Page 5 of 7 FirstFirst ... 34567 LastLast
Results 81 to 100 of 129

Thread: How to build a State in a non State environment?

  1. #81
    Council Member Dayuhan's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Latitude 17° 5' 11N, Longitude 120° 54' 24E, altitude 1499m. Right where I want to be.
    Posts
    3,137

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TheCurmudgeon View Post
    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.

  2. #82
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Maryland
    Posts
    827

    Default

    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).

  3. #83
    Council Member Stan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Estonia
    Posts
    3,817

    Default

    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
    If you want to blend in, take the bus

  4. #84
    Council Member M-A Lagrange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    In Barsoom, as a fact!
    Posts
    976

    Default

    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!

  5. #85
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Maryland
    Posts
    827

    Default

    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?

  6. #86
    Council Member Stan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Estonia
    Posts
    3,817

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Steve the Planner View Post

    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.
    If you want to blend in, take the bus

  7. #87
    Council Member M-A Lagrange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    In Barsoom, as a fact!
    Posts
    976

    Default

    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.

  8. #88
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Maryland
    Posts
    827

    Default

    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.

  9. #89
    Council Member M-A Lagrange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    In Barsoom, as a fact!
    Posts
    976

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Steve the Planner View Post
    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.

    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.

  10. #90
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Maryland
    Posts
    827

    Default

    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...T2011010300196

    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).
    Last edited by davidbfpo; 01-03-2011 at 02:42 PM. Reason: Citation not in quote marks

  11. #91
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    203

    Default

    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.

  12. #92
    Council Member TheCurmudgeon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Woodbridge, VA
    Posts
    1,117

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JJackson View Post
    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.
    "I can change almost anything ... but I can't change human nature."

    Jon Osterman/Dr. Manhattan
    ---

  13. #93
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Maryland
    Posts
    827

    Default

    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.

  14. #94
    Council Member TheCurmudgeon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Woodbridge, VA
    Posts
    1,117

    Default

    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.
    Last edited by TheCurmudgeon; 01-05-2011 at 01:55 AM.
    "I can change almost anything ... but I can't change human nature."

    Jon Osterman/Dr. Manhattan
    ---

  15. #95
    Council Member Dayuhan's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Latitude 17° 5' 11N, Longitude 120° 54' 24E, altitude 1499m. Right where I want to be.
    Posts
    3,137

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TheCurmudgeon View Post
    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...

  16. #96
    Council Member TheCurmudgeon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Woodbridge, VA
    Posts
    1,117

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dayuhan View Post
    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?
    Last edited by TheCurmudgeon; 01-05-2011 at 02:10 AM.
    "I can change almost anything ... but I can't change human nature."

    Jon Osterman/Dr. Manhattan
    ---

  17. #97
    Council Member Dayuhan's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Latitude 17° 5' 11N, Longitude 120° 54' 24E, altitude 1499m. Right where I want to be.
    Posts
    3,137

    Wink

    Quote Originally Posted by TheCurmudgeon View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by TheCurmudgeon View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by TheCurmudgeon View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by TheCurmudgeon View Post
    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.

  18. #98
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Maryland
    Posts
    827

    Default

    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.

  19. #99
    Council Member TheCurmudgeon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Woodbridge, VA
    Posts
    1,117

    Talking The Final Option - Totally off topic

    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 ...
    "I can change almost anything ... but I can't change human nature."

    Jon Osterman/Dr. Manhattan
    ---

  20. #100
    Council Member TheCurmudgeon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Woodbridge, VA
    Posts
    1,117

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dayuhan View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dayuhan View Post
    "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.
    "I can change almost anything ... but I can't change human nature."

    Jon Osterman/Dr. Manhattan
    ---

Similar Threads

  1. Nation-Building Elevated
    By SWJED in forum Government Agencies & Officials
    Replies: 97
    Last Post: 01-30-2010, 01:35 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •