The State Department is giving the Pakistan Counterinsurgency Capability Fund (PCCF) back to the Pentagon for the rest of the year, as part of the budget deal struck between Congress and the administration to avert a government shutdown.

The budget deal took $8.5 billion away from the State Department and foreign operations for the remainder of fiscal 2011. The administration had requested $1.2 billion in the State Department's budget for PCCF this year, but the new budget deal cuts that request by $400 million and transfers the remaining $800 to the Defense Department, under what DOD calls the Pakistani Counterinsurgency Fund (PCF).

The Pentagon was in fact the original owner of that fund. But transferring the money as well as the program's management to Foggy Bottom was a key part of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's plan to assert more State Department control of foreign military assistance programs.

The State Department may have agreed to give up the fund out of convenience. By moving the remaining $800 million of PCCF funding back to DOD, State managed to remove about 10 percent of the total $8.5 billion in budget cuts, thereby saving several other programs.

For next year's budget, State has requested $1.0 billion for PCCF, but nobody knows whether or not that money will be given to State or DOD. State perhaps has a better chance of keeping the PCCF money in fiscal 2012, as opposed to fiscal 2011, because next year the money is being requested as emergency war funding and therefore does not have to fit under the regular budget limits.

Overall, the PCCF funding is one piece of a larger puzzle in which State is competing with DOD for authorities and programs that both have a role in. If the PCCF funding is any indication, these decisions are now largely being made to fit budget realities, and are less a result of considerations over which agency is best suited to manage which issue.

"It looks like the transfer of responsibility for Pakistan counterinsurgency programs from DOD to State, which the Congress wanted to do, has been delayed," said Gordon Adams, former Office of Management and Budget director for national security spending, now a professor at American University. "Could be it was easier to fund the program this way, which sets a bad precedent for the future."

 

TIWLSON

12:15 AM ET

April 14, 2011

To defend the budget or territory?

This post raises a great point, and one that will become increasingly important for State if budget cuts continue to target State and foreign affairs budgets - something very possible under the GOP's, sorry, Paul Ryan's budget.

The trend in cuts, among other things, seems to undervalue our global presence, or at least the department best able to advance our interests globally. It will put pressure on our foreign aid and assistance programs, and on State's core operating budget.

While the deal to move funding for Pakistan back under DoD takes some pressure off of State in the near term, it sets a precedent for State hoping that its and DoD's aims, ideas, etc are headed in the same direction.

It would be a neat trick to use DoD - which doesn't really seem to be at threat for budget cuts - as a cover for State funding. A $4 to $6 billion increase to the defense budget wouldn't raise too many eyebrows, but would be a massive boost to State's budget. State would then just have to surrender control to defense.

Seems like the US is bound for an ongoing debate between the merits of military and diplomatic power, whether it goes on in the broad public sphere or in the weeds of budget horse trading.

Thanks for bringing these kind of stories to light.

 

John Hudson reports on national security and foreign policy from the Pentagon to Foggy Bottom, the White House to Embassy Row, for The Cable.

Enter your email address to get The Cable delivered to your inbox each night:

Delivered by FeedBurner