Modernization/Development Theory, CORDS, and FM 3-24?

[Madhu]

@ Curmudgeon,

This is in response to a comment of yours above and I will flesh my thoughts out a bit later:

I thought about this while reading a commentary in Army History (by Gian Gentile). I think we have a selective history of that region and it affected us in the 00s in terms of our military and foreign policy strategies. We forgot our own history there, it was selective and we interpreted it completely through the lens of our battle with the Soviet Union, and our confused thoughts about non Western countries and post WWII colonialism/neocolonialism.

It was the correct way to view our European security theater but not the correct lens with which to view the AfPak theater.

You see, the fomenting of insurgency, and our contributions and our allies contributions to it, licit and illicit both, caused a problem. And instead of going back to first principles, we focused on the Taliban insurgency without thinking it through.

I don't know. I change my mind sometimes.

Anyway, the problems all started with this bit of conventional wisdom: "we abandoned Afghanistan and look what happened."

Uh, no. We were there on and off. I can see why people don't like to talk about it, though.

http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/ame...flunks-sun-tzu

[TheCurmudgeon]

Madhu ...

"Anyway, the problems all started with this bit of conventional wisdom: 'we abandoned Afghanistan and look what happened.' Uh, no. We were there on and off. I can see why people don't like to talk about it, though."

I don't believe that "being there on and off" quite constitutes a viable response. Nor do I proscribe to conventional wisdom very often. It is not that we abandon Afghanistan. It is that we helped to create a power vacuum and then did nothing to help fill it with a government that would be friendly to us. I would argue we did the exact same thing in the early days after the Iraqi invasion for very similar reasons. We believe that the population of the country should govern itself. We provided them the opportunity. They fell on their face. I am not sure we have learned anything. In Libya we helped topple a dictator and are pretty much leaving the people to work this out on their own. My gut reaction is that it will not end up much better than Iraq, France First Republic, Yugoslavia or maybe even Egypt. Countries that have had a strong government who have suppressed internal issues for years who suddenly find themselves controlling their own destinies do not have the values or the cultural systems to be able to deal with that.

A strong military can mediate that although most Westerners see that as a bad thing. Thailand has been working thought this for years, coup after coup, but they are getting closer to a functioning democracy every time.

[Dayuhan]

Countries that have had a strong government who have suppressed internal issues for years who suddenly find themselves controlling their own destinies do not have the values or the cultural systems to be able to deal with that.

The values and the cultural systems do not appear out of the void and they aren't presented on a platter by a foreign power. They have to grow from the inside. A "strong government" that suppresses that growth and imposes order at the expense of stability leaves those capacities underdeveloped, and they have to catch up. It's often a messy process.

The emergence of nations has typically been a messy process. The US fought an epic civil war, conducted one of history's great genocides, and fought wars of expansion against the Spanish, the Mexicans, and the Filipinos. The ever so civilized Europeans bashed the stuffing out of each other and anyone else they could get their hands on for centuries before exhausting themselves to the point where they had no recourse but to proudly embrace pacifism. Why would we expect Asians, Africans, or Latin Americans to be any different?

[TheCurmudgeon]

The values and the cultural systems do not appear out of the void and they aren't presented on a platter by a foreign power. They have to grow from the inside. A "strong government" that suppresses that growth and imposes order at the expense of stability leaves those capacities underdeveloped, and they have to catch up. It's often a messy process.

Agreed ... and I have not real wisdom to add. These things are internal and take time. You could impose another "strong government" in order to preserve stability with the aim that it will, in a series of stages, cede power back to the people, but any single nation should not be the proponent of that solution. Something similar to what Bill Moore was talking about (http://www.icrc.org/eng/war-and-law/...occupation.htm) .

The real world problem with that idea is that at least two members of the Security Council do not share the vision of popular sovereignty that the other members do. They are fine with the idea that the government can do whatever it needs to do with its population to keep order. Not sure they would back a plan that creates more countries that adhere to the idea of popular sovereignty.

The emergence of nations has typically been a messy process. The US fought an epic civil war, conducted one of history's great genocides, and fought wars of expansion against the Spanish, the Mexicans, and the Filipinos. The ever so civilized Europeans bashed the stuffing out of each other and anyone else they could get their hands on for centuries before exhausting themselves to the point where they had no recourse but to proudly embrace pacifism. Why would we expect Asians, Africans, or Latin Americans to be any different?

Agreed. This goes even deeper into the idea of whether the Western version of a Nation is or should be exportable. While I lean toward the idea that it is universal I am not set on that assessment.

Again I return to the question from a Soldier's perspective. What are the politicians, in response to public outcry, going to expect us to do in failed or failing states or in response to genocide or other war crimes? If we do intervene, do we just stop the carnage and withdraw? If not, what are the realistic options?

In another article someone proposed the idea that Green Beret, in addition to FID, be capable of teaching basic economics to villagers, so I don't think I am being facetious when I toss these ideas out for comment.

[TheCurmudgeon]

... this does a good job of presenting the problem. I do not agree with the solution. I am interested in the idea of the SysAdmin Force.

http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/en/tho...for_peace.html

[Dayuhan]

Again I return to the question from a Soldier's perspective. What are the politicians, in response to public outcry, going to expect us to do in failed or failing states or in response to genocide or other war crimes? If we do intervene, do we just stop the carnage and withdraw? If not, what are the realistic options?

I doubt that there will be any consistent set of available options; what's available (and more important desirable) will inevitably have to be decided on a case to case basis. Inevitably in the case of democracies, home front politics will always play a role in determining what's done, for better or worse... usually for worse I expect but it's still inevitable. IMO the first prerequisite for intervention should be a specific, concrete, achievable goal ("nation building" is none of the above) but I'm probably not being realistic there.

In another article someone proposed the idea that Green Beret, in addition to FID, be capable of teaching basic economics to villagers, so I don't think I am being facetious when I toss these ideas out for comment.

I saw that series of articles, and I find their conclusions very tenuous. I'm not convinced that villagers need to be taught basic economics, or that lack of knowledge (of economics or anything else) among the villagers is a major constraint on development. The idea that we can resolve other people's problems by enlightening the benighted is a peculiarly American conceit that has rarely led us anywhere beneficial. We're often better off trying to learn from the villagers, rather than teach them, as they generally know their problems better than we do.

[ganulv]

It is not that we abandon Afghanistan. It is that we helped to create a power vacuum and then did nothing to help fill it with a government that would be friendly to us.

I would assert that while friendly governments are great they are not necessary for our security. It seems sufficient to me that a government not pose a realistically assessed threat to us. U.S. foreign policy discourse has the habit of taking hostile rhetoric and ideological opposition as prima facie evidence of threat. Through the years our leaders have made the Cuban and Iranian revolutions out to be threats to domestic, international, and natural order. But do we need more than two hands’ worth of fingers to count the instances in which either government has done anything more serious to our country than made a station chief get all butthurt?

[Dayuhan]

I would assert that while friendly governments are great they are not necessary for our security.

If a nominally "friendly" government is inept and unpopular with its own people, it can easily emerge as a strategic liability. Our desire to keep "friendly" governments in power can all too easily lead to expensive and generally pointless interventions. A "friendly" government that depends on our held to survive can be a greater threat to our security than a neutral or even mildly unfriendly government that stands on its own. As long as nominally unfriendly governments don't translate that unfriendliness into actual action against us, they aren't a problem, and at least we don't feel any obligation to protect and defend them when they make trouble for themselves.

[TheCurmudgeon]

I would assert that while friendly governments are great they are not necessary for our security. It seems sufficient to me that a government not pose a realistically assessed threat to us. U.S. foreign policy discourse has the habit of taking hostile rhetoric and ideological opposition as prima facie evidence of threat. Through the years our leaders have made the Cuban and Iranian revolutions out to be threats to domestic, international, and natural order. But do we need more than two hands’ worth of fingers to count the instances in which either government has done anything more serious to our country than made a station chief get all butthurt?

I will agree that "friendly" was too strong a term. It is really the wrong term. I will work to come up with a better one ... although I do like your general criteria.