Steve Walt has a
sobering critique of America's -- and the West's -- many failures at post-conflict nation-building.
Using military force to spread democracy fails for several obvious reasons.
First, successful liberal orders depend on a lot more than a written
constitution or elections: They usually require an effective legal
system, a broad commitment to pluralism, a decent level of income and
education, and widespread confidence that political groups which lose
out in a particular election have a decent chance of doing better in the
future and thus an incentive to keep working within the system. Because
a lot of social elements need to line up properly for this arrangement
to work and endure, creating reasonably effective democracies took
centuries in the West, and it was often a highly contentious — even
violent — process. To believe the U.S. military could export democracy
quickly and cheaply required a degree of hubris that is still
breathtaking to recall.
Second, using force to spread democracy almost always triggers
violent resistance. Nationalism and other forms of local identity remain
powerful features of today’s world, and most people dislike following
orders from well-armed foreign occupiers. Moreover, groups that have
lost power, wealth, or status in the course of a democratic transition
(such as Sunnis in post-Saddam Iraq) will inevitably be tempted to take
up arms in opposition, and neighboring states whose interests are
adversely affected by a transition may try to stop or reverse it. Such
developments are the last thing a struggling democracy needs, of course,
because violence tends to empower leaders who are good at it, instead
of those who are skilled at building effective institutions, striking
deals across factional lines, promoting tolerance, and building more
robust and productive economies.
It's especially important to keep these difficulties in mind when reading the supposed military solutions to the fight against ISIL like this from
retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn.
Defeating ISIS and its ilk will require not only engaging them directly
through force of arms and overwhelming information operations, but also
taking decisive steps to cut off the support they receive from both
state and non-state actors. Unfortunately, many of these supporters of
ISIS and other Islamic extremists groups come from nations that are
nominal U.S. allies such as Saudi Arabia, Turkey, the Persian Gulf
kingdoms and Pakistan. Convincing them that such extremists groups are
ultimately a threat to their own stability will be difficult, and
require great diplomatic dexterity and sophistication. We must resist
the entrenched bureaucratic mindset, however, that would look the other
way at this double-dealing and clandestine support for ISIS and its
allies.
Sure. Piece of cake.
No comments:
Post a Comment