Small Wars Journal

USAID Should Become the Department of Nation-Building

Wed, 06/22/2016 - 7:36pm

USAID Should Become the Department of Nation-Building by Max Boot and Michael Miklaucic, Foreign Policy

Nation-building abroad has become a neuralgic term in American politics ever since it became associated with the lengthy and costly wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Opposition to it is one of the few things that Barack Obama and Donald Trump can agree on. Both believe that “nation-building begins at home,” as the president so often says.

And yet, at the same time that U.S. leaders proclaim their opposition to nation-building, they acknowledge that failing states pose a serious threat to American interests. As Obama said in his 2016 State of the Union address, “Even without [the Islamic State] … instability will continue for decades in many parts of the world — in the Middle East, in Afghanistan, parts of Pakistan, in parts of Central America, in Africa, and Asia. Some of these places may become safe havens for new terrorist networks. Others will just fall victim to ethnic conflict, or famine, feeding the next wave of refugees. The world will look to us to help solve these problems.”

But the United States cannot adequately respond to global instability with military force alone. The U.S. public will not support more large-scale interventions like the ones in Iraq and Afghanistan, absent a compelling casus belli, while lesser military measures — such as drone strikes and Special Operations raids — are unlikely to prove adequate to safeguard American security. Although “kinetic” strikes can kill terrorist leaders, such as the Taliban’s Mullah Mansour or al Qaeda’s Osama bin Laden, they can seldom eliminate entrenched terrorist organizations — and they can never create indigenous institutions capable of maintaining law and order on their own…

Read on.

Comments

Max Boot, the author of "The Savage Wars of Peace," and the writer of the "nation-building" article above, appears to have his act together. This, given that he appears to see "nation-building" -- much as he appears to see "small wars" -- in imperial terms.

This being the case, then let us review some information from certain practitioners/proponents of an earlier imperial age. Wherein, we find:

a. Callwell telling us that "small wars" are "the heritage of extended empire, a certain epilogue to encroachments into lands beyond the confines of existing civilization;" wherein, "the trader heralds almost as a matter of course the coming of the soldier ... "

b. Schumpeter telling us "where cultural backwardness of a region makes normal economic intercourse dependent on colonization, it does not matter, assuming free trade, which of the civilized nations undertakes the task of colonization." And

c. Kipling telling us about both of these matters in his poem "The White Man's Burden," to wit: the place where Boot will actually find the title to his book -- "The Savage Wars of Peace" -- referenced above.

Based on the information provided here, then one can easily see that when Boot is talking about "nation-building," he is actually talking about -- not "instability" -- but, rather, a process which is designed to replace "colonialism" as the means/method for overcoming the problem that "cultural backwardness" (differing ways of life, differing ways of governance, differing values, attitudes and beliefs, etc.) presents to the "commerce and trade" ambitions of certain imperial powers.

This being the case, now to ask whether civilians generally, and USAID specifically, might be the means/method/agency which can best accomplish this specific task, to wit:

a. The massive altering of the way of life, the way of governance and the values, attitudes and beliefs of these targeted states and their societies; this, so as to

b. Better provide for and better service the "commerce and trade" ambitions/needs of (1) the intervening imperialist powers and (2) THEIR governments, THEIR citizens and THEIR civilizations.

("Small wars?" As per Callwell (and indeed earlier-Boot) above, the consequence of these such imperial activities; activities which cause -- rather than react to -- "instability." This, much as the cases of contemporary Afghanistan, Iraq, etc., would appear to attest/verify?)