US Government Inter-Agency Coordination Process - Thesis Example

Name of the Student] [Name of the Professor] [Name of the Course] [Date] US Gоvеrnmеnt Intеr – Аgеnсy Сооrdinаtiоn Рrосеss Thesis Statement Absence of interagency coordination and failure of cooperation among the different systems of the United States has resulted in a threat to the security interests of the US. This contention has been established in the sequel. Introduction Grave threats have been posed to the US from the established nations, the weak and failing countries, and non – state entities. The present situation at the international level tends to be intricate, indefinite, volatile and uncertain. In this muddled arrangement, the US has been making serious attempts to achieve world domination. At this juncture, it is imperative that the US Government revises its interagency framework, so as to promote and preserve the security of the nation[Mau13]. National security is critically dependent upon interagency coordination that is competent. All the same, the absence of legislation mandating the commingling of competencies of the diverse agencies and department of the US Government has resulted in unnecessary expenditure, distrust regarding the motives of the US, internecine quarrels for cornering prestige and resources, and gross failure to implement crucial policies. It is indispensable for Congress to compel interagency reform, if national security is to be promoted[Mau13]. In addition, there is a glaring absence of integrated planning. As a consequence, the various US departments and agencies are at liberty to develop their individual perceptions regarding the objectives and challenges related to the US Government. All the same, a measure of success was achieved, in this realm. This was the successful coordination achieved in foreign military training programs, due to the active part of the Department of State. These programs had a direct impact upon the foreign policy and national security objectives of the US[Mau13]. As such, considerable intricacy is inherent in a conflict environment, and there are several open systems that interact mutually. Systems, per se, influence each other and human associations in unexpected modes. Moreover, several actions transpire that are alien to the very individuals involved, and this produces conduct that is seemingly illogical[Wil132]. Moreover, several causal systems influence the conduct, structure, thinking, and psychological logic of the operational environment. It is important to identify the structures involved in the conflict, the involuntary outcomes of institutional action related to the conflict, and the conceptional elements that generate conflict related conditions[Wil132]. For example, natural disasters, such as an earthquake or tidal wave of epic proportions, and their impact on groups in conflict can be readily comprehended as instances of evolving causality. It is the general experience that the consequences of events following a natural disaster are not apparent immediately. Conflict environments can be better comprehended by applying abductive reasoning, which is facilitated by the rigorous causal explanation model[Wil132]. This approach molds the response of the host nation and the US Government towards conflict into a better strategy. Military professionals, as members of an Interagency Conflict Assessment Framework (ICAF) assessment team, plan and execute action in a conflict environment. The operational environment is best understood upon inculcating intellectual habits. This is crucial for attaining the objectives of the US Government[Wil132]. Analysis An approach to national security that is founded upon what has been termed a whole of government measure has been espoused by the US President, the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of State. This approach is expected to enhance interagency cooperation and improve the effectiveness of the foreign policy of this nation. Nevertheless, none of the entities of the US Government have the required structure, coordination, integration or competence to carry out optimal responses to the several threats posed, at the global level, towards the US[Mau13]. The intimate coordination of efforts between the Department of Defense and the Department of State, while providing foreign military training, is the outcome of congressional mandate. It is the duty of the Secretary of State to ensure continuous supervision, general direction and determination, with respect to US Military assistance, and US military education and training programs[Mau13]. It is also incumbent upon the Secretary of State to make certain that these programs are properly integrated at home and abroad. As such, it has to be ensured that US foreign policy aims are promoted to the maximum extent. In this context, it would not be out of place to highlight the fact that Congress has explicitly stipulated that the Secretary of State bears the responsibility regarding foreign military training programs, in their entirety[Mau13]. With regard to this program, the Department of Defense dons a supporting role. With the identification, promoted by Congress, regarding the lead and supporting agencies; and the stipulations regarding their respective responsibilities, an effective program necessitating interagency coordination, which promotes national security, has come into being[Mau13]. In addition, the number of pending benefit claims emphasizes the necessity for adopting true interagency cooperation. There are several more similar issues pending before the federal government, and this make it very clear that a multipronged approach has to be adopted. Another important consideration is that the military leaders have to be made to realize the importance of improving such close coordination[Die13]. Moreover, the U.S. Army Command and General Staff College (CGSG) Interagency Fellowship enacts a very important role in providing holistic experiences to its participating officers. Moreover, it facilitates synergy between the federal governmental agencies, including the Department of Defense. This fellowship comprises of several goals. The first of these relates to improving the synchronization between the US Army and the different agencies. The second aim is to promote and preserve the partnership between these agencies and the US Army. The last of these is to escalate interagency operations in the US Government[Die13]. In addition, the importance of holistic thinking and problem solving has been demonstrated by the combat operations carried out by the US in Afghanistan and Iraq. The emergence of multifaceted challenges have generated ideas such as team of teams and interagency coordination among the military leaders. Professional discourse has chiefly concentrated upon this topic from the perspective of national security or counterinsurgency[Die13]. However, it has become evident that several of the national challenges being envisaged by the US stand to benefit from the adoption of such multidimensional approaches. For instance, the issues related to providing benefits to the returning veterans have proved difficult for any single agency to address[Die13]. Obviously, a multifaceted approach is necessary in this regard. Furthermore, a frame of reference is furnished by the National Prevention Framework. This is with regard to the manner, in which the entire community is engaged in preventing terrorism, and the correlation between prevention measures and the other components of national preparedness. Unlike the other Frameworks, the Prevention Framework concentrates exclusively upon terrorism. Some of the distinguishing capabilities of the Prevention Framework are intelligence and information sharing, interdiction and disruption, and planning and operational coordination[Hil13]. In addition, the competencies necessary for mitigating loss of property and life have been encompassed by the National Mitigation Framework. This objective has to be achieved by reducing the consequences of disasters. The emphasis of the National Mitigation Framework is upon constructing robust communities that comprehend and address the risks envisaged by them. The core capabilities of the National Mitigation Framework are the identification of threats and hazards, assessment of risk and disaster resilience, planning, and long – term vulnerability reduction. The prioritization of operation coordination is a major feature of the National Migration Framework[Hil13]. As such, the focus of the National Response Framework is upon protecting life and property, and addressing the fundamental human requirements during and in the immediate aftermath of a disaster. The contemporary National Response Framework is founded upon the 2008 National Response Framework. Some of the additional features of this newer framework are a focus upon whole community efforts; and highlighting the significance of individuals, families and households in the conduct of response activities. Furthermore, this new National Response Framework boasts of 14 core competencies, such as operational communications and coordination, planning, infrastructure mechanisms, health, safety, medical and care services[Hil13]. Beadling, the director of the Department of Defense Center for Disaster and Humanitarian Assistance Medicine was of the opinion that global health operations were of significance to the national security of the US. He had vociferously declared that he perceived a strong correlation between security and global health engagement. Moreover, he stressed the fact that such interventions were instrumental in undermining terrorism and insurgency[Hil13]. Moreover, the Department of Defense Center for Disaster and Humanitarian Assistance Medicine’s chief focus is upon promoting development, diplomacy and defense. The primary presumption of this Center is that health constitutes a global common good[Hil13]. Despite the fledgling status of the Center, Beadling declared that its activities were to be conducted in close coordination with the United Nation, US State Department, US Agency for International Development and the various non – governmental organizations, so as to fulfil the mission of the Center. In December 2012, the Emergency Management and Preparedness Program of the Center had been implemented in Mozambique. This was its first program[Hil13]. However, the interventions of the US in Afghanistan, with regard to rebuilding the war ravaged nation, tend to be devoid of any appreciable amount of integration and coordination. In addition, these efforts depict a marked bias that favors the central government. Moreover, several continuity issues have been noticed in these endeavors. As such the US efforts in Afghanistan tend to be exemplified by the absence of proper communication, friction, lack of teamwork and inadequate planning[Gre131]. There is a dismal absence of proper coordination and organization in these interventions. Moreover, the uplift of the civilians in Afghanistan served to improve the presence of the State Department, USAID and the US Department of Agriculture personnel in the field. However, this endeavor failed to reconstruct the Afghan countryside. Thus, several of the districts of that nation were not provided with interagency support. In the few districts that such support had been provided, interagency personnel had not been deployed to the required extent. Clear indications have emerged that the situation will worsen with the withdrawal of US interagency personnel[Gre131]. Subsequently, the Interagency Provincial Affairs Office was established in Kabul at the US Embassy. With this development, there was an improvement in the coherency of the efforts aimed at rebuilding the nation. All the same, at the district level, the presence of these efforts was negligible. As a result, the collective desired outcomes were not realized[Gre131]. In addition, a conference was held at the Brookings Institute in May 2010. This related to the National Security Strategy (NSS). During this conference, the then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton endorsed improved collaboration and cooperation among the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), Department of Defense and Department of State. She emphasized that defense, diplomacy and development were not distinct in process or substance[Mau13]. As such, Hillary Clinton made it very clear that defense, diplomacy and development had to be regarded as components of a unified entity. Consequently, the most fruitful means of ensuring the interest of the US was to adopt an approach that involved all the relevant governmental agencies and institutions[Mau13]. However, an opinion is slowly emerging among the influential circles that the best procedure for addressing the various issues being faced by the US, is to adopt interagency collaboration. In the failure of 9/11, the governmental agencies of the US depicted a singular absence of adequate collaboration, leading to dramatic and disastrous intelligence failures[Wil]. This dismal failure provoked the public and political stakeholders to demand a transformation in practice. The interagency responded to this strident demand by establishing coordination groups at the regional level. These have been instituted among the defense, diplomatic and development agencies. An important question arises at this juncture, as to whether such an adaption will generate the desired outcomes. To this history has demonstrated that there is no justification for being sanguine[Wil]. The different agencies of the US Government are characterized by being significantly individual in their function. Attempts to change this situation have by and large produced insignificant results. This state of affairs has been attributed to a failure to bring about internal integration. The extant policy rationalé has not changed from what has been directing the organizational ethos, prior to the crisis[Wil]. It is essential to realize that bad policy cannot be rectified by engaging in collaboration. All the same, it has been brought home forcibly that there is an absence of any all-inclusive procedure to gather information that would permit the regional coordinating body to evaluate the outcomes of their projected solutions[Wil]. As it is not possible to assess the success of policies or to render agency actors responsible for the implementation of these policies, in the absence of feedback, this constitutes a major drawback. The classification of the host government as being ineffective serves to complicate the issues related to accountability. In addition, it renders the host government an expedient scapegoat for failed policies [Wil]. Moreover, in the absence of interagency supervision, the distinct possibility exists of programs being compromised by the local government officials, non – governmental organizations, or by any other interagency instituted partnership. The input available to local citizens, regarding the manner in which the program is to be managed, tends to be inadequate. Consequently, a critical feedback system for adapting these program to the specific needs of the local community is not in place[Wil]. The undesirable result is that the informal accountability dynamics of the market process is adversely impacted. Moreover, the extant mechanism is devoid of crucial facilitative conducts and accountability associations that would correlate the local citizens to implementation partners and the results generated by these entities. In fact, this relationship can emasculate the democratic accountability of the elected officials and their bureaucracy towards the society that they have to serve[Wil]. As the interagency aims are to promote the growth of the economy and to provide strong governance, there should be a serious endeavor to improve the social institutions and the government. Conclusion The success of the interagency process depends upon coordinating the interests of a variety of agencies, departments and organizations. Such cohesion tends to be far more intricate than the multi – faceted character of combat operations undertaken by the military[Joi06]. The application of the other devices of national power; namely, the diplomatic, economic and informational instruments, serves to substantially enhance the intricacy, number and variety of interactions. Interagency synchronization is fruitful, only in the presence of the effective integration of manifold agencies and their assorted agendas and assessments. Absence of accountability transcends the necessity to take to task actors responsible for defective or inept practices. The presence of poor feedback denotes the fact that the interagency does not possess the competence to amend its internal practices and transform them into more effective procedures and realizable aims. Upon suitably addressing this issue of accountability, there is a possibility of achieving improvement It can be surmised that in the absence of coordination among the various US governmental departments, the US cannot cope up with the threats posed to its national security, by its inimical nations and organizations. Works Cited Mau13: , (Mauser), Wil132: , (Wilson 39), Wil132: , (Wilson 40), Die13: , (Diep 52), Hil13: , (Hill 60), Hil13: , (Hill 63), Gre131: , (Green 6), Wil: , (Williams 66), Wil: , (Williams 67), Joi06: , (Joint Chiefs of Staff I – 6), Read More