For U.S. train-and-equip programs, who’s the boss?

The State Department or the Defense Department? The U.S. ambassador (Chief of Mission) to the country receiving U.S. assistance? Or the U.S. regional military commander, and his subordinate military officers?

One would think that these “organization chart” issues would have been resolved long ago. But perhaps not, as this story from today’s New York Times might indicate:

Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates urged Congress on Tuesday to grant the Pentagon permanent authority to train and equip foreign militaries, a task previously administered by the State Department, and to raise the annual budget for the effort to $750 million, a 250 percent increase.

Mr. Gates said that rapidly building up the armed forces of friendly nations to combat terrorism within their borders was “a vital and enduring military requirement” — and one that should be managed by the Defense Department.

Representative Ike Skelton, the Missouri Democrat who is the Armed Services Committee chairman, voiced apprehension over “what appears to be the migration of State Department activities to the Department of Defense.”

But Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, who testified with Mr. Gates and Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs, expressed full support for plans to make the Defense Department the lead agency for what is known as the Global Train and Equip Program, which emphasizes rapid assistance.

It seems surprising that this issue would even be in play in 2008. That it is suggests that the U.S. government still hasn’t settled whether the U.S. Chief of Mission in a country really does have final authority over all U.S. government activities in that country.

Other aspects of this debate have surfaced in the recent past. A few years ago, State Department officials became distressed after discovering that U.S. Special Operations Command had conducted covert military operations inside various countries without the knowledge or authority of the U.S. Chiefs of Mission.

And until recently the State Department was typically responsible for police force training programs. But increasingly the Defense Department has taken over these programs after the poor performance registered by the State Department in Afghanistan, Iraq, and other places (whether police training is noticeably better in these places under Pentagon stewardship, I will leave to others to discuss).

The State Department has not weathered the stresses of this decade very well. It seems that when difficult tasks required urgent solutions, the U.S. government has invariably turned to the Defense Department. The State Department senses its limitations and seems happy to get rid of authority and missions it used to covet. How long will it be before U.S. ambassadors find themselves reporting to the U.S. regional military commanders instead of Foggy Bottom?

POSTSCRIPT

Once the Pentagon receives the permanent authority for train-and-equip missions, will it have the capacity to deliver? Anyone know where LTC Nagl is today?