Diplomats v. Generals-It's Not Just a Matter of Style

I've been citing Josh Rogin over at The Cable a lot as I write about the turf division between State and Defense. And he makes the excellent point today, writing about the Iraqi elections, that the differences between diplomats and the military aren't merely a matter of staffing, or resources, though those differences exist as well. Some of the differences in approach are philosophical:

The clashing approaches speak to both the institutional culture of the two organizations and their different view of U.S. priorities and interests during this critical time of pullback in the U.S. presence in Iraq, the sources said. "State has a respect for sovereignty and institutional relations," one official explained. "DOD is much more activist and hands on in pretty much every area. Their attitude is if there's a problem you get in there and do what you can to fix it."

I'd be curious to hear Rogin's thoughts on the extent to which those philosophies stem from resource challenges: does State take a more limited approach because there are limits on what they have to work with? I can't imagine that's the only reason, but practical considerations do tend to impact philosophical ones. And while it's healthy to have a clash of policy ideas within an administration, how do you ultimately resolve them, not simply in the sense that the president picks a strategy, but to get to a point where the military and the diplomats are working seamlessly together?