How to build a State in a non State environment?

[TheCurmudgeon]

I guess that is as close to the protectorate model I mentioned earlier as you are going to get. But is assumes that there is someone there we are supporting. What happens when there is no one there, do you create them?

Once they win, do you hand them off to State? What promises of support can you make?

All this also seems to assume a level of infrastructure that may not exist elsewhere - something to fight over that we have an interest in. What if our only interest is stability?

I like the principle, its the details that are not working out so well.

[slapout9]

I guess that is as close to the protectorate model I mentioned earlier as you are going to get. But is assumes that there is someone there we are supporting. What happens when there is no one there, do you create them?

Once they win, do you hand them off to State? What promises of support can you make?

All this also seems to assume a level of infrastructure that may not exist elsewhere - something to fight over that we have an interest in. What if our only interest is stability?

I like the principle, its the details that are not working out so well.

It all dependsyour success or failure is going to hinge on the initial and accurate analysis of the social structure of the area in question (old school geography, who owns the land and what do they do with it). How it really is, not how you wish it to be. Special Warfare is an option not a panacea. If your analysis does indicate it is possible then I would say don't do it. That is one of the big problems IMO we keep looking for some master template that we can apply over and over again.

Finding a cause that people are willing to not just fight for but are willing to die for is the real question. If you can find a group like that and support them quietly you may just end up making a few friends instead of a lot of enemies.


You should really watch the series I posted called "More Deadly Than War" to get an overview of the mobilzation process.

[M-A Lagrange]

Coming back to the beginning of the threat, I would like to share this website from OECD:
http://www.oecd.org/site/0,3407,en_2..._1_1_1,00.html

What I found interesting in that particular site is the endorsement of the various governance frames and legitimacy sources in non western countries.
I believe that a good identification of what is the local understanding of local governance (basically what people expect from government, how they can get it and what government provides) is the starting point to be able to file Bob’s matrix.
Once you have this, you may have a starting point.
Naturally, it is set in the context of fragile state therefore; it is assumed that you have some sort of administration running somewhere. But still, the frame they propose is very interest in to understand what is at work in a non state context.
My primary assumption being that as mankind is a political animal, there is a form of governance what so ever at grass root level.

The various reports linked on that site may respond many of the questions raised here. (Not saying they are the bible and cannot be challenged, far from it).
Also, it’s a donor/development agencies oriented work. But still some good stuff in it.

[Fuchs]

"...is dictatorship a necessary path or just the wall we all end up hitting? "

You need either a power advantage OR consent in absence of power asymmetry to organize a democratic political process orderly.

The power that organizes a democracy can be foreign troops, of course.


Young democracies often fail (example Weimar Republic) because the society isn't sold on democracy yet, if there's no consensus on democracy ('Republic without republicans.'). To set up of a dictatorship early on doesn't help against this problem at all.


The Afghanistan democracy project failed for several reasons - not the least the entirely unnecessary influx of huge amounts of foreign cash that would have corrupted any form of government.


The consent is ultimately what drives a democracy.
You still need the checks & balances and several precautions to secure a democracy once it's in place, of course.

[Stan]

I guess that is as close to the protectorate model I mentioned earlier as you are going to get. But is assumes that there is someone there we are supporting. What happens when there is no one there, do you create them?

The best way I can remotely answer some of that is using our (USG) creation and sustainment of a National Demining Office. It began with a a requests for projects out of State with DOD on the "who does it line". We at ground zero came up with a country plan, found the potential players and got the whole enchilada endorsed.

Enter US Army with a survey and State begins the funding process. The initial injection was pretty hefty to get the ball rolling and TDY personnel settled. Training and equipment was our first step and that meant finding the students who would eventually keep this project alive. Some folks were readily available from Rescue and the military, but we still needed many more and had to start advertising and screening. Better than a year before we had what we deemed necessary to commence training and providing equipment. We also had a ton of infrastructure problems that we had not counted on.

Two years into the project and things are rolling along smoothly (nobody has died).

Once they win, do you hand them off to State? What promises of support can you make?

Enter EUCOM and DOD funding in the form of more training and sustaining funds. This part is the hidden treasure albeit very complicated and intense documentation. We had a dedicated SNCO just to keep track of the money and equipment (also funded by the same pot).

A typical project or country plan with State starting and DOD sustaining is 5 years. Thereafter the people on the ground have to assess the status and progress based on established goals, etc. In our case we became an exporter of security vs just another consumer and that went over big at State and EUCOM. We are now in our 12th year and responsible for teaching and supporting neighboring countries as well as NATO.

All this also seems to assume a level of infrastructure that may not exist elsewhere - something to fight over that we have an interest in. What if our only interest is stability?

I like the principle, its the details that are not working out so well.

I may have over simplified our project when comparing it to what you're up against, but my point was there are various avenues that fund and support. The bad news... The Embassy has to get really involved and they normally assign their most junior officer with the least amount of time in country and the most Sierra already on his plate