As the presidential campaign debate intensified today over U.S. military policy in Iraq and Afghanistan, another discussion took place in Washington about the need for deep-seated, bipartisan reform in the projection of U.S. soft power. The touchstone was a survey of U.S. military officers conducted for the Center for U.S. Global Engagement. A main takeaway from the survey, which can be found here, is the importance a great majority of military officers place on using non-military tools such as diplomacy, food, and support for health, education, and economic development programs. A majority of those surveyed believe the government has not done enough to improve either military or non-military capabilities.

The center followed up with a panel discussion featuring former top national security officials. Panel members saw a need for restructuring the way U.S. military and civilian agencies work together in crisis regions. Nearly all cited the need for reform legislation on a par with the 1986 Goldwater-Nichols Act, which improved coordination among different branches of the military.

Robert McFarlane, former National Security Advisor in the Reagan Administration, said the U.S. Agency for International Development has “never had the horsepower” to carry through soft power initiatives on its own. He said U.S. nation building “has to be a State-AID-DOD function but integrated in a far better way.”

Adm. Steve Abbot (Ret.), former deputy commander in chief of the U.S. European Command, expressed concern about the ad hoc nature of U.S. post-conflict efforts in some shattered states, saying Washington “cannot have a pick-up game with every crisis.”

Rudy DeLeon, a deputy secretary of defense in the Clinton administration, pointed to plans to have soldiers in the Texas National Guard train go to Afghanistan to help farmers there understand crop alternatives to opium poppies. DeLeon said instead there should be greater efforts to involve the U.S. department of agriculture, and universities with expertise in agriculture.