• woodrow wilson center
  • ecsp

New Security Beat

Subscribe:
  • mail-to
  • Who We Are
  • Topics
    • Population
    • Environment
    • Security
    • Health
    • Development
  • Columns
    • China Environment Forum
    • Choke Point
    • Dot-Mom
    • Navigating the Poles
    • New Security Broadcast
    • Reading Radar
  • Multimedia
    • Water Stories (Podcast Series)
    • Backdraft (Podcast Series)
    • Tracking the Energy Titans (Interactive)
  • Films
    • Water, Conflict, and Peacebuilding (Animated Short)
    • Paving the Way (Ethiopia)
    • Broken Landscape (India)
    • Scaling the Mountain (Nepal)
    • Healthy People, Healthy Environment (Tanzania)
  • Publications
  • Events
  • Contact Us

NewSecurityBeat

The blog of the Wilson Center's Environmental Change and Security Program
  • Guest Contributor

    Who Does Development? Civil-Military Relations (Part I)

    July 27, 2009 By Dr. Gene Bonventre

    USAID convened a study group to determine the future civil-military relationship between USAID and the Department of Defense. Two members of the study group, Dr. Frederick Burkle and Dr. Gene Bonventre, offer their thoughts.

    In the first decade of the new millennium, the relationship between the Department of Defense and civilian governmental agencies and NGOs has been a rollercoaster ride. At the high point of civil-military cooperation—the response to the Kurdish refugee crisis after the first Iraq war—the U.S. military provided security, access, and logistics, while USAID and NGOs provided direct assistance and expert advice to the 800-pound uniformed gorilla.

    However, the hastily planned and executed toppling of the Taliban regime in Afghanistan was followed by an insurgency that targeted an increasing number of aid workers for execution. The “humanitarian space” that NGOs need to assist the most vulnerable populations had shrunk to the point that Medecins Sans Frontieres withdrew from the country.

    Civil-military relations sunk further into the abyss following the end of Saddam’s reign in Baghdad. Young military captains walked around with briefcases full of cash, but no experience on how best to spend it. A handful of civilians from State and USAID, mostly bunkered in the relative safety of the Green Zone, were handcuffed by outdated, inflexible, and complex contracting requirements and bureaucracy—and had only pennies to spend compared to the military.

    Thankfully, the rollercoaster has begun its slow climb back up. Recently, InterAction sat down with the Secretary of Defense’s office to hammer out guidelines for the NGO-military relationship. These guidelines have formed the basis for productive dialogue and more specific guidelines in the field from Afghanistan to Sudan.

    With a near-unanimous chorus of voices calling to rejuvenate civilian agency capacity, the time is right for to formally re-examine the civil-military relationship. The new consensus report produced by the Civilian-Military Relations Study Group for USAID is a firm step in that direction.

    As one of two co-authors with a military background, I was outnumbered by civilian experts—a very welcome reversal of the usual ratio. Our communication was transparent, honest, and productive, despite (or maybe because of) the complete lack of military Powerpoint slides.

    The report highlights USAID’s progress: fitting the right civilians into the right military exercises, and placing senior development advisors at every one of the Geographic Combatant Commands. But the DoD-USAID relationship is still dominated by the military: Civilians are plugged into a military system, rather than leading the way on development.

    Obstacles abound, not the least of which is the lack of a USAID administrator for the last six months. Civilian and military resources and personnel will never be equal, so the trick becomes how to translate the work begun by USAID’s Office of Military Affairs (OMA) into an agency-wide consensus on USAID’s relationship with DoD.

    USAID needs to become, in former USAID Senior Advisor Dayton Maxwell’s words, the “supported command” for development: one that can point the gorilla in productive directions and leverage its resources and global relationships. This is no small task, especially when the number of lawyers in the Pentagon exceeds the number of U.S. foreign service officers on the planet. It will take strong leadership from a revitalized USAID, which is comfortable with its own relationship with the State Department.

    USAID’s implementing partners, the NGOs whose personnel risk their own lives daily to save others, will have to play a major role in shaping the direction of the civil-military path. It will be critically important to create a common interagency framework to measure progress—one that will build an evidence base for what works and what doesn’t—that will lift civil-military dialogue above the emotional plane towards a more factual realm.

    It’s easy to be discouraged, considering the daunting challenge of keeping the rollercoaster on track. But now is the best time to hit the reset button on civil-military relations and figure out the best balance of the 3 D’s—defense, diplomacy, and development—to support global stability.

    Dr. Gene Bonventre is a senior consultant who specializes in the intersection of global health and national security. Dr. Bonventre retired as a Colonel in the U.S. Air Force in October 2008, completing a 25-year career. In his final assignment he was a Senior International Health Policy Advisor in the Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Partnership Strategy.

    Topics: development, disaster relief, Guest Contributor, Middle East, military, security
    • http://www.mendstate.blogspot.com Gail Fisher

      Thanks for the interesting report. I glanced through it and applaud one point in particular: USAID must "institutionalize" and explain to its workforce the need for closer relations with DoD.

      That would be great. Seems like some staff at USAID (and even DoS) think they work for an a-political organization and they resist/resent working with DoD since we are so horribly tainted with carrying out the directives of the NSC/Congress/President. I have heard more speeches about remaining neutral and impartial (when discussing Afghanistan) than I would care to report.

      DoD personnel also have a problem with USAID and the NGOs. Many military members resent their presence in the battlespace, and voice their concerns about the security and protection burden these organizations represent with no apparent ROI.

      So both organizations have to try harder.

    • http://www.blogger.com/profile/14690478008541714047 Katie

      After working with a humanitarian organization this summer, I have a newfound respect for them. See link for area in Macedonia where we conducted this exercise(http://www.humanitariantraining.org/svetlina09.html). Most military personnel, like myself, have a misconception of humanitarian workers, and I think that many humanitarian workers have misconceptions about the military. The relationship between the two groups can be a great one and each group can benefit each other in the fight, however, these sentiments must be combatted. While talking about cooperatin and discussion options is great, it honestly seems that we just need to set up a system as Gail mentioned with the institutionalizing of the USAID and begin to work together.

      Once the work begins, that will be the best way to reduce sentiments and start true cooperation. Until military personnell actually work with humanitarian groups and see their purpose and usefulness, no amount of classes and lectures and discussions can reduce this simple fact that we are all human and have preconceptions of others. That is where the relations need to begin. I would suggest a practical exercise or FTX in order to begin these relations like the link discusses.
      (http://www.humanitariantraining.org/svetlina09.html)

    • http://www.blogger.com/profile/14690478008541714047 KT

      I think a large problem with cooperation between the military and the civilian humanitarian works involves preconceptions. I know that I as a member of the military honestly had no idea what humanitarian works actually did and could contribute until I worked with them this summer. we worked side by side in a simulated exercise in Macedonia (http://www.humanitariantraining.org/svetlina09.html) and I was able to get a first hand perspective on what humanitarian workers actually do and have to deal with on a day to day basis.
      We should try our best to work together by decreasing these misconceptions, however that is a large problem. Perceptions and impressions of others are very hard to change and influence. The best option seems to be like Gail mentioned to institutionalize the USAID and ingrain it within the military. This will almost force individuals to work together, and can hopefully allow people to gain new perspectives of each other by working together and seeing what each groups works through and towards each day. hopefully, it will also allow each group to get back to that state where they can help each other and use each others resources and knowledge to better the area of operations.

    • http://www.blogger.com/profile/18337694112852162181 Geoff Dabelko

      Katie, Your comment suggests to me the importance of integrating rotations in humanitarian or development organizations for military officers and vice versa for development authorities. Such a learning through immersion would be of great benefit it achieving the kind of deeper understanding and appreciation you identify as needed. AFRICOM's structure is starting to do this for civilian development and diplomatic officials. Needs to go both ways though and to be in a NGO or IO setting as well as just governmental.

Join the Conversation

  • RSS
  • subscribe
  • facebook
  • G+
  • twitter
  • iTunes
  • podomatic
  • youtube
Tweets by NewSecurityBeat

Trending Stories

  • unfccclogo1
  • Pop at COP: Population and Family Planning at the UN Climate Negotiations

Featured Media

Backdraft Podcast

play Backdraft
Podcasts

More »

What You're Saying

  • 49890944808_c7d6dfef74_c Why Feminism Is Good for Your Health
    Melinda Cadwallader: "Feminism materializes through investment in human capital and caregiving sectors of the economy...
  • 49890944808_c7d6dfef74_c Why Feminism Is Good for Your Health
    Melinda Cadwallader: People who refuse to acknowledge patriarchy are often the ones who benefit from it. So please, say...
  • Water desalination pipes A Tale of Two Coastlines: Desalination in China and California
    Dr S Sundaramoorthy: It is all fine as theory. What about the energy cost? Arabian Gulf has the money from its own oil....

Related Stories

No related stories.

  • woodrow
  • ecsp
  • RSS Feed
  • YouTube
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • Home
  • Who We Are
  • Publications
  • Events
  • Wilson Center
  • Contact Us
  • Print Friendly Page

© Copyright 2007-2023. Environmental Change and Security Program.

Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. All rights reserved.

Developed by Vico Rock Media

Environmental Change and Security Program

Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars

Ronald Reagan Building and International Trade Center

  • One Woodrow Wilson Plaza
  • 1300 Pennsylvania Ave., NW
  • Washington, DC 20004-3027

T 202-691-4000