PDA

View Full Version : Pentagon Can Now Fund Foreign Militaries




zimv20
Jan 30, 2006, 12:41 AM
link (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/28/AR2006012800833_pf.html)


Pentagon Can Now Fund Foreign Militaries

Defense Secretary Pushed for New Powers to Better Deal With Emergencies

Congress has granted unusual authority for the Pentagon to spend as much as $200 million of its own budget to aid foreign militaries, a break with the traditional practice of channeling foreign military assistance through the State Department.

The move, included in a little-noticed provision of the 2006 National Defense Authorization Act passed last month, marks a legislative victory for Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, who pushed hard for the new powers to deal with emergency situations.

But it has drawn warnings from foreign policy specialists inside and outside the government, who say it could lead to growth of a separate military assistance effort not subject to the same constraints applied to foreign aid programs that are administered by the State Department. Such constraints are meant to ensure that aid recipients meet certain standards, including respect for human rights and protection of legitimate civilian authorities.

"It's important that diplomats remain the ones to make the decisions about U.S. foreign assistance," said George Withers, a senior fellow at the Washington Office on Latin America and a former staff member on the House Armed Services Committee. "They can ensure such decisions are taken in the broader context of U.S. foreign policy."

Many lawmakers, too, were initially cool to Rumsfeld's request. The Armed Services committees in both the House and Senate declined to write the provision into their original defense authorization bills, citing concerns about a lack of jurisdiction and an absence of detail about where the money would be spent.

But the Pentagon pressed its case, with senior commanders joining top officials in weighing in with reluctant members.

"This was the most heavily lobbied we've been by the Pentagon in the several years I've been here," said one Senate staff member. "They really, really wanted this."

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice also threw her support behind the measure, overruling lower-ranking staff members who had argued that existing laws were sufficient and who had cautioned against granting the Pentagon such flexibility, department officials said. She joined Rumsfeld last summer in a letter to Congress urging passage of the legislation.

The initiative addresses an issue that both the Pentagon and the State Department have identified as crucial in fighting terrorism and bolstering stability abroad -- namely, "building partnership capacity" in Africa and other developing regions.

Administration officials complain that attempts to provide such security assistance, especially in crisis situations, have often been hampered by a patchwork of legal restrictions and by a division of responsibilities among U.S. government departments. Improving security in a failing foreign nation, for instance, might involve drawing on the Pentagon for military training, the State Department for police training, the Department of Homeland Security for border protection and the Treasury Department for financial enforcement. Cobbling such pieces together can take many months, officials say.

(more)

interesting how easy it is for ms rice to go along w/ rumsfeld, not at all like the rumsfeld/powell relationship.



blackfox
Jan 30, 2006, 02:34 AM
Well, I am of two minds about a development like this.

First off, I actually kind of like the idea in theory. With regards to Foreign Policy, I actually think it is important to be able to act quickly and decisively and to engage in strategic and tactical alliances etc. that may not be entirely palatable morally. We are, and will continue to fight asymetrical warfare with an enemy who purposely refuses to play by the established rules - and we continue to live in a complicated world where "virtue" takes on a decidely machaivellian meaning. I think this has a chance of making us more effective in dealing with the larger world.

OTOH, The above, at least to warrant my endorsement, must involve some wisdom and strategy from those who hold these positions of power. Because I have always had a problem with the Administration's various appointments in the compentency department, I worry about this development. Reckless, or downright stupid behavior as a result of this license is now left to even less oversight or debate.

hmmm...

Thanatoast
Jan 30, 2006, 10:34 AM
Ok, this is ridiculous, in a scary kind of way.

Do we really want the Pentagon funding the militaries of foreign nations? Is that something the Pentagon should really be getting into?

Money says this has something to do with renditions and prisoner "interrogation". The State Department wouldn't approve a payment to a foreign regime for torturing prisoners we handed to them, but now the Pentagon can just slide the cash under the table straight to the willing parties.

This is one of those things that just *sound* bad. Like onion-flavored peanut butter. You don't have to try it to know it's a terrible idea.

Nickygoat
Jan 30, 2006, 11:06 AM
I wonder if they'll actually get the cash, or if the Pentagon will supply matériel, or other assets.
Rent the 101st Airborne for a week? :p
They're probably trying to use it as leverage on some uncooperative allies.

miloblithe
Jan 30, 2006, 11:38 AM
I think the purpose of having seperate government agencies is so that authority and responsibility are clearly laid out.

While I don't personally see anything wrong with the Pentagon funding foreign militaries as opposed to the State Department taking that responsibility, I do think that overlapping responsibilities is problematic, especially as it opens the door to increasingly tense funding request battles between State and Defense.

mactastic
Jan 30, 2006, 08:06 PM
I wish people had proven themselves capable of being given power like this but one look at Central and South America should remind everyone what happens when you let the military 'assist' diplomatic efforts.

Also, just as a side note, Rumsfeld was able to ram this through against the will of Congress... and we're supposed to believe the Bushies when they tell us that that pushing a change in the FISA law through Congress was impossible, that's why it's OK that Bush ignored US law.

xsedrinam
Jan 30, 2006, 09:31 PM
The only change I see here is "overt" from "covert".

superbovine
Jan 30, 2006, 09:37 PM
The only change I see here is "overt" from "covert".

I thought the CIA did that before, for example CIA funding Afghans to fight against the Soviets.

Although, people like the green brets are trained to train foreign militaries as part of the STOP, so my guess your overt to covert analogy is probably true.

zimv20
Jan 30, 2006, 09:54 PM
the green brets
http://www.foodspot.com/brettfavressteakhouse/favre.jpg

:-)

xsedrinam
Jan 30, 2006, 10:46 PM
http://www.foodspot.com/brettfavressteakhouse/favre.jpg

:-)
"It is a favre, favre better thing that I do, than I have ever done; it is a favre, favre better rest that I go to than I have ever known." :p