From the Washington Post is : Gates Warns of Militarized Policy

Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates warned yesterday against the risk of a "creeping militarization" of U.S. foreign policy, saying the State Department should lead U.S. engagement with other countries, with the military playing a supporting role.

"We cannot kill or capture our way to victory" in the long-term campaign against terrorism, Gates said, arguing that military action should be subordinate to political and economic efforts to undermine extremism. …

"America’s civilian institutions of diplomacy and development have been chronically undermanned and underfunded for far too long — relative to what we traditionally spend on the military, and more importantly, relative to the responsibilities and challenges our nation has around the world," Gates said at a dinner organized by the U.S. Global Leadership Campaign, according to prepared remarks of his speech.

Over the next 20 years, Gates predicted, "the most persistent and potentially dangerous threats will come less from emerging ambitious states, than from failing ones that cannot meet the basic needs — much less the aspirations — of their people."

In brief, Yes.  Absolutely agreed.  Question: why is it the military who seems to be the public proponent of increasing America’s capacity in non-military engagement?

See also:

• Stop saying “Hearts and Minds”, you don’t mean it
• From the U.S. Advisory Commission on Public Diplomacy: no one in PD conducts PD overseas
• American Progress: Build a National Consensus on Development and Dump Smith-Mundt (follow up here)
• What would you do if you had six (or less) months to address the problems of U.S. Public Diplomacy?
• The actual wording of Public Law 402, aka the Smith-Mundt Act
• In-sourcing the Tools of National Power for Success and Security
• Synchronizing Information: The Importance of New Media in Conflict
• Not Afraid to Talk: our adversaries aren’t, why are we?
• Setting a new course for U.S. Public Diplomacy?