Philip J. “P.J.” Crowley (born July 28, 1951) is the former United States Assistant Secretary of State for Public Affairs, having been sworn into office on May 26, 2009. He resigned on March 13, 2011, following comments he made about the treatment of Bradley Manning. Crowley was named the 2011-2012 recipient of the General Omar N. Bradley Chair in Strategic Leadership, a joint initiative among the United States Army War College, Dickinson College, and the The Pennsylvania State University — Dickinson School of Law. While in residence, Crowley will conduct classes at the three institutions.
Crowley was born in Brockton, Massachusetts. His mother, Mary Crowley, was a homemaker. His father, William C. Crowley, was a vice president for public relations with the Boston Red Sox, and a B-17 pilot, who spent two years as a POW in an East German prison camp.
Crowley was educated at the College of the Holy Cross, graduating with a B.A. in English in 1973. He joined the United States Air Force in June 1973. He spent 26 years in the Air Force, and was stationed in New Hampshire, New York, Massachusetts, Colorado, Washington State, Turkey, and Germany. During the Gulf War, he was stationed at Incirlik Air Base for four months. In 1997, he was named senior director of public affairs for the United States National Security Council and Special Assistant to the President for national security affairs. During the Kosovo War, he worked with Javier Solana, Secretary General of NATO from April to June 1999. He retired from the Air Force in September 1999 at the rank of Colonel.
In 2001, Crowley became a vice president of the Insurance Information Institute, specializing in the impact of terrorism on insurance in the wake of the September 11 attacks. He then joined the Center for American Progress as a senior fellow in 2003, later becoming the Center's director of national defense and homeland security.
In 2009, President Barack Obama nominated Crowley to be Assistant Secretary of State for Public Affairs. Crowley was sworn into office on May 26, 2009.
He was noted for his dry wit: when reminding Americans on the ban on visiting North Korea, he pointed out on Twitter that "we only have a handful of former presidents" to visit North Korea and retrieve captured Americans. He was forced to apologize to Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi after telling an interviewer that Gaddafi's speech to the United Nations did not make "a lot of sense."
On March 10, 2011, Crowley publicly criticized the Pentagon for the alleged mistreatment of military prisoner Bradley Manning, the U.S. soldier suspected of providing whistle-blower website WikiLeaks with classified diplomatic cables. Crowley told an audience of about twenty people at Massachusetts Institute of Technology's Center for Future Civic Media that while Manning was "in the right place," he was being "mistreated" by the United States Department of Defense. Crowley called the Defense Department's treatment of Manning "ridiculous and counterproductive and stupid." When asked "Are you on the record?" by British journalist Philippa Thomas, Crowley replied "Sure."
On March 13, 2011, Crowley resigned from office. In his resignation letter, Crowley wrote that while the "unauthorized disclosure of classified information is a serious crime under U.S. law," the "exercise of power in today's challenging times and relentless media environment must be prudent and consistent with our laws and values."
Diplomatic Courier: Given your experience in both the military and civilian worlds, what is your assessment of the relationship between the Department of Defense and the Department of State under the Obama administration with regards to how they engage the rest of the world? Is this relationship more complimentary than it was under Bush?
Philip J. Crowley: National security policy is much more complex than it was 30 years ago when I entered the Air Force. It is essential that the White House, State Department, Pentagon, and others work together within a well-coordinated and cohesive policy-making process. Back then, two effective leaders, George Shultz and Cap Weinberger, were barely on speaking terms, and that friction filtered down through the respective bureaucracies. With the Bush administration, during the first term, there was not the level of coordination between the State and Defense Departments that there should have been, particularly in the lead up to the invasion of Iraq. Secretaries Condi Rice and Bob Gates turned the tide, and things have continued to improve during the Obama administration. The relationship between Secretary Gates and Secretary Hillary Clinton was literally the best I can ever recall, and that was also mirrored by the close cooperation with Admiral Mullen as well. Just looking at the foreign policy agenda today – Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Libya, Yemen, Somalia, and Colombia – you name it. These challenges cannot be solved by one agency or one instrument of national power.
DC: Some have suggested that NATO’s intervention in Libya has finalized, once and for all, that the alliance is outdated and near defunct. Others have claimed the opposite, saying that the mission has vindicated the utility of the organization in the post-9/11 world. What is your assessment of NATO’s performance in Libya and how does it bode for the alliance’s future? Do you think the mission should expand, for example, to target Gaddafi and replace him?
PJC: The Libya mission is proving to be more difficult than some might have thought at the beginning. I remain confident that it will achieve its purpose as long as the alliance stays together. This reminds me a little bit of NATO’s successful mission in Kosovo in the 1999. Decisive military action opened the door for a political resolution. Twelve years later, we are still working to resolve residual tensions between Serbia and a now independent Kosovo, but the military objectives were achieved then and should be achieved now. Libya is long-term project. It will take years to piece the country together even after Gaddafi is gone. NATO still has a vital purpose as an alliance, but its future depends on what its members put into it. Its importance going forward is likely to be more significantly on the political than military side.
DC: What is your take on the effectiveness of such institutions as the ICC in trying officials such as Gaddafi for their crimes?
PJC: World leaders must know that they are accountable for their actions under the rule of law. If they unleash violence against their people, or against a sub-group within their population, if they commit crimes against humanity, then the international community should act if national institutions fall short. There is no one path. If the justice systems within countries are strong and independent, then that is always the preferred course. That was not an option for Libya, so the international community through UNSC Resolution 1973 referred the matter to the ICC. It is also being reviewed within the UN Human Rights Commission. But again, these institutions rely on international cooperation to be effective, whether we are talking about Sudan, Lebanon, or Libya. The United States, while not a signatory to the Rome Statute, has increased its cooperation with the ICC and that is an important and needed development.
DC:What is your take on the Obama Administration’s supposed policy of “leading from behind,” as quoted by an official to the New Yorker reporter Ryan Lizza’s profile of the President?
PJC: The European members of NATO, especially France and Britain, have taken the lead on Libya and that is a strong signal that the alliance is more than a one-country show. As you were talking about earlier, if there are questions about the future of NATO, European countries have put substantial skin in the game and that is vital. The United States has to be prepared to commit sufficient resources to NATO to ensure success. Right now we are, and that needs to be sustained for as long as it takes.
DC; In 2009, you said that the biggest issues facing the State Department were nuclear non-proliferation, climate change, migration, political violence, food security, and women’s issues. Can you elaborate on two or three of these challenges, and how you attempted to tackle them during your time at State?
PJC: ,These are global challenges, which means two things: we cannot solve them alone, and they cannot be solved without meaningful action by the United States. Broadly speaking they are connected. A country like North Korea invests in nuclear weapons and missiles while it is struggling to feed its people. Right now there is little that we can do to influence the choices that North Korea is making, so we have to contain the threat while working with countries in the region to find levers to apply pressure on Kim Jong Il to change course. The countries that export political violence and terrorism, including plots against the United States and the West, tend to be those societies that under-invest in their people - and particularly women. That’s one of the reasons Secretary Clinton has devoted so much attention to improving the status of women around the world, not for its own sake, but as a key element of resolving these broader challenges. No country is going to be successful if it leaves half of its population behind. It just continues to flabbergast me that the false debate about the science behind global warming inhibits us from taking decisive action to reduce greenhouse gases and diversify our sources of energy. Again, it makes sense for lots of reasons, including the link among oil, political instability and corruption.
DC: You credit President Obama and Secretary Clinton with changing the tone in the global conversation. How can the U.S. government utilize social media to more effectively engage with its allies and enemies? What about with international organizations?
PJC: The President, beginning with his Cairo speech in 2009, and the Secretary through her relentless travels and engagement around the world have changed the tone in our global conversation, but honestly we still have a long way to go. And we face a lot of competition in this so-called battle of ideas. We have to do many things. The most powerful asset that we have is our education system. When young people come here to study, it transforms their perspective of our country and our people. When they go back home, they become another thread that binds that country to ours. Keeping our borders open for people of all ages to come here to study, visit and work is crucial. Social media is an exciting means of connecting people, engaging them, providing information that can help empower them at home and change their views of the United States in the process. These are exciting tools and lots of governments and non-governmental organizations are trying to determine how to best incorporate them into public diplomacy.
DC: Some commentators have suggested that global institutions, such as the IMF, World Bank, and UN Security Council should be reformed to reflect the growing economic and regional clout of emerging economies. Do you agree with this sentiment, and what effect do you think it would have on American hegemony, especially given today’s fears of the U.S. defaulting on its own debts?
PJC: This is already happening. Just look at the evolution of the G-7 to the G-8 to the G-20. Power, including economic power, is more diffuse. This is a good thing and we are welcoming the role that emerging powers like China, Brazil, India, Russia, Turkey, and others are now playing either regionally or globally. Notwithstanding the “rise of the rest,” the United States is still the world’s only superpower given our unique combination of political, military, economic, cultural, and information influence. But, like any asset, we need to continue to invest significantly and prudently to retain these capabilities. That’s why the current debate about the size and role of government in our country is so important. Adequately funding all elements of our national power is essential if we are going to be able to exercise leadership in the 21st Century. We will not do it the same way we have over the past 50 years, but we become isolationist, or if we fail to put our economic house in order, it will be devastating for the world, not just our own country.
DC; What are your plans for the future?
PJC: One day at the State Department, I appointed myself as the department’s ambassador-at-large for golf and defended what is truly an international sport from criticism by President Hugo Chavez. I would like to tell you I plan to join the senior golf tour, but like all amateurs, my game is still a work in progress. Seriously, there is no greater honor than serving the American people. I spent 30 years in government, including assignments at the White House, DoD, and the State Department. I loved every minute of it. For the next year, I will be the Omar Bradley Chair of Strategic leadership in Carlisle, Pennsylvania, teaching courses at Dickinson College, the Penn State Dickinson School of Law and School of International Affairs and the Army War College. My academic focus will be on the execution of national security policy in a global media environment. Obviously we are seeing public opinion and the media play an increasing role in international affairs. The Arab Spring is just the latest example, which I plan to incorporate into my classes.
Over time, I will do a range of things that allow me to stay engaged in global media issues, public diplomacy and national security affairs. I’m really looking forward to these new opportunities.
a global affairs media network
Interview: PJ Crowley
November 11, 2011
Philip J. “P.J.” Crowley (born July 28, 1951) is the former United States Assistant Secretary of State for Public Affairs, having been sworn into office on May 26, 2009. He resigned on March 13, 2011, following comments he made about the treatment of Bradley Manning. Crowley was named the 2011-2012 recipient of the General Omar N. Bradley Chair in Strategic Leadership, a joint initiative among the United States Army War College, Dickinson College, and the The Pennsylvania State University — Dickinson School of Law. While in residence, Crowley will conduct classes at the three institutions.
Crowley was born in Brockton, Massachusetts. His mother, Mary Crowley, was a homemaker. His father, William C. Crowley, was a vice president for public relations with the Boston Red Sox, and a B-17 pilot, who spent two years as a POW in an East German prison camp.
Crowley was educated at the College of the Holy Cross, graduating with a B.A. in English in 1973. He joined the United States Air Force in June 1973. He spent 26 years in the Air Force, and was stationed in New Hampshire, New York, Massachusetts, Colorado, Washington State, Turkey, and Germany. During the Gulf War, he was stationed at Incirlik Air Base for four months. In 1997, he was named senior director of public affairs for the United States National Security Council and Special Assistant to the President for national security affairs. During the Kosovo War, he worked with Javier Solana, Secretary General of NATO from April to June 1999. He retired from the Air Force in September 1999 at the rank of Colonel.
In 2001, Crowley became a vice president of the Insurance Information Institute, specializing in the impact of terrorism on insurance in the wake of the September 11 attacks. He then joined the Center for American Progress as a senior fellow in 2003, later becoming the Center's director of national defense and homeland security.
In 2009, President Barack Obama nominated Crowley to be Assistant Secretary of State for Public Affairs. Crowley was sworn into office on May 26, 2009.
He was noted for his dry wit: when reminding Americans on the ban on visiting North Korea, he pointed out on Twitter that "we only have a handful of former presidents" to visit North Korea and retrieve captured Americans. He was forced to apologize to Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi after telling an interviewer that Gaddafi's speech to the United Nations did not make "a lot of sense."
On March 10, 2011, Crowley publicly criticized the Pentagon for the alleged mistreatment of military prisoner Bradley Manning, the U.S. soldier suspected of providing whistle-blower website WikiLeaks with classified diplomatic cables. Crowley told an audience of about twenty people at Massachusetts Institute of Technology's Center for Future Civic Media that while Manning was "in the right place," he was being "mistreated" by the United States Department of Defense. Crowley called the Defense Department's treatment of Manning "ridiculous and counterproductive and stupid." When asked "Are you on the record?" by British journalist Philippa Thomas, Crowley replied "Sure."
On March 13, 2011, Crowley resigned from office. In his resignation letter, Crowley wrote that while the "unauthorized disclosure of classified information is a serious crime under U.S. law," the "exercise of power in today's challenging times and relentless media environment must be prudent and consistent with our laws and values."
Diplomatic Courier: Given your experience in both the military and civilian worlds, what is your assessment of the relationship between the Department of Defense and the Department of State under the Obama administration with regards to how they engage the rest of the world? Is this relationship more complimentary than it was under Bush?
Philip J. Crowley: National security policy is much more complex than it was 30 years ago when I entered the Air Force. It is essential that the White House, State Department, Pentagon, and others work together within a well-coordinated and cohesive policy-making process. Back then, two effective leaders, George Shultz and Cap Weinberger, were barely on speaking terms, and that friction filtered down through the respective bureaucracies. With the Bush administration, during the first term, there was not the level of coordination between the State and Defense Departments that there should have been, particularly in the lead up to the invasion of Iraq. Secretaries Condi Rice and Bob Gates turned the tide, and things have continued to improve during the Obama administration. The relationship between Secretary Gates and Secretary Hillary Clinton was literally the best I can ever recall, and that was also mirrored by the close cooperation with Admiral Mullen as well. Just looking at the foreign policy agenda today – Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Libya, Yemen, Somalia, and Colombia – you name it. These challenges cannot be solved by one agency or one instrument of national power.
DC: Some have suggested that NATO’s intervention in Libya has finalized, once and for all, that the alliance is outdated and near defunct. Others have claimed the opposite, saying that the mission has vindicated the utility of the organization in the post-9/11 world. What is your assessment of NATO’s performance in Libya and how does it bode for the alliance’s future? Do you think the mission should expand, for example, to target Gaddafi and replace him?
PJC: The Libya mission is proving to be more difficult than some might have thought at the beginning. I remain confident that it will achieve its purpose as long as the alliance stays together. This reminds me a little bit of NATO’s successful mission in Kosovo in the 1999. Decisive military action opened the door for a political resolution. Twelve years later, we are still working to resolve residual tensions between Serbia and a now independent Kosovo, but the military objectives were achieved then and should be achieved now. Libya is long-term project. It will take years to piece the country together even after Gaddafi is gone. NATO still has a vital purpose as an alliance, but its future depends on what its members put into it. Its importance going forward is likely to be more significantly on the political than military side.
DC: What is your take on the effectiveness of such institutions as the ICC in trying officials such as Gaddafi for their crimes?
PJC: World leaders must know that they are accountable for their actions under the rule of law. If they unleash violence against their people, or against a sub-group within their population, if they commit crimes against humanity, then the international community should act if national institutions fall short. There is no one path. If the justice systems within countries are strong and independent, then that is always the preferred course. That was not an option for Libya, so the international community through UNSC Resolution 1973 referred the matter to the ICC. It is also being reviewed within the UN Human Rights Commission. But again, these institutions rely on international cooperation to be effective, whether we are talking about Sudan, Lebanon, or Libya. The United States, while not a signatory to the Rome Statute, has increased its cooperation with the ICC and that is an important and needed development.
DC:What is your take on the Obama Administration’s supposed policy of “leading from behind,” as quoted by an official to the New Yorker reporter Ryan Lizza’s profile of the President?
PJC: The European members of NATO, especially France and Britain, have taken the lead on Libya and that is a strong signal that the alliance is more than a one-country show. As you were talking about earlier, if there are questions about the future of NATO, European countries have put substantial skin in the game and that is vital. The United States has to be prepared to commit sufficient resources to NATO to ensure success. Right now we are, and that needs to be sustained for as long as it takes.
DC; In 2009, you said that the biggest issues facing the State Department were nuclear non-proliferation, climate change, migration, political violence, food security, and women’s issues. Can you elaborate on two or three of these challenges, and how you attempted to tackle them during your time at State?
PJC: ,These are global challenges, which means two things: we cannot solve them alone, and they cannot be solved without meaningful action by the United States. Broadly speaking they are connected. A country like North Korea invests in nuclear weapons and missiles while it is struggling to feed its people. Right now there is little that we can do to influence the choices that North Korea is making, so we have to contain the threat while working with countries in the region to find levers to apply pressure on Kim Jong Il to change course. The countries that export political violence and terrorism, including plots against the United States and the West, tend to be those societies that under-invest in their people - and particularly women. That’s one of the reasons Secretary Clinton has devoted so much attention to improving the status of women around the world, not for its own sake, but as a key element of resolving these broader challenges. No country is going to be successful if it leaves half of its population behind. It just continues to flabbergast me that the false debate about the science behind global warming inhibits us from taking decisive action to reduce greenhouse gases and diversify our sources of energy. Again, it makes sense for lots of reasons, including the link among oil, political instability and corruption.
DC: You credit President Obama and Secretary Clinton with changing the tone in the global conversation. How can the U.S. government utilize social media to more effectively engage with its allies and enemies? What about with international organizations?
PJC: The President, beginning with his Cairo speech in 2009, and the Secretary through her relentless travels and engagement around the world have changed the tone in our global conversation, but honestly we still have a long way to go. And we face a lot of competition in this so-called battle of ideas. We have to do many things. The most powerful asset that we have is our education system. When young people come here to study, it transforms their perspective of our country and our people. When they go back home, they become another thread that binds that country to ours. Keeping our borders open for people of all ages to come here to study, visit and work is crucial. Social media is an exciting means of connecting people, engaging them, providing information that can help empower them at home and change their views of the United States in the process. These are exciting tools and lots of governments and non-governmental organizations are trying to determine how to best incorporate them into public diplomacy.
DC: Some commentators have suggested that global institutions, such as the IMF, World Bank, and UN Security Council should be reformed to reflect the growing economic and regional clout of emerging economies. Do you agree with this sentiment, and what effect do you think it would have on American hegemony, especially given today’s fears of the U.S. defaulting on its own debts?
PJC: This is already happening. Just look at the evolution of the G-7 to the G-8 to the G-20. Power, including economic power, is more diffuse. This is a good thing and we are welcoming the role that emerging powers like China, Brazil, India, Russia, Turkey, and others are now playing either regionally or globally. Notwithstanding the “rise of the rest,” the United States is still the world’s only superpower given our unique combination of political, military, economic, cultural, and information influence. But, like any asset, we need to continue to invest significantly and prudently to retain these capabilities. That’s why the current debate about the size and role of government in our country is so important. Adequately funding all elements of our national power is essential if we are going to be able to exercise leadership in the 21st Century. We will not do it the same way we have over the past 50 years, but we become isolationist, or if we fail to put our economic house in order, it will be devastating for the world, not just our own country.
DC; What are your plans for the future?
PJC: One day at the State Department, I appointed myself as the department’s ambassador-at-large for golf and defended what is truly an international sport from criticism by President Hugo Chavez. I would like to tell you I plan to join the senior golf tour, but like all amateurs, my game is still a work in progress. Seriously, there is no greater honor than serving the American people. I spent 30 years in government, including assignments at the White House, DoD, and the State Department. I loved every minute of it. For the next year, I will be the Omar Bradley Chair of Strategic leadership in Carlisle, Pennsylvania, teaching courses at Dickinson College, the Penn State Dickinson School of Law and School of International Affairs and the Army War College. My academic focus will be on the execution of national security policy in a global media environment. Obviously we are seeing public opinion and the media play an increasing role in international affairs. The Arab Spring is just the latest example, which I plan to incorporate into my classes.
Over time, I will do a range of things that allow me to stay engaged in global media issues, public diplomacy and national security affairs. I’m really looking forward to these new opportunities.
