Why America's Nation Building Office Failed And
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Ballou, B 2014 Why America’s Nation Building Office Failed and What stability Congress Had to Do With It. Stability: International Journal of Security & Development, 3(1): 30, pp. 1-17, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5334/sta.ec RESEARCH ARTICLE Why America’s Nation Building Office Failed and What Congress Had to Do With It Brendan Ballou* Since the end of the Cold War, America has led six nation-building missions. We have done none particularly well. Throughout the 1990’s, but particularly after the invasion of Iraq in 2003, the U.S. government tried to improve the way it ran ‘stabilization and reconstruction’ operations. That effort produced most notably the Office of the Coordinator for Stabilization and Reconstruction (S/CRS) within the State Department. S/CRS was charged with developing plans, coordinating their interagency implementation, and staffing a ‘Civilian Response Corps’ to deploy to countries on short notice. S/CRS largely failed in these efforts. It struggled to establish control over the interagency planning process. It failed to staff its Response Corps. And it was largely excluded from the civilian efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan. This paper explains why S/CRS failed. Four reasons in particular stand out. The office never had strong backing from the Secretary of State. It was undercut by USAID in its congressional negotiations. It lacked a strong domestic constituency to advocate for it. And it suffered from a general bias against civilian-led foreign policy projects. Without a clear congressional mandate and enough funding, S/CRS could not control either USAID or the regional bureaus. Simply put, the office did not bring much to the table. Finally, the failure of S/CRS suggests that the Defense Department, not State, will run future stabilization and reconstruction efforts. Though the appetite for nation building in the U.S. is low, history suggests that we are not done with these projects. Why America’s Nation Building Office for Stabilization and Reconstruction (S/CRS) Failed, and What Congress Had to within the State Department. S/CRS was Do With It charged with developing plans, coordinating Since the end of the Cold War, America has their interagency implementation, and staff- led six major stabilization and reconstruction ing a ‘Civilian Response Corps’ to deploy to missions. We have done none particularly countries on short notice. well. Throughout the 1990’s, but particu- S/CRS largely failed in these efforts. It larly after the invasion of Iraq in 2003, the struggled to establish control over the U.S. government tried to improve the way interagency planning process. It failed to it ran such operations. That effort produced staff its Response Corps. And it was largely most notably the Office of the Coordinator excluded from the civilian efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan. * Stanford Law School, United States Much has been written about why S/CRS [email protected] failed within the foreign policy bureaucracy Art. 30, page 2 of 17 Ballou: Why America’s Nation Building Office Failed and What Congress Had to Do With It (Bensahel et al 2009; CFR 2005; Serafino Historical background 2009; Unger et al 2010). It lost turf bat- Since 1989 America has led six ‘stabilization tles with the State Department’s regional and reconstruction’ missions: in Somalia, bureaus and with USAID. And it struggled to Haiti, Bosnia, Kosovo, Iraq, and Afghanistan. get the support it needed from the Secretary And it participated in many more under the of State. auspices of the United Nations (Dobbins et Little, however, has been written about al 2005). Congress’s role in S/CRS’s failure. Despite The motives behind these missions varied bipartisan support for the office, Congress dramatically, as did their scope. In Somalia, gave S/CRS an inadequate mandate and Haiti, Bosnia and Kosovo, the U.S. inter- insufficient funding. In doing so, it more or vened for primarily humanitarian purposes. less guaranteed that S/CRS would lose its Unsurprisingly, therefore, America concen- fights within the executive branch. trated its effort in providing only essential This paper tries to explain why Congress services. These include food, water, shelter, treated S/CRS the way it did, and what security, combatant disarmament, and basic impact that had. It briefly covers America’s police training and political support.1 experience in stabilization and reconstruc- In Iraq and Afghanistan, however, the U.S. tion and the reasons for creating S/CRS. It intervened for perceived national security then addresses the challenges S/CRS faced, purposes. In the wake of the September 11 both in the bureaucracy and in Congress. attacks, many policymakers were particularly Through this, the paper attempts to answer concerned about rogue and failed states pro- three questions. First, why was an office with viding safe havens for terrorists. For this rea- bipartisan support so difficult to author- son, U.S. officials felt it was necessary not just ize and fund? Second, what impact did this to provide basic humanitarian services, but failure in Congress have on the office as a also to reshape these countries’ governments whole? And finally, what does the congres- and societies.2 Recalling the ambitious post- sional failure of S/CRS say about the kinds of war efforts in Germany and Japan, the U.S. foreign policy projects the U.S. can manage? offered enormous support helping to build To preview the argument somewhat, power, water, and telecommunications infra- Congress failed to authorize and fund S/ structure, restart agricultural sectors, intro- CRS in a timely manner for four reasons. duce new currencies, and build securities The office never had strong backing from markets (Smith 2013; The Washington Post the Secretary of State (beyond rhetoric). It 2013; Dobbins et al 2003; Michaels 2008).3 was undercut by USAID in its congressional The U.S. also attempted to construct new negotiations. It lacked a strong domestic governments, not just holding elections but constituency to advocate for it. And it suf- re-writing whole constitutions. fered from a general skepticism of civilian- The U.S. largely failed in these more ambi- led foreign policy projects. Without a clear tious missions. Iraq is not, as President Bush’s congressional mandate and enough fund- National Security Council (NSC) hoped, ing, S/CRS could not control either USAID or ‘peaceful, united, stable, and secure’ (NSC the regional bureaus. Simply put, the office 2005). Nor has Afghanistan yet ‘develop[ed] did not bring much to the table. Finally, the its own stable government’ (Bush 2002). At a failure of S/CRS suggests that the Defense very high level, this was the case for three rea- Department, not State, will run future stabi- sons. First, America didn’t have the patience lization and reconstruction efforts. Though for prolonged nation building engagements. the appetite for nation building in the U.S. History suggests that establishing the rule is low, history suggests that we are not done of law, building rich civil society, and decen- with these projects. tralizing government control usually takes Ballou: Why America’s Nation Building Office Failed and Art. 30, page 3 of 17 What Congress Had to Do With It around 50 years (North et al 2009: 27).4 No for future crises a coordinating Executive U.S. President, certainly not one hoping to be Committee, a political-military implemen- reelected, sought missions approaching even tation plan, rehearsals, and an after-action a fraction of this length. Second, America review (Presidential Decision Directive 56 didn’t have the expertise for conducting stabi- 1997). The institutions the Directive estab- lization and reconstruction projects. From the lished reportedly led to much-improved chaos of post-invasion Iraq to the slow civilian operations for President Clinton’s last stabili- surge in Afghanistan, the U.S. demonstrated zation and reconstruction mission, in Kosovo that it lacked the bureaucratic knowledge to (Forman 2013: 4). carry out such missions. Third, fundamental In contrast, President Bush was initially changes in government necessarily create skeptical of the Clinton administration’s temporary power vacuums. In this vacuum reforms and its efforts at ‘nation building.’ there is often a considerable spike in violence, During the 2000 campaign, then-Governor as the government lacks the capacity to exert Bush stated that, ‘I don’t think our troops control over looters and rebels (North et al ought to be used for what’s called nation- 2009: 264). This spike, when it occurred in building’ (The American Presidency Project Iraq and Afghanistan, undercut domestic U.S. 2000). Condoleezza Rice commented that, ‘we support for these missions. don’t need to have the 82nd Airborne escort- But even America’s less ambitious stabili- ing kids to kindergarten’ (Dobbins 2014). zation and reconstruction projects after the But September 11 changed President Cold War were mixed successes. Somalia and Bush’s perspective on nation building in Haiti today are both classified as failed states general. And three years later, the chaos of (The Fund for Peace 2013). Only Bosnia and post-invasion Iraq spurred all of Washington, Kosovo are relatively violence-free. These fail- including the Bush administration, to rethink ures, both large and small, spurred the Clinton the government’s stabilization and recon- and Bush administrations to reform the U.S.’s struction bureaucracy specifically. Several stabilization and reconstruction programs. prominent think tanks published proposals After the 1993 debacle in Somalia that on the subject (Serafino 2009: 5–6).5 They resulted in eighteen American deaths, clustered around four broad ideas: President Clinton pushed two reforms through the foreign policy bureaucracy. First, • Opening an office (most likely in the he opened the Office of Transition Initiatives State Department) to plan and coordi- within USAID to provide stabilization and nate stabilization and reconstruction reconstruction support services (Forman operations (Weinstein 2004: 31).