How to build a State in a non State environment?

[Stan]

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]

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]

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?

[Bob's World]

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]

But this covers major conflicts, such as the defeat of the Confederacy

Shouldn't be spreading enemy propaganda

[TheCurmudgeon]

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]

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

[Dayuhan]

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.

[Bob's World]

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/article...p_and_rankings

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]

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]

[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.

[Bob's World]

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]

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.

[Dayuhan]

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.

[TheCurmudgeon]

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]

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]

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.

[slapout9]

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]

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.

[slapout9]

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 dependsyour 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.