The US military is really good at killing people, and blowing stuff up without getting killed or blown up itself. This is not surprising. It is their primary purpose and what they are trained to do. But more an more they are being relied on to do things that don’t fall under the kill people and blow stuff up categorization, and instead into a the winning hearts and minds, building a functioning society out of a war torn nation, manage refugees, emergency relief efforts, etc. The military does their best in these situations, and due to their incredible logistic capabilities, often does amazing things. The same skills that build a landing field, can build a soccer field, and the same food that can feed an army on the move, can feed a flooded out village, troop tents can house refugees etc. but it is not what they were designed to do.
I’m imagining a branch that includes people specifically trained in diplomacy, sociology and anthropology, as well as emergency response and relief. I wouldn’t imagine it would be as large as the other branches, and that it would work with the other branches with help with logistics and security, but would help to determine how those resources should be directed. I think that having them separate from the other branches is important however, since it reduces the danger that the nation building mission will be always viewed as secondary to the primary security mission, even when preventing the radicalization of new insurgents may provide more effective security long term than killing the current insurgents.
Thoughts?
Disclaimer: This is not meant to be a dig at the current military. They have a very tough job and are playing the best they can with the hand they are dealt.
USAID is the main source of money for helping out developing countries. They spend $27 Billion per year . Pretty sure they don’t want any help from the military.
Why not have civilian diplomats, sociologists, anthropologists, and emergency responders work in their own agencies alongside the military? They work together all the time. For example, when Ebola broke out in West Africa a few years ago, civilians from NIH and other agencies worked alongside military personnel to provide treatment, move medicine and supplies, and so on. It worked about as well as one could possibly expect. I can’t see how having everyone in a uniform might have made that better.
Yeah I agree with the OP. In the 21st century the US has undertaken massive nation-building missions without the right capabilities which is why they have struggled so much in both Iraq and Afghanistan. What they have needed was a hybrid of the Peace Corps and the Marine Corps.
These units would have people who are fluent in multiple languages and can quickly learn more. They would be skilled at navigating different cultures and gaining the trust of powerful locals. They would have the technological skills to quickly deliver material benefits in remote places: improving crop yields, generating electricity etc. They wouldn’t be doing the heavy fighting but they would need to survive in a warzone and defend themselves when necessary. They would also gather military intelligence through the sources they have cultivated.
Why has the US not developed such capabilities? I suspect because of the cultural gap between the military and civilian agencies and the sense that nation-building is best left to the latter. The problem is that in places like post-war Iraq and Afghanistan there is no clear separation between the war and nation-building. The nation-building is at once a target for the insurgents and a tool for defeating them.
Oh, no way. The problem with Iraq and Afghanistan isn’t that there was a flawed execution of the plan to bomb the shit out of a couple countries, and then pour money in to make them like us.
The problem is the whole idea that we would bomb the shit out of a couple countries, and then pour money in to make them like us.
What percentage of State Department and USAID employees would be willing and able to work in ,say, a war-torn Afghan province under regular Taliban attack? Would they be able to defend themselves from such attacks? Would they be able to gather useful military intelligence on a regular basis?
State building (which is separate from nation building even if we tend to use them interchangeably) should have Department of State as the lead. It generally requires involvement of capabilities across the entirety of the US government outside DOS but they should have the lead. When the security situation is poor DOD obviously has some pretty critical supporting tasks to create a situation that allows state building. Frequently people only apply the terms of nation or state building to times when
DOD has often gone wayyyyyy beyond their role simply because they could while the
State Department couldn’t and didn’t really want to assume the lead. DOD also retains dual use capability that is needed for large scale conventional operations but also useful for humanitarian assistance and state building. It is just efficient to not duplicate capabilities. That doesn’t make it a good plan to intentionally build up single use capability in an organization like DOD that is not primarily responsible for the task at hand.
If you are looking to build state building specific capability that doesn’t have a direct use in DODs mission, my opinion is don’t give it to DOD IMO. Fix State. Maybe build additional state building capability into the Peace Corps ( they are an independent agency not under State.)
Also, how much ability does USAID have to influence military strategy. I want someone who can stand up in a meeting and say, “No don’t plan your offensive for such and such a date, that is the anniversary of the death of his holiness, and will be seen as a grave insult to everyone in the region”, or “I need a fleet of Apache helicopters to support my convoy of food and water into this disputed territory.”
That person would be the Secretary of State, a cabinet-level official, on par with the Secretary of Defense. The one to make the call to listen to one cabinet-level official over another would be the President. One department or agency could be directed as the supporting agency, the other as the supported.
ETA: I’m also just going to throw out these terms, as something you might want to look into: Civil Affairs, Joint Interagency Task Force, and Provincial Reconstruction Team.
What you’re describing is not a military. Why, then, should it even be called a military branch? A government organization specifically devoted to nation building would not be a military organization. As mentioned in previous posts, there are civilian government agencies and NGOs devoted to these types of things. There are also branches within the military (not separate military branches) that are devoted solely to these types of missions such as the US Army Civil Affairs.
Because that’s how the military has been used for the last 30 years? Seriously, did you not notice how much military involvement was the base of US “on the ground diplomacy” in Iraq and Afghanistan?
I’m pretty sure it is still the case that if you join the State Department or USAID as a foreign service officer, your first overseas tour will be to a war zone. So, I’d say close to all new hires are willing and able to work in a war zone.
Foreign service officers depend on experts to provide security. I’m not sure why you expect people who know how to provide security to be equally expert in diplomacy, nation building, sociology, etc.
Foreign service officers of course collect intelligence, though it isn’t really called that. They talk to people and report back what they learn. Then others read those cables and analyze them.
Japan capitulated, and people followed their leaders. That didn’t happen in Iraq or Afghanistan. That says more aniut those countries than about our military.
CarnalK, please explain how creating a solely non-combatant organization still qualifies as a “military”? My point earlier to the OP was the fact that being military and being non-combatant are mutually exclusive based on definitions alone, and would create legal issues on top of everything else. Can this new non-combatant military be targeted by enemy forces? Or are they offered special protections like NGOs or USAID? If the latter, then in what way are they actually a military?