After 15 Years of War, America's Military Has About Had it With 'Nation Building' by Andrew Tilghman, Military Times
Most American military personnel are deeply skeptical of the United States' nation-building missions overseas and would prefer to see leaders in Washington focus the country's resources on less ambiguous missions like killing terrorists and protecting the homeland, according to a new first-of-its-kind survey.
The poll of more than 2,200 active-duty troops, a collaboration between Military Times and Syracuse University's Institute for Veterans and Military Families, gauged service members’ opinions on U.S. foreign policy priorities. It was conducted in early September. Other questions assessed service members' political views as the nation prepares to elect a new president.One survey question asked: “How do you view the U.S. government’s continued involvement in nation-building efforts, establishing democracies in the Middle East and North Africa using U.S. military and financial support?” About 55 percent of respondents said they "strongly oppose" or "somewhat oppose" those efforts while 23 percent expressed support for such missions. The remainder expressed no opinion on the issue.
Such views highlight the concerns likely to shape service members' voting patterns come November, and they underscore the extent to which many military professionals are uncomfortable with key polices advanced by Barack Obama and his predecessor, George W. Bush, as part of America's efforts to combat global terrorism. Both presidents leaned heavily on the military while pursuing varied degrees of nation building, notably in Afghanistan and Iraq. Their success in those endeavors remains questionable at best. The security situation in both countries is exceedingly fragile today — after 15 years of war, trillions of dollars spent, and thousands upon thousands of casualties...
Comments
I am having a problem with the entire concept of asking active duty service members their opinions on U.S. foreign policy priorities. To what end? It reminds me of the recent article in Foreign Policy on retired generals making political endorsements From that article:
"In October 2012, a Center for a New American Security report found that retired military officers’ endorsements 'can diminish the perception of the military as a nonpartisan institution serving the nation and increase the perception of the military as just another interest group serving its own bureaucratic and political interests.'" http://foreignpolicy.com/2016/09/12/we-have-a-big-problem-with-retired-…
Does the fact that a percentage of active duty service members don't like doing certain jobs nothing more than serving their own interests? Does the idea of registering the military members' opinions on what is clearly not a military decision, but a matter that is squarely in the civilian leadership's court, begin to muddy the civil-military divide?
Just food for thought.
Prerequisites:
First, we must distinguish between state-building and nation-building:
BEGIN QUOTE
To make a distinction between state-building and nation-building is relevent to the discussion of post-conflict reconstruction efforts. State-building and nation-building in foreign countries are difficult foreign policy objectives since state-building denotes the erection of public institutions not necessarily enjoying acceptance, and nation-building is to a large extent an indigenous process of identity formation.
END QUOTE
http://www.mpil.de/files/pdf2/mpunyb_bogdandyua_9_579_613.pdf (See the conclusion.)
Second, we must distinguish between (a) what presidential candidates might say during an election and (b) what they must do once they are elected.
(In the first instance above, the candidates may simply parrot what the public says it wishes; whether or not such suggested actions, if undertaken by an elected president, would be wise, stupid or even catastrophic. In the second instance above, however, the now-elected president must -- campaign rhetoric not withstanding -- and no matter what the public has called for -- actually consider [a] what is best for the country that he or she now leads and/or [b] what is desired by the true "master[s]" that the new president actually serves.)
Last, to suggest that the soldier's place in these matters (to wit: the place/priority that is given to their thoughts/suggestions) is still considered -- when push comes to shove -- more in terms of "theirs is not to reason why; theirs is but to do and die."
With these prerequisites before us, now to begin our discussion:
a. Not re: nation-building (organizing, ordering and orienting the subject state and its societies as per the wants, needs and desires of the indigenous populations themselves). But, rather,
b. As per state-building (organizing, ordering and orienting the state and its societies as per the wants, needs and desires of the foreign intervening power -- in this case, as per the wants, needs and desires of the U.S./the West). And
c. The impact (if any) of our military's thoughts on these matters (see "state-building" -- at "b" immediately above)?