Report: National security agencies have failed in Iraq, Afghanistan

America's national security institutions have failed and the military has been left holding the bag in places such as Iraq and Afghanistan, conducting nation-building tasks for which it is ill-suited, according to the final report of a House Armed Services Committee panel established in 2007 to examine military roles and missions.

The panel looked beyond the military and examined the national security missions of the various intelligence agencies, State Department, National Security Council and other organizations. The effort was prompted by nation-building efforts in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere, which have forced the services to assume missions that are not core responsibilities, said the report, which was released on March 7.

Meanwhile, the panel said, the military remains too focused on traditional challenges such as wars between nation states, and does not adequately respond to 21st century security challenges such as global terrorism or insurgent movements in failed states.

The panel's report did not recommend any specific changes to service roles and missions. Rather, it was a collection of short essays designed to "provoke thoughtful public discussion" on pressing national security issues, said the panel's chairman, Rep. Jim Cooper, D-Tenn.

Lawmakers included language in the 2008 Defense authorization bill that required the Pentagon to undertake a review of roles and missions every four years. With national security institutions struggling to adapt to new challenges, panel members were compelled to act because "no visible military champion of change has emerged" from within the defense establishment, the report said. "Our military has resisted change just as they have past efforts at reform."

The congressionally mandated review was intended to highlight the military's core mission areas and to identify the ones for which the services are not ideally organized, trained or equipped. Charged with finding capability gaps as well as duplication of effort among the services, the secretary of Defense will provide a report to Congress before lawmakers debate the 2009 Defense budget.

The military's current structure was established during the Truman administration, said Armed Services Committee Chairman Ike Skelton, D-Mo, in a news release that accompanied the report. "While that may have been the proper framework 60 years ago, we must ensure that today's military is organized to protect America's national security in the face of 21st century threats."

Nation-building missions in Iraq and Afghanistan have stretched the military, and civilian agencies must contribute more personnel and resources, according to the report. The State Department, it noted, has gone from "a world of genteel diplomacy" to demanding volunteers to staff provincial reconstruction teams.

The panel divided its effort among three levels. It examined interagency problems with coordination of nation-building, the formation of Africa Command, and the use of American soft power such as economic aid and diplomacy. Another focus was the Pentagon's ongoing procurement and management challenges that have resulted in an "escalating spiral" of "cost growth and schedule delays."

The panel also studied interservice rivalry over who controls airlift and aerial drones. The report said each service developed its own drones, which closely resembled each other but were incompatible. The Air Force used rated pilots to fly its drones, while the Army designed its drones to be simple enough that an enlisted technician with minimal training could operate them, the panel said.

Committee member Phil Gingrey, R-Ga., said the panel's discussions during the past six months raised contentious issues and its members "resisted the temptation to find easy, lowest-common-denominator solutions."