War-weary US awakens to 'soft power'
Mr Gates pointed to the huge disparity between the Pentagon's half
trillion dollar budget and the State Department US$37 billion (S$53
billion). -- PHOTO: REUTERS
WASHINGTON - AFTER six hard years of war, the United States is
awakening to the idea that 'soft power' is a better way to regain
influence and clout in a world bubbling with instability.
And nowhere is the change in thinking more advanced than in the US
military, which is pushing for greater diplomacy, economic aid,
civic action and civilian capabilities to prevent new wars and win
the peace in Iraq and Afghanistan.
US Defence Secretary Robert Gates caught the spirit in a much
praised speech at Kansas State University last month, calling for a
dramatic increase in spending on civilian instruments of
power.
Such an appeal would have been unthinkable not long ago, as Mr
Gates himself acknowledged, saying it was a 'man bites dog'
story.
'I think having stubbed our toe badly on Iraq, people are realising
that we weren't doing that well, and it's time for a change,' said
Professor Joseph Nye, a Harvard professor and former senior
Pentagon official.
Prof Nye popularised the term 'soft power' in books and essays
which argue that a key source of US clout is its ability to attract
friends and allies by investing in the international good.
'Since 9/11, the United States has been exporting fear and anger
rather than the more traditional values of hope and optimism,' a
report by a commission Nye co-chaired with Mr Richard Armitage, the
former deputy secretary of state, warned last month.
As a result, it said, 'Suspicions of American power have run
deep.'
The United States needs to pursue a positive vision that goes
beyond the war on terrorism, it said.
The response of the Bush administration has been 'a mixed bag',
Prof Nye said.
'But I do think that the view that we have not had smart power in
terms of combining the various instruments we have, that we have
underinvested in soft power, is represented in the Gates' remarks,'
he said.
Mr Gates pointed to the huge disparity between the Pentagon's half
trillion dollar budget and the State Department US$37 billion (S$53
billion).
Its 6,600 diplomats amount to the crew of a single US aircraft
carrier, he said.
The US Agency for International Development has been slashed from
15,000 to 3,000 people, and the US Information Agency was
dismantled, he said.
Underfunded and undermanned, US civilian agencies have not kept up
with the demand for experts in war zones, leading to bitter
complaints from US military officers that they have been left
holding the bag.
General James Conway, the Marine Corps commandant, recalled
recently that after the march on Baghdad in 2003, his marines were
sent to stabilise southern Iraq.
'We were told to expect local governance teams and governance
support teams which would help us with those functions and many,
many more,' he said. 'Those teams did not arrive.'
Marines have to be prepared to perform those tasks in future
conflicts, he said.
But the right answer is to fund agencies 'that we know are going to
be players with this soft power (so) that they could develop sort
of an expeditionary mentality and people who are anxious to get
overseas and get their hands dirty', Mr Conway said.
The State Department is seeking funding for a deployable corps of
civilian experts.
But it is the military that has taken the lead in thinking about
ways to harness civilian expertise to create security, raising
fears in some quarters of a more militarised foreign policy.
The model is a new Africa Command that the Pentagon is establishing
to help strengthen security in a troubled continent.
It is supposed to have a senior State Department official as its
deputy and components from other civilian agencies.
'The risk is that it may end up being overly military and not
enough of the others in part because of money and bodies. State for
example is very worried about it for that reason,' said Mr Robert
Hunter, a former US ambassador to the North Atlantic Treaty
Organisation (Nato).
The military wants civilian agencies to do more to prevent wars,
but is not waiting for them to get their act together, analysts
say.
Instead, it has stepped up thinking and planning for what it calls
'phase zero', military jargon for conflict prevention.
'I think they've come to the conclusion that insurgencies are
really hard to fight. And so it would be better if they could not
have the conflict in the first place,' said Mr Robert Perito, an
expert at the US Institute of Peace.
'In conflict prevention, of course, there is very little military
component to that. It mostly all political and economic. That's the
other thing that is going on,' he said. -- AFP
http://www.straitstimes.com/Latest%2BNews/World/STIStory_186367.html