ALEXANDRIA, Virginia – Despite placing state-building programs in weak countries to protect the national security interests of the United States, the current foreign policy strategy adopted by Washington over the last decade and a half is now crumbling.
The failed-state paradigm is a concept that describes the current, and unsuccessful affairs in the realm of U.S. foreign policy. According to Michael J. Mazarr, Professor of National Security Strategy at the National War College, the U.S. focused more on state-building to resolve national security concerns than extending long-term diplomatic relations.
“For a decade and a half, from the mid-1990s through about 2010, the dominant national security narrative in the United States stressed the dangers posed by weak for failing states. These were seen to breed terrorism, regional chaos, crime, disease, and environmental catastrophe,” said Mazarr.
But, where does the idea that the U.S. should include state-building in its foreign policy originate from?
Although the events of 9/11 played an important role, the mindset that dominated Washington over the last decade and a half actually stems from the Cold War era. Mazarr argues, “in the wake of the Cold War… many U.S. national security strategists and practitioners concluded that most risks were posed by the fragility of state structures and recommended profound shifts in U.S. foreign and defense policy as a result.”
At first, the Democrats and Republicans developed different views regarding the state-building dispute.
For example, the Clinton administration’s foreign policy focused on humanitarian principles and economic development. Moreover, the administration believed that the Cold War created new conflicts that would ultimately threaten regional and international peace. Therefore, the Clinton administration did not lose focus on the security aspect of foreign policy.
On the other hand, George W. Bush asserted that nation building would serve as a distraction for the United States. According to Mazarr, Bush said, “Let me tell you what else I’m worried about: I’m worried about an opponent who uses ‘nation building’ and ‘the military’ in the same sentence.”
This stance persisted until the events of 9/11 forced the Bush administration to adopt the concept of state-building in its foreign policy with the intention of legitimizing its “War on Terror.” This eventually led to the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq, in which the latter turned out to be a catastrophe after the military pullout between 2009 and 2011.
In an article for the New Yorker, staff writer Jon Lee Anderson wrote, “In Iraq, two years after President Barack Obama made good on his word and pulled U.S. troops out – forty-five hundred American lives later, and God knows how many Iraqi lives later – the slumbering sectarian war has reignited.” He also questions whether the war in Iraq was worth it now that a terrorist group linked to Al Qaeda took over the cities of Fallujah and Ramadi.
Mazarr concludes, “Focusing on two seemingly endless wars and half a dozen other potential ‘stability operations’ has eroded U.S. global engagement, diminished U.S. diplomatic creativity, and distracted U.S. officials from responding appropriately to changes in the global landscape.”
He believes that when the United States does intervene in weak states, it should be a gradual process in which economic assistance and human-capacity-development programs play a role. Ultimately, this would involve using foreign policy to help make the institutions in weak states stronger.
– Juan Campos
Sources: The New Yorker, Foreign Affairs
Photo: Business Insider