Blog Posts tagged with "J9"

“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

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

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

“Up from the ground, come a bubblin’ crude, oil that is, Black Gold, Texas Tea…”

If you grew up in the U.S. in the 1960s you can probably finish the rest of this song or at least hum a bit of it -- the opening lyrics of the then popular TV show “The Beverly Hillbillies”.  I believe that this was my first exposure to the power, importance, and wealth of oil -- heck, the discovery of it by Jed Clampett was potent enough make him a millionaire and  transport him and  his family of Jethro, Elly May, and Granny to the warm environs of southern California complete with “... swimmin’ pools … movie stars!”

During my service with the military I’ve come to appreciate the value of energy writ large, not just oil or gas for heating, but other hydrocarbon products such as refined gasoline for powering military vehicles, aircraft and field generators, and more recently, non-traditional “green” energy sources, such as wind and solar, used to provide power to deployed, remote Provincial Reconstruction Teams (PRT) or bases. 

Indeed, Energy Security has today become a U.S. national security issue and is among NATO’s emerging security challenges. NATO’s 2010 Strategic Concept charges the Alliance to “…develop the capacity to contribute to energy security, including protection of critical energy infrastructure…and contingency planning.”

In response to that charge, Lithuania’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Ministry of National Defense established an “Energy Security Center” in Vilnius in January 2011. The then-U.S. Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates, congratulated the Lithuanians on the launch and promised in a March 29 letter that “European Command (EUCOM) will have a team visit Vilnius in conjunction with its interagency representatives…”

Two days later I was proud to lead that EUCOM delegation to Vilnius. I travelled there with J9-hosted agency representatives from the Department of Energy and the Department of State, as well as a J9 critical infrastructure specialist.  At the conclusion of our two days of meetings with our host, former Lithuanian Ambassador to the United States, Audrius Bruezga, and members of his team we brainstormed about how EUCOM could best support the innovative and embryonic center. We promised to invite our Lithuanian allies to view a EUCOM exercise, encouraged them to interact with the Business Executives for National Security (BENS, a private sector organization), and together we considered the possibility of signing an informal partnership agreement between EUCOM and the Lithuanian Energy Center.

Well, fast forward 8 months and here in Stuttgart this week we signed such a partnership agreement:  a “Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the Energy Security Center under the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Lithuania and the United States European Command.”

Rear Adm. Charlie Martoglio, our Chief of Staff, signed for EUCOM and Ambassador Bruezga, now the Director of the Lithuanian Center, signed for his government. The Lithuanian Center has also made promising contact with the BENS organization and attended our annual exercise Flexible Leader and took back to Vilnius valuable lessons, ideas and best practices.    

Cooperation on Energy Security issues is in Lithuania’s and the United State’s common interests. The MOU outlines ways in which both organizations, EUCOM and the Energy Security Center, can continue to work and coordinate together. But not just common interests brought us together. Like the good judgment that oil-rich Jed Clampett often exhibited, this arrangement also makes good common sense, sense that even Jethro, with his vaunted “6th grade education”, would recognize.

Mike Anderson
Acting 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".

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

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