In many of the most conflict-ridden parts of the world, the only person representing the U.S. wears combat fatigues. U.S. military personnel often do their jobs very well and their jobs do not always involve violent intervention, but their skills and experience are best used to look for military or security solutions to conflicts. If the U.S. doesn't assign diplomats and peacemakers to a region, then the impression given to the world is that the only options the U.S. is looking for are military solutions.
The U.S. approach to the conflict in Somalia on the Horn of Africa provides a good illustration of this problem. Since September 11, 2001, U.S. military aid to Africa has nearly quadrupled. In Djibouti, a small coastal country tucked into the corner of East Africa, 1,800 U.S. military personnel collaborate with the French military to monitor a region that has been wracked with violence for decades. Off the coast, an international flotilla of 15 warships monitors the coast of Somalia.
While the U.S. has had a substantial military presence in the Horn of Africa, from 1991 to 2006, only one U.S. diplomat in Africa monitored political developments in Somalia from the embassy in Nairobi, Kenya. this period, Somalia witnessed multiple coups d'etat, and eventually became a safe haven for violent extremists.
A major cause for this gap in U.S. civilian engagement is that the State and the U.S. Agency for International Development have too few personnel to address or even monitor many of the problems in the rest of the world. The budget account that funds State personnel, called the Diplomatic and Consulor Program, is not sufficiently funded to provide enough diplomats and state department personnel to adequately cover global "hot spots."
Write your Representative today and urge them to commit to fully funding authorized U.S. diplomatic posts around the world.
Take Action
Go Back
