Read on Twitter
Lot going on in this story, but one aspect of this should not be overlooked: another example of how decades of focus on the Middle East has warped DOD priorities, including personnel and resource allocation. https://www.wsj.com/articles/pentagon-draw-down-at-u-s-embassies-prompts-concern-about-ceding-field-to-global-rivals-11604248527
As the story points out, 7/8 of the highest ranking US “defense diplomacy” positions in the world are in the Mideast: Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Pakistan, UAE, Kuwait, Iraq & Turkey. The UK is the 8th.
To be clear, there were good reasons to have senior officers in each of Mideast these posts over the years. China & Russia are active in the region. Plus, these countries are relevant to matters beyond the region, especially Turkey and Pakistan. HOWEVER...
This Mideast myopia simply does not reflect current US strategic priorities at a time of intensifying competition with China and Russia. And DOD is absolutely right to rethink the rank of our defense attachés in the Mideast.
I don’t necessarily agree that downgrading defense attaché positions is the best means of meeting the intent of the FY17 NDAA capping GO/FOs. More specifically, I disagree with the move to downgrade the attaché position in the UK.
But DOD should absolutely be sharpening the focus of defense diplomacy personnel and resources on key allies and partners in the Indo-Pacific and Europe.
Devil’s in the details: lots of factors determine proper rank of the attaché, size of the DAO staff. Also tough balance to strike on dual NDS imperatives: strengthen alliances or attract new partners. Ex: What adds more value: upgrade in Australia or Vietnam? Germany or Finland?
But there’s no doubt these are among the key NDS-related questions DOD should be focused on. DOD and Congress should be prepared to make tough decisions about recalibrating our approach in the Mideast in order to facilitate a true realignment of strategic priorities.
