The people of Colombia surprised the world this weekend by narrowly rejecting— by .04%— a peace deal to end the conflict with the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, or FARC. The reasons for the rejection largely revolved around the issue of transitional justice, as the agreement would have granted many rebel fighters amnesty if they confessed their crimes, leaving some Colombians feeling that FARC leaders were escaping justice. While emergency negotiations have been restarted, both sides have vowed that they will not return to fighting.

This year’s presidential debates will be different. While national security has had its own debate in the past, “Securing America” has been announced as one of the topics in the first and widely anticipated debate between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, and will also be part of the other debates. In the wake of domestic terror attacks and global conversation about “uncertainty and unease and strife” at the UN General Assembly, what should we expect to hear on America’s role in the world?

At the front lines in the battle against violent extremism, U.S. Africa Command – AFRICOM – recently sought to transfer funds to USAID for community-led violence prevention programs in Niger, only to be told that it lacked the authority to do so. Transfer authority would have to come from Congress. Most observers, including Admiral James Stavridis and General John Allen, agree that combating violent extremism must include what the military calls “kinetic” tools targeting insurgents alongside the “non-kinetic” tools of diplomacy and development to counter radicalization and promote stability in weak and fragile states.

Catherine Samba-Panza, interim president of the Central African Republic (CAR), was in Washington last week asking for help for her country and her people. CAR was considered a “Level Three” humanitarian crisis – the United Nations’ highest designation – until May of last year due to years of inter-religious violence that killed thousands and displaced roughly 1 million people, about one-fifth of the country’s population. It is in America’s interest to invest in long-term stability and resilience by helping CAR address the underlying causes of the conflict.

In the 1980s and 1990s, Colombia was on the brink of collapse and the U.S. grappled with the threat of a major drug war spilling over its southern borders. But over the past decade, the economy has grown at an average of 4.3 percent, and unemployment and poverty are at historic lows. The country’s homicide rate has been cut in half, kidnappings have declined by 90 percent, and in a little over a month, the Colombian government is expected to sign a peace agreement with the rebel movement known as the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC), ending the longest civil war in Latin America. How did we get here?

With all eyes on New Hampshire today and the 2016 presidential horserace, it’s pretty easy to miss a relatively wonky, but actually important moment in Washington: the kickoff to the budget season with the Administration’s release of its proposal to Congress. The good news is that the two-year budget deal reached by Congress and the Administration last November spared international affairs programs from dangerous cuts from sequestration. Here are my 6 key takeaways on what the budget proposal means for America’s global leadership.

In December 2014, only 9 percent of Americans cited foreign policy as the country’s most important issue. A year later, that number had jumped to 32 percent, with 18 percent citing terrorism concerns. There appears to be a consensus among presidential candidates that a military component will be required to counter violent extremism, at least in the short term. But what’s equally vital, and much less often discussed, is a long-term strategy that utilizes all the tools of American leadership – including strategic investments in development and diplomacy.

In the midst of impassioned presidential debates on national security following the terror attacks in Paris and San Bernardino, a recent report by the American Enterprise Institute makes a powerful case for why America should not scale back its global leadership, but instead must leverage its influence to support the liberal world order it has helped establish. Spearheaded by former U.S. Senators Joseph Lieberman (D-CT) and Jon Kyl (R-MO), the report argues that if the U.S. were to retreat from its global leadership, it would leave a vacuum of power that almost certainly would be filled by actors that are hostile to America’s values and national interests.

As we celebrate 239 years of freedom in the United States on this July 4th, we honor the millions of Americans who defend the cause of freedom here at home and around the world. It seemed a fitting opportunity to post the first of many upcoming conversations with members of USGLC’s Veterans for Smart Power. Nearly 30,000 strong, these former servicemembers understand firsthand why we need a strong, balanced foreign policy to keep America safe and secure, and share a commitment to elevating and strengthening civilian tools of development and diplomacy, alongside defense. Captain Jim Morin is one of them.

Secretary of State George Marshall called on Congress to pass what would become known as the Marshall Plan, the economic recovery plan to rebuild Europe following World War II. Many of the beneficiaries have since become some of America’s strongest allies and trading partners; models for how foreign assistance can transform countries and unlock their potential. Since that time seven decades ago, the military has continued to be one of the strongest voices of support for America’s development and diplomacy programs.