Gates, Clinton oppose cuts to State Department budget
| Washington
Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton did not stand alone when she objected this week to a Senate Budget Committee plan to take much of a nearly $10 billion cut in President Obama鈥檚 proposed discretionary spending for next year from State Department and other international programs.
Joining her was Defense Secretary Robert Gates, who in recent years has fought tirelessly for increasing the US government鈥檚 civilian international capacities. His argument: For the good of America鈥檚 long-term national security, the Pentagon must be able to relinquish some of the nation-building and other international development duties it has taken on by default.
More than perhaps any other two secretaries of Defense and State, Mr. Gates and Mrs. Clinton have worked as a team to promote the concept of 鈥渟mart power鈥� and the 21st-century鈥檚 demands for more effective and coordinated military and civilian operations. 鈥淭he two of them together continue to emphasize that as we have a balanced national security strategy, we need to have a balanced national security budget to support that strategy,鈥� says State Department spokesman Philip Crowley.
That perspective is clear in Gates鈥檚 defense this week of fully funded State Department and other civilian international budgets. In a letter to Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad (D-N.D.) Gates hammered at what has become his signature theme, that civilian foreign affairs are 鈥渁 critical component of an integrated and effective national security program.鈥�
Calling full funding of both national defense and foreign affairs budgets 鈥渘ecessary for our national security and for ensuring our continued leadership in the world,鈥� Gates said the president鈥檚 budget reflects 鈥渙verall national security requirements鈥� and the mutual dependency of military and civilian operations.
Senator Conrad has proposed cutting $4 billion from State Department and other international budget requests 鈥� or nearly the equivalent of the $4.9 billion increase Obama is seeking for the State Department.
In her letter to the Budget Committee, Clinton notes that more than two-thirds of the proposed increase would go directly to programs in the war-on-terrorism 鈥渇rontline states鈥� of Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iraq. The understood message: These are programs, like $1.5 billion a year in civilian development assistance to Pakistan, that you in the Senate have recently mandated.
She also picks up on Gates鈥檚 argument about the growing hand-in-glove coordination of the work carried out by the military and civilian diplomats and development experts. 鈥淥ur [civilian] missions are increasingly integrated with those of our Defense Department counter-parts,鈥� she says. 鈥淐uts to the civilian components can no longer be seen in isolation or having little impact on our national security strategy.鈥�
Members of Congress are under pressure, especially in this election year, to demonstrate sensitivity to public concerns about a growing budget deficit and national debt. But at the same time, any reductions in defense spending are anathema to many constituencies, while cuts to programs like food aid, poverty reduction, or climate change are seen as more palatable.
Recognizing that, Clinton is trying to underscore the cost-effectiveness of many civilian foreign-affairs interventions. In her letter to Conrad, for example, she claims that the $2.6 billion requested for State and US AID work in Iraq would allow the Defense Department to decrease its Iraq spending by $16 billion 鈥� 鈥渁 powerful illustration,鈥� she says, 鈥渙f the return on civilian investments.鈥�
