In theory, State Department, through its Country Ambassadors, is in charge; the civilian lead for US engagement in every country where we operate. This is made murky by the concept of "GWOT," which is a DoD lead, and requires engagement of various types in countries around the world. State will say "We don't have the people and the resources to lead." Which is true. DoD has the people and the resources, but is too threat centric in its approach, and while State does not interfere with "war," what of all of the short of war engagement required to keep a situation from sliding into full blown conflict? Result is confusion, inefficency, and a generally disjointed scheme of engagement.

Its complicated. We work better with simple. ("Don't complify, simplicate!"). Easiest way from my foxhole is to simply call an end to the GWOT. I can work with guidance like:
"The war is over, but the mission continues. State, take point. Defense, help them formulate a plan of action and be prepared to provide a lionshare of the manpower and resources to implement it. Rework these VEO lists to sort out insurgents from criminals and terrorists. Also ensure whatever plan you bring me is focused on those countries where we have vital national interests, and is not designed to simply keep 'friendly dictators' (like friendly fire, it isn't) in power or sustain the status quo in the face of heavy resistance from the populace and the major changes that have occured in world over the past 20 years. The Cold War has been over for two administrations, so ensure this plan looks at the whole of government and recommends institutions, policies, and relationships that are long overdue for a major revision. Also, ensure that you have a detailed plan for assessment of all of the major players involved in any given region on the front end of any engagement. And never forget, there are those out there, both state and non-state who want to see us fail, and failure is not an option."

The President-elect is not a Cold Warrior. What was widely attacked as his greatest weakness, lack of foreign policy experience, may in fact be his greatest strength. We are well into a new, post Cold War era. This will require new forms of engagement that recognizes the growing power and options for sovereignty that populaces have, and that is a book that has not been written yet. We enter uncharted ground, but we go forward aware of our vulnerabilities, and armed with a national ideology well suited to the world that is emerging. Not to control that world, but to hopefully lead by example and to use our positon and influence to make it a better world for everyone. Idealistic? Certainly, but then I am an American, and idealism comes easy to us.