PDA

View Full Version : How to build a State in a non State environment?



Stan
12-26-2010, 08:07 PM
Mod's Note: copied here to facilitate the discussion from another thread, which starts with Post No.3.


Two days ago, while waiting for Santa Claus to come, I had a very interresting (and very drunk) conversation about how to build a State in a non State environment.
The question we finally came with was:
When you try to build a state from scratch, like in Afghanistan or Sudan (different setting, context, history... all agreed in advance), is dictatorship a necessary path or just the wall we all end up hitting?
The point was that despite using the democratic tool box, what ever the exemple you look at closely, you always end in a fake state (most of the time with a military like dictatorship or, at the best, a kleptocracy).

Somehow, it is different from that particular threat and I leave to TheCurmudgeon the right to expel me and my question out to another threat.

M-A,
Here's a great site from the CGSC History Department and this particular post is short and direct regarding The problem of creating a nation state, such as Afghanistan, is not a new one (http://usacac.army.mil/blog/blogs/hist/archive/2009/06/10/the-problem-of-creating-a-nation-state-such-as-afghanistan-is-not-a-new-one.aspx).

It however doesn't directly address Africa while comparing Afghanistan to Europe in the 16th century. I doubt the Europeans had many problems with cleptocracy to the level of The Sudan and Zaire, but I assume all have some experience with a military dictatorship.

Tom was barely in Zaire two days when he told the Country Team to forget what was in their diplomatic tool kit because we are in a cleptocracy, and, when the Country Team decided unanimously that the FAZ (Zairian Armed Forces) had to go, Tom began to laugh hysterically with something like "the mouse trying to bell the cat" (one of those days where I wished I was somewhere else :D ).

As odd as this may sound, if we didn't have a military dictatorship and/or cleptocracy, why would we need to build a State from scratch :confused:

TheCurmudgeon
12-26-2010, 08:19 PM
Mod's Note: copied here to facilitate the discussion from another thread, which starts with Post No.3.

M-A: No, I would never expel you and yes, this is exactly where I was going. It seems to me that COIN doctrine is misplaced in Afghanistan.

Yes, I am also leaning toward the dictatorship idea, but more of a constitutional monarchy. That might even be too much.

While I see the parallels between much of Africa and Afghanistan (in that there is no government outside the capital) I think there is a huge difference in certain areas. In many areas our colonialism was based on extracting natural resources, resources that these proto-states can still use as the foundation of a functioning state. Afghanistan and much of the HOA have no such resource. As a result, they have no influx of capital to run a government. One of the major functions of a government is to redistribute resources (taxes in, services and patronage out). Where there are no resources governments have a hard time functioning. It is even further complicated when religious institutions compete for the limited resources, redistributing tithes in accordance with their laws, and further weakening the power of the government or replacing the government in a form of one-stop-shop for social controls and services.

All of this seems more like the business of other agencies but, as advisers to the civilian leaders we serve I think it is incumbent on us to understand these matters and advise on the limitations of what a military can and cannot do to solve these problems. Not to mention that in an interconnected world, the threat can originate from anywhere. Hence, stability becomes a security issue and therefore, our business.

Thanks for all the comments and I will sit back and let let this one go where it may. :D

davidbfpo
12-27-2010, 01:20 PM
Slightly adapted from a post by M-A Lagrange, after a Santa Claus discussion:
When you try to build a state from scratch, like in Afghanistan or Sudan (different setting, context, history... all agreed in advance), is dictatorship a necessary path or just the wall we all end up hitting?

The point was that despite using the democratic tool box, what ever the example you look at closely, you always end in a fake state (most of the time with a military like dictatorship or, at the best, a kleptocracy).

Bob's World
12-27-2010, 01:35 PM
Regardless of how one slices the problem, or names the slices, "job one" for any government is to establish and maintain the perception in the populace they seek to govern of their right, their legitimacy, to govern.
Tactics, capabilities and capacities for the "establish" mission are going to be significantly different than those required for the "maintain" mission.

Any time a government rides to power on the back of some greater, intervening power, it is highly unlikely to be perceived as legitimate in the eyes of the populace or the vanquished pre-existing power, either one. We ignore that messy little fact and go straight to the "maintain" mission with pop-centric COIN.

This is the core problem with pop-centric COIN (Galula) vs threat-centric COIN (Tranquier), is that both are efforts to manage the symptoms of natural resistance to illegitimate government, coupled with little effort and no intent to ever address that base problem of illegitimacy. In fact, the primary purpose for such intervention is to create an illegitimate government that will prioritize the interests of the intervening power over those of their own people and nation.

It like asking the populace if they would like to be punched in the balls with an Iron Fist, or a Velvet one? Would you like to live in an Iron Cage, or a Golden one? Just because one is preferred to the other, does not mean that either is going to be welcomed as an acceptable solution to the challenge of governance.

Pop-Centric COIN is no more, and no less, than just one more chapter on tactics in how to implement Colonial COIN. How to create and sustain illegitimate government over others to serve one's own interests there.

It is time to evolve away from Colonial COIN, and maybe we had to go through this phase to get to true change, but know that we are not there yet.

TheCurmudgeon
12-27-2010, 02:58 PM
Bob,

I think we try to project our concepts of governance onto societies that do have the same needs and desire. In many places and throughout much of history the Right to govern simply meant that you were more powerful than the other competitors. I don't mean power to subdue the populace but the power to provide for the populace. The description of the Khan in Jon W. Anderson's "There Are No Khāns Anymore: Economic Development and Social Change in Tribal Afghanistan" indicates a level of pre-state and even pre-monarchical society that are looking for something completely different from what we are trying to force down there throats. More of a patron-client relationship and more on a local level. We keep trying to establish a State where the concept of a State is a relatively recent development.

Besides the problem of the level of needs of the society there is major problem we have in Afghanistan is that there is no economic base. What you really have there now is a rentier society living not off the "rents" from a natural resource like oil but from external aid. It is not sustainable. A State requires a certain level of economic development. I don't see that in Afghanistan. Unless we decide to suddenly legalize heroin.

Without trying to go through the entire process of governance I want to propose a completely different alternative - why don't we simply establish a protectorate. We will provide protection from outside invasion; we will reserve the right to go in and attack any element that we determine is a threat to our security interests, but other than that we let the populace develop their own governance.

Stan
12-27-2010, 03:30 PM
Besides the problem of the level of needs of the society there is major problem we have in Afghanistan is that there is no economic base. What you really have there now is a rentier society living not off the "rents" from a natural resource like oil but from external aid. It is not sustainable. A State requires a certain level of economic development. I don't see that in Afghanistan. Unless we decide to suddenly legalize heroin.

Probably of minor debate herein, but didn't some USG entity or US Company consider buying-up their poppy to create bio fuel? It was in the local German newspaper for September together with a story about the Taliban destroying saffron plants and shipments, thus forcing the farmers to grow more poppy.

The same article indicating that Afghan security is being partially funded (squandered) by aid budgets?


Without trying to go through the entire process of governance I want to propose a completely different alternative - why don't we simply establish a protectorate. We will provide protection from outside invasion; we will reserve the right to go in and attack any element that we determine is a threat to our security interests, but other than that we let the populace develop their own governance.

Intriguing idea ! The arms and diamond dealers in Sub-Sahara came to the same conclusions and hired the very people out to rob them blind. On the surface it worked very well for several years, but how quickly things went Tango Uniform when there was a salary cut and further local currency devaluations.

TheCurmudgeon
12-27-2010, 04:14 PM
First, I want to reiterate that creating a state may not be what is really what we need to do. That being said, I will now try to work through what it might take to create a government where none exists.

The foundation of governance, in my mind, is loyalty of the people in exchange for goods and services provided by the leadership. When stripped down to the basics, that is what I believe you will find. If you start there I think you can build up. Starting at the local level, building a system of patronage, you can create a federation. The federation then is the nucleolus of the government.

I also feel you need to separate the idea of governance and rule of law. They are not the same thing. Many kings have ruled without the rule of law. That is a concept that underlies democratic governments not governments in general.

First, you have to establish what is there. Is it an ungoverned territory, a tribal society with limited or no history of central government, an area with some history of central government (maybe a monarchy) but is currently unstable, an area with an established state government but that has failed, an area with an established and functioning central government but is involved in a civil war, or an established government that has an active insurgency. What exists that we can start with.

Then determine what systems still exist - what is the economic base of the society; what is the level of the infrastructure; what government exists or has existed in the past; what loyalty systems exist, what patronage systems exists; what are the current threats to the society (or to our security), what is their goal and who is supporting them? All this should be determined as best as possible before the operation even starts.

Usually security will be the first order of business when we hit the ground but this may not always be the case. Ungoverned or tribal areas may not really need security, A failed state probably will.

With the base concept that governance is based on loyalty in exchange for goods and services provided, the next step is to determine what the people want and need. Do they need security from the threat of death. Do they need a place to live. Do they need food. Do they need a job and economic security. Do they need to feel like they are part of something bigger and pride in who they are. Do they need a say in their government. Do they need freedom. Everyone in the society may not need the same thing and giving someone the right to vote may not mean much if they have no job. I remember a quote once that was something like "Freedom of the press means nothing when your belly is empty."

Everything beyond security is beyond what the military is historically trained to do. What is will take to go down this road will be an organization that does not exist with a doctrine that has not been developed.

TheCurmudgeon
12-27-2010, 04:32 PM
Intriguing idea ! The arms and diamond dealers in Sub-Sahara came to the same conclusions and hired the very people out to rob them blind. On the surface it worked very well for several years, but how quickly things went Tango Uniform when there was a salary cut and further local currency devaluations.

I am not as certain that the protectorate idea works as well where there is an economic resource available. If an economic base is available its development has to be part of solution, but each situation is different.

I don't necessarily have a problem of paying people not to attack you. It worked for me while building a road in Afghanistan. The problem is exactly what you described - what happens when you take that money away. As long as you are paying them, pay them for something that builds the infrastructure or the economic base. I know that sounds simplistic but it is what I think needs to happen.

Bill Moore
12-27-2010, 04:45 PM
Posted by Bob's World,


This is the core problem with pop-centric COIN (Galula) vs threat-centric COIN (Tranquier), is that both are efforts to manage the symptoms of natural resistance to illegitimate government, coupled with little effort and no intent to ever address that base problem of illegitimacy. In fact, the primary purpose for such intervention is to create an illegitimate government that will prioritize the interests of the intervening power over those of their own people and nation.

Bob's post provoked some rather old thoughts. First we're terribly concerned about legitimacy and related ideas, as though there existed somewhere in history a legitimate government that was never opposed by its people or neighbors. We tend to imply in our remarks that all illegitimacy is imposed by the modern West on the developing world. Yet history tells us that in all these lands (even before they were states) people were in nearly continuous states of conflict. We didn't introduce violence and conflict into these lands, it already existed, why? It wasn't to oust an occupier. It wasn't to oust a form of illegitimate government. They were conflicts about power, greed and identity (fear).

Democracy as practiced today is an advanced form of governance that attempts to mitigate the forces of power, greed and identity, but it only appears to work in countries where the masses are educated and share what can probably be called Judeo-Christian values.

Getting back to the topic of the post, there may well be times when it is appropriate to be cruel to be kind by establishing a dictatorship to bring some level of order (predictability) to society so it can begin to develop. In my view our attempts to force our form of government on other nations has generally backfired and resulted in several needless deaths to no discernable end. Germany was a democracy before we occupied it, so we just returned it to its previous state after eradicating the Nazi influence.

I really don't know if a dictatorship is required as a first step to develop a state from a non-state, but the evidence is pretty clear that imposing democracy on developing nations or non-states doesn't tend to work out too well.

Stan
12-27-2010, 04:47 PM
First, you have to establish what is there. Is it an ungoverned territory, a tribal society with limited or no history of central government, an area with some history of central government (maybe a monarchy) but is currently unstable, an area with an established state government but that has failed, an area with an established and functioning central government but is involved in a civil war, or an established government that has an active insurgency. What exists that we can start with.

Then determine what systems still exist - what is the economic base of the society; what is the level of the infrastructure; what government exists or has existed in the past; what loyalty systems exist, what patronage systems exists; what are the current threats to the society (or to our security), what is their goal and who is supporting them? All this should be determined as best as possible before the operation even starts.

Very well written. I think you'll find that very same guidance has been around for quite a while. Suffices to say, that with proper resources and the expertise in that area most categories will be easy to ascertain. However and on to your last, probably better to bet on the fact you (the US Military) will be at it alone for a lot longer than estimated, and better to count on no help in the interim.


Everything beyond security is beyond what the military is historically trained to do. What is will take to go down this road will be an organization that does not exist with a doctrine that has not been developed.

Concur. But, historically speaking (my time) we were always first to arrive and normally without support from DART and AID agencies that tend to deal with disaster-size problems. Don't sell us short just yet. We have plenty of talented soldiers from every walk of life with a wealth of backgrounds and experience. Doctrine sadly ends up being developed and fielded based on failures. At the very least, doctrine ends up being developed from lessons learned in the field... Not a bad start and certainly better that some politician's dream of what the military should now be responsible for !

Bob's World
12-27-2010, 05:20 PM
I was doodling some thoughts this morning on this dynamic, and this is an effort to organize them visually. The idea being that there is a zone of "purgatory" that occurs between the time that old forms of governance are "defeated" (that could be a Genghis-like effort to consolidate governance over a state-less region of tribal centers of governance or it could be an intervention such as the US most recently in Iraq or Afghanistan) and such time as the new government comes to be accepted by their own populace (and similarly by neighboring governments and populaces as well). This acceptance being broadly described as "Legitimacy."

I think one major handicap to current US operations is that we don't fully recognize or appreciate this zone of Purgatory, or how the very fact of our intervention makes such a purgatory even stronger and more difficult to overcome.

TheCurmudgeon
12-27-2010, 05:52 PM
Concur. But, historically speaking (my time) we were always first to arrive and normally without support from DART and AID agencies that tend to deal with disaster-size problems. Don't sell us short just yet. We have plenty of talented soldiers from every walk of life with a wealth of backgrounds and experience. Doctrine sadly ends up being developed and fielded based on failures. At the very least, doctrine ends up being developed from lessons learned in the field... Not a bad start and certainly better that some politician's dream of what the military should now be responsible for !

I realize that we are capable of this. We (the military) may be the ONLY organization capable of this, but not with the current mindset. I remember seeing a piece on TED by Thomas Barnett about forming a Department of Everything Else. I have come to agree with that assessment. But even with that force you need a doctrine that understands how to build a functioning government out of what exists on the ground - not try to create little western democracies everywhere. (I have always found it fascinating that the organization called upon to export democracy is non-democratic).

A large part of the current military seems torn between embracing the idea of Establishing Stable States as a mission and those that feel that fighting and winning the nation's high intensity conflicts is where our mission ends. Even those who embrace the idea are hamstrung by limited doctrine beyond COIN.

I am not an old SF soldier, but my understanding of the old SF mission was to help insurgencies and train fledgling foreign paramilitaries. I did not think it included the more recent addition of Civil Affairs. I could be wrong. In any case, even current Civil Affairs seems to have no clear doctrine beyond an attempt to replicate the governance systems and infrastructure of a western democracy. Again, I could be wrong.

slapout9
12-27-2010, 05:58 PM
I am not an old SF soldier, but my understanding of the old SF mission was to help insurgencies and train fledgling foreign paramilitaries. I did not think it included the more recent addition of Civil Affairs. I could be wrong. In any case, even current Civil Affairs seems to have no clear doctrine beyond an attempt to replicate the governance systems and infrastructure of a western democracy. Again, I could be wrong.

Don't know for sure when it started but for a long time they were organized along with PSYOPS, and Civil Affairs. Capturing radio stations and use of Propaganda was critical.

TheCurmudgeon
12-27-2010, 06:07 PM
Slapout,

I understand that SF is now people centric, but I am not clear what their doctrine is beyond influencing the people. We spout slogans, we bribe, we threaten, and we kill, but I don't know if we know how to build a government in the variety of potential situations nor do we have a variety of potential government types we can chose from. We are a one-size-fits-all organization.

Also, the SF guys usually end up working for the conventional guys who may see only their ability to support the conventional fight.

Stan
12-27-2010, 06:46 PM
I remember seeing a piece on TED by Thomas Barnett about forming a Department of Everything Else. I have come to agree with that assessment. But even with that force you need a doctrine that understands how to build a functioning government out of what exists on the ground - not try to create little western democracies everywhere. (I have always found it fascinating that the organization called upon to export democracy is non-democratic).

I was once OK reading his articles (he looks like Spock and that gives me the ibee jeebies) until he declared that once per-capita rises above three grand, war becomes less likely. There's just too many examples that blow this theory like Russia scarfing up tiny prosperous countries. He forgot about greed being my point.

I need to borrow a recent and great statement from member Slapout to better comment:


I think the world sees us as a bunch of white boys with guns trying to tell everybody else what to do, and they don't like it. However if you can find a local (indigenous group) that you can align with because you have the same objectives (reason to fight) things are a lot easier. And if you are really smart and leave personal ideologies and beliefs out of it and just concentrate on common goals you might just make a few friends.

We shouldn't be trying to create little American democracies and we know it won't fly. Much like you opined, when the cash is gone, so is any semblance of cooperation, or worse, new enemies. When we do that we've forgotten the very basic element that often kept us off the "ugly American" list. I've been teaching indigenous forces and civilians for more than 25 years now, and there has always been that gray area and they have no problem cornering you into submission. Doesn't mean we're soft, just means "we get where you come from and that's cool" sort of attitude.


I am not an old SF soldier, but my understanding of the old SF mission was to help insurgencies and train fledgling foreign paramilitaries. I did not think it included the more recent addition of Civil Affairs. I could be wrong. In any case, even current Civil Affairs seems to have no clear doctrine beyond an attempt to replicate the governance systems and infrastructure of a western democracy. Again, I could be wrong.

I might be old but I don't have that much time with SF. You'll need to check with Bob on that one :D

The missions both in Africa and Eastern Europe almost always included some strange folks tagging along. It's only clear later just how significant PSYOPS and CA are to the overall strategy (that doesn't mean we liked hangin' with them). They become the missing element especially when there's no war to be fought. We weren't replicating governance then, rather trying to get the public behind the band wagon. We even went out with the COS to folks homes and reassured them that their son would be safe joining the military and fighting the Russians (they liked that part the best !). Too hard to pin down their significant contributions and I have no clue just how hamstrung they are since I deal with the working class folks most.

EDIT:
Too hard to pin down their significant contributions and I have no clue just how hamstrung they are since I deal with the working class folks most.

I know that's a cop out for an answer, but I enjoy working level relationships free of politics and Bravo Sierra. Let's get the job done and drink beer !

slapout9
12-27-2010, 07:12 PM
Slapout,

I understand that SF is now people centric, but I am not clear what their doctrine is beyond influencing the people. We spout slogans, we bribe, we threaten, and we kill, but I don't know if we know how to build a government in the variety of potential situations nor do we have a variety of potential government types we can chose from. We are a one-size-fits-all organization.

Also, the SF guys usually end up working for the conventional guys who may see only their ability to support the conventional fight.

I am not sure what they do now either,(I am truly amazed at how much they have changed) but I can tell you what it used to be. The selection of the Guerrilla force leaders was absolutely critical(often selected from what might be called a government/population group in exile) because out of the Guerrilla force would emerge the first leaders of the New Government (part of step seven demobilization of the Guerrilla force). In short win the revolution first then...........win the election, you don't do it while you are in the middle of the war, and the government HAS to be built by them,we can assist or advise but it must be theirs or we will be seen as just another foreign occupier, or so the theory went.

TheCurmudgeon
12-27-2010, 09:15 PM
I guess that is as close to the protectorate model I mentioned earlier as you are going to get. But is assumes that there is someone there we are supporting. What happens when there is no one there, do you create them?

Once they win, do you hand them off to State? What promises of support can you make?

All this also seems to assume a level of infrastructure that may not exist elsewhere - something to fight over that we have an interest in. What if our only interest is stability?

I like the principle, its the details that are not working out so well.

TheCurmudgeon
12-27-2010, 09:41 PM
I was doodling some thoughts this morning on this dynamic, and this is an effort to organize them visually. The idea being that there is a zone of "purgatory" that occurs between the time that old forms of governance are "defeated" (that could be a Genghis-like effort to consolidate governance over a state-less region of tribal centers of governance or it could be an intervention such as the US most recently in Iraq or Afghanistan) and such time as the new government comes to be accepted by their own populace (and similarly by neighboring governments and populaces as well). This acceptance being broadly described as "Legitimacy."

Is this part of a larger presentation or a stand alone document?

Dayuhan
12-27-2010, 11:05 PM
Here's a great site from the CGSC History Department and this particular post is short and direct regarding The problem of creating a nation state, such as Afghanistan, is not a new one (http://usacac.army.mil/blog/blogs/hist/archive/2009/06/10/the-problem-of-creating-a-nation-state-such-as-afghanistan-is-not-a-new-one.aspx).

It however doesn't directly address Africa while comparing Afghanistan to Europe in the 16th century. I doubt the Europeans had many problems with cleptocracy to the level of The Sudan and Zaire, but I assume all have some experience with a military dictatorship.


Had to note the first statement of the cited post...


The process of creating a nation state begins with an increase in the ability of the state to provide security and stability through an increase in the size of the army and police. This increase required the creation, almost from scratch, of a centralized bureaucracy to collect taxes.

That suggests that the first experience of the citizen with the new "state" is likely to be exposure to men with guns demanding money. Not hard to see how the citizen might see this as a less than welcome development.

I suspect that European governments of the 16th century were every bit as kleptocratic as African governments today. The folks who built those palaces were not earning their own money.

If we're now talking about building states, or building nations, I'd say that's something we can't do. States and nations aren't built, they grow. We may be able to assist their growth with a bit of judicious cultivation (just as we may be able to derail their growth with injudicious attempts at cultivation), but we can't construct a state, any more than we can construct an oak tree.

The metaphor of choice may not be all that relevant, but I suspect that our preference for engineering metaphors (build/fix) might reflect a mindset that's causing us some problems, and that we might do better to draw our metaphors from an agricultural context emphasizing state growth as an organic process, not something that one "builds" or "fixes".

slapout9
12-27-2010, 11:57 PM
I guess that is as close to the protectorate model I mentioned earlier as you are going to get. But is assumes that there is someone there we are supporting. What happens when there is no one there, do you create them?

Once they win, do you hand them off to State? What promises of support can you make?

All this also seems to assume a level of infrastructure that may not exist elsewhere - something to fight over that we have an interest in. What if our only interest is stability?

I like the principle, its the details that are not working out so well.


It all depends;)your success or failure is going to hinge on the initial and accurate analysis of the social structure of the area in question (old school geography, who owns the land and what do they do with it). How it really is, not how you wish it to be. Special Warfare is an option not a panacea. If your analysis does indicate it is possible then I would say don't do it. That is one of the big problems IMO we keep looking for some master template that we can apply over and over again.

Finding a cause that people are willing to not just fight for but are willing to die for is the real question. If you can find a group like that and support them quietly you may just end up making a few friends instead of a lot of enemies.


You should really watch the series I posted called "More Deadly Than War" to get an overview of the mobilzation process.

M-A Lagrange
12-28-2010, 08:43 AM
Coming back to the beginning of the threat, I would like to share this website from OECD:
http://www.oecd.org/site/0,3407,en_21571361_42277499_1_1_1_1_1,00.html

What I found interesting in that particular site is the endorsement of the various governance frames and legitimacy sources in non western countries.
I believe that a good identification of what is the local understanding of local governance (basically what people expect from government, how they can get it and what government provides) is the starting point to be able to file Bob’s matrix.
Once you have this, you may have a starting point.
Naturally, it is set in the context of fragile state therefore; it is assumed that you have some sort of administration running somewhere. But still, the frame they propose is very interest in to understand what is at work in a non state context.
My primary assumption being that as mankind is a political animal, there is a form of governance what so ever at grass root level.

The various reports linked on that site may respond many of the questions raised here. (Not saying they are the bible and cannot be challenged, far from it).
Also, it’s a donor/development agencies oriented work. But still some good stuff in it.

Stan
12-28-2010, 11:00 AM
I guess that is as close to the protectorate model I mentioned earlier as you are going to get. But is assumes that there is someone there we are supporting. What happens when there is no one there, do you create them?

The best way I can remotely answer some of that is using our (USG) creation and sustainment of a National Demining Office. It began with a a requests for projects out of State with DOD on the "who does it line". We at ground zero came up with a country plan, found the potential players and got the whole enchilada endorsed.

Enter US Army with a survey and State begins the funding process. The initial injection was pretty hefty to get the ball rolling and TDY personnel settled. Training and equipment was our first step and that meant finding the students who would eventually keep this project alive. Some folks were readily available from Rescue and the military, but we still needed many more and had to start advertising and screening. Better than a year before we had what we deemed necessary to commence training and providing equipment. We also had a ton of infrastructure problems that we had not counted on.

Two years into the project and things are rolling along smoothly (nobody has died).


Once they win, do you hand them off to State? What promises of support can you make?

Enter EUCOM and DOD funding in the form of more training and sustaining funds. This part is the hidden treasure albeit very complicated and intense documentation. We had a dedicated SNCO just to keep track of the money and equipment (also funded by the same pot).

A typical project or country plan with State starting and DOD sustaining is 5 years. Thereafter the people on the ground have to assess the status and progress based on established goals, etc. In our case we became an exporter of security vs just another consumer and that went over big at State and EUCOM. We are now in our 12th year and responsible for teaching and supporting neighboring countries as well as NATO.


All this also seems to assume a level of infrastructure that may not exist elsewhere - something to fight over that we have an interest in. What if our only interest is stability?

I like the principle, its the details that are not working out so well.

I may have over simplified our project when comparing it to what you're up against, but my point was there are various avenues that fund and support. The bad news... The Embassy has to get really involved and they normally assign their most junior officer with the least amount of time in country and the most Sierra already on his plate :rolleyes:

Bob's World
12-28-2010, 01:07 PM
Is this part of a larger presentation or a stand alone document?

It's a snapshot of a concept that fits into much of my work. I will continue to flesh this out and integrate it.

But this covers major conflicts, such as the defeat of the Confederacy and reintegration into the Union; the defeat of Germany and Japan getting those countries back up and running as sovereigns once again. We are still in purgatory in Iraq, but seem to be close to moving into stability; it will be understanding what lends itself most to that stability and enforcing those things that will be key to continued progress. In Afghanistan we are stuck fast in Purgatory, and little of the Coalition approach to date has focused on those things that move the country forward into stability (IMO).

Every situation is unique, but this framework is intended to be generally universal. Recognizing the current operations as peacetime combat rather than wartime combat is one significant difference offered here. The other is recognizing that resistance and revolutionary push-back is natural and that focusing on addressing the issues of governance and foreign presence that feed those natural conditions are the essential tasks in getting to stability.

Instead we enabled and protect an unsustainable model of governance that codifies illegitimacy; and then work to help defeat those who actively resist; or buy off those who merely provide support or stand neutral. Such approaches may achieve a calm period of suppressed violence, but are unlikely to produce true stability, as they pointedly ignore the essential tasks.

slapout9
12-28-2010, 01:43 PM
But this covers major conflicts, such as the defeat of the Confederacy

Shouldn't be spreading enemy propaganda:wry:

TheCurmudgeon
12-29-2010, 12:49 PM
M-A

I checked out the site and it was pretty good. A lot of information here. I have not had a chance to work through it but it does appear to have a little more flexibility than other things I have seen. I liked "Building Peaceful States and Societies: A DFID Practice Paper" http://www.gsdrc.org/docs/open/CON75.pdf.

Still based off the idea of a state built on rules rather than social ties - something I would consider a more recent historical development that requires a fairly substantial economic base to achieve. It still had an "if you build it they will come" feel to it, but it spent more time trying to understand the issues that matter to the people.

I have to keep telling myself that "how to build a state in a non-state environment" is the name of the thread but it seems that we (the successful states) are forcing the lessor developed territories into a mold that requires more than they can sustain. It is expensive to keep the huge bureaucracy associated with a state (particularly its external relationships and defenses). It requires the development of a cadre of experts and bureaucrats - years of training. It requires an education system to train those experts and bureaucrats. How do you do that when you have no economic base?

It seems to me that the first mission after establishing security is establishing a functioning economic system. The government could be a caretaker system at this point working "by, with, and through" the local leadership (most likely tribal leaders at this point). Once the economic system is in place (or concurrent with its establishment) you can start to build within the limits of the capabilities of that economic system. Don't try to build a Rolls Royce when all you can afford to maintain is a Hugo.

Bob's World
12-29-2010, 01:44 PM
Curmudgeon,

Instead of "how" to build a state in a non-state environment, an equally important, if not more so, question is "WHY" build a state in a non-state environment??

Many of the same regions the west agonizes over as being "non-state" or "failed state" or "ungoverned" are also the same regions that skipped generations of technology, such as landline telephones, and went straight to satellite and cellular.

As many important voices are recognizing, the world is changing, and that concepts such as "sovereignty" are evolving as well. Why would these regions, these populaces, not skip a generation of governance as well?? Perhaps, in fact, they already are and it is freaking us out.

This is one more case where making minor adaptations within ourselves is probably far more proper and effective than setting out to force major adaptations onto others.

Just a thought.

Bob

TheCurmudgeon
12-29-2010, 02:07 PM
Many of the same regions the west agonizes over as being "non-state" or "failed state" or "ungoverned" are also the same regions that skipped generations of technology, such as landline telephones, and went straight to satellite and cellular.


Reminds me of the advantage of backwardness:

From time to time during the last seventy years, students of societal development have proposed some version of what has come to be known as the "advantage of backwardness" hypothesis (e.g., Service; Spencer; Trotsky; Veblen). Reduced to barest essentials, this hypothesis asserts that less developed societies sometimes enjoy advantages that allow them to overtake more developed societies at a later date. Proponents of this hypothesis have noted that societies that pioneer in the development of new technoeconomic systems have to pay the sometimes heavy costs of innovation (i.e., the costs of "research and development"). More important still, they become committed by heavy capital investments to early forms of the new technology that may soon be surpassed. In contrast, their more backward competitors avoid the costs of research and development and are freer to adopt later and more advanced forms of the technology when they appear.

(Patrick D. Nolan and Gerhard Lenski, Technoeconomic Heritage, Patterns of Development, and the Advantage of Backwardness Social Forces, Vol. 64, No. 2 (Dec., 1985), pp. 341-358, p. 341)

I understand the idea in theory, but still think it requires an economic base. It also seems to be more closely associate with technology than with political organizations. Maybe I have been reading too much Materialism theory trying to get to the basics of what governments have to provide to be seen as legitimate. In any case, there must be another model that can be developed. Something less than a state but more than chaos.

Bob's World
12-29-2010, 02:22 PM
Well, when one maps out "failed states" they typically occur where some colonial western power has sought to impose a foreign concept of governance onto a populace with no historical or cultural foundation for the same. Then we accuse these same disrupted people of being "failed" once that colonial influence withdraws and leaves them to their own devices.

By focusing less on creating "states" and more on empowering the development of workable solutions to governance, tailored by region, populace, culture (I believe this is called "Self-determination" and was once highly regarded as a noble concept in America), we get to better results.

TheCurmudgeon
12-29-2010, 02:26 PM
Instead of "how" to build a state in a non-state environment, an equally important, if not more so, question is "WHY" build a state in a non-state environment??

I actually think that is the what we ourselves don't understand. Why are we doing this. Is it for our own security? Is it to promote a political agenda like exporting democracy? Is it to extend human rights to places where they have not existed before? Is it to gain access to natural resources or preclude a potential adversary from the same? Is it all of the above?

Back to the problem of mission creep. What is the FINAL objective or do we even know what it is?

Again, off topic - so I will cease and desist my rant.

TheCurmudgeon
12-29-2010, 02:30 PM
Well, when one maps out "failed states" they typically occur where some colonial western power has sought to impose a foreign concept of governance onto a populace with no historical or cultural foundation for the same. Then we accuse these same disrupted people of being "failed" once that colonial influence withdraws and leaves them to their own devices.

By focusing less on creating "states" and more on empowering the development of workable solutions to governance, tailored by region, populace, culture (I believe this is called "Self-determination" and was once highly regarded as a noble concept in America), we get to better results.

I agree. I am not sure where this is taking us, but I like "self-determination" a lot better than state building.

Stan
12-29-2010, 04:30 PM
I agree. I am not sure where this is taking us, but I like "self-determination" a lot better than state building.

This reminds me of the 11-plus years that the international community has been struggling with Kosovo.

International state-building in Kosovo – security, self-determination, and privatisation (http://english.nupi.no/Activities/Departments/Department-of-Security-and-Conflict-Management/Prosjekter/International-state-building-in-Kosovo-security-self-determination-and-privatisation)


If international state building represents a challenge to dominant conceptualisations of sovereignty, democracy and self-determination, this challenge is particularly pointed in the case of Kosovo. What is at stake with Kosovo’s international state building project goes to the heart of questions of what a state is, and who has the right to govern and define its legitimacy, scope and legal basis.

Entire report at the link...

slapout9
12-29-2010, 04:51 PM
Curmudgeon, you just hit the nail on the head IMO. I have asked many times why do people join gangs. (gangs are miniature governments) they join for Protection and Prosperity. If there is no prosperity there is nothing to protect so they (people) begin to disintegrate the system. If there is prosperity they will have something worth protecting. It is about bringing home the bacon and making sure the wolf doesn't get the bacon. It doesn't really matter what political ideology controls it, my opinion anyway. Just watch this happening in America, DC keeps sending the bacon overseas and the wolfs are starting to form their packs.

M-A Lagrange
12-29-2010, 06:18 PM
From Bob
Instead of "how" to build a state in a non-state environment, an equally important, if not more so, question is "WHY" build a state in a non-state environment??


From The Curmudgeon
I have to keep telling myself that "how to build a state in a non-state environment" is the name of the thread but it seems that we (the successful states) are forcing the lessor developed territories into a mold that requires more than they can sustain. It is expensive to keep the huge bureaucracy associated with a state (particularly its external relationships and defenses). It requires the development of a cadre of experts and bureaucrats - years of training. It requires an education system to train those experts and bureaucrats. How do you do that when you have no economic base?
It seems to me that the first mission after establishing security is establishing a functioning economic system. The government could be a caretaker system at this point working "by, with, and through" the local leadership (most likely tribal leaders at this point). Once the economic system is in place (or concurrent with its establishment) you can start to build within the limits of the capabilities of that economic system. Don't try to build a Rolls Royce when all you can afford to maintain is a Hugo.

I tend to agree with both of you that the problematic of building a modern State in a non-state context is bound to the need of external powers to have an interlocutor. We are definitively in the dictate of the norm as defined by Foucault. A dictate for us rather than for them, by the way.

But never the less, governance does exist in non-state environment, therefore it should be possible to establish a form of government that is acceptable for the populace.
Also, as you pointed very well, the main problem to establish a state is in the need of tax collection by the state.
One of the reasons why there is so much resistance to the establishment of a state in Somalia is the question of taxes (among many others). But even Al Shabab do collect taxes. They collect them through religious taxes or other protection revenues but they do collect taxes.
What they sell is not security or protection; it’s a simple form a basic racket: if you do not pay, then I will harm you.
Do not forget that in a non-state environment; almost 90% of the population is economically not in capacity to pay any taxes. Therefore, the one who will pay taxes are the one who do already control the economy. In such perspective, they want to have a benefit from their “tax investment”. This basically what DFID defines as patronage and leads straight to kleptocracy.

In South Sudan, there is an interesting experiment that is being done: the central state wants to empower the traditional chiefs to distribute justice and police. I personally have nothing against but I cannot avoid seeing it as a redo of what was done in the 70th by most of the African governments. Mobutu was extremely good at it.
The main problem being that by empowering local traditional leaders, the central state skip its responsibility to administrate its territory. It builds artificially a distance between the modern administration and the people, allows the modern administration to be only a tax collector tool which actually does not deliver anything except sanctions if the taxes are not paid. Basically sets all the bases for any insurgency or reject of modern state and discredit all efforts do have good/responsible governance.
I must say that I do not know were the response is but at least, I see many of the walls…


The Curmudgeon:
I agree. I am not sure where this is taking us, but I like "self-determination" a lot better than state building.

Curmudgeon,

Could you please define self determination? I am in one of those exercise at the moment and it’s quite creepy actually. :o

Dayuhan
12-30-2010, 08:47 AM
there is a zone of "purgatory" that occurs between the time that old forms of governance are "defeated" (that could be a Genghis-like effort to consolidate governance over a state-less region of tribal centers of governance or it could be an intervention such as the US most recently in Iraq or Afghanistan) and such time as the new government comes to be accepted by their own populace (and similarly by neighboring governments and populaces as well). This acceptance being broadly described as "Legitimacy."

I suspect that it's really quite rare that the first government that arises after a period of non-governance is accepted by the populace as legitimate. More often the populace accepts it out of fear, fatigue, or both. That government may in time evolve into something that seeks and even finds popular approval, or it may be subsequently overthrown. A direct transition from non-governance to governance approved by the populace is not common.

We've gotten so used to seeing "the populace" as "the COG" that we often forget that the populace is not the arbiter of victory in a non-governance or weak governance situation. The winner is not the party that gains popular approval, the winner is the party that can bring the strongest and most durable armed force to the table. These populaces certainly don't see themselves as the arbiters of victory, for good reason. They aren't concerned with finding legitimate governance, they're concerned with staying alive.

On so-called "failed states", I don't think we call states "failed" because they lack western-style governance structures. We call them "failed" because of famine, genocide, civil war, pestilence, and other evidence of failure. I'd be the last to say they need a western-style government or state, but we also can't pretend that if we don't intervene they will happily revert to functioning self-governance. In many of these areas traditional tribal governance structures (arguably never as benign or popular as Western myth pretends) have been degraded by innumerable interventions and meddlings, and barely function if they function at all. What's left is rule by whoever has the most armed men on any given spot at any given time. It's pretty raw, and calling it "self-governance" is probably putting a bit too kind a face on it.

Building a functioning government is a place where there is none? Why do we assume that we can do that at all? Before we ask "how do we do it", we need to ask whether we can, and whether we need to try.

Fuchs
12-30-2010, 10:17 AM
"...is dictatorship a necessary path or just the wall we all end up hitting? "

You need either a power advantage OR consent in absence of power asymmetry to organize a democratic political process orderly.

The power that organizes a democracy can be foreign troops, of course.


Young democracies often fail (example Weimar Republic) because the society isn't sold on democracy yet, if there's no consensus on democracy ('Republic without republicans.'). To set up of a dictatorship early on doesn't help against this problem at all.


The Afghanistan democracy project failed for several reasons - not the least the entirely unnecessary influx of huge amounts of foreign cash that would have corrupted any form of government.


The consent is ultimately what drives a democracy.
You still need the checks & balances and several precautions to secure a democracy once it's in place, of course.

Bob's World
12-30-2010, 10:52 AM
On so-called "failed states", I don't think we call states "failed" because they lack western-style governance structures. We call them "failed" because of famine, genocide, civil war, pestilence, and other evidence of failure. I'd be the last to say they need a western-style government or state, but we also can't pretend that if we don't intervene they will happily revert to functioning self-governance. In many of these areas traditional tribal governance structures (arguably never as benign or popular as Western myth pretends) have been degraded by innumerable interventions and meddling, and barely function if they function at all. What's left is rule by whoever has the most armed men on any given spot at any given time. It's pretty raw, and calling it "self-governance" is probably putting a bit too kind a face on it.

Building a functioning government is a place where there is none? Why do we assume that we can do that at all? Before we ask "how do we do it", we need to ask whether we can, and whether we need to try.

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/06/21/2010_failed_states_index_interactive_map_and_ranki ngs

The criteria really much more rooted in "do they look and act like us." The west scores itself high as it spirals into economic collapse, and scores Asian countries with robust economies low because they have cultures and governances different than ours.

We do need to meddle less, it is over-rated as to what "good" we can bring to others. We also need to stop using "well, we must intervene because their natural systems have become so disrupted by previous interventions" to rationalize additional invasive behavior.

We do the same thing with the environment. We abuse it until it breaks, then think we must engage just as hard to fix it. The fact is that such natural things are self-healing, and heal best if one just "fences them off" and gives them the space and time to sort it out. In nature we call it succession. If a forest is cleared away of the climax species it will return in time to that same climax state, but only after it works its way back up to it in a healing succession of species that each exist in their specific time to serve a specific function in that healing process. Repairing the soil and creating the conditions that allow the climax species to ultimately take root and grow and thrive. A very similar dynamic is true with people and governance. We want everything to be a climax species of governance just like ours, and we want it sooner rather than later. It doesn't work like that. They need time and they they need space, and if we can fence them off to some degree from further abuse, great; and we need to accept that the path taken is their own, and the climax achieved varies by "cultural ecosystem."

Dayuhan
12-30-2010, 11:46 AM
It doesn't work like that. They need time and they they need space, and if we can fence them off to some degree from further abuse, great; and we need to accept that the path taken is their own, and the climax achieved varies by "cultural ecosystem."

Yes, that works quite well, as long as the slaughter, famine, mass rape, child soldiers, etc, ad infinitum, ad nauseam don't bother us. Some find it upsetting though. If we say the path taken in, say, Somalia is "their own"... who exactly are "they"? Does anyone think the average Somali enjoys the current state of affairs or would voluntarily have chosen it? Maybe the guys with the guns are having a good time, but it's a bit less than fun for everyone else. Not sure if an average Somali would think that what's going on has anything to do with self-healing.

I'm not arguing for American intervention in these cases: it's too expensive, we're overcommitted elsewhere, there's no significant national interest at stake, and there's not much we can do beyond a bit of relief aid and in some cases forcing a temporary cessation of the devastation. Let's not kid ourselves, though, we're not enabling self-healing. We're turning our back on human catastrophe. It may be something we have to do, but it's not something we need to be proud of, and we can't pretend we're doing anyone a favor.

A more robust capacity for multilateral intervention might be a good (if unlikely) idea, along with a multilateral capacity for stability and reconstruction operations. It would probably be as ineffective as we are, but we wouldn't have the assumption that American self-interest was the driving force and we wouldn't have to pay the entire cost.

TheCurmudgeon
12-30-2010, 01:44 PM
[url]A very similar dynamic is true with people and governance. We want everything to be a climax species of governance just like ours, and we want it sooner rather than later. It doesn't work like that. They need time and they they need space, and if we can fence them off to some degree from further abuse, great; and we need to accept that the path taken is their own, and the climax achieved varies by "cultural ecosystem."
I actually had much the same thought although I would never openly admit to it as it sounds too much like creating "human" preserves (although this is done with certain isolated tribes in the Pacific). This option might work in areas with very limited natural resources with a tribal, pre-state system. But, inevitably, someone would want to meddle. Save the Children would come in and disrupt the natural death rate for children. We would send in food during a crop failure. In anthropology it is believed that war was a result of conflicts over limited resources (or the best resources) so our good intentions result in increased population levels vying for limited resources - conflict and war. Although I like the idea in theory, we westerners are too passionate about the value of each individual life. Not saying it is a bad thing - it is correct where you are used to unlimited resources. Physics just prevent it from working where there is not enough to go around all the time.

TheCurmudgeon
12-30-2010, 02:21 PM
Curmudgeon,

Could you please define self determination? I am in one of those exercise at the moment and it’s quite creepy actually. :o

It is a whole society concept, although I have only been working on the governance side. Right now I take into consideration four factors:
1) Human needs - what are the needs that the population are trying to satisfy (for convenience, I use Maslow's hierarchy [physiological, security, belongingness, self-expression, self-actualization).
2) Biophysical environment - what resources are available to the people living in the region. This includes what food and other crops can be grown as well as other natural resources like oil that can be used to form a tax base for the government. It should also consider what barriers there are to trade (no way to move goods) and who the neighbors are (are there a number of other societies waiting to pounce and steal the resources this society has).

From these first two you get:
3) economic state - this includes primarily the primary mode of food production (agriculture, herding, industrial), The level of that mode of production (sustenance [all people must work primarily on food production], work specialization [people ONLY doing things that are not food production], the state of the infrastructure (irrigation, housing, roads), the state of property ownership (corporate [the tribe owns the land], chiefdom [the chief owns everything], feudal [a series of chiefs underlings act as owners], or individual), and the trade system and distribution system (is it controlled by the chief or is there a merchant class).

and

4) cultural institutions - religion, governance, education, economy,as well as the ideology (history of the society is built into this variable).

1 and 2 combine to create 3. 3 limits but does not dictate the level of governance in 4.

Levels of governance are:

Egalitarian - no one rules, everyone is pretty much equal (except for age and sex diferences)
Big Man - a unenforced patron-client relationship where one person coordinates the efforts of voluntary followers. He must keep the followers happy or they will find someone else to follow.
Chiefdom - enforced patron-client relationship. Ownership and distribution of resources becomes centralized.
Kingdom - essentially a larger chiefdom with a feudal system. The early beginnings of both bureaucracy and the state.
Republic - Kingdom with certain key players having rights of their own not necessarily based on lineage. Akin to an early constitutional monarchy. Ownership and distribution fo resources becomes decentralized.
Democracy - Similar to democracies you know but not the same. A number of variations based on the suffrage rights (landed men only, only men of certain lineage or religion, all men, men and women).

The economic base allows for higher level governance but does not require it. Each level of governance is satisfying a higher level need.

Still a work in progress.

the trick is to determine which level of governance the society would be at if there was no externally imposed government. Most tribal systems fall somewhere in the Big-man to Chiefdom range. The need being satisfied is belonging and a place in society.

slapout9
12-30-2010, 02:26 PM
Crumudgeon,
What about money? Who is going to control the issuance of money? IMO that is one of the main problems that has to be solved, perhaps the main one.

Bob's World
12-30-2010, 02:33 PM
I don't mean literally fence people off, nor do I mean cut them off from aid and interaction with the globe. I mean to protect them from overt coercive influences (internal, as well as external) while refraining from forcing western religion and politics onto them.

The U.S. did pretty well in the Middle East once we established that we wouldn't stand for getting pushed around, and we focused on commerce rather than colonialism; and accepted constraints on our missionaries as well to that of indirect influence through hospitals and schools rather than overt efforts to convert the locals. Much like China today, we did not overly constrain our commercial efforts with moral positions; nor did we overly burden our commercial efforts with the maintenance of colonial political structures and controls.

Post WWII we slid into the colonial role with its burdens, took the constraints off our religious outreach, and off of our impulse to exert moralistic pressures as well. As friction builds against that; the Chinese and others slide in underneath, much as we did, and build their own influence and economies in the process while we struggle to sustain the unsustainable, like the Euros before us.

We justified our actions in the name of the Cold War, but were encouraged by economic interests in the Oil industry, as well as religious interests in backing Israel to the degree we do. The Cold War became more a cover for action than the true driver of our policies in the region; and borne out by no perceived deviation in our policies there even though the Cold War is 20 odd years behind us. As Ike said, the real strength of the Containment strategy was how it worked to constrain ourselves. We have grown increasing unconstrained in our own behavior, but still work at least as hard as before to constrain the behavior of others. It is a trend in policy that is wearing thin with allies and opponents alike.

No, I mean more a commitment to protect. Not to protect a particular government, but rather to protect the populaces within particular regions from internal and external abuses of government without overly skewing that support by our own biases and interests. This is the future for intervention whether we like it or not. Empowered populaces and non-state actors will continue to punish states who overstep the boundaries of such relationships to exert their own will over that of the populace there.

This is new territory for the U.S.; and even though many an empire has gone down this path before us, it is in a new "globalized" environment of rapid travel and communications that we follow. History provides a general guide, but much we will need to plot out for ourselves.

Listening to the wisdom of Washington regarding foreign entanglements; and Ike regarding the importance of "self-containment" are good starts for mapping that course.

TheCurmudgeon
12-30-2010, 02:35 PM
In certain societies money is not necessary or it consists of a natural resource or food item. In a more complex society that can support the infrastructure money is very important. I guess the protectorate would have to assume that responsibility.

slapout9
12-30-2010, 03:20 PM
In certain societies money is not necessary or it consists of a natural resource or food item. In a more complex society that can support the infrastructure money is very important. I guess the protectorate would have to assume that responsibility.

Yes, barter can be prevalent but even that is a form of money because you keep accounts, checkbook money which is all it really is. But here is idea for you. I grew up in Florida while Disney World was being built and EPCOT. EPCOT stands for Experimental Prototype Community of Tomorrow. Disney solved the problem you are talking about, of course it was butchered by the shareholders and with Disney's death the original concept was lost. But the idea was to build a totally self sufficient city. It was designed to be totally self sufficient and evolving (constant process improvement through engineering) largely based upon the ideas of Buckminster Fuller, might want to try and Google that and see what you come up with. There were some fantastic stories published in the local paper at the time about what it would be like. Bur greed squashed it.

TheCurmudgeon
12-30-2010, 03:28 PM
I don't mean literally fence people off, nor do I mean cut them off from aid and interaction with the globe. I mean to protect them from overt coercive influences (internal, as well as external) while refraining from forcing western religion and politics onto them...

I did not literally mean fencing people off either (although the idea crossed my mind:)).

I think the world has changed too much, particularly communications systems. I am not sure we can do what you want. First, we would have to come to some agreement on what the basic human entitlements (rights) are since we are committing to intervening in the internal affairs of other territories and nations. Second, we would have to determine when our national (or international) interests demand intervention.

You could argue that, in certain respects, we are doing exactly this type of thing with other countries like Thailand or Indonesia. Neither have a real democracy but that does not bother us. We are committed to defend them through treaty. It works fine. But they both have functioning governments. The problem is getting to that point where all we need to have is a mutual defense treaty.

slapout9
12-30-2010, 03:59 PM
I did not literally mean fencing people off either (although the idea crossed my mind:)).



Don't fence it off....Dome it off:)

M-A Lagrange
12-30-2010, 07:06 PM
In certain societies money is not necessary or it consists of a natural resource or food item. In a more complex society that can support the infrastructure money is very important. I guess the protectorate would have to assume that responsibility.

For the best or the worst, such societies do not exist anymore. What ever you say, even in the most remote places everything is valued on a money base. It can even become silly but the concept of money is everywhere.
It's for example on of the biggest problematic of youth integration into post conflict South Sudan.

Also, the function of central state to edit money is tricky. In many places, populations will use a foreign currency to trade. You actually can govern without using national currency.

TheCurmudgeon
12-30-2010, 07:22 PM
For the best or the worst, such societies do not exist anymore. What ever you say, even in the most remote places everything is valued on a money base. It can even become silly but the concept of money is everywhere.
It's for example on of the biggest problematic of youth integration into post conflict South Sudan.

Also, the function of central state to edit money is tricky. In many places, populations will use a foreign currency to trade. You actually can govern without using national currency.

I don't disagree that money is everywhere, I just don't believe that you have to have it.

However, your second solution is much more elegant. Simply use US currency. As I understand it, it is currently one of the benchmark currencies used in the world (at least until it becomes the Chinese yuan).

Heck, we were using it to bribe everyone in northern Iraq prior to the invasion. Although another currency that is not as easy to counterfeit might be better. Maybe the Australian dollar.

Actually, the more I think about the problem the more I think an external currency would be best. The reason I preferred not having money is because non-specie backed money (paper currency not tied directly to the value of gold or silver) the value of the money is largely dependent on the trust in the value of the government. Where there is a weak government you tend to have high inflation. So if you have no government the natural response is to have no money. However, as you have pointed out, that idea is antiquated. It would be smarter to us an external benchmark currency until the territory had a stable government.

slapout9
12-30-2010, 07:42 PM
Buckminster Fuller on money:eek:

At present 99 percent of humanity is misinformed in believing in the Malthusian concept of the fundamental inadequacy of life support, and so they have misused their minds to develop only personal and partisan advantages, intellectual cunning, and selfishness. Intellectual cunning has concentrated on how to divorce money from true life-support wealth; second, cunning has learned how to make money with money by making it scarce. As of the 1970s muscle, guns, and intellectual cunning are ruling world affairs and keeping them competitive by continuing the false premise of universal inadequacy of life support. If mind comes into supreme power within a decade, humanity will exercise its option of a design revolution and will enter a new and-lasting epoch of physical success for all. If not, it will be curtains for all humanity within this century.

Highlights are mine and this goes to the central problem.

Stan
12-30-2010, 08:11 PM
However, your second solution is much more elegant. Simply use US currency. As I understand it, it is currently one of the benchmark currencies used in the world (at least until it becomes the Chinese yuan).

Heck, we were using it to bribe everyone in northern Iraq prior to the invasion. Although another currency that is not as easy to counterfeit might be better. Maybe the Australian dollar.

That's been the gold standard since the 70s and even today both in Africa and on this end of the world. Even as much as the dollar fluctuates most prefer to deal in USD. The Euro is not as trusted and not sure it's any harder to counterfeit based on stats in Europe.


Actually, the more I think about the problem the more I think an external currency would be best. The reason I preferred not having money is because non-specie backed money (paper currency not tied directly to the value of gold or silver) the value of the money is largely dependent on the trust in the value of the government. Where there is a weak government you tend to have high inflation. So if you have no government the natural response is to have no money. However, as you have pointed out, that idea is antiquated. It would be smarter to us an external benchmark currency until the territory had a stable government.

Excellent point ! In fact most were discerned in early 84 when half of Zaire switched to the USD for trading. They even named the trading street "Wall Street" situated on the curb across from our embassy :D

It wouldn't be long before few performed any transactions in local currency other than the government and military. That led to a whole new set of problems though.

Fuchs
12-30-2010, 08:16 PM
That's been the gold standard since the 70s and even today both in Africa and on this end of the world. Even as much as the dollar fluctuates most prefer to deal in USD. The Euro is not as trusted and not sure it's any harder to counterfeit based on stats in Europe.

Our counterfeiters are better than yours! :D

slapout9
12-30-2010, 10:31 PM
The reason I preferred not having money is because non-specie backed money (paper currency not tied directly to the value of gold or silver) the value of the money is largely dependent on the trust in the value of the government. Where there is a weak government you tend to have high inflation.

Excellent, you just exposed the Gold and Silver fallacy. How do you determine what gold or silver is worth....a government sets a "Price" on what it is worth and that "Price" becomes Money kept in a bank account which is why using a gold or silver standard has never worked and certainly will never work in any type of modern economy. I agree with you, you would probably be best using a foreign currency at least to start with. But debt can be crushing to developing countries.

TheCurmudgeon
12-30-2010, 11:52 PM
I agree with you, you would probably be best using a foreign currency at least to start with. But debt can be crushing to developing countries.

I think the debt would be less crushing if the people lending the money did not demand a complete governmental bureaucracy. That is the whole point behind doing it as a minimalist operation - let the society develop at its own level and not demand it to be something it cannot afford to be. Of course, the expense of administering the country would fall on whomever is acting as the protector, and a cost/benefit analysis would need to be made as to whether it is worth doing in the first place. But assuming that the analysis indicates that intervention is necessary and cost-effective, then the protectorate seems to be the logical choice.

Dayuhan
12-31-2010, 05:08 AM
We have grown increasing unconstrained in our own behavior, but still work at least as hard as before to constrain the behavior of others.

I've seen this allegation before, but I've yet to see it substantiated in any way. Have our interventions actually increased since the end of the cold war? I think not.


No, I mean more a commitment to protect. Not to protect a particular government, but rather to protect the populaces within particular regions from internal and external abuses of government without overly skewing that support by our own biases and interests. This is the future for intervention whether we like it or not. Empowered populaces and non-state actors will continue to punish states who overstep the boundaries of such relationships to exert their own will over that of the populace there.

Are we really overstepping those boundaries? Our post-9/11 extravagances in Iraq and Afghanistan certainly did, but as a general rule our attitude toward "failed states" has been to deter, contain, and ignore. There's very little to suggest any appetite for repeating the experience of Iraq and Afghanistan: if politicians haven't learned a lesson the populace has, and on the basis of political will alone regime change is, at least until memory fades, as dead as the dodo bird.

A commitment to protect is a nice idea, but it's not likely to be the future of intervention, for the US at least. Sustained deployment of US forces is simply too expensive to be justified in the absence of any direct threat or interest. Americans may feel sorry for the people of Zimbabwe or Myanmar, Somalia or the DRC, but shelling out a few hundred billions from our pockets is a bit more sympathy than we're prepared to express.

M-A Lagrange
12-31-2010, 07:39 AM
Where there is a weak government you tend to have high inflation. So if you have no government the natural response is to have no money.

Actually it's not that simple. Zimbabwe as Tito's Yugoslavia show that under strong (rigid) government you have a crazy inflation.
The value of national currency is based on the international perception but also (mainly) on national perception of its value compare to external currency for non international exchange market currencies.

The natural response in a non state/government environment is, as Stan just pointed it, to go for the most stabe foreign currency.

By the way, dollars is the most appreciated curency and its easiness to counterfake is part of its popularity. :cool:

Stan
12-31-2010, 09:38 AM
Actually it's not that simple. Zimbabwe as Tito's Yugoslavia show that under strong (rigid) government you have a crazy inflation.
The value of national currency is based on the international perception but also (mainly) on national perception of its value compare to external currency for non international exchange market currencies.

The natural response in a non state/government environment is, as Stan just pointed it, to go for the most stabe foreign currency.


Case in point, 84 to 94 in Zaire, then although a total cleptocracy was relatively stable, millions in foreign aid, and a very strong government/rule. The official ROE was 50 Makutas (one half of a Zaire, or 50 cents if you will) to one USD, and the black market rate (directly in front of the US Embassy) was 28 Zaires to one USD. When I departed in late 94 the rates were more than 5 million Zaires to one USD.

At restaurants most of us paid in USD or held a credit account til the end of each month. Grocery stores did not post prices on the shelves. The value of your purchase was calculated during the arduous process of ringing up your total.

TheCurmudgeon
12-31-2010, 03:21 PM
Actually it's not that simple. Zimbabwe as Tito's Yugoslavia show that under strong (rigid) government you have a crazy inflation.
The value of national currency is based on the international perception but also (mainly) on national perception of its value compare to external currency for no international exchange market currencies.


Admittedly, my knowledge of economic theory is not that great:confused:. I would guess it is a question of perception, both internal and external. Do the people in the country have faith in the currency; will the people outside of the country accept it in exchange for goods. How "good" the government is at governing may or may not necessarily matter.

That being said, I think we have a consensus that using an external currency until a self-sustaining government can be formed is the best option.

Fuchs
12-31-2010, 04:19 PM
Money can very in its buying power a bit for a host of reasons, but there's one influence factor that can be manipulated quite easily:
The amount of cash.

Paper and coin money don't increase in quantity by much unless the government and/or central bank allow it.
Bank deposits (the other part of M3) can be regulated with rules for banking.


In short: There's no hyper-inflation with trillion dollar bills unless you print trillion dollar bills. You can refuse to print them, this creates a scarcity of paper money and increasingly scarce objects with a use tend to gain in value ceteris paribus.
Inflation beyond about 8% is really about government trying to finance itself (or get rid of its domestic currency non-indexed debt) with the printing press, not about other economic factors.


The use of foreign cash has advantages and disadvantages; a widespread use of foreign money essentially fixed he exchange rate to 1, it's like in a monetary union. This may be a huge problem for a trading country if its economy develops differently than the primary economy of the foreign cash.


Btw, I have a blog post under preparation about the new state/cash issue. Check my blog in a week if it's relevant to your interests.

Stan
12-31-2010, 04:20 PM
... will the people outside of the country accept it in exchange for goods.

That being said, I think we have a consensus that using an external currency until a self-sustaining government can be formed is the best option.

You may not be an expert in economics, but you're dead on the money !

We don't have the unfortunate experience of going to the airport or train station and attempt to exchange our currency for the destination's, only to discover "your money's no good here".

When the dictator ships in boats loads of freshly printed 5 million notes -- coincidentally with the national military's payday -- and not a soul at the local market or store will accept that currency as payment, things get sticky.

Most were carrying grenades and weapons back in 91 and most didn't make it out of the market that day.

BTW, Happy New Year to you and yours !

Regards, Stan

slapout9
12-31-2010, 05:00 PM
Admittedly, my knowledge of economic theory is not that great:confused:. I would guess it is a question of perception, both internal and external. Do the people in the country have faith in the currency; will the people outside of the country accept it in exchange for goods. How "good" the government is at governing may or may not necessarily matter.

That being said, I think we have a consensus that using an external currency until a self-sustaining government can be formed is the best option.

Traditional fiat money (legal tender) has a forcing provision that maintains that it is the only method of payment accepted for your taxes, if that provision is not in there, then there is know reason to hold the currency (circulate it). A foreign currency with that stipulation will probably do everything you need it to do at least at the start. I think this would allow you to focus on the main problem which is going to be the "real" physical economy that actually produces the things that people need in order to survive and prosper.

Fuchs
12-31-2010, 05:54 PM
To infuse foreign money in large quantities is actually dead-on wrong.
This should be obvious by now.

Foreign cash leads to corruption and the corrupt people in whatever power position send a large share of their booty to other countries to secure their wealth.

Foreign cash can furthermore establish itself firmly and the abundance (the infusion is often disproportionate to the countries' economy) of it leads to inflation (wages rise - measures in foreign cash).

This all makes it extremely difficult for the addict after withdrawal.

slapout9
12-31-2010, 06:24 PM
To infuse foreign money in large quantities is actually dead-on wrong.
This should be obvious by now.



Except I didn't see anybody proposing that. The way I understood it was that cash would be available to build the needed Infrastructure projects that will support life for the local population. A great deal of which could be done through "checkbook" money, the actual need for currency vs. money could be fairly small compared to the actual physical project cost. In fact if there is a large demand for cash to specific individuals that would be a warning bell that something is wrong.

TheCurmudgeon
12-31-2010, 07:38 PM
To infuse foreign money in large quantities is actually dead-on wrong.
This should be obvious by now.

Foreign cash leads to corruption and the corrupt people in whatever power position send a large share of their booty to other countries to secure their wealth.

Foreign cash can furthermore establish itself firmly and the abundance (the infusion is often disproportionate to the countries' economy) of it leads to inflation (wages rise - measures in foreign cash).

This all makes it extremely difficult for the addict after withdrawal.

I agree with Slap, I think you misunderstood. No one is saying dump a ton of foreign cash into the local economy. The idea is to use foreign currency where there is no established government (hence no local currency) and we are installing a caretaker protectorate until such time as a new government can be formed.

Step one, security. Step two, economy. Once the economy is established and we have some idea of what the country can actually sustain for a government, then, together with the locals, we build THAT level of government rather than try to install a democracy, the Cadillac (or Mercedes or Jaguar) of governments from the start.

At least I think that was where we were going:wry:

Stan
12-31-2010, 07:43 PM
Except I didn't see anybody proposing that. The way I understood it was that cash would be available to build the needed Infrastructure projects that will support life for the local population. A great deal of which could be done through "checkbook" money, the actual need for currency vs. money could be fairly small compared to the actual physical project cost. In fact if there is a large demand for cash to specific individuals that would be a warning bell that something is wrong.


What in fact happens, is the defacto govt forces the so-called loan to the project builder with a hefty 25% (approval costs) and the bank provides 60 to 70% of the total cost (up front) to the construction company (really bad mistake in judgment), then the structure or building is coincidentally 60% built when the money runs out and the company abandons the project and you have this odd looking thing in the middle of town that, 10 years later, looks exactly the same as it did on day one (but there's more grass overgrowth than before) :rolleyes:

Something's really wrong with this picture :D

TheCurmudgeon
12-31-2010, 08:15 PM
What in fact happens, is the defacto govt forces the so-called loan to the project builder with a hefty 25% (approval costs) and the bank provides 60 to 70% of the total cost (up front) to the construction company (really bad mistake in judgment), then the structure or building is coincidentally 60% built when the money runs out and the company abandons the project and you have this odd looking thing in the middle of town that, 10 years later, looks exactly the same as it did on day one (but there's more grass overgrowth than before) :rolleyes:

Something's really wrong with this picture :D

Yeah, this is part of what I was hoping to avoid. Westerners like to build things without any thought about whether the things are sustainable. We build hospitals without doctors or any hope of it being financed into the future. We build schools without teachers. We build dams cause ... we like big puddles of water. Without a long term, sustainable economic plan nothing works for long. I built a lot of paved and gravel roads in Afghanistan but there is no Department of Transportation with the equipment, financing, and workforce to maintain any of it (at least that I saw in the areas I worked in, maybe in Kabul or Kandahar).

What is worse is that, if the project is not funded with donor money, then someone is going to expect to be repaid. Easy answer, as mentioned before, print more money resulting in runaway inflation.

Again, I am venting.

Surferbeetle
12-31-2010, 08:47 PM
Interesting conversation, which sparked some late night thoughts on this last day of the year 2010.

Hubris can drive us to apply levers without understanding where to place them. A starting point on the journey towards understanding would be to develop a comprehensive assessment of the demographic groups competing for resources and influence in a social system which lacks centralized controls. In my travels I have seen groupings which specialize in violence (gangs, militias, internal and external security forces -GMIESF) economics (families, tribes, guilds), governance (bureaucrats and technocrats), and politics (religious and political figures). Each of these groupings associate with one another for gain both covertly and overtly according to METT-TC. Each of these groupings can be systematically used as levers to form and control a social system. Historical examples of individuals and groups who were able to do so are legion (Alexander, Peter the Great, Rome, etc.). Authors who have examined the methodologies used are also legion (Sun Tzu, Plato, Aristotle, Machiavelli, Locke, Paine, Smith, Newton, CvC, Marx, etc.). #Just like anything else in life, timelines and outcomes are largely dependent upon the level of skill and resources applied to the effort.

Fuchs
12-31-2010, 09:40 PM
I agree with Slap, I think you misunderstood. No one is saying dump a ton of foreign cash into the local economy. The idea is to use foreign currency where there is no established government (hence no local currency) and we are installing a caretaker protectorate until such time as a new government can be formed.

To make a decision on currency means to either use local currency or to infuse a ton of foreign cash.

You cannot say 'use foreign cash' and *bling* the people have foreign cash.
They need to sell something to get foreign cash or you need to spend the same in the country.
An alternative would be to buy local cash in exchange for foreign cash, but that is either uninteresting or it's going to overvalue the local currency in the exchange rate and will thus lead to terrible economic effects as observed in Eastern Germany 1990.


What's really happening is that foreign powers and foreign NGOs will hire locals with foreign cash and the new government will be financed with foreign cash. This leads to a huge infusion of foreign cash into the country with the terrible effects as observed in Kosovo and Afghanistan.

TheCurmudgeon
12-31-2010, 10:48 PM
To make a decision on currency means to either use local currency or to infuse a ton of foreign cash.

You cannot say 'use foreign cash' and *bling* the people have foreign cash.
They need to sell something to get foreign cash or you need to spend the same in the country.
An alternative would be to buy local cash in exchange for foreign cash, but that is either uninteresting or it's going to overvalue the local currency in the exchange rate and will thus lead to terrible economic effects as observed in Eastern Germany 1990.


What's really happening is that foreign powers and foreign NGOs will hire locals with foreign cash and the new government will be financed with foreign cash. This leads to a huge infusion of foreign cash into the country with the terrible effects as observed in Kosovo and Afghanistan.

Actually I like the idea of trading existing currency for a foreign currency since it will allow you to look for entities with too much cash. Also, whatever currency is used by the NGOs can be coordinated to be the same currency as the substitute. Of course, this is not without its problems and I have said already I am not expert on economic theory.

Do you have an alternative suggestion?

BTW, Happy New Year!

Bill Moore
12-31-2010, 11:22 PM
I agree with Dayuhan's comments about what is commonly called the Powell Doctrine. It has not been proven to work anywhere and to date has only led to losses or a situation where you can't tell who is winning. I have yet to see any "credible" reporting where our economic development efforts are effective in stopping the insurgency in Afghanistan. At times as Bob as stated we may be able to bribe a temporary cease fire/reduction of violence in a region with these projects, but if we did analysis over time I suspect we would see a troubling trend where all of these successes are undone over time. The reason is understandable, development didn't do one thing to stop the insurgents from returning from Pakistan, and the villagers will never be strong enough on their own to repel them when they return in force. Of course let's not forget who the foreigners really are here, and the importance of that on the people's psych.

This article illustrates the complete lack of our pragmatism.

http://http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2010/12/31/world/asia/AP-AS-Afghan-Lessons-of-War.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&ref=world


American commanders have called the Pir Mohammed primary school "the premier development project" in Zhari district, a Taliban heartland in Kandahar province at the center of President Barack Obama's 30,000-soldier surge.

The small brick and stone complex represents much of what American forces are trying to achieve in Afghanistan: winning over a war-weary population, tying a people to their estranged government, bolstering Afghan forces so American troops can go home. But the struggle to open Pir Mohammed three years after the Taliban closed it shows the obstacles U.S. forces face in a complex counterinsurgency fight, in which success depends not on firepower, but on the support of a terrified people.

I still find our focus on development to defeat the Taliban as sadly comical and completely disassociated with reality on the ground. Just another line of operation (another failed concept) to no where. It appears that too many commanders and policy makers have confused the great book "3 Cups of Tea" as a strategy book. It is a book about a passionate man to gave his all to help the people in the region, but nothing in that book addresses defeating the Taliban. The Taliban didn't arise due to a lack of schools, they arose for strategic reasons related to Soviet Invasion, a proxy war between India and Pakistan and now a U.S. invasion. Building schools and roads "may" eventually help the people, but it won't defeat the Taliban or stop them from returning in the areas where we think we have pushed them out (drove them underground is probably more accurate).

The exact numbers are probably classified, but several schools we built were turned into IED factories. While the structure is important, what is more important is the actual instruction. I remember talking to one town leader (not a village) and he said the coalition built a school and that was the end of it. Now we have Mullahs from Pakistan teaching there and recruiting our kids to fight for the Taliban. I'm sure we have a great ribbon cutting photo of the school opening that we still sell a success. As the article stated real teachers won't go there due to threats from the Taliban who we haven't come close to defeating. We're blinded by our own propaganda and our faith in these population centric approaches.

I think it was Selil who said just because it isn't working doesn't mean can't work. That is definitely true, but to do it right would require going back to the basics of really getting to know the people (live with them like the ODAs are now doing), negotiating and fighting and compromising where need be to set conditions for development that actual matters. Really listening to the people can't be accomplished with key leader engagements. That is our approach now outside of the ODAs. The commander does a patrol, talks to someone we think is a leader, then returns to his FOB with 1/100th of the story. Normally a school isn't on the top of a village's list that living off the land, but none the less we love building schools because we love to get photos of smiling kids and then convince ourselves that this means we're making progress. That is the acme of hubris.

I'm not opposed to humanitarian assistance, we're Americans we like to do it, but don't confuse it with defeating the Taliban. Winning the people's hearts and minds will only result in a temporary win in a very small place unless we do a lot of other things first to set conditions for longer term success. Now we're simply taking a Kentucky shower by facing into the wind and pee'ing away.

slapout9
12-31-2010, 11:41 PM
Actually I like the idea of trading existing currency for a foreign currency since it will allow you to look for entities with too much cash.

That has actually been talked about in Counter-Drug Operations for this country, instead of foreign currency it would be a new currency of a very different and distinctive design, which allow you to drain all the excess drug dealer cash out of the system. It is one of those ideas that sounds good but would probably have created such a panic that any good would have been surpassed by a great panic.


IMO you would be better to eliminate cash altogether(just get foriegn bank credits for the value of the currency) at least for awhile and just issues an electronic accounting card. Handheld scanners could be issued at all the Strategic points of sale and would give you very detailed accounting information (which is all money is) also with encryption you would not have much of a counterfeiting problem.

Fuchs
12-31-2010, 11:45 PM
Do you have an alternative suggestion

That's reserved for the blog.

slapout9
12-31-2010, 11:46 PM
Bill Moore, if you were General in charge of fixin A'stan and could do anything you wanted.... what would do?

Bill Moore
01-01-2011, 12:52 AM
Slap,

Coming up with a strategy is easy when you don't have to execute it, but some rough ideas I would bounce off my staff are, and not in order of priority. There will be no separate lines of operation, we will have one strategy that will be synched by coaliton and Afghan officials. The rest of them largely reflect a former Commander's approach to COIN.

1. Personnel policy that allows me relieve the chicken littles who won't get out and really engage with the populace. Not taking casualties is NOT a success metric. The key leader engagements are a farce for the most part, so they would be reduced and I would trust the ODAs to live with and engage the people. My intell staff would be focused on putting it all together to see what it really means. I need to understand all the dynamics, not just a 10 digit grid for the next target. Why do people think and act the way they do? Force protection will be achieved by defeating the enemy not hiding in the FOB drinking Green Bean Coffee.

2. Consolidate operations geographically in key areas and gradually (but fast as possible) expand the zone of control (SOF and select GPF would still conduct deep disruption operations). ODAs partnered with locals are with living with the locals. GPF supports and is ready to bring the hammer in as required. These would be real zones of control where the shadow government and Taliban supporters were identified and neutralized through robust HUMINT supported by the TECHINTS (think PHOENIX). We're too busy now chasing IED makers instead of getting after the real bad guys who control the show.

3. Once cleared, really cleared, and the people demonstrate support to the government (no free lunch), then I would enable development. Until they show some inclination of support it is martial law. I'm not helping those who are fighting me. Development will be focused on the people's stated needs, not what we think they need. That will be assessed by our folks living with the locals, not through key leader engagements where we too often empower the wrong people.

4. Clarify with Washington what are real objectives are (hard to do, we all know that). However, if it is only defeat AQ then I would establish very limited objectives for Afghanistan. If they're bigger than that, then adjust accordingly.

5. Push to establish an emergency zone of control in parts of Pakistan where the Taliban and other insurgents and terrorists seek shelter. Strategic comms are we're in Afghanistan to win, if you can't address these issues we will. I can hear the uproar now, but my narrative is these folks are killing coalition troops and Afghan civilians with immunity (with the exception of an occassional UAV strike). We're incompetent if we continue to allow that to happen, our patience doesn't extend into infinity. By the way our coalition in effort in Pakistan would be subordinate to me in a perfect world. Right now they're getting away with being PAKMIL lap dogs, while we do plane side ceremonies nightly.

6. If required establish martial law in key regions and implement strict population control measures. They'll be eased when the enemy is cleared and the populace is begining to support the Afghan Gov. Key to success is the invaders (us) don't lead these efforts. Instead of just saying it, actually mean it when we say we can be your best friend or worst enemy, it is up to you.

7. Completely revamp the training of the Afghanistan police and army, with the exception of the Commandos and a few other small organizations it is largely a failure. One person will be overall in charge and it won't be a committee vote on how to do business. First step would be to recruit a tiger team from former SF Officers and NCOs (the young kids no longer understand how to train armies, because they have been DA focused the last few years, but they can train outstanding strike forces) to study the current training process and identify what needs to get fixed, and weight my main effort there, again with SF officers/NCOs (active duty or retired) in the lead.

8. Define realistic objectives and get consensus from Washington, then ISAF, and of course in partnership with the Afghanistan Gov. If Karsai won't play, I would turn a blind eye and let the Afghans address that problem. We can't be seen supporting someone (if this is really the case) that is an enemy of the people. I don't think we need to define their government for them. If they want a King they can have a King, if they want a democracy they can have a democracy. My mission is to stabilize, not build a city on the hill.

Of course these are harsh methods, but I would argue in reality their less cruel than the game we're playing now which is just extending the misery of the Afghan people. I think the reality is we have painted ourselves into a corner with false assumptions and a series of crippling policies to gain consensus with the wrong people. If we really wanted to win this conflict we could, but not with the current approach.

Obviously in the 10 minutes I took to write this I can't develop a comprehensive plan, but the key point is to challenge our current assumptions and ways of doing business. We have a bunch of nice guys trying to great things for the Afghan people thinking this is going to defeat the Taliban. Not in our wildest dreams.

Surferbeetle
01-01-2011, 06:49 AM
Bill, it’s good to see that you are still around and that you are still wrestling with violence, development, lines of operation, definitions of foreigners (is it us or them? ha ha, ha), the simple fact that a KLE should not be mistaken for a relationship, and why is it that we are we so blind? Me too. :wry: Here are some additional thoughts sparked from your two posts on this thread.

What does it take to motivate a large group of disparate folks with many different agendas to accomplish a multi-faceted long term goal? The phrasing and answer to that question speaks to ones upbringing and experience. Westerners, to my eyes, often approach this question sequentially and in a linear manner. Other inhabitants of our shared globe use very different methods to include actively/consistently trusting in God to sort things out. No matter what the method used, exclusively focusing upon one line of operation/effort/action (violence, economics, governance, or politics) leads to lop-sided ‘solutions’ which lead to dissatisfaction and additional efforts by the living towards neglected lines of operation/effort/action. There will never be a perfect solution/endpoint/goal instead it’s a continual journey that everybody participates in.

Entropy is a concept which does a good job of explaining why all ‘successes’ are undone over time. Schools continually rise from, crumble, and return to their constituent parts over the long run. Young men try to use the power of life & death and old men try to use the power of wisdom to shape the world. The next morning the sun still rises. Roger.

My experiences in the arena have been in Iraq, but it is my opinion that whether in Iraq, Afghanistan, Korea, or Vietnam in order to achieve success it all comes down to the amount of resources we are willing to allocate to our efforts. Hopefully those we elect are capable of cost/benefit math, because America is still very much learning on the job. It’s a good thing we are strong because this is going to take a while to get sorted out. Maybe it’s time for me to retire from the violence business and head over to the governance (development subset) business or politics (diplomacy subset) business. We will see.

Steve

Stan
01-01-2011, 01:06 PM
I built a lot of paved and gravel roads in Afghanistan but there is no Department of Transportation with the equipment, financing, and workforce to maintain any of it (at least that I saw in the areas I worked in, maybe in Kabul or Kandahar).

What is worse is that, if the project is not funded with donor money, then someone is going to expect to be repaid. Easy answer, as mentioned before, print more money resulting in runaway inflation.

Again, I am venting.

Some real salient points and hard to answer questions !

While I fully agree with your below quote and the order of precedence, I would add that if some sort of infrastructure is not rebuilt, we're not going to get those teachers or doctors to go to an imaginary school house or clinic. If you don't build the roads, then building the school house is sort of a mute point. No ?




Step one, security. Step two, economy. Once the economy is established and we have some idea of what the country can actually sustain for a government, then, together with the locals, we build THAT level of government rather than try to install a democracy, the Cadillac (or Mercedes or Jaguar) of governments from the start.

At least I think that was where we were going:wry:

Some good examples of what we tried to do in Sub-Sahara (failed and stymied to death by WAWA) and what we have successfully done here. There were some challenges and the order of precedence often switches at times. I can't complete my economic growth assistance if for example I don't initially clear a farmer's field of UXO or mines (meaning he won't be planting his crops) and I can't expect the new harbor or bank's sky scraper being built if I don't first clear the site of ordnance.

However, I can't do much clearance work without economic assistance. Similar to your situation, the project had to be funded from outside sources as the local economy couldn't support our objectives.

We can't take foreign financial injection out of the State Building picture. What we did end up doing was funding the development of people and provided jobs for the short term hoping the local government would sustain the program.

While somewhat backwards at times, we were able to slowly increase economic development together with security (protection of innocent civilians being goal one and returning usable land being goal two).

TheCurmudgeon
01-01-2011, 02:21 PM
Bill,

First I don't mean to oversimplify. If anything the task is more complicated than any one department or agency can handle.



3. Once cleared, really cleared, and the people demonstrate support to the government (no free lunch), then I would enable development. Until they show some inclination of support it is martial law. I'm not helping those who are fighting me. Development will be focused on the people's stated needs, not what we think they need. That will be assessed by our folks living with the locals, not through key leader engagements where we too often empower the wrong people.


I take issue with (or possibly completely agree with) is you jump from clearing the territory of obvious hostiles and support for governance. This implies that there is some form of government in place. If that is the case you are beyond where I am.

Disregard everything going on in the security realm, people will still have to eat. Either we are feeding them (which provides another level of control) or they have some form of economy going on of their own. My point with economy is not to develop it - it is that,concurrent with security operations, we look, listen, and learn what the society's economy consists of. That level of economic production gives you the baseline you can use to determine what the government can actually support.

Actually, now that think about it, controlling food distribution might be a good idea in certain conditions.

slapout9
01-01-2011, 03:21 PM
Obviously in the 10 minutes I took to write this I can't develop a comprehensive plan, but the key point is to challenge our current assumptions and ways of doing business.

Nice plan Bill,
10 minute Strategic Planning seems to be superior to anything else we are doing;)

slapout9
01-01-2011, 03:25 PM
Actually, now that think about it, controlling food distribution might be a good idea in certain conditions.

Ever see Warden's 5 ring analysis of how to attack/affect a terrorist/guerrilla organization? Food,water are critical just as they wood be to a civilian population. It is the basic Input Energy into the Life support/people system.

Bill Moore
01-01-2011, 06:22 PM
A few short notes:

Posted by Surferbettle,


What does it take to motivate a large group of disparate folks with many different agendas to accomplish a multi-faceted long term goal?

Steve, first off great seeing your posts again. Hopefully the more we bounce ideas off one another the closer we'll get to functional answers. In the meantime I will continue to post provocatively regarding development, because I have yet to see a meaningful correlation between development and solving conflict. I'm waiting for that great post, then I'll thank that individual profusely.

Reference your comment above, I think we need to issue mandatory humility pills to the force every Monday morning in addition to our malarial prophylaxis. Without a good deal of force we can't force people to change, and even with force those changes are often only durable as long as the force is being applied. First off, what do we really want to change in Afghanistan? They have survived for many decades living the way they do. More importantly what change do they want? Maybe they just want the foreigners out?

They'll evolve on their own at their own rate based on their perceived needs, not some idealistic dream we're trying to cram down their throat. This is one of those situations where we can't have our cake and eat it too. We can't prevent the Taliban from returning when we don't neutralize the Taliban's center of gravity which is Pakistan support. ISAF is like ranchers and the Afghans are like livestock and the Taliban are like wolves and of course Pakistan is the Wolves Den. When the ranchers return to their houses at night to eat dinner and go to bed the wolves will return to pray on the livestock. It really doesn't matter if we give the livestock some basic organizational and fighting skills, the wolves are still stronger and will prevail, and in turn strike terror in the hearts of the remainder of the livestock, which will limit their trust in the ranchers. Assuming livestock have a functional frontal lobe they're probably wondering why the Ranchers don't put together a patrol and go and wipe out the wolves den? It seems completely irrational to them the game the ranchers are playing.


Schools continually rise from, crumble, and return to their constituent parts over the long run. I truncated your sentence to point out that I'm not refering to natural entrophy, but the very real challenges of holding any gains we make in this realm. I'm talking about never controlling the school or losing control of it within a period of months. My old high school has been standing for over 50 years, it hasn't fell yet, entrophy generally takes a while :-).

Posted by TheCurmudgeon,

I take issue with (or possibly completely agree with) is you jump from clearing the territory of obvious hostiles and support for governance. This implies that there is some form of government in place. If that is the case you are beyond where I am.

This is the real challenge internal to Afghanistan, and if the government is as bad as we make it out to be why are we protecting it and attempting to strengthen it? We fail to address the threat in Pakistan in a serious manner, and while simultaneously and perhaps unintentionally enabling an incompetent government to remain in office in Kabul. In frustration we now weight our efforts on the remote villages for a national solution? I do understand how these things happen over the years (one mistake at a time), so I'm not pointing a finger at any one individual, but simply suggesting instead of accepting what we know doesn't work , we instead change course in a major way.

Posted by Slapout,


Ever see Warden's 5 ring analysis of how to attack/affect a terrorist/guerrilla organization? Food,water are critical just as they wood be to a civilian population. It is the basic Input Energy into the Life support/people system.

To do this effectively you have to separate the insurgent from the populace and external support, we haven't none either yet. I haven't studied how we would cut off the insurgent's food and water supplies in Afghanistan, so no comment on its feasibility; however, there are other life lines we could target more aggressively: propagandists and financiers. You would be surprised at the limited effort to get after these critical targets, while instead the focus is on squad and platoon leader equivalent targets, which can be replaced indefinitely. Targeting is definitely an area we could approve upon.

Probably should have saved these ideas for an episode of "Deep Thoughts" on Saturday Night Live :D, but behind all the informed suggestions I know everyone is trying hard to get this right at great personal risk and personal sacrifice. Criticism doesn't mean we're not on the same team. Wish you all a Happy, Healthy and Successful New Year.

TheCurmudgeon
01-01-2011, 10:52 PM
This is the real challenge internal to Afghanistan, and if the government is as bad as we make it out to be why are we protecting it and attempting to strengthen it? We fail to address the threat in Pakistan in a serious manner, and while simultaneously and perhaps unintentionally enabling an incompetent government to remain in office in Kabul. In frustration we now weight our efforts on the remote villages for a national solution? I do understand how these things happen over the years (one mistake at a time), so I'm not pointing a finger at any one individual, but simply suggesting instead of accepting what we know doesn't work , we instead change course in a major way.


This is the area that interests me - what is the nature of the relationship between the people and their leaders.

My current guess is that it is a mutual relationship where loyalty is exchanged by the followers, albeit unconsciously, for satisfaction of needs by the leaders. Needs vary and increase over time. In a tribal society the need being filled by the leadership is belongingness - having a place in society (along with lower levels needs of security, food and shelter). We, as an invading force, or an artificial central government, cannot meet these identity needs and the people will not recognize either us or the central government as legitimate. Unless you find a way to bring that traditional leadership into the fold of the new government you cannot hope to win the loyalty of the people.

You can, however, use the "Stockholm syndrome" - make them totally dependent on you for everything and create and artificial relationship built totally on fear. I don't think this is a viable choice.

The remaining alternative is to use the existing structures - these tribal and religious leaders, to positively influence the people to your cause. More difficult when your cause undermines their traditional leadership rolls and the foundations of their society.

These ideas do not represent any actual doctrine, simply a theory I have been working on.

slapout9
01-02-2011, 12:24 AM
Link to an interesting paper on Mobilizing population groups.

"The Problems Of Mobilization And The Analysis Of Armed Groups" Parameters 2006.
http://www.carlisle.army.mil/USAWC/Parameters/Articles/06spring/vinci.pdf

Dayuhan
01-02-2011, 01:50 AM
The remaining alternative is to use the existing structures - these tribal and religious leaders, to positively influence the people to your cause. More difficult when your cause undermines their traditional leadership rolls and the foundations of their society.


To do that we need a clear idea of what we seek to accomplish, and why exactly we need to build a state in a non-state environment to accomplish it... assuming on scant evidence that we actually do. Given the omnipresence of mission creep, it is at times not at all clear what the "cause" is, or how it justifies the expense and other downsides of extended intervention.

Steve the Planner
01-02-2011, 09:36 AM
Bill:

The comment on martial law is on point. This business of pretending someone else is going to be in charge until stability is reached is a pretty flat tire indeed.

The same with market and economic solutions.

Problem with economic engagement (anything beyond humanitarian and genuine reconstruction) is that, given our size and the amounts involved, we always distort the economy. (We have already done the damage, and the bigger our footprint/commitment, the more economic damage we cause.

But how do you develop a base line in a country that has been at war for thirty years, and didn't have much to begin with?

Take the population, and its internal production/output, and the number is diminimus---$100 per household??? So, what level of government, army and services is affordable? Never mind....

Afghanistan's economy has, in fact, been destroyed for a long time, and is on international aid life support, so any effort has to be carefully weighed---what has been created versus some future end state.

Pump in money for jobs/services, and you distort local wages. Pump in more food aid and you undermine agriculture.

Targeting regions is, in some ways, a whack-a-mole proposition given refugees, population instability. But starting out one region at a time to build the basics of a viable local economic infrastructure---linked to areas of prosperity/sustainability---is the only way to do that. The question is: Where is a successful example of doing this command-economy restart thing, other than in places with their own natural foundation?

The suggestion of deflating local currency to wipe out the drug profits is confounded by the reality that they profits are probably all stored in dollars (and off-shore).

Stan
01-02-2011, 09:52 AM
I agree with Steve; start off with relatively small projects with good success stories and work on real goals that can be achieved.

Not sure how we get around distorting wages and food aid though. If we have a small project and don't pay, we won't get very far. Ditto for not being able to provide for one's family. Hardly something to motivate one into going to work for us while the family starves at home :eek:

M-A Lagrange
01-02-2011, 01:00 PM
Step one, security. Step two, economy. Once the economy is established and we have some idea of what the country can actually sustain for a government, then, together with the locals, we build THAT level of government rather than try to install a democracy, the Cadillac (or Mercedes or Jaguar) of governments from the start.

Step 1: security
Step two: economy!
Ok, but “peace benefits” must be immediate! And at people level, not through a useless range of so call experts that will screw up everything and keep the money in their pockets.
The main problem actually is to find organisations that will not induce corruption and clientelism or patronage.
Basically almost anyone but the UN! (See the last DDR scandal in Sudan).

The best results I ever had was a short term first phase of intensive labour based programs: rebuild roads, clean the streets…
Let projects do what the government or city administration should be doing and at the same time distribute large amount of cash immediately usable.
The people will figure out how to set up and develop the local market. In such case: small is beautiful. And then they will come to say: we want schools, we want that and that.
Second thing: do not forget that health is an endless black hole that you will have to sustain artificially but is fully part of non expressed need from the populations. That will have to be founded through international organisations like MSF, Red Cross… Do not even try to make a health sector implemented by the government! It’s useless and an open door to corruption, tribalism and exclusion. Ministry of Health is here just to report that people who know what they do are doing it right, that’s all. Anyways, health sector will end up privatised by the very same governmental paid doctors that you brought.

And do not worry about banking system. It’s already in place informally. What you need is a formal banking system for you and other external actors, that’s all.

Once you have this level fixed: security + local market for small scale enterprises (shops + food market) establish and almost up and runing health sector, demand for education and grass root local government/adminisration will come from the people!;)

Steve the Planner
01-02-2011, 10:11 PM
MAL:

Hate to be boring, but, in March 2008, I was standing at a river bank at Bayji watching families and bongo trucks full of produce trying to cross five cars at a time on a gypsy ferry.

The problem was not street cleaning in the village, and could not be addressed by quick-hits and low-hanging fruit.

The problem was that there was a pre-existing market pattern for goods to move across the Tigris at that spot, and that a bridge was needed. Period.

There was a ministerial contract to repair the old bridge, but no contractor willing to go on it (after being attacked a few times)

The other legitimate problem was that every time a bridge was replaced, it was destroyed.

So, the other problem was security.

Know how I know the bridge was really needed? The lines of trucks and cars that started queueing for the Mabe-Johnson bridges (two) before they were even completed.

The solution was, in the end, for serious and effective IA security installations on each side of the river. Then MG Hertling literally had to fly contractors and ministers up to the bridge to prove that it was safe.

Then, with security and Iraqi financing/contractors, it got rebuilt.

Once trade restarted, security started to become a self-fulfilling virtuous engine. Nobody wanted the bridge attacked again. Trade restarted.

That's wartime "re-construction" and not just gratuitous nation-building.

The only economic consequence was positive---reopening the pre-existing bridges to restart prior trade and economic activities.

PS: There was no Iraqi farmer on either side of that bridge that did not already know how to farm. He did not need a week-long course in Jordan, or a new tractor, refrigerated bongo truck or center pivot (unless his had been blown up).

He just needed the damned bridge reopened so he could go back to what he had always done. Grow stuff and sell it in the market.

If, once the market is restored, you can show him ways to improve output or reduce costs, you can be a hero. But, no bridge, no security, no market, no point.

As with the Bayji Bridge, the place & market-specific problems and solutions always seem to get lost, on the US side, in these measurables and programmatic objectives.

Hey. They built a bridge at Bayji and farming restarted! Where else can we build a bridge? How many bridges is equal to PEACE?

Wrong track.

Reconstruction is a remorseless effort in documentation and restoration of things that were before, together with enough security to let things start again (even if by martial law).

The seminal question: What was hear before, and what would it take to return that?

Nation-building is going around and asking what would you like?

In my neighborhood, the answer would better schools, smoother roads, better equipped local hospitals, lower taxes, more police patrols, escalating property values, and a closer Starbucks (but not in my neighborhood). Did I mention lower taxes?

Post-conflict humanitarian aid is a whole different thing. Ask the Red Cross. Food, shelter, treatment, refugee/resettlement assistance.

Why don't our programs focus, for example, on documenting and resettling refugees? Isn't that a valid way to stabilize a community in conflict?

Stan
01-03-2011, 06:01 AM
Post-conflict humanitarian aid is a whole different thing. Ask the Red Cross. Food, shelter, treatment, refugee/resettlement assistance.

Why don't our programs focus, for example, on documenting and resettling refugees? Isn't that a valid way to stabilize a community in conflict?

Steve,
IMO refugees and the crisis they bring are nothing but a huge cash cow. Not sure what sort of success you would have with documenting and resettling in Iraq, but I can tell you a lot about Sub-Sahara. It ain't happening. It kind of brings us back to your question though... What was here before and what will it take to bring it back ? Even then most of the refugees still hung out in the jungle until they were literally flushed out from another conflict.

And, oddly enough, even with 1,8 million refugees, the nation in question was still firmly in control (relatively speaking).

I share M-A's concerns with the UN and most of the aid agencies.

M-A Lagrange
01-03-2011, 07:22 AM
First of all, Steve, your example is not boring or useless or even going against what I am saying.

I do believe that this bridge was not only a problem for the Iraqi people but also for the US forces and was a military strategic point (Or tactical or maneuver or WTF). And the main problem was not the bridge but security.
Once you had security, you have been able to convince contractors to rebuild it.
The bridge was a major logistical issue for the local market and for access.
Well, I had an experience a little different but similar in many points: a cross road linking an agricultural production area with a town and several militia/bandits long that road.
As you mentioned it, the people found a way to have the goods moving anyways until security came. We did the same in including all parties, working on both sides of that cross road. Was not easy… (Nice to find a grenade on your door step in the morning. Lucky it did not blow up).
Working at grass roots level by injecting $ in each and every household participates in building security (That does not replace a check point, intel and search and destroy teams…) but first of all participates in building/developing households economy. As the people get money, they can reorganize markets; reorganize the economical network according to the circumstances.

The “streets clean up project” is just an example of what you can do in the very early stage. What I have learned is that projects have to be with immediate effect. You have to inject cash and make it accessible right now. Waiting even several weeks (basically more than 1 month, great max) brings only problems cause the people want to be in position to rebuild their lives right now.
I like to say that the 3 phase of war for civilians are: survive, rebuild, normality.
In military timing:
Survive=shock
Rebuild= hold
Normality= build
The key moment is hold. That’s the moment you want to provide security + rebuild household economy and really build a government.


Why don't our programs focus, for example, on documenting and resettling refugees? Isn't that a valid way to stabilize a community in conflict?

Refugees are per excellence a destabilizing factor. And the problem is that they have the right to go back home but also the right to not go back were they come from but you have no right to tell them where to go.
And you have no right to bring them back at the exact same place but have the responsibility to compensate them with what they lost… (Basically sending them back home exactly where they came from is the cheapest)
I hate to say so but Kagame made a great job in relocating the refugees and redesigning the habitat in Rwanda. Some may say it was to establish control over –populations, some may say it was to facilitate security provision…

Also I agree with Stan, refugees are cash cow.

Steve the Planner
01-03-2011, 08:35 AM
Stan/ MAL:

Having spent time with the UN (after reading the De Mello Book), I can only say that they have a lot of intelligent and committed people on the ground struggling to obtain approvals/funding/staffing through a very complex structure.

The current UN SRSG is a formidable example of competence and commitment, as I learned working for his political section in Iraq.

This business of looking at wars and refugees in different modes is the challenge.

Refugees usually become mobile well-before actual conflict, and, logically, will hide in the jungle as long as they need to before returning. The history of forced and non-forced resettlements is complex.

The problems during conflict are complex, including dealing with refugee mobility through the lines, assistance for internal refugees, and bad guys using refugees as cover for their purposes. My belief is that our military tactics do not fully comprehend or address pitfalls and opportunities to actively manage refugee issues.

If money is a weapon of war (a concept which I have problems with), then surely refugee management/control is one, too. These are the actual people to whom the hearts and minds are attached.

The problem, however, for post-conflict stabilization and reconstruction is that it just isn't over until all viable and willing resettlement has occurred.

To date, the US has not dealt with this phase/activity except as to assistance for external refugees, and resettlements to the US.

having spent time with UN folks involved in serious refugee issues, and studying them independently, I know there is much we don't know or have needed skills in.

This is the place where the deal is really closed---whether we actually do it or not, it is the end game, so it would be nice to be on our radar.

M-A Lagrange
01-03-2011, 09:35 AM
Stan/ MAL:
Having spent time with the UN (after reading the De Mello Book), I can only say that they have a lot of intelligent and committed people on the ground struggling to obtain approvals/funding/staffing through a very complex structure.
The current UN SRSG is a formidable example of competence and commitment, as I learned working for his political section in Iraq.

Being part of the UN folks, I do agree with you but you are in a rolls royce mission: Iraq!
Other part of the world are not always like that. I know a lot of barrely competent people in The UN who are there just for the money.
The problematic lay down to the security council interrest in the mission. And also mainly in the parties involved.
I have too much witnessed how the system works to come to a so happy conclusion. :o


having spent time with UN folks involved in serious refugee issues, and studying them independently, I know there is much we don't know or have needed skills in.
This is the place where the deal is really closed---whether we actually do it or not, it is the end game, so it would be nice to be on our radar.

Concure too with that. But still believe that a grand reorganisation and evaluation of people skills is needed. Actually the machine works much more because you have 2 out of 10 people who do the job rather than a strong cinergy between sections and agencies.

Then comes the problem I was pointing on the threat on Sudan: when the UN staff is composed of people coming from highly corrupted countries which are apointed to pleasee the assembly members and make their countries earn money...
Then you gat a disaster and you end up building a corrupted machine. That's why, IMO, you have to start by taking full control and not let too much the UN machinery put its nose in. Once all is finished and that you can deliver a viable structure "clef en main" then the UN can come.

Steve the Planner
01-03-2011, 01:00 PM
MAL

Loud and clear on UNAMI. The political team their were some of the best of the best.

Like comparing a Division staff to life in a platoon.

I was just reading a WP article on CERP, recanting the many woes of Money as Weapon:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2011/01/03/ST2011010300196.html?sid=ST2011010300196

The incidents cited and folks involved (including Hertling) were all getting their hands handed to them (us) for imposing silly standards like ensuring governate sign off/acceptance prior to any CERP funds for brigade/sheik projects.

The folks that should lead in challenging circumstances are often adverse to the machine.

I remember the tasking to identify from historic photos all the pools in Iraq so that CERP funds could be used to reopen them---even if no power, clean water, or sustainment funding. It would be good for "hearts and minds."

How 'bout just being boring and repairing the water systems? That didn't start to be a focus until later in 2008. (2008, five years after 2003).

Let's not forget that for every UN Oil-For-Food Program there is a US boondoggle of equal or greater value.

Wanna be a mid/senior level leader at USAID? Need six years of experience as a USAID contractor. What does that tell you about "change?" (I would never qualify).

JJackson
01-03-2011, 05:14 PM
A number of posters have bought up the willingness to meet the capital cost of a program without adequate provision for the running costs. Also there have been a number of examples illustrating the need for security prior to infrastructure needed for economic activity. Our destabilisation of the Soviet backed regime and Pakistan’s destabilisation of the US backed regime (and plenty of other examples elsewhere) have shown it is much cheaper to destroy than build. Putting these all together I have been surprised not to see more discussion of the viability of building an Afghan security force (police and army) in a country that could not afford to sustain either. Looking at the country, even assuming a miracle occurred and the central government had a firm grip and security of half the territory, would this be an adequate tax base to sustain a force defending it?

Going back to the question of ‘is a cleptocracy a necessary step on the path to a less corrupt form of government?’ and the excellent notion that it might be a good idea to look at the existing political systems, which the population are used to and understand, and try and build on these. In Afghanistan we seem to have setup a top down model in direct completion with the tribal shura model. The traditional model seems to have evolved to cope with an inbuilt level of endemic ‘corruption’ while our model has not, as yet, found a working balance. Corruption is, to a degree, in the eye of the beholder. In the US the political system has an ‘accepted’ balance in laws are passed by inducing Congressman to support a bill – he does not really care about – by promising some pork for something he does. It is the cost of doing business as is a bit of backshish in other parts of the world, in each case there are norms and there are unacceptable excesses.

The discussion has touched on legitimacy and I have real problems with NATO or ‘coalitions of the willing’ being legitimate arbiters of which countries should be invaded or what individuals/governments are created and empowered. This is a very dangerous precedent and I suspect Western publics would have a serious problems if Venezuela formed a coalition of the willing including Cuba, Iran and its friends and decided to do something about the failed state of Haiti. Which brings me to the UN, which I am unfashionably fond of, baring the Security Council which brings the rest of the organisation into disrepute. The fact that it has representatives from countries with high levels of corruption that are in it for personal gain is just another cost of doing business. Single nation states, with comparatively homogeneous political views, have enough trouble reconciling the wants of very red and very blue states when most countries could not spot the difference. For an organisation that needs to accommodate Myanmar, KSA, Israel, China and the US it does a remarkable job and, despite the weaknesses caused by this width, it can confer a level of legitimacy among the community of nation states that a military superpower and a few like-minded friends can not.

Looking at the latest batch of polling data – going back to ascertaining what the people actually want/think – I was surprised by the level of support the Karzai government received. Faith in the coalition forces has been slipping, year-on-year, and the only saving grace is the Taliban is even less popular than we are.

TheCurmudgeon
01-04-2011, 01:49 PM
Going back to the question of ‘is a cleptocracy a necessary step on the path to a less corrupt form of government?’ and the excellent notion that it might be a good idea to look at the existing political systems, which the population are used to and understand, and try and build on these.

OK, a note on cleptocracy from a tribal point of view. Depending on the area and the level of centralization in the existing governance system property is viewed as corporate in a tribe. What I mean by that is that all the tribes property is considered owned by the head of the tribe and is distributed for use by members of the tribe in accordance with how he or she views it as being appropriate. A person in a tribal leadership position will look at the property that they have as theirs. All tribal members under him must get permission to use it.

In my mind this creates two problems. First, since the property is essentially theirs, they can use it for anything they want including themselves. Fast-forward to a tribal leader in a government position (or a leader whose only frame of reference for how to lead is tribal ways) that person does not see spending their budget any way they want as stealing. Second, all tribal members must get permission to use the tribal property. Fast-forward to a mid-level manager in a logistics chain. He will not release any parts until he has permission from the "owner" of the property. These are not things you are going to change over night. Iraq has had the "dictatorial advantage" for many years and the tribal mindset still limits capabilities. It is something you have to learn to work with.

Steve the Planner
01-05-2011, 01:10 AM
Curmudgeon:

Very good description. I also see very similar relationships to how our local governments actually work, so there is some universality...

I wonder whether it is really our role to take them somewhere else, or just to acknowledge those limitations, and move on to whatever our real objective is.

Is suspect that tribalism in tribal areas is probably a very effective strategy of adaptation. If it didn't have some rationale or purpose, it could change by internal "evolution," or otherwise.

If our systems were appropriate for these places, why is there no history of democracy emerging in tribal areas on its own over thousands of years?

Maybe there is a better way, but "they" have to embrace and accept it for it to endure.

TheCurmudgeon
01-05-2011, 01:42 AM
Steve,

I have a theory on that, which you will find in a somewhat inarticulate fashion back at post 39.

Bottom line, democracy takes a financial base - something that does not exist in most tribal areas (except relatively recently where natural resources like oil have created rentier economies). The tribal system works perfectly well for people living in areas with limited resources. It satisfies the needs of the people at that economic level.

This is why I am so focused on examining the economy immediately after establishing security. Unless you know what the geography and the culture can support economically you cannot determine the type of governance system that will function in that environment. Trying to install something the environment and culture cannot support will fail.

This presents us westerners with a dilemma. We feel it is our evangelical duty to spread freedom. The problem is, freedom (democracy) is expensive. Where freedom (democracy) is too expensive, it will fail. I remember reading somethere that no democracy has survived where the per capita GDP was less than $3K. Even where the economic conditions might support it (like Iraq) you have to overcome centuries of socialization. You have to retrain the society. For lack of a better term, you have to engage in societal engineering - which is what we are doing even if we do not want to call it that.

Worst than that, it is not what the people in that society need. But that is a anthro-socio-political argument that most people find too ... I am not sure ... but they find it unpalatable:).

Dayuhan
01-05-2011, 01:49 AM
OK, a note on cleptocracy from a tribal point of view. Depending on the area and the level of centralization in the existing governance system property is viewed as corporate in a tribe. What I mean by that is that all the tribes property is considered owned by the head of the tribe and is distributed for use by members of the tribe in accordance with how he or she views it as being appropriate. A person in a tribal leadership position will look at the property that they have as theirs. All tribal members under him must get permission to use it.

That may be true of some "tribal" cultures but it certainly isn't true of all. "Tribal" is a pretty broad world, and doesn't necessarily mean that there's an all-powerful "head of the tribe" in the picture. In many ways this is more characteristic of the post-tribal "big man" politics that have evolved in much of Africa.

I live in a tribal culture where there isn't any head; decisions are made by councils of elders... "elder" being defined not necessarily by age, rather by acknowledged competence. Can't be too quick to generalize...

TheCurmudgeon
01-05-2011, 02:07 AM
That may be true of some "tribal" cultures but it certainly isn't true of all. "Tribal" is a pretty broad world, and doesn't necessarily mean that there's an all-powerful "head of the tribe" in the picture. In many ways this is more characteristic of the post-tribal "big man" politics that have evolved in much of Africa.

I live in a tribal culture where there isn't any head; decisions are made by councils of elders... "elder" being defined not necessarily by age, rather by acknowledged competence. Can't be too quick to generalize...

First, I agree whole-heartedly. Terms like "tribal" have been used to denote anything less than a Westphalian system.

I would disagree that "big man" is post tribal (so to speak), but it is fantastic that you are even familiar with the term in my opinion. I would consider big men an alternative or even pre-tribal (I know, that is not very articulate) system. This is why each society has to be examined individually. There are similarities. There are commonalities that can be understood and exploited. But unless you have an idea of what you are looking at you are clueless.

Actually, you sound like you live in an egalitarian society. Competence is the only measure of respect. Nearly impossible to get any enforceable decision without complete unanimity. Does that sound accurate?

Dayuhan
01-05-2011, 03:00 AM
First, I agree whole-heartedly. Terms like "tribal" have been used to denote anything less than a Westphalian system.

Somebody's going to call you out and ask why "other than Westphalian" must be considered "less", so it might as well be me.


I would disagree that "big man" is post tribal (so to speak), but it is fantastic that you are even familiar with the term in my opinion. I would consider big men an alternative or even pre-tribal (I know, that is not very articulate) system.

"Big man" is a pretty common and familiar term, is it not? I classified it as "post tribal" because of the prevalence of unconstrained "big man" politics in post-colonial Africa where the hastily contrived and often irrational national boundaries left tribal systems disrupted and in many cases disabled. While "big man" systems certainly existed in tribal societies, they were often constrained to some extent (not always, but often) by other elements of tribal politics. Of course the Cold War and the ability to draw support from external actors also enabled the "big man" systems... and one could go on.


This is why each society has to be examined individually. There are similarities. There are commonalities that can be understood and exploited. But unless you have an idea of what you are looking at you are clueless.

Agreed.


Actually, you sound like you live in an egalitarian society. Competence is the only measure of respect. Nearly impossible to get any enforceable decision without complete unanimity. Does that sound accurate?

Close to accurate, though the details are known to get complicated. Somehow that always seems to be the case where Homo Sapiens is involved.

Steve the Planner
01-05-2011, 03:29 AM
It's a little more complicated than tribal versus non-tribal.

Whether in Dark Ages Europe, the role of a leader or strong man, in the best light, is to store wealth, control and manage it for the community as a whole.

We are witnessing these post-conflict areas, populated by the remnant survivors of a very high-stress condition over a number of years (Iraq, Afghanistan), so we seldom see the true system and folks that existed before, or under long-term, steady-state conditions.

A positive tribal leader, who, in good times, grabs everything that moves, also, in bad times, is the food-provider of last resort, and the guy who funds the new seeds after a long drought.

Iraq, on the other hand, was well on the way to post-tribal evolutions before we came along. Most of these local "good fellas" had long-ago been reconciled to an almost grandfatherly position, and not really "tribal elders."

The big leaders had long ago adapted to a prominent role within a post-Ottoman framework that is very different from the role of "tribal leader" or "elder." They were senior political/government advisors, and their role was balanced against the technocrats/bureaucrats similar, but not the same as, our federal system.

Ottoman structures are often best understood as bottom to top revenue machines. Money is extracted at the lower levels and funneled upward, with pieces taken at each level. This come down only by petition, diplomacy and influence. They are not high-performance systems easily adaptable to our version of government service delivery. Instead, most of that local service is a local matter, in the same way as many US localities. If you want good schools or policing, that is a local matter funded by local fees.

More often than was comfortable, I heard US folks discussing Iraq's civil structure as Stalinist or post-Soviet. In fact, it was post-Ottoman, with elements of true Mesopotamian heritage, and mega-private sector contracts.

A strong government was essential to manage the watersheds (the two rivers), and control productive agriculture. The family that owned Al Warka Bank also provided, through national patronage, the agricultural control system. The seeds didn't come from the government, they came from the government's agri-managers. Like a Purdue chicken farmer in the US, the company provides the seed or feed and promises to buy it, and help you finance operations, as long as you are dancing to their tune.

More than once, when I investigated a "Budget Execution" problem for a US-inspired school project, there was a local technocrat sitting on it for sound reasons, and mostly because they understood that it was either a dumb or unnecessary project, one that would never survive, or one that they understandably saw as a "sheik" or "goodfella" project that made no public or organizational sense.

In June 2008, there was a big Iraqi budget conference where the ministries were going to develop and promulgate standards and procedures for capital project reviews for the 2009 budget. US folks were greatly worried about how this might interfere with their projects.

There were actually only about five US folks there, since it was an Iraqi conference. I listened to the bad US translations on my ear piece, but also was updated by my partner, a transportation engineer from California who also was fluent in Arabic. So, I got both sides.

When the conference turned to the standards, they whipped out the old standards book from 1968, that, to both of us, looked the same as every other project evaluation/EIS process we had used throughout our career. Identify the project and its justification. Identify costs, risks, uncertainties, and secondary impacts, compare alternatives to accomplish the same objectives.... All the required reports funnel to the Planning Ministry who creates a score card for the legislature (COR).

This is the DNA of their world---the 1968 standards book. Every technocrat in the room, whether from Basra or Mosul, immediately knew what it was, and started debating the fine points (as bureaucrats always do). The only ones who didn't know were the new officials, so the old-timers set up a system to bring them up to speed and get them copies of the old books.

It's absolutely true that we could have easily gotten a USAID contractor in No Va to create a project evaluation book for them, and try to force it out into their systems. But, why?

In Maryland, the identical process is used for State school construction financing, with all the justifications flowing to the Department of Planning, whose score card is used by the State Board of Public Works---up to a point for maybe 60% of the available funds. Th rest falls to politics, which is why the annual fund allocation process is known as the "Begathon." Let some character in No Va write a new procedure to cram down on Maryland's Board of Public Works and it will be sure to end up on the scrap heap.

I know most things aren't as complex as that kind of process, but, ultimately, everything in government follows the same flow, but with its own nuances.

From experience, a lot of our reconstructor-wannabes have some very simplistic notions about how real governments actually work, especially at a local level. It is all nuance and procedure.

One common phrase from the consulting world: That's the best idea that nobody would ever propose. A lot of what we are doing is that, so it doesn't work out. No surprise.

Ken White can tell you a hundred reasons why what a young LT thinks is a good idea that sounds rational won't work. And he can tell you what will.

The problem we have on the civilian side is often because we don't know how things did/will work in a local application, and are often dealing with survivor populations who don't know either, or are trying to game us (in the normal human fashion). But how do we get THERE with that?

Had the US spent time studying these Iraqi natural systems in advance, we could have jump started the system that already existed instead of trying to invent new wheels and fit them onto their railroad cars.

The same in Afghanistan. Just a bunch of nice locals talking to some well-intended foreigners who have more money than wisdom.

TheCurmudgeon
01-05-2011, 03:33 AM
I just finished watching "The Final Option". Used to be our training film in the good old days where terrorists were state sponsored - when things were simple. I miss the old days:D ...

TheCurmudgeon
01-05-2011, 03:40 AM
Somebody's going to call you out and ask why "other than Westphalian" must be considered "less", so it might as well be me.

"Less" is only a matter of perspective. We westerners view it as "less" than what we have. Personally, I do not.


"Big man" is a pretty common and familiar term, is it not? I classified it as "post tribal" because of the prevalence of unconstrained "big man" politics in post-colonial Africa where the hastily contrived and often irrational national boundaries left tribal systems disrupted and in many cases disabled. While "big man" systems certainly existed in tribal societies, they were often constrained to some extent (not always, but often) by other elements of tribal politics. Of course the Cold War and the ability to draw support from external actors also enabled the "big man" systems... and one could go on.

It is very hard to generalize. From what I can tell from reading books and being stuck in the rear "big men" seem to fall somewhere between the egalitarian society and the true chiefdom, where a single leader holds sway. But that is only in the books.

Steve the Planner
01-05-2011, 03:42 AM
Midnight Mass, Cathedral of the Assumption, 2010.

The Archbishop asked us to pray for Christians in Communist Countries who are oppressed.

Maybe a little outta style to me, who was thinking about all the Christians being blown up in the Middle East.

It's just so hard to keep up....

Dayuhan
01-05-2011, 03:48 AM
Whether in Dark Ages Europe, the role of a leader or strong man, in the best light, is to store wealth, control and manage it for the community as a whole.

We are witnessing these post-conflict areas, populated by the remnant survivors of a very high-stress condition over a number of years (Iraq, Afghanistan), so we seldom see the true system and folks that existed before, or under long-term, steady-state conditions.

A positive tribal leader, who, in good times, grabs everything that moves, also, in bad times, is the food-provider of last resort, and the guy who funds the new seeds after a long drought.


In many post-colonial environments what was missing from that equation was a clear sense of a "community as a whole". In many cases the "big man" saw himself as representative of and accountable to a community that was only part of the supposed "nation", or to nobody at all... and the existence of cold war patrons and external support removed the need to be at least partially judicious and competent in order to survive. Without external support a "big man" has to take at least some care of the community that sustains him; if he's completely inept and completely self-indulged he'll either be overthrown or his tribe will collapse, starve, or be conquered.

Of course there will be a huge difference between an environment like Iraq, where there was a relatively recent defined state with a functioning bureaucracy, and an environment where these things have not existed within human memory. Re building in Iraq can reach back to what was there; in Somalia or the DRC that's a bit more difficult.

Steve the Planner
01-05-2011, 04:00 AM
Dayuhan:

You hit the nail on the head: Who is being represented/served?

Darwin assures, in a stable situation over time, that a bad "big man" will either destroy himself or his followers.

Take away all the natural/rational conditions, and the "big man's" feed back loop is something completely different. A game theory optimizer within some kind of weird cargo culture thing where coke bottles drops out of the sky and you have to grab what you can.

Very disruptive, very hard to "reconstruct" anything if it has gone on for a generation or more.

Afghan solutions must get beyond the simplistic through more money and influence at a broken and alien system.

Isn't that what this thread was about?

Whether we keep doing what we are doing or find a new strategy that could actually work there?

TheCurmudgeon
01-05-2011, 04:01 AM
It's a little more complicated than tribal versus non-tribal.

...

More often than was comfortable, I heard US folks discussing Iraq's civil structure as Stalinist or post-Soviet. In fact, it was post-Ottoman, with elements of true Mesopotamian heritage, and mega-private sector contracts.

I think part of that is the military types understanding that the military model (and training) used by Saddam was soviet. Part of it is that civilians find the soviet model as the best example for a dictatorial state with a centralized economy.



More than once, when I investigated a "Budget Execution" problem for a US-inspired school project, there was a local technocrat sitting on it for sound reasons, and mostly because they understood that it was either a dumb or unnecessary project, one that would never survive, or one that they understandably saw as a "sheik" or "goodfella" project that made no public or organizational sense.

In June 2008, there was a big Iraqi budget conference where the ministries were going to develop and promulgate standards and procedures for capital project reviews for the 2009 budget. US folks were greatly worried about how this might interfere with their projects.

There were actually only about five US folks there, since it was an Iraqi conference. I listened to the bad US translations on my ear piece, but also was updated by my partner, a transportation engineer from California who also was fluent in Arabic. So, I got both sides.

When the conference turned to the standards, they whipped out the old standards book from 1968, that, to both of us, looked the same as every other project evaluation/EIS process we had used throughout our career. Identify the project and its justification. Identify costs, risks, uncertainties, and secondary impacts, compare alternatives to accomplish the same objectives.... All the required reports funnel to the Planning Ministry who creates a score card for the legislature (COR).

This is the DNA of their world---the 1968 standards book. Every technocrat in the room, whether from Basra or Mosul, immediately knew what it was, and started debating the fine points (as bureaucrats always do). The only ones who didn't know were the new officials, so the old-timers set up a system to bring them up to speed and get them copies of the old books.

It's absolutely true that we could have easily gotten a USAID contractor in No Va to create a project evaluation book for them, and try to force it out into their systems. But, why?

We try to "reinvent the wheel" way too often. Part of our mindset. That is a problem that WE have to overcome.


From experience, a lot of our reconstructor-wannabes have some very simplistic notions about how real governments actually work, especially at a local level. It is all nuance and procedure.

One common phrase from the consulting world: That's the best idea that nobody would ever propose. A lot of what we are doing is that, so it doesn't work out. No surprise.

Ken White can tell you a hundred reasons why what a young LT thinks is a good idea that sounds rational won't work. And he can tell you what will.

The problem we have on the civilian side is often because we don't know how things did/will work in a local application, and are often dealing with survivor populations who don't know either, or are trying to game us (in the normal human fashion). But how do we get THERE with that?

Had the US spent time studying these Iraqi natural systems in advance, we could have jump started the system that already existed instead of trying to invent new wheels and fit them onto their railroad cars.

The same in Afghanistan. Just a bunch of nice locals talking to some well-intended foreigners who have more money than wisdom.

Again, WE need to learn that there are other systems out there that work. Everything does not have to look like America.

Every problem isn't cause by the way things are in Afghanistan or anywhere else. Some problems do not even exist. We create them because of our expectations. They are not problems to the locals - they are problems because we say they are.

Dayuhan
01-05-2011, 04:08 AM
Isn't that what this thread was about?


If we're getting back to the original question, "How to build a state in a non-state environment", the only answer I have is that you don't. As I said before, states aren't built, states grow. The process by which they grow is often messy. Anyone who thinks they can circumvent that process and simply build one without all the mess needs to open the eyes and the mind.

TheCurmudgeon
01-05-2011, 04:14 AM
If we're getting back to the original question, "How to build a state in a non-state environment", the only answer I have is that you don't. As I said before, states aren't built, states grow. The process by which they grow is often messy. Anyone who thinks they can circumvent that process and simply build one without all the mess needs to open the eyes and the mind.

I agree, which is why I am in favor of some form of protectorate to guarantee the borders while whatever exists is allowed to develop on its own, in its own time.

Dayuhan
01-05-2011, 04:17 AM
I agree, which is why I am in favor of some form of protectorate to guarantee the borders while whatever exists is allowed to develop on its own, in its own time.

Who protects from the protectors? Anyone willing to take on the trouble and expense of maintaining a protectorate probably has some interests of their own in the picture, and will be manipulating the situation to advance them.

Steve the Planner
01-05-2011, 05:06 AM
Dayahun:


As I said before, states aren't built, states grow. The process by which they grow is often messy.

You neglected to complete that statement:

"And it stays messy, and rumbles along that way forever with only small periods of Leave-It-To-Beaver perfection..."

IE: The Councilmen always act dignified and professional when the High School students come down for Government Day, then they go back to work...

Ken White
01-05-2011, 05:32 AM
was "F Troop."

I also liked this:

LINK (http://comics.dp.cx/2011.01.04/Beetle%20Bailey-2011.01.04.gif)

Steve the Planner
01-05-2011, 05:47 AM
That's the Army I was in>>>it was also where I learned about Soviet economics.

Our Tank Company's mechanics spent lots of time ordering helicopter seats.

Why?

Because helicopter companies had a higher priority for mechanical parts ordering than our tank company. Sometimes they liked new seats, so we could trade....

PS: The abandoned pump stations at Conn Barracks, Schweinfurt, were a great place to store our IG set of equipment. One for Inspection, one to use. Lots of spare heater parts. Life was good!!!

Bob's World
01-05-2011, 02:41 PM
Besides the challenges of protecting those within some border, often it is the current borders (drawn by outsiders far too often) that are much of the problem.

No way to adjust the borders to make more sense currently, when any state's gain is another state's loss; and certainly no reason to trust each other or any external party in terms of equity in such transactions.

Best hope for a place like Africa is the forming of a few multi-state unions. But such efforts usually come from conquest (such as Genghis in Mongolia), or from similar peoples with a common foe and relatively common goals (such as the 13 sovereign colonies in the early US coming together).

If such Geo/ethnic groupings could be formed, then over time they could adjust internal borders for greater effectiveness.

But to intervene to create such a thing is like going over to your dysfunctional neighbor's house uninvited, setting up a system of who does what chores, rearranging the furniture, setting a budget, etc. You're likely to get shot, and no matter how great, or how needed your plan is it won't be appreciated.

Steve the Planner
01-05-2011, 04:15 PM
Bob:

One insight from urban systems.

Sprinklers were developed to protect cities from large fires, which routinely wiped out large sections of big cities, necessitating redevelopment.

By the early 1960's, there hadn't been any large-scale city fires in a generation---thanks to modern fire safety and fire fighting capabilities.

By the late 1960, and for the past 50 years, those same areas had to be dismantled, dozed, or gutted and rebuilt (at huge expense) to make way for anything new. Or just sit as blighted wastelands.

Something Indian in all this. The duality of destruction and creation....

TheCurmudgeon
01-05-2011, 04:48 PM
Besides the challenges of protecting those within some border, often it is the current borders (drawn by outsiders far too often) that are much of the problem.

No way to adjust the borders to make more sense currently, when any state's gain is another state's loss; and certainly no reason to trust each other or any external party in terms of equity in such transactions.

Best hope for a place like Africa is the forming of a few multi-state unions. But such efforts usually come from conquest (such as Genghis in Mongolia), or from similar peoples with a common foe and relatively common goals (such as the 13 sovereign colonies in the early US coming together).

If such Geo/ethnic groupings could be formed, then over time they could adjust internal borders for greater effectiveness.

I agree. At one point I looked at the prospect of combining Pakistan with Afghanistan with five internal "states" built on tribal boundaries. But that would be unacceptable for any number of reasons.

I am not sure what it would take to fix the problems that were created when colonial powers (or the victors after WWII, or the UN) create arbitrary boundaries and christian the new territory a state. Above my pay grade.

I do believe that people need to have some factor that brings them together, be it a common history or simply a common experience, for them to build the trust necessary to form a government. Tribal affiliation is an existing commonality that can be used but it has been my experience that we try to disregard or even actively fight against such distinctions in our attempt to raise the individual above the group (form democratic institutions built on suffrage).

We do succeed in one area you mentioned -- we are good at bringing people together based on a common enemy. The problem is it is usually us.

Bob's World
01-05-2011, 05:09 PM
We do succeed in one area you mentioned -- we are good at bringing people together based on a common enemy. The problem is it is usually us.

Bingo! Give the man his prize! :)

And thus you describe the primary driver behind AQ's Caliphate effort. If it was just AQ pushing, it wouldn't go very far. But as a hedge against centuries of Western interference? That is a different story.

The harder we attack the pusher, the greater the force of the pull...Time for a new plan. Then again, maybe a Caliphate is just what much of this region needs, and no threat to us so long as we are willing to work with them rather than against them for daring to have a plan for themselves that differs from the plan that we had mapped out for them.

This is in many regards a self-inflicted head wound. By getting our foreign policies re-tuned for the world we live in today, and by adjusting our ways and means for implementing those policies, we reduce much of the friction that is feeding the terrorism that is aimed in our general direction.

TheCurmudgeon
01-05-2011, 11:26 PM
Then again, maybe a Caliphate is just what much of this region needs, and no threat to us so long as we are willing to work with them rather than against them for daring to have a plan for themselves that differs from the plan that we had mapped out for them.
All for letting them have their own plan. That is the thought process behind a protectorate - we don't even need to have troops on the ground as long as everyone understands that certain coalition forces will defend the territory if needed. I would also like the right to neutralize any threat to our security but one step at time.


This is in many regards a self-inflicted head wound. By getting our foreign policies re-tuned for the world we live in today, and by adjusting our ways and means for implementing those policies, we reduce much of the friction that is feeding the terrorism that is aimed in our general direction.

These are questions of policy and we establish our mission objectives to support policy. But this still leaves a big hole in the "how" in places like Africa and Afghanistan -- places with limited or no history (as least that anyone can remember) of a stable state.

Maybe a better question is "what":p. What structure meets policy objectives, is feasible and amenable to the population, and is economically sustainable with the resources that exist within the territory.

Steve the Planner
01-06-2011, 12:52 AM
The Caliphate is the same simple dream state that TS Lawrence was promoting.
Easy to explain, easy to recruit around, impossible to create.

Like "World Peace" and a "Chicken in Every Pot." Great slogans.

Unfortunately, the US position in Afghanistan is so complex, hedged, footnoted, and caveat-ed, that very few Americans even understand it.

If I was Lawrence, I might pitch how AQ has obstructed the Caliphate (Arab Self-Determination), and triggered foreign interventions, etc... Help us to allow you to return to the dream of the Caliphate....(a condition whereby we will actually leave?).

A pretty complex pitch, but....

Of course, we would have to do something to make it credible.

TheCurmudgeon
01-06-2011, 01:49 AM
The Caliphate is the same simple dream state that TS Lawrence was promoting.
Easy to explain, easy to recruit around, impossible to create.

Like "World Peace" and a "Chicken in Every Pot." Great slogans.

Unfortunately, the US position in Afghanistan is so complex, hedged, footnoted, and caveat-ed, that very few Americans even understand it.

The Caliphate is more than a great slogan -- it is an identity. An identity based in common experience and common history. That is what makes it easy to sell to a people looking for a place in a changing world, something to cling to, to be proud of, to die for ...


If I was Lawrence, I might pitch how AQ has obstructed the Caliphate (Arab Self-Determination), and triggered foreign interventions, etc... Help us to allow you to return to the dream of the Caliphate....(a condition whereby we will actually leave?).

A pretty complex pitch, but....

Of course, we would have to do something to make it credible.

I agree with your first point. It is too complicated and it does not speak to anything but the fact that foreigners invaded the holy lands.

However, I think you have a great point in general. These are the ideas, the concepts and slogans, you have to look for if you want to unit a people politically.

Steve the Planner
01-06-2011, 02:19 AM
Curmudgeon:

No. Unfortunately, the Caliphate, just like "Christians," is a dream state, or aspiration, around which some identities can be associated.

In real life, you can put a bunch of Christians together, and they can tell you, in a short time, how they differentiate themselves.

The Arabs World, in reality, is equally diverse. While the Book, and the words contained in it, embrace many peoples, they can interpret it in remarkably different ways.

The wisdom is inherent in the Prophet, but sometimes confused by those of us mere mortals who struggle to interpret and apply it to our humble and very human circumstances.

TheCurmudgeon
01-06-2011, 02:28 AM
Curmudgeon:

No. Unfortunately, the Caliphate, just like "Christians," is a dream state, or aspiration, around which some identities can be associated.

In real life, you can put a bunch of Christians together, and they can tell you, in a short time, how they differentiate themselves.

The Arabs World, in reality, is equally diverse. While the Book, and the words contained in it, embrace many peoples, they can interpret it in remarkably different ways.

The wisdom is inherent in the Prophet, but sometimes confused by those of us mere mortals who struggle to interpret and apply it to our humble and very human circumstances.

I would disagree, not because "caliphate" is a better or worse slogan than "christian", but because of the people who are on the other end of the message. I would argue that western Christians no longer look for a collective identity. They look for an individual identity. However, depending on the area and the people, collective identity still matters in parts of the world. Keying into that collective identity and finding out what matters to those people is what I am talking about. It can be a rallying call that binds the group for the better if used correctly.

Steve the Planner
01-06-2011, 03:15 AM
It certainly is used effectively to recruit opponents to us.

Makes a good recruiting poster.

We Irish (who fled poverty and famine for the New World) sing whistfully for our beautiful green homeland, and bravely carry the names of Ireland's great and heroic warriors.

But, when you actually go back there, you need a sweater, or raincoat, and the Starbucks are few and far between. Not quite so magical as it seems when you are drinking and singing along with the Irish Rovers at the Cat's Eye Pub on St. Pat's Day.

Steve the Planner
02-04-2011, 05:22 PM
The Musings on Iraq blog carries an interview with me on the Iraqi provincial political.administrative structure that provides a few maps to explain the volatile administrative background we were all trying to construct around in Iraq.

http://musingsoniraq.blogspot.com

Afghan readers might seen the same underlying Ottoman/Post-Ottoman structures, but applied to a different geography.

The Ottoman villayet systems actually were copied from the Persian, so it's basic stuff.

I'd enjoy any comments.

Steve

Ken White
02-04-2011, 06:23 PM
were copied from the Persian. Not very well, but copied. :wry:

A rudimentary understanding of the Persians leads to basic knowledge of the ME. If a westerner has that, then he or she knows it is, as they say, a nice place to visit -- but you wouldn't want to live there. Yet we try. Foolishly. In hopes of changing 5,000 years of history ??? :rolleyes:

Whoops. Left out the reason I posted in the first place:

Good interview, Steve -- very informative. Depressing on the US action level but informative...

Steve the Planner
02-04-2011, 07:19 PM
Ken:

Good to remember that Lost in Translation is not a term we created.

Baghdad's "House of Wisdom", arguably the first university in the world, was created for the express purpose of trying to translate great persian, sanskrit and other works.

Greta scholars there may have had the time to spend a lot of attention to the translations, but no Wikipedia at their fingertips for cross-reference. No doubt, a lot was lost in translation.

Steve

AmericanPride
02-07-2011, 05:25 PM
In my view, building a viable state in any environment first requires a census; including but not limited to the number of families, youth, resources, property divisions, ethnic groups, and so on. Taxes can't be levied without knowing what the people own and in what quantity. Soldier's can't be drafted without knowing how man able-bodied men are around. Agreements can't be made with local power-brokers without knowing the source of their wealth and influence. Internal conflicts cannot be understood without knowing the economic and political divisions and their underlying drivers. Nor do I think that a census assumes effective power already asserted over the areas studied. William the Conquerer commissioned a census immediately after completing his conquest of England. And Alexander the Great collected census data on his future conquests through the contacts with foriegn merchants and diplomats. After a census is completed, the power elite can assess its strengths and weaknesses, identify obstacles to power consolidation, and move forward confidently. The political environment must be thoroughly understood before any party attempts to successfully navigate it.

Bob's World
02-07-2011, 06:16 PM
I suspect that the primary purpose for census, then and now, is to provide the taxing party with a reference point to assess how big the turnip is that they are squeezing the blood out of.

As to "building states," I would think the first question would be "Why is there no state here to begin with?" Once one understands that, then perhaps they could figure out how to modify their own procedures to better interact with the form of governance that does exist; or if there is indeed some room for improvement, what manner of improvements might best serve the noted shortfalls within the context of that particular culture.

Otherwise, I would chalk "state building" up as an idea that sounds good, but in practicality is probably not the cure for every problem out there.

Steve the Planner
02-08-2011, 12:40 AM
Pride: ditto, thus the Domesday Book. Once you occupy a place, you go and count everything in it.

Bob: I think it would be presumptuous, as Spaniards did in South America, and we in the North, that there are, were, or would ever be any places for which some previous governing/ownership structure did not exist before we got there. Much easier to work, and/or rebuild pre-existing systems thatn to try to invent and impose something from scratch.

Trouble is that, sometimes, we actually have to do our homework to help the remnant post-conflict survivors to re-connect to what was.

Steve

Dayuhan
02-08-2011, 01:48 AM
Trouble is that, sometimes, we actually have to do our homework to help the remnant post-conflict survivors to re-connect to what was.

Steve

We also have cases where conflict has been ongoing for generations and nobody even remembers what once was. It's always easy to fall back on "go back to tribal governance structures", but in many cases these structures have been so heavily compromised by extended conflict and the emergence of other poles of power/force/money that they have little authority left.

I don't know that anyone has a really credible answer to the "how do we build a state" question, and I suspect that "do we really need to build a state" is often a question that needs to be asked first.

Steve the Planner
02-08-2011, 03:29 AM
Dayuhan:

Agree with that, but, when you start going out to reconnect/reconstruct things, the first part is to make sure there is something to reconnect to, and the second is to create things that, at the least, have some relationship to viable indigenous structures.

Certainly, some of the old stuff could be toxic, especially if it was the cause of the conflicts. Still, there are inherent basic structures and organizing principles that have to be recognized.

In Iraq, I can map it with recorded documents and official maps, but, how much of its is real, relevant? Maybe 90% because the maps and areas were typically disputed, trying to accomplish things through legislation that could not be accomplished on the ground, etc...

The great Harvey Korman quote from Mel Brooks' Blazing Saddles, as the governor and RR barons try to steal the rights of way: "All that stands between us and that valuable property are....(wait for it)...the rightful owners!"

Ground truth and formal structures are often two different things, like Bob's recently amended take, in lieu of constitutions: "practicality is probably not a cure..."

TheCurmudgeon
02-16-2011, 12:26 AM
Two points to throw out for consideration.

First, if you are going to conduct a census why not ask some pertinent questions like "Where do you feel the authority to rule comes from?" This might give you and idea of the type of government that the people will listen to based how what they feel is the source of legitimacy. I can expand, but not without more space.

Second. It really does not matter what their history is initially. Hell, you can create their history for them. What matters is what they need out of a government. That is what you need to determine. It might be that they need a connection, to feel like they are part of something, in which case you may have to recreate what was. But it may also be that they are simply looking to survive.