U.S. Diplomacy

If you are a member of Senator McCain or Senator Obama’s cadre of campaign advisers, a former US Ambassador, or even a mere foreign policy expert, you are one busy guy/gal right now. Washington is brimming with events with titles like “US Foreign Policy in the Next Presidential Administration: What Will Go Down?” or “President McCain/Obama: What’s the Foreign Policy Plan, Stan?”

Here’s a list of a few examples:

Last week the Partnership for a Secure America, a Washington-based campaign dedicated to “recreating the bipartisan center in American national security and foreign policy” brought together some distinguished foreign policy practitioners/campaign adviser for an event titled “A Bipartisan Foreign Policy for January 2009.”

Former Ambassador Tom Pickering, for Regan adviser Bud Mcfarlane, and CSIS fellow Rick Barton came together to opine about the kinds of foreign policies the next president could enact with support from both sides of the aisle.

To watch all of the sections of the event, click here. Ambassador Pickering’s remarks, in which he enumerated the many foreign policy problems the next President will have to face, can be viewed below.

The Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, a center/left-leaning think tank in Washington, has launched an initiative dedicated to this issue, titled “Foreign Policy for the Next President.” The initiative includes a series of policy briefs and events that bringing out the usual suspects—presidential campaign advisers, former Ambassadors and the like.

To view an excellent event Carnegie hosted debating Senator MacCain’s dream of establishing a “League of Democracies” under his presidential watch, click here.

The Cato Institute, a libertarian think thank based in Washington, hosted a discussion of a new book on America can exercise its “Smart Power” in the next administration. One of the discussions I enjoyed attending was hosted by American University, WAMU (NPR’s Washington affiliate) and American Public Media back in April. It gathered a Clinton, Omaba and McCain adviser to speak about how the next President can improve the US’ image abroad.

Coming up on Monday, the Center for American Progress, a left-leaning think tank in Washington, will be hosting “McCain University.” This event discusses all aspects of the Senator’s campaign platform, with an afternoon session investigating his foreign policy ideas.

The US Global Leadership Campaign, a “broad based, nationwide coalition of businesses, NGOs, and community leaders that advocates for a strong U.S. International Affairs Budget,” will host an event focusing on foreign policy and the next Presidential administration in Washington in July. These are just a sampling of events I have come across. No doubt this issue is being discussed outside the beltway by a variety of different stakeholders. If you come across any events that you think we would be interested in learning about, please post them in the comments section.

Lastly, I thought I would point out a great online resource aimed at generating a global discussion about the foreign policies that can be implemented “On Day One” of the next presidential administration. The the On Day One campaign was launched by the Better World Fund, a campaign to strengthen US-UN relations.

 (US Embassy photo)

The US Center for Global Engagement reports that Congress has been making headway in a discussion about how improving how to improve the process by which the US doles out aid money to foreign countries. The Center recently published this review noting Congress’s recent action. The review states:

“A wide range of national security and foreign policy experts, academics, think tanks and now Members of Congress are looking at ways to elevate development and modernize America’s foreign assistance. After the release of several reports concluding that U.S. foreign assistance needs to be more robust and better coordinated, Members of Congress are beginning to add their voice to the debate.

Rep. Howard Berman (D-CA), Chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, has indicated that next year the committee will take up reauthorization of the 1961 Foreign Assistance Act.  His counterpart, Senate Foreign Relations Chairman Joseph Biden (D-DE), is also interested in pursuing this matter.

Reps. Betty McCollum (D-MN) and Christopher Shays (R-CT) are planning to introduce a resolution in Congress recognizing the importance of modernizing the U.S. Government’s foreign assistance capability and calling for a concerted effort by Congress to address this issue.  Together, all agree on the need for greater investments in foreign assistance and a modernized aid structure to more effectively address the complex global challenges of the 21st century.

Over the last six months, three significant reports on modernizing U.S. foreign assistance have been released. More than 55 foreign policy experts from a broad range of backgrounds contributed to the Lugar Report, Smart Power Committee Report and the HELP Commission Report, and reflect a growing, bipartisan consensus among policy makers, echoed recently by Defense Secretary Robert Gates, that global development and diplomacy must play an integral role in our nation’s foreign policy and national security strategy.

All three reports come to one important conclusion – the need to elevate U.S. foreign assistance as a strategic tool for the United States.  Additionally, all three reports:

• Recommend increased funding for the International Affairs Budget;
• Propose new structures for administering and delivering foreign aid;
• Identify the need to increase the civilian capacity the agencies involved in U.S. foreign assistance; and
• Recognize the need for more strategic coordination and a better balance between civilian and military engagement overseas.”

This article published on OneWorld also reviews recent action by Congress to revamp US assistance efforts.

Indeed attention on this issue continues. Yesterday, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee’s Subcommittee on International Development and Foreign Assistance, Economic Affairs, and International Environmental Protection held a two-panel hearing on policy options for US Disaster Assistance . It included testimony from USAIS’s Deputy Acting Administrator,  Principal Deputy Assistant Secretaryof the State Department’s Bureau of International Organization Affairs. The second panel included testimony by representatives from the UN, International Crisis Group, and Council on Foreign Relations.

The Los Angeles Times has begun publishing a series of opinion pieces from US aid experts on how the US can use food aid as a tool for diplomacy. The first installment “Feed to Lead,” authored by the Bookings Institution’s Lael Brainard and Noam Unger, argues:

“As favorable opinions of the U.S. have suffered in recent years — an issue reflected in commentary on these pages — we must refashion the image we present to the world by retooling the way we seek to influence it. Our consciences, our hearts, and our faith demand that we tackle deprivation because it is the right thing to do. But our assistance does more than help the poor gain access to shelter, medicine, sustenance, education, and opportunity, and it certainly does more than make Americans feel good: it also makes the world feel good about America. When the United States leads in helping lift the lives of the poor, we enhance our own influence and authority in the world community — building support for U.S. interests in other areas. ”

Career Foreign Service Officer James DeHart discusses whether the diplomatic corps have become too militarized in an op-ed in the Washington Posttoday.

Noting the large numbers of diplomats who have volunteered for war-zone appointments in Afghanistan and Iraq, DeHart says:

“This surge in war-zone assignments is an extension of the “transformational diplomacy” for which Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice called in a 2006 speech at Georgetown UniversityShe said then that Foreign Service officers must learn to partner more directly with the military. True, no doubt, but as they have done so, these new ties have raised fears that diplomacy itself is becoming militarized.”

DeHart queries: “…While expertise in military affairs is a good thing, should it overshadow all else in a world of shifting challenges — climate change, energy security and the threat of global pandemics, to name just a few? As China buys up U.S. debt by the billions, let’s hope that some U.S. diplomats are reading the Financial Times and not just Sun Tzu.

Today, we’re seeing not only transformational diplomacy but also the transformation of diplomacy. Foreign Service officers emerging from war zones are in many cases being promoted ahead of their peers. This is understandable, but as they rise up the chain and gain a bigger say in future personnel decisions, the practitioners of more “traditional” diplomacy may find themselves relegated to an even slower track.”

He predicts: “As a bumper sticker, transformational diplomacy is bound to be peeled away by the next administration. But as a set of ideas, it’s here to stay. Foreign Service officers have always been the first to say that they can’t be cooped up in foreign ministries or fortress embassies — that they need to be out on the street, engaging with diverse communities.

Here’s a startling statistic: “In recent years, the number of Foreign Service assignments categorized as “unaccompanied” — that is, too dangerous for families — has surged from 200 to 900. If the trend continues, new recruits may no longer view the Foreign Service as a career but as something to do for a few years before settling down to real life — a bit like the Peace Corps, minus the peace. In a recent survey by the American Foreign Service Association, 44 percent of active Foreign Service officers said that “developments in the last few years” have made it less likely that they will remain in the Foreign Service for a full career.”

He concludes: “A Foreign Service that knows its strengths and conducts diplomacy without apology will be locked and loaded to advance America’s place in the world.”

Well said. It is important to recognize these transformations occurring in the nature of US’ diplomacy. I do hope DeHart is wrong in suggesting that the State Department might react to the upsurge in military posts by measuring new Foreign Service Officers against the military’s yard-stick. While the military and our diplomatic corps must work together, one needn’t morph into the other.

The Center for U.S. Global Engagement, a Washington-based group that seeks to strengthen America’s commitment to global engagement, has launched a new web-based talk show about global issues called “The Global Wire.”

So far the show has hosted Senator Chuck Hagel (R-NE), member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright. Aside from discussing current US foreign policy both statesmen were on the show to promote their new books; Hagel’s Tough Questions, Straight Answers, and Albright’s Memo to the President Elect: How We Can Restore America’s Reputation and Leadership.

In Albright’s interview she emphasized that in order to get the US out of the “mess” it finds itself in it “has to be engaged internationally, that we don’t have the luxury of kind of pulling up the moat, and bridge, and really being behind our borders, and that we have to be fully engaged, but not unilaterally.”

To her engagement means: “…talking to everybody. Understanding what their national interest is, listening, and so it does not mean military invasion or just the use of the military power… Engaging means that you in fact listen and really understand what’s going on in other countries to see how their national interest works for ours.”

So that means Albright advocates talking to Iran: “Iran, I would say talk to them. Dialogue with Iran, and understand that dialogue is not always just being sweet and nice, but understanding again what is, understanding a very complex society of Iran.

Albright also discussed the politics of foreign aid, fighting poverty, the empowerment of women and other key issues in US foreign policy.

Looks like the Global Wire is a webpage worth keeping an eye on.

The Washington, DC-based Brookings Institute and the University of Bern’s Project on on Internal Displacement has released an interesting report focusing on how to fuse human rights with US foreign policy. The author is Roberta Cohen, who, among her impressive credentials in the field of human rights, was Deputy Assistant Secretary for Human Rights at the Department of State and Senior Adviser to US Delegation to the UN.

Here’s her main premise:  

“…What the United States is known and appreciated for around the world is not just its strong economy and military capability. It is its democratic way of life and commitment to the observance of human rights. Our nation defines itself by the Constitution and Bill of Rights, the ending of slavery and segregation, the promotion of equal rights for women, the struggle to end racial and minority discrimination, and the defense of free speech, press, and civil liberties. In its dealings with foreign governments and countries, it must necessarily reflect this identity. Whether it is well expressed will depend upon the nature and strength of its human rights policy and the dedication and skill of its diplomatic corps in the implementation of this policy.”

Cohen identifies three challenges to injecting a regard for human rights into US foreign policy.

The first challenge is “how to address human rights and democracy without unduly straining relations with governments and undermining overall US foreign policy.” The US relationship with Pakistan is a prime example. The report queries: “Will the overthrow of Musharraf produce an extremist Islamic government hostile to the US as in Iran? Or will it lead to a more democratic alternative, as in Chile, the Philippines and South Korea?”

The second challenge is “dealing with competing priorities, that is, the political, military and economic interests that conflict with action on human rights.” More often than not, these types of interests override action on human rights. For example during the Reagan Administration, the author says “strategic interests overshadowed human rights concerns with South Africa, and a policy of ‘constructive engagement’ was introduced to gain South Africa’s cooperation in reducing Soviet and Cuban influence in southern Africa.” A more current example can be found in the use of torture to get intelligence that could be used to fight the war on terror.

Finally, Cohen notes that “the intelligence community often pursues policies at variance with a human rights policy.” In sum, there is a trade off between foreign policy implementation and prudent practice of human rights policy. Based on Cohen’s historical observations it doesn’t appear that any Presidential administration has quite hit the nail on the head in regards to human rights.

The Kojo Nnamdi show, an NPR station based in Washington, DC, hosted a group of foreign policy experts and practitioners in a discussion about the future of the US Foreign Service (FS). (Listen to the show).

All of Kojo’s guests pointed out that the central barrier to a bright future for the FS was the perpetual lack of funding from Congress.

Steven Kashkett, Vice President of the American Foreign Service Association, a lobby organization and labor union for members of the FS, emphasized that the staffing authorizations from Congress failed to suit the needs of the Foreign Service. Because of the lack of funding, the State Department just doesn’t have the people to do the job they need to do. Kojo mentioned that there are less diplomats employed in the FS than there are musicians employed by the Department of Defense.

The guests pointed out that, even when President Bush says he wants to provide the funding to double size of diplomatic corps in the next 10 years, it takes pressure from the Administration on Congress to get those funds fully appropriated. This pressure has not been forcefully applied.

A central issue to funding the FS is: How do you get Members of Congress to care about their needs? As Kashkett explained, “there is no natural constituency.”

Particularly damaging to funding requests is what the guests called a persistent image of US diplomats as “cookie-pushers,” or debutantes living a cushy life on the cocktail circuit. Kaskett emphasized: “Our diplomats have a hard life. Most of us don’t even own a tuxedo.”

Steven Kelly seconded that point. He pointed out that roughly 70% of US diplomats serving abroad are serving in what are called “hardship posts,” posts that present “unusually difficult or unhealthful conditions or severe physical hardships.” Kelly is now a member of the Senior Foreign Service, but when joined the FS in 1982 he said there were “no where near those numbers” of diplomats serving in hardship posts.On top of the lack of funding, former Ambassador and Brookings Institution Vice President Carlos Pascual pointed out that the tasks that the FS undertakes around the world have only gotten harder. Our increasingly interdependent world has changes in the nature of the threats we face. Pascual cited the example of the threats that emanate from failed states like Afghanistan, in addition to threats such as terrorism, nuclear proliferation, narco-traffickers. To confront these threats diplomats need to be on the frontline, and this is no longer in state capitols, the traditional geographic targets of FS operations.

Increasing the demands on the FS is their boss’ own mandate. Condoleezza Rice began her tenure as Secretary of State by declaring the goal of the US diplomatic corps to be none other than “transformational diplomacy,” a term that has come to mean that the FS should come to play a role in the inner workings of foreign societies—transforming totalitarian states into democracies, impoverished nations into productive, healthy societies, etc. As one of the guests pointed out, this type of diplomacy requires different kind of diplomatic skill set.

(Rice gives her “transformational diplomacy” speech January 2006 at Georgetown University.)

In sum, the future of the FS looks grim if it can’t get the funding it needs to perform its vital role as America’s “first line of defense.” And if you believe what you read in The Economist, the future of American foreign policy as a whole looks even grimmer. This article published last month argues that a new US President, despite his or her campaign promises, will create little actual change in the conduct of US foreign policy.

Perhaps, as Kojo’s distinguished guests suggest, it isn’t so much the President that is the barrier to a fully-resourced FS, rather it is the Congress. But perhaps the Congress doesn’t have the will to fund the FS because the people the represent do not press for such expenditures. It seems like the American people must also call for a change if we are to ensure a brighter future for the US Foreign Service.

A new poll conducted for the BBC World Service by the Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) and the international polling firm GlobeScan shows that for the first time since 2005, global views of the United States have improved.

But they’re still not what you would call “good.”

From the study’s report: “While views of US influence in the world are still predominantly negative, they have improved in 11 of the 23 countries the BBC polled a year ago, while worsening in just three countries.

The average percentage saying that the is having a positive influence has increased from 31 per cent a year ago to 35 per cent today while the view that it is having a negative influence has declined from 52 per cent to 47 per cent.

Looking just at the countries that have been polled in each of the last four years, positive views of the US eroded from 2005 (38% on average), to 2006 (32%), and to 2007 (28%); recovering for the first time this year to 32 per cent.”

It’s hard to believe that slightly less than a global majority thinking the US is having a negative influence in the world constitutes good news. But  hey, at this point we’ll take whatever we can get.

To view more detailed information about views of the US, methodology of the survey, etc. visit: WorldPublicOpinion.org.

How does the US compare to the rest of the world? This poll asked respondents in 34 different countries (respondents in 23 of these countries had been asked this question since 2005) to rate whether 14 key international players/countries are having a “mainly postitive” or “mainly negative” influence in the world. 

Drum roll….

We’re Number Ten (out of 14)! Or does this sound more triumphant: We’re Fifth least-liked!

This also an improvement from last year, when only Israel, Iran and North Korea (two-thirds of the “Axis of Evil)” were less popular than  the US. This year our key military ally Pakistan has joined us in being top-five least popular. And we wonder why we have trouble recruiting new allies in the global war on terror? 

Even though views of the US are warming, it is clrealy not time to rest on our laurels and let the world change their own minds about us. There is so much work to be done.

But the US Presidential candidates are sending good messages to voters about the future of US global leadership under their presidency (maybe the global public listened to them too…?). Let’s hope the upswing in positivity can continue throughout–at least–the next four years.

Former US Ambassador Chas Freeman addressed a conference of the University of Continuing Education Association last week.

Before retiring from the Foreign Service Freeman served at posts in nearly every continent and became a specialist in China. Notably, Freeman was Ambassador to Saudi Arabia Operation Desert Shield and Desert Storm, from 1989-1992. In 1993–94, he served as Assistant U.S. Secretary of Defense. He currently serves as Chairman of the Board of Projects International, Inc., a Washington-based business development firm, and as President of the Middle East Policy Council.

Needless to say, the depth of Ambassador Freeman’s foreign policy experience makes him an excellent source for an analysis of the potential that diplomacy holds as a tool to leverage the critical threats the US faces today. As one would expect, his diplomatic experiences has also made him a natural advocate for employing diplomacy over military force in the international realm. His remarks (published on Middle East Online) on the potential of diplomacy to solve conflicts are powerful ones, and they are worth citing here.

Overall, Freeman wants to see a stronger, more cooperative United States. He believes the only path to achieving that goal is through the use of diplomacy.

Freeman begins by citing the massive expenditures the US spends on its military budget. He comments: “Somehow, however, despite all the money we’ve spent, the debt we’ve accumulated, and the sacrifices patriotic Americans have made in distant foreign lands, our leaders tell us that we have never been so threatened. Given all the enemies we have been making recently, they may be right… Massive military spending has, in fact, become an indispensable part of our political-economy…”

Freeman emphasized the importance of involving diplomats from the outset: “Most of our leaders, in both major political parties, now espouse a reversal of the longstanding American view that coercion, especially through military means, is a last resort to be brought into play only when diplomacy – in the form of persuasion, diplomatic bargaining, alliance-building, and other measures short of war – has failed. In both Afghanistan and Iraq, the sequence approved on both sides of the aisle was to shoot first, then send in the diplomats to mop up. Since this hasn’t worked out too well, there is now a lot of talk about how to recruit more diplomats and buy more mops. That’s probably a good idea, but it might be more effective and cheaper to involve the diplomats at the outset and avoid creating such a mess in the first place.”

He continued: “Sadly, theories of coercion and plans to use military means to impose our will on other nations have for some time squeezed out serious consideration of diplomacy as an alternative to the use of force. Diplomacy is more than saying “nice doggie,” till you can find a rock. Weapons are tools to change men’s minds but they are far from the only means of doing so… The weapons of diplomats are words and their power is their persuasiveness. Talk is cheaper than firepower and does less collateral damage, so it makes sense to try it before blazing away at the adversary.”

On the supremely unequal funding of the country’s military and diplomatic services, Freeman commented: “You get what you pay for. In this case, that’s a superbly professional and supremely lethal military and an anemically staffed and undertrained diplomatic service led by inexperienced political appointees on sabbatical from high incomes… It is a truism that skilled work requires skilled workmen. Americans are now without peer in the military arts. To prevail against our current enemies, we must attain equal excellence in diplomacy.”

He concludes by offering some sage advice to his audience, the next President and the American people: “We cannot hope to appeal to the conscience of humankind if we do not continue to embody its aspirations. If we do not restore our country’s good name, others will not follow when we lead or share the burdens we take up. To regain the cooperation of allies and friends, we must rediscover how to listen, how to persuade, how to be a team player, and how to follow the rules we demand others follow… A return to diplomacy, not threats and the use of force, is the surest path to the reassertion of American leadership. It is time to rediscover and explore that path.”

Sage advice indeed.

A new report from the Washington, DC-based think tanks the Center for International Policy, the Latin America Working Group Education Fund, and the Washington Office on Latin America (WOLA) examines the gradual shift of foreign policy decision-making away from the State Department toward the Defense Department. Cleverly titled “Ready, Aim, Foreign Policy,” it can be downloaded here.

Here’s a snippet:

“…A disturbing transformation of U.S. foreign policy decision-making is quietly underway. The Defense Department’s leadership of foreign military aid and training programs is increasing. The State Department, which once had sole authority to direct and monitor such programs, is ceding control. Moreover, changes to the U.S. military’s geographic command structure could grant the military a greater role in shaping, and becoming the face of, U.S. foreign policy where it counts—on the ground.”

While the authors explain that the Defense Department has been gradually seeping into activities usually reserved for the State Department for the last two decades, three recent examples demonstrate that this trend has been accelarting in recent years:

• “First, the Bush Administration endeavored to expand a pilot program, known as “Section 1206,” into a permanent, large-scale, global Defense Department military aid fund with few strings attached.
• Second, the State Department, rather than contesting this challenge to its authority, called for a restructuring of foreign aid that would happily cede its management of military aid programs to the Defense Department and reduce congressional oversight.
• Third, the U.S. military offered plans to restructure geographic commands to give them a greater role in coordinating U.S. civilian agencies’ activities.” [An example of this restructuring, the Defense Department’s new central command for all of Africa, or AFRICOM, was discussed in an earlier post on this blog].

The report’s authors underscore why it matters that the Defense Department increasingly controls military aid programs: “[These changes] diminish Congressional, public and even diplomatic control over a substantial lever and symbol of foreign policy. They will undercut human rights values in our relations with the rest of the world, and increase the trend toward a projection of U.S. global power based primarily on military might.” The authors go on to cite several examples from their region of expertise, Latin America, but maintain that the changes effect U.S. foreign policy in all regions of the world.

Veteran IPS correspondent Jim Lobe reported summarized the findings of the report and added some inside-the-beltway perspective:

“While the Pentagon, like Gates, clearly understands that Washington faces regional challenges that are not susceptible to military solutions, according to the report, its sheer size compared to the civilian agencies give it an increasingly dominant role in relations with other countries, greater even than that of the resident ambassador who traditionally has been the main coordinator of U.S. policy and representative of the U.S. government in foreign states.

The risk is that the security dimensions of the bilateral relationship are given greater weight, often at the expense of other key considerations, such as human rights, equitable development, and the rule of law, according to the report. In addition, a greater emphasis on sustaining and building up local militaries, which may be repressive and corrupt, may actually prove counter-productive.”

He added that this report is just the latest in a series of studies warning of the increasing militarisation of U.S. foreign policy. This is an extremly important, timely, report. It is essential reading for the next administration for sure, if not all of you interested in foreign policy issues.

Public Radio International’s The World show also broadcast a segment about the report, and interviewed Washington PostSenior Diplomatic Correspondent Karen DeYoung about the significance of this shift.

The report was released the same day that Secretary of Defense Robert Gates had breakfast with the members of the House Foreign Relations Committee (HFAC) hearing to discuss what was called “the persistent imbalance between U.S. funding for defense and diplomacy.”

While no transcript of Gates’ remarks is available, Gates has made several public statements about the need for better funding for more “soft power,” civilian activities. In January, at an event at the Center for International Security Studies, Gates said that the challenges posed by the global war on terrorism “cannot be overcome by military means alone and they extend well beyond the traditional domain of any single government agency or department. They require our government to operate with unity, agility, and creativity, and will require devoting considerably more resources to non-military instruments of national power.”

At the hearing, HFAC Acting Chairman Howard Berman observed “Berman observed that “in his 2002 National Security Strategy, President Bush affirmed that diplomacy and development are just as important as defense. They will not be funded equally, but we should strive to strike a better balance than we have now. The budget for the State Department and the U.S. Agency for International Development together is anemic next to that of the Defense Department.”

Berman also expressed his concern for the problem: “This committee is examining the issue closely to guard against Defense Department over-reaching into areas traditionally under the authority of the State Department and the U.S. Agency for International Development. We’re concerned that an overly expansive military role in support of short-term security interests could work to the detriment of long-term foreign policy goals, which would be dangerous and destabilizing. The face of America abroad needs to be, first and foremost, its diplomats. Secretary Gates’ breakfast with us is a welcome first step in making sure this happens.”

This is a good first step. But the following statement Berman made at the breakfast might reveal that in this tug of war of resources between the two Departments, he might be biased toward Defense: ”The gap in civilian capacity has over-burdened the military, which has assumed tasks best performed by civilian experts.”

This is true, but ut seems a little backwards to look at an underfunded State Department and focus on how its deficiencies burden the Defense Department, rather than the practice of diplomacy itself.

When Henry Crumpton speaks, the US Diplomacy blog listens. Henry, also know as “Hank” during his time at the CIA, played a pivotal role in overthrowing the Taliban months after Sept 11^th. He is currently the Ambassador-at-Large for counterterrorism at the State Department. Crumpton understands the intricacies of the tribal nature in Afghanistan. He recognizes that our structures are not built for the local fight. Additionally, he is a superb strategic thinker and demonstrates this from a recent talk he gave at CSIS. For some weekend viewing, enjoy.