Ernest Graves
The State Department focuses most intensely on the political effects that could be
achieved because their preoccupation is the decisions, the political decisions that are
made by the leadership in friendly countries. I guess to put it another way, if a president
or king or whatever in this other country decides that he's a friend of the United States,
that's the most critical thing in terms of conducting diplomacy.
The Defense Department is more interested in our defense posture and perhaps tends
to take for granted that these countries will be our allies. I don't mean that they don't
concern themselves with the attitudes. But they figure that country X has been an ally
of the United States for a long time. They see that that country's interests are aligned
with ours. Therefore, if there is a conflict, we ought to be able to count on the
cooperation of that country.
So the DOD is more interested in the mechanics: what is the quality of the armed forces
in these countries, what bases have we got? In other words, how, physically, do you get
yourself in a stronger posture?
The State Department tends to take for granted that that can be done anytime. The
important thing is to be sure that you have the politics lined up right.
This spills over into the practicalities of it because the Defense Department is trying to
design an efficient program. The State Department is trying to be sure that the foreign
government is happy with the program. They're not always so concerned about whether
it's efficient or not, as long as the foreign government is content with it.
When the Defense Department says we shouldn't supply them these weapons because
the state of training and sophistication there is such that they'll never make any use of
this stuff, it will just sit around or be broken, the State Department tends to take the
attitude, "That's not all that important. If they want it, let's give it to them and then we
can count on them to conduct themselves in a way that will serve our mutual interests."
Q:
That creates cases in which the State Department becomes the advocate of transfers.
A:
Very often, or most often, the State Department has been more positive on the program
than the Defense Department because they see it as a response, a political response, in
the relationship. Whereas the Defense Department thinks, "Why are we spending
hundreds of millions of dollars on this stuff when we should be trying to get the most
defense for our money?"
Q:
So what does that do to relations?
205
Previous Page
