Modernization Theory is Hokum.

[Dayuhan]

But governments do it all the time. They do it through inoculation programs that skew the population density. They do it through the tax code that favors married couples or by deciding who can marry who. They do it through any number of rules that regulate your life "for the better". They don't call it social engineering, but the result is the same.

I was sloppy; meant to say "any attempt by the US government to engage in social engineering outside the United States..." Social engineering attempts within the borders may not always be well advised, but they aren't entirely ridiculous.

So is the social engineering the Army is directed to do just "the continuation of policy by other means"?

Isn't it our policy to spread democracy?

If it is, isn't it our job to mold the population of our target country/population; to till the soil so that it can accept the seeds of representative government?

This touches on another question. I've often pointed out on these threads that this is a policy that invites failure. People from the military side, not unreasonably, point out that they don't set the policy, they just have to try to implement it as best they can, whether or not it's pointless and self-defeating. Under those circumstances, it makes sense to talk about how best to execute a bad policy. At the same time, though, it's easy to get so deep in that conversation that we forget to mention that, at root, this is simply bad policy. If we lose sight of that, the chances of repeating these policies, perhaps under the guise of "the policy isn't the problem, we just need to do it right", increase.

Part of the problem, to me, is that American policymakers have a real aversion to entering a small war with limited, pragmatic objectives. They want the objectives to sound noble and grand, like "spreading democracy". Limited, pragmatic objectives don't have the same ring to them.

While I don't like it, I am not sure I can make a cogent argument against it.

I try, with limited success.

Re this:

the belief that industrialization and economic development lead directly to positive social and political change

Is to me not entirely unreasonable, though of course the extent, nature and pace of change are not going to be predictable, and "positive" is in the eye of the beholder. Our error, to me, lies in the assumption that "industrialization and economic development" are deliverable goods that can simply be "installed", like a spare tire or a light bulb, in an environment where they did not previously exist. This belief is not consistent with experience or common sense, and needs to be... re-examined, at least.