5:23AM
Today's column on KnoxNews
Sunday, May 7, 2006 at 5:23AM Development-in-a-box would be answer in Iraq
May 7, 2006Let me tell you something you probably already suspect: Iraq won't be the last time America tries to rapidly resurrect a shattered society following some national trauma. Whether it's regime change, civil war, natural disaster or state failure, our military's overseas crisis responses have grown both more frequent and dramatically longer in the past two decades.
So the real question is, do you want America to get better at doing this? [read more]
Reader Comments (11)
In the context of everything else, this piece is *The Segue* from the original "The Pentagon's New Map," Esquire, March 2003.
This column draws deeply from apsects of Tom's original research. One example, Year 2000 ISD Report. The M-Curve of Influence illustrates the critical timeline for appropriate response to disruption. I find Slide 17 to be especially relevant, applied to Iraq as well as New Orleans.
Excellent article as always though in the current 2 year political life cycle seems very idealistic. I am very pessimestic right now on anything you mentioned will occur anytime soon. Bush can't get anything done and Congress is very confrontational, have we lost the art of the compromise that our nation is founded upon? With the experience of Iraq and the QDR it looks like the political reality will definitely point towards isolation.
I feel that politics will try to return the globalized world to the reality of the 1990s except with massive walls surrounding our nations and treating GWOT like GWOD. Our "solutions" to Terrorism will be to throw money at the problem hoping things will change.
Good Grief... enough Charlie Brown and that gosh darn football.
Is there any hope for "soft power" if that means anything in the "new reality" we face, as everyone seems to advocate it more then anything else?
Vinit Joshi
I think a key ingredient of the "box" is some sort of native government. This government could be in the form of exiles or local leaders, assembled as best we could from sources we trust. We would put this government up immediately, until we can get elections running, maybe within a year or so. The problem with Iraq was we took too long to put an interim Iraqi government in place. Americans aren't good at being a colonial power - we should have a local "face" on the government as soon as possible, even though we could and should play a key role in the behind-the-scenes administration.
@vega77
I, too, believe similarly. One set of ingredients from inside Iraq -- local leaders -- combined with another set of ingredients from outside -- SysAdmin. Development-in-a-box might be a two-layer box cake?
Personally, I think the Iraqis and the world can still make this happen -- public communications are available, globally so.
@Vinit Joshi
With respect to possible outcomes in Iraq, I can understand -- and accept -- a pessimistic outlook, if it's based on mainstream media and public opinion that continue to report war in the context of war. But if you can imagine directed development -- smart connectivity -- within the security-market nexus of Iraq, then I believe positive outcomes are likely.
We didn't go into Iraq with an A-to-Z rule set, we went in with the rule set we had. Thus, we got the take down, and the Commander-in-Chief got to declare victory. Yes, our Executive Branch should have been able to facilitate a faster and better outcome in the transition space, but that didn't happen. However, in my opinion, we don't necessarily need play-calling and cheerleading from the Oval office to create a stable Iraq. It would be better if the world community would step up to the plate and work alongside the local population, regionally.
The current transition from war to peace may be mean and ugly. But, someday, this terrible quality shall pass. Someday.
Let's say that the US gets *very* good at putting failed states back together again. Wouldn't there be a gargantuan moral hazard created? Where, in this Box, is the place for patriots, foundational myths, all manner of deep bonding experiences? How does cohesion and societal success become internally self-sustaining instead of externally imposed? Where is the deep aversion, the shame at letting it all fall apart going to come from?
There is something greater than mere best practices, a secret sauce of statehood if you will, that is necessary to make something truly self-sustainable. I have yet to see any such method likely to come out of DIB. I do think we've either stumbled into the formula or had it right from the beginning. The locals have to buy into the new society with their blood, their blasted flesh, and their mourning wails for the deaths of so many bright, shining ones who had hope and dared to try.
How are we to put *this* into Development in a Box?
Is the governement the best option for Development-in-a-box? It would seem that the private sector could do a much better job.
DIB is really what the DoD needs until the Department of Everything Else (DoEE) is formed through govt restructuring in Foggy Bottom & other places.
But is DIB going to be supplied with ready people to guide it's operation? Those police and civil servants we are going to need to train will need trainers initially.
Do I see a need for people power from places other than the full-time military?
@TM Lutas
Earlier I couldn't get my Typepad sign-in to work, so there's a comment to Vinit Joshi that Sean hasn't approved yet. It begins to address what you've expressed, and I'll expand on it after i read it again.
Also, tonight I'm finishing up a visual presentation of my personal interpretation of DIB. Though a first cut, I think I've got a place in there to begin answering, "How does cohesion and societal success become internally self-sustaining instead of externally imposed?"
We'll see...
Ho! I'm home from work now and I see Sean has been busy moderating comments...
@John
In my mind, DIB scales -- from a neighborhood to a state. A challenge the scope of Iraq and the Middle East necessarily includes government. Government -- governance and diplomacy -- may best be suited to articulate the rule sets of when and where DIB can be deployed. We should expect government leaders to identify, open, and maintain channels of high level communication through the nexus of security, rules sets, underwriting, infrastructure and resources. Lift the fog of war and the private sector will get the job done.
@PaulC
DIB is also what DoEE can authorize for an Iraq, a Darfur, a Katrina or tsunami. People power already comes from places other than full-time military, as was demonstrated by the global outreach addressing issues from the Asian tsunami. The Internet -- connecting blogs like this, for example -- is providing a way for people, in aggregate, to help each other.
@TM Lutas
I reviewed my comment and I'll leave it stand for now. I have a long night ahead of me, but I will think about what you wrote as I draw.
Thanks all for the conversation.
quote/ The locals have to buy into the new society with their blood, their blasted flesh, and their mourning wails for the deaths of so many bright, shining ones who had hope and dared to try./
good lord TM Lutas its not the 18th century any more. I can think of several extraordinary players in the 21st century global economy who have climbed rapidly and assumed a contemprary identity that has absolutely nothing to do with wailing and gnashing of teeth e.g. finland, singapore, silicon valley, dublin, bangalore...
more than anything people want to work for pay, in a city (look at global population trends). DIB promises getting to that framework faster. Thankfully civilization has grown up past needing blasted flesh to forge a nation-state... the community and cultural identity you're after are easily derived from myriad different sources now (their national soccer team, their temple/mosque/megachurch, their company, their neighborhood), and we're better for it. what people need and want are safe, economically viable cities and markets, the sooner the better.