When the 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review was released in February, we blogged about its emphasis on building U.S. civilian capacity. Now a bipartisan Independent Panel asked by Congress to review the QDR has elaborated on this conclusion, making numerous recommendations and conclusions that urge the U.S. government to strengthen U.S. civilian personnel, resources, and authorities—soon.

The panel, led by National Security Advisor to President Bush Stephen Hadley and Secretary of Defense to President Clinton William Perry, reviewed the report with the aim of assessing America’s long-term threats and making recommendations to better prepare the U.S. military to meet those challenges. Looking forward twenty years, they found that most of the primary threats facing the United States will require much more coordinated, multi-actor responses which they call the “Comprehensive Approach.”  They argue that America must lead international institutions and draw on the strengths of all U.S. government agencies, private and non-profit partners, and other governments to achieve national security in the future.

The report makes numerous recommendations to help the U.S. government achieve the Comprehensive Approach. Among them they suggest:

• Properly resourcing  and empowering civilian agencies so that they can achieve their missions and  contribute even more to national security;
• Enhancing coordination of all tools of national security (defense, development, diplomacy, intelligence, and others) while clarifying their individual roles;
• Reorganizing committees in Congress so that military and civilian programs and resources can be coordinated and mutually reinforcing;
• Creating incentives to encourage “whole of government” cooperation, collaboration, and communication;
• Establishing interagency response teams and identifying lead agencies for different types of situations;
• Expanding the capacity of civilian agencies to respond to emerging or ongoing conflicts;
• Developing a “grand strategy” for national security that will encompass the entire U.S. security arsenal (civilian and military) and guide strategic thinking across agencies.

The many recommendations point to the great need for strong, capable civilian agencies that have the authorities and the personnel to act quickly and effectively. As threats shift and security becomes more complex, the United States must be able to rely on all of its strengths- military and civilian- and ensure that government and non-governmental partners are prepared to clarify their own missions and work together in more coordinated, integrated ways than ever before.

Natsios certainly does not suggest that measuring program success or striving for effective use of resources is a waste of time. A critical piece of his argument, in fact, is the need for better monitoring and evaluation of development programs. In the current bureaucratic system, programs are judged by the criteria easiest to measure- not necessarily the criteria that will accurately reflect the success of a program. Particularly for development, which is inherently a long-term, capacity-building endeavor, metrics that judge short-term outputs directly contradict principles of lasting, impactful development.

Institution building takes time, can be difficult to measure, and depends on the engagement of people and organizations in a host country, all characteristics that oppose the type of program management imposed on USAID. Democracy and good governance, for example, are widely held in development theory to be the most important factor in development though they receive small fractions of the International Affairs Budget. A comprehensive study on USAID spending in this area showed that over twenty years USAID programs had a significant positive impact on democracy. The study also noted that these programs often take several years to “mature” and that the results often appear after the program and funding have ended. Measuring those results in the short term, and during program implementation, therefore, will not reflect the success of the program and will instead incentivize short-term, ineffective interventions that look good on paper.

Natsios provides an overview of the bureaucratic history and personalities that have contributed to the system, and offers a systematic breakdown of the issues inhibiting USAID’s ability to carry out its mission. If USAID is not able to function properly, he warns, the United States will not be able to achieve its foreign policy and national security goals, particularly in places where conflict threatens U.S. interests.

Photo Credit: luxomedia

In her speech, Secretary Clinton made the case for global health investments and articulated areas for growth. She explained that global health has everything to do with foreign policy: from strengthening weak and fragile states and building the foundation from which societies can grow, to increasing U.S. national security, carrying out public diplomacy, and demonstrating American values, global health plays a central role. In a time of even greater economic limits, however, it is even more important to ensure that taxpayer dollars are spent effectively and get results. The Secretary made it clear that the GHI will maximize resources as well as achieve more effective outcomes on the ground. By emphasizing coordination, leveraging the efforts of other donors and non-governmental organizations, and working with countries to increase their investments in health, the Administration hopes the GHI will increase its impact in the short and longer term.

Key elements of the GHI highlighted in the speech include the Administration’s promise to make care more accessible and close gaps created by clinics or programs focused on only one disease or one type of intervention. Secretary Clinton applauded global health progress, but noted that in many places a woman might be treated for HIV but die in childbirth, or a child might be immunized against polio but not have access to clean water and therefore die of a diarrheal disease. The GHI will work closely with country governments to strengthen their commitments to health and create the necessary capacity, infrastructure, regulations, and other policies that will help them take responsibility for the health of their citizens. While the U.S. will focus on innovation, maternal and child health, improved methods of monitoring and evaluating programs, and better in-country coordination, ultimately the GHI hopes to bring all U.S. resources- both from within and outside the government- to bear to help countries lead their own way toward sustainable health systems. The path will be difficult, Secretary Clinton warned, “but if we succeed, we will have transformed how health is delivered and received across the world.”

There are a number of provisions aimed at making U.S. foreign assistance more strategic, effective, and elevated in foreign policy. We have been outspoken advocates for a number of critical reforms that are now included in the bill, including:

• A Development Policy Committee, made up of senior representatives from USAID and 14 other federal agencies, which will elevate the development voice in the interagency by reporting directly to the President on U.S. development policy.
• A United States Strategy for Global Development, prepared by the Development Policy Committee every four years, which identifies goals, clarifies the roles of different agencies, and estimates resources needed to carry out U.S. development efforts.
• Country and sector strategies for development, prepared by USAID Mission Directors and the USAID Administrator respectively, which will facilitate strategic, coordinated, and transparent assistance allocation and delivery.
• A major emphasis on consultation and partnership, including close relationships between the Administration and Congress, and working with non-government organizations and private sector companies to leverage all of the U.S. expertise and resources available to make U.S. development strong.
• A great deal of attention to monitoring and evaluation, and to results- and data-driven decision-making, which will help ensure that U.S. development efforts adapt to conditions on the ground, build on best practices, and inform future programs so that this critical taxpayer money is spent efficiently.

There are still a number of questions that will need to be answered, but I am encouraged by the progress toward comprehensive foreign assistance reform that reflects the critical role development must play in U.S. foreign policy. I hope the Committee will continue to make consultation with the community and the Administration a priority as it works toward a complete draft bill.

The Administration’s new development policy builds on two initiatives, Feed the Future (on food security) and the Global Health Initiative, already launched in 2009. The White House statement announced that the new policy will:

• Promote the sustainable growth of economic markets
• Invest in research and development
• Build the public sector capacity of recipient countries to provide services
• Emphasize tailored strategies for countries in or recovering from conflict
• Hold recipients accountable for making policy reforms

The statement also announced that the development approach will:

• Take a more selective approach to assistance, working with other donors to focus efforts on select countries, regions, and sectors
• Leverage U.S. assistance with other donors, the private sector, and other actors
• Encourage U.S. partnerships with countries that are well-governed
• Strengthen multilateral capabilities
• Drive policy with metrics and data, and set high standards for monitoring and evaluation

This approach reflects the Administration’s view (in its National Security Strategy) that development is critical for national security, economic prosperity, and global leadership.  The objectives and principles outlined in the White House statement are encouraging, as is the first public commitment by the President to issue a new policy directive on global development.  We hope the upcoming policy directive will also include critical issues that appeared in an earlier leaked draft of the PSD , such as the call for a national global development strategy that can guide policy across the Administration.

Early this year, the USGLC was honored to host General Petraeus, Commander of U.S. Central Command, before a standing room only Town Hall meeting in Tampa, Florida. He used the opportunity to reinforce his long-standing views on the need for civilian capacity. “I’ve testified as one of the biggest proponents of more funding for the Department of State” he told the audience, emphasizing that, “tens of thousands of civilians are working closely with their military counterparts in the Central Command region to achieve the conditions we hope to establish, and this is obviously a hugely important aspect of our operations.”

Click here to see the video.

In talking about his work in Iraq, General Petraeus said that he and Ambassador Ryan Crocker were “very much partners” and consciously decided to “work together in everything we did.”  He also spoke about a deliberate effort to describe their mission as a “comprehensive civil-military approach”.

General Petraeus appears to bring a strong commitment to strengthening civilian capacity to his work as the likely new Commander of the International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan. In his current role at U.S. Central Command, General Petraeus “…both supported and helped design the strategy that we have in place,” according to President Obama, which relies upon a “civilian surge” to provide expertise on local governance and development.

We are hopeful that General Petraeus, as he assumes this critical post, will continue to advocate for resources for development and diplomacy.

Achieving the goals and following the approach outlined in the strategy will require greater nonmilitary resources, authorities, and interagency prestige. The forthcoming Presidential Study Directive will be a clue as to how the Administration plans to move forward in operationalizing their security plan. Without a clearly articulated strategy , it will be difficult for the State Department and USAID to play the roles and meet the responsibilities outlined in the Administration’s national security vision.

The document directly addresses key USGLC principles throughout, including:

• Increasing resources: “We are increasing our foreign assistance, expanding our investments in effective multilateral development institutions, and leveraging the engagement of others to share the burden.”

• Improved cooperation between Congress and the Executive: “To effectively craft and implement a sustainable, results-oriented national security strategy, there must be effective cooperation between the branches of government. … This Administration is also committed to active consultation with Congress…”
• Interagency approach to development: “We will ensure a greater and more deliberate focus on a global development agenda across the United States Government, from policy analysis through policy implementation.”
• Better use of resources: “…pursuing a development budget that more deliberately reflects our policies and our strategy, not sector earmarks, and ensuring that our policy instruments are aligned in support of development objectives.”
• Civilian-military coordination and balance: “We have already begun to reorient and strengthen our development agenda; to take stock of and enhance our capabilities; and to forge new and more effective means of applying the skills of our military, diplomats, and development experts. These kinds of measures will help us diminish military risk, act before crises and conflicts erupt, and ensure that governments are better able to serve their people…..“Proactively investing in stronger societies and human welfare is far more effective and efficient than responding after state collapse.”

A few other highlights from the National Security Strategy:

• Emphasis on economic security: “To promote prosperity for all Americans, we will need to lead the international community to expand the inclusive growth of the integrated, global economy.”
• Hint at the MCC model?: “The United States has an interest in working with our allies to help the world’s poorest countries grow into productive and prosperous economies governed by capable, democratic, and accountable state institutions…The United States will initiate long-term investments that recognize and reward governments that demonstrate the capacity and political will to pursue sustainable development strategies and ensure that all policy instruments at our disposal are harnessed to these ends.”

• Millennium Development Goals:  Important for U.S. strategy because “Basic human rights cannot thrive in places where human beings do not have access to enough food, or clean water, or the medicine they need to survive.”
• Global initiatives: Touched on multiple development initiatives, including Feed the Future, calling it an example of U.S. approach to development: “Instead of simply providing aid for developing countries, we are focusing on new methods and technologies for agricultural development. This is consistent with an approach in which aid is not an end in itself—the purpose of our foreign assistance will be to create the conditions where it is no longer needed.”

The National Security Strategy makes it clear that modernizing and strengthening development and diplomacy is a top security priority, and the Obama Administration has made strong commitments to begin that work.

Echoing President Obama’s commencement speech at West Point on Saturday, during which he said that “The burdens of this century cannot fall on our soldiers alone,” the National Security Strategy repeatedly emphasizes the importance of building nonmilitary capacity and applying all tools of national power to the challenges of keeping America safe in a world of changing threats. Recognizing both the range of security challenges we face and the the critical roles diplomacy and development play in facing them, the National Security Strategy notes that, “Our diplomacy and development capabilities must help prevent conflict, spur economic growth, strengthen weak and failing states, lift people out of poverty, combat climate change and epidemic disease, and strengthen institutions of democratic growth.” To achieve those goals, the document goes on to pledge that, “We are increasing our foreign assistance, expanding our investments in effective multilateral development institutions, and leveraging the engagement of others to share the burden.”

The Strategy promises important changes to U.S. diplomacy and development, and we look forward to working with the Administration to make sure that these changes are supported through the Presidential Study Directive on Global Development (PSD), QDDR, and other processes.

President Obama made it clear throughout the speech that “The burdens of this century cannot fall on our soldiers alone.” He has a critical opportunity to act on this principle through the Presidential Study Directive on Global Development (PSD-7), chaired by National Security Advisor General James Jones and National Economic Council chairman Larry Summers. The review is intended to provide strategic guidance to U.S. global development efforts, making them more effective, focused, and accountable. This kind of strategy is essential to achieving a national security that utilizes all tools of national power. Given the strategy’s focus on balancing responsibility for national security between military and nonmilitary power, building the structure and resources necessary for coordinated, elevated, and strategic development is more important than ever.

• Creating and reviewing a National Strategy for Global Development every four years
• Returning policy, budget, and field authority to USAID
• Inviting the USAID Administrator to relevant NSC meetings
• Convening a standing Development Policy Committee at the NSC to coordinate development policy across the Executive Branch
• Helping recipient countries assume ownership, responsibility, and accountability on development
• Bolstering measurement and accountability of U.S. foreign assistance investments and demanding more of both from implementers and recipients
• Forging strong partnerships between the Legislative and Executive Branches