Nation Building Are we built to build nations?

Nation Building a Dirty Word? Stability Operations A partnership to establish or reestablish the institutions essential to democracy and good governance.

Who’s in Charge? United Nations Coalition or Regional Security Organization The United States

Why Here and not There? Inherently a Political Decision What is the impact on United States interests? Security Economic Historic and Cultural Humanitarian Intervention Ideology

Who Decides? The President National Security Council The President’s key advisors in all matters relating to national security.

National Security Council Vice President Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs Secretaries 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 Affairs Political Affairs Regional Bureaus Arms Control and International Security Economics, Business, and Agriculture Global Counterterrorism

USAID US Agency for International Development The 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 Defense Joint Staff Regional Combatant Commands Special Operations Command Lots of resources and enthusiasm

Military Services Army Navy Marine Corps Air Force

Stability Operations Special Operations Command Special Operations Forces Special Forces (Green Berets) SEALS Special Operations Aviation Psychological Operations Civil Affairs Conventional Forces

State vs. Defense Political nuance Seeing all sides Inclusiveness Discussion/dialog Revisiting options Ability to reach out Multi-faceted approach Decisiveness Goal oriented Focused Mission driven Planning expertise Unilateral action

Department of Justice Judicial systems Rule of Law Federal law enforcement Law enforcement training

Department of Treasury Financial systems Multilateral 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 forces Intelligence What’s going on? Who are the important players? Security threats

Other Important Agencies Department of Labor Department of Agriculture Department of Health and Human Services Department of Commerce Department of Energy Environmental Protection Agency

Where’s Congress? Funding – money makes policy a reality, otherwise it’s just wishful thinking Authorities – (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 Nations World Bank and International Monetary Fund Other State partners Regional organizations Security alliances Non-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: State Military Operations: Department of Defense Combating terrorism overseas: none of the above

SoWho’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 prosperity Legal institutions and the respect for the rule of law A state the abides by the norms of respectable international behavior

How Have We Done? Our track record isn’t particularly good We 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 Somalia Sierra Leone Afghanistan Iraq

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 - CENTCOM NATO participation and command of ISAF Security environment is reasonably stable Allows infrastructure development Resources have been made available to do what needs to be done Sovereign 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 level Unrealistic 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 efforts Including other partners Willingness to follow Identifying and committing the necessary resources