DTIC ADA485886: Nation-Building: A Joint Enterprise

0.22 MB·English

by  Defense Technical Information Center

Nation-Building:
A Joint Enterprise
GREGORY L. CANTWELL
“Battlesarewonbytheinfantry,thearmor,theartilleryandairteams,by
soldierslivingintherainsandhuddlinginthesnow.Butwarsarewonby
thegreatstrengthofthenation—thesoldierandthecivilianworkingto-
gether.”
—GeneralOmarN.Bradley1
C
onsiderthefollowingquestions.TheArmyisatwar,butisthenationat
war? Has the nation sufficiently mobilized the elements of national
power in support of a global war effort? Have average Americans changed
their lives because of the war? Is popular support for the war in Iraq high
enoughtomobilizethenation?PublicopinionpollsinJanuary2007showed
thatsupportforPresidentBush’shandlingofthewarwasatanall-timelowof
26 percent.2 Similar polls suggested that 54 percent of the American public
believed that the United States was losing the war in Iraq.3 Then-Chief of
StaffoftheArmy,GeneralPeterSchoomaker,beganhisremarkstotheHouse
ArmedServices Committee on 27 June 2006 with these words.
America’sArmyremainsatwar.Andwewillbefightingthiswarforthefore-
seeablefuture.Thisisnotjustthe Army’swar.Yetin lightofthescaleofour
commitment we bear the majority of the burden, serving side by side with
Marinesandourothersisterservicesandcoalitionpartners.4
GeneralSchoomakeridentifiedthecruxoftheissue;Americarelies
upon theArmy, andfrom a joint perspective, theDepartment of Defense, to
fightandwinthenation’swars.TheAmericanpeoplehaveeveryexpectation
that the military will succeed when committed. They hold the military ac-
countableforachievingvictory.Yetthemilitarydoesnotcommandorcontrol
54 Parameters
Report Documentation Page Form Approved
OMB No. 0704-0188
Public reporting burden for the collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and
maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information,
including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports, 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington
VA 22202-4302. Respondents should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be subject to a penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if it

does not display a currently valid OMB control number.
1. REPORT DATE 3. DATES COVERED
2007 2. REPORT TYPE 00-00-2007 to 00-00-2007
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE 5a. CONTRACT NUMBER
Nation-Building: A Joint Enterprise
5b. GRANT NUMBER
5c. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER
6. AUTHOR(S) 5d. PROJECT NUMBER
5e. TASK NUMBER
5f. WORK UNIT NUMBER
7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION
U.S. Army War College,122 Forbes Avenue ,Carlisle,PA,17013-5238 REPORT NUMBER
9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 10. SPONSOR/MONITOR’S ACRONYM(S)
11. SPONSOR/MONITOR’S REPORT
NUMBER(S)
12. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT
Approved for public release; distribution unlimited
13. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
Parameters, US Army War College Quarterly, Autumn 2007, Vol 37, No. 3
14. ABSTRACT

15. SUBJECT TERMS
16. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF: 17. LIMITATION OF 18. NUMBER 19a. NAME OF
ABSTRACT OF PAGES RESPONSIBLE PERSON
a. REPORT b. ABSTRACT c. THIS PAGE Same as 15
unclassified unclassified unclassified Report (SAR)
Standard Form 298 (Rev. 8-98)
Prescribed by ANSI Std Z39-18
the elementsof national power (diplomatic, information, and economic) es-
sential for achieving victory.
Intellectuals argue that wars are won or lost by nations and not by
militaries.Themilitarydoes,however,makeasignificantcontributiontoany
eventual outcome of a conflict. Many observers believe the military is re-
sponsibleforthefinaloutcomeofanyconflictdespiteamultitudeofrelated
factors.5Forexample,therearethosewhocontendthatAmericalostthewar
in Vietnam even though, from a tactical standpoint, the Army didnot lose a
battle. Many blamed this losson thelack of a coordinated national strategy,
butcontinuetoholdthemilitaryaccountableforfailingtodevelopawinning
strategy.6 Similarly, in Iraq, many claim the war is being lost and blame the
leadershipoftheDepartmentofDefenseforanynumberofstrategicerrors.7
Thisharkensbacktotheissuethatthemilitaryisaccountabletofightandwin
America’s wars.
Othersquestion whythemilitaryneedstosupportsuchmissionsas
nation-building. The fact of the matter is the military as an element of na-
tionalpowerisemployedtoprotecttheUnitedStates’nationalinterests.The
military is exercising that role in Iraq because national leaders believe that
criticalinterestsareatstake.8TheUnitedStatesperformsnation-buildingac-
tivitiestoestablishconditionsthatfurtherournationalinterests.Therearea
numberofcountriesneedingassistancewithnation-building,butthemilitary
isnotcapableofprovidingdirectassistancetoallinneed.Thenation’slead-
ersapparentlydonotconsidernationalinterestssufficienttowarrantmilitary
deploymentstoalloftheseregions.9Africahasapredominanceofthepoorest
nationsin theworld.Genocide,famine,disease,andfailedgovernmentsare
oftencitedassufficientjustificationfortheUSmilitary’snation-buildingas-
sistance.10 Yet, because vital national security interests are not at stake, the
militaryisnotsubstantiallyengagedthroughoutAfrica.Itgoeswithoutsay-
ing thatthe world hasmore needs than the United States has the capacity to
provide solutions. National interests serve to prioritize the employment of
America’s military.
Apragmaticapproachmightsuggestthatthemilitarytaketheleadin
developingthecapabilitiesneededtosucceedacrossthespectrumofconflict,
even if those capabilities exist in the other elements of national power. The
ColonelGregoryL.CantwellisanArmyStrategicPlansandPolicyOfficer.Heisa
graduateoftheUSArmyWarCollege,SchoolofAdvancedMilitaryStudies,Command
andGeneralStaffCollege,andUSMilitaryAcademy.Heholdsmaster’sdegreesininter-
nationalrelations,businessadministration,militaryartandscience,andstrategicstud-
ies,andiscurrentlycompletinghisPh.D.attheUniversityofKansas.
Autumn2007 55
Americanmilitaryhasalreadyadoptednumerousmeasurestoenhanceitsca-
pabilities in time of war and is transforming and reorganizing itself to meet
therealitiesoftoday’sglobalenvironment.Examplesoftheseinitiativesin-
clude Army Modularity, Standing Joint Force Headquarters Core Element,
Joint Interagency Coordination Groups, and Civil Military Operation Cen-
ters. These organizational initiatives are aimed at improving command and
controlandfacilitatingcoordination.In short,theyseektoimprove unity of
effortandprovidethegreatestimpactintheshortestperiodoftime.Themili-
taryhasmadesignificantstridesindevelopingtheseprogramsthroughthele-
veraging of existing capabilities.
The counter-argumentto this approach is that the military needsto
concentrate exclusively on its warfighting capabilities that are not found in
the other elements of national power.11 Keeping the armed forces strictly
focusedoncombatmissionsappealstothosewhodislikealargestandingmil-
itary and the associated expense. It may be more cost effective, however, if
theAmericanmilitaryintegratestheorganiccapabilitiesrequiredfornation-
building.Suchcapabilitieswouldbeofmajorimportanceattheconclusionof
militaryoperations. Infact, history isreplete withexamples of theUS mili-
tary performing post-conflict operations, to include building government
capacity following regime change. The Iraq conflict is not the first theater
where the military has faced the challenges of nation-building, reconstruc-
tion, orcounterinsurgency operations.
Thedebaterelatedtothemissionsofthemilitarycentersontherole
played by the Department of Defense in achieving national security objec-
tives.Thenationtriestomaintainabalancebetweenthemissionsassignedto
the military and the resources allocated. Equally asimportant is the need to
maintainabalancebetweenauthorityandresponsibility.Militaryprofession-
alsareimportantparticipantsinthisdebate.Thisarticleexplorestheassoci-
atedjointimplications,toincluderesources,forstability,security,transition,
and reconstruction (SSTR) operations. It will explore the related strategic
guidance, joint doctrine, and unity of effort challenges, as well as provide
recommendations—specifically,theDepartmentofDefenseshouldestablish
joint nation-building organizations, leverage existing initiatives, and estab-
lishregionaltrainingcenters—designedtorapidlyimprovethenation’sabil-
ity to perform SSTR operations.
Strategic Guidance
The President has significant latitude in determining how to de-
velopandexecuteforeignpolicy.ArticleIIoftheUnitedStatesConstitution
establishes the President as the Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces
56 Parameters
“In fact, history is replete with examples of the US
military performing post-conflict operations,
to include building government capacity
following regime change.”
andgiveshimbroadauthorityininternationalaffairs.Congressestablished
theNationalSecurityCouncilintheExecutiveOfficeofthePresidentwith
the implementation of the National Security Act of 1947.12 The President
organizestheCabinettobestaccomplishhisagenda.Presidentialdirectives
are issued in an effort to establish the structure and authorities needed to
enact the administration’s priorities. President William J. Clinton issued
Presidential Decision Directive-56 in May 1997 formalizing the roles and
responsibilitiesofgovernmentagenciesindealingwithcontingencyopera-
tionsabroad.13Thisdirectiveisoftencitedasaresultofthelessons-learned
fromstabilityoperationsinBosnia,Africa,andIraqduringthe1990s.These
operationsdemonstratedatrendofincreasingdemandforhumanitarianas-
sistance operations and the need forbetter interagency coordination.14
President George W. Bush rescinded this directive in 2001 and es-
tablished National Security Presidential Directives to enact his priorities.15
National Security Presidential Directive-1 established the current adminis-
tration’s Cabinet organization for national security. Management of inter-
agency efforts concerning reconstruction and stabilization is addressed in
National Security Presidential Directive-44.16
Prior to NSPD-44, confusion existed concerning who should be in
chargeofnation-buildingeffortsinIraq.17NSPD-44designatestheSecretary
of State as the lead for coordinating and integrating efforts among govern-
ment agencies.
TheSecretaryofStateshallcoordinateandleadintegratedUnitedStatesGov-
ernmentefforts,involvingallU.S. Departmentsand Agencies with relevant
capabilities,toprepare,planfor,andconductstabilizationandreconstruction
activities.TheSecretaryofStateshallcoordinatesucheffortswiththeSecre-
tary of Defense to ensure harmonization with any planned or ongoing U.S.
militaryoperations acrossthe spectrum of conflict.18
Autumn2007 57
Responsibility for coordination does not mean the Department of
Statenecessarilyhasallthecapabilitiesrequiredtoperformstabilizationand
reconstruction operations. Many believe, in accordance with this directive,
thattheDepartmentofDefenseisresponsibleforreconstructioneffortsasso-
ciated with combatoperationsin Iraq. There appears to be amplesupport in
the lawfor this assertion.
The responsibilities for military services in the Department of De-
fenseareidentifiedinTitle10oftheUnitedStatesCode.Chapter307specifi-
callystatestheArmy“shallbeorganized,trained,andequippedprimarilyfor
promptandsustainedcombatincidenttooperationsonland.”19Thisreference
isthe cited source thatsuggests the military shouldconduct stabilization and
reconstructionoperationsasalogicalextensionofcombatoperationsonland.
DOD Directive 3000.05, Military Support for Stability, Security,
Transition,andReconstruction(SSTR)Operations,dated28November2005,
outlinesSSTR operations as core military missions.It further directs the De-
partment of Defense to include plans for SSTR operations in all its military
planning. The following excerptillustratesthemeaning ofthis directive.
Many stability operations tasksare best performedby indigenous, foreignor
U.S.civilianprofessionals.Nonetheless,U.S.militaryforcesshallbeprepared
toperformalltasksnecessarytoestablishormaintainorderwhencivilianscan-
notdoso.20
Manyofthetasksaddressedinthedirectivecallforthedevelopment
ofrepresentativegovernments;rebuildingindigenousinstitutionstoinclude
varioussecurityforces,correctionalfacilities,andjudicialsystems;reviving
private sector economic activity; andconstructing necessary infrastructure.
Thesetasksareallpartofnation-building.Theintentofthisdirectiveistoen-
sure the Department of Defense has the capabilities required to succeed in
SSTRoperationswithouttheimmediateassistancefromotheragencies.The
directive clarifies a debate within the military on whether nation-building
shouldbe a core task.It does not, however, provideany of the resources re-
quired to accomplishthis type of mission.
Joint Doctrine
Joint doctrine is authoritative withinthe military. Joint Publication
3-08, Interagency, Intergovernmental Organization, and Nongovernmental
OrganizationCoordination During JointOperations, establishesthefunda-
mental principles to facilitate coordination between the Department of De-
fense and other agencies. This document advances the discussion of the
challengesfacingthemilitaryandthejointtaskforcecommanderinachiev-
58 Parameters
ing “unity of effort” in coordinating the elements of national power. Joint
Publication 3-57, Joint Doctrine for Civil-Military Operations, also ad-
dressesthechallengesof achieving unityof effort,butfocusesoncoordina-
tionwithcivilauthorities,thegeneralpopulation,andinstitutionstofacilitate
militaryoperations.21ItcontainsagreateremphasisoncivilaffairsthanJoint
Publication 3-08. Both publications highlight the fact that unity of effort is
critical to achieving stated objectives, but the method utilized to achieve
them isless clear.
Joint Publication 1, Doctrine for the Armed Forces of the United
States, released 14 May 2007, defines unity of effort as “coordination and
cooperationtowardcommonobjectives,eveniftheparticipantsarenotneces-
sarily part of the same command or organization—the product of successful
unifiedaction.”22Itfurtherstatesunifiedactionis“synchronization,coordina-
tion,and/orintegrationoftheactivitiesofgovernmentalandnongovernmental
entitieswithmilitaryoperationstoachieveunityofeffort.”23JointPublication
5-0,JointOperationPlanning,published26December2006,proposeddiffer-
ent language. It states:
Unifiedaction—abroadgenerictermthatdescribesthewidescopeofactions
(includingthesynchronizationand/orintegrationofjointormultinationalmil-
itaryoperationswiththeactivitiesoflocal,state,andfederalgovernmentagen-
ciesandintergovernmentalandnongovernmentalorganizations)takingplace
withinunifiedcommands,subordinateunifiedcommands,orjointtaskforces
underthe overalldirectionofthecommandersofthosecommands.24
These definitions describe in sufficient detail what is required, but
fail to adequately define theterms. Joint Publication 1, however,provides a
more in-depth analysis of the challenges associated with unity of effort and
unified action than its predecessor, Joint Publication 0-2, Unified Action
Armed Forces (UNAAF).
It is a fact that unity of effort does not rely solely on unity of com-
mand. Many organizations and governments provide assets for a common
purpose without entering into formal command relationships. The military,
US government agencies, and civilian organizations coordinate resources
withoutthestrictsenior/subordinaterelationshipscommoninabureaucracy.
However,theserelationshipsoftencancreatechallengesleadingbacktothe
initial issue of balancebetween authority and responsibility.
Unity of Effort
Severalfactorscomplicateachievingunityofeffort.First,unityofef-
fort is convoluted by the diversity of organizations that require synchroniza-
Autumn2007 59
tion.Representativesoftheseorganizationsneedtohavetheauthoritytomake
policy decisions that channel their resources in a common direction. The au-
thorityoversuchresourcesisoftenfragmentedamongdifferentdepartmentsin
any bureaucratic organization. Representatives from various organizations
mayonlyhavetheabilitytocommitresourceswithintheirdepartment.Often
theyaredetailedtosupportthemilitarybutlackdecisionmakingauthorityand
canonlyserveasaliaisonforcoordination.Thislackofauthoritycomplicates
the timely synchronization of efforts. Additionally, most organizations have
uniqueculturesthatdonotmirrorthemilitarymodelofprovidingdirectcom-
mand authority to facilitate unity of effort. Further, many nongovernmental
organizationsareprimarilyinterestedinperformingnicheroles.Theirorgani-
zationalgoalsmaynotcoincidewithbroadermilitaryobjectives.Theseorga-
nizationsanddepartmentsmayprefertoremainseparatedfromthemilitaryin
an effort to maintain the perception of neutrality. Many outside the process
maybelieveanorganizationthatcooperateswiththeUSmilitarymaybeatrisk
of attack.
Second, the scope of the mission further obscures synchronization
ofefforts.Thechallengeofreestablishingordertofacilitatecivilianauthority
iscomplex,vast,anddifficulttoquantify.Forexample,theareainIraqisin-
habitedby more than 27 million people who have historical ethnic and reli-
gious clashes that may be irreconcilable. No organization, other than the
military, has the equipment, personnel, and resources to address a problem
this complex. Traditional dependency upon a single lead agency to resolve
theproblemsisprobablynotappropriate.Resolutionofsuchconflictsmaybe
beyondthecapacity of any lead agency. The SSTRoperationschallenge re-
quires unity of effort at the national level and incorporating all elements of
nationalpower. By law, the President is responsibleto theAmerican people
fornationalstrategicunityofeffortfunctions.25Itgoeswithoutsayingthatthe
PresidenthasotherissuestodealwithbeyondIraq.Therefore,heisoftenre-
quiredtodelegatetomembersoftheCabinetthecoordinationandexecution
required to achieve unity of effort. Various agencies and departments have
requirementsofequallyhighimportancethatvieforresourceswithcontend-
ing operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. Most agencies do not have the re-
sourcestoprovideliaisonsordedicateprojectteamssolelyforthepurposeof
coordinating with the military on operations in Iraq. Representation at the
geographiccombatantcommanderlevelisoftentheonlysupportmanyorga-
nizations are capableof providing.
Third, theater diversity inhibits unity of effort. Theater diversity
prevents the combatant commander from developing standard solutions.
Standardsolutionsfacilitateunityofeffortiftheyareappliedthroughoutthe
region.Programsthataresuccessfulinoneprovinceordistrictmaynotbeef-
60 Parameters
“The Department of Defense could develop
joint nation-building organizations as
a way to improve unity of effort.”
fective in another area. Many theaters have non-homogeneous populations
that create unique regional challenges. The combination of these factors
makes it difficult to centrally control an approach that requires near-unique
solutions.Thisdiversitycomplicatesunityofeffortbyplacingapremiumon
situationalawarenessat thelocallevel,evendownto thevillagelevel,inan
effort todetermine effective actions. Many organizations lack thebroad re-
gional focus of a geographic combatant commander. The Department of
State,forexample,organizesbycountryratherthanbyregion.Thesefactors
suggestthemilitaryisbestsuitedforacomprehensiveapproachifunityofef-
fort is to be achieved.
The military has a clear requirement to prepare for the conduct of
nation-building tasks.The debate does continue, however, overwhether the
militaryshouldbetheleadagencyforalloperationsorjustthoseassociated
withconflict.Sincethemilitaryisrequiredtoperformacrossthespectrumof
conflict,theresultofthisdebateislargelyinconsequential.Themilitarymust
havethecapabilitytoperformSSTRoperationsonaglobalbasis.Otherorga-
nizations can augment these capabilities, relieve the military of tasks as the
situation matures, or be the lead agency for coordination. These organiza-
tions will, however, continue to relyupon themilitary for the mission of re-
storing stability.
Recommendations
Thenewjointdoctrineshould developacommonunderstandingof
unityofeffortandprovideacommonvocabularyforthediscussionoffuture
challenges.Thisvocabularydoesnot,however,providealltheresourcesand
capabilities to perform the tasks associated with SSTR operations. The De-
partment of Defense needs to take positive and immediate actionto address
this problem.
Establish Joint Nation-Building Organizations
TheDepartmentofDefensecoulddevelopjointnation-buildingorga-
nizationsasawaytoimproveunityofeffort.PresidentBushhasalreadyiniti-
Autumn2007 61
ated a serious national security dialogue addressing the balance between
military missions and resources. This debate provides an opportunity to ad-
dresstheresourcerequirementsassociatedwithSSTRoperations.Themilitary
shouldprovideacomprehensiveproposalofwhatresourcesarerequiredinan
effort to establish the capabilities outlined in DODD 3000.05 and the 2006
QuadrennialDefenseReview.Ajointfunctionalareaanalysiswouldidentify
thechangesrequiredforSSTRoperationsconsideringdoctrine,organization,
training, materiel, leadership, personnel, and facilities (DOTMLPF).26 This
analysisneedstobeajointendeavorifwearetotakeadvantageoftheunique
strengthsinherent in each oftheservices.
These new organizations need to be organic to the military so the
combatant commandercan immediately begin SSTR operationsprior to the
response by other organizations, agencies, or governments. Any occupying
militarylosespopularsupportwhenbasic servicesare destroyedby combat
andnotquicklyrestored.Restoringtheseservicesandinfrastructure iscriti-
caltowinningthe“heartsandminds”ofthepopulationandachievingalast-
ing victory.
Once thefunctional area analysisestablishes therequired capabili-
ties, military force development specialists can design the joint nation-
buildingorganizations.Thistermisnotintendedinanywaytoimplythesize
of the organization. Analysis may recommend an organization approaching
the typical 3,500-member Army brigade. Once designed, each geographic
combatantcommandershouldbeassignedoneoftheseorganizationssothey
might develop a regional specific focus.
CurrentArmyinitiativesusethemetaphorofdevelopingArmyoffi-
cers to be “pentathletes” or “multi-skilled athletes” rather than experts in a
specificarea.Thesetermssuggestthatsoldiersmustbeflexibleandprepared
toperformacrosstherangeofmilitaryoperations.Suchtermsanddefinitions
do not, however, address the specific training required to perform SSTR
tasks.Soldiersarenotcurrentlytrainedonanylargescaletoestablishgover-
nance,judicialsystems,orcreateeconomicgrowth.Thislackofinstitutional
expertisereinforcestheneedforathoroughassessmentoftheimplicationsof
SSTR operations and the establishment of joint nation-building organiza-
tions, capable of meeting the immediate needs of a combatant commander
following combat operations.
Developing such estimates and force capabilities can take time, re-
sultinginalong-termsolution.Forcestructurechangesmaynotoccurquickly
enoughto be effectivein theconflictin Iraq.Nevertheless, it isstill essential
thatthemilitaryhavetheequipment,manpower,andresourcestoaccomplish
thenationalmilitarystrategy.Itisalso imperativethat westarttheprocessto
change the force structure as soon as possible. If Congress and thePresident
62 Parameters