Section 6

Strengthening the Policymaking Process

The U.S. Government is currently inadequately organized to deal with the challenges of the global era. The challenges noted above call for revamping the policy process and better integrating the military and nonmilitary components of national power. The following general steps are among those that can be considered by the Bush administration:

• Successful strategies and policies in the global era require much closer coordination among the economic, security, law enforcement, environmental, and science and technology policymaking communities in Washington.
• There should be far more dialogue and structured interactions among the various elements of government than there are now, along with more coherent, high-level guidance and coordination. Because such a bureaucratic transformation would have to begin at the top, the President must set the tone. Such steps will likely require specific changes in each agency's personnel system in order to become institutionalized. These personnel systems should encourage rotational assignments and reward individuals who break down agency barriers, rather than those who protect them.

Sunset near mosque in Burnei, oil-rich nation of Southeast Asia. AP Wide World Photos
(David Longstreath)

The Bush administration should undertake a comprehensive review of all interagency working groups in relevant policy fields to assess areas of overlap and potential areas for better policy fusion. It might also consider combining the National Security Council and the National Economic Council to ensure better integration of these policy streams. Another option that merits careful review would be to unify several major elements of the Executive Office of the President--the National Security Council, the National Economic Council, and parts of the Office of Science and Technology Policy, and other White House offices involved with the effects of globalization. Such a body could ensure more effective interagency coordination of policies critical to coping with the challenges presented by globalization.⁵

The need for greater interagency coordination applies not only in Washington, but also to U.S. operations overseas in virtually all regions. Today, DOD is best organized to carry out coordinated regional policies. Indeed, key regional CINCs have broad areas of responsibility and are often charged not only with operating U.S. forces but also with trying to coordinate a wide range of other governmental activities. Steps to strengthen interagency regional teams in the field could enhance the ability of foreign policy to blend disparate military and nonmilitary activities into a coherent strategic program, one that does the best job of pursuing its goals with the means at its disposal.

• DOD should take steps to ensure effective coordination of policy analysis and appropriate force planning by its elements with global and various regional responsibilities, including the major regional CINCs. The Pentagon also needs to find a workable bureaucratic mechanism to integrate economic, environmental, and cultural factors into its policy planning. These two functions might be performed by a small group of senior planners with a mandate to provide direct, cross-cutting support on global security affairs to the Under Secretary for Policy. The Service secretaries might consider developing a similar group of advisors.
• The ability to shape globalization rather than just react to it requires adequate resources and a better balance between hard and soft security. The Armed Forces will still need robust funding to remain prepared to fight wars and conduct the demanding range of global era military operations. But this military strength needs to be supplemented by enhanced capabilities in other areas of statecraft. Nonmilitary instruments of foreign policy, such as foreign aid, educational exchanges and scholarships, visitor programs, public diplomacy, and contributions to humanitarian programs and multilateral organizations, are pitifully small in comparison with U.S. military power and global reach. Spending on these nonmilitary instruments has shrunk steadily over the last 20 years, from 4 percent of the Federal budget in the 1960s to 1 percent today. Inexpensive programs to promote democracy, civil society, the rule of law, and certain economic reforms in some of the key countries buffeted by globalization, such as Russia and the new states of Eurasia, could yield enormous dividends and prevent future crises. These soft power activities can have great effect over time, and they are more important than ever because even overwhelming military power is often of limited use in dealing with the social turmoil and other consequences of globalization.

More effective use of these nonmilitary shaping and crisis prevention instruments could reduce demands on U.S. and allied armed forces for peace operations. This would have a salutary effect on military readiness and preparations for major combat operations. Without a well-stocked and more diversified diplomatic and foreign assistance toolbox, U.S. military forces will be under mounting pressure to solve problems for which military power is not well suited.

• The global era requires a streamlined, flexible, and integrated U.S. Government decisionmaking process adapted to the Information Age and capable of responding quickly to fast-moving foreign crises. Decisionmaking and military operations will have to become speedier, communications more direct, and organizations flatter and more streamlined. This change will be difficult because of the wide variety of perspectives that need to be built into an effective strategy. But compartmentalized activities will become riskier. This is true not only in the Armed Forces but in the rest of the foreign policy community as well.
• Policymakers and military planners need to be more aware of historical, technological, cultural, religious, environmental, and other aspects of world affairs than they have been to date. More people with expertise in nonmainstream fields should be hired and utilized in mainstream positions. Nongovernmental actors of all backgrounds should be consulted routinely by both diplomatic and military planners.
• Building and maintaining coalitions with friends and allies to channel globalization in constructive directions and mitigate its harshest aspects should receive high priority. Enlisting effective support from friends and allies warrants enhanced regional engagement activities by each of the services, including the Coast Guard. Developing and sustaining such efforts may sometimes require political or military operational compromises, but the dividends are worth the risks.

Complex contingency operations conducted abroad and at home have continued to grow. They demand more effective interagency and international civil-military coordination. Crisis and conflict management will require better integration of all the tools of the U.S. Government, as well as leveraging of the capabilities of allies, partners, and NGOs, across a range of activities, including humanitarian, economic development, law enforcement, and external security concerns.

Globalization holds great promise in ways that are broadly consistent with U.S. strategic interests and with the long-term needs of most people. Over time, globalization promotes openness, encourages political and economic reforms, strengthens the demand for the rule of law, fosters integration, and reduces the likelihood of conflict and resort to force. From a security perspective, the worrisome term is over time.

To remain highly effective, the Armed Forces must meet two different requirements: staying prepared for major combat missions, while performing such global era operations as presence, engagement, strategic shaping, peacekeeping, humanitarian relief, and crisis intervention. The future will present many challenges for the entire defense establishment, including the Navy. Their ability to face this future will play a major role in determining whether the United States copes effectively with the new promises and stressful dangers of the globalizing world.

Notes

⁵James B. Steinberg in an address delivered at the National Defense University on October 18, 2000. [BACK]