Unless you are arguing that it was a good idea to invade Iraq, you have completely missed my point.
I’m not arguing that of course. I may have missed your point. I thought you were saying the goal of the US was to have other countries be like them socially like Freedom and all that bs.
I’m saying the true goal is to destroy other countries and take over their resources, and then profit on the backside by “rebuilding” them.
Well, the idea that Trump is following the PNAC playbook (which you seem to be implying) is pretty weird. PNAC, for the most part, was run by folks who would go on to be Never Trumpers (like Bill Kristol, the founder). Plus, PNAC dissolved 15 years ago.
I think an agency dedicated to nation-building is more likely to attract and produce people who are good at nation-building than one dedicated to some other task. Why would it be otherwise?
As to whether that nation-building agency should be part of the military, that is a separate issue but I do think it makes sense:
a) It would do a lot of its work in very dangerous areas so it makes sense to provide their personnel with some military training rather than be completely dependent on the military.
b) Military agencies have more authority over their personnel which is often necessary in a warzone.
c) Nation-building and war cannot be easily separated in places like post-war Iraq and Afghanistan. The point isn’t to build schools and clinics only for their own sake but also as a tool to fight the insurgency and gather military intelligence which is easier if the nation-building agency is part of the military.
It’s called the long game. I don’t think Trump is following anything, he’s a known idiot.
The goals that PNAC set are happening, disbanded or not. This was their vision of the future and it is happening. They couldn’t predict every little thing that may happen, but the had an overall goal that they truly believed in.
The fact that its taken nearly 25 years doesn’t matter.
Trump is arguably following the foundations of Geopolitics, a book written to promote Russian hegemony.
[ul]
[li]Germany should be offered the de facto political dominance over most Protestant and Catholic states located within Central and Eastern Europe. Kaliningrad oblast could be given back to Germany. The book uses the term “Moscow–Berlin axis”.[9][/li][li]France should be encouraged to form a “Franco-German bloc” with Germany. Both countries have a “firm anti-Atlanticist tradition”.[9][/li][li]The United Kingdom should be cut off from Europe.[9][/li][li]Finland should be absorbed into Russia. Southern Finland will be combined with the Republic of Karelia and northern Finland will be “donated to Murmansk Oblast”.[9][/li][li]Estonia should be given to Germany’s sphere of influence.[9][/li][li]Latvia and Lithuania should be given a “special status” in the Eurasian–Russian sphere.[9][/li][li]Poland should be granted a “special status” in the Eurasian sphere.[9][/li][li]Romania, Macedonia, “Serbian Bosnia” and Greece – “Orthodox collectivist East” – will unite with “Moscow the Third Rome” and reject the “rational-individualistic West”.[9][/li][li]Ukraine should be annexed by Russia because “Ukraine as a state has no geopolitical meaning, no particular cultural import or universal significance, no geographic uniqueness, no ethnic exclusiveness, its certain territorial ambitions represents an enormous danger for all of Eurasia and, without resolving the Ukrainian problem, it is in general senseless to speak about continental politics”. Ukraine should not be allowed to remain independent, unless it is cordon sanitaire, which would be inadmissible.[9][/li][li]Russia should use its special services within the borders of the United States to fuel instability and separatism, for instance, provoke “Afro-American racists”. Russia should “introduce geopolitical disorder into internal American activity, encouraging all kinds of separatism and ethnic, social and racial conflicts, actively supporting all dissident movements – extremist, racist, and sectarian groups, thus destabilizing internal political processes in the U.S. It would also make sense simultaneously to support isolationist tendencies in American politics”.[9][/li][/ul]
Some east european nations are moving towards fascism while others are moving towards the west. Germany is the head of the EU now (and arguably head of the free world), the US has developed more racist and isolationist tendencies, the UK has left the EU, Ukraine has been invaded, etc.
This is interesting.
And USAID is the nation-building agency of the US Government.
Jesus, how many times do I have to ask this? Why would a person sign up for a military service rather than a civilian agency to do essentially the same job? Because they also get to kill people if needed?
Your point falls apart when it comes to Trump being familiar with a book that he didn’t “write” and that Trump can follow through on any kind of plan. When a toddler is using crayons to draw on your kitchen walls, one need not search for hidden symbology in the scribble-scrabble.
No one is saying Trump is the leader of anything. It’s quite clear he is weak minded and all you have to do is appeal to his vanity to bend him to your will.
The US is at fault for putting him in a position of real power. He serves as an useful idiot.
More to the point, the entire US presidency is a joke, and has been for my entire life and I’m near 50. They have all been puppets, front men for an agenda. And yes this includes Obama. The whole idea of nation building is a joke, it was never the goal, itsa delusion cooked up to sell the people. A long game
How well would a Bureau of Nation-Building Affairs under the Pentagon do? Probably about as well as the Bureau of Indian Affairs, formed as a division of the US Department of War, and exemplifying US government corruption. Any dismantling and rebuilding will be to benefit high-level US interests, without bothersome accountability. Need some warlord’s approval? Ship another couple pallets loaded with Benjamins. Bucks are the universal lubricant.
USAID is not a nation-building agency;it is an agency for administering international development assistance which is very different. In particular USAID had little experience in post-war reconstruction and state-building in war-torn countries like Iraq and Afghanistan before they actually went to those countries with very limited success.
As for recruitment neither I nor anyone else has claimed that a military nation-building agency would be able to recruit a radically different set of people. The point is what happens after recruitment. I think a military agency makes sense because its employees can be given some military training which would help them work better in a warzone and they could be also be trained to gather military intelligence and work closely with the rest of the military which is an essential part of the job.
I agree with your general principle, but that’s about it. If US doctrine is that attacks against foreign powers should include the overthrowing of the government, occupation of the country, and “building a functioning society”, then I agree that the US military should have a structure in place to accomplish that mission. There should be strategies, doctrines and training established to achieve the outcome’s you’ve listed, and they would be best accomplished under a semi-autonomous structure.
My disagreements:
-
It’s not clear whether you expect this structure - let’s call it Civil Restoration - to be a separate armed force on the level of the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines and Coast Guard (and Space Force?), or a branch with the Army. Structure of the United States Army - Wikipedia
My thought is that your new structure would be best placed as a branch within the Army. Note that the Army already has Civil Affairs units, so I think you’re just looking at a reorganisation, refinement of mission, and enhancement of an existing structure rather than creation of a brand new structure.
United States Army Civil Affairs and Psychological Operations Command - Wikipedia -
You want this new branch to have “people specifically trained in diplomacy, sociology and anthropology”. At high levels, such as battalion commander or division staff officers, that type of knowledge is certainly needed. However, acquiring that knowledge takes years of study and experience. You’re probably going to want your branch to be more mission-focused and have the specialist in-depth knowledge provided by outside experts.
-
I disagree with the idea that, quoting myself, US military doctrine for attacks against foreign powers should include the overthrowing of the government, occupation of the country, and “building a functioning society”. The US military should seek to be a counter-belligerent. I wholeheartedly support missions such as keeping the seas free from piracy and military aggression, protection of allies, protection of US citizens, and retaliation for strikes against the US. However, I think the doctrine of “nation-building” is a failed doctrine. I don’t think outside forces can unify or impose peace within a country. And it’s very difficult to do so when you’ve gone in guns blazing and killed several thousand people. US military doctrine should be to go in, do what’s needed to remove the enemy’s military capabilities, and get out. So I disagree with the premise that your proposed branch should exist in the first place.
Ok, if you don’t think USAID had been active in Kosovo, Sudan, Sierra Leone, Liberia, Somalia, East Timor, and God knows where else, then we are in a thread that is rejecting reality in order to defend a half-baked idea.
Good luck with your thread.
OK I am sure USAID has run development projects in all those places. Have they had the primary responsibility for re-building state institutions, particularly in places racked by insurgency ? Please pick any one of these countries where you feel USAID successfully carried out a nation-building mission comparable to what the US faced in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Intermittently. A fool in considerable power is a danger at some point to everyone.