Q&A: Obama on Foreign Policy

Q. You have said that your "shared security partnership program" would "forge an international intelligence and law enforcement infrastructure to take down terrorist networks," and that you would provide $5 billion annually over three years to promote counterterrorism cooperation around the world. What specific infrastructure innovations would you propose? What would be different about intelligence and law enforcement relationships?

A. The U.S. is still poorly organized to assist, train and equip police forces in nations challenged by terrorism. We need to build the infrastructure within the State Department's Bureau of International Law Enforcement (INL) to deliver effective counter-terrorism training, and the shared security partnership program (SSPP) will be housed in INL.

Police and intelligence organizations in many countries still lack officers who have been trained in the tactics that have proven successful elsewhere and lack the basic equipment used in modern policing. The military frequently fills the gap and all too often relies on the blunt and counterproductive instruments of repression.

SSPP would teach police and intelligence agencies how to acquire information and disrupt terrorist operations through cooperative efforts, forensics and new technologies, rather than torture and harassment, which have proved counterproductive. The strengthened community-police relationships should aid local authorities in identifying terror cells and support groups.

INL will also work to create links between these foreign police forces and U.S. police agencies in New York, Los Angeles and other major cities that have developed these programs successfully. The two-way exchange of ideas and information at the metropolitan level, where terrorist attacks take place, will greatly aid global efforts in the fight against terrorism.

Q. The military is becoming ever more involved in state to state relations.

You, and many others, speak of the need to increase diplomatic and civilian resources and to integrate them more closely with the military as instruments of foreign policy and have called for "mobile development teams" for the military to carry out such functions. Some critics believe that the military is already too involved in diplomacy and that the image the United States presents to the world is already too identified with the armed forces. Does this concern you?

A. One of the greatest tactical failures in the occupation of Iraq was the inability to marshal the capabilities of American experts in the State Department and elsewhere to aid in the stabilization and rebuilding. Because of inadequate planning by civilian leaders, the military has been asked to carry this burden alone.

I will work with Congress to ensure that the State Department has the authorities and resources it requires to lead U.S. government efforts to prevent and respond to conflict. I will increase the size of the Foreign Service, fully fund the Coordinator for Reconstruction and Stabilization and create a new office of conflict prevention and resolution with senior ambassadors to support high-level negotiations and provide the expertise and capacity to seize opportunities or address crises as they arise. I will also build a ready reserve corps of private civilians that can participate in post-conflict, humanitarian and stabilization efforts around the globe.

At the same time, I will modernize our foreign assistance policies, tools, and operations into a restructured, empowered and streamlined USAID [U.S. Agency for International Development].

As the U.S. confronts new global challenges, greater cooperation between civilian and military agencies is essential. That is why, in my administration, the National Security Council will assert a powerful coordinating role, and a deputy national security adviser will be empowered to develop integrated strategies to build capable, democratic states and ensure policy coherence in the application of development and democracy programs as key elements of U.S. power.