![]() Furthermore, the overall success rate is only 4 out of these 16 – both Germany and Japan along with Grenada and Panama. On the basis of these criteria only 16 of over 200 US military interventions since 1900 are considered nation-building attempts. To distinguish nation-building efforts from ordinary military interventions Pei and Kasper from the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace apply three strict criteria, (1) practical effects, if not the declared goal of US intervention must be regime change or survival of a regime that would otherwise collapse, (2) the deployment of a large number of ground troops, (3) the use of American military and civilian personnel in the political administrations of the target country. However, not all were nation-building efforts. Since its founding America has used its armed forces abroad on more than 200 occasions. Likewise, the American government’s capacity to plan for and oversee both civilian and military post-conflict nation-building operations is wanting. Furthermore, US civilian agencies lack the tools to take the job over from the military. For all its ability to wage war, the US military is unprepared to mount major stability operations and secure a lasting peace. Judging from the post-Cold War nation-building attempts, it could be questioned whether the US is prepared for the challenges of the twenty-first century. Yet by 2003, the Bush administration had deployed a significant number of American forces to Afghanistan and Iraq, where they are deeply involved in fundamental nation-building efforts. And it is most certainly not designed to build civilian society”. As early as January 2000, the future US National Security Advisor and Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice was arguing that the military was meant to be a lethal instrument, “not a civilian police force. The Bush administration came to office concerned about the overuse of the military. This huge involvement in nation-building efforts by the US is in stark contrast to what the present Bush administration believed the American military should be used for. ![]() Thus, it is essential that America and the international community learn from the lessons of the past. At present the US is more involved in nation-building than anytime in its history, and it looks likely that post-conflict reconstruction will be the fixture of international life in the twenty-first century. In the words of Robert Orr, “the US is in the nation-building business”. America is undoubtedly the world’s most active nation builder. Historically, nation-building attempts by outsider powers are notable mainly for their bitter disappointments, not their triumphs. The lessons of post-conflict nation-building in Germany and Japan help point the way. The post-conflict nation-building exercises being carried out in Afghanistan and Iraq at present, will not only determine how safe the US will be in the future and how it will be viewed around the world they will also help determine what the next generation of nation-building efforts will look like in the coming years. ![]() ![]() ![]() Even a combination of unsurpassed military power and abundant wealth does not guarantee success, let alone quick results. Few national undertakings are as complex, costly, and time consuming as reconstructing the governing institutions of foreign societies. According to the RAND Corporation the definition of nation-building is, “The use of armed force in the aftermath of a conflict to underpin an enduring transition to democracy”. I will focus on the American reconstruction of Germany and Japan in the aftermath of the Second World War and to evaluate their impact and successes and to ascertain whether those lessons on nation-building can be implemented today in Afghanistan. In this paper I will assess an important element of American foreign policy, that of nation building. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |