How to build a State in a non State environment?

[Steve the Planner]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

was "F Troop."

I also liked this:

LINK

[Steve the Planner]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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". 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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.