How to build a State in a non State environment?

[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.

[slapout9]

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

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

[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.