Tom and Gen. Odierno both wrong: We already have a whole-of-government approach to warfare, we just do it badly

By Jim Gourley

Best Defense contributing editor

Mr. Ricks indicated last week that General Odierno has pulled his lessons on the Iraq experience from left field, probably guided by an impulse to deflect blame for the outcome there away from the military. I agree that the top leadership is trying to sing the chorus often and loud enough to convince everyone that the army had a winning team and the government threw the game. But that doesn’t mean the idea of other government agencies joining the fight is garbage.

It’s not even unrealistic. The FAA actually does come with you to the combat zone to help you control airspace. The CDC does go to Iraq to help with some disease control. And while State Department personnel may not be willing go out as sheep unto the wolves to forge peace between rival tribes, the Department of Health and Human Services has buoyed American credibility through its management of the Refugee Resettlement Program for thousands of interpreters and other foreign nationals who aided us. Then there are the efforts of the ATF, DEA, FBI, USDA, DOJ, and the Departments of Labor and Commerce in Iraq and Afghanistan. We might not have had enough personnel on the ground to call it a full-fledged whole of government effort, but it was at least worthy of being called “partial of government.” It’s a crime twice over to suggest that the military is on its own in so many different aspects of warfare because it also denies that civil service personnel did serve honorably and do make significant contributions while facing danger in war zones.

Those contributions are more critical now than ever. If there’s one point the panels on ISIS during the Future of War conference made clear, it’s that you cannot hope to win against ISIS just by fighting them. Their success lies in doing the things that happen off the battlefield. They’re good at governance. They’re good at showing people they’re a viable alternative to leadership in Damascus or Baghdad. They’re good at appearing to be ideologically righteous, governmentally equitable and efficient, and economically beneficial to the areas they occupy. They don’t just fight, they campaign and debate. Beating ISIS means you have to offer a legitimate option. If Iraq and Afghanistan taught us anything, it’s that the military is ill equipped and prepared to build legitimate governmental options. We should not put them in that business for a third time.

And this is where General Odierno is wrong. The military is only one part of a multi-faceted fight. As such, it has no business being in charge of the whole show. The military should manage combat operations and all other activities should be carefully synchronized with them, but that doesn’t entitle the military to sit at the head of the table. If we are serious about achieving a hybrid hierarchical/networked structure Ioannis Koskinas introduced to fight these new wars, then the military has to prepare itself to take orders from the FAA, CDC and HHS at times. Conversely, those other agencies need to prepare to give orders.

Contributors on this blog and panelists at the Future of War conference alike have, in their own way, joined Odierno in the chorus. In assessing the failures in Iraq and Afghanistan we have identified a host of things that should have been done to build governments and secure the population. But without thinking we have automatically assigned those tasks to a military that has neither the diversity of expertise nor manpower to achieve it. In effect, we have declared that defeating ISIS needs a whole of country solution. That’s going to require a whole of government approach. If battlefield action alone can’t achieve success in these types of campaigns, then the military can’t be the long pole in the tent. Other parts of the government are necessarily going to have a stake in the affair if we are to prevent it from collapsing.

Jim Gourley is a former military intelligence officer. He now works as an author and journalist covering military affairs and sports science. His newest book, about ultra-endurance triathlon, is in stores now. His Twitter is @jim_gourley

SSG Teddy Wade/U.S. Army