PRISM VOL. 5, NO. 3 2015 A JOURNAL OF THE CENTER FOR COMPLEX OPERATIONS PRISM About VOL. 5, NO. 3 2015 PRISM is published by the Center for Complex Operations. PRISM is a security studies journal chartered to inform members of U.S. Federal agencies, allies, and other partners on complex EDITOR and integrated national security operations; reconstruction and state-building; relevant policy Michael Miklaucic and strategy; lessons learned; and developments in training and education to transform America’s security and development EDITORIAL ASSISTANTS Connor Christenson Talley Lattimore Jeffrey Listerman Communications Giorgio Rajao Constructive comments and contributions are important to us. Direct Hiram Reynolds communications to: COPY EDITORS Editor, PRISM Dale Erickson 260 Fifth Avenue (Building 64, Room 3605) Rebecca Harper Fort Lesley J. McNair Christoff Luehrs Washington, DC 20319 Nathan White Telephone: (202) 685-3442 DESIGN DIRecTOR FAX: Carib Mendez (202) 685-3581 Email: [email protected] ADVISORY BOARD Dr. Gordon Adams Dr. Pauline H. Baker Ambassador Rick Barton Contributions Professor Alain Bauer PRISM welcomes submission of scholarly, independent research from security policymakers Dr. Joseph J. Collins (ex officio) and shapers, security analysts, academic specialists, and civilians from the United States and Ambassador James F. Dobbins abroad. Submit articles for consideration to the address above or by email to [email protected] Ambassador John E. Herbst (ex officio) with “Attention Submissions Editor” in the subject line. Dr. David Kilcullen Ambassador Jacques Paul Klein Dr. Roger B. Myerson This is the authoritative, official U.S. Department of Defense edition of PRISM. Dr. Moisés Naím Any copyrighted portions of this journal may not be reproduced or extracted MG William L. Nash, USA (Ret.) without permission of the copyright proprietors. PRISM should be acknowledged whenever material is quoted from or based on its content. Ambassador Thomas R. Pickering Dr. William Reno The opinions, conclusions, and recommendations expressed or implied within are LtGen John F. Sattler, USMC (Ret.) those of the contributors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Department Dr. James A. Schear of Defense or any other agency of the Federal Government. Dr. Joanna Spear Dr. Ruth Wedgwood PUBLISHER Dr. Joseph J. Collins ISSN 2157–0663 FEATURES 2 The Limits of Sovereignty — The Case of Mass Atrocity Crimes By Gareth Evans 12 The Backlash Against Nation-Building By Dominic Tierney 28 The Art of Strategy Creation for Complex Situations By John Blaney 44 Golden Opportunities for Civilian Power By Rick Barton 60 An Israeli Approach to Deterring Terrorism www.ndu.edu By Mark Vinson ndupress.ndu.edu 76 Reforming Myanmar’s Military By Erin Murphy, Matthew Turpin and Peter Kucik 90 The Advance of Radical Populist Doctrine in Latin America By Douglas Farah 106 Colombia — A Political Economy of War to an Inclusive Peace By David Kilcullen & Greg Mills 122 An Easier Service — Is DoD getting good value from humanitarian operations? By Stephen G. Waller FROM THE FIELD 134 The NATO Campaign in Afghanistan — Comparisons with the Experience in Colombia By Dickie Davis INTERVIEW 146 Stephen Hadley LESSONS LEARNED 160 Shock Without Awe — Military Lessons of the Regional Assistance Mission to Solomon Islands By Anthony Bergin BOOK REVIEWS 174 Ghost Fleet: A Novel of the Next World War, P.W. Singer and August Cole Reviewed by Brendan Orino 178 Blinders, Blunders, and Wars: What America and China Can Learn, David C. Gompert, Hans Binnendijk, Bonny Lin Reviewed by Frank Kramer 182 A Handful of Bullets, Harlan Ullman Reviewed by Hans Binnendijk 185 The Modern Mercenary: Private Armies and What They Mean for World Order, Sean McFate Reviewed by Doug Brooks 191 Restraint: A New Foundation for U.S. Grand Strategy, Barry R. Posen Reviewed by Joseph Becker AUTHOR Freedom House Syrian boys, whose family fled their home in Idlib, walk to their tent, at a camp for displaced Syrians, in the village of Atmeh, Syria, Monday, Dec. 10, 2012. 2 | FEATURES PRISM 5, NO. 1 The Limits of Sovereignty The Case of Mass Atrocity Crimes1 BY GARETH EVANS overeignty is like one of those lead-weighted dolls you can never get to lie down. One might have thought that multiple changes in the global and regional landscape had worked Sin the modern age to limit the salience of the concept. States’ economic freedom of action has been limited by enormous economic and financial interdependence. Their legal freedom of action has been limited by multiple developments in international law, especially international humanitarian and human rights law. And their political freedom of action has been inhibited to at least some extent by peer-group pressure to address multiple global-public-goods and global- commons-protection issues. Many of these can only be tackled effectively by cooperative action, involving some subjugation of traditionally defined national economic and security interests to the larger regional or global interests. But, for all that, sovereignty talk, and its close cousin nation- alist talk, are alive and well in the Asia Pacific, no less than everywhere else in the world, and maybe even a little more so. In Myanmar recently I received a volley on the subject from President Thein Sein, who was kind enough to receive me in his palace in Nay Pyi Daw. When I asked him why his country’s march toward democracy could not now take in its stride the candidacy of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, I was told that every country’s constitutional rules were its own sovereign business, and reminded that the U.S. Constitution did not allow Henry Kissinger to run for President because of his (if not his family’s) foreign birth. When I responded that there did not seem to be evidence that anyone in the U.S. ever actually wanted to vote for Kissinger as President, he did not seem amused. My conversations with other regional officials in recent years have left me in no doubt that other countries in South East Asia are no closer than they have ever been to submerging their distinctive national identities in a common ASEAN identity, any more than their counterparts in Europe give greater weight to their EU identity than their own individual sovereign-state identities. Professor the Hon. Gareth Evans AC QC FASSA is Chancellor of the Australian National University, a former Australian Foreign Minister, and President Emeritus of the International Crisis Group. He co-chaired the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty (2001), and chairs the New York-based Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect. PRISM 5, NO. 3 FEATURES | 3 EVANS Panorama of Photos of Genocide Victims - Genocide Memorial Center - Kigali – Rwanda That doesn’t diminish the historical impor- and regional affairs. Both these points were tance of either ASEAN or the EU as conflict clearly acknowledged in the report of the prevention and economic cooperation mecha- International Commission on Intervention nisms, but it means that a great deal of room and State Sovereignty (ICISS),3 which I co- for individual freedom of action is both chaired in 2001. As to its psychological role we demanded and enjoyed. said: India’s decision in July 2014 to single- …sovereignty is more than just a func- handedly block a major WTO trade facilitation tional principle of international relations. agreement for domestic “food security” rea- For many states and peoples, it is also a sons was a major reversion to inward-looking recognition of their equal worth and dig- policy, as was China’s very recent decision to nity, a protection of their unique identities impose tariffs on coal imports. In both India and their national freedom, and an affir- and China, as well as in Japan, we now have mation of their right to shape and deter- charismatic nationalist leaders – in Modi, Xi mine their own destiny. Jinping, and Abe – who each tend to use simi- lar national revival rhetoric to spur economic And as to its institutional role, we said and social reform. this: In none of these cases has national sover- …effective and legitimate states remain the eignty chest-beating gone quite as far as in best way to ensure that the benefits of the Vladimir Putin’s Russia, with all its unhappy internationalization of trade, investment, consequences for Ukraine, but there is a real technology and communication will be risk of border disputes between China and its equitably shared…And in security terms, a two big neighbours escalating out of control. cohesive and peaceful international system As Gideon Rachman put it in an article in the is far more likely to be achieved through Financial Times last year, “If we live in a border- the cooperation of effective states, confident less world, somebody seems to have forgotten of their place in the world, than in an envi- to tell the Chinese, Japanese and Indians, who ronment of fragile, collapsed, fragmenting sometimes seem obsessed by the demarcation or generally chaotic state entities. of their territory.”2 The reality is that sovereignty continues to But for all its important continuing roles, have powerful traction both psychologically, sovereignty does have its limits. The context in and in the institutional management of global which those limits have been most intensely 4 | FEATURES PRISM 5, NO. 3 THE LIMITS OF SOVEREIGNTY Adam Jones debated in recent decades has been human state power in this context came into play, with rights violations, and in particular the most the recognition of individual and group extreme and troubling of them, namely mass human rights in the UN Charter and, more atrocity crimes involving genocide, ethnic grandly, in the Universal Declaration of cleansing, other crimes against humanity or Human Rights; the recognition by the large-scale war crimes committed behind sov- Nuremberg Tribunal Charter in 1945 of the ereign state walls – and the doctrine developed concept of “crimes against humanity;” the in response, “the responsibility to protect” signing of the Genocide Convention in 1948; (R2P).