Blog Posts tagged with "Interagency"

“You have words and… swords. We, on the other hand, only have our words.”  This was a poignant point made by Francois Bellon, the Head of Delegation of the International Committee of the Red Cross to both the EU and NATO. J9 invited Monsieur Bellon to visit the command earlier this month, the first senior ICRC visit to EUCOM in nearly two decades.

François Bellon, head of the International Committee of the Red Cross Delegation to NATO, EU and the Kingdom of Belgium, addresses military and civilian officials from EUCOM.

Mr. Bellon and his colleague, Mr. Aleardo Ferretti, came to Stuttgart with a world-wide breadth of experience with the Red Cross. Between them they have been posted in Beijing, Moscow, Tblisi, Tel Aviv, Beirut and Washington, DC.  They see the need for open communication with all parties; with strong superpower militaries like that of the US, but also with “the other side”; Taliban, Malian Toureg rebels, Al Shabab in Somalia etc.  They are fiercely impartial, neutral, independent, never armed, and use this stance and their words to achieve their humanitarian objectives.

I liked the analogy that Mr. Bellon used during his presentation; "we are in the same river, but different boats." We tend to look at a crisis, in Syria for example, from our military perspective; the ICRC does so from their humanitarian perspective. Both boats have good intentions: defending the rights of the wounded and detainees, the protection of innocents, and the rights of a populace to select their own leadership. But it is essential that these two important boats be able to communicate with each other. Hence the invitation to the ICRC to visit, so that we can build bridges, know each other before a crisis, and better understand each other’s perspectives.

Mr Bellon indicated that the ICRC are also the protectors of the Geneva Conventions. They are in my mind, a bit like the Knights Templar guarding the Holy Grail in the movie, “Indiana Jones and the Fountain of Youth;" for me, the ICRC is today’s Knights Templar, guarding the nearly 150 year-old  Geneva Conventions and fundamental human rights. They of course do so… without the sword.

Mike Anderson
Acting Director
J9-Interagency Partnering Directorate

In today’s budget-strapped environment, President Obama’s administration has called for more public-private collaboration.  Recently the President appointed a Principal Director for Community Partnership to the National Security Council staff to address how the government might partner more with outside entities and individuals.

The Department of Defense and most other U.S. government agencies are also looking for ways to improve effectiveness and efficiencies by reaching out to collaborate with private businesses, non-profit organizations and academia. EUCOM has already been working on initiatives like this for some time in areas such as cyber-security, communications, and humanitarian assistance, among others.  For the most part, this collaboration is focused on sharing expertise, exchanging information, and executing projects and operations.

This collaboration is especially beneficial to the government, as most of the cutting edge work, primarily technological, that once was done by the government is now being done in the private sector. The government now relies on private sector expertise to maintain its lead in defense, space and other national security issues.

Perhaps one of the most robust partnering initiatives EUCOM employs is the National Guard State Partnership Program (SPP) – where Guard personnel conduct some of the most enduring military-to-civilian – and even civilian-to-civilian – activities.  The SPP was initially launched as a political and military outreach initiative to the new democracies in Central and Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union in the 1990s and is now a key security cooperation tool. National Guard members now work with EUCOM partner nations on such issues as military justice, disaster response planning, military medical preparedness, search and rescue techniques, border and port security, counter trafficking and counter terrorism among others.

Non-state actors, terrorists, media magnates, cyber hackers, and other nefarious characters can function today with fewer constraints than ever, so the government is going to be continually challenged to protect national security and its citizens.  We here at EUCOM recognize the need to harness the know-how and resources of corporations, universities, research institutions, and charitable and development organizations. We continue to seek out opportunities for public-private cooperation initiatives because today’s problems will not be solved by government alone, but in increasingly in partnership with global business, partnerships with civil society.

Evelyn N. Farkas, Ph.D.
Senior Advisor for Public-Private Partnership
to the Supreme Allied Commander (SACEUR) and Commander, U.S. European Command

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Want to read more on this topic? See the related article penned by Admiral Stavridis and Dr. Farkas or the recent blog by Admiral Stavridis.

In the world of security, we are generally focused on "risk."  We worry about the chances of war, the spread of weapons of mass destruction, the likelihood of a ballistic missile attack, or the possibility of a biological contagion. Understanding risk allows us to calculate how much we should spend on defense compared to what our potential opponents are spending.

Focusing on risk for organizations like NATO and the Department of Defense in the United States makes sense, of course.

But I think we should spend a bit of our most precious resource -- time -- on thinking about and developing opportunities.

Members of the Italian navy's Gruppo Operativo Incursori board a commercial ferry via fastrope from a US Navy Knight Hawk helicopter.

One way to think about the principal opportunities in the realm of security is building bridges.

Indeed, in this turbulent 21st century, security will ultimately come from building bridges, not walls. Frankly, we saw what 20th century security, which focused on walls brought us: the Maginot Line, the Iron Curtain, the battle formations of the Fulda Gap -- 60 million dead in the 20th century's wars.

I would argue that we need to take a lesson from the cyber world, where much is made of open source software and courseware, plugging together bodies of knowledge and making them widely available. It is a classic example of building connections and bridges.

What we need is "open source security." Not in all situations or with all actors, but rather as a part of a careful approach that exploits opportunities even as we prudently assess the risks.

Some of the areas that might yield results in searching for opportunities include:

• Coalitions and Alliances working together -- NATO, ISAF in Afghanistan, KFOR in Kosovo, and the multi-national counter-piracy efforts off the Horn of Africa are all good examples.
• Convergent technology -- IT, info, surveillance, and cyber all offer opportunities, to include the power of social media as we see in the continuing "Arab Spring"
• Private-Public Cooperation -- offers potential in humanitarian activities, medical diplomacy, disaster relief, and linked development. See my earlier blog on this exciting opportunity, as well as the linked article.
• Trends in Democracy -- the long sweep of history increasingly appears to be on the side of freedom and liberty, with all the attendant challenges.  That means it is harder for despots like Kaddaffy or repressive regimes like the Taliban to hold onto power.
• New Geopolitical Actors in Latin America, the Caribbean, Africa, and other parts of the world who are emerging as positive actors with significant capability -- Brazil, Colombia, South Africa, and Indonesia, are great examples and there are many more.
•  

  Innovative Technologies with positive social implications -- there may be promise in desalinization, biological approaches to crop and food stocks, renewable energy sources, new approaches to education and healthcare.   See "Abundance: Why the Future is Better Than You Think" by Peter Diamandis.  All of these create opportunities in the security sector as well.

Let's face the fact that the world remains a very dangerous place, and risk analysis (and mitigation) is at the heart of defense planning -- rightly so.  But we should also find time for some "opportunity analysis" as well, to include exploring the idea of "open source security" where appropriate.

The future may be a bit brighter than we think.

Best,
Jim

Admiral, USN
Supreme Allied Commander, Europe
Commander, US European Command
"Stronger Together"

I watched the NCAA men’s basketball Final Four last week while on temporary duty in basketball-crazy Lithuania. It somehow seemed appropriate to be watching in such a hoops-passionate nation. In Lithuania, basketball transcends sport; it is a lifestyle, nearly a religion.

For years, Lithuania has sent players to the NBA. They traditionally compete well in the Olympics (#4 in 2008 Beijing Olympics) and recently hosted the European Basketball Championships. I saw more kids playing basketball here than the more traditional European sport of football (soccer). The present location of the Lithuanian Energy Security Center, which I visited, is even co-located with the military academy’s basketball court! As I said, Lithuania was a fitting venue .

As I followed the Final Four I was reminded that there were four common requirements necessary both for this basketball tournament and for interagency partnering, my line of work at US European Command (EUCOM).

1. Structure. For college basketball, there are preliminary regional tournaments, and season-ending play-offs with brackets, all culminating in the Final Four.
   
   For interagency partnering the structure at EUCOM is the J9 Directorate. The J9 was established in November 2009 and has since been emulated at other U.S. geographic commands. We all see the value of having a structure to host interagency partners and to champion collaboration. Without the structure, interagency partnering might look more like a street ball, pick-up game; fun perhaps, but not nearly as effective.
    
2. Leadership Support. Both interagency partnering and the college basketball tournament have benefited immensely from top-down support. The tournament was created and is actively promoted by the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA). They’ve made March Madness part of the fabric of American society. Even here in Lithuania it is avidly viewed, as some 14 Lithuanians play NCAA ball.
   
   Our commander, Adm. Stavridis, has been consistent and ardent in touting the importance of interagency partnering. His advocacy for whole of government thinking has made that mindset pervasive among our enterprise.
    
3. Right People. Three of the Final Four teams were brimming with NBA-caliber talent. The fourth team, Louisville, may have lacked NBA-level gifts, but was guided by an exceptional coach. Clearly, the right people, whether players or coaches, are necessary for basketball success.
   
   In J9, we have sought out the right people; consciously recruited and hired them, professionally developed them, and worked hard to retain those that embody a team spirit.
    
4. Relationships.  The coach of the University of Kentucky’s basketball team attributed their victory to…well…teamwork. He credited their success to the strong relationships among his team members.  We find the same in Stuttgart. One can have the structure (J9 Directorate), top-down leadership (support of our Commander), the right people ( a good mix of agency partners, joint active and reserve military, civilians and contractors), but in the end the success of interagency collaboration depends on relationships. Trust is essential. Trust grows both on the basketball court and in our directorate through hard work, practice, a willingness to suspend doubt, by listening, seeking compromise, keeping egos in check, helping out, and playing to each other’s strengths. Like the Wildcats, in J9 we also feel these investments have been worth it: a slam dunk.

Mike Anderson, Acting Director
J9 Interagency Directorate

James Dehart, Department of State, listens to Dr. James MacDougall, George C. Marshall European Center for Security Studies.

I'm thinking about how to connect public and private efforts to create security.

In this turbulent 21st century, security is not about creating walls. We won't deliver a secure world strictly from the barrel of a gun.

Instead, we need systems to connect and integrate. Why? Because the security challenges require teamwork. Think about the threats: trafficking in narcotics, arms, weapons of mass destruction, and humans; cybercrime; ballistic missiles; natural disasters and their aftermath; terrorism. All of these cross borders effortlessly and therefore require connective activity to solve.

I think a good expression for this is "open source security." This means that wherever we can, we should be creating teaming arrangements between nations (international); governmental organizations (interagency); and -- this is what I've been working lately -- private-public.

There are lots of ways private sector efforts can connect with the public domain to help create security. A few we've been pursuing include:

• 

  USAREUR's 12th Combat Aviation Brigade conducts a resupply mission with the Montenegrin Red Cross to deliver medical supplies to Montenegrins stranded by severe weather in Northern Montenegro Feb. 22.

  Humanitarian Assistance: Combining non-governmental organizations with public sector actors like USAID, Department of Defense (we build schools and clinics all over the world), State Department.
• Disaster Relief: Responding to big events like the Haitian and Pakistani earthquakes, the Indian Ocean Tsunami, and the Japanese nuclear incident requires a mix of everything from the US Navy to Doctors without borders.
• Medical Diplomacy: Look at the USNS Hospital ships COMFORT and MERCY They have done hundreds of thousands of patient treatments all over the Caribbean, Atlantic, and Pacific Oceans. They are crewed by a mix of public and private entities, notably Operation Hope.
• Maritime Protection: In response to piracy off the coasts of Africa, public actors like NATO, EU, and various global Navies are working with Merchant shipping corporations and the International Maritime Organization to create "best practices" that keep mariners safe.
• Cyber:  In the turbulent cyber "seas," both public sector actors (in the case of the US, Department of Homeland Security, Justice, Department of Defense, NSA) as well as the big internet providers, server and cloud organizations, and literally billions of users are all stakeholders. This is an area where we must all cooperate and the work between private and public is crucial.

From a NATO and a US European Command perspective, we'll continue to work on this. In NATO, we call it the "comprehensive approach," and on the US side we are enabling a small cell of folks to work actively on private-public partnership. In both cases, we hope to contribute to security in sensible but non-traditional ways.

Best,
Jim

Admiral, USN
Supreme Allied Commander, Europe
Commander, US European Command
"Stronger Together"

As I type this it is the 94^th anniversary of Lithuania’s Declaration of Independence (Feb. 16). Happy National Day to my friends in Vilnius! 

Lithuania is a steadfast ally and friend of the United States. Also, US European Command is a bilateral partner with Lithuania’s new national Energy Security Center, since both organizations signed a bilateral partnership memorandum in November 2011.

I just attended a Lithuania/NATO-hosted Energy Security Conference in Vilnius. It was cold there, very cold. It was -30C.  I can still hear the sound of the snow crunching under my feet. Did I say that it was cold? It was frigid outside as Lithuanian winter-related deaths from the arctic weather climbed. Yet, the cold made it a very appropriate setting for an Energy Security conference, as Russian gas exports to the European Union dropped by more than 30 percent due to Gazprom’s inability to satisfy both domestic and European demands.

Mike Anderson, US European Command’s J9 (second from left) with Lithuanian friends and colleagues at Lithuania’s Energy Security Center. From left, COL Romualdas Petevicius, Deputy Director, Anderson, Ms Rasa Pažarauskiene, Policy Chief, and Ambassador Audrius Bruzga, Center.

Lithuania is proud to note that they are an “energy island”. The NordStream pipeline takes Russian gas under the North Sea directly to Germany.  It intentionally bypasses Lithuania (and Poland). The country’s lone functional nuclear power plant is mandated by the EU to cease operations due to its risky construction. Poland’s much-touted shale gas veins, unfortunately for Lithuania, do not extend across the border. Lithuania is indeed an “energy island”.

Yet, Lithuania looks to turn that seeming disadvantage to an advantage. They have plans to construct a new, more secure nuclear power plant. They have also listened to NATO heads of state touting the importance of “energy security” at the past 3 NATO Summits (Riga -2006, Bucharest -2008, Lisbon -2010) and have raised their hands and offered to host a NATO Energy Security Center of Excellence.  I was there in Lithuania at the initial conference on the path to what they hope will be a COE.

At European Command J9, Interagency Partnering Directorate, we’ve been believers in Lithuania’s focus on energy security since they stood up their own national Energy Security Center in January 2011. We have responsibility for Energy Security on the EUCOM staff and host critical infrastructure engineers as well as representatives from the Departments of Energy and State. We visited the Center in March 2011 and hosted their Director and Deputy Director in Stuttgart during one of our exercises. We are impressed with their efforts to organize an operational-level, energy security-related exercise, ENERGEX 12, in September 2012. They are thinking now of how to help deployed military units reduce their dependence on fossil fuel – the number one commodity transported by ISAF in Afghanistan.

The world’s armed forces are the biggest consumers of energy. Our own US Army consumes more than any other public or private entity and uses more energy than 100 nations in the world. This Center is seeking innovative, deployable, renewable energy solutions for military units and looks to share best practices among allies. This, as NATO Secretary General Rasmussen has noted, is “Smart Defense”, something that will be touted by heads of state at the next NATO Summit in Chicago in May 2012, along with, I predict, again, energy security.

There were 18 of NATO’s 28 nations at this conference and a high confidence was expressed that this Center of Excellence is both timely and needed. There is more and more global energy consumption as economies develop and consequently there is greater reliance on critical energy infrastructure. This is a NATO area of interest, just as is producing clean, renewable energy for military units in the field.

There are presently 18 NATO Centers of Excellence – I like Lithuania’s chances of furnishing the 19^th. After all, this 1000 year old civilization, whose language is related to Sanskrit, has a well-earned reputation for adapting. They are also a basketball-crazy nation. I play basketball and what it is above all else, is a team sport. This is a necessary ingredient for hosting a Center of Excellence, which is also very much a “team sport”, focused on sharing best practices with friends.

Mike Anderson
Acting Director, J9 – Interagency Partnering Directorate 

“Duqu”, “Stuxnet”, “Zeus”, or some combination of all three - a “Super Trojan”, attacking your critical infrastructure? Who ya gonna call? 

Cyber attacks are not just an odd jumble of names, but a favorite terrorist approach requiring an effective, comprehensive counter-offensive -- the kind of collaboration that EUCOM’s J9 Interagency Partnering Directorate champions. We advocate cross sector cooperation and interagency coordination.

Recently, Germany’s Ministry of Interior’s Federal Office for IT Security invited me and more than 130 other from more than 20 nations, including Israel, Estonia, Japan, Saudi Arabia, Russia and Norway, to observe its exercise that addressed cyberterrorism and explored collaborative solutions. The broad interest stemmed from the realistic scenario: cyber attacks on critical infrastructure. Each year 20 million new viruses are detected worldwide. Just five years ago that number was only 3 million per year.  Botnets, malware, phishing, hacktivists: this is the language of today’s new security threat.  The response to cyber attacks can consist of an equally obscure new language of honeypots and spam traps meant to frustrate or deceive botmasters. 

Though the terms may be unfamiliar, the havoc they wreak unfortunately is not.  We know that cyber attacks are employed not just for cyber crime (i.e. to access your bank account), but also to discredit national agencies and governments (i.e. the cyber attacks against Estonia and Georgia). It is incumbent on all of us to “know our enemy” to best defend against such attacks. The best means for doing so is for governments to regularly partner with academia and the private sector (i.e. with IT safety enterprises) to form a sort of cyber coalition. 

Clearly, the defense against cyber attacks is much more than just a fight against malware. This is an area that calls for “whole of society” responses, involving national leaders managing situations in a comprehensive approach. Such an approach should involve law enforcement, businesses, international organizations such as the EU and NATO, the military and academia.

J9 is a “whole of society”-focused directorate. Notably, we are home to EUCOM’s critical infrastructure expertise. This team of engineers is conversant, for example, with the Global Information Grid (GIG), the terminus of transatlantic undersea cables, and Department of Defense-operated satellite facilities here in Europe, and we work to ensure the reliability of this infrastructure against cyber attacks so it can assist our own military missions. The Interagency Partnering Directorate is also charged with reaching out to academia and to the private sector. Recently, we have worked with private companies such as Cisco, McAfee and Symantec and with the Business Executives for National Security (BENS) to assist a NATO nation in bolstering its cyber understandings. Finally, the J9 hosts representatives from federal interagency partners including the Department of Homeland Security, the U.S. federal lead for cyber response. Those partners also include representatives from Departments of Justice, Energy, and State, among others. 

All of us are interested in cross sector cooperation and comprehensive solutions. I believe, as demonstrated in recent exercises involving cyber crime, that “whole of society” coordination is indispensable. A good German phrase sums up our thinking: Uebung macht den Meister (“Practice makes perfect.”)

Mike Anderson
Acting Director,
J9 Interagency Partnering Directorate

Every year the Agency for International Development gathers together their 80 mission directors from around the world. At the invitation of my good friend and colleague, AID Administrator Raj Shah, I had the chance to speak to his senior team about their extraordinary work on global issues of poverty, disease, and economic development.

Admiral Jim Stavridis discusses the importance of interagency cooperation and the key role of USAID during the 50th Anniversary USAID Mission Director's Conference.

It may seem a bit strange for a senior military officer to come and speak to the leading practitioners of "soft power;" but it was a true honor for me. It reflects our approach at the Department of Defense to support our interagency partners in helping create security where and when we can.

AID was born out of the turbulence and destruction of the Second World War. It began as the Economic Development Agency to administer the Marshall Plan, then under the auspices of both State and Commerce Departmenst -- the beginning of the idea of private-public cooperation, as many of the senior leaders came out of the private sector.

The organization was formally created by President Kennedy in 1961, and it is celebrating its 50th anniversary this year. While "50" may not sound like a big number, it is impossible to quantify the hundreds of millions of people touched in positive ways by AID.

Today AID is using new technologies and approaches. With only 8,000 employees, about half of them non-US citizens in host countries, they need to be nimble and creative. Drawing on the private sector, they are pushing creative solutions to the field -- ranging from solar-powered pumps that can supply water to thousands of students in Afghanistan to new cell phone applications that put sophisticated crop production information in the hands of farmers in rural areas.

AID is innovative and fits into the vision of such global thinkers as Bill Gates, who recently delivered a paper on innovation to the G20 in Cannes, France. They are also committed to private-public partnering, something we are exploring in US European Command. AID has relationships with 300 private voluntary organizations, and over 3,000 American companies.

Dr. Rajiv Shah, USAID Administrator, thanks Admiral Stavridis for his participation and presents him with a token of appreciation on behalf of USAID.

I talked about the growing and valuable partnership between the Department of Defense and AID. In my three years as Commander of US Southern Command, I learned a great deal about the impact of development on security -- notably in Colombia, where AID did a great deal to bring a virulent insurgency under control. In those days we worked together on everything from hospital ship deployments to legal training and human rights.

Together with State Department, this interagency approach can be called "the 3Ds -- Development, Diplomacy, and Defense."

In this turbulent 21st century, we need to build fewer walls and more bridges. US AID, under the creative and able leadership of Raj Shah, is doing exactly that.

Best,
Jim

Admiral, USN
Supreme Allied Commander, Europe
Commander, US European Command
"Stronger Together"

Recently, I attended the "2011 Soft Power Symposium" hosted by Pepperdine University and the League for Hope, a non-government organization (NGO) that promotes public-private partnership to foster educational, medical, and commercial opportunities for disadvantaged populations. 

I wasn't familiar with the organizers and expected a conference with some discussion that might be new to me, some that would be standard, and a healthy bout of networking. It turned out to be all of that, but even better. The organizer, Rosalie Wyatt, was action-oriented and so was the discussion!

The purpose of the symposium was to develop agreement on common language and procedures to encourage the private sector to participate in U.S. military and diplomatic efforts. Such shared efforts are of particular interest in the current, increasingly austere, economic environment.  At this meeting, representatives from NGOs, government agencies, five COCOMs (EUCOM, AFRICOM, CENTCOM, NORTHCOM, SOUTHCOM), think tanks, and private industry discussed how they have conducted public-private partnerships to date, and the lessons they have learned. They also responded to the conveners' charge to them to consider some concrete measures.

I was joined on the first panel on best-practices by my colleague Lisa Samson, the J9 Director at the U.S. Southern Command; a representative of the U.S. Africa Command; Alan van Egmond, USAID's senior advisor on Afghanistan and Pakistan; and several private sector representatives.

I gave examples of EUCOM's public-private collaborations - our workshop with transportation executives on the Northern Distribution Network and Modern Silk Road; our teamwork with Project Hope to work with counterparts in the Baltics to address Traumatic Brain Injury; our projects involving Business Executives for National Security and our support for USAID's calls for help during the Russian wildfires and Pakistan floods last year.

The emphasis of this short symposium on processes for encouraging and institutionalizing public-private collaboration is well-placed - especially as budgets are being constrained. It would also be useful to include in future discussions methods of measuring the effectiveness of these partnerships. This could further inform how and when the government would seek private partners or collaborators. What do you think? Please share your views with me and my J9 Interagency Directorate colleagues.

Evelyn N. Farkas, Ph.D.
Senior Advisor for Public-Private Partnership
to the Supreme Allied Commander (SACEUR)
and Commander, U.S. European Command

I participated on Sept. 23 in anexercise in the city where the Peace Treaty of Westphalia was signed in 1648, ending 30 years of warfare between Sweden and the Holy Roman Empire, I was left with the decided impression that today we certainly live in a post-Westphalian world. Unlike then, today’s issues are no longer solved by military means alone. This exercise, COMMON EFFORT, involved a notional UN-backed NATO deployment to Africa. It had some 500 multinational participants, 150 of whom were civilians from more than 30 organizations. Soldiers were still, like in 1648, major players, but rightfully they were only a part of the solution and not the entire solution.

Admiral Stavridis, our EUCOM Commander, flanked by the 1st German/Netherlands Corps Commander, LTG van Loon, and senior visitors to COMMON EFFORT in Muenster.

This Whole of Government-focused exercise demonstrated the criticality of constant dialogue between the military and other key stakeholders such as law enforcement, development, non- governmental, and diplomacy actors. For while the military is still very often a lead in “Comprehensive Approach” efforts, because they are often the first to deploy, the military also meets on the ground in a crisis area many other Departments, Agencies, Organizations and groups with similar objectives but different structures and cultures.

Two key lessons became immediately apparent during COMMON EFFORT; one, it is all about communication and two, negotiation is a necessary art. To be effective in responding to today’s crises, the worn mantra of “information is power” has to be overcome by transparency and information sharing. Constant dialogue was essential during this exercise; with NGOs, international partners, international organizations such as the UN and NATO, and other federal departments and ministries. We learned, adapted and exercised a kind of “interaction on steroids” and we were all better for it.

The importance of negotiation was the second important reminder for me. It is a key to engaging and overcoming the challenges presented by different cultures. Not just different national cultures, but the different cultures evident between Departments and Ministries and among NGO and military communities. It is thru negotiation that you can achieve “unity of purpose”.

In reality the Comprehensive Approach is just a means to an end. Negotiations among Departments helps leverage a cross-departmental group of experts, from Foreign, Developmental, and Defense ministries , for example, to all be focused on a common problem-set.

(L-R) Dana Chivers, OFDA, me, ADM Stavridis, Cathy Blank, DOS, Pat Shapiro, USAID, and Ambassador Larry Butler at the “US Country Team” in “Tytan”.

Our J9-Interagency Partnering Directorate replicated a “US Country Team”, an American embassy, during the exercise complete with representation from our Departments of State (DOS) and Defense and our Agency for International Development (USAID). Our Commander, Admiral Stavridis, and our Civilian Deputy to the Commander, Ambassador Butler, also attended the COMMON EFFORT exercise.

I know that we all left Muenster, voted Europe’s “most livable city” in 2009 for good cause, believing that we had just witnessed a bold exercise. This was not a typical military exercise planned in “splendid isolation”, but rather one that was comprehensive in its involvement of all stakeholders throughout the design, planning, organization and execution phases.

COMMON EFFORT was uncommonly beneficial as a template for some of our future EUCOM exercises and it was a rewarding effort, one that EUCOM J9 was pleased to have actively participated in over the past 10 months.

Mike Anderson
Deputy Director
J9 Interagency Partnering Directorate

The Quadriga atop the Brandenburg Gate, the French Embassy, the transparent cupola of the Reichstag building, Tiergarten Park, the German Chancellery, the renowned hotel Adlon, the home of the 19th century German painter Max Liebermann. These are the exquisite sites that one views from the roof of the US Embassy to the Federal Republic of Germany, on Pariser Platz in Berlin. This is a unique view, one afforded to only a select few by virtue of access to and through the embassy.

Members of the US EUCOM J9 Interagency team atop the US Embassy, Berlin

Our team was comprised of Department of State, Department of Justice and Department of Energy representatives to the command, as well as two active duty Air Force officers, a strategic infrastructure expert, and the Deputy Director of the Directorate, me. Our visiting interagency team was a representative slice of a Directorate which is a unique blending of 10 federal agency partners, together with Department of Defense civilians, military members and contractors. Together we comprise the command’s “interagency team”.

The team that hosted us in Berlin (and which enjoys this impressive view every day!) is also known as the US Country Team. Indeed we were treated to a “Country Team meeting” chaired by the Deputy Chief of Mission, the senior Department of State representative at the embassy. He was joined by a sampling of agency partners hosted at the embassy, from the FBI, to the Department of Homeland Security, to the Department of Commerce, to the Defense Department (DOD).

Our two interagency teams met and we soon discovered that we had many similarities between us. I have a bit of perspective in this regard, for while I now serve on the interagency team of the US military command in Stuttgart, previously I served at the US Embassy in Denmark and at the US Embassy in Germany…when it was located at its “temporary” home along the Rhine River in Bonn.

Despite similarities, there were also evident differences. In Stuttgart, the DOD partner greatly outnumbers other hosted agency partners; with some 800 DOD personnel matched against about 30 other agency personnel. At the US Embassy, the Department of State outnumbers all others, but the disparities are much smaller. Stuttgart’s command is led by a 4-star Admiral, while Berlin’s Country Team is lead by an Ambassador. Both organizations exercise wide control from Berlin and Stuttgart respectively, with the embassy bi-nationally focused and representing US interests throughout all of Germany, with subordinate consulates in Frankfurt, Munich, Hamburg and Leipzig. While the military command has a regional focus and an “area of responsibility” of all Europe, Israel and parts of Eurasia.

Members of EUCOM’s Interagency Team; (L to R) Mike Anderson, Gary Bullard, Lt Col Patti Egleston, Jared Irish, Matt Cline, and Cathy Blank

Both organizations conduct once weekly “Country Team” meetings. The embassy’s is led by the Ambassador while the military command’s meeting (called the “Senior Decision Cell”) is co-led by the command’s two deputies; a 3-star general and a former Ambassador serving as the Civilian Deputy.

Most importantly, each organization sees the value in the active participation and hosting of other federal agency partners. Each embodies a “whole of government” philosophy fully cognizant that America’s interests abroad are best served not just by traditional executive Departments operating abroad; the Departments of State and Defense, but instead by all members of “America’s Country Team”.

Mike Anderson
Acting Director
 J9 Interagency Partnering Directorate

Dr. Evelyn Farkas

A few weeks ago, I had the unique and exciting opportunity to address the 28-member NATO Military Committee regarding Public-Private Collaboration.

I started by defining Public-Private Collaboration -- an interaction between government and the commercial or non-profit private sector. Unlike the traditional government-private sector relationship, collaboration does not necessarily entail a financial interest or transaction. The objective for both sides is to foster efficiency and effectiveness.

I figured the best way to explain the complex idea of Public-Private Collaboration was to provide examples. I spoke about how EUCOM teamed up with a non-profit organization called "Project Hope" in order to share expertise on traumatic brain injury with our allies in Estonia; this project that could potentially help those affected by the most common injury seen in military personnel returning from Afghanistan. You can see Admiral Stavridis write more about the collaboration here.

I went on to raise a key underlying question: "Why should the public and private sectors collaborate today?"

The answer? The complex challenges that we face around the world today often require skills and approaches beyond traditional military capabilities. Collaboration allows us to meet these challenges utilizing specific expertise found in the private sector. The private sector can provide agility, swift innovation, and a unique resource set.

Vice Adm. Richard K. Gallagher, the US MIlitary Representative to NATO; me; and Michael Ritchie, EUCOM's Director of Interagency Partnering

Together, government and private entities can reduce shared risks, minimize costs, and address mutual threats like terrorism, organized crime, cyber attacks, and climate change. The government gains access to the private sector's expertise and resources, and private sector entities benefit from the information sharing involved in collaboration and the legitimacy gained from meeting complex challenges to provide for the greater good.

Though the focus on my talk was on the relationship between the U.S. government and the private sector, the concept of collaboration has not been confined to the United States. In 2006, NATO adopted a comprehensive approach that recognized the need to build partnerships with non-military entities both inside and outside the government. With this in mind, in 2008, NATO launched the Building Integrity Initiative, which works with private NGOs like Transparency International, to reduce corruption in defense establishments in Europe and Afghanistan.

From there, I explained that collaboration does not come without a set of challenges. First, is the issue of trust. Neither sector likes to broadly share information about vulnerabilities. Corporations worry that it could lead to the public revelation of weaknesses and of sensitive intellectual property. The government is cautious about disclosing national security vulnerabilities to private entities that have international ownership or global interests and about safeguarding the privacy of U.S. citizens. And finally, there is the problem of how to institutionalize this collaboration. Because the responsibility for advancing public-private collaboration is so decentralized, optimization and coordination of efforts across the government has proven to be difficult.

The presentation sparked many constructive questions from committee members. Their active participation in considering how governments and NATO could work with the private sector was energizing and their interest opened the door to greater coordination between EUCOM and NATO, starting with our public-private team and colleagues at Allied Command -Transformation.

Evelyn N. Farkas, Ph.D.
Senior Advisor for Public-Private Partnership
to the Supreme Allied Commander (SACEUR)
and Commander, U.S. European Command

 

Muenster City Hall, image courtesy Wikimedia

The Treaty of Westphalia, signed in 1648 in the Rathaus of Muenster, Germany, ended one of Europe’s bloodiest periods: the Thirty Years War (1618-1648) fought mostly on German soil, and 80 years of war between Spain and the Dutch Republic. Today two nations that benefitted from that peace treaty, Germany and the Netherlands (it achieved its independence as a result), are the framework nations for a multinational NATO High Readiness Corps headquartered in Muenster.

Photo courtesy German/Netherlands Corps

Last week I attended an interagency symposium hosted by the 1st German/Netherlands Corps held at both the Corps headquarters and in the Peace Room (Friedenssaal), the signatory room of the Peace of Westphalia. Below you can see a photo of our symposium and a work of art depicting the 1648 ratification. In terms of comparisons, we had about 100 participants at our event, while the diplomats represented at the peace treaty numbered about 200. Some of our participants were women, unlike in 1648. Our own EUCOM diplomat, Ambassador Heather Hodges, the interim Civilian Deputy to the Commander, was present at our meeting and is in the front row. Another contrast: the diplomats of 17th century Europe stayed in Muenster much longer than we did, as the treaties were negotiated over 5 years - we were there for just a day.

Why were we in Muenster? We got together to discuss the relevance of NATO’s “Comprehensive Approach.” There werediplomats present, as previously mentioned, and soldiers, academics, and representatives from think-tanks, NGOs, and international organizations such as the UN and International Red Cross. The consensus of those attending the symposium? That just as back in 1648, collaboration and cooperation are essential for peace. We agreed that the “3D” approach (Diplomacy, Development, Defense) is a necessary answer to the crises of the world. It is, in fact, indispensable.

Complex modern-day crises compel all stakeholders to sit with each other, to dialogue (“interaction on steroids,” as one participant noted), to share information, to be transparent and to use the “Comprehensive Approach” as a means to an end. This is not unlike what the diplomats of the 17th century were compelled to do in Muenster in order to bring about a commonly sought peace after decades of war.

Photo courtesy German/Netherlands Corps

EUCOM’s J9 Interagency Partnering Directorate has been working closely with the German/Dutch Corps over the past 10 months, building a table-top exercise (18-21 September) called “COMMON EFFORT” which will exercise a “3D” response to a notional crisis. Our aim -- as was noted by a Dutch speaker at the symposium --  is to seek a solution to a crisis which is “as civilian as possible, and as military as necessary.” We recognize that the military will likely often be a part of a solution to an international emergency. But we also recognized that the military was not and should not be the whole solution. For that reason, it is essential that we at EUCOM and other military commands, work closely with diplomats, development officials, and non-governmental stakeholders in order to achieve pragmatic solutions on the ground.

It was a unique experience to be in the same famed, gabled structure that once played host to one of the most famous peace treaties in European and western history. It was inspiring to be there in that room and to be surrounded by other national representatives -- French, British, Turkish, Dutch, Spanish, Norwegian, Swiss, German -- all endorsing a practical, realistic methodology for dealing with today’s crises, the “Comprehensive Approach.” Perhaps that is the way it felt back in the spring of 1648…

Mike Anderson
Deputy Director
J9 Interagency Partnering Directorate

These days The Hague, the Netherlands' third largest city, is most often in the news as the home of the International Criminal Court (ICC), the body that has recently indicted Muammar Gadaffi for war crimes or for the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) which saw last week’s appearance of the former Bosnian Serb military general Ratko Mladic. Certainly both of these courts serve a valued purpose and The Hague -- with its history of hosting the first international peace conference in 1899 -- is a well-suited site for these courts.

The committee at work.

But I recently got to see a different side of that city. I participated in two Interagency Steering Committee meetings at the Dutch Foreign Ministry there. The committee is preparing a table top exercise, called “COMMON EFFORT”, designed to ensure that the international community responds as one to future world crises. While we did not meet at the ICC or ICTY or even the UN International Court in the Peace Palace, we were near each of these venues and it was not lost on the participants that the work we were doing was meant to better address crises -- similar to those of Libya and the Balkans -- which spring from complex origins, and which require long lasting comprehensive solutions.

COMMON EFFORT is an initiative of the 1st German/Netherlands Corps, one of NATO’s High Readiness Headquarters, located in Muenster, Germany. The Corps has been successful in attracting more than 16 international organizations, among them the Ministries of Foreign Affairs and the Development Ministries of both Germany and the Netherlands, UNHCR (the UN Refugee Agency), the International Committee of the Red Cross, EUCOM’s J9 Interagency Partnering Directorate, and non-government organizations like the Germany-based Kinderberg, think- tanks such as the Dutch Klingendaal, and a number of universities.

COMMON EFFORT recognizes that governmental organizations and NGO’s work side by side in a crisis area, though they often do not work together nor have common goals. The table top exercise set for September 19-22 is an effort by all participants to come together, outline common objectives and gain a better common understanding. This effort is building a “coalition” of multinational, interagency and NGO partners. EUCOM J9, for example, will participate as a small ten-person US Government response cell during the exercise, replicating the “3D’s” of defense, diplomacy, and development with the contributions of Civil Affairs personnel and interagency partners. And while the planning and coordinating certainly is slower using this expanded method vice pure military planning, it is the right thing to be doing.

Winston Churchill once said, “the only thing worse than fighting with allies, is fighting without them.” I am convinced that this type of broadened, interagency coalition partnering is the hallmark of this century. By partnering with the entire international community, we expand our definition of security and we prepare to respond to crisis areas with the long-term firmly in mind, cognizant that after military forces have been withdrawn the humanitarian sector will likely still be on the ground for years and hence our military goals should be informed by other’s goals.

Vermeer's "Girl with a Pearl Earring"

Yes, The Hague (Dutch for “the Hedge”) is the home of a number of International Criminal Courts seeking to do justice on behalf of the world community for the most atrocious of crimes. But seen more optimistically, it is also the attractive capital of the Netherlands, an important political center for centuries, and home of one of the most famous paintings in the world, “Girl with a Pearl Earring”, painted by the Dutch Master Johannes Vermeer. Seen by many as the “Mona Lisa of the north”, this beautiful portrait was a much nicer memory of The Hague than the mug shots of Mladic, Karadic, or Gadaffi; a true “Dutch treat”.

Upon leaving The Hague, I was convinced that EUCOM, with its motto of “Stronger Together”, and the 1st German/Netherlands Corps, with their motto of “Communitate Valemus” (Together Strong), are both clearly on to something. This is the way that world crises in the 21st century should be addressed: together, in a comprehensive approach, involving the voices of many actors, both governmental and non-governmental.

Mike Anderson
Deputy Director
Interagency Partnering Directorate

The Wall Street Journal article Dr. Cagaptay refers to in the video can be found here. He also wrote a piece for Foreign Affairs Online Snapshots titled "Sultan of the Muslim World: Why the AKP's Turkey Will Be the East's Next Leader".

Let’s face it: in this complex world, we can’t always all “just get along.”

Often, friction is the result of cultural collisions – disagreements stemming from differences in fundamental belief systems, well established processes, and patterns of execution.

To take an example that often pops up in the United States, we sometimes encounter cultural differences between 3 key interagency actors: the Department of Defense, Department of State, and the U.S. Agency for International Development. But since success in the 21st century security environment is dependent on the “3D” approach (Diplomacy, Development, and Defense), it is imperative that we develop means to overcome any cultural divides that may arise from institutional paradigms and pre-existing “turf” boundaries – factors that can affect countries’ relationships just as much as agencies.

I began trying aggressively to bridge such cultural divides at my previous job as Commander of U.S. Southern Command in Miami, Florida. I’ve continued efforts to resolve cultural differences at U.S. European Command and as the Supreme Allied Commander at NATO.

Over time, I’ve identified a handful of techniques I think are helpful in resolving these kinds of differences. The following techniques apply not only in interagency divisions, but also more broadly in the international arena as we seek creative solutions to complex challenges to 21st century security.

1. Learn the Language. For relations between nations, this simply means we should all be studying each other’s languages.  To know another language is to understand another life.  Similarly, within the interagency, every organization has its own set of key words, phrases, and sayings.  Knowing what a partner means when they speak is invaluable.
2. Read the History. In both the international and the interagency realm, take the time to really develop a deep understanding of those across the historical divide. See my reading list here.
   

   SACEUR, Admiral James Stavridis talks to French troops during a visit to FOB Morales-Frazier, ISAF, Afghanistan. Image by SGT Sebastian Kelm (DEU Army)

3. Know the Heroes. Nations and organizations have heroes.  Who are they?  Know theirstories and you’ll know another nation or organization well.
4. Meet the People. Personal contact trumps everything.  Sending all the well meaning emails and posting messages can be helpful, but knowing your partners’ key players as people is essential.
5. Communicate Constantly. Use every vehicle imaginable – from letters of congratulations to postings on web-sites, to weekly updates, to targeted communication – to let your partners know clearly and transparently what you are thinking.  And above all, be sure to demonstrate that you are listening.
6. Expand the Problem. Letting other actors into the mix in contentious situations, while undeniably complicating the situation, can often shake the system and unlock disagreements.
7. Share Credit Lavishly. Everyone likes to get credit.  Colin Powell said once, “You can get anything done in Washington if you’re willing to not get credit.”  This is a good philosophy within the interagency and in the international arena.
8. Disagree without being Disagreeable. People tend to take things personally when culture is involved.  Keep your differences at the academic and professional level and check your ego at the door.  Never make a disagreement personal.
9. No Drama. When working across cultures, turn down both the highs and lows, and keep it cool.  What motivates in one culture can be a “turn off” in another.
   

   U.S. Air Force Master Sgt. Ray Hensley, a loadmaster with the 86th Operations Group, speaks with an Israeli after helping to deliver fire retardant to Tel Aviv, Israel, Dec. 4, in response to wildfires near Haifa, Israel.  EUCOM routinely provides foreign humanitarian assistance in response to crises in the region in the same manner as other regional partners. (U.S. Air Force photo by Staff Sgt. Benjamin Wilson)

10. Find a Common Problem to Solve. When two or three potential partners –  interagency or international – can agree on something that is not working, this can often be a bridge.
11. When on Death Ground, Fight. It is important to get along and connect, but in the course of doing so, protecting what is essential in your culture is important.  There should be few redlines, but those that exist must be vigorously defended.
12. Build the Right Organization. There is more than one way to organize, and if the goal is good intercultural partnership, creating special nodes on a staff (for example, a J-9 for interagency or a J-10 for private-public partnering on a military staff) can help.  Having liaisons from partners at a high level with real authority (not just parked in a meaningless staff element way down the food chain) can likewise help.

If you have other ideas on how to bridge cultural divides, I’d love to hear them! We’re working hard at U.S. European Command to reach across the cultural divide to State, USAID, and other interagency partners at our level. We’ll continue to work on this internationally, as well. And of course our work at SHAPE is grounded in building common frameworks within the Alliance. The challenges of this turbulent and dynamic 21st century demand it.

Adm. James Stavridis
Commander, U.S. European Command and
Supreme Allied Commander, Europe

The historic Silk Road traversed 3 present-day US geographic commands; European Command (EUCOM), Central Command (CENTCOM) and Pacific Command (PACOM), as it wound its way from Italy in the west to China in the east by way of Afghanistan pretty much right in the middle.

Today, a “Modern Silk Road” serves as a supply link between Europe, NATO forces, and Afghanistan. Genghis Khan, Tamerlane and Alexander the Great all marched their armies along this route, into and out of Afghanistan.

As we just heard on Friday at the NATO Summit in Lisbon, as the Afghans stand up, today’s NATO “armies” will ensure that they will not stand alone. Just as the armies and cultures of the past have contributed to Afghanistan’s rich cultural heritage, NATO forces continue to do so today.

Last week, I visited a stunning exhibition in Bonn, Germany of the “Lost Treasures of Afghanistan”; a trove of gold, silver and ivory that bear witness to the rich mix of cultures that both came to and traded with this country. This past week our J9 Directorate Chief, Michael Ritchie and our Public Private Cooperation Division Chief, Dr. Judy Reid, participated in a EUCOM-hosted conference, "Silk Road Initiative."  It encouraged collaborative investments by both the business and public sectors along the route, particularly in Afghanistan.

The lost treasures exhibit, the “Silk Road Initiative” conference, and the NATO Summit all remind me that Afghanistan is more than today’s image of war and suffering. Afghanistan was and is a vital cultural crossroads and home of proud people with an extremely rich heritage that is centered along the Silk Road.

Of course the Silk Road was not a single road at all, but a series of paths connecting cities, trading posts, and caravan watering places. While it was meant as a trade network, it fostered not only an exchange of goods, but also of ideas and cultures. Afghanistan because of its geographical location was not at the periphery of the western world but at the very center of trade routes.

The art exhibit helped me to rediscover another Afghanistan. If you are interested, I encourage you to visit this collection of previously thought lost or destroyed ancient treasures at the German government museum in Bonn. The exhibit, which had toured the US in 2008-9, has proven so popular that it has been extended until Jan. 2, 2011. Go there and you will not be disappointed. Bonn, John Le Carre’s “sleepy little town on the Rhine” is easy to get to and a wonderful city. (02228-9171-200 / www.bundeskunsthalle.de)

I work at a military headquarters which supports the NATO and US missions in Afghanistan. EUCOM’s number one mission is something we call “Building Partner Capacity” and like most things in the military it has an acronym: BPC. We focus our BPC efforts on numerous security issues in the region to include supporting the mission in Afghanistan. We assist militaries in our Area of Focus (AOF) in improving their ability to operate in Afghanistan.

As heard at Lisbon, Afghanistan is also NATO’s number one priority. I am convinced that there is a direct correlation between the work we do at EUCOM and the number of European military forces contributing to ISAF. More than 85 percent of troop-contributing countries come from among the 51 nations in our AOF.

This varied international presence in Afghanistan results in a mix of cultures today just as existed from 2000 BC to 100 AD when the Silk Road traded in the “hidden treasures” I recently saw. The ivory carvings bearing witness to India, the Greek objects from a city founded by Alexander the Great at the foot of the Hindu Kush, and the 21,000 gold pieces from nomadic princes, are also what we are fighting for in Afghanistan.

In my mind, we are fighting to ensure that these parts of a people’s heritage are preserved and have a window to the world. Every object that I viewed had been hidden for the past 30 years for fear of losing them to others.

Just as NATO reinforced its commitment to the people of Afghanistan in Lisbon on Friday, I am proud of the support that EUCOM indirectly provides to the Afghan people and to their culture and I’m reminded of the phrase adorning the Kabul National Museum: “A nation stays alive when its culture stays alive.”

Mike Anderson
Deputy Director,
J9 Interagency Partnering Directorate

Mike Anderson Deputy Director J9 - Interagency Partnering Directorate

“Interagency…ah, that’s just a fad that will soon fade.” This was a comment overheard at a recent EUCOM meeting. The person seemed convinced that the pursuance of a “whole of government approach” and the continued emphasis on collaboration with interagency partners by EUCOM, a geographic military command, was just a fad. They also believed that this “fad” would soon fizzle once the novelty was gone or once there was new leadership in place. I beg to differ.

LCDR Taylor Clark's daughter wears and plays with some silly bands.

Silly bands of different shapes and colors that our 9 year old son currently exchanges in his elementary school, this is a fad. The wearing of these bracelets is presently popular among a large number of young people. Like all fads, this one will be collectively followed with enthusiasm for some period of time, just as long as it is perceived as novel. Once the novelty wears off, the wearing of silly bands will quickly fade like its predecessor fads, like mood rings, for example.

I remember mood rings as a 1970s fad when I was attending high school in New York. An inventor popularized the rings by touting that they changed color depending upon the mood of the wearer. Their popularity peaked and quickly faded.

So is “interagency collaboration” just a craze like these other examples? Will it be followed for only a short period with exaggerated zeal and then unceremoniously dismissed as EUCOM goes back to its old ways of doing business? I think not.

Secretary of Defense, Robert M. Gates; Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton; and Secretary of Energy Steven Chu.

Instead I believe that the power of a “whole of government approach” (or of a “comprehensive approach” as our NATO and EU partners refer to it) is not a fad, but instead a necessary trend. It is a decided inclination toward things to come; it is a veering in a new, unmistakable direction. It will be with us, all of us, not just EUCOM but also with DOD and the entire US Government, for some time … and rightly so.

The push for interagency collaboration stems from the realization that all elements of national power should be leveraged to best address today’s challenges in Europe and Eurasia. This is EUCOM’s future. Indeed an Interagency Partnering Directorate was established within the last year, the first new directorate at EUCOM since 1967, just because of this necessity. This is not a fad, not a “nice to have”, not a greedy “appetite” of those espousing interagency collaboration, instead this is a requirement born of today’s realities. Indeed, in today’s belt tightening environment it makes fiscal sense for EUCOM and DOD to collaborate with other agency partners…”many hands make light the work”.

Our Commander, Admiral Jim Stavridis, has rightly championed to the Secretary of Defense the importance he attaches to engaging the interagency. Likewise, Secretary Gates has called for improvements to the “interagency tool kit” and a reinforcement of the lead role of the Department of State in conducting US foreign policy and “building partner capacity”. Secretary of State Clinton has commented that the “3Ds”; “defense, diplomacy and development are not separate entities, either in substance or process, but that indeed they have to be viewed as part of an integrated whole and that the whole of government then has to be enlisted in their pursuit.”

Here I am (far right) collaborating with interagency and international partners.

Even the US Congress, in a bipartisan effort earlier this month, has focused on the importance of interagency collaboration, as legislation was introduced by House Armed Services Committee Chairman Ike Skelton (D-Mo.) and Congressman Geoff Davis (R-Ky.) to overhaul and improve interagency national security coordination.

Finally, President Obama has stated in the May 2010 National Security Strategy that in addition to the US military, “our security also depends on diplomats who can act in every corner of the world, from grand capitals to dangerous outposts; development experts who can strengthen governance and support human dignity; and intelligence and law enforcement that can unravel plots, strengthen justice systems and work seamlessly with other countries.”

No, a “whole of government” approach is not a fad at EUCOM. However, if interagency collaboration were to be a feeling detected by a mood ring, it would reveal a sense of optimism. And if cooperation with interagency partners were to take the form of a silly bands shape, it would simply be… the shape of things to come.

Mike Anderson
Deputy Director
Interagency Partnering Directorate

Mike Anderson Deputy Director J9 - Interagency Partnering Directorate

I work in Stuttgart, Germany not far north from the source of Europe's second longest (about 1800 miles long) and one of its most important commercial rivers, the Danube.  I have often had business meetings on behalf of US European Command (EUCOM) along this river as it flows south and east from the vicinity of Stuttgart past cities such as Ulm, Vienna, Belgrade, before emptying into the Black Sea near Constanta, Romania.  I'd like to tell you of one occasion when I visited the Danube city of Budapest to better appreciate a law enforcement academy that is based there.

I visited the International Law Enforcement Academy (ILEA), located on the Buda side of the Danube. I did so to better comprehend the current curriculum at ILEA and to discuss possible future collaborative training engagements.  This was part of our ongoing J9 outreach efforts to meet with and understand the actions of other federal agencies, Departments, and organizations also operating in Europe and Eurasia.

Recently our Public-Private Cooperation coordinator and the J9-hosted Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Department of Treasury representatives conducted a follow-up visit to ILEA.  The ILEA Director, Penny Hoback (FBI Supervisory Special Agent) hosted.   ILEA is an example of law enforcement interagency cooperation in action. ILEA Budapest (there are other ILEAs in Asia, South America and Africa) is staffed with two American accredited diplomats. The deputy director is a Diplomatic Security Service (US Dept of State) special agent and Dept of State funds most of the training there. The remainder of the staff consists of Hungarian ministry employees and sworn police officers.  They leverage a lot of visiting instructors from the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms (ATF), the Secret Service, as well as Interpol and UK, German and Swedish law enforcement officials.

Ms Holback and our visiting EUCOM-hosted interagency partners were enthusiastic about the potential for greater law enforcement collaboration. This is encouraging because this is a classic "building partner capacity" institution.  ILEA, EUCOM, and our hosted law enforcement interagency partners all focus on enhancing the partner capacities and capabilities of eastern European and Eurasian states.

The ILEA was founded in 1995 when the US and Hungarian governments cooperated to create a center to do law enforcement training.  The Academy offers training classes for up to 130 law enforcement officers at a time and its courses touch on a number of topics also of interest to EUCOM; combating transnational terrorism, money laundering, and trafficking.  Since its inception it has trained more than 12,000 law enforcement officials, among them Russian FSB agents, customs and border guards.

Just as the Danube flows thru 19 European countries, making it Europe's most "international river" and compelling upstream and downstream nations to cooperate, so too does today's threat and resource-constrained environment require greater interagency cooperation among defense, diplomatic and law enforcement agencies, like between "upstream" EUCOM and "downstream" ILEA.

I would be interested in hearing your examples of ongoing military-law enforcement collaboration here in Europe and your opinions of the value of doing such.

Mike Anderson
Deputy Director
J9 - Interagency Partnering Directorate

An ICE man has come to EUCOM. His name is Mr. Kevin Sibley and he is an Agent of the Department of Homeland Security’s Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Agency.

Kevin works in the J9 Interagency Partnering Directorate and is one of a growing number of law enforcement/border protection-oriented interagency representatives now on the EUCOM J9 “interagency team”. Kevin, for example, is also joined by a Customs and Border Protection representative, Christina Bell, and will soon be joined by a Drug Enforcement Administration representative, Mr Nick Brooke.

EUCOM’s Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) representative Kevin Sibley was joined at EUCOM HQ recently by about 25 of his ICE Attaché colleagues and Mr. Robert Weber, the Assistant Director of Operations for the ICE/Office of Investigations in Washington, DC. J9 helped organize and hosted this first-ever gathering of European-based ICE Agents and their Washington, DC-based superiors, together with the leadership of EUCOM. The conference was held Aug. 16-18 and involved ICE agents responsible for Europe and Eurasia and operating from locations such as Brussels, Vienna, Frankfurt, The Hague and Rome.

The focus of the conference was to exchange information and explore areas of mutual interest between the work the regional ICE attaches are doing to investigate and prevent the trafficking of illicit materials, criminals and terrorists through Europe to the United States and how that dovetails with the EUCOM mission of defending the homeland forward.

Now, ICE’s role in the EUCOM area of focus is better understood by EUCOM and vice versa. ICE attachés are more familiar with EUCOM and its role in European/Eurasian security and the EUCOM staff is now aware of ICE activity in our AOF. Through interaction with ICE at this conference, EUCOM directly benefited. Both organizations are now actively looking at opportunities to build partner capacity, and improve intelligence sharing in order to better execute counter terrorism and counter trafficking operations.

The ICE conference created a wider awareness of both the ICE and EUCOM missions, and consequently has enhanced EUCOM’s Whole of Government approach to stability and security in the AOF.

Mike Anderson
Deputy Director
J-9 Interagency Partnering Directorate

If you are a cable news junkie, then you’ve probably watched BBC (British Broadcasting Corporation), one the largest, if not the largest, broadcasting organizations in the world.  Yesterday, I had the opportunity to listen to Nik Gowing speak courtesy of ADM Stavridis’ 'Notable Film and Author Series’ and the EUCOM J9 Directorate.  Nik presents the BBC's flagship news program, The Hub, which reports on global news for audiences across South Asia and the Middle East.  He interviewed ADM Stavridis about operations in Marjah this past February and also recently wrote 'Skyful of Lies' and Black Swans, a study that addresses the role hand-held, multi-media technology plays in shaping public perceptions of government responses in crisis situations.

Nik Gowing Photo courtesy BBC

Throughout his presentation, Nik highlighted the fact that the media landscape is (and has been for a while now) changing in dramatic ways.  The explosion of individuals with access to inexpensive, portable and easy-to-use “electronic eyes and ears” as well as web platforms from which to broadcast their recordings, is making government (as well as military and corporate) entities more accountable.  These individuals, also known as “digital information do-ers,” with multimedia recorders in the form of mini-cams and cell phones are creating a “deficit of legitimacy” for traditional sources of power.

One example Nik highlighted was an August 22, 2008 air strike in Azizabad, Afghanistan where conflicting information emerged about civilian casualties.  U.S. forces initially said that only seven were killed whereas U.N. and NGO reports put the figure at more than 70.  A mobile phone video that surfaced two weeks later showing bodies (reports varied from 40 to 90) laid out under blankets brought doubt upon the original U.S. figures.  Although the video wasn’t posted in real time, there was no video available for release to counter the claims.  Thus, at least in part, the mobile phone video obliged GEN McKiernan, the U.S. Forces commander, to request another investigation into the incident, which in the court of public opinion, meant that the U.S. had erred (or worse…covered-up) during its original investigation.  

I believe it is true that, as Nik said, military commanders, more and more, feel they face an “increasably unwinnable battle to counter real-time media images and perceptions.”  I’ve heard many times that we (the U.S.) are losing the information battle.  Blame has been assigned to all corners of the military and government for this.  So, I am going to throw out my two cents on a way to potentially improve the situation.

Being an Army officer, I look back to the Divisional Machine Gun units of WWI and WWII to provide some context.  As you may or may not know, successful machine guns did not emerge until the mid-19th century, and more portable sub-machine guns really didn’t see their first major use until WWI.  Machine guns were a game changer, much like today’s portable multimedia devices, albeit in a different manner.  Without getting into a full history of machine gun development and employment, the point is that the machine guns were originally organized at the divisional level, similar to how the U.S. Army still organizes it’s public affairs assets, although in a much smaller capacity – approximately 25 public affairs personnel are assigned throughout a division today compared to almost 3,000 machine gunners in a division back in WWI.  We also have combat camera assets, but they too are overtaxed and managed way beyond the brigade level. 

As machine gun technology advanced and they became more ubiquitous, they were assigned all the way down to squad level.  Today’s infantry squads each have M249 Squad Automatic Weapon machine gunners assigned to them.  As multimedia device technology advances and becomes more ubiquitous (notice the parallel?), perhaps it is time that we place this asset at the squad level as well.

I am not advocating elimination of public affairs or combat camera professionals at all here. What I’m saying is that institutional public communication (to include multimedia use) training, beyond the cursory level, must be given to selected individuals all the way down to the ground (or squad) level.

We’ve got to change the paradigm.

If the task of communicating the more than one million military service members’ actions remains solely in the hands of the minute amount of public affairs professionals, we cannot succeed.

Right now, we have young service members who qualify “expert” on their M249s operating at the squad-level throughout the military.  These Gen Y “digital natives” have grown up in the “now media” age and many can amaze senior officers and NCOs with digital skills most Gen Y-ers consider to be benign.  Why should we not train them and provide the opportunity for them to be experts at communicating our military actions as well…and then make it a requirement?  It’s time to really accept the changing nature of conflict.   

MAJ Jim Gregory
SOCEUR PAO

Over 25 years ago our defense establishment – pushed by Congress – started the process of creating a “joint” military – where services plan, train for, and execute military missions together. Then about five years after that, mainly because we found we needed better coordination among agencies conducting peace and stability operations, the government started to work on creating an interagency culture and process.

Business Executives for National Security (BENS) group member meets with Belgian and German soldiers

We, the military, are still honing our joint skills and it’s pretty obvious that the United States has yet to reach interagency nirvana. Unfortunately, the world will not wait for us to ‘figure it out.’ As the globe shrinks, the linkages that determine our collective well-being and global security become more and more complex, or intertwined. Likewise, those linkages are increasingly defined by the influence of non-military enterprises. In fact, I believe that today, the next “big thing” is public-private collaboration.

In a sense, of course, this isn’t new. From the Merchant Marine to the Red Cross, private enterprises have traditionally pitched in to contribute in times of war or humanitarian disaster in order to bring the full measure of the generosity of our citizens to bear. But what is new is the idea of our government seeking to fully engage and partner with the extraordinary capabilities resident in the private sector in our efforts to assure security in the broadest sense.

BENS Group meet with Ukraine military officials

As Commander of U.S. Southern Command, I asked Ambassador Chuck Ford to fill the new position of Business Engagement Advisor. His mission was to tap into the private sector’s desire to help enhance the security of the U.S. The valuable contacts we established through his efforts and the collaborative spirit born from those strategic connections were evident to me early in my tenure there.

Our public-private collaboration efforts ranged from getting the security chiefs of cruise-ship companies in the same room with our operations folks to exchange information and business cards, to bringing CEOs together to exchange ideas on the complex challenges concerning illicit drug financing, logistics, and operations. The interaction continues today, as most notably and recently seen in the collaboration between private and public efforts following the earthquake in Haiti last January.

At U.S. European Command we are also engaging the private sector – corporations as well as non-profit enterprises, non-governmental entities and universities. For example, we are identifying ways to better partner, where legal and appropriate, with private sector expertise in international humanitarian operations in Afghanistan. We are also helping to share information with the private sector in order to ensure an effective and safe environment for their efforts in Afghanistan, and seeking advice and input to ensure strategic communications are undertaken effectively.

Katherine H. Canavan, Civilian Deputy to the Commander and Foreign Policy Advisor, EUCOM leadership and BENS Group met the President of Azerbaijan, Ilham Aliyev

In order to facilitate this effort, I have a senior civilian advisor in DC, and we are creating a public private cooperation division in our J9 Partnering Directorate.

We hope to explore building sensible and appropriate connections with European private sector actors, from humanitarian relief organizations to business entities, to strengthen the transatlantic bridge with a network of public-private collaborations. An important element of making these connections is to cast a wide net and seek new ideas. We’re open to ideas for partnership not only in the international, joint, and interagency worlds; but with the private sector as well. Let us hear from you!

Adm. James Stavridis
Commander, U.S. European Command and
Supreme Allied Commander, Europe

EUCOM’s Commander, Admiral Stavridis, often points to the importance that he attaches to “partnering,” both military and interagency partnering. In his recent Capitol Hill testimony he said that interagency partnering is “more than a tool or a method, 'interagency partnering' is an expanding paradigm at EUCOM and we are intent on serving as a model of interagency cooperation."

From an interagency partnering perspective it seems appropriate to query, “Partner with whom next?” Or using baseball vernacular, “who’s the next batter?” EUCOM’s J9-Interagency Partnering Directorate (yes, “partnering” is our middle name!) presently hosts partner agency representatives from the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), the Department of State, the Department of the Treasury, and the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Agency.

This is an impressive assembly of America’s “hard power” in the EUCOM “dugout;” Treasury’s active pursuit of terrorist money laundering trails in Europe and Eurasia and ICE’s law enforcement prowess flexed to identify criminals or terrorists before reaching U.S. shores. But America’s “soft power” is also well represented in J9; the diplomacy (State) and development (USAID) strengths of U.S. foreign policy are also part of the EUCOM “line-up.”

By October 2010, this esteemed team will also be joined by other interagency representatives from: Customs and Border Protection (CBP), the Department of Energy (DOE), and the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA). Should J9 and EUCOM then be content? Is that all the expanded interagency “partnering” that Admiral Stavridis had in mind when he testified before the U.S. Congress? I think not. EUCOM, a military geographic command, is engaged in a daring experiment to serve as a “platform” to host a variety of civilian instruments of U.S. national power in the common, efficacious pursuit of U.S. foreign policy goals in Europe and Eurasia.

With baseball spring training in full swing, let me borrow another sandlot metaphor; with the interagency batting line-up that EUCOM will field come the time of this year’s fall classic, it will be a strong, switch-hitting one, it can still be strengthened.

Certainly, EUCOM will boast interagency ‘hard power’ as seen in our cooperation with such law enforcement agencies such as ICE, CBP, DEA, and Treasury. It will have that power meshed with ‘soft power’ players epitomized by DOS and USAID and will even host a “designated hitter” in the Department of Energy, helping EUCOM address a specific, nascent energy security issue.

But as we look towards “next season” we may wish to consider other “players;” possibly another “hard power” slugger in the form of the Department of State’s Counter Terrorism (S/CT) office, or recruiting America’s premier paramilitary organization (‘able to go his left or his right’, switching between military or law enforcement roles), the U.S. Coast Guard, or perhaps the already “All Interagency” player, the Department of State’s Coordinator for Reconstruction and Stabilization (S/CRS).

The crack of the bat for the 2010 season has still yet to be heard. For all teams, including the EUCOM team, hope still springs eternal. Who would you next have join team EUCOM and why? What other “interagency players” would you “draft” for your dream team? Who should we have in our “on deck circle?” I’d be interested in your thoughts….

Mike Anderson
Deputy Director, J9-Interagency Partnering Directorate
Stuttgart, Germany

Stuttgart is the capital city of arguably Germany’s most pro-American and economically strongest state or “Länder,” Baden-Wuerttemberg.  But even Baden-Wuerttemberg, home of Porsche, Daimler, SAP AG and European Command, recognizes a higher power, a strengthening political and economic capital.  No, not Berlin…but Brussels, nicknamed the “Capital of Europe.”

Last week, I spent two days in Brussels attending two European Union conferences “EU Smart Power” and “Energy Security” and got the chance to visit with my counterparts at the EU Military Staff. 

Baden-Wuerttemberg , home of the business-savvy Swabians, attaches such importance to the political and economic might of the EU in Brussels, that they even have their own “embassy” there, representing their “Länder” interests to the EU(and not trusting just Berlin to do so). I know this because sitting next to me among the 300 participants at the “EU Smart Power” conference was a representative from the Baden-Wuerttemberg mission to the EU.

This was an important week in the EU’s development as a world power, as the leaders of the 27 member states met the day after our conference to select the first EU President and EU Foreign Minister. 

So, why is this important to us at EUCOM?  Like Baden-Wuerttemberg, we may not want to leave dealing with the EU exclusively to Washington, D.C.  We may want to more “smartly” engage with and understand the EU via our mission there.

After all, the EU consists of 27 of the 51 nations of the EUCOM area of responsibility, our key allies and partners, along with 23 of the 27 nations also being NATO members.  These are the same nations that we are engaging with through our Theater Security Cooperation and Building Partner Capacity efforts.  We encourage their support to the International Security Assistance Force, better known as ISAF, through a whole of government approach. 

Much as EUCOM has endeavored over the years to better understand the NATO Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe staff with periodic exchanges, I recommend that it is now also appropriate to outreach to the Brussels through the U.S. mission to the EU.

Because the EU is an economic smart power and interagency giant while still a military midget despite 10 years of European Security and Defense Policy, I think this outreach should be interagency-focused. The Interagency Partnering Directorate here at EUCOM has a mandate from our commander, Admiral Jim Stavridis to partner with International Organizations and I believe our directorate should initiate this partnering.

We should begin by meeting with U.S. Team Brussels. This team consists of players well known to EUCOM, but it also comprises an entity that we should endeavor to know better, the U.S. Mission to the EU.  This “embassy” will receive a new Ambassador before the end of the year.  Once the Ambassador is in place, leading the interagency-strong country team, we should meet.  I’m thinking of a visit by Admiral Stavridis with select members of his staff and key interagency representatives traveling to Brussels in early 2010 timeframe. 

This would be a chance for “Team USA in Europe,” comprised of the EUCOM staff; U.S. Missions to EU and NATO and the Joint Chiefs of Staff representative to NATO; to gather, to listen to each other and to coordinate a Whole of Government Approach.  This would include interagency partners at EUCOM (USAID, Department of State, Immigration and Customs Enforcement); partners at EU (Department of Homeland Security, Drug Enforcement Agency, ICE, USAID) as well as the NATO partners (FEMA, DOS).

Just as this past week has been an historic one for the EU, it should also be a motivational time for EUCOM to recognize the growing clout of the EU and to outreach to it, engage it, and understand it via ‘U.S. Team Brussels.’  Talk about “smart power!”

I welcome any comments or suggestions that you may have in terms of strengthening EUCOM’s understanding of the EU via the U.S. Mission there.

Mike Anderson

Deputy Director, Interagency Partnering Directorate

In support of EUCOM’s efforts to do more interagency partnering, I found myself driving through the pouring rain out of Tirana, Albania to visit a remote hospital in Kukes. Kukes is one of 14 hospitals in Albania we would like to connect to the main Albanian hospital through telemedicine. This project would combine the efforts of USAID, an NGO and the DoD to link the hospitals by using the internet for training, counsel and a second opinion via a program like Skype. It will allow Albanian citizens with complex or rare medical conditions to receive high quality care from Albanian and potentially world-wide specialists. This is a major feat for a country with a poorly developed transportation system and difficult living conditions.

Interagency team made up of: J4-Medical Readiness, Army Corps of Engineers, Regional Minister of Health of Kukes, University of Arizona, Tucson, director, Kukes Regional Hospital, J4-Humanitarian Assistance. (Photo by Tara Clark)

First stop Albania

We experience the tribulations first hand as we found the tunnel leading to Kukes was closed due to heavy rain, forcing our team and their local driver to follow secondary roads over the mountain. Once into the bush we lost our way among the many switch backs that crossed the range. Fortunately help arrived in the form of two local men from a mountain village who accompanied the team over the ridge and showed the way to the Kukes valley below. Before beginning their 90 minute hike back to their own village the men only requested a phone call upon safe arrival in Kukes.

These are the same qualities of patience and dedication it’s going to take to get telemedicine up and running. USAID is purchasing the necessary equipment and hiring the NGO to set-up, train and sustain the program while DOD is funding the improvements needed at the hospitals to house the system and maintain internet connections. Once complete, this network will be used to improve the quality of general medical care as well as provide an important piece in the nation’s disaster response network.

Building in Kukes Regional Hospital complex which needs renovation for the telemedicine project. (Photo by Tara Clark)

However, it’s not going to be easy to get all the agencies on the same timeline and ensure all the details are covered by one of the three vested parties. But, there is no way that any of these agencies ALONE could make a dent in the national medical needs of Albania. In Albanian fashion, we’ll work together with patience as we traverse the unknown paths of interagency cooperation.

Second stop Slovakia

For close to a year DoS has been working with an outreach project in a Roma settlement outside of Bratislava, Solvakia. On a recent visit, Ms. Susan Ball, Political Affairs Officer at the Embassy, was told of two children who were sick. One was in the hospital and had undergone a number of surgeries. She called EUCOM humanitarian assistance to ask for advice and help.

I arrived on October 15 in the capital city and was given a background brief on the complexity of the Roma situation from a local Non Governmental Organization (NGO) that works with the Roma throughout Slovakia. An update on the children revealed that one 17 year old boy had been released from the hospital and was now home. He had been diagnosed with the parasite/roundworm Toxocara Canis (caused by ingestion of the parasite eggs) and had suffered significant complications from the infection requiring chest surgery.

To gather more information, I traveled to the settlement with partners from DoS and the local NGO. The settlement is a group of rough, self-built houses lacking in water and sewage. The ‘streets’ are dirt and mud paths that wind through the jumbled community. One is immediately struck by the number of dogs and youth; each wandering the streets clustered in tight little knots, eyeing any outsiders simultaneously appearing scared, curious and defensive.

We were spontaneously invited into a family’s home who were eager to share their story. The home was sparse, clean and warm, being heated by a wood stove working hard to overcome the early frost in the area. Afterward, we visited the boy recently released from the hospital. His impressive thoracotomy scar ran from the left side of his chest around to his mid back looking like a well healing shark bite.

Clearly there are no immediate or quick fixes to raise the quality of life for the Roma population. The challenge now is to develop a savvy Public Health project that will be sustainable, build local capacity, involves local “buy-in” and a lot of interagency partnering. Not to mention paying due attention to the sensitive cultural issues of both the Roma population as well as the surrounding non-Roma Slovaks. Yet another difficult but worthwhile partnering opportunity, that could not be addressed by a single agency acting on its own.

Dr. Mark Hubner,
ECJ4-Medical Readiness

Yesterday the Commander s Interagency Engagement Group CIEG hosted the latest speaker in the EUCOM Forum for International Affairs series. Dr. Kathleen Reedy took a few days away from her work at the Human Terrain System Iraq Reachback Center to talk to roughly 50 EUCOM and AFRICOM personnel about identity and Islam with a focus on Muslims living in Europe and the Middle East. Dr. Reedy is an anthropologist PhD U. Edinburgh who has done a good deal of research into identity formation political symbols social and political identities and ethics. She raised a number of very interesting points in her talk which generated quite a lot of discussion and Q A afterwards.

According to Dr. Reedy it's easier for people to adopt a particular identity when that identity is under attack. She noted that in Britain as the general public reports increasing association of Islam with violence and fear Muslims themselves tend to take on a stronger sense of Islamic identity identifying themselves primarily as Muslims rather than as Europeans or Britons.

She also emphasized that there's no such thing as one single Islamic identity nor a single European Islamic identity as Muslims in Europe as throughout the world are a heterogeneous group and countries within Europe are themselves different from one another. Muslim identity in European nations is defined by many cleavages along lines including country of origin country of residence generational gaps educational levels and religiosity. However one thing that is common throughout much of Europe is the disenfranchisement and discrimination that Muslims face. Muslims in European nations are as a whole much more likely than the general population to be unemployed or never to have been employed and to have low or no qualifications for the labor market.

Dr. Reedy concluded her talk by emphasizing that as Muslims become more integrated into a country s political social and economic fabric they are less likely to subscribe to violence as a legitimate means of resolving their grievances.

Dr. Reedy heads to Iraq in a couple of weeks and the next session of the EUCOM Forum for International Affairs is just a month away.

Kathleen Peggar
Commander's Interagency Engagement Group

EUCOM just wrapped up a successful symposium on "Global Supply Chain Management: Security Challenges and Solutions." I was the lead organizer for this symposium, and have been asked to talk a little about the event for this blog.

This symposium took place from 2-5 February in Munich, and we partnered with the Naval Postgraduate School and the German Universitaet der Bundeswehr for both planning and execution. One of the ideas that was very important to us in putting this event together was to ensure that we had broad representation among the symposium attendees. Since in today's globalized world we are so interconnected - and even the U.S. military relies heavily upon non-U.S. owned and operated infrastructure for its supply chain and logistics requirements - we felt strongly that it would not be enough to just bring the different components of the U.S. military together to talk about these issues. With this in mind, we invited representatives from many of our allied and friendly nations to attend, along with many private sector companies, the U.S. interagency (other elements of the U.S. government), and academia.

What we came up with was a great mix of international experts - both military and civilian - with a broad range of experience and perspective. We ended up having over 90 people in attendance, with official representation from 13 countries.

Many of the people who participated in this event also took part in the EUCOM 2020 symposium which the EUCOM CIEG ("Commander's Interagency Engagement Groupp") hosted last summer in Garmsich-Partenkirchen. The idea behind the first symposium was to identify, with EUCOM's many partners and stakeholders, those critical issues that will be faced within the EUCOM Area of Responsibility in the coming decade, and to enhance collaboration between EUCOM and its partners. During the EUCOM 2020 symposium, participants were divided into small groups and were challenged to identify the priority issues they thought EUCOM should focus on in the next 10-12 years. Everyone took this challenge very seriously, and came up with thoughtful and carefully reasoned lists of issues for EUCOM to take into consideration when charting its course over the coming decade.

One of the top issues identified as a priority during the first symposium was the security of the global supply chain, and that is why chose to focus on this topic for last week's event.

Ensuring the security of the supply chain remains a critical component in the fight against terrorism, and in enhancing the free flow of legitimate trade, travel and investment. It can be a difficult issue to address, as all nations face resource constraints which they must consider in determining how to allocate national funds. Also, due to the complexity of today's global supply chain, it is an issue which requires significant international and interagency cooperation and coordination.

Much as we did during the EUCOM 2020 symposium, last week we tasked symposium participants with identifying the top logistics / supply chain related issues that would be faced by EUCOM over the coming decade. Everyone joined a working group, and then spent time over the course of the week with their group to come up with some kind of consensus on what these top issues are. It was very interesting to see the results, which were presented on Thursday morning.

Each of the working groups had a slightly different take on these top issues, but there were a number of common threads that ran through many of the presentations. Some of these common threads included the problems of fraud and corruption, a lack of uniform operating standards, and the lack of a common operating picture. Unsurprisingly, especially given current global economic woes, the impact of the economy was also the subject of much discussion - as was the challenge posed by limited economic resources and economic disparity amongst countries which play an important role in ensuring the security of the global supply chain.

The continued threat of disruption due to terrorism and natural disaster was also identified as a key ongoing issue, and one which requires significant cooperation to address. Finally, an important take-away of the week was the heavy emphasis in many discussions on the critical role played by the private sector in providing logistics / supply chain management services. Clearly, these are areas in which there is room for continued and enhanced collaboration - not only internationally and with the interagency, but also between government and the private sector.

Now that we have wrapped up the symposium, one of our next tasks is to decide how best to continue the dialogue that we began last summer with the EUCOM 2020 symposium, and built upon last week in Munich. Participants shared many ideas on how we might accomplish this. One of the ideas that was suggested during last week's event was for EUCOM to sponsor an annual or biennial event on this topic, perhaps holding it in a different country each time. Another idea was for EUCOM to start up a blog on the subject. A third suggestion was for EUCOM to expand its military exercise program to include the security of the supply chain, and to extend invitations to the private sector and interagency to participate in these exercises. Finally, a number of participants pointed to the importance of continuing EUCOM efforts to build partner capacity in this and other related areas.

We invite you to join this discussion, and to provide additional suggestions or comments on these ideas. All of us have a shared interest in enhancing the security of the supply chain, and we at EUCOM look forward to further engaging with our partners and stakeholders on this subject.

Kathleen Peggar
Commander's Interagency Engagement Group