Military Review English Edition March-April 2014 | Page 27

EVIL ON THE HORIZON

Again, State uses the diplomatic element of
national power to achieve U.S. foreign policy and
national security objectives.
In the case of Syria, diplomacy supports “the
Syrian people’s aspirations for a Syrian-led transition to a democratic, inclusive, and unified Syria.”5
This mission has been extraordinarily difficult to
accomplish in the midst of a civil war, and the challenge was magnified by the U.S. decision to close its
embassy in Damascus in February 2012. Now, U.S.
diplomats must work with and through international
partners to set the conditions for success in Syria.
This predicament highlights one of the major
limitations of State—namely that diplomats depend
on the U.S. military, contractors, and multinational
partners for physical security as they pursue foreign policy goals. Limited access to the country
significantly limits the State Department’s options
to secure MANPADS, support the Syrian people,
and protect the United States against various transnational threats.
While the nonpermissive security environment
severely limits what State can do, the inclusive nature
of the department makes it effective for coordinating

the international response to secure MANPADS in
Syria. The State Department has taken a lead role in
coordinating with international partners, both bilaterally and multilaterally, to prepare for the likely proliferation of MANPADS from Syrian stocks upon the
fall of the Assad regime. Specifically, State conducted
detailed discussions with the key U.S. allies known as
“Five Eyes” countries (United States, Canada, United
Kingdom, Australia, and New Zealand) and others
(Belgium, France, and Germany) to identify ways
to engage the region, leverage multilateral fora, and
establish the international way ahead to mitigate the
illicit proliferation of MANPADS and other portable
advanced conventional weapons from Syria. All this
coordination will pay dividends toward preventing a
proliferation crisis in the future.
As far as an institutional culture, the Department
of State tends to be more freewheeling, deliberative,
and inclusive in their planning processes compared
to others. According to national security experts
Roger George and Harvey Rishikof, State depends
on a culture that seeks allies, friends, and coalitions
over a range of institutions harnessed to manage
global instability.6

Members of Ahrar al-Sham brigade, one of the Syrian rebels groups, exercise in a training camp at an unknown place in Syria, 29 November
2013. (AP Photo)
MILITARY REVIEW

March-April 2014

25