Military Review English Edition March-April 2014 | Page 30

approach toward securing MANPADS in Syria. Further, the problem set reinforces the importance of a close State-DOD partnership; however, it also reveals many of the shortcomings that still exist regarding interagency cooperation. Finally, the case of Syria provides a clear example for why State is so well equipped to engage in effective interagency coordination and how aspects of their culture could, and should, be adopted by others to improve cooperation. The good news is that a great deal of institutional effort was expended to prepare for the potential threat posed by MANPADS in Syria. This issue captures the attention of our nation’s leadership due to the deleterious effects it could have on global commerce. Clearly, the only way to tackle the issue is through an interagency response, and, arguably, the most important factor for any such response is the State-DOD relationship. Therefore, I offer some ways to improve State-DOD coordination to secure MANPADS in Syria, as well as for the numerous other transnational threats the United States faces. The first proposal is for situations like the one we face in Syria—that is, contingency planning to mitigate the impact of a particular threat. A way to promote collaboration would be to insert personnel from each organization into the planning body of the other early in the process. For example, in the case of Syria, contingency planning, Foreign Service officers (or civil servants) from Near Eastern Affairs Bureau or the Bureau of Conflict and Stability Operations could be assigned as members of the issue-focused USCENTCOM planning cell as soon as it was stood up. Similarly, assigning military officers from the USCENTCOM J-5 (or Joint Staff) to either of the aforementioned State Department bureaus would provide a DOD voice in State Department efforts. The benefit of this solution is that it integrates efforts early and is a relatively easy, flexible response for both organizations. Clearly, individuals in selected positions would have to be identified and prepared to serve when and where they are most needed. Another way, beyond early engagement in the various planning processes, is to expand interagency assignment opportunities and reward select personnel with promotion incentives or some other lucrative benefit. Essentially, this is an argument for expanding the existing CGSC fellowship and other DOD-State personnel exchange program assignments that exist today. I am sure divisionlevel staffs would welcome the addition of State Department political advisors, while State would be more than happy to integrate more military officers within their bureaus and offices.8 Further, select officers (Foreign Service and military) should be assigned to counterpart agencies early in their careers to enable subsequent assignments. This would enable those officers to build experiences and contribute to a deeper interagency relationship down the road. A successful expansion of the existing program can only be achieved by providing incentives for participants, such as promotion incentives or some other reward. The benefit will be top-tier talent seeking out interagency positions. Much work remains, but implementation of some of these recommendations would go a long way to improve the situation. MR NOT