Is the United States learning from prior attempts at nation-building?

[Surferbeetle]

Ridek,

Appreciate your analysis, and I too am a fan of Ambassador Dobbins work. One of these Saturdays I am interested in looking at essential infrastructure/population ratios and comparing them with security ratios such as the ones you developed. I think kluging the security and infrastructure numbers together in a graph might make for a telling picture.

Reference the term AFPAK Robert D. Kaplan has a book entitled Soldiers of God With Islamic Warriors in Afghanistan and Pakistan which you might find to be of interest as a data point in your research. His book was originally published in 1990. One of England's finest steered me towards an author by the name of Greg Mills and his book 'From Africa to Afghanistan: With Richards and NATO to Kabul'...haven't read it yet but I will before the year is out...perhaps you are familiar with it?

Regards.

Steve

[davidbfpo]

Ridek,

This thread: http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/...ead.php?t=6543 is an earlier discussion on Afghanistan prompted by Greg Mills book. His book was commended in the What are you reading thread. Not everyone on SWC was impressed on his ten commandmants. Good book though IMHO.

davidbfpo

[John T. Fishel]

US military "occupation" and nation building operation since WWII was Panama. As the chief planner for OPORD Blind Logic from 18 May 89 until 16 Dec 89 and later having conducted research (and published - THE FOG OF PEACE, SSI 1992 and CIVIL MILITARY OPERATIONS IN A NEW WORLD, Praeger, 1997 (incorpoating FOG) I followed how we in the USFLG and Military Support Group executed and modified the plan during Operation Promote Liberty. Two points to make: (1) As planners, my predecessors and I used the occupations of Japan and Germany as points of reference; (2) the force ratio during the "occupation" (after Jan 90) was never higher than 5 to 1000 HN civilians.

I am not convinced that force ratios, themselves, have much meaning.The nature of the threat, degree of resistance, and nature of support for the occupiers weigh a lot more heavily. There is also a certain minimum number of forces required to effectively occupy territory regardless of the size of the population.

So, I would suggest that Japan really is not an outlier in the sense that the experience there is supported by the experience in Panama.In both cases, the US as occupier was accorded legitimacy by the population and its leadership. In Japan the Emperor conferred legitimacy on MacArthur's "shogunate" while in Panama the Military Support Group provided the tools that the elected government of President Endara needed to govern,

Nevertheless, US economic development support for Panama was far less than President Bush had promised - even by the USG's own well spun account.Without the loan guarantees - which brought the aid committment w/in $100 million of the promised $1billion, US aid to Panama was less than half that amount.

A look at Panama today shows a vibrant multi-party electoral democracy which has alternated parties in power for 2 decades and has a strong economy even in these troubled times.

Cheers

JohnT

[marct]

So, I would suggest that Japan really is not an outlier in the sense that the experience there is supported by the experience in Panama.In both cases, the US as occupier was accorded legitimacy by the population and its leadership. In Japan the Emperor conferred legitimacy on MacArthur's "shogunate" while in Panama the Military Support Group provided the tools that the elected government of President Endara needed to govern,

I think you've hit the nail on the head, John, with the term "Shogunate" for MacArthur's occupation. Contra ridek's assertion, the Japanese did not loose the will to fight, they were ordered to surrender by the Emperor.

Apparently, there was a fight as to whether or not the Emperor should be allowed to remain after the surrender. If some of the hotheads had their way and he had been removed, I suspect that there would still be an insurgency in Japan. IMO, there is a lesson here that could have been, but was not, applied to Afghanistan.

Cheers,

Marc

[John T. Fishel]

mind regarding Afghanistan? My sense is that we got off to a pretty good start there with the Loya Jerga creating a govt and choosing a Pashtun, Hamid Karzai, as president ratifying the choice in a more institutionalized manner later. The choices were legitimated by the King who participated in the process with significant support from the international community - at the beginning. Failure, to my mind was in follow-through.

Cheers
JohnT

[marct]

Hi John,

mind regarding Afghanistan? My sense is that we got off to a pretty good start there with the Loya Jerga creating a govt and choosing a Pashtun, Hamid Karzai, as president ratifying the choice in a more institutionalized manner later. The choices were legitimated by the King who participated in the process with significant support from the international community - at the beginning. Failure, to my mind was in follow-through.

I'm not so sure that it really got off to a good start. From what I was hearing as the 2003 Loya Jirga was going on, there was an incredible resistance on the part of the US to re-establish the monarchy in any form. The version i heard, from someone who witnessed it, was that a certain (unnamed) US official said something to the effect of "No way will we have a king! That's barbaric and you're going to be civilized."

The overt "legitination" by the king came afterwards as a result of that pressure. However, again from the same sources, the original idea was to have the ing's grandson ascend to the throne and re-institute a form of parliamentary democracy. That would have carried on the legitimacy that, in all honesty, Karzai never had.

Cheers,

Marc

[John T. Fishel]

because I recall a lot of discussion w/in the US about reinstating the monarchy (constituional) but no significant opposition to it. Not saying it didn't happen but I wasn't hearing about it.

That said, I (1) understand what you were taking about and (2)have questions at to whether reinstating the monarchy would have worked. Unlike Japan, where the institution of the Emperor had never been challenged (his power yes but not the institution) and he was worshipped as a god, the king had been deposed, as, indeed, others had and was living in exile. Could restorig the King / monarchy have provided greater legitimacy? Perhaps. But it might also have created its own oppostion as it had before.

As we all know, an analogy only gives hints of possibilities because they are not the same as the situation in question.

Cheers

JohnT