Veteran: Cutting civilian forces makes us less safe

• The White House has proposed reducing civilian forces to levels not seen since the time of 9/11.
• Marjorie K. Eastman of Nashville served in the U.S. Army Reserve for 10 years following 9/11.

After 10 years of military service and two combat deployments, I don’t scare easily. It’s rare that I find myself alarmed by the latest headlines coming out of Washington. But that’s exactly how I felt after the administration’s proposal to slash funding to the State Department and U.S. Agency for International Development by 32 percent — an unthinkably dangerous cut given the growing crises around the world.

And more than 120 retired three and four-star generals agree. In a letter to Congress, they shared their conviction that strategic investments in diplomacy and development — alongside defense — are critical to our national security. For many Americans, it may have come as a surprise to see these high-ranking military leaders step forward as staunch defenders of our civilian-led tools of foreign policy. But as a former intelligence officer and commander in the United States Army Reserve, I wasn’t surprised at all.

Anyone who has served our country on the frontlines understands that the military alone cannot keep us safe. Our soldiers need strong civilian partners to keep pace with the threats we face today. By forging alliances, stabilizing countries and empowering people with the tools they need to lift themselves out of poverty, our diplomats and development workers not only change lives, they advance America’s security and economic interests. When countries are stable and people have access to basic necessities — like food and water, healthcare, and an education — we reduce conflicts and extremist groups are less likely to gain a foothold.

In Afghanistan, where I was stationed for one of my two deployments, our civilian partners were essential to the mission. Working alongside our servicemen and women, they have helped increase the number of kids in school by nearly 60 percent and have supported the creation of more than 358,000 agricultural jobs — giving Afghans a way to support their families that doesn’t involve illegal poppy production. By doing so, they have helped eliminate some of the underlying conditions that make recruitment easier for terrorist groups, a key component in our fight against violent extremism.

Beyond Afghanistan — in places like Nigeria — programs made possible by American foreign assistance are working to prevent the spread of violent extremism and avoid the need for boots on the ground in the first place. We should never send our troops into harm’s way if we have other options, which is why civilian-led programs that can save lives and dollars by avoiding the need for costlier military inventions in the future are invaluable.

And yet, the administration has proposed rolling back funding for our civilian forces to levels that have not been seen since the time of 9/11 — before the wars in Iraq or Afghanistan, before the rise of ISIS, and before we were faced with the largest refugee crises since World War II. Now is not the time to retreat.

My post 9/11 generation has had a remarkable cast of defense leaders who fully understand how we succeed on and off the battlefield — that it takes more than Tomahawk missiles. 

That’s why I urge Sen. Bob Corker and Lamar Alexander, Rep. Diane Black, and the rest of the Tennessee congressional delegation to maintain current funding levels for the International Affairs Budget. Anything less puts our nation and our service members at risk.

Marjorie K. Eastman served in the United States Army Reserve for 10 years following 9/11, which included deployments in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom, Afghanistan. She is the acclaimed author of "The Frontline Generation: How We Served Post 9/11" and is a member of the U.S. Global Leadership Coalition’s Veterans for Smart Power Network.