Episode 38. The National Security Toolbox Part II: Who does what?  A conversation with General Douglas Lute and Ambassador Marc Grossman

Episode Transcript:

Amb. McCarthy: [00:00:13] This is part two of our conversation with General Doug Lute and Ambassador Marc Grossman. On the balance between using our military and our diplomats in advancing US interests overseas. Speaking of allies and partners who have been key to our involvement in Afghanistan, Iraq and other places. Can you explain to our listeners how our top diplomats and our senior military leaders go about building and maintaining the alliances that are so important for our strength as a nation as we operate globally?

Gen. Lute: [00:00:48] Well, first of all, we shouldn't skip past the fact that we have been able, especially in Afghanistan, to sustain an international coalition for an amazing number of years. I mean, the data is something like 40 allies and partners are with us in Afghanistan, contributing troops and other capabilities at the 18 year mark in the Afghan campaign. I mean, that's amazing. So there's a real there's a real set of lessons, I think, which your question points to about, okay, how did we actually pull this off? I mean, this doesn't just happen naturally. Part of it is because we all started with a common interest, a strong common interest. And this was, again, all the way back to the immediate aftermath of 9/11, 11. So we all had this strong interest in counterterrorism and in particular focused on al Qaeda the first time NATO invoked its mutual defense clause. So the famous Article Five of the Washington treaty, which established NATO, the first and only time was in the day after was the day after nine 9/11 when NATO said to America, we're here with you. And that's really as an American and as an American who sat at the NATO council table. That's to this day chilling because, of course, NATO was established for nothing to do with al-Qaida, nothing to do with an attack on America. Right. It had everything to do with countering the Soviet Union in Central Europe. But on the day our allies stood with us. So there's really some lesson here, I think, about the the importance, the potency of sustaining alliances and diplomatic relationships, because when you need them, they will be there. And you can't create these overnight. You have to slowly invest and and nurture them and maintain them over decades so that when you need them on September 12th, they're there. And Afghanistan, I think, is a pretty good example of that.

Amb. Grossman: [00:02:52] I'd say also just to start, it allows us as Americans in a podcast like this to remind your listeners that 18 years in a lot of these countries have taken enormous casualties. You think of the number of British dead Australians, you know, others, Poles, people have died in Afghanistan, Canadians. And so I think it's always worthwhile to stop and recognize that while we have while we have sacrificed enormously in Afghanistan, other people have as well. And we ought to thank them for it. The other thing, I think that just at the end of Doug's comments that's really important is that this the the effort to maintain allies is an enormous amount of hard work. And and George Shultz used to say, you know, a lot of diplomacy is tending the garden and maybe that doesn't sound so important, but actually tending the garden is really important. And it means that we were talking about the number of trips we took. It means that you've got to go to Norway and you have to go to Poland and you have to go to the UK and you have to go to Australia. You have to go to Japan and not just to talk to them but to listen to them. They have objectives too. They have cultures, they have politics. And so this is an effort on the diplomatic side to say, I'm listening to you. We have these objectives and we're trying to accomplish these tasks, but we want to accomplish them with you. And what can we do together that helps you meet your goals, helps you explain this to your population and we can still go down the same path. And a lot of this is consultation and a lot of it is showing respect to other people's views. I mean, Doug did that as the ambassador to NATO. But you think of all the time that's spent talking to people, listening to people, respecting people, and then on the 12th of September or in the 18 years afterwards or in any number of efforts. They're there with you.

Gen. Lute: [00:04:53] This is enormously important in efforts like Afghanistan, which are not short term one year projects. And my experience is that these coalitions in this case in Afghanistan, founded on the NATO alliance, but actually extending beyond the alliance proper to partners like Mark mentioned, Australia is a classic example, or Ukraine and Georgia contribute troops to the coalition in Afghanistan and the coalition provides that effort staying power, durability. And it does that by way of starting with a common project, a common, a common cause. But then over the years, deliberate gardening, deliberate nurturing of the effort. And from the allies perspective, what they really expect is is caught in a phrase, nothing about us without us. They want to be included. I got that from my wife, by the way. So nothing about us without us. But the idea is, yes, we have common objectives, but keep us informed. Regular political consultations. The tending of the garden is really important. And this is what this is a very important function of diplomacy.

Amb. Grossman: [00:06:11] And also it's a very important function for the United States. So everyone has diplomacy. But one of the great privileges of being an American diplomat is, is that because of our power in the world and if I may say, still the indispensability of the United States in the world. You know, when I had these I had the good fortune to be the assistant secretary for European affairs. And one of the things I noticed was that you had to do this consultation and tend the garden, but it was very important that people felt that we had a plan. And so often the challenge in Europe would be you'd go to Europe and you'd say, Here's what we'd like to do. And the Europeans would say, You see, they don't ask us anything. And sometimes you'd come and say, Well, we really don't know what to do and we'd like your views and consultation and say, Oh my God, they have no plan. And so, so somewhere in there is the is the power of the United States as the honor of representing the United States, the need for consultation and information. But don't forget, we have to drive this conversation.

Amb. McCarthy: [00:07:10] And you also illustrate by your comments the importance of so much of our discussion about alliances and partners is done in military terms. Who's paying for what, defense budget, NATO contributions, etcetera. But these alliances are based on deeper engagement at all levels, not just at the military level, but at the diplomatic level.

Amb. Grossman: [00:07:30] Yeah, When you think about, for example, Japan, we think about the effort that Japan has made in Afghanistan. So they're limited the number of things they can do militarily. But the supply effort that they've made, the other efforts and very importantly, during the time that I was the special representative and Doug will remember the Japanese, they volunteered to hold an enormous ministerial conference in 2012in Tokyo. And what was it about? It wasn't actually about the military piece of it at all. It was about all the other things and about the economic development and the aid that was required and very importantly, the things that the Afghans had to do to keep that aid flowing. So you can, in the case of Japan, for example, say, well, here's a country that wasn't able didn't put troops on the ground, but they made an enormous diplomatic contribution to the effort in Afghanistan.

Amb. McCarthy: [00:08:20] Well, today, as we deal with near-peer competitors such as China and disruptors such as Russia, how do we best use our military and diplomatic tools to advance US interests? And are we seeing a skewed use of one set of tools over the other?

Gen. Lute: [00:08:36] So I think especially perhaps with the competition with, as we say, near-peer competitors. So China and Russia at the top of that list, it's important to combine these two tools and to try to lace them together so in a constructive way so that they're mutually reinforcing. So let me take a specific example. So after the Russian illegal annexation of Crimea in 2014, followed by destabilizing the Donbas in Ukraine just a couple of months later, and then Russian interference or intervention in Syria a couple of years after that, NATO took on A22 track approach with regard to NATO relations with Russia, and the key terms were deterrence and dialogue. So this was the notion of we will do as an alliance everything necessary to deter Russian aggression against NATO members. So this is deploying new troops where they hadn't been before and upping the ante in terms of the exercise program, creating rapid response forces and so forth. So we do the military part, but we would couple that, we would we would create we would twin that with remaining open for dialogue. And this meant talking to Russia about reducing risks of inadvertent military confrontation, reducing the risk of accidents, remaining open to arms control, and remaining open to discuss those those parts of the relationship which were which was a difficult relationship because of Russia's actions.

Gen. Lute: [00:10:14] Right. But remaining open to talk about areas of cooperation. This is especially important, I think, with us Russian relations today. I mean, despite what we've seen with Russian aggression in its near abroad, despite the Russian interference in our own election process in 2016, we need to be mature enough to confront Russia where necessary, but also be open to dialogue. Arms control would be at the top of my list, especially this year, as we're now within about one year of the expiration of the last strategic Arms control agreement between the United States and Russia. The new Start agreement, which expires in February of next year, if not extended. So there's a lot we should talk about. I mean, ultimately, an American today doesn't get into space unless there's US-Russian relations, because all American astronauts are launched by by Russian rockets. So there's a lot to talk about. And we should be open to doing both, being strong in the military front and being open on the diplomatic front.

Amb. Grossman: [00:11:14] I'd say that there's a if I look at the world today, one of the I think there's a positive answer to your question as well, which is and beginning in the Clinton administration, I'm sorry, in the in the Obama administration with Secretary Clinton and then moving on to the Trump administration. I think what you see in the Indo-Pacific strategy is, I think, a very smart way to start bringing the whole set of tools of the US government together in a strategic thought. And the the commander of the Pacific Command, now Admiral Phil Davidson, who had the chance to work with us a little bit in Afghanistan and Pakistan. So we know him well. I think he's doing a terrific job there of bringing together all the strands of American policy and working with the State Department, with the Defense Department and others. So if you think about kind of what he's trying to do, it isn't just a military strategy. There's a larger thought that the secretary of state has talked about, the secretary of defense has talked about president is going to India here this next week. And so there's a I think a larger a larger strategic grand strategy that we ought to that we ought to that we ought to support because it uses all the pieces. You know, one of the things I've been interested in is the way they've, for example, brought energy into this area.

Amb. Grossman: [00:12:30] Right? So American natural gas is now being exported to India. It goes to Japan. So really interesting. So you can use energy as part of your Indo-Pacific strategy. You can use the politics out there. You can use the economics. I think that I hope that one of the things that we'll maybe come back to is some kind of modernized Trans Pacific Partnership. Right. On the economic side, I was sorry that President Trump decided not to pursue that. It wasn't a trade agreement. It was a strategic part of this grand strategy. So I'd like to see them come back to that. I hope they will. And the other piece of it, of course, in Asia is and you very rightly put it in your question, which is sort of what do people pay? So right now we're in negotiations with the South Koreans about, you know, their contribution to their own defense to Japan. And I think these these things need to be seen in the larger question of what's our grand strategy out there? How can we bring all the tools of the US government to bear? And I think you're starting to see it in this unified government wide whole of government in. Specific strategy.

Gen. Lute: [00:13:36] You know, but this this question about Near-peer competition and the importance of coalitions and allies are connected. Right? So your last question is, is connected to this one. And, you know, I think as Americans, as we look forward to the next 10 or 20 years of international affairs, it'll probably be dominated by this competition with China. Right. And and Americans should ask themselves, how do we wish to enter this competition? How do we want to play this competition with China? Do we want to play it mano a mano one on one, or should we actually play it on an uneven playing field in our favor with about two thirds of the world's GDP aligned with us? So this would be the combination of our European allies and our East Asian allies and the American GDP. I mean, if we team up and we get our act together, we're in a very favorable position to compete with an ascendant China. And so we should be back to earlier comment from Mark. We should be nurturing these allies not only in military ways, perhaps not even especially in military ways, but in economic and political ways as well.

Amb. Grossman: [00:14:44] I think one of the things that's really important for the diplomacy in all of this and for Americans to remember, just as Doug said, is that, yes, there are near-peer competitors, but in one thing, they're not near-peer competitors is that we are the ones with allies. We have allies. And that makes us enormously, much stronger around the world.

Gen. Lute: [00:15:02] And the maintenance of those allies is another core task of American diplomacy, and it gives us this huge geostrategic advantage.

Amb. McCarthy: [00:15:11] Well, I wanted to talk a little bit about the fact that the challenges we face as a nation often lie between the clear states of war and peace, and much activity threatening the United States takes place in the so-called gray zone, such as cyber. How is or how are the changing nature of conflict and technologies altering the balance between the use of military and diplomatic tools?

Gen. Lute: [00:15:38] Well, one way that diplomacy has contributed over the years is to establish norms or rules of the road to include with regard to conflict. And you can think about the Geneva Accords, you can think about strategic arms control and so forth. And as new challenges arise, like cyber, for example, they arise in a free fire zone of no rules and no norms. So I think a very important theme of diplomacy looking forward will be to see if we can establish some guardrails, some international norms in these gray zone competitions like on cyber, and it might be possible even to resurrect some of the concepts that worked for us in the physical world and apply them to the cyber world. So, for example, is there a role for cyber deterrence? Could you could you take the principles of classic deterrence theory and apply them to cyber? Or what about cyber arms control? You know, could you could you could you arrive with our cyber competitors at a set of agreements and say we're neither of us will use cyber for these in these ways? So this, I think, is is fresh ground for the diplomats of the future.

Amb. Grossman: [00:17:02] I'd also say that your question on changes cyber in particular is absolutely connected to the previous conversation we were having, which was I agree 100% with Doug, is that you need some rules. The only way these rules will appear is if you've got allies. And so when you say what's the changing nature of the conflict, there's a lot of changing nature of the conflict. But what's constant is if you intend to deal with this conflict, you'd better have some allies. And if you're going to have allies, you'd better have some diplomacy.

Amb. McCarthy: [00:17:31] Well for diplomacy to continue, it also needs to be supported. And let me turn a little bit to the to the budget issue, which we touched on briefly in the beginning. As we have seen, once again, we have an increase this fiscal year in our military budget and another proposed large cut in our diplomatic budget. And I know that, Doug, you and many of our top military leaders have consistently argued for increased funding for diplomacy. And these efforts, as well as those of retired senior diplomats such as you, Mark, have helped restore some of the cuts each time they've been proposed recently. This is making diplomacy, however, live hand to mouth. How can we put US diplomacy on a more sustainable path?

Gen. Lute: [00:18:17] Well, this is a really important question that takes us all the way back to the beginning of this, our session here today. And when you have a defense budget, which is 15 times, at least by my rough calculation, 15 times the State Department budget, you're going to see a distortive effect on the ground because military commands will be able to will naturally overwhelm embassies and so forth. In terms of resources I favor, and this is a this is a bit of a a bit of a wish I'd favor looking at the elements of our national security toolbox in a more complete, comprehensive way rather than discrete department by department budgets. So part of the reasons we are so distorted today is that only the House and Senate Armed Services Committee deal directly with crafting the defense budget. And then the other elements, the state departments budget, the USAID budget and so forth are elsewhere in the Congress, and they don't actually get put together in a comprehensive way so that you can argue, you know, we have this great hammer in the state or in the in the Defense Department budget, but we're a little light on diplomacy and development and so forth. Don't get put together like that. So we're dealing in compartments rather than in a comprehensive whole. And I'd like I'd like to see more work where we're looking at what might be called the national security budget rather than a department by department budget.

Amb. Grossman: [00:19:54] I think that's a really important point, and I'd agree with that. The other thing I think is important and here, you know, I spent almost 32 years at the State Department. I was a Foreign Service officer. I loved the department. And yes, the department needs more resources. It needs more people. It needs more professional education. It needs more resources. But part of that responsibility falls on the State Department and the people of the department, and that is to kind of make the case to the public in the United States of America that diplomacy is part of Doug's point about national security. And so, you know, I admire what you're doing here in this podcast, for example. But people need to understand that if you want this budget and you want to have proper resources, then you have to stand up for it and you have to speak out for it and you have to make the case. And that's something that the military has done enormously effectively. And I admire that. Right. People say people people understand in the United States what it is that our military forces do for the security of the United States. And that's because people have been prepared to stand up and say this is really important. So until the department, both its leadership and the people who work there understand that this money just doesn't arrive, you have to work for it and.

Amb. McCarthy: [00:21:08] Consistently engage with it.

Amb. Grossman: [00:21:09]  And not just the Congress, but also public in Congress constituents, so that people in Kansas City, Missouri, are writing to their senators and their congressmen saying we need more effort on the diplomatic side. That's part of our national security as well. So I think Doug is exactly right. But I often find that on the department side, especially on the people who work at the department, there's this kind of passivity. Why don't they understand us and or they should understand us better? Well, that's your responsibility. It's our responsibility. And again, I admire what you are doing and other people are doing to try to change that conversation in the United States.

Gen. Lute: [00:21:47] You know, Deborah, as I think about this question about how could you make this more coherent as a national security rather than department by department approach? I wonder if it's too ambitious, even as I suggested myself, too ambitious to do it at the national level. But is it potentially viable at the regional level? And here an interesting idea might be to, as I say, realign the bureaucratic maps. And here I'm talking the geographic maps. So if you look at the geographic map that comes out of the Pentagon, you have regional combatant commands and they are all responsible for their parts of the world. So Central Command, for example, in the Middle East or or European Command and Europe. Right. But if you overlay on top of that Pentagon map, the State Department map, they don't match. Right. And if you overlay on top of those two, the intelligence community maps, they don't match. So if you're the CentCom commander, the Central Command commander, and you ask who are my counterparts? Who is my counterpart at the State Department, the answer is you probably have 3 or 4 that you have to go talk to. What if we align those maps so that each combatant commander has one assistant secretary, geographic bureau assistant secretary, and that together they would they would testify at posture hearings. Together they would be confirmed to assume their positions. They would be teammates from the outset, I think. You could in that form, maybe on the regional level, better make the case that they're both contributing to the same national security efforts. So we're just not aligned well to really bring the whole of government together.

Amb. Grossman: [00:23:31] I have a similar fantasy and at least but but that's accurate. But I have a I have a similar fantasy and yours would be a lot easier to accomplish than mine. So one of the things that happens if you're an ambassador, Doug will remember this from his time at NATO. But one of the fantastic things that happens when you're an ambassador is you get a letter from the president, and that letter says you're responsible for everything that's here, Right. With certain exceptions. But you're responsible for our policy toward NATO or to Turkey or here or there. I would like to see a similar letter issued to somebody in Washington, DC, and I recognize my bias, but I would issue it to the Assistant Secretary of State responsible for the region once Doug's maps are squared up so that at. Deputies committee meetings, right. At inter-agency meetings. There's somebody responsible to the president for that.

Amb. McCarthy: [00:24:23] There's consistency of responsibility.

Amb. Grossman: [00:24:26] Everybody knows it. Right. And so everybody can have their say, just like on a country team. But in the end, Deborah, I mean, you were an ambassador. You know that you had that letter. It was in your safe and it was it said you are levied, you have this responsibility. The president gives it to you. And there's a chain of command from the president to the secretary of state. And I would do this exactly the same thing in Washington, D.C. So somebody is responsible.

Gen. Lute: [00:24:48] And if you you know, in Marc's dream, is his image. Right. If you go to war, you can imagine that the responsibility for that period of open conflict shifts to probably a military lead, but then it should at some logical point revert back to the civilian lead. And there would be this exchange of the baton between civilian and military.

Amb. Grossman: [00:25:13] I also think one of the things that some combatant commanders have done, certainly in Africa, in Africa, for example, was would be to have one of the deputies be a senior State Department officer or a senior ambassador. I think that's a terrific thought.

Amb. McCarthy: [00:25:27] You know, where we've had that, it's worked well. And, you know, some combinations have been at less than ambassador level. And I don't know, you know, how they measure the effectiveness, having an ambassador, former ambassador versus someone who's less less senior. But it is important to have a senior civilian diplomat that is present. Well, speaking of public service, in recent months, we have seen our diplomats and our military demonstrate under great pressure in appearing before Congress. The best qualities of our public servants honor, courage and the highest sense of ethics and responsibility. Gentlemen, is this sufficient to stop the erosion of the interest in public service? And what more can be done?

Gen. Lute: [00:26:11] Well, first of all, as I watched recent current events and saw diplomats, military officers and so forth testified before Congress, I was struck by something I've known for a long time, but I was reminded that they all take the same oath of office. Right? I mean, and it's word for word the same, which is to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. Right. So this is a constitutionally based commitment made by foreign service officers, military officers, intelligence officers and so forth. So first of all, going back to those roots of of obligation and professional commitment, I think is very important. And we could do more in terms of reminding ourselves of that common commitment. But also this most recent experience reminded me of the of the importance of institutions. You know, democracies don't just happen. Democracies endure when they're founded on secure, reliable institutions. And so what's really stark to me is when we see either around the world or potentially here in the United States, assaults on or or attacks on our institutions. And here you think about the intelligence community, the FBI, the Department of Justice and so forth. And these are fundamentally attacks on America. So we have to, I think, be careful here about how we value and how we invest in our institutions, because that is those are the square foundation of our democracy.

Amb. Grossman: [00:28:02] First, I'd say I agree completely with Doug about the importance of the oath of office. People take that oath when they come into the Foreign Service. They take it again, as we all did when we became ambassadors or more senior leaders. But the people who were called to testify, they lived that oath. And I think they searched their consciences and they said, I put my hand up. I put my hand on my Bible. I promised I would do these things. And they did. And I admired them. And I thought that they they presented themselves as professionals of great courage and people who were living their oath in terms of the future. I mean, I think you ask an important question, which is to say, you know, are people going to continue to be interested in public service? And, you know, Deborah, I get asked a lot. You can imagine young people here around should I join the Foreign Service today? Of course, you should join the Foreign Service today. I say, because you've got to play for the long term. And the United States of America is going to be a very important country in the world for a very long time. And we need the best people possible to be diplomats. And that diplomacy is a profession. And so what you join today, I don't know what it's going to be like 30 or 35 years from now, but it's going to be an exciting ride in some new kind of profession of diplomacy.

Amb. Grossman: [00:29:16] And I tell people also and I'm sure the same thing is true for military officers, I tell them that there's no substitute for working in an office where the American flag flies. Right. There's no higher honor than that. And that if you can if you can if you can hold on to that honor, if you can get it and if you can hold on to it. Well, you've made a great contribution. You know, Rich Armitage, who was the deputy secretary of state for a while, had this wonderful phrase that, you know, people go into public service because they want to lead lives of significance. And when I think back to, you know, it was hard sometimes struggling, you know, I wouldn't have traded anything for what I had the privilege to do and serving the United States because you had this opportunity to serve our country. And so when I tell people, young people today, of course, you should take the Foreign Service exam, of course you should join the Foreign Service. Please do, because we need great people to go forward in the future. I hope they will continue to do so.

Gen. Lute: [00:30:11] You know, when I left the federal government after, I don't know, 40 some years in 2017, I made my way around to old friends, colleagues, bosses and so forth, and I found myself sitting with Marc Grossman one day and in his office at his firm. And I said, you know, Marc, what's what's different about, you know, sort of post-government life as compared to and he said, look, I can sum it up very neatly. There's no substitute for sitting at a desk like this desk with the American flag at your back because you very much represent the United States of Americans. And that's fundamentally the difference between government life and civilian life. So with that image of sitting at a desk with the American flag behind you is exciting, then maybe there's something to your pursuing a career in the Foreign Service or career as a military officer, as an intelligence officer, and that really is very, very special.

Amb. McCarthy: [00:31:16] Gentlemen, That's so well said. Thank you so much for joining us in this podcast and sharing your wisdom, your knowledge, your friendship, your bonds. And thank you also for your continued contributions.

Amb. Grossman: [00:31:29] Thank you for having us. Thanks.

Amb. McCarthy: [00:31:32] This has been an episode in the series The General and the Ambassador. Our series is a production of the American Academy of Diplomacy with the generous support of the Una Chapman Cox Foundation. You can find our podcasts on all major podcast sites and on our website, Generalambassadorpodcast.org. We truly welcome input and suggestions for the series. Please contact us at general.Ambassador.podcast@gmail.com. Thank you for listening.