Thanks to a reader for bringing this one to my attention:

Defense Dept. Seeks More Aid Capability

By Bradley Graham

Washington Post Staff Writer

Saturday, October 29, 2005; A18

In the autumn of 2001, when U.S. officials were feverishly trying to enlist other nations in the newly declared war on terrorism, President Bush promised the republic of Georgia critical assistance in training and equipping Georgian troops.

Nearly eight months passed, however, before the administration could sort out U.S. legal provisions and begin the project.

Now that episode is frequently cited by Pentagon officials still trying to dispatch military assistance to other countries more quickly and more extensively. Having repeatedly stressed the need to build "partnership capacity" in Africa and other underdeveloped regions as a bulwark against international terrorism, defense officials complain of a lack of legislation and a dearth of resources to carry out the mission.

To address the problem, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld is pressing Congress to grant the Pentagon new authority -- and contingency funds totaling $750 million -- to bolster counterterrorism, border security and law enforcement forces in other nations.

But the proposal has run into resistance from lawmakers worried about vesting such military assistance powers in the Pentagon rather than in the State Department, where they have traditionally resided. The argument for keeping such authority with State, advocates say, is that it ensures the military programs remain in step with U.S. foreign policy.

Among key senators still wary of Rumsfeld's initiative is Richard G. Lugar (R-Ind.), who chairs the Foreign Relations Committee. "He has expressed strong concerns that are widely shared in Congress about foreign assistance programs being run by somewhere other than the State Department," an aide to Lugar said.

Significantly, the State Department, which had been cool to the Pentagon proposal, recently threw its support behind it. The shift, according to State Department officials, came after Condoleezza Rice replaced Colin L. Powell as secretary of state and agreed during the summer to co-sign a previously unpublicized letter with Rumsfeld urging congressional approval.

Aides to Rice said she overruled lower-ranking staff members who cautioned against expanding the Pentagon's powers and said that existing laws provide sufficient leeway.

"There are some in the bureaucracy who think you could get the same effect without new legislation," a senior State Department official said. "But we will certainly line up behind the secretary and carry out whatever it is she wants us to."

In a larger context, Rice's change in direction for the department on this issue is cited by some current and former administration insiders as representative of a smoothing of the stormy relations between the State Department and the Pentagon during Bush's first term.

A number of outside observers have attributed this reduced tension to the departure this year of such controversial senior Pentagon officials as former deputy defense secretary Paul D. Wolfowitz and former defense policy chief Douglas J. Feith. But Feith and others credit the change in climate to Powell and his deputy, Richard L. Armitage, stepping down . . ..

Rest of story details the other half of swap: State would get $200 million for Carlos Pasquel's State office on postconflict stabilization.

To me, watching these baby steps on budget swaps: they signal the natural desire of both sides to renegotiate their poor bilateral relationship on this issue of postconflict stabilization and reconstruction ops. This is right and good. It shows that the SysAdmin function is essentially shared by both and owned by neither.

We will see many such swaps and new offices and new bilateral ties in the future, giving me more hope that the SysAdmin function will be grown not just in Defense (which it must naturally arise given the bodies and bucks) but in State more and more (USAID is a natural player in this).

None of this will be easy, and we must expect more failures to drive even more reform and change over time, but we will improve the SysAdmin role because we have no choice.

On the problems between State and Defense: I do believe Powell's reign was a disaster for State, so Rice can only do better. But there is no secret that Wolfowitz and Feith were also disasters for Defense. Reforms there, most will tell you, happened DESPITE their time in power. And if either had come close to doing their job well, Iraq wouldn't be the mess it is today.

And yet that mess drives these reforms and new relationships, so some good always comes with even the worse bads.