A role reversal from a military-first approach.

• Author: Lyons, Joseph

Editor's Note: A recently retired Air Force medical officer bases this opinion piece on his real life experience on the cusp between humanitarian work and military operations in a dozen countries over a couple of decades. While the thrust of his arguments may be well known in diplomatic circles, it is less common in the world of the uniformed military. -Ed.

"act preemptively" to protect and defend our national interests, few people other than Americans thought this was a significant shift in foreign policy. To the rest of the world, we have always used the military first, in threat of force or deed. The U.S. leans on its military pillar more than any other instrument of power. We have the most agile and adaptable military force in the world and we count on it for response, whether that response is related to defense or to relief. We use our military arm to reach across the globe to react to events from insurgencies to natural or man-made disasters. The military is exceptionally equipped and trained to deploy for a wide variety of incidents. Our ability to mobilize and transport personnel and material rapidly to any place in the world implies that the military is an ideal response force for every contingency. The Air Force can move a significant force quickly, within hours, or the Navy can move everything needed, within days or weeks. They bring everything needed to conduct the operation, are capable of self-sustainment, and are prepared to stay for any duration, as necessary.

We trust our military to conduct its missions professionally and we give it more responsibilities with each successful operation. They are similar to the employee who always comes through for us when we ask them to do anything, so we go back to them every time. If you're asked to do something once, it's a favor, twice it's your job, or in the case of the U.S. military, it's your mission. Once it becomes a military mission, it requires funding, personnel, and training. The machine feeds off its successes and grows to meet future developments. It isn't a traditional self-licking ice cream cone conundrum, but it is a perpetuating cycle of success that drives consumption of requirements and guarantees itself more missions. Some of these "emerging missions" are better suited to political, rather than military forces. To effectively guarantee our own secure future, the U.S. must shift focus in policy and action to other branches of the government. Specifically, it must "elevate diplomacy and development alongside defense," as U.S. Secretary of State Hilary Clinton continues to emphasize. The State Department must take the lead in U.S. Foreign Affairs.

A Profound Foreign Affairs Paradigm Shift

The State Department must be authorized to organize, train, equip, and recruit on a massive scale, i.e., on a scale equivalent to the military arm. State must take the lead in international disaster relief, development, and assistance.

We have a military-first approach to our response to natural disasters. In President Obama's official statement on the earthquake and devastating tsunami in Japan, he said, "We currently have an aircraft carrier [group] in Japan, and another is on its way." It's assumed intuitively by the American public that a carrier brings relief operations to the stricken area, but the rest of the world doesn't see it that way. Considering that we have between 40,000 and 50,000 military personnel and their families living in Japan, these actions arguably appear imperialistic to most of the world. It isn't obvious to them why we might send a carrier to augment that force. Certainly, it isn't common knowledge that a carrier group brings hundreds of emergency first responders and a forward...