Steve,
Steve,Perhaps it is time to change our tactics and use a 'new marketing plan' to advertise this change in emphasis......
My thesis is that successfully isolating the civilian populace of Iraq from the insurgency has a significant economic component that has eclipsed the security component at this point. Though it may be politically painful for the current administration to consider, it is time for an Economic Surge.
Great post and I think gets to the real heart of ow what security can mean outside of its physical context.
What really makes a population resistant to radicalization? or put in another way, what keeps violent competing ideologies from being attractive, taking hold and becoming a movement? What keeps terrorism on the margins - attractive only to the most extreme of the population? What keeps criminal activities from defining the norm? What builds faith in the leadership that they will provide the conditions in which the population can meet its needs?
Sustainable security in this sense does not exclude the people I think, it is contingent upon them. They must understand the stakes, but to do so they must perceive they have a stake. What makes a state viable? As we start looking at complex social systems we're starting to understand that progress in one area is often contingent on development or reform in another.
Iraq is starting to develop the monies it will need to develop an economy that could go beyond the hydro-carbon industry. While undoubtedly that will be a chief export (and much of the foundation on which the rest is built), stability probably resides in economic diversity. There is the potential for other mineral industries in the North, agricultural industries, banking, trade, and a history in many cases of a textile industry. Getting physical security to a point where economic development takes hold, and political development to a point where economic development is sustainable and encouraging to more development is the point where Iraq will succeed long term I think.
Key to realizing a development strategy I think is understanding the how systems interact with one another - and insuring that just because an area is not the concern of the moment, it does not get neglected, but is developed more in tandem with other areas so that one system does not grow so fast that is either unsustainable, or its growth crushes, over shadows, or unbalances the whole system. The challenge may be in understanding that although an immediate challenge may require a disproportionate amount of energy in one system, sustainability eventually comes from greater equilibrium - aka stability. This would seem to be the most important thing we should require from any leader - knowing when to take action (set or change course), and when not to act (remain on course) - this comes from understanding what problems are really problems and what are symptoms, and being able to resist the pressures of the moment, and our own biases - the second may be the leader's ability to set and manage expectations - which is in effect demonstrating the strength to lead.
Best, Rob
Bookmarks