Abu Muqawama: Post
Abu Muqawama retains its autonomy and the views and beliefs expressed within the blog do not reflect those of CNAS. Abu Muqawama retains the right to delete comments that include words that incite violence; are predatory, hateful, or intended to intimidate or harass; or degrade people on the basis of gender, race, class, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, or disability. In summary, don't be a jerk.
On Nation Building
Max Boot's provocative op-ed in the Los Angeles Times in defense of nation-building has been getting people excited and angry. Max:
If you want yet another example of how costly our aversion to nation-building has been, look no further than Iraq. The Bush administration associated nation-building with the hated policies of the Clinton administration and refused to prepare for it. The result was that Iraq fell apart after U.S. troops had toppled its existing regime.
I'm with Max half-way on this one. On the one hand, I firmly believe that when you decide to go to war, you should be prepared to use any and all means at your disposal to effect victory. If that means building institutions of the state, as we have done in both Iraq and Afghanistan, okay. You can't "win" in either place, after all, without at least creating strong police forces to take your place and keep public order so that a peaceful political process and economy can thrive. You have to create a secure environment in any post-conflict state, and unless you plan on staying forever, that means building up competent local security forces. That's a form of nation-building that I can support.
Where I diverge from Max is in two places. First, Max conflates nation-building with the willingness to intervene and engage in the first place.
Is isolationism really a course we want to follow today at a time when Iran is going nuclear, Pakistan is turning against the West, North Korea is trying to export its destructive technology, turmoil is spreading across the Middle East, Al Qaeda is far from defeated and China's power is growing?
I know Max is afraid Americans of all stripes will now embrace isolationism in the aftermath of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. But employing whatever means you need after the United States enters a conflict and deciding to intervene in the first place are two different things. I, for one, in large part because I am all too familiar with what a "resource suck" wars can become, am reluctant to intervene in places like Libya in the first place. And, had anyone asked me about Iraq in 2002 or 2003, I would have offered the same opinion there. But I whole-heartedly endorse the U.S. decision to rebuild and train Iraqi military and polices forces after the invasion. (I do not feel the same way about Libya. For any number of reasons, the United States should step aside and leave the responsibility for post-conflict Libya to others. I have a sinking feeling we will not do this, though.)
The second place I disagree with Max concerns our ability to nation-build. For the most part, we suck at it. In Afghanistan, at least, our aid and development projects have arguably exacerbated the drivers of conflict. We have created a rentier state on steroids, and as we begin to withdraw the majority of our aid and development funds, it will take a minor miracle to avoid Afghanistan's economic collapse. The only area in which we are reasonably competent is in building military organizations, which we have a lot of experience doing, but even there, we are better at building military organizations in our own image rather than the kinds of police/gendarme forces countries like Afghanistan really need.
Why do we suck at nation-building? A lot of reasons. Here are just a few: (1) We are ignorant. We do not know enough about the cultural, political and social contexts of foreign environments to fully appreciate how our interventions will affect those environments. Thus our aid and development spending (and military operations, to be fair), meant to ameliorate drivers of conflict, often exacerbate them. (2) We do not provide enough oversight and accountability for the projects we initiate. This is boring but important. We have spent ungodly sums of money in both Iraq and Afghanistan and have not provided enough contracting officers to effectively oversee the money we have spent. How do we just give tens of millions of dollars to agencies and departments in the governments of Iraq and Afghanistan without any oversight? Lack of contracting officers. How are contracts in Afghanistan divided up between shady sub-contractors and sub-sub-contractors, with tax-payer money falling into the hands of the Taliban and warlords? Lack of contracting officers. (3) We do not have any patience -- and we have limited resources. Nation-building takes time. Where we can nation-build at relatively low-cost over an extended period of time, as in Colombia, we can be successful. But asking Americans to spend massive amounts of money for an extended period of time in Iraq or Afghanistan is a recipe for ... turning your average U.S. tax-payer into an isolationist.
Concur with most of your
Concur with most of your thoughts, but perhaps we need to consider that it is not a question of us sucking at nation-building. Rather,the causal driver of resistance and rebellion is the perception of imposed external aid and government on the people. No matter how much we wish to help, we can't tell someone else how to live.
Governments, even relatively
Governments, even relatively successful ones, have a very low success rate "building" the nations they govern. It's obvious effecting that sort of change will be that much more difficult when a government attempts to impose it on another nation.
The real reason we "suck" at nation building is we're insufficiently cruel and willing to kill innocent people and meddle with foreign cultures. I don't count that as a bad thing, I'm just saying that to really "build nations", that's the historically successful model.
One aspect of warfare that
One aspect of warfare that the US Political machine wants to brush aside is the idea that sometimes you have to go big to go home. A major reason why that thinking is eschewed is because the idea of going big is politically unfeasible to sell to an increasingly skeptical public. The result is prolonged conflicts like Iraq or Afghanistan that drag on because, in order to present a tidy, non-burdening package into which the public could buy, the numbers had to be small (few troops), the costs had to be small ("Iraq will pay for itself"), etc... The DC perspective being as long as the initial buy in is low enough, we can get the public to agree to almost anything.
A decade on, we have an Afghanistan that is no more secure and no further along towards a stable nation for the bulk of the populace than it was in 2001.
A job worth doing is a job worth doing well. Washington does its damndest to convince us the job is worth doing, but then holds back on what it takes to do the job well because doing to job well means shared sacrifice among the population at large, not just the military, it means large initial outlays, it means vast resources, but worst of all, it means a political gamble greater than most elected officials are willing to take.
The US should stay engaged around the world, we just don't have the political stomach for what that really means. Not trying to pimp my writing at all but what I wrote here (http://actalibertas.tumblr.com/post/6869999298/the-expense-of-cheap-war) last week definitely fits within the context of this conversation. Our problem is we want to wage cheap war but over the long haul, that cheap war is proving way more expensive.
Gosh Ex, you continue to be
Gosh Ex, you continue to be driven by the tactics of Coin and nation building; by asking the question why we "suck" at Nation Building you betray the absence of strategy that should ask first is it in our interest in the first place to do nation building. How anyway do you figure we suck at it. I recently heard one of your comrades at CNAS say that the US Army is one of the finest Coin armies ever; so if this is true how then can we suck at it?
The simple fact Andrew that you still dont seem to get is that to do nation building you have to do it for hundreds of years. How long did it take us to build our own nation and solve the basic problems that divided us? The conceit of American coin is that it can do nation building in 5 or 10 or 20 years; come on, how in the hell can that happen in a place like Afghanistan.
Max is a true believer; for him it is not about isolationism, he just throws that word out there as a scare tactic, instead it is about never ending us occupations in the world's troubled spots. One wonders with what army we will keep doing these things?
"Is isolationism really a
"Is isolationism really a course we want to follow today at a time when Iran is going nuclear, Pakistan is turning against the West, North Korea is trying to export its destructive technology, turmoil is spreading across the Middle East, Al Qaeda is far from defeated and China's power is growing?"
Actually, genuine isolationism would solve a lot of these problems if not all of them.
Why is Iran going nuclear? They're afraid we will stomp them. If we're genuinely isolationist, they don't have that fear any more.
Why is Pakistan is turning against the West? Because we're trampling on their sovereignty and occupying their immediate neighbor Afghanistan. If we're genuinely isolationist, that source of antagonism goes away.
Why is North Korea exporting destructive technology? To distract us from stomping them. If we're genuinely isolationist, they don't need to do that any more.
Why is turmoil is spreading across the Middle East? A lot of it is our support for Israel. If we're genuinely isolationist, that source of antagonism goes away. (And frankly, who gives a crap who rules the region so long as they keep the oil coming?)
As for Al Qaeda, if we're genuinely isolationist, we remove a lot of the reasons people join AQ (i.e., supporting Israel, occupying Muslim lands, killing Muslims).
China's power is growing? If we're isolationist, so what? They won't sell cheap junk to us any more?
Gian, if it is in our
Gian, if it is in our interest to do regime change, it is in our interest to do nation building. Unless you think letting them collapse into chaos is not a problem? In effect, "not doing nation building" was our policy in Afghanistan for several years after October 9/11, and then (oops!) we realized that left a chaotic vacuum the bad guys were happy to fill.
"In effect, "not doing nation
Uh, no, for the nth time.
If anything can be laid at our feet, it was our intervention against the Soviets that contributed to the success of the Mujahadeen.
We had even less chance of stopping the civil war and less influence in Afghanistan in the 1990s than we do today. Which is shockingly low, even with over a hundred thousand troops fumbling about.
Our problem before 9/11 was poor border/immigration security and ignoring open training camps in a then relatively stable Taliban-run Afghanistan.
One curious aspect of "Mad
One curious aspect of "Mad Max" Boot's advocacy of Nation-Building is his noticeable absence from the ranks to those whom he would send off to do the task. Mr. Boot has had ample opportunity over the past decade to pick up a rifle and come bear the burden of reconstruction. However, he instead hectors us on the virtues of Nation Building from the pages of the Weekly Standard and other similar publications. He should put his money where his mouth is, his "boots" on the ground, and his "booty" on this line.
Billions paid to firms that
Billions paid to firms that defrauded Pentagon
The Associated Press
Posted : Wednesday Feb 2, 2011 18:20:43 EST
WASHINGTON — "Hundreds of defense companies that defrauded the U.S. military between 2007 and 2009 still received $285 billion in contracts from the Pentagon during the same period, a U.S. senator said Wednesday."
"Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., called the figures “shocking” and urged the Defense Department to take more aggressive steps to ensure taxpayer dollars aren’t wasted at a time when the U.S. is running a $14 trillion national debt."
"Citing a January report prepared by Pentagon acquisition officials at Sanders’ request, the senator said the bulk of the contracts — just over $280 billion — went to 211 companies that had civil judgments against them or settled fraud charges of more than $1 million."
"During the same period, 30 defense contractors were convicted of criminal fraud, but still were awarded $682 million in new work, according to the Pentagon’s report."
http://www.militarytimes.com/news/2011/02/ap-billions-paid-to-firms-that...
War without nation building,
War without nation building, there's a phrase for that: punitive action. Seems to have worked pretty well for the Israelis in their last go-around in Lebanon.
We suck at nation building because we are not willing to keep a nation building governmental infrastructure in place to remember how to do it right. We did well after WWII only because we had a couple years to plan what we were going to do after the war.
The other thing we seem to fail at is finding ourselves competent kapos. Starting with Vietnam our Vitchy friends have mostly been a bunch of loosers.
With applogies to Pink Floyd:
Does anybody here remember Syngman Rhee?
Remember how he said that
We would meet again
Some sunny day?
Syngman! Syngman!
What has become of you?
Does anybody else in here
Feel the way I do?
Jeepers. Hope the blade was
Jeepers. Hope the blade was sharp.
Think you missed the point Andrew. Nation Building? That one is simple. Does not have anything to do with knowing the foreign culture. America has lot of smart folks in that department. Remember, America is a melting pot of cultures.
Correct answer is a little closer to not knowing ourselves.
No politician is going to go into a foreign land toting the American flag to fight for other people's values and culture. It is always about apple pie and the American way. So, to sell any conflict to the American people, the pitch is going to be about a threat to the American way of life or spreading democracy. Think if we just realized that, we would not fool ourselves into getting involved in these conflicts that require building up countries. If America got back to starting wars for the correct reasons, there would not be as many wars. Sun Tzu was right on that one.
Isolationism?
Crap. For the past twenty years, anything past US borders seems to be more interesting than the US of A. US people got a dose of marketing that foreign product is better. The trade imbalance is a sure indication that the American public took the bait hook, line, and sinker. Even the NGO's and do-gooders got on the band wagon, foreign problems are more interesting to work on then those in the US (Aids in Africa, Education, Poverty). Personally, I think Americans are starting to realize that we have just about as many interesting problems as the rest of the world. Americans are rediscovering American manufacturing. Folks are tired of getting screwed by off-shoring.
Does not take war spending, America is getting older and finally woke up. There is so much information flying around these days cause everything is so instant. We are just learning how to respond to it all.
It ain't Isolationism, it is just Common Sense. You go around fixing everyone else's house, pretty soon yours is going to get worn out. I really do not think that anyone in Afghanistan, Pakistan, or Haiti could give a nickle to help put a coat of paint any US homes.
ADTS, Helping people no
ADTS,
Helping people no matter if it is in America or elsewhere only works if the folks getting the help really want to improve themselves.
Anything else is Welfare State Building. Why work if you can get what you want for free?
Met a person that does mission work in Mali. He told me that people in that country walk up to him with their hand out. It has not changed in twenty years. The people are not saying "hello" or "good to see you".
We have seen that over and over in the US. When welfare pays more then working, people stop working. Then it becomes generational and a way of life. It is just another career option. Then people start gaming the system to get more. Having children is one way to maximize the pay out. Seems stupid to pay people to have children that can not afford them. The same forces of nation building are at work. You want to help people but the result is otherwise. Then when you try to fix it, it turns into a pissing contest.
Politicians put chicken's in people's pots, they do not take them out.
The real screwy part is it happens on the other end of the salary spectrum too. There are a lot of well paid CEO's gaming the US government for contracts. I know people that have made 100's of millions doing it. It just ain't Halliburton doing it. Twitter just hit a home run (Why his Obama promoting twitter???).
What do you think foreign aid is about? How's those Dubai bank accounts these days?
Here is the problem.......
The people releasing the money have no skin in the game or a complete different priority.
Generals are hired to win wars, we are asking them to build nations.
PS.....War is over, time to move on. People are going to loose Federal, State, and City jobs.........sorry. As for those Generals, they get get a six-figure retirement. Politicians, the same. Its a way of life.
"If anything can be laid at
"If anything can be laid at our feet, it was our intervention against the Soviets that contributed to the success of the Mujahadeen."
Oh bullshit. The Paks, the Saudis, and others were going to support the Mujahadeen even if we did nothing, and ultimately the Mujahadeen were going to succeed even if we did nothing. What caused the Mujahadeen was Soviet intervention, not our response to Soviet intervention.
"We had even less chance of stopping the civil war and less influence in Afghanistan in the 1990s than we do today. Which is shockingly low, even with over a hundred thousand troops fumbling about."
But that was a different situation. We didn't "own" Afghanistan after 1989, and we were not there on the ground, so we had no obligation to "nation build". After 9/11, we did "own" it and we were there on the ground. Yet we did no nation building, and the poor outcome of the hands-off policy is obvious to all.
"Our problem before 9/11 was poor border/immigration security and ignoring open training camps in a then relatively stable Taliban-run Afghanistan."
Why did the Taliban take over and churn out terrorists? Because we ignored Afghanistan after 1989 (duh).
If you think we can implement a border security regime so secure that no terrorists can get in, all I can say is good luck with that.
We went through this in
We went through this in Canada a few years ago when establishing the sacrifice medal (a.k.a the Canadian purple heart) primarily to recognize the service members being killed and wounded in Afghanistan.
Interestingly the decision was made to award to it to any one who dies as a direct result of military service, including training exercises in Canada. The more controversial decision was that it could be awarded for:
"Operational Stress Injury (OSI) resulting from enemy action or suicide caused by such mental disorders related to hostile action"
So, in the Canadian Army if you get PTSD due to enemy action, you get a medal. This was a controversial decision at the time, but I've been in the army since before 9/11 and have yet to meet anyone with a Sacrifice medal for PTSD. I'm guessing some of the cultural aversion to mental illness in the army has certainly lead to few if any requests for its award due to a OSI.
ADTS, Outlawing slavery and
ADTS,
Outlawing slavery and racial integration in the south is the one state program/intervention that could be construed as nation-building.
Mike
"If anything can be laid at
There's that key word in there: "contributed." Frankly, I for one don't consider us much responsible for much of anything in Afghanistan, for the simple reason we've always had little influence over what happens there on the ground. But if we have any, that's it.
We don't "own" Afghanistan now and we have no "obligation" to anything. (Indeed, I'd like to see this interesting contract between "us" and "them".) The point, that you seemed to miss, is that to get to where we are at today, where we even feel capable of trying - and even have confused people such as yourself who apparently think we no longer have free will, required a long series of interconnected events that had no chance in hell of happening in the early 1990s. We were not going to have a hundred thousand troops in Afghanistan (a policy, mind you, which would have in any case been as bad then as it is today). Spoiling Pakistani, Indian, Iranian, Russian, etc. influence was just as strong then. And the victorious insurgents and various groups in Afghanistan were just as determined to have it out with each other for their own reasons. Regardless of what the naive Americans might have whispered in their ears. In short, our influence then was even less than it is today.
A. Not "ignoring" Afghanistan does not = a clusterfuck of a nation-building strategy in perhaps the worst hospitable strategic and cultural environment.
As it was, we did not "ignore" Afghanistan. Our legation spent most of the 1990s trying to negotiate a peace settlement between the Taliban and Northern Alliance, and once he relocated there, "mother may I?" asking the Taliban to turn over Bin Laden. Aside from this, we had two Administrations that, except for one brief instance in 1998, allowed Al Qaeda to operate unimpeded at known training camps. And from a policing standpoint they pussyfooted around to the extent that one even turned down the Sudanese government's documented offer to hand over Bin Laden.
B. In spite of this, the 9-11 attacks still probably could have been thwarted on numerous occasions had there not been basic mistakes made in visa processing and other bureaucratic failures.
C. No, I don't think the U.S. government can stop every terrorist. That's obviously an impossible standard that will never be achieved, even by a usually competent government. However, for obvious reasons I have more faith in its ability to conduct basic immigration / visa / intelligence work than to socially-engineer structurally unstable, mountainous, and inhospitable countries that are surrounded by Pakistan, Iran, China, and the Stans/Russia.
Pipe dream.
Amen. I agree in particular
Amen. I agree in particular with your diagnosis of the reasons the US is poor at state building. Even in relatively benign environments such as Bosnia and Kosovo, the results of our state building projects have been disappointing and should be sobering to anyone paying attention.
State building is something I
State building is something I would hope the US gets out of the business of. What a mess Iraq still is, and we'll see what happens after the last troops leave. Reverse Cell Phone Lookup | Landscape Lights | Pellet Stoves
Add your comment