With an effort to doing things better than the Bush Administration, the Obama administration seems focused on using “smart power.” During her confirmation hearing, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton testified, “I believe that American leadership has been wanting, but is still wanted. We must use what has been called smart power: the full range of tools at our disposal — diplomatic, economic, military, political, legal, and cultural — picking the right tool, or combination of tools, for each situation. With smart power, diplomacy will be the vanguard of foreign policy.”  After all, smart power is better than the alternative.

 

First coined by Center for Strategic and International Studies, smart power is “the integration of hard and soft power.” It implies a whole-of-government solution to foreign policy problems, instead of relying on the military alone. To do this, former Center for National Security President Michelle Flournoy argued for establishing “a robust interagency process for strategy, planning, and budgeting that would enable the United States to assess long-term threats and opportunities, set clear priorities, allocate and manage risk, develop long-term ‘whole of government’ approaches, identify critical capability areas in which to invest, and make course corrections along the way.”

As incoming Undersecretary of Defense for Policy, Flournoy will have her chance to test the limits of whole-of-government solutions and the extent to which the president will not use the military for the non-warfighting activities that fueled calls for smart power. Yet, the irony of Flournoy’s appointment shouldn’t be lost. She might be able reduce the use of the military outside of combat zones, but she will have little effect from the Pentagon on increasing capacity of the State Department and Agency for International Development.
 
The stakes are high. 

Up until 2005, the institutional military saw non-warfighting operations as distractions to its core function of fighting and winning the nation’s wars. However, with the inadequacies of international institutions, long-time partners, and other US government agencies, the military embraced the mission to bridge the gap between national ends, ways, and means. Presidents of both parties find a ready tool in the military to bolster allies, consolidate new friendships, and respond to natural disasters. At least through the mid-term, the Defense Department has accepted its role in these non-combat missions — but it, too, prefers a “smart” solution in the long-term.

Secretary of Defense Robert Gates observed, “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, provided basic services . . . along with security, are essential ingredients for success.”

Our first preview of smart power might be a new pilot program reported by Inside Defense. Taking a 3-D approach (Defense, Development, and Diplomacy), The U.S. Agency for International Development and the Joint Staff identified five countries (Paraguay, Morocco, Albania, Liberia, and Cambodia) where U.S. officials will work to improve civilian-military cooperation to prevent crises. DOD, for instance, may build a school while USAID makes sure the school has supplies and there are trained teachers.   It is certainly good news to see the preventive nature of foreign assistance. Coordinating activities among defense, development, and diplomacy is essential. However, if the United States is too truly wield smart power, it needs to increase the capacity of government departments outside of Defense. While using the military for construction in combat zones makes sense, it doesn’t strike me as smart to do this where no one is shooting in the five countries selected for this pilot program.

It is certainly good news to see the preventive nature of foreign assistance. Coordinating activities among defense, development, and diplomacy is essential. However, if the United States is too truly wield smart power, it needs to increase the capacity of government departments outside of Defense. While using the military for construction in combat zones makes sense, it doesn’t strike me as smart to do this where no one is shooting in the five countries selected for this pilot program. 

To truly create whole-of-government solutions, the capabilities and capacity that thrust the military into the non-military realm has to be developed outside the military. This effort must be lead by Secretary Clinton and General Jones. This includes not only vastly increasing the number of civilians at State and USAID, but also imparting the military’s expeditionary mindset. This should be relatively easy since Foreign Service officers and development specialists spend more time overseas than the military does (and they usually do this without the benefit of body armor and a battalion of infantry for protection).
 
And by increasing the workforce, there should be more opportunities for government civilians to attend professional education programs, which is required for all mid-grade military officers. At the Naval War College, for example, the curriculum is largely focused on questions other than war. Students learn new ways of thinking about security, the importance of reconciling national ends, ways, and means, and the critical planning skills to support humanitarian assistance, stability, and reconstruction operations. Given the personnel shortages outside of the military, very few government civilians are afforded this critical opportunity to study national security issues and network with their peers. In the field, it is the networks that break through cultural resistance and bureaucratic barriers impacting whole of government solutions.
 
Finally, the non-military elements of the government need to embrace the old adage, “amateurs talk tactics and professionals talk logistics.” The military is very good at planning and has a tremendous logistic capability. It is time for the military to end its monopoly on these capabilities and impart this to its civilian counterparts. And it is essential for the Congress to support State, USAID, or other departments that recognize they have critical capabilities to bring to bear in U.S. foreign policy. Until the rest of the government has this capacity, smart power is just a slogan, which the military will exercise to achieve national objectives.

Derek Reveron is a professor of national security affairs at the U.S. Naval War College in Newport, RI. These views are his own.