ), I still enjoy y'alls blog.MikeFnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8755035051021414780.post-56948191082235959622011-01-06T11:26:28.054-05:002011-01-06T11:26:28.054-05:00Stilicho -- At the risk of seeming like a heavy-ha...Stilicho -- At the risk of seeming like a heavy-handed a-hole, I deleted your last so as not to have irrelevant and peripheral biographical details clouding the argument here. (But yeah, I was aware of that.)Gulliverhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12558335790019565924noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8755035051021414780.post-65659897145017322202011-01-06T11:19:56.794-05:002011-01-06T11:19:56.794-05:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Stilichohttp://respublicabelli.blogspot.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8755035051021414780.post-91247446268860515772011-01-06T07:29:50.824-05:002011-01-06T07:29:50.824-05:00Wait, what the hell? Since when could we consider ...Wait, what the hell? Since when could we consider the entire everything of the United States to mobilize for Afghanistan?<br /><br />You didn't even consider the fact that if the best people in HHS, DOT, or whatever else in the government go to Afghanistan, the United States is going to fall to shit.<br /><br />I'm not remotely close to an America-Firster, but considering our infrastructure is thisclose to falling apart, I'm not sure we're the best model for Afghanistan.AJKhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08456979365708815896noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8755035051021414780.post-46592106287743344852011-01-05T22:36:40.205-05:002011-01-05T22:36:40.205-05:00Touche!
By the way, you neglected to mention the ...Touche!<br /><br />By the way, you neglected to mention the physical challenges of the job. Not all US civil servants in mid-and senior level capacities can even obtain a worldwide medical clearance to allow the excursion. Imagine when the first ADA challenge comes when a wheel chair employee demands the right to go (especially if tied to promotional criteria). Make that god forsaken FOB, halfway up a hillside wheelchair accessible because federal law requires it for ADA-limited employees.<br /><br />Who makes up this stuff?Steve Donnelly, AICPhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11707306512563808960noreply@blogger.com