CORRUPTION IN CONFLICT

10. The State Department should place a high priority on reporting
on corruption and how it threatens core U.S. interests, consistent
with new anticorruption initiatives by the department and
recommendations in the 2015 Quadrennial Diplomacy and
Development Review (QDDR). Such reporting should:
• Present detailed analyses of underlying social, economic, and
political factors that facilitate or drive corruption within the
host nation.
• Describe the links between host government officials and
corruption, criminality, trafficking, and terrorism.
• Assess points of leverage that could most effectively prevent or
counter corrupt behavior.
• Include information derived from contact with civil society and
the media.
• Be distributed widely among other relevant U.S. agencies.
11. DOD, State, USAID, Treasury, Justice, and the Intelligence
Community should increase anticorruption expertise to enable
more effective strategies, practices, and programs in contingency
operations. Agencies should:
• Promote awareness of the impact of corruption among mid- and
high-ranking officials by providing more extensive and specific
training. At a minimum, this training should occur in professional
education for senior officers, such as DOD’s Capstone and Pinnacle
leadership courses, and training for ambassadors, deputy chiefs
of mission, and senior intelligence professionals. Similar training
for mid-level military officers, senior enlisted personnel, and midcareer
civilians should also be considered.
• Develop and introduce at the national war colleges a separate
course on corruption, its implications for U.S. foreign policy and
national security, and effective anticorruption efforts.
• Offer a similar course on corruption and anticorruption at
State’s Foreign Service Institute during key professional
development milestones.
• Include anticorruption instruction in pre-deployment training for
military and civilian personnel en route to conflict zones.
86
SIGAR I CORRUPTION IN CONFLICT I SEPTEMBER 2016