A Two-Prong Foreign Policy
TOOLBOX   Resize
 Save/Share +
COMMENT
 Discussion Policy
 CLOSE
Comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions. You are fully responsible for the content that you post.
|
Walter Pincus's Aug. 4 Fine Print column, "How Foreign Policy Functions Shifted to the Pentagon," highlighted the growing militarization of American foreign policy.
Fortunately, there is an emerging bipartisan consensus on the need to rebalance the tools of statecraft to grapple with the increasingly complex nature of international conflict and competition. This means measuring national strength by not just the number of carrier strike groups and bombers but rather a more complete arsenal of economic, diplomatic and moral, as well as military, power.
The shift of funds from foreign aid and diplomacy to the Defense Department -- as highlighted by the testimony of top department officials during last month's Foreign Relations Committee hearing -- shows that we are unfortunately moving in the wrong direction. It is not a matter of giving the Defense Department the authority to conduct diplomacy but of giving the State Department the resources it needs for diplomacy.
We need a new commitment to the coordinated use of all of America's assets: the strength of our arms, the force of our diplomacy and the power of our ideals.
LEE F. GUNN
President
American Security Project
Washington
