I don't think it's true at all. There's this belief by many Americans that prosperity and democracy bring peace and IMO, such beliefs are dangerous.We've also talked about shared prosperity, and the principles that when a state, tribe, or even a culture enjoy increased prosperity, we all stand to benefit and some of the factors that cause small wars recede. Is this general premise true though, across the long term, and where is the tipping point?
Who is the "we" you're talking about?If we work to increase prosperity around the world, how can we do it in a fashion that does not increase the demand for resources to such a degree that conflict ensues? Whether it's water, arable land, oil, or access to minerals and metals, as tribes and states prosper, consumption increases and the realist in me tells me that conflict is inevitable. In logical terms, it seems counter-productive to try to reduce the number of have-nots in the world.
I think we (the American people and by extension, the American military) need a bit more humility when it comes to what we think we can do. Look at Afghanistan. We went there in the 1950's, built some great projects, did a lot of nation and capacity building. That worked for a while and Afghanistan even became a hippy mecca in the 1960's. Now those agricultural projects from the 1950's are the reason we've spilled so much blood in Helmand and that green zone is used for a very different purpose than originally envisioned - what if, for example, the Helmand river valley project was never built?
The point is that we cannot control the future and we should realize that our attempts to improve the lot of others are limited. We should take, at maximum, a "help people to help themselves" approach assuming we need to get involved at all.
Bookmarks