General Mark A. Milley - Department of Defense was correct when he suggested that it is too early for an AAR, or After Action Report in Afghanistan. But, perhaps there are some useful forward looking ideas from our experience to date.
Threats to the National Security of the United States can originate in many countries. Threats may be from new diseases or from terrorist organizations. Terrorist organization members can be native to the subject country or imported from other areas. Increasingly, many terror group members do not identify as nationals of any recognized nation state.
USA Policy toward Terrorist hosting countries.
To be clear: Hosts may or may not acknowledge and encourage terrorists. Hosting does not mean complicity; it simply designates terrorist’s location.
One of the theories about improving our National Security is to create enough prosperity inside a terrorist hosting country that its residents will not pose a threat. This theory has at least one flaw: it assumes that the material well-being of a country’s residents is a vaccine against terror directed toward the United States. It assumes also that free elections will provide an additional vaccine against terror directed toward the USA.
The EU has a better template for nation building IMHO, as seen here [https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/IP_20_2416].
Occasionally American troops deploy to a terror hosting country in an attempt to eliminate the threat terrorists pose to the United States. Sometimes, but not always, those troops are deployed at the invitation of the host country.
Once they neutralize the specific threat, then the troops can be recalled and the host country can go about its affairs.
Some defense contractors and politicians in the United States may lobby for additional aid to the host country to make it stronger in the face of terrorists or disease. It is possible the lobbyists suggest the aid will prop up the host government and thereby help United States security. Perhaps they rely on the hope that the aid can install the twin vaccines of material prosperity and free elections.
Two Divergent United States' Policies Toward Host Countries
One policy choice to control a threat is to enter a country whether invited or not. Once we neutralize the threat, we should withdraw any excess troops or NGO's.
This is a better default option than the alternative of nation building. We recognize that United States resources are finite and that opportunities to deploy resources are large.
We choose nation building wisely by ensuring that the host country we intend to rebuild will benefit from our efforts. Two broad statistics can indicate whether a nation is likely to benefit from United States efforts. First, we look at the distribution of income and wealth among the nation's population. Extreme inequalities may predict failure of our efforts since our aid will likely accrue to the already wealthy population within the country and may exacerbate any tendencies toward civil conflict in that nation.
GINI
One recognized measure of inequality is called the GINI coefficient. A high Gini score may predict failure of nation building activity, while a low score may predict a higher likelihood of success.
'In economics, the Gini coefficient (/ˈdʒiːni/ JEE-nee), sometimes called the Gini index or Gini ratio, is a measure of statistical dispersion intended to represent the income inequality or wealth inequality within a nation or any other group of people. It was developed by the Italian statistician and sociologist Corrado Gini.
The Gini coefficient measures the inequality among values of a frequency distribution (for example, levels of income). A Gini coefficient of zero expresses perfect equality, where all values are the same (for example, where everyone has the same income). A Gini coefficient of one (or 100%) expresses maximal inequality among values (e.g., for a large number of people where only one person has all the income or consumption and all others have none, the Gini coefficient will be nearly one).' [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gini_coefficient#:~:text=In%20economics%2C%20the%20Gini%20coefficient,any%20other%20group%20of%20people.]
For example, real Gini scores ranges between 25 at the low, or better, end to 63 at the higher, or worse, end.
[https://www.indexmundi.com/facts/indicators/SI.POV.GINI/rankings]
Norway scores a Gini of 27.5, while Zambia scores 63.0. The USA scores 41.5.
CORRUPTION
Secondly, nation building where there is corruption will likely fail since funds spent in such a country will likely be deposited in foreign bank accounts of wealthy people and not reach the wider population.
Corruption levels may predict nation building's likely success or failure, especially when combined with GINI scores. Good nation building candidates have records of low corruption and low-income inequalities; this combination indicates that projects designed to benefit the entire country will be completed successfully.
We have no statistics of active corruption since folks do not record their illegal activities in public forums. Instead, we have compilations of likely corruption levels as perceived by business and the press.
Transparency International [https://www.transparency.org/en/cpi/2020/index] compiles these perceptions and publishes an index of those perceptions.
New Zealand scores 88 as the least corrupt country while Yemen and Afghanistan score much lower at about 15; the USA scores 67.
UPDATE 2:
SECULAR STATES:
Governments dominated by religious movements which act in favor of their religious aspirations at the expense of the material well being of their populations should be excluded from any nation building efforts by the United States. ['Religious leaders should not be running countries', UAE Crown Prince as quoted in CALL SIGN CHAOS, Jim Mattis and Bing West, Random House, New York, 2019, p. 196]
PREDICTIONS
It has been said that 'all predictions are wrong, but some are useful'. Thus, I offer the following with infinite humility.
Combining the above indicators for Afghanistan indicates a high likelihood that nation building would fail since their unfavorable corruption score indicated by an unfavorable honesty perception rating of 15 combined with an unfavorable World Bank GINI of 33 as measured in neighboring Pakistan representing the area [used here since no ratings were published for Afghanistan].
Perhaps US defense contractors lobbied for the Nation Building attempts in Afghanistan undertaken after Bin Laden was killed.
Are Non-Profits Key to United States National Security?
Nations with high income inequality and widespread corruption cannot in all likelihood create the essential services and/or businesses necessary to support a viable economy and thus create effective counters to security threats from outside forces.
The United States may nevertheless designate such a nation as critical to our National Security due to geo-political pressures.
We should eshcew the profit motive and private, entrepremeurial business model in industries in such nations that the United States designates as critical to the host nation's security.
We should consider a non-profit model with rigorous oversight to ensure transparent operations and minimal theft opportunities for those enterprises.
National military may wish to fight for the country when essential services are delivered competently and fairly and the managers of those enterprises do not steal from the enterprise.
Soldiers will choose not to fight for the opposite.
Should a geo-poltiical adversary choose to support a nation with high corruption and inequality, we can assume that it will drain their, our adversary's, treasure.
And it is highly unlikely that soldiers of the client state will fight effectively against us in any engagement.
No comments:
Post a Comment