Posted on 02/24/2004 12:53:08 PM PST by u-89
The Atlantic Monthly | January/February 2004
Nation-Building 101
The chief threats to us and to world order come from weak, collapsed, or failed states. Learning how to fix such states—and building necessary political support at home—will be a defining issue for America in the century ahead
by Francis Fukuyama
"the United States has taken responsibility for the stability and political development of two Muslim countries—Afghanistan and Iraq. A lot now rides on our ability not just to win wars but to help create self-sustaining democratic political institutions and robust market-oriented economies, and not only in these two countries but throughout the Middle East.
"whether for reasons of human rights or of security, the United States has done a lot of intervening over the past fifteen years, and has taken on roughly one new nation-building commitment every other year since the end of the Cold War. We have been in denial about it, but we are in this business for the long haul. We'd better get used to it, and learn how to do it—because there will almost certainly be a next time.
" Critics of nation-building point out that outsiders can never build nations, if that means creating or repairing all the cultural, social, and historical ties that bind people together as a nation. What we are really talking about is state-building—that is, creating or strengthening such government institutions as armies, police forces, judiciaries, central banks, tax-collection agencies, health and education systems, and the like.
"The first is that nation-building is a difficult, long-term enterprise with high costs in manpower, lives, and resources.
"We should not get involved to begin with if we are not willing to pay those high costs.
" That being said, we are now fully committed in Afghanistan and Iraq, and are likely to take on other nation-building commitments in the future, simply because the failed-state problem is one that we cannot safely ignore.
"the United States needs to create a central authority, backed by a permanent staff, to manage ongoing and future nation-building activities.
" Donald Rumsfeld has articulated a strategy of nation-building "lite," involving a rapid transition to local control and a tough-love policy that leaves locals to find their own way toward good government and democracy. This is a dubious approach, at least if one cares about the final outcome. The new Iraqi government will be administratively weak and not regarded by its citizens as fully legitimate. It will be plagued by corruption and mismanagement, and riven by internal disagreements [u89: like corruption and mismanagement at home or abroad has ever bothered our government! Fukuyama should check with Perle and Chalabi before he gets too critical here.]
" A standing U.S. government office to manage nation-building will be a hard sell politically, because we are still unreconciled to the idea that we are in the nation-building business for the long haul.....Our "empire" may be a transitional one grounded in democracy and human rights, but our interests dictate that we learn how better to teach other people to govern themselves."
(Excerpt) Read more at theatlantic.com ...
"The first is that nation-building is a difficult, long-term enterprise with high costs in manpower, lives, and resources....
"we are in this business for the long haul. We'd better get used to it"
I guess a permanent staff would be one outside of year to year political disruptions.
And what 'interests' would those be? Are these 'interests' outlined in the Constitution? Perhaps we could decide not to bother with outside nations for awhile and deal with the problems in our own nation of states, which contrary to President Bush does not include Mexico.
At least the author is finally accepting of the term 'empire' instead of denying it as many neocons do. And the first step in dealing with a problem is accepting that it exists..
"We should not get involved to begin with if we are not willing to pay those high costs.
" That being said, we are now fully committed in Afghanistan and Iraq, and are likely to take on other nation-building commitments in the future, simply because the failed-state problem is one that we cannot safely ignore."
"The Failed State Problem!" Oh yes- another thing we have to wage "war" on in addition to wiping out "evil". And of course we need a huge federal bureaucracy to "solve" this problem.
But perhaps at least Fukuyama really does think that what we are doing in places like Iraq and Afghanistan is really an honest attempt at "nation building".
The reality in Afghanistan is quite another story. The US installed Karzai government is dismissed by Afghanis themselves as the "Mayor of Kabul" since his authority does not extend beyond the city limits. Our forces in Afghanistan reside in Fortress bases and do a minimum of patrolling or peacekeeping. The rest of the country is under the de facto rule of local war and drug lords. Karzai himself is protected by an elite US military unit acting as his bodyguards. "Development" projects are scatter shot at best since our forces won't expose themselves to attack by protecting aid workers or civilian contractors. Most of the money earmarked for Afghanistan is for security.
The same process is rapdly underway in Iraq as well where we have consolidated 11 large fortress bases. We are turnig over "security" to poorly trained Iraqis and leaving the population to the mercy of whatever local thug has the most firepower. "Aid" projects have all but dried up.
This was utterly predictable from our behavior in Kosovo and Bosnia. In both cases we created bases- moved troops in- and then basically refuse to leave them while the population is subjected to wholesale chaos, crime, and poverty.
True imperaialism would be more merciful than what we are doing.
Want to visit some "failed states"? Try Bosnia, Kosovo, Afghanistan, and soon to be another drug lord and warlord state called Iraq! Our forces protect the good stuff while we let the rest of the country go to hell. That is not even Imperialism- it is more like Vikings or Roman era Barbarians!
The only difference between liberals and neocons is focus. The liberals want big government to "help" the people of this country and the neocons want government to "help" people overseas. Either way it's expansion of government or better put contempt for limited government and the rule of law i.e. the constitution. I just can't believe how conservatives have been suckered into thinking neocons are conservative. The only thing they care about conserving is big government and even there they aren't conservatives, they're expansionists.
>It's interesting to see that the neocon approach is to turn everything into an issue of national security.
The purpose of that is to get stupid conservatives on board. They'll sign up for anything if you wrap the flag in it and shout "the enemy is at the gate." If the left was smart they'd sell gay marriage as a national security issue.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.