ISIS War Generals to Congress: We Need the State Department

Gen. Joseph Votel, commander, U.S. Central Command, told Congress that the U.S. needs to use "a combination of all of our elements of power — hard power and soft power."

U.S. Army Sgt. First Class Clydell Kinchen

AA Font size + Print

Gen. Joseph Votel, commander, U.S. Central Command, told Congress that the U.S. needs to use "a combination of all of our elements of power — hard power and soft power."

One week after Trump proposed shifting billions from the State Department to the Pentagon, two of the top U.S. generals in the Middle East and Africa say they need diplomatic help.

If President Donald Trump wants to “start winning wars again,” he would do well to fund the State Department’s non-military work in the Middle East and Africa and plan for long-term political solutions, the two top U.S. commanders leading the fight against the Islamic State and other terrorist groups those regions told Congress .

One week after Trump released his first budget request — which would shift $54 billion to the Pentagon’s budget next year with a commensurate slash in foreign aid and domestic non-defense spending — Gen. Joseph Votel, commander of U.S. Central Command, and Gen. Thomas Waldhauser, of U.S. Africa Command, offered a robust defense of soft power engagement before the Senate Armed Services Committee.

“We could knock off all the ISIL and Boko Haram this afternoon; but by the end of the week, so to speak, those ranks would be filled,” said Waldhauser, in a Thursday hearing. “Many people, especially those in uniform, have said we can’t kill our way to victory here.”

“The short answer is no, we cannot [win the war without soft power],” he said.

Since releasing his budget request for fiscal year 2018, Trump has pledged to “totally obliterate” ISIS,  and said “we don’t fight to win,” and “we have to start winning wars again.”  But in the hearing today and in other public remarks senior U.S. generals have said the same thing previous top war commanders have said for many years about fighting terrorism — they believe that success  requires more than a quick military campaign.

“A solely military response is not sufficient,” Votel said in his written testimony. “We want to increasingly involve other elements of the U.S. government and the international community, recognizing that it is only through a combination of capabilities that we will achieve and sustain our strongest deterrence posture.”

It’s not a new development that senior military officials want Washington to increase counterterrorism spending at the State Department and U.S. Agency for International Development. To help speed President Barack Obama’s counter-insurgency strategy in Iraq and Afghanistan, then-Defense Sec. Robert Gates and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton urged non-defense funding increases at various levels that never came, from either the White House or Congress. Gates even offered to call up reservists in civilian clothing to handle non-combat roles like agricultural planning and construction, but the idea never moved forward.    

Related:Want to Win Wars? Fund Soft Power, Trump’s Generals Say

Trump has billed his proposal a “national security budget,” promising that it would “rebuild” the military and equip the services with thousands of additional troops and new planes, ships, and equipment.

“This defense spending increase will be offset and paid for by finding greater savings and efficiencies across the federal government,” the president said while introducing his budget before the National Governor’s Association, in February. “We’re going to do more with less.”

But Votel and Waldhauser’s remarks — and the senators’ questions that elicited them — highlight the difficulties Trump’s proposed budget will have on Capitol Hill. Sen. Jack Reed, D-R.I., the committee’s ranking member, and new-addition Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., both emphasized the importance of soft power in their allotted time.

“There’s a big debate going on right now, as you know, about military spending and, of course, we need a strong military, but the military is not the only element of our national security strategy,” Warren said before asking Votel and Waldhauser if they thought State Department and other civilian agencies were “a waste of time and taxpayer money?”

Votel’s response: “I do not, Senator.”

When Trump first announced his budget in February, Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., said the cuts were a “poison pill” for Democrats.

Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., who also chairs the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Foreign Operations, said last month that Trump’s budget is “dead on arrival.”  

Graham’s appropriations subcommittee hosted a hearing earlier this week with eastern and central European diplomats where he called for a soft power fund to help allies counter Russian interference. He beat the soft power drum again in today’s hearing, this time in relation to another adversary.

“Any budget that we pass that guts the State Department, we’ll never win this war,” Graham said in today’s hearing. “In fact, ISIL will be celebrating.”

Close [ x ] More from DefenseOne

Thank you for subscribing to newsletters from
We think these reports might interest you:

  • Software-Defined Networking

    So many demands are being placed on federal information technology networks, which must handle vast amounts of data, accommodate voice and video, and cope with a multitude of highly connected devices while keeping government information secure from cyber threats. This issue brief discusses the state of SDN in the federal government and the path forward.

  • Military Readiness: Ensuring Readiness with Analytic Insight

    To determine military readiness, decision makers in defense organizations must develop an understanding of complex inter-relationships among readiness variables. For example, how will an anticipated change in a readiness input really impact readiness at the unit level and, equally important, how will it impact readiness outside of the unit? Learn how to form a more sophisticated and accurate understanding of readiness and make decisions in a timely and cost-effective manner.

  • Cyber Risk Report: Cybercrime Trends from 2016

    In our first half 2016 cyber trends report, SurfWatch Labs threat intelligence analysts noted one key theme – the interconnected nature of cybercrime – and the second half of the year saw organizations continuing to struggle with that reality. The number of potential cyber threats, the pool of already compromised information, and the ease of finding increasingly sophisticated cybercriminal tools continued to snowball throughout the year.

  • A New Security Architecture for Federal Networks

    Federal government networks are under constant attack, and the number of those attacks is increasing. This issue brief discusses today's threats and a new model for the future.

  • Information Operations: Retaking the High Ground

    Today's threats are fluent in rapidly evolving areas of the Internet, especially social media. Learn how military organizations can secure an advantage in this developing arena.


When you download a report, your information may be shared with the underwriters of that document.