Nation Building: A Joint Enterprise

Abstract

Battles are won by the infantry, the armor, the artillery and air teams, by soldiers living in the rains and huddling in the snow. But wars are won by the great strength of the nation--the soldier and the civilian working together. --General Omar N. Bradley (1) Consider the following questions. The Army is at war, but is the nation at 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 enough to mobilize the nation? Public opinion polls in January 2007 showed that support for President Bush's handling of the war was at an all-time low of 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 Staff of the Army, General Peter Schoomaker, began his remarks to the House Armed Services Committee on 27 June 2006 with these words. America's Army remains at war. And we will be fighting this war for the foreseeable future. This is not just the Army's war. Yet in light of the scale of our commitment we bear the majority of the burden, serving side by side with Marines and our other sister services and coalition partners. (4) General Schoomaker identified the crux of the issue; America relies upon the Army, and from a joint perspective, the Department of Defense, to fight and win the nation's wars. The American people have every expectation that the military will succeed when committed. They hold the military accountable for achieving victory. Yet the military does not command or control the elements of national power (diplomatic, information, and economic) essential for achieving victory. Intellectuals argue that wars are won or lost by nations and not by militaries. The military does, however, make a significant contribution to any eventual outcome of a conflict. Many observers believe the military is responsible for the final outcome of any conflict despite a multitude of related factors. (5) For example, there are those who contend that America lost the war in Vietnam even though, from a tactical standpoint, the Army did not lose a battle. Many blamed this loss on the lack of a coordinated national strategy, but continue to hold the military accountable for failing to develop a winning strategy. (6) Similarly, in Iraq, many claim the war is being lost and blame the leadership of the Department of Defense for any number of strategic errors. (7) This harkens back to the issue that the military is accountable to fight and win America's wars. Others question why the military needs to support such missions as nation-building. The fact of the matter is the military as an element of national power is employed to protect the United States' national interests. The military is exercising that role in Iraq because national leaders believe that critical interests are at stake. (8) The United States performs nation- building activities to establish conditions that further our national interests. There are a number of countries needing assistance with nation-building, but the military is not capable of providing direct assistance to all in need. The nation's leaders apparently do not consider national interests sufficient to warrant military deployments to all of these regions. (9) Africa has a predominance of the poorest nations in the world. Genocide, famine, disease, and failed governments are often cited as sufficient justification for the US military's nation-building assistance. (10) Yet, because vital national security interests are not at stake, the military is not substantially engaged throughout Africa. It goes without saying that the world has more needs than the United States has the capacity to provide solutions. National interests serve to prioritize the employment of America's military. …