Secretary Gates on Soft Power

Speaking at Kansas State University, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates said that “soft power” (diplomacy, strategic communications, foreign assistance, civic action, and economic reconstruction and development) are just as “hard power” in achieving our national interests and dealing with terrorism. In the Landon Lecture delivered November 26, 2007, Secretary Gates said:

… my message today is not about the defense budget or military power. My message is that if we are to meet the myriad challenges around the world in the coming decades, this country must strengthen other important elements of national power both institutionally and financially, and create the capability to integrate and apply all of the elements of national power to problems and challenges abroad. In short, based on my experience serving seven presidents, as a former Director of CIA and now as Secretary of Defense, I am here to make the case for strengthening our capacity to use “soft” power and for better integrating it with “hard” power.

One of the most important lessons of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan is that military success is not sufficient to win: economic development, institution-building and the rule of law, promoting internal reconciliation, good governance, providing basic services to the people, training and equipping indigenous military and police forces, strategic communications, and more – these, along with security, are essential ingredients for long-term success. . . .</blockquote> And I thought that all that we Neanderthals in the Department of Defense wanted to do was kill people and break things. &lt;/sarcasm&gt;

In truth, the SecDef’s message is not news to the people I have worked with since 2001. Those most involved in the current conflicts and in shaping the Army’s future know that military force alone will not achieve the ends we seek.

Out of necessity, uniformed military personnel have been assuming these essentially civilian responsibilities to the best of their ability. Secretary Gates notes:

The Department of Defense has taken on many of these burdens that might have been assumed by civilian agencies in the past, although new resources have permitted the State Department to begin taking on a larger role in recent months. Still, forced by circumstances, our brave men and women in uniform have stepped up to the task, with field artillerymen and tankers building schools and mentoring city councils – usually in a language they don’t speak. They have done an admirable job. And as I’ve said before, the Armed Forces will need to institutionalize and retain these non-traditional capabilities – something the ROTC cadets in this audience can anticipate. But it is no replacement for the real thing – civilian involvement and expertise.

Gates then called for increased spending on the real thing.

What is clear to me is that there is a need for a dramatic increase in spending on the civilian instruments of national security – diplomacy, strategic communications, foreign assistance, civic action, and economic reconstruction and development. …. We must focus our energies beyond the guns and steel of the military, beyond just our brave soldiers, sailors, Marines, and airmen.

The secretary described the positive effects of civilian efforts in Afghanistan and Iraq where we have had resources. He spoke about Provincial Reconstruction teams.

The PRTs were designed to bring in civilians experienced in agriculture, governance, and other aspects of development – to work with and alongside the military to improve the lives of the local population, a key tenet of any counterinsurgency effort. Where they are on the ground – even in small numbers – we have seen tangible and often dramatic changes.

He also talked about the importance of cultural advisers whose advice reduces the need for military force.

For example, in Afghanistan the military has recently brought in professional anthropologists as advisors. The New York Times reported on the work of one of them, who said, “I’m frequently accused of militarizing anthropology. But we’re really anthropologizing the military.” And it is having a very real impact. The same story told of a village that had just been cleared of the Taliban. The anthropologist pointed out to the military officers that there were more widows than usual, and that the sons would feel compelled to take care of them – possibly by joining the insurgency, where many of the fighters are paid. So American officers began a job training program for the widows.

The Secretary noted Kansas State’s own role of providing agricultural advice to Iraqi farmers. Other civilian institutions have provided guidance on other issues. But, according to the Secretary, it’s not enough.

But I am concerned that we need even more civilians involved in the effort and that our efforts must be better integrated. And I remain concerned that we have yet to create any permanent capability or institutions to rapidly create and deploy these kinds of skills in the future.

Following World War II, Secretary Gates said, the United States recognized the need for both military strength and the “soft power” embodied – for example – in the Marshall Plan and the creation of the U.S. Agency for International Development and the U.S. Information Agency. Over the years, however, budgetary and staffing support for these agencies of “soft power” has waned dramatically. Secretary Gates observed that there are only about 6600 professional Foreign Service Officers, fewer than the number of military personnel in one aircraft carrier strike group. He also said that nearly 30% of the personnel at the U.S. Agency for International Development are near retirement. In calling for increased support for civilian agencies, the Secretary did not intend for the government to recreate the past. Rather, he said, we need new solutions for a new century.

The way to institutionalize these capabilities is probably not to recreate or repopulate institutions of the past such as AID or USIA. On the other hand, just adding more people to existing government departments such as Agriculture, Treasury, Commerce, Justice and so on is not a sufficient answer either – even if they were to be more deployable overseas. New institutions are needed for the 21st century, new organizations with a 21st century mind-set.

Full disclosure: Although I receive a pay check from the Department of Defense, this post constitutes only my own personal opinion - written at my own initiative - and does not represent the views of any other group or organization.