The U.S. Military and International Development: Practical Implications for Development Practitioners
Abstract:
Recent defense and development activities in destabilized environments illustrate the changing paradigm of national security. Such conflicts required simultaneous diplomatic, development, and defense efforts to respectively coordinate and negotiate with non-state actors, provide assistance and relief, and mitigate violent extremist organizations. Such efforts influenced the national security apparatus' conclusion that targeted assistance and development may prevent conflicts as a means of obviating military intervention. This has fueled debate and discussion regarding 1) whether development may reduce the occurrence of conflict, and 2) who should participate in development activities.
The military’s participation in development-oriented programs in the Iraq and Afghanistan impelled its increased integration into development and humanitarian activities. By improving security, the military may support good governance and enhance provincial development. Still, it is problematic for the military to participate in development activities. Debate centers on 1) whether military participation in development incurs greater or lesser harm in environments sensitive to any armed presence, 2) whether development falls under the mandate or legal authority of the military, and 3) the potential for runaway effects or mission creep.
This paper explores the ways that military involvement in development might 1) obfuscate the demarcation of civilian and military operation principles, and compromise the impartiality, neutrality, and independence of practitioners, and 2) lead to a false assumption that military participation is a causal mechanism of development effectiveness. In sum, this paper argues that given the pace and extent of non-conventional and protracted conflicts, it is imperative that the military and development community commit to coordination and discussion on their legal and appropriate role in development activities. This paper clarifies issues of military participation in development activities, and proposes how development partners may preserve the neutrality and impartiality of activities within the conflict environment.
Notice: All Rights Reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise except as noted below, without the written and express permission of Blue Glass Development, LLC.
Recent defense and development activities in destabilized environments illustrate the changing paradigm of national security. Such conflicts required simultaneous diplomatic, development, and defense efforts to respectively coordinate and negotiate with non-state actors, provide assistance and relief, and mitigate violent extremist organizations. Such efforts influenced the national security apparatus' conclusion that targeted assistance and development may prevent conflicts as a means of obviating military intervention. This has fueled debate and discussion regarding 1) whether development may reduce the occurrence of conflict, and 2) who should participate in development activities.
The military’s participation in development-oriented programs in the Iraq and Afghanistan impelled its increased integration into development and humanitarian activities. By improving security, the military may support good governance and enhance provincial development. Still, it is problematic for the military to participate in development activities. Debate centers on 1) whether military participation in development incurs greater or lesser harm in environments sensitive to any armed presence, 2) whether development falls under the mandate or legal authority of the military, and 3) the potential for runaway effects or mission creep.
This paper explores the ways that military involvement in development might 1) obfuscate the demarcation of civilian and military operation principles, and compromise the impartiality, neutrality, and independence of practitioners, and 2) lead to a false assumption that military participation is a causal mechanism of development effectiveness. In sum, this paper argues that given the pace and extent of non-conventional and protracted conflicts, it is imperative that the military and development community commit to coordination and discussion on their legal and appropriate role in development activities. This paper clarifies issues of military participation in development activities, and proposes how development partners may preserve the neutrality and impartiality of activities within the conflict environment.
Notice: All Rights Reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise except as noted below, without the written and express permission of Blue Glass Development, LLC.