The One CA Podcast podcast

Holiday Replay, 171 Civil Military What?

0:00
33:36
Spola tillbaka 15 sekunder
Spola framåt 15 sekunder

Welcome to the One CA Podcast. In this episode Assad Raza hosts Henrique Garbino, Joao Mauricio Dias Lopes Valdetaro, and Jonathan Robinson as they discuss their paper and the competing concepts around civil military planning and operations. 

 

You can find "Civil Military What?" online at:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/378267976_Civil-military_what_Making_sense_of_conflicting_civil-military_concepts

 

Special thanks for Nakaboncajon for posting pandeiro // bossa nova. Retrieved from: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=npixMWE0QWk

---

00:00:06    Introduction Welcome to the 1CA Podcast. This is your host, Jack Gaines. 1CA is a product of the Civil Affairs Association and brings in people who are current or former military, diplomats, development officers, and field agents to discuss their experiences on ground with the partner nation's people and leadership. Our goal is to inspire anyone interested in working the last three feet of foreign relations. To contact the show, email us at capodcasting at gmail .com. Or look us up on the Civil Affairs Association website at www .civilaffairsassos .org. I'll have those in the show notes. Also, today's guests would like to state that the comments in their interview are their opinions and represent themselves and no other organization. So let's get started. 00:00:52    ASSAD RAZA Welcome to the 1CA podcast. I'm your host, Asad Raza. And today our guests are Henrique Gabino, Jonathan Robinson, and Jao Valdeterro. The authors of Civil Military What? Making Sense of Conflicting Civil Military Concepts. First, I really love your title. As a former civil affairs guy and working with the United Nations in the past, it really demonstrates the different perspectives that we have about civil military operations globally based off of these different lexicons that are out there. So before we start, can you quickly introduce yourselves with a little bit of background for our listeners? 00:01:29    ENRIQUE GARBINO Yes, I can start, I guess. So Enrique Garbino and thank you for having us here. Before I start, kudos to João for the title. That's his creation. So I started off in the Brazilian Army as a combat engineer officer. So I was there for about 12 years. I joined to work with peacekeeping operations after my first deployment to Haiti. I worked with Show Brazil Peacekeeping Training Center, and there I was coordinating the military coordination course with João, who is here with us. And we realized there were a lot of confusions with different concepts, Brazilian concepts, UN concepts, American concepts, regarding civil military relations. I worked for different NGOs, for example, and was in The Hague Civil Military Cooperation Center of Exile, COE. I also worked with a comparison, conceptual analysis between EU and NATO civil military concepts. That was when the CCOE became the department head for semi -military cooperation for the EU as well. And now I'm at the Swedish Defense University, where I don't study semi -military relations, but I'm working the use of landmines by non -state groups, landmines, IEDs, booby traps, things like that. 00:02:42    JOHNNY ROBINSON Thank you. Who wants to go next, John or Jao? Yeah, I don't mind jumping in. Johnny Robinson, and I'm porting the U .S. Naval War College's Humanitarian Response Program. So a global fellow at Brown University's Center for Human Rights Humanitarian Studies. For that, I spent almost a decade working in the Middle East for various humanitarian conflict resolution and private entities. We focused on aid worker security systems for civil military coordination analysis for the Carter Center, Caritas, Switzerland, the International NGO Safety Organization, amongst others. As you can tell from my accent, I'm not originally from the U .S., but I was born in the U .K., but ended up in Prince, Rhode Island, marrying my wife. So, yeah, and I got part of the project. And so, yeah, we've been on this journey together for a few years now. 00:03:34    ASSAD RAZA Hey, John, thank you. One question. You talk about being a fellow at Brown University. Do you know Stanislava? Yes. 00:03:40    JOHNNY ROBINSON Yeah, yeah, yeah. Yeah, I know Stanislav. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Stanislav did an interview with her, 00:03:40    ASSAD RAZA Yeah, 00:03:42    ASSAD RAZA did an interview with her, I think, last year on her book. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Yeah, when Rambo meets the Red Cross kind of thing. 00:03:48    JOHNNY ROBINSON meets the Red Cross kind of thing. Like, wow, really, really good. Yeah, no, it's great. Yeah, it's great. Perfect, 00:03:53    JOAO MAURICIO DIAS LOPES VALDETARO, John. Thank you. Thanks, Ata, for having us. And my background's a little different from both of them. I'm still in the Army for the last 21 years. I'm a major engineer reg in the Brazilian Army. I've been working in peacekeeping issues for 10 years already. So I shared, we've got, you know, we worked structures back there in the Brazilian Peacekeeping Operations Center. Regarding Civil Affairs, I had two deployments in Haiti. One of them, I was a platoon commander, but dealt a lot with CEMEC inside the Peacekeeping Mission. And my second deployment, I was T3 of the Brazilian Engineering Company, and also had a lot of publics to attend to. I've also been deployed at Central Africa Republic. We literally set up the first CEMEC branch in the Central African Army. And that's it. This paper has been worked for a while already, and I guess it's almost ready to be published. 00:04:53    ASSAD RAZA Jao, thank you for coming on. It seems like you have a wealth of experience. So let's get into the topic here. So in your opinion, based on your research, how have the definitions or applications of civil military concepts varied among the different organizations like the United Nations, the European Union, and NATO? 00:05:10    ENRIQUE GARBINO This is Henrique. Could you take a quick look at the conceptual framework? like the concepts used by different organizations to organize the relationship between civilians and military actors there is room for a lot of confusion so i'm going to give us some examples so we can kind of visualize them more for example the u .s army civil affairs concept it's a military capability that tries to achieve the military mission through showing civilian actors right The UN civil -military coordination, so the concept used by military UN peacekeepers, is a similar approach. NATO civil -military cooperation is also similar. So you have civil affairs, military cooperation, civil -military coordination, three different terms that mean roughly the same thing. Of course, there are differences between them, but overall, they all mean the same military capability. And you can also have the same term that mean different things. For example, the UN mission has this semi -military coordination for military peacekeepers, but they also have the UN humanitarian semi -military coordination, which is a concept dedicated to promoting and preserving the humanitarian principles in the interaction between military and civilian humanitarian actors in crises and emergencies. So it's a very different thing. The European Union also have the semi -military coordination concept, so the same term, but it's about the coordination between the headquarters level, military bodies, and the civilian bodies in Brussels. So it's something completely different from the other two concepts. The same terms being used, meaning very different things. And then if you start a little digging deeper, you come up with different concepts that you don't really know in which basket you put them, like military civil fusion, a concept being used in China at the moment. Civic military unions, a concept we found in Venezuela. So it's really hard for someone who is not really familiar with that organization in particular to really understand what that term really means. It can get very confusing. And I think the irony here is that most of these civil military concepts, they have a shared understanding between civilians and military actors. The concepts cannot agree among themselves. So I think that's a bit ironic and that's a gap we try to fill. 00:07:34    ASSAD RAZA And I think a lot of people are confused on the different concepts or the terminologies. I myself at times was a little confused. You know, I had the opportunity to work in northeastern Syria and we would coordinate the UN civil military coordination center that was in Jordan on humanitarian aid and trying to de -conflict HA that was coming in from the UN into Syria and some of our operations that not really having a good understanding could never got tied to what these organizations did at the time. So it was a bit confusing. But it was a British guy on the other end. So John, you know. 00:08:03    JOHNNY ROBINSON Yeah, no, I was on the other side, as it were, from you. So I came in from the humanitarian community. And so we also got confused as well by all the different terminologies and civil affairs versus SIMCORD versus SIMIC versus humanitarian -military interaction. And so, yeah, it's a cool problem, right? I think it shows that. It gets complex quite quickly when you have these multinational civilian military environments. 00:08:30    ASSAD RAZA Absolutely. So I know we talked about some of the challenges that you've experienced ourselves as practitioners on the ground. So is there any other challenges that we talk about that we might have missed? 00:08:40    JOAO MAURICIO DIAS LOPES VALDETARO, Maybe you want to talk about Brazilian in Haiti. But it's the same as the Assad was saying. It was something that we used to do back in the old days, but we didn't call it civil affair. We had been doing that for a while. battalion to Haiti. The battalion commander was the man that, hey, send us your semi -mobster to the meeting. And then they were like, what's semi? We were dealing with local population. We were dealing with people in the Amazon forest. We were dealing with civil defense, but all different stuff. So when we arrived in Haiti, and we were teaching in the peacekeeping center, we had a lot of students who just arrived and say, oh yeah, we have this civil social action the army would do to the local population or dealing with local authorities. And when we started to study the UN SEMREC doctrine, it also developed through the time after the mission haze. Within the SEMREC doctrine, what we used to do as civil action, people were arriving in the mission in the beginning, and they were doing exactly the same that they were doing. back home, but we were able in the end to highlight what CIMIC was for them, and they started to do the right stuff. Not under the first contingent, but at least, I can say, half of the mission on, we were doing the right stuff in the head. 00:10:12    ENRIQUE GARBINO I think another aspect of this issue is that what this is referring to is a military civic action. Before, it was done by a soldier in Damned Force. It's not a specialized function. You don't go to special training to do this. The army giving dental care or toys or food to the population. And then in the UN mission context, then you should do much more. You should partner with local organizations. You should not take the lead as a military actor. And those clashes of principles, clashes of modus operandi, that was visible. It's something you need to unlearn first so we could learn the new doctrine. 00:10:50    ASSAD RAZA Yeah, it seems like a really big challenge because you're trying to learn on the fly, on the ground, which causes frustration with some of the other participating organizations, right? Kind of going back to the biases that some people have, especially in a nonprofit NGO organization, like don't want to work in the military because of some of those challenges. So let's go into talking about your analytical tool, your concept that you guys develop. I know the paper, you were talking about like the four core parameters. So can you guys talk about your analytical tool? Yes, of course. Well, the main goal of the project was to come up with a way to sort different concepts so we can see which concepts are similar from each other, 00:11:19    ENRIQUE GARBINO goal of the project was to come up with a way to sort different concepts so we can see which concepts are similar from each other, which ones are different, and also why. So we can learn from each other when comparing, for example, civil affairs experiences with NATO -specific experiences, but we cannot really compare EU and SYNCORDS, so the EU and humanitarian and humanitarian coordination with civil affairs. So this was an abductive process. So we would study a specific concept in detail, like go to the guidance documents, try to break it down into what it means. Then do the same thing for the second concept and the third concept, and then try to find current aspects of that concept. And we tried maybe 20 different parameters, but it boiled out to four, which are the perspective that the concept takes, the scope of the relationship between civilians and military, The level of applicability and the structure. So for the perspective, is it mainly a military concept? It's a concept that serves the military mission. Or is it a civilian concept? A concept that serves the work of civilian organizations. Or is it a joint concept that serves both in an equal level? In terms of scope, to where the relationship between military and civilian actors are placed. For example, is it about internal coordination? For example, I mentioned the European Union concept of civil -military coordination, and that's an internal scope because it's about coordination within the EU, not between the EU and external actors. Other concepts are mainly external, so it's about, for example, the humanitarian organization dealing with military external actors. Some concepts are both internal and external. For example, if you take the UN civil -military coordination concept used by military peacekeepers, That has both an internal component, which is about facilitating the relationship between the UN military component within the mission with the civilian and police components of the same mission. And an external component, so between UN military component and externals and million actors. In level capability, we chose the classical tactical operations strategic level. Some concepts are more in the Dewey aspects, more tactical. Others are more in a coordination operational level, and others are more in setting goals, decision -making processes, the strategic level concepts. Or some also pick up into all levels. The fourth parameter, which we call structure, is whether a concept is a mental tool, something to keep in mind when you're doing your work, or if it's a dedicated structure with personnel, resources, structures, procedures, capability. something that someone is in charge of. So these are the four core parameters, and we took those concepts used by the US, NATO, the UN, and the EU. 00:14:17    ASSAD RAZA the EU. I really like the way you broke it down. You've taken a complex problem and not going to say simplified it, but put it in a way that someone that's working in this space can see the differences or how to engage with these different types of organizations. I really like the main perspective, and I really like the structure. As a practitioner on the ground, we see these terminologies and our assumption is that there's a dedicated personnel there, right? That there's structures and resources dedicated to this mission, but at times not. It's almost ad hoc. 00:14:48    ENRIQUE GARBINO Exactly. And I think that this problem becomes more emphasized when you come from a specific background, in your case, U .S. civil affairs. You expect that your counterpart has a similar understanding of what the concept means. But then you're going to work with an organization that doesn't have the civil military capability as a structure in the US context. So these clashes also happen because of your previous assumptions and experiences. 00:15:13    ASSAD RAZA Yeah, absolutely. We all have our own biases based off our own work experiences. So you kind of always default back to your perspective of how you utilize within your own military, taking that for granted and not really understanding outside of your inner circle. 00:15:27    ENRIQUE GARBINO Exactly. Again, about analytical framework used by the US, EU, UN and NATO, we came up with four ideal concepts. And one of them is what we call semi -military relations or CMR. And that's mostly a strategic level principle, but it's mainly related to how relations should be conducted at a broader strategic level. So here we're talking about... The relationship between the Ministry of Defense and the President, for example, or the Amateur Forces in society as a whole, things like that. And the second concept is civil -military interaction, which is also a non -dedicated function, so there's no one in charge of that, but it's the everyday interaction between military and civilian actors. The idea is that if you are deployed as a soldier or a military actor in a crisis, If you were a cook, if you were a driver, if you were a planner, it doesn't matter. Then you're going to interact with your counterpart somehow in the checkpoint or during your patrol when you go to the groceries. It doesn't matter. And then you have two concepts that are dedicated functions. One takes the military perspective, which we call CIMIC, semi -military cooperation. So then US civil affairs, according to our... Definition would fall into this archetype. And the humanitarian counterpart, which is the military coordination concept, or CMCORD, which is also, again, a dedicated function on the humanitarian side, facilitating interaction between humanitarian actors and the military. Sometimes it may just share information and ensure that humanitarians are not in the same time and space as the military. And sometimes they can be more cooperative activities as necessary and as suitable for the region. So with these different concepts, we can categorize them like that. 00:17:27    ASSAD RAZA Thank you, Henrique. I really like your framework and the archetypes that you just mentioned right here. In your view, do you see NATO or the UN or someone implement it in their doctrines? 00:17:38    ENRIQUE GARBINO I hope so, but I don't want to be too ambitious about it. I think that more than anything else, this could be used as a training and education tool. So what organization can make sense of down -drop training and how it relates to others? 00:17:53    JOAO MAURICIO DIAS LOPES VALDETARO, One important thing, you're going to be deployed, you're going to find organization max, Y, and Z. So we can go there and at least get an initial idea how that organization will work and if they have a dedicated function. And also because of that, we put all the references. Or if you want to go deep on that specific organization, the main reason... or the fact sheets, exactly that. So I'm going to be deployed it. I want to know how that specific organization that I will follow on the ground works. So at least you're going to have an initial idea on how they work, how they organize, and if they're going to have a point of contact. 00:18:32    ENRIQUE GARBINO Well, their feedback was that there's a good approach to looking to different concepts, protection of civilians, for example, as it is stood by the UN versus NATO versus other organizations. or other similar buzzwords used in crisis response. And also some criticism. Okay, so what about the police? How is the police included in this study? And this is a shortcoming we acknowledge in the research that we consider police to fall into the civilian category and black box it there, but there is a way for more research. And it's something that if my main takeaway from this whole project is how many questions we got by conducting this research. And so I think we have a wealth of research questions for the future. 00:19:17    ASSAD RAZA Absolutely. I think you brought something important to the surface because I think for some countries, for example, Panama only has police, but they do also want to get into the UN type mission sets too. So how would they apply this not being military? I think a lot more questions can arise once we start seeing a lot more different capabilities from our partner nations. 00:19:36    JOHNNY ROBINSON Yeah. I mean, I think that was our hope that, you know, people could really use this as a jumping off point. as a tool to start those discussions. You know, we're not trying to say this is the exact way to interpret or use these concepts, but it can be used as a starting point to then compare and contrast the different concepts and hopefully allow for that cooperation to happen more. That was exactly my point. Thanks a lot. Can you kind of talk a little bit about your main findings? 00:20:01    ENRIQUE GARBINO you kind of talk 00:20:02    JOHNNY ROBINSON a little bit about 00:20:02    ENRIQUE GARBINO your main findings? The main finding here is that the four concepts seem to be comprehensive enough. properly fulfilled. And I thought it was interesting, the terms being used, we didn't explore why certain terms are used versus others, but that's what I meant as well. We found that the concept, the term civil -military relations was used to signify all the four archetypes. So we had, for example, the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement uses the concept of civil -military relations. along with what we understand as civil -military relations, the strategic level interaction between military and civilians. We also have a known state army group, the More Islamic Liberation Front, for example, that uses civil -military relations as a concept to signify a military capability. We also have CARE International, NGO, that uses CMR, humanitarian and civil -military coordination. So this unilateral humanitarian capability to ensure that humanitarian principles are protected. And then you also have Caritas Internationali's concept of relations with the military, more of a semi -military interaction, the idea that this are non -educated concept that is present in everyday interaction between the militarians and the military in a crisis context. So the same concept or the same term, CMR being used to signify or the other four ideal types. In some terms, you can really see there is an intention about how strong the link between civilians and military is intended. So, for example, you see military -civil fusion, and before that, civil -military integration, which is about capabilities supporting the military effort. So, it's really about joining forces towards land security goal. So you can see that terms used also signify how strong the links between the two sides of the relationship. Some concepts are a bit more into the extreme, which start to be a bit more neutral, like similar military affairs, similar interaction, coordination, and others are a bit more into doing action, similar military cooperation, similar collaboration, similar engagement. So it's interesting to see how these terms vary. A final comment here is that there is a... Clear convergence in the terminology used in the CIMIC category, so the military concepts. Basically, most of them are either following the U .S. tradition called civil affairs, especially in Latin America, so all of these countries have the civil affairs label to it, and civil military cooperation following the NATO tradition, so the CIMIC variant. So it's understandable if you think about interoperability, if you think about multinational deployments within NATO, EU, UN, and other multilateral organizations. So that's no surprise in that. What I think is interesting is that on the other side, in the humanitarian sector, then there is a clear divergence of terms. It seems like every organization wants to be unique. 00:23:23    ASSAD RAZA That's interesting. I like the point that you brought about interoperability and the convergence of CIMIC or civil affairs within the allies, NATO. some of our partners in the Western Hemisphere. And my assumption is that the divergence piece coming from the humanitarian actors, does that contribute to some of the confusion on the military side? 00:23:41    ENRIQUE GARBINO I've had the opportunity to work with the International Great Trust. It's an organization that does not have humanitarian -military interaction nowadays. And before it's a military coordination, they are unique. They are their own thing, which is interesting. It also makes sense from a humanitarian perspective. They've tried to keep their neutrality as much as possible. Working with the military or working with military counterparts, negotiating access, doing visits of prisons of war, delivering aid in territories occupied by another group, this is the bread and butter of the organization. Every job in their COC were supposed to do that. So for that organization, it doesn't make quite sense to have an overarching concept to coordinate that because that's what everybody's doing already. So what I think that this study shows where there might be a gap, it also pretends to understand why is this the case. But of course, this can cause confusion. If you apply as a civil affairs officer expecting to find a counterpart in a humanitarian organization, you most likely will be frustrated because most of them don't have it. And if you're expecting... that your experience working with EU and OCHA is going to be the same when you're working with WSP or with the RCSC or with any other organization, you're going to be frustrated again. So you have to relearn as you go, and that's something that we hope to facilitate with the fact checks. 00:25:09    ASSAD RAZA Henrique, thank you. That's a really good example about ICRC and coordination with the military. So you've identified some conceptual gaps there. Are there any other challenges you want to talk about? 00:25:21    JOAO MAURICIO DIAS LOPES VALDETARO, One thing that we found also is that not all the doctrines or concepts that they find are totally developed. I can say that. So even though when they talk to some people and say, oh, yeah, so we had the manual, we know what we had to do, but we don't have it specifically already developed within the organization. They know what they had to do, but they're not doing it yet. 00:25:51    JOAO MAURICIO DIAS LOPES VALDETARO, Civil military doctrine you follow. We follow the U .S. one. Okay, do we have our own medals? No, no, no. We just follow the U .S. one. So, some countries also had this figure for the U .S. Army or the U .S. doctrine. And they're still following or they're still trying to develop their own doctrine or their own way to do stuff. 00:26:11    ASSAD RAZA Wow. Yeah, that's interesting. Some nations don't have their doctrine. They're following U .S. doctrine. Ones that do have doctrine aren't seeing and training their forces to be able to implement that doctrine. There's a lot of competing priorities and sometimes coordination aspect of civil relations kind of go to the wayside as they focus on other things. So, JV, thank you on that. Any other challenges you guys want to talk about? 00:26:36    ENRIQUE GARBINO Maybe to use this framework to identify conceptual gaps within an organization. And if you look, for example, into the UN system, We found within the UN four different concepts. So you have the UN -SIMIC, you have the UN -CM -CORD, and WSP has its own military interaction concept, and before that had the simulatory coordination concept, which is similar to SIM -CORD, but tailored to the specifics of WSP. And here you can see that all of these concepts are at the operational levels. So there is no overarching strategic level semi -military relations concept, for example, we see in the organization. Does this mean that they need one? That's up for debate. There are other concepts that can be used to fill this gap, like comprehensive approach concept. Try to organize not only the semi -military relations at a strategic level, but the civilian and civilian relations and the military and military relations in a specific context. So it's a broader, beyond semi -military concept. But that could fill this gap, for example. We also saw the UN doesn't have a civil military interaction concept that aims at facilitating the everyday interaction between civilians and military, even though they are not specialized. The relationship between a UN peacekeeper, a civilian UN staff, this concept doesn't exist in the UN. But also think of NATO. It would be interesting to apply our framework to all semi -related concepts of NATO members and see how they match with the NATO standards. Or when one specific organization is deploying into a multinational organization, let's say Brazil deploying to a peacekeeping mission, how does the Brazilian concept matches or differs from the UN concept? And that you can identify and foresee some challenges. in how that member organization is going to adapt to the concept. Here we can foresee some practical challenges, for example. If a U .S. civil affairs officer who is used to receive strategic level guidance on their business, they deploy to a UN peacekeeping mission, then UN CIMIC, which is the equivalent of civil affairs, there is no presence at the strategic level. So they have no specific guidance. from a strategic level on that matter. So they have to sort it out themselves at the operational level. This is just some examples that how our framework can be useful for this type of analysis as well. 00:29:20    ASSAD RAZA It's a perfect sense. People conducting their analysis to see how they're going to engage the different type of concepts that are out there. They're going to engage with their partners for academics operationally flowing to an area to identify some of the challenges on the ground. I think it's a really good tool. So in the future, how do you envision this tool being utilized across the different organizations? 00:29:41    JOHNNY ROBINSON Yeah, I don't mind taking this upon this. Throughout that probability, I think it's a really valuable tool to highlight the differences, similarities, and that can build relations, right? If similar ways of approaching certain problems or challenges within those civil military concepts, I see value. I think it's also... interesting discussion to have looking at the difference between the humanitarian community and how they've approached largely on the operational and tactical level to civil military interaction, coordination, cooperation, whatever you want to call it. Whereas on the military side, it's more of a top -down strategic operational tactical. And I think kind of, you know, where that can meet in the middle is where great coordination and cooperation can happen. In terms of future, I'd love to take the project and look at the civil military training opportunities around the world from different entities, civilian and military, and to also understand that ecosystem. I think that also has value if there's redundancy or occasion of efforts or complementary efforts in places. I think that would be great, particularly for the humanitarian civilian community. Often don't have such a good perspective of what training opportunities. there are out there it's also good to highlight that the fact sheets are made by us we read the concept we read the trend and we came up with the fact sheets so the fact sheets don't apply the organization so our interpretation a specific concept would be good too for someone who are going to be deployed it for someone who wants to study a little bit more specific about that country or that concept itself 00:31:02    JOAO MAURICIO DIAS LOPES VALDETARO, out there it's also good to highlight that the fact sheets are made by us we read the concept we read the trend and we came up with the fact sheets so the fact sheets don't apply the organization so our interpretation a specific concept would be good too for someone who are going to be deployed it for someone who wants to study a little bit more specific about that country or that concept itself 00:31:30    ENRIQUE GARBINO Definitely. And organizations use these concepts in a consistent way. If we expand the research or the framework and start looking into how the media or even academia uses concepts, it's often that in one paper, the author wants to come up with a concept that is really specific to what they're studying on that particular publication. And then they come up with something different. If we expand an academia, then the number of concepts would skyrocket. That's for sure. So there's much less consistency there. When you strive for specificity, we also lose the shared language to relationship between civilians and military actors. And I think that's the greatest irony. 00:32:12    ASSAD RAZA Enrique, that's a good point. The more people you have involved, including academia, media, and more snowball into something bigger and cause a lot more confusion from what you were trying to do is simplify it and have something consistent throughout the different organizations that are working in this civil arena or humanitarian space. that have all these different actors. So that makes perfect sense. Gentlemen, I really want to thank you for taking your time to share your research on this important topic. I've been being a civil affairs guy on the ground before and seeing some of these different concepts. at a time as a young officer not really having an understanding of these different concepts. I think this is a really important research and I really appreciate you guys creating this analytical framework and I hope it gains traction within the different organizations that are working in this space. So thank you for your time and I really appreciate it and we'll see you on the ground somewhere. Thank you. Thanks for listening. 00:33:02    Close listening. If you get a chance, please like and subscribe and rate the show on your favorite podcast platform. Also, if you're interested in coming on the show or hosting an episode, email us at capodcasting at gmail .com. And now, most importantly, to those currently out in the field working with a partner nation's people or leadership to forward U .S. relations, thank you all for what you're doing. This is Jack, your host. Stay tuned for more great episodes. One CA podcast.

Fler avsnitt från "The One CA Podcast"