Leadership in Aid and Development - Further Reflections

In my last post, I argued that the military is being entrusted with more and more foreign affairs responsibilities, largely because it consistently trains stronger leaders than America's non-military institutions and the NGO community. Training better leaders is essential to reforming and strengthening these institutions.

My wife, who served for a time in the US Peace Corps in Kazakhstan, suggested I qualify that thesis. She agreed with my criticism of the Peace Corps--that a good number of its volunteers are immature, abuse alcohol and drugs, and set a poor example in their host countries. However, she said that the Peace Corps still draws plenty of amazing talent. Many of her colleagues had impressive higher education, spoke multiple languages, and were well-versed in foreign affairs. I'm sure the State Department, too, draws a lot of amazing talent. My wife also pointed out that the military has its own bad apples. True. The three Army officers in my Arabic class at DLI, all of whom were company commanders, can tell me story after story about problem soldiers under their command, and I have a few stories of my own from the Air Force.

With that said, I still believe the military--on the whole--produces exceptional leaders. What's the difference? Perhaps the difference is not necessarily in the quality of individual members (though this play a role), but in the health and culture of the overall organization. The military invests a tremendous amount of resources in training leaders. From the first day a new soldier shows up in basic training, he is taught to break through his limits, embrace new challenges, and function as part as a team. The process never stops. Training is continuous, with NCOs and officers learning and practicing leadership commensurate with their grade. I've never seen anything comparable in the civilian world. When I attended Squadron Officer School last summer, one of the senior leaders told us that business leaders frequently visit to study the program, because it's so well-respected at teaching leadership. While I have strong feelings about the weak academics at the school, I will enthusiastically agree that it excels at teaching leadership. Any organization would benefit from the kind of leadership training the military conducts. The problem, I suppose, is resources. Compared to the military, the State Department and USAID are vastly underresourced. Organizations strapped for cash and people can't run extravagant month-long leadership schools.

After my last post, Capt McGregor--who wrote the article I was quoting--contacted me, and we traded a few thoughts on improving interagency cooperation between the military and civilian agencies. We both think the government needs to expand exchange opportunities between the military and other organizations like State and USAID. I would also like to see interagency cooperation in wargaming and training exercises. In the military, we try to "train like we fight", which is why we hold elaborate exercises like Red Flag, which simulate real combat. "Small Wars" require unity of effort between the military and the aid, development, and diplomatic communities, but I don't believe we have an interagency training equivalent to Red Flag for nation-building or stability operations. When we don't train, we have to invent the process as we go along, in real operations. That's not a good way to do business.