Brokaw's Idea
Before the shows this morning, I wanted to just briefly recommend an op/ed from Tom Brokaw in the Washington Post today. Drawing on his experiences reporting with American military personnel in Afghanistan, Brokaw suggests the creation of a 'Diplomatic Special Forces' corps, which he envisions as a kind of "Peace Corps plus."
The foreign service should "recruit young men and women who want an adventurous life ... and [p]ut them through crash courses in local dialects and skills relevant to the areas where they will be assigned. Place them in military outposts in remote areas, an arrangement that would have the added benefit of forging bonds between the military and the diplomatic corps. Give them extra pay and set the bar high so they have the same elite status as the Pentagon's Special Forces," Brokaw writes.
Besides providing a "different American face" to local civilians, these special forces would be able to take responsibility for some of the "nation-building" duties now handled by military personnel, assisting with the creation and re-creation of infrastructure - from schools to hospitals, etc. in various areas of the world.
While obviously there might be some logistical problems with Brokaw's approach, I think he's got an interesting concept. It is this kind of "outside the box" thinking that's got to be done at the very highest levels of government to devise new ways for Americans to see and be seen around the world (the latter being more important). Slickly-produced television ad campaigns might reach more people, but I'd be willing to bet that face-to-face contact would be far more impactful.
If nothing else, Brokaw has started a healthy discussion. I'd like to see it continued.
posted by JBD @ 8:18 AM
4 comments
4 Comments:
Sorry, I can't dig it.
In the first place, anybody who thinks the last generation was the greatest one is disqualified from making recommendations about the next generation of "young people." (Since the pre-requisite for civilization itself is to make the next generation the first priority.) In the second place, the idea (see the full proposal) that what these young diplomats would need is simply a "crash course" in local dialects, or similar quick fix, misses the point that you don't gain the ability to relate honestly to people from different cultures overnight--it's an educational and cultural process that begins with the communities into which people are born and continues through years of familiarization with the notion of other people as people. So, it would be nice to have young Americans with a diplomatic frame of mind--but crashe courses won't get them there.
Phil - I agree. Brokaw would definitely make an interesting candidate!
Wilderwood - I can't say I agree that Brokaw's incapable of discussing the future just because he's discussed the past ... I'm largely a historian by training and inclination (not to mention a member of the "next generation"), and I think the only effective way to plan for a future is to know and understand the lessons of the past. Brokaw shouldn't be limited from discussing the future anymore than anyone else.
Secondly, while I agree that "crash courses" alone will not bring real understanding of other cultures, the whole point of Brokaw's proposal is to combine that education with real-world exposure to those other people and cultures. That will, eventually, not only bring about understanding on the part of the Americans, but also would allow the United States to put forward a non-military face to the world that could go far to combat the damage done to the hearts and minds around the world for way too long.
No, crash courses aren't enough. But combined with exposure, might they be better than nothing? If you still don't like this proposal, feel free to offer additional suggestions. That's what we're here for.
I don't think "Crash course" was the focus but rather his description of how these forces should look:
unconventional warriors chosen for their intelligence, stamina, adaptability and range of skills
Like our special forces, these people should be able to take a crash course in a local culture and be on the ground quickly in order to help. Spending 2 years learning about a culture would be ideal, but isn't going to help when they have to deploy within 72 hours. Over time, they'll learn and hopefully take greater training in their area of interest. In many ways, however, it's about choosing the right people and giving them the flexibility to act, not about a specific training program for them.
Brokaw's idea would have been appropriate after 9/11 ... or even once the Statue of Saddam fell ... but, now let's consider the number of humanitarian organizations that cannot operate safely in Iraq. I would be concerned that without Security ( US Govt soldiers or Paid Independent Companies { Blackwater } ), that an advisor would be prime target for kidnapping, etc. With Security, I do not know if Brokaw-advisors would be trusted.
Now ignoring Iraq, the idea has great possibilities if it was used in Africa. The Peace Corp is a great program, but the challenges for the world will not be meet by the UN, or Peace Corp. Just consider how much goodwill could be generated and attention that would be placed by parents, families, and friends of individuals who may have participated in a Brokaw-type program in Africa onto Congress and the Administration. Africa is a prime breeding ground for the next wavy of Islamic extremist.
Also, isn't the Army now pushing the idea that you could complete your military obligation with a Peace Corp stint after your Active Duty stint is complete? Aren't more Active Duty personnel needed than Peace Corp volunteers in Iraq?
McPherson Hall
Post a Comment
<< Home