Inside Pentagon
Dec. 23, 2009 -- Defense Secretary Robert Gates is advocating an ambitious new plan to revamp how the Pentagon and the State Department coordinate and execute security and stability operations worldwide.
Dubbed the “Shared Responsibility, Pooled Resources” (SRPR) plan, it would replace the current section 1206 and 1207 authorities shared by the Defense Department and State Department for security and stability programs, according to a Dec. 15 memo from Gates to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
InsideDefense.com reviewed a copy of the 15-page proposal, labeled “for official use only,” which was also sent to Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Michael Mullen, Office of Management and Budget Director Peter Orszag and National Security Adviser James Jones.
Section 1206 grants DOD authority to finance train and equip programs for foreign militaries, while Section 1207 funds the department’s security and stability operations. Individual projects executed under each authority must get the blessing of the secretaries of state and defense, according to law.
Pentagon programs executed under both sections have had “some notable successes over the past several years,” Gates writes. However, the authorities granted DOD under sections 1206 and 1207 have “stirred debate over [U.S. government] roles and missions,” regarding security and stability operations, specifically between DOD and the State Department, he adds.
In order to “transcend these recurrent debates” on how such authorities should be divvied up between DOD and State, Gates’ SRPR plan calls for the creation of three “pooled funding mechanisms” focused on three areas: security capacity building, stabilization and conflict prevention, the memo states.
Based on a similar plan already in use by the United Kingdom, all of the shared authorities outlined in sections 1206 and 1207 will be incorporated and broken down into these three areas, with matching funds from Pentagon and State Department coffers going into all three pools, the memo states.
“The ability of each department to secure appropriations will be critical for long-term success, and will likely require burden-sharing negotiations between State . . . DOD and their respective communities,” the memo states.
The “security capacity building pool” would replace the current section 1206 authorities, according to the document. The stabilization and conflict prevention funding pools would replace the authorities outlined in section 1207.
“Each pool would operate with joint formulation requirements in the field and dual-key concurrence from Washington,” the memo states. “Each department would be able to add funds to the pool to meet a departmental imperative, although the use of these funds would be subject to the dual-key requirements.”
Each funding pool under the SRPR plan would be governed by a senior steering group headed by a “deputy assistant secretary-level representative” from DOD and the State Department, Gates writes. That interagency group will be the key decision-making authority for all programs seeking funding from any one of the three pools, the memo adds. But final approval for all proposed programs will come from Gates and Clinton.
A single pool approach was mulled and later rejected, according to the memo. “Creating [a] separate pool for each activity is key,” Gates writes. A single funding pool “with too many purposes can create a structure that is ‘transaction heavy’ resulting in a stovepiped coordination and execution process for security and stability programs.
“All three pools would be targeted to fund programs with a clear security nexus,” according to the memo. That said, “assistance that primarily supports traditional defense policy, foreign policy or developmental objectives would still be funded separately” out of State Department and Pentagon accounts and under existing authorities.
To support this plan, Gates is calling on the White House and Congress to provide “flexible oversight arrangements,” that would include reducing the number of informal consultations with Congress, “while allowing sufficient time for Congress to raise objections to programs” prior to implementation.
Further, Gates recommends the creation of new House and Senate select oversight committees tasked with reviewing the programs and associated expenditures executed under all three funding pools, the memo states. The defense secretary also raised the possibility of creating a new “Title 51” authority in the U.S. code that would straddle the Title 10 authorities of DOD and the Title 22 mandates the State Department adheres to.
A new Title 51 “would codify this [SRPR] approach in law and demonstrate that these programs are cross-cutting and not appropriately captured within any single committee’s jurisdiction,” Gates writes.
“It is pretty ambitious,” said Gordon Adams, a professor of U.S. foreign policy at American University. “A three-part, $3 billion-dollar set of contingency funds for near-term crises is way beyond anything Congress has been willing to support.”
While the new SRPR plan has been pitched as a way to bridge DOD and State Department efforts on security and stability operations, the plan would also draw the Pentagon deeper into civilian-heavy stabilization and even conflict prevention missions, according to Adams.
“Sounds like a lot more than the political system is going to want to swallow,” he added. “And it sounds a lot like the military missions and requirements might end up driving the train of national security policy, when it ought to be the other way around."
Adams also questioned the plan’s lack of detail on the White House’s role in setting priorities or guidance on what direction these funding pools will take, or how the administration will ensure they align with larger U.S. foreign policy goals.
“Normally the President determines the national security priorities of the U.S., which State and Defense carry out, including responding to urgent requirements by using draw-down authority,” Adams said. “This sounds like regional commanders, with the concurrence of ambassadors, setting the priorities, with very significant funding to carry them out." -- Carlo Muñoz
12232009_dec23a