Small Wars Journal

Adding Rigor to Stability and Reconstruction Operations: An MWI Report

Wed, 08/31/2016 - 9:07am

Adding Rigor to Stability and Reconstruction Operations: An MWI Report by Jonathan Bate, Modern War Institute

Economic interventions are a key component of stability operations. But they have proven challenging for the U.S. military to both implement and evaluate under conditions of state fragility and conflict. As a shaping operation, so-called ‘tactical economics’ can enable military units to shape security environments and consolidate gains in pursuit of sustainable outcomes. However, as Jonathan Bate argues in this MWI Report, they require careful targeting, design, implementation, and evaluation.

Download the full report.

Comments

Modified slightly from my earlier/initial effort:

I like the idea of separating "tactical" political, economic, social and value approaches and outcomes from "strategic" such approaches and outcomes.

Herein, to see:

a. "Tactical" such approaches and outcomes more from the perspective of attempting to "pacify" the populations? And

b. "Strategic" such approaches and outcomes more from the perspective of "transforming" -- these targeted states, their societies and their populations -- more along modern western political, economic, social and value lines?

Overall bottom line problem, however, that I see re: these such approaches today is that:

a. The U.S./the West -- oh so obviously -- wears its transforming outlying states and societies more along modern western political, economic, social and value lines "heart" on its sleeve. And, thus,

b. These populations can, have and do "see us coming" -- for many, many years before we actually arrive. This, suggesting that:

c. The interim "tactical" political, economic, social and value approaches that we apply -- to "pacify" these populations and make them more susceptible to our more long-term "strategic" endeavors -- these cannot, and indeed will not, prevent these populations from understanding, from the get-go, that:

d. The ultimate goal of the U.S./the West is to transform their states and societies more along (our often alien and profane?) modern western political, economic, social and value lines.

This being (a) the well-understood ultimate goal of the U.S./the West for the other states and societies of the world, (b) the basis, thus, upon which we intervene and (c) the basis, thus, upon which those who do not wish to be so "transformed" will fight back against us; this, specifically, to (d) prevent us from achieving our such grand "transformative" political objective re: their states and societies.

My thoughts above possibly stated another way:

Q: In the modern age of global information, global communications and recent U.S./Western "expansionist" history and efforts viewed through same; in this such environment, can the "fig leaf"/the "stalking horse" of one's "tactical" approaches -- designed more to pacify the targeted populations and make them more susceptible to one's long-term "strategic" follow-on efforts (in our case, designed to "transform" their states and societies more along our often alien and profane political, economic, social and value lines) -- can this approach work today?

A: I think not. The targeted populations have -- for many, many years now and still today -- (a) "seen us coming" and, thus, (b) know well in advance: (1) what it is that we seek to accomplish, (2) what it is that we will do to achieve same (example: interim/initial "tactical" pacification applications and approaches) and, thus, (3) what it is that they will need to do -- both early-on (i.e., in this interim/initial tactical "pacification" phase) -- and indeed later on (in the, follow-on, strategic, "transformative" phase) -- to successfully stand against us.