Motive’s CEO, Morgan Keay, sat down with fellow Motive instructor and Subject Matter Expert (SME) Geoff Odlum to discuss working with Motive after nearly three decades as a U.S. diplomat, how emerging technologies are shaping global peace and security, and options for bridging the civil-military divide.
Morgan Keay (MK): Geoff, you retired from the State Dept. after 28 years as a Foreign Service Officer (FSO) then joined Motive as a subject matter expert (SME) and instructor. Can you describe what you do with Motive?
Geoff Odlum (GO): I work for Motive as both a course instructor and a SME advisor/role player for Motive-supported exercises. As a SME I've had the opportunity to support large-scale army exercises, playing the roles of U.S. Ambassadors, host nation ministers, a police chief and even an imam. As fun as it is to get into character (and costume!) in a military exercise, the most rewarding thing is translating my civilian expertise into capabilities for our military partners. This is especially true in my role as a Motive instructor. I teach a course designed by Motive's leadership called “Governance and Counter-Governance” (Gov/C-Gov), which translates empirical research on societal systems of authority into action-oriented tools for mapping and designing activities that effectively shape power dynamics in complex global situations. Our students are primarily U.S. special operators and conventional military personnel.
Geoff role playing in costume at an Army training exercise
MK: You’ve said you wished you’d taken Gov/C-Gov at the beginning of your career. Can you tell us what impact that might have had?
GO: Absolutely! In literally every assignment I had overseas -- in London, Algiers, Istanbul, Baghdad, Kabul and working on the Kosovo conflict with the OSCE in Vienna -- I confronted complex dynamics that impacted U.S. interests, but which were incredibly difficult to tease apart. As a political officer, my job was to assess threats and opportunities relevant for U.S. strategic interests and make recommendations to Washington. But the only training I received to help me do this was a political tradecraft course at the Foreign Service Institute (FSI) that I took as a junior officer. That course taught me how to write great cables and navigate a diplomatic reception but offered few tools to help me assess social and geo-political dynamics in a systematic way. If I had taken Motive's Gov/C-Gov course early in my career I’m convinced I would have been 100% more effective. Plenty of examples come to mind. In Kosovo in the early 2000s, Gov/C-Gov methods for analyzing social contracts could have helped me identify totally different stakeholders capable of repairing frayed relations between ethnic Kosovars and Serbs. Had the USG engaged these stakeholders, we could have potentially reduced levels of violence. When I served in Algiers during the civil war between the Algerian government and the Islamic Front, I missed opportunities to leverage informal networks that could have possibly changed the outcome of a highly destabilizing election. Gov/C-Gov “layers of governance” mapping techniques could have changed that. In retrospect, I believe I could have crafted targeted options for the USG to pressure Iran into stalling their uranium enrichment program in the mid 2000s by applying a host of Gov/C-Gov tools. And I certainly would have understood the tribal and regional dynamics shaping President Karzai’s decisions far better than I did when I was assigned to Embassy Kabul’s political section if I’d taken the course. In sum, if I had taken Motive’s Gov/C-Gov early in my career I could have provided clearer, more compelling analysis and recommendations for the U.S. to mitigate conflict and promote stability on a global scale. That’s why I’d love to see FSI start teaching Motive’s Gov/C-Gov course to all FSOs. In addition to imparting proven tools and methods to diplomats, teaching the course at FSI would expose civilian officers to the same course Motive teaches military audiences, which would contribute to bridging the civil-military divide in our government.
MK: Sadly, not all FSOs nor military personnel get a chance to really cross the civil-military divide. In fact, many of Motive's military partners have said you are the first State Dept. person they've ever met, and you’re not even in government anymore! Can you share your thoughts on civil-military relations?
GO: My exposure to the military while at State was greater than most FSOs. I served in Iraq, Afghanistan and attended the National War College. These were among my favorite experiences as an FSO. But many of peers never had assignments with the military. The civ-mil sides of our government just don’t interact enough, and when they do, the foundational understanding of one another’s missions, capabilities and cultures just isn’t there to build upon meaningfully. As a result, diplomacy and defense – perhaps the two most powerful tools of national power – aren’t optimally synchronized. Fortunately, the interagency is taking more steps to increase civ-mil exposure, including through POLAD positions that place FSOs in military HQs, MILAD positions that place military officers at State, and increasing slots for FSOs at National and Service War Colleges. But I’d like to see State in particular do more to incentivize, or even require, civil-military assignments. I’d like to see a joint military assignment be a pre-requisite for the Senior Foreign Service – the civilian equivalent to the flag officer ranks. I think orientation visits to relevant military commands should be a routine part of FSOs’ consultations prior to overseas postings. And I’d love to co-instruct Motive’s first-ever iteration of our Gov/C-Gov course at FSI! A perk of working with Motive is that it allows me to keep closing that civil-military divide even though I’m no longer in government.
Geoff shares his expertise at an event focused on Phase III military operations, also pictured: Motive’s Kimberly Metcalf and Kaylee Laakso
MK: Speaking of your post-government work, even though you retired from federal service, you certainly aren't retired. Can you tell us what else keeps you busy these days?
GO: In addition to my work with Motive, I'm living the dream as a self-employed owner of my own consulting company that focuses on the intersection of technology and national security. I help companies partner with the State Dept. to bring tech innovatons to U.S. diplomacy. I am also working with DoD's National Security Innovation Network (NSIN) mentoring entrepreneurs seeking to commercialize DoD lab-licensed technologies, like cyber-security and IoT network resiliency. If that isn’t enough to keep me busy, I occasionally serve as an expert to UN agencies looking at how emerging technologies may impact peace and security missions.
MK: That's fascinating. Can you give us an example of how new tech might shape the future of diplomacy and conflict?
GO: Sure. From artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML), to blockchains and quantum computing, new tech is revolutionizing human activity, including in international negotiations, policymaking and conflict modeling. But the USG must confront a cultural challenge: persuading companies who worry their technology may be used for war to agree how commercial innovations can advance stability and sustainable development. I think there’s huge potential for U.S. Embassies to show what this can look like. Country Teams could use AI/ML to analyze decades of cables to identify otherwise undetectable patterns or model multi-variable policy decision. They could use big data to monitor compliance with arms control treaties or blockchains to predict UN voting patterns. I’d like to see Washington show leadership in setting global norms as it relates to tech in warfare. The development of Lethal Autonomous Weapons Systems (LAWS) like drone swarms and battlefield robots has been a topic of discussion at the UN Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (CCW) since 2014. Delegates have been debating for five years but taken no meaningful action. Meanwhile China and Russia are capitalizing on that indecision to advance their use of autonomous weapons. I’d like to see the LAWS debate elevated to the UN Security Council where the USG could push for real action. Absent this, we risk falling into a global AI arms race.
MK: Geoff, thanks so much for sharing your thoughts. Motive is lucky to have you on our team. I look forward to our next time co-instructing and hearing more about how you’re linking the threads of diplomacy, technology and global peace.