The Interagency

We might be wrong, but at least we work together.

[theinteragency-blog]

America's Least Favorite Pastime ... Repealing Laws

The advocates for sexual assault victims among other groups like me were outraged yesterday by the decision of Californian judges to overturn the rape conviction of a man because the woman was not married. Frustratingly, this occurred not because of misogynist judges dominate California’s legal system, but rather because prosecutors incorrectly interpreted an arcane law. Judge Thomas L. Willhite Jr. proffered an explanation on why the panel of judges decided to overturn the conviction:

“Has the man committed rape? Because of historical anomalies in the law and the statutory definition of rape, the answer is no, even though, if the woman had been married and the man had impersonated her husband, the answer would be yes.”

The fact that this awful law is from the 1872 criminal code may be one of the aspects of the whole circus that bothers me most and poses the question of why we as Americans reexamine our legal framework so infrequently and repeal unnecessary laws. Part of it may be because we have become a society that often tries to legislate every problem out of existence without asking what we as a society gain or lose at a philosophical level. Subsequently, repeal is not as satisfying as simply writing another law or continuing to add additional sections to current law. As in the case addressed above, this intrinsic (rather than instrumental) motivation to legislate breeds an obsession with procedure rather than justice.

Let's consider a thought experiment where state legislatures and Congress need to commit to spending one two year-term—say every 20 years—to examining our legal code and repealing laws that are fundamentally unsound and/or philosophically out of sync with our values and way of life; during this time Congress could not legislate new laws. It’s not an outrageous idea: Thomas Jefferson thought every constitution should expire after a single generation. Best of all, Americans would benefit in two clear ways: First a streamlined and fairer legal code that does not take multiple generations to alter. Second, it would force Congress to debate what principles should guide American policy during the upcoming 20 years rather than the technical details of policy itself, which pushes Americans away from the realm of procedure and towards justice.

[theinteragency-blog]

Breaking the "Having it All" Paradigm

I have to give credit to Anne-Marie Slaughter: by titling an article on work-life balance Why Women Still Can’t Have it All, she sparked a conversation whose repercussion still reverberate through the media. Personally—and I think there are a number of men and women who agree with me—the article resulted in a poorly framed back-and-forth that did not substantially elucidate the framework for future direction, forcing America to spend months wading through the crass while waiting for the media to reframe the discussion in a way that could first delineate the actual issues at hand and subsequently link philosophy, reality, and policy.

Recently, NPR published an excellent piece that articulates the premise that Ms. Slaughter’s argument—making the fateful decision to have a family (though I prefer NPR’s phrasing: When There’s A Baby Between You and the Glass Ceiling)—is based upon. Slaughter’s argument convolutes the discussion of gender equity and family rights by proceeding from the assumption that all women have families. It’s a broad assumption that does not fully acknowledge to what extent sexism limits female advancement versus the opportunity costs women and men face due to family responsibilities.

NPR’s article seems to indicate that maybe the direction of the conversation should be about distinguishing between gender equity and family rights, while allowing us to critically explore how they intersect, in a manner that is intelligent and inclusive. In the immediate aftermath of Slaughter’s piece, that may have been a reasonable departure point, but now I am not so sure. For instance, proceeding from the family rights perspective as Slaughter tried to do excludes single workers or couples who decide to (or unfortunately are unable to) have children. To be fair, I don’t know how many of them would react to the “can’t have it all” argument other than with ambivalence or hostility. Similar concerns could be raised when proceeding down the gender equity route.

Gender equity, racial equity, family rights, etc. are all facets of a broader and more inclusive discussion—rethinking and modernizing the workplace social contract. This serves as a philosophical departure point for articulating what employers can reasonably expect from workers and vice versa. In some ways it is far more challenging than simply legislating entitlements for the various stakeholders that are a part of this dialogue because negotiation and dialogue rather than ad hoc partisan politics are needed to envision and implement a comprehensive, equitable, and just contract. 

[theinteragency-blog]

Philosophy and Politics

Over the past few months one of my colleagues and I have been discussing the importance of debating and articulating cogent, modern philosophical principles before pursuing policy. This seems more important than ever—especially in the wake of the Newtown shootings. Over the new few months I hope to continue this discussion about the necessity of revisiting the guiding philosophy for the United States. For now, I leave you with some words from Tom Robbins whose prescient thoughts point toward this imperative:

[I]t was futile to work for political solutions to humanity’s problems because humanity’s problems were not political. Political problems did exist, all right, but they were entirely secondary. The primary problems were philosophical, and until the philosophical problems were solved, the political problems would have to be solved over and over and over again. The phrase ‘vicious circle’ was coined to describe this ephemeral effectiveness of almost all political activity.

For the ethical, political activism was seductive because it seemed to offer the possibility that one could improve society, make things better, without going through the personal ordeal of rearranging one’s perceptions and transforming one’s self. For the unconscionable, political reactivism was seductive because it seemed to protect one’s holdings and legitimize one’s greed. But both sides were gazing through a kerchief of illusion.

The monkey wrench of the progressive machinery of primate evolution was the propensity of the primate band to take its political leaders—its dominant males—too seriously. Of benefit to the band only when it was actively threatened by predators, the dominant male (or political boss) was almost wholly self-serving and was naturally dedicated not to liberation but to control. Behind the chest-banding and fang display, he was largely a joke and could be kept in his place (his place being that of a necessary evil) by disrespect and laughter…

Of course, as long as there would be willing followers, there would be exploitive leaders. And there would be willing followers until humanity reached the philosophical plateau where it recognized that its great mission in life had nothing to do with any struggle between classes, races, nations, or ideologies, but was, rather, a personal quest to enlarge the soul, liberate the spirit, and light up the brain. On that quest, politics was simply a roadblock of stentorian baboons.

Excerpt from Skinny Legs and All.

[theinteragency-blog]

Revisiting NSPD-24

Civilian USG agencies are integral to stability and reconstruction operations (SRO), but if they are to hold leadership roles during SROs requires agency leaders to recruit the right personnel and train them in interagency operations. The idea is intuitive, but recent news about the work culture of civilian agencies operating in Afghanistan suggests otherwise. USG officials who remember National Security Presidential Directorate-24 (NSPD-24) know that the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) has already once sidelined civilian agencies, albeit out of ignorance and arrogance. It is therefore in the US military’s interest to further cooperation between USG agencies by helping participating interagency partners train actively and participate dynamically.  

In an excerpt from Little America: The War Within the War for Afghanistanon Foreign Policy, Washington Post correspondent Rajiv Chandrasekaranasks why American sent its “C team” to Afghanistan. According to the excerpt, most of the members of Ambassador Holbrooke’s civilian surge did not necessarily represent America’s best and brightest who wanted to help the Afghans. Instead, DOS and USAID employees could be grouped into three camps: “those who had come to Afghanistan because they wanted to make a lot of money -- with hazard pay and bonuses, some staffers earned as much as $300,000 a year; those who were getting their tickets punched for a promotion or a posting to a comfortable embassy in Western Europe; and those who were seeking to escape a divorce, a foreclosed home, or some other personal calamity.” If accurate, Chandrasekaran indicates that the perverse incentives for deploying to Afghanistan with a civilian agency meant that the civilian component of interagency operations was unprepared technically, psychologically, and emotionally for the challenges of Afghanistan. Further undermining interagency operations were stringent security restrictions, a lack of desire to conduct operations outside the Embassy compound, and bosses that had little knowledge or will to execute interagency operations with the US military.

These criticisms are not to detract from the heroism and dedication that DOS and USAID have shown, but rather to underscore that it is in the US military’s interest to  ensure that civilian USG partners are not perceived as incompetent interagency partners. If OSD and/or military officials believe that SROs are more effective by circumventing civilian partners, a repeat of NSPD-24 will happen and interagency operations could be severely set back.

Issued by OSD prior to the invasion of Iraq, NSPD-24 gave the DOD exclusive responsibility for post-war control of Iraq and consequently established the ineffective Office of Reconstruction and Humanitarian Assistance (ORHA). According to the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction, the directive “supplanted the ongoing interagency process.” According to officers who were part of the planning for the Iraq invasion, when NSPD-24 was announced during the middle of an interagency meeting on humanitarian aid, every representative walked out of the meeting. Described as a “palace coup,” NSPD-24 poisoned the relationship between the military and civilian agencies: civilian officials blamed the military (even though OSD issued the directive) for subverting their traditional responsibilities and expertise. With less than sixty days before hostilities commenced, NSPD-24 established ORHA and thrust unprecedented post-war reconstruction responsibilities onto a military unprepared for the task. Ultimately, NSPD-36 replaced NSPD-24 following the difficulties and failures caused by tasking the US military with SROs and transferred leadership the Department of State.   

While SROs might not have been the US military’s forte, for the last ten years it has attempted to develop the capacity to engage in SROs. OIF and OEF precipitated this development for two reasons. First, the DoD sought to eliminate the economic incentive for participating in the insurgency and now stabilization and reconstruction capabilities are considered integral to stability and counterinsurgency operations. Second, as previously explained, civilian leaders (such as those of OSD) directed the military to take leadership of post-conflict reconstruction and stabilization. Although civilian agencies now lead all current and future SROs, their perceived and actual lack of capacity and human capital (as Rajiv Chandrasekaran highlights) for reconstruction operations is the third driver for expanding the military’s involvement in SROs. Military-centric provincial reconstruction teams in Afghanistan embody this rationale: in non-permissive environments the military is the only provider of development and aid because civilians will not conduct humanitarian and development operations in these areas. The deeper consequence is that the military develops institutions that parallel those of civilians (both governmental and non-governmental) and further undermine the legitimacy of civilian actors during SROs.   

The inconsistency of civilian USG personnel in Afghanistan could encourage policy makers to revisit NSPD-24 for future SROs. Military leaders recognize that soldiers are not the best actors for conducting SROs and should therefore play a role in supporting (if not forcing) their civilian counterparts to improve the capabilities of their personnel. First, the military should provide funding for active USG personnel from all agencies to train with them during pre-deployment exercises. This enables civilian and military personnel to develop relationships that they can leverage in theater. Further, it improves soldiers’ and civilians’ understanding of their respective professional cultures so that it does not impede interagency cooperation. Second, in theater the military should continue to provide security elements for USG personnel that are willing to conduct operations outside of the wire. While it would be preferable to see more civilians integrate with units during operations, enabling civilians to conduct necessary reconstruction and stabilization activities ensures that USG employees are well utilized and take leadership during SROs. The military may not be the solution for SROs, but it will be a part of the solution for improving the capacity and leadership of USG personnel for future SROs.   

[theinteragency-blog]

US Poised to Foster Greater Female Involvement in Peacekeeping Operations?

The continued dearth of females in UN peacekeeping operations (PKO) is troubling, especially if these missions take place in states where cultural sensitivities restrict male-female interaction. UNSCR 1325 reaffirmed the role of women in prevention and resolution of conflicts and called for greater female participation in peacebuilding, but the momentum to diversify the ranks of peacekeepers that tis resolution generated has stalled. Kristen Cordell’s report “Women in International Peacekeeping” highlights how female PKOs improve the capacity for collection and analysis of community-based intelligence. Further female peacekeepers, in contrast to their male counterparts, view their human security goals more broadly and pursue activities such as greater community outreach and rehabilitation programs for victims of sexual and gender-based violence. Even with the apparent value-added benefit of increasing female participation in UN PKOs, female participation remains at 4 percent of peacekeeping personnel.

The United States’ experiences in Iraq and Afghanistan has catalyzed a major opportunity to increase and shape female involvement in PKOs. The slow realization that local women wield more influence in their homes than people believe to be the case in these “patriarchal” societies hindered an effective response to the insurgencies in both countries. According to an Afghan National Army Colonel, rural Pashtun women may rarely be seen by outsiders but are “keen observers and opinion-makers about the goings-on in their village” because they are responsible for managing the household and exchange news with each other at local wells.

The need to leverage the local intelligence of women without breaching cultural norms spurred the US Military to establish Female Engagement Teams (FET). FETs grew out of the “Lioness” program in Iraq, which used female Marines to search Iraqi women at checkpoints. Until 2010, Afghan FETs were ad hoc and overstretched because its members had full-time jobs in addition to FET responsibilities. The deployment of full-time FET teams increased the US Military’s knowledge about its battlespace because they were well received by both Afghan men and women who perceived female soldiers less as combatants and more as partners. The success of FETs convinced the Department of Defense to begin recruiting female soldiers to work closely with Special Forces teams and Ranger Units during raids.    

The US military’s experience in female engagement has the US poised as a leader in shaping female involvement in PKOs and peacebuilding. Although direct involvement of female US troops in PKOs is preferable, these troops can share their knowledge and serve as role models through programs such as the Global Peace Operations Initiative. Having female US troops with FET experience training female peacekeepers will slowly erode impediments to female involvement in PKOs including the lack of confidence female soldiers have about their qualifications and capabilities for PKOs. The National Action Plan on Women, Peace, and Security has the US committed to increasing women’s participation in security forces and female veterans of OEF and OIF can guarantee US leadership in achieving this global goal.