Foreign Health Sector Capacity Building and the U.S. Military

Burkett, Edwin K

doi:10.7205/milmed-d-11-00087

Cited by 7 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This brings into question the level of readiness of the US military to serve as an effective intervener of post-conflict security stabilization and reconstruction based on previous lessons learned (Pei & Kasper 2003). While certain studies seek to evaluate the unilateral performance of the US military in nation-building (Bowen & Collier 2012;Burkett 2012;Carson 2003 This analysis focuses on the current limits and possibilities encountered by the US military in establishing a continuous, working partnership with American humanitarian institutions (e.g., USAID or other private International Nongovernmental Organizations -INGOs) to stabilize conflict zones in order to implement humanitarian aid and assistance to affected populations. While the complexities of involving militaries as a tool of stabilization and post-conflict reconstruction are global in scope, it is imperative to note that it involves both State and non-state actors across many cases.…”

Section: President Bush Indicated In His Speech At the Virginia Militmentioning

confidence: 99%

Limits and Possibilities of the United States Military in Post-Conflict Reconstruction and Stabilization

Neto¹,

dos²

2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study probes the limits and possibilities of US military efforts to facilitate the transition from warfighting to nation-building. Most comparative studies conceive the complexity of this transition along a spectrum from conflict to humanitarian assistance to post-conflict stabilization. While the last two stages have often been interpreted as a coordinated act of civil-military ‘nation-building’; the spectrum, in fact, represents an ideal type simplification. At one level, outcomes depend on the players involved, including: sovereign nations, national militaries, international and regional institutions, UN peacekeepers, private security contractors, and non-governmental humanitarian providers, among others. On the other hand, because the number, types, and causes of case outcomes are highly diverse and contingent upon many possible factors (among them for example: political, economic, military, organizational, humanitarian, cultural, and religious), institutions like the US military face serious difficulties both planning and coordinating post-conflict scenarios. Assuming this complex backdrop, the present study offers a qualitative analysis of two recent US government reports by the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction (SIGAR) and the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction (SIGIR) on US military engagement in Afghanistan and Iraq. In both cases, the US government sought to ‘nation-build’ by facilitating post-war stabilization and humanitarian assistance, detailing its genuine efforts to record both processes. While results indicate some limited successes in both cases, they also indicate a familiar pattern of uneven performance failures consistent with other cases internationally. The analysis concludes with recommendations for further research that may better control the contingencies of post-conflict management.

show abstract

Section: President Bush Indicated In His Speech At the Virginia Militmentioning

confidence: 99%