A consensus seems to be emerging on the U.S. Defense Department having overstepped its bounds by getting too involved in development projects, if a March 4 congressional hearing is any indication.
Speaking before the House Appropriations subcommittee on state and foreign operations, several development experts criticized the increasing militarization of development work. George Moose, a former career diplomat who is now a professor at George Washington University, likened the three "Ds" of U.S. foreign policy (diplomacy, development, and defense) to a stool "with one leg that's about four feet tall and the others are like nubs."
At the heart of the controversy are several Pentagon initiatives established during the Bush administration, such as the Commander's Emergency Response Program, which allows the Pentagon to provide humanitarian relief in Iraq and Afghanistan, and certain provisions of the 2006 National Defense Authorization Act, which authorized joint Pentagon-State Department development programs. According to the witnesses, there are several problems with the Pentagon's involvement in development projects.
"We are learning the wrong lessons," reported Mercy Corps President Nancy Lindborg, discussing her organization's work in Afghanistan.
After working hard to develop good working relationships in local communities, the increasing association of the U.S. military with development projects was undermining the community's trust in Mercy Corps, Lindborg said. This, in turn, made it more dangerous for staff members in the field.
Another major issue that has sparked a firestorm of criticism is the U.S. Africa Command, which establishes a clear role for the military in implementing economic and humanitarian aid programs. Compared with Iraq and Afghanistan, there are substantially fewer security risks in carrying out development projects in Africa, which critics say makes the rationale for military involvement in aid less clear.
Lindborg was highly skeptical of a Pentagon role in these relatively safe countries. "We need to rethink the role of the military doing any kind of development in permissive environments," she said.
Still, the panelists' concerns were generally well-received by the subcommittee members. Chairwoman Nita Lowey (D-NY) stated that she has a "growing concern with how the lines of responsibility between civilian agencies and the military are increasingly blurring." Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) even expressed his willingness to leverage the subcommittee's control over funding to "redefine DOD's mission," claiming that President Barack Obama has shown "nothing is sacrosanct" when it comes to reexamining budgetary priorities.
A stickier question surrounds so-called "non-permissive" countries, namely Iraq and Afghanistan, where security risks are constant hindrance for aid workers. Even Lindborg acknowledged the need to preserve a limited form of military involvement in development projects in failed and fragile states, but said it should be limited to the direct provision of security. John Hamre, president of the Center for Strategic and International Studies, pointed out that in these hostile environments, insurgent groups are deeply intertwined with civil society. In order to preserve the security of development projects, the U.S. government should rely on the military to "blend the use of force and the use of soft power."
These concerns over how to handle Iraq and Afghanistan were echoed by two congressmen. Rep. Mark Steven Kirk (R-IL) blasted the tendency of civilian aid workers to "bug out" when security concerns arise. He cited an example in which Chemonics abruptly canceled a counter-narcotics operation in Afghanistan due to security threats, and the U.S. Agency for International Development was unable to find a replacement. In this case, Kirk argued, the military had to step in lest counter-narcotics efforts in the region be thwarted. Rep. Steve Israel (D-NY) pointed out that in the absence of security, development projects are often condemned to failure because they come under attack by insurgents. This then undermines the goal of winning hearts and minds, he argued, because "hearts harden and minds change."
