38 MAY-JUNE 2026 | THE FOREIGN SERVICE JOURNAL In those moments, I often wished for an AI system capable of rapidly processing complex engineering data and converting it into usable assessments. Such a tool would not have replaced human judgment but could have reduced uncertainty, allowing decision-makers to focus on strategy and safety. AI tools designed to translate specialized scientific data into operational language could serve as force multipliers in crisis environments where expertise is scarce and time is critical. AI as a Predictive Tool In 2013, before ISIS dominated international headlines, I saw firsthand how fragmented signals can obscure emerging threats. Based on conversations with Iraqi counterparts, local contacts, and regional reporting, our team in Baghdad relayed unclassified warnings to the National Security Council about an influx of foreign fighters entering Iraq. Local Iraqi and Syrian news outlets were documenting the trend, but international coverage was largely absent. The prevailing assumption in Washington, D.C., was that Iraq was stabilizing, reinforcing perceptions of safety that helped justify a reduced external presence. The warning signs existed; they were dispersed, however, across local sources and languages. AI systems capable of aggregating and translating local reporting at scale could have synthesized those indicators into a clearer early warning picture. Predictive analytics might not have prevented the crisis, but it could have accelerated awareness and sharpened policy attention by anticipating destabilization before it became visible on the ground. The lesson remains relevant: The challenge is rarely a lack of information—it is the inability to assemble it quickly enough. I saw the operational value of such tools while serving in the Iran Threat Directorate at the Global Engagement Center in early 2021. Our team used AI-supported analysis to map disinformation networks targeting Afghanistan and identified an 800 percent surge in coordinated narratives amplified by Iranian, Russian, and Chinese actors. The scale and speed of the activity would have been nearly impossible to quantify manually, but AI allowed us to measure how malign influence campaigns were shaping public perception in real time. Yet technology alone does not guarantee action; institutional resistance prevented the operational response we proposed. Tools are only as effective as the institutions prepared to act on what they reveal. AI is particularly well suited to computational tasks and large-scale pattern recognition. It can track disinformation flows, identify early indicators of instability, and automate repetitive administrative processes. Drafting templates, managing cable formats, and processing standardized reporting are logical areas for efficiency gains. Reducing procedural burdens would allow officers to invest more time in analysis, negotiation, and relationship-building—the work that defines diplomacy. There is, however, a boundary that must remain firm. The Human Element AI cannot replace the eyes and ears of diplomats on the ground. It cannot replicate trust built through years of engagement or interpret the emotional dynamics of a negotiation. While serving in pre-Brexit U.K., I met hundreds of people across professions, regions, and social classes. Many average Britons expressed frustration that European Union (EU) labor migration was straining public services and increasing job competition—concerns that were rarely reflected in the London press and yet would later lead to passage of Brexit. The Mosul Dam in Iraq, the fourth-largest dam in the Middle East, circa 2017. U.S. ARMY Such a tool would not have replaced human judgment but could have reduced uncertainty, allowing decision-makers to focus on strategy and safety.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy ODIyMDU=