Nation Building

Are we built to build nations?

Nation Building a Dirty Word?

Stability OperationsA partnership to establish or reestablish the institutions essential to democracy and good governance.

Who’s in Charge?

United NationsCoalition or Regional Security OrganizationThe United States

Why Here and not There?

Inherently a Political DecisionWhat is the impact on United States interests? Security Economic Historic and Cultural Humanitarian Intervention Ideology

Who Decides?

The PresidentNational Security Council The President’s key advisors in all

matters relating to national security.

National Security Council

Vice PresidentAssistant to the President for National Security AffairsSecretaries of:

State Defense Treasury

Director of Central Intelligence (intel advisor)Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (military advisor)Others, as required

Department of State

“Create a more secure, democratic, and prosperous world for the benefit of the American people and the international community” Lead Federal Agency – Foreign Affairs Anything having to do with the

international community Lots of expertise, limited resources

Department of State

Public Diplomacy and Public AffairsPolitical Affairs Regional Bureaus

Arms Control and International Security Economics, Business, and AgricultureGlobalCounterterrorism

USAID

US Agency for International DevelopmentThe experts in building capacity Office of Foreign Disaster Assistance

(OFDA) Office of Transition Initiatives (OTI)

Department of Defense

“To provide the military forces needed to deter war and to protect the security of the United States”Roles Warfighting Humanitarian Assistance Peacekeeping Evacuation Homeland Security

Department of Defense

Office of the Secretary of DefenseJoint StaffRegional Combatant CommandsSpecial Operations Command

Lots of resources and enthusiasm

Military Services

ArmyNavy Marine Corps

Air Force

Stability Operations

Special Operations CommandSpecial Operations Forces Special Forces (Green Berets) SEALS Special Operations Aviation Psychological Operations Civil Affairs

Conventional Forces

State vs. Defense

Political nuanceSeeing all sidesInclusivenessDiscussion/dialogRevisiting optionsAbility to reach outMulti-faceted approach

DecisivenessGoal orientedFocusedMission drivenPlanning expertiseUnilateral action

Department of Justice

Judicial systems Rule of Law

Federal law enforcement Law enforcement training

Department of Treasury

Financial systemsMultilateral financing for reconstruction and development

Department of Homeland Security

Key skill sets essential for a stable and secure environment Coast Guard Border and transportation security Infrastructure Protection Immigration

Central Intelligence Agency

Training and equipping of security forcesIntelligence What’s going on? Who are the important players? Security threats

Other Important Agencies

Department of LaborDepartment of AgricultureDepartment of Health and Human ServicesDepartment of CommerceDepartment of EnergyEnvironmental Protection Agency

Where’s Congress?

Funding – money makes policy a reality, otherwise it’s just wishful thinkingAuthorities – (who can do what and what can we do with the money) The curse of narrowly defined authorities Title 10 and Title 22

Armed Services, Foreign Relations Committees

Other Players

United NationsWorld Bank and International Monetary FundOther State partnersRegional organizationsSecurity alliancesNon-governmental Organizations (NGOs) Charities Interest groups

What about the People?

The nation we are trying to build is a wreck for a reason War and conflict Ethnic divisions Religious strife Refugees and migration Famine, environmental degradation No Rule of Law

What do we build?

National Security Council Staff

Brings this all together Orchestrating the Interagency

No authority to direct to action

National Security Council Deputies Committee (DC)

Policy Coordinating Committees (PCC) Ad hoc Interagency working groups

Functional and regional agency working groups

Establishing legitimacy

Bureaucracy (Not a dirty word)

All designed to give solid policy guidance and advice to the President – based on the consensus of multiple disciplines and perspectives

Pro: Balanced view from all perspectives Results in a coordinated, focused US government effort Coordinated Interagency approach usually has the

highest probability of long-term success Con:

Slow – vulnerability to “rice bowl” stalling, disruption Low risk, low payoff

Bureaucracy

Without a coordinated interagency approach Lack of Unity of Command Agencies prone to working at cross

purposes Agencies duplicate efforts One particular agency’s perspective may

dominate Consequently alienating other agencies

Legitimacy or lack thereof

Lead Federal Agency

Most things: StateMilitary Operations: Department of DefenseCombating terrorism overseas: none of the above

So Who’s in Charge?

Deciding who’s in charge has a profound impact on our approach. It may be that we never resolve this

issue Unity of Command Unity of Effort Ability to lead Ability to follow

Defining Success

When can we leave?Who is in charge when we leave? Differing perspectives of Democracy

Economic stability and prosperityLegal institutions and the respect for the rule of lawA state the abides by the norms of respectable international behavior

How Have We Done?

Our track record isn’t particularly goodWe don’t play well with others We want to be in charge or we don’t play

We change our minds and our priorities on a whim Reasonably constant across

administrations

We do well managing the family of nationstates

Case Studies

SomaliaSierra LeoneAfghanistanIraq

Somalia

“Black Hawk Down”Who was in charge? UN humanitarian mission

Alleviated the conditions of starvation In the process strengthened the warlords

US in control of its military forces Minimal presence (for political reasons) meant no

access to key weapons systems Unable to stabilize the security environment

Sierra Leone

Historical ties to the UK UN peacekeeping mission British military intervention to establish

a stable security environment State lead

Working through ECOWAS Providing them the tools and training to

establish stability USAID played a key role Office of Transition Initiatives

Afghanistan

US led military operation - CENTCOMNATO participation and command of ISAF Security environment is reasonably stable Allows infrastructure development

Resources have been made available to do what needs to be doneSovereign government in charge Legitimacy

Iraq

Who’s in charge? What’s the primary mission? Initial planning reflected the military nature

of the operation – the Defense worldview

Military operation has assumed State-like functions (CPA) Paul Bremmer, CPA Iraqi Governing Council CENTCOM SOCOM

Iraq

Success at the micro level Individual units and people Military Police Civil Affairs

Found wanting at the macro levelUnrealistic assumptions, deadlines, objectives No clear lines of authority and responsibility Underfunding the construction of a new state Inability to build a substantive coalition

Future Challenges

Coordinating US effortsIncluding other partnersWillingness to followIdentifying and committing the necessary resources