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.
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.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?
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.
Bookmarks