The so-called “Peace Corps” is more about putting American teachers into classrooms overseas (even if the locals have no shortage of teachers of their own) for “reasons” than anything like what the OP describes. It’s certainly not an organization equipped to go into an active war zone. Nor should it be.
The use (with mixed or questionable results) of Provincial Reconstruction Teams in Iraq and Afghanistan fits very close to what the OP has in mind, but like other posters I don’t see that as something that necessitates (or even would benefit from) creating a stand-alone branch of the military just for that.
The provincial reconstruction teams are an interesting model along the lines of what we are talking about. Apparently they did have some successes but it was an adhoc solution on far too small a scale where they struggled to find adequate numbers of civilian personnel.
The idea of a nation-building corps would be to do what the PRTs did but on a much larger scale and with access to the right experts with the relevant language and regional skills. Also a dedicated corps would preserve the institutional knowledge of what works and doesn’t unlike adhoc teams with a rapid turnover of personnel.
Who has experience building nations lately? Why not ask them how it’s done?
BTW the US military’s job is dismantling nations, not building them. Iraq was dismantled successfully but the rebuild hasn’t gone too well. The US Dept of Defense was more honestly named the Department of War. Invading nations that haven’t attacked the US or allies is not defense; it’s war by choice.
Exactly. Was very confused by the OP and some of the replies. “Blowing shit up” has never been the sole or main job of the US military. Or other militaries.
a) This is a fairly ignorant view on the US military and its capabilities. The military isn’t just SOCOM units fast-roping out of helicopters. They have units specifically designed public relations, engineering, and other activities you described. And the National Guard routinely assists with things like disaster recovery. But really one of the main “nation building” capabilities of the US Military is, as you indicated, its massive logistics network.
b) The decision to “nation build” or not is a political one, not based on whether we have the capabilities to do so. Post World War II, the United States and our allies spent a great deal of money, time and effort rebuilding Europe and Japan.
c) You don’t need military forces to build soccer fields, build houses or deliver food. Civilian contractors can perform these tasks easily enough.
Well the Nationbuilding Corps would have a much wider range of skills: language/cultural knowledge, improving agriculture, building education and health facilities, supporting local government etc. There would be some engineering projects too but probably on a smaller scale, e.g. building a solar micro-grid in an Afghan village.
Plus the Army Corps of Engineers already has a huge role supporting the rest of the military and, in the US, running a lot of domestic infrastructure projects. They don’t really have the capacity to do large nation-building projects. Still they do provide a relevant template; the nationbuilding corps would need to be of similar scale and have a mix of military/civilian employees.
Again, WTF? The US Army Corp of Engineers has built some huge infrastructure projects all over the US and overseas.
The Royal Engineers pretty much built infrastructure of the British Empire. From Canada to India, they built dams, roads,canals, bridges, railway lines. They also built in the UK itself.
The French did so in N Africa.
Hell, even the Roman Military Engineers (Architecti) built roads, aqueducts canals and maintained wetlands.
And also that you can force them to be exactly like you while at the same time completely dependent on you (because perish the thought that they have different priorities), all while treating them as if they were a tabula rasa with no previous structures, relationships or history. [Note: while in this case the “you” refers basically to the American military and their allies, and the people organizing the money-pouring, it applies to anybody who’s got that kind of ideas.]
Those places already were nations, seems to be the humongous point some people are missing by several planetary diameters. If what you want to build isn’t nations but infrastructure, then there is no need for any kind of new branch. Or to use an expression which is actually kind of insulting to the people you’re trying to “help”.
Why are we building up other nations at all, while eliminating the minuscule social safety net we have back home, slashing food stamps, not addressing healthcare or homelessness, it’s time America addressed the problems of its own people and stop trying to interfere all over the world to the detriment of everybody.
That, and because, in effect, you’d have to re-create something like the imperial civil services of the past, but the US doesn’t like to see itself as an empire.
“Nation-building” is about so much more than infrastructure and technical development. In the post-WW2 examples cited above, the military did not have a leading/directing role for very long. The political context and objectives were clear, agreed with a broad international coalition, led by home government representatives and implemented with the active (sometimes pre-eminent) participation of local governments with a reasonably clear popular legitimacy - whether we’re talking the re-fashioning of Germany and Japan, or the economic reconstruction processes in other countries attendant on the Marshall Plan.
When it comes to the likes of Afghanistan, Libya and Iraq, those pre-conditions don’t apply. Other external actors have their own objectives and favoured local clients, local political culture provides a weak form of popular legitimacy for government, and basically you’d be facing a modern form of the same problems as the imperial civil services faced in, say, India and Africa - who defines the “nation” that is being built? Existing traditional rulers and power centres, or newer, younger leaders and movements with different ideas of what constitutes a modern nation?
Then again, once you’ve created such an operation, it will be looking for jobs to do. How long before that tail starts to wag the dog?
I think the issue is whether the State Department sociologist is actually prepared to work on the ground in ,say, rural Afghanistan in the face of Taliban attacks. Everything I have read suggests that there was a massive shortage of such civilian experts and that many of them ended up in bases writing reports and making presentations rather than working with Afghans on the ground where they were needed. The US needed tens of thousands of experts in Afghanistan to do nation-building properly and there is nothing to suggest that the State Department and USAID had anything close to that capacity.
For example this is an interesting book reviewby a Navy reservist on Rajiv Chandrashekaran’s book which itself has many examples of problems with development efforts in Afghanistan:
I must not be asking the question clearly, because I think I’ve asked it like three times.
Let’s say Joe is a sociologist. The proponents here are suggesting that he serve his country. It’s implied that if he joins the State Department, he will not be effective as he could be. Or, that Joe just won’t join the State Department at all.
But, if there were a military service that was an option for him that isn’t the Army (since there are sociologists in the Army), he would be both more likely to join the military than the State Department, and he would be more effective. I don’t understand why this is being argued.
Odds are that Joe would probably be more inclined to join a civilian agency (for a multitude of reasons, such as having more choice on his career and family) and I don’t see why putting him in a uniform would make him more effective.
And I am also confused as to what it is you are asking. I don’t deny that the State Department may be able to hire better sociologists than the hypothetical nation-building corps but the point isn’t to recruit the best sociologists to the government. The point is to recruit people who can carry out effective nation-building projects in dangerous places like rural Afghanistan. A logical way of doing this is to create a large well-funded agency whose core task is to do nation-building especially in warzones. The evidence in Afghanistan suggests that neither the State Department nor USAID possesses these capabilities to the required scale.
I’m sorry, but this is wrong. It’s about control, control of the resources of the world. The goals are clearly laid out in the PNAC study, they say it point blank.
I’ve tried for years to warn you all, we are still falling for the same playbook 20 years later
Fee free to substitute any profession you wish. Why do you think that there are people skilled in nation building (which include sociologists, ffs!) that will sign up for the military, but won’t work for civilian agencies?