Nation-Building Elevated

[Jedburgh]

RAND, 8 Sep 08: After the War: Nation-Building from FDR to George W. Bush

Beginning with the post–World War II occupations of Germany and Japan, the United States has undertaken eight significant nationbuilding operations over the past 60 years. The planning for postwar nation-building in Germany and Japan began under President Franklin D. Roosevelt and was carried out under President Harry S. Truman.

Subsequent operations during the post–Cold War era were initiated and conducted by President George H. W. Bush and President William J. Clinton, respectively. The United States has subsequently taken the lead in post–September 11, 2001, nation-building under President George W. Bush in Afghanistan and Iraq. In each of the eight cases presented here, presidential decisionmaking and administrative structure have, at times, worked in favor of the nation-building goals of the U.S. government and military and those of its coalition partners and allies. In other cases, these elements have hindered the achievement of these goals or have had negative effects on nation-building outcomes.

This monograph assesses the ways in which the management styles and structures of the administrations in power prior to and during nation-building operations affect the goals and outcomes of such operations. It also evaluates the nature of the society being reformed and of the conflict being terminated. The findings presented here should be of interest to policymakers and others interested in the history of U.S. nation-building, lessons learned from these operations, and the outcomes of U.S. involvement in rebuilding various types of societies......

Complete 190-page monograph at the link.

[Jedburgh]

SSI, 1 Oct 08: Stability Operations and State Building: Continuities and Contingencies

....This volume contains the full range of intellectual theorizing, historical examinations, and practical engagement challenges which were so richly presented by the attendees of the colloquium held as a result of the Strategic Studies Institute’s collaboration with Austin Peay State University. In addition, the appendices contain not only the final principles, policies, and procedures determined by the plenary, but also the full list of nominated principles with which the attendees worked. The Strategic Studies Institute and Austin Peay State University are pleased to offer this important compilation of knowledge on the most immediate challenge facing our forces in Iraq and Afghanistan today.....

Complete 280-page paper at the link.

[Surferbeetle]

Nation Building defined by Wikipedia

Traditionally there has been some confusion between the use of the term nation-building and that of state-building (the terms are sometimes used interchangeably in North America). Both have fairly narrow and different definitions in political science, the former referring to national identity, the latter to the institutions of the state.

Nation-building refers to the process of constructing or structuring a national identity using the power of the state. This process aims at the unification of the people or peoples within the state so that it remains politically stable and viable in the long run. Nation-building can involve the use of propaganda or major infrastructure development to foster social harmony and economic growth.

State Building defined by Wikipeda

There are two main theoretical approaches to definitions of state-building. Firstly state-building is seen by some theorists as an activity undertaken by external actors (foreign countries) attempting to build, or re-build, the institutions of a weaker, post-conflict or failing state. This is a view of state-building as the activity of one country in relation to another, usually following some form of intervention (such as a UN peacekeeping operation).

Approach #2

This work has tended to draw heavily on political science. It has produced definitions that view state-building as an indigenous, national process driven by state-society relations. This view believes that countries cannot do state-building outside their own borders, they can only influence, support or hinder such processes.

Rand's The Beginner’s Guide to Nation-Building By: James Dobbins, Seth G. Jones, Keith Crane, Beth Cole DeGrasse

Since the end of the Cold War, the United States, NATO, the United Nations, and a range of other states and nongovernmental organizations have become increasingly involved in nation-building operations. Nation-building involves the use of armed force as part of a broader effort to promote political and economic reforms, with the objective of transforming a society emerging from conflict into one at peace with itself and its neighbors. This guidebook is a practical “how-to” manual on the conduct of effective nation-building. It is organized around the constituent elements that make up any nation-building mission: military, police, rule of law, humanitarian relief, governance, economic stabilization, democratization, and development. The chapters describe how each of these components should be organized and employed, how much of each is likely to be needed, and the likely cost. The lessons are drawn principally from 16 U.S.- and UN-led nation-building operations since World War II and from a forthcoming study on European-led missions. In short, this guidebook presents a comprehensive history of best practices in nation-building and serves as an indispensable reference for the preplanning of future interventions and for contingency planning on the ground.

Sweat Equity defined by Wikipedia

Sweat equity is a term used to describe the contribution made to a project by people who contribute their time and effort. It can be contrasted with financial equity which is the money contributed towards the project. It is used to refer to a form of compensation by businesses to their owners or employees. The term is sometimes used in partnership agreements where one or more of the partners contributes no financial capital. In the case of a business startup, employees might, upon incorporation, receive stock or stock options in return for working for below-market salaries (or in some cases no salary at all).

In a successful model used by Habitat for Humanity, families who would otherwise be unable to purchase their own home (because their income level does not allow them to save for a down payment or qualify for an interest-bearing mortgage offered by a financial institution) contribute up to 500 hours of sweat equity to the construction of their own home, the homes of other Habitat for Humanity partner families or by volunteering to assist the organization in other ways. Once moved into their new home, the family makes monthly, interest-free mortgage payments into a revolving "Fund for Humanity" which provides capital to build homes for other partner families.

SWC thread From Maneuver Warfare To Maneuver Welfare

[Dayuhan]

This reminds me of how much I dislike the term "nation-building", and why.

[rant]

You can't build a nation, any more than you can build a tree. These are not things that are built, these are things that grow. It's a semantic distinction, but semantic distinctions do influence perception, discourse, and eventually policy. The idea that a nation can be built is what leads us to the absurdity of nominally rational adults talking about "installing" a democracy, as if it were a light bulb or spare tire, and we have a warehouse full of neatly stacked crates labeled "democracy, functioning, one" just waiting to be screwed into place.

Treating nations and states as growing entities that need to be cultivated rather than engineering challenges awaiting the correct blueprint is not going to solve the problems, but it might provide a more effective foundation for developing solutions.

We have to accept that the growth of nations is an inherently disorderly process and that conflict is usually going to be part of it. Our own nation undertook one of history's great genocides and fought one of history's great civil wars before defining itself as a nation. Western Europeans see themselves at the pinnacle of human civilization, but the warring tribes of western Europe went through many centuries of gory and destructive conflict before they could even figure out where one nation ended and others began. When we look with horror on the wars and abuses of Africa, South Asia, and the Middle East we would do well to reflect that all they are doing is settling their business in exactly the same way we once settled ours. Colonial powers may have suspended the process by imposing order at the expense of stability, but when they left the process continued.

None of this means we have to simply sit back and accept whatever happens. It means we have to accept that we can only manage situations to the greatest extent possible (which may at times be a very minimal extent), not control them. We have to accept that the needed process of growth may not always be compatible with our perceived self-interest. We have to accept that borders left behind by retreating colonists do not necessarily constitute "nations", and that at a certain point people may have to work out for themselves what "nations" actually make sense, and that this process will involve a certain amount of disorder. We have to accept that creating or recognizing a government does not necessarily endow it with the capacity to govern.

We cannot build nations, or states. We may be able to help cultivate them, if we recognize that an organic growth process is involved and start working with it instead of trying to control it to achieve our own immediate goals.

[/rant]

[Ken White]

Truly excellent post, Dayuhan.

[Surferbeetle]

Steve,

As Ken has noted your preceding post is indeed an excellent one and there is much wisdom in it, however, let's examine it further (And Ken, to echo one of your earlier posts today…what you think is of interest... metrics! That should do it )

This reminds me of how much I dislike the term "nation-building", and why.

The term sets up a number of expectations on all sides of the process and does not fully help, as much as we might like, to bridge the gap between the on the ground realities we find and the desired outcomes-oftentimes developed in places far away. Nonetheless, I do not yet have a better term (the term nation cultivation will not survive the testosterone laden DoD marketplace of terms and acronyms); perhaps we can find something better if we get a chance to read works from all of the development authors/theorists/contributors mentioned by M.A. Lagrange in his posts - or if he chimes in and helps out

Walt Whitman Rostow - Rostovian Take-off Model
Immanuel Wallerstein-The Modern World System
Samir Amin-Theory of Centre and Periphery
Giovanni Arrighi-World Systems
Hans Singer-Raul Prebisch-Dependency Theory
Alexander Gerschenkron-Backwardness Model

You can't build a nation, any more than you can build a tree. These are not things that are built, these are things that grow. It's a semantic distinction, but semantic distinctions do influence perception, discourse, and eventually policy.

There are many truths here, and I like the tree analogy because it helps one to think about the types of consistent conditions, which are needed for growth, as well as why one must pair realistic time-spans/schedules with achievable results. The disconnect between wishing for/planning for/advertising a cash crop before an orchard can physically produce it is something that does not require a grounding in nation building, state building, or development work to understand.

The idea that a nation can be built is what leads us to the absurdity of nominally rational adults talking about "installing" a democracy, as if it were a light bulb or spare tire, and we have a warehouse full of neatly stacked crates labeled "democracy, functioning, one" just waiting to be screwed into place.

Following our tree analogy, there are some places that will most certainly require additional water and soil additives in order to grow a ‘democracy tree’ and even with additional long-term care there are some environments that may not be able to support that particular type of tree. IMHO economics, in particular some form of capitalism, help to set the conditions for sustainable growth and are a more realistic place to focus efforts upon before planting a 'democracy tree'.

Treating nations and states as growing entities that need to be cultivated rather than engineering challenges awaiting the correct blueprint is not going to solve the problems, but it might provide a more effective foundation for developing solutions.

A too literal application of the engineering method/attitude is certainly something to be guarded against. One could argue that favoring an interdisciplinary approach, perhaps having/seeking a grounding in biology, business, and engineering, or engaging in kayaking or surfing are potential pathways to develop/increase/reinforce one’s awareness of the need to seek balance in all things.

We have to accept that the growth of nations is an inherently disorderly process and that conflict is usually going to be part of it. Our own nation undertook one of history's great genocides and fought one of history's great civil wars before defining itself as a nation. Western Europeans see themselves at the pinnacle of human civilization, but the warring tribes of western Europe went through many centuries of gory and destructive conflict before they could even figure out where one nation ended and others began. When we look with horror on the wars and abuses of Africa, South Asia, and the Middle East we would do well to reflect that all they are doing is settling their business in exactly the same way we once settled ours. Colonial powers may have suspended the process by imposing order at the expense of stability, but when they left the process continued.

Having spent some time studying Germanic and Roman history & culture I would tend to agree with many of your points. As an observational aside, have you been following the current political machinations with respect to the IHEC decision in Iraq? I wonder how these events are/will impact the Sunni component of the military and militias; Dr. Charles Tripp’s descriptions of the influence the military had upon the political landscape in Iraq during July 1958 and February 1963 make for interesting reading and comparison.

None of this means we have to simply sit back and accept whatever happens. It means we have to accept that we can only manage situations to the greatest extent possible (which may at times be a very minimal extent), not control them.

A successful balanced approach might indeed include an engineering approach/methodology and business approach/methodology component in the response. (apparently I am outta my allotment of wry smiles, nonetheless one has been placed here due to the one dimensional commo method we use)

We cannot build nations, or states. We may be able to help cultivate them, if we recognize that an organic growth process is involved and start working with it instead of trying to control it to achieve our own immediate goals.

Although I agree with your much of your concept, it will need a stronger term or acronym in order to both survive and generate interest in the testosterone laden DoD marketplace of ideas. The myriad aspects of the commonly heard phrase ‘carnivore vs. herbivore thinking’ both make me smile and think about how to find needed balance.

Omnivore thinking?

[Dayuhan]

The term sets up a number of expectations on all sides of the process and does not fully help, as much as we might like, to bridge the gap between the on the ground realities we find and the desired outcomes-oftentimes developed in places far away. Nonetheless, I do not yet have a better term (the term nation cultivation will not survive the testosterone laden DoD marketplace of terms and acronyms)

This is true, and is one more reason why expecting DoD to effectively promote the development of states, nations, or economies makes about as much sense as expecting development professionals to fight a war.

perhaps we can find something better if we get a chance to read works from all of the development authors/theorists/contributors mentioned by M.A. Lagrange in his posts - or if he chimes in and helps out

Perhaps indeed, though it's a fair haul from development theory to effective practice.

I like the tree analogy because it helps one to think about the types of consistent conditions, which are needed for growth, as well as why one must pair realistic time-spans/schedules with achievable results. The disconnect between wishing for/planning for/advertising a cash crop before an orchard can physically produce it is something that does not require a grounding in nation building, state building, or development work to understand.

I like the analogy because most of us understand viscerally and intellectually, that you have to have a sapling before you have a tree. We're too often inclined to think of building national institutions before we have a nation, or building democracy before we have a government, or of trying to put a fully functioning government in place all at once instead of trying to plant a seed and give irt space to grow.

IMHO economics, in particular some form of capitalism, help to set the conditions for sustainable growth and are a more realistic place to focus efforts upon before planting a 'democracy tree'.

The economic side is certainly important, but very difficult to bring beyond a rudimentary level without some basic framework of at least local governance. Even on the most minimal level it's hard to justify investing capital or sweat when it's only going to make you a target for people who want a piece of whatever you've got.

One could argue that favoring an interdisciplinary approach, perhaps having/seeking a grounding in biology, business, and engineering, or engaging in kayaking or surfing are potential pathways to develop/increase/reinforce one’s awareness of the need to seek balance in all things.

Kayaking and surfing are not a bad place to start: you learn the importance of balance and you learn to work with the prevailing forces of nature instead of trying to control them... aside from being just cooler than everybody else.

To me we need to choose our battles better and choose our entry points better. There are environments and times when all the art and science, craft and resources we can apply are not going to achieve the desired goal... sometimes the only available response to a request for directions is on the order of "Caint git thar from here, best go back where y'all started from and try agin".

Although I agree with your much of your concept, it will need a stronger term or acronym in order to both survive and generate interest in the testosterone laden DoD marketplace of ideas. The myriad aspects of the commonly heard phrase ‘carnivore vs. herbivore thinking’ both make me smile and think about how to find needed balance.

Omnivore thinking?

On a large scale, yes, omnivore thinking. Also it pays to send your carnivores when there's hunting to be done, to send in your herbivores when there's crops to be nuruered, and to remember which is which. Above all, whether it's meat or veg, don't bite off what you can't chew, because if you do you can choke on it. Of course now that's exactly the position we're in: we took way too big a bite, we can't chew it, we can't swallow it, and we can't spit it out. I wish I had something to suggest beyond pointing out that we might have thought twice before biting it off in the first place, but I'm afraid I don't.