natural resource and provides situational
awareness for security missions.
The current NSS, QDR, and NMS all call for action
on energy and climate (2010; 2010; 2011). However,
these mandates do not make natural resource and en-
vironmental security considerations a priority despite
increased mention in national intelligence and future
threat analyses. The current means of engaging frag-
ile states also views the “haphazard and stove-piped”
approaches prompting the suggestion the United
States “needs to make fragile states a higher priority
in the hierarchy of national security concerns, com-
parable to such issues as the proliferation of weapons
of mass destruction, climate change, and energy self-
sufficiency” (Baker 2010, 69, 72).
The first recommendation is U.S. security policies
and strategies integrate natural resource, environ-
mental security, and related fragility considerations.
While U.S. policy and strategies already emphasize
the need for the United States to exercise smart power,
the DOD, Department of State, USAID, and other USG
agencies require more effective incentives and resourc-
ing options. A key principle of war is “unity of effort”
and 21st century security, sustainability, transition and
reconstruction (SSTR), as well as conflict prevention,
missions require coordinated action across and with
the USG interactions as part of regional and interna-
tional security organizations.
The second recommended action is to expand in-
teragency coordination frameworks, such as ICAF de-
veloped initially for SSTR operations, and align these
mechanisms to incentivize and leverage joint actions
via programs, such as the USG Global Security Con-
tingency Fund.^9
- FY2012 budget request was submitted to establish a
Global Security Contingency Fund focused on better integrating
DOD and Department of State resources to collaboratively ad-
dress security challenges.