Nation Building as Such Refers

Nation Building as such refers to the process by which a nation is structured or constructed by utilizing the power of the state. It is an important process that involves the people of the state, with the innate purpose of making sure that the "state remains feasible and viable and also stays politically stable, in the long run." (Nation Building: Wikipedia) Nation Building can use either propaganda or publicity to promote the desired results, or it may use major infrastructure development to promote and foster harmony and stability in the political process, so that social harmony, as well as economic growth is achieved. (Nation Building: Wikipedia) It must be noted that originally, nation building as such was used by countries such as Africa. This was because of the fact that it had been a colonial territory, and as a result, it had been carved up by the colonization, with a blatant disregard to ethnic and other types of boundaries, so that there was no real national boundary or character to the nation, therefore, when nation building as an exercise was undertaken, it was then that Africa could be molded into a viable and a consistent national entity. (Nation Building: Wikipedia)

In Africa, the process of nation building included the construction of relevant 'national paraphernalia' such as flags, anthems, national days, national languages, national stadiums, national airport, and many other such things, so that the people of the country would have a real national identity. However, at a deeper and more intrinsic level, Africa needed to create and build up a national identity, that is, in other words, it needed to mould the several different ethnic groups in existence in Africa, into one nation, and this was especially needed because of the fact that colonialism had relied on the basic method of the 'divide and rule policy' to maintain its domination over the land and its peoples. (Nation Building: Wikipedia)

Today, 'nation building' has been used in an entirely different context, wherein the 'use of armed forces' to ensure that in the time after a major conflict, the transition to 'democracy' becomes more important than anything else has become a predominating factor in the process of nation building, especially by the United States, after the conflict in Iraq. (Nation Building: Wikipedia) It must be mentioned that the United States had undertaken earlier efforts at nation building, using methods described above, in Japan. It is generally stated that these efforts were quite successful, especially when it is compared to similar efforts undertaken in Germany after the Second World War. The transformation in Japan was infinitely smoother, and also much quicker than in Germany, although at the end, Japan was indeed less integrated with its neighbors. (Dobbins; McGinn; Crane; Jones; Lal; Rathmell; Swanger; Timilsina, 2003)

This undertaking by the United States offered certain valuable lessons to the entire world, some of them being: it is a fact that democracy can indeed be transferred and inculcated into non-Western societies. In addition, the manner in which the responsibility for the war was assigned will eventually make a significant difference in the internal political dynamics and in the maintenance of external relations of that country with others, in the next several years to come. (Dobbins; McGinn; Crane; Jones; Lal; Rathmell; Swanger; Timilsina, 2003) It was also found that co-opting existing institutions would make the process of nation building much easier, than attempting to build new ones right form the scratch, and in the same manner, unilateral nation building efforts would be much easier than multilateral nation building efforts. Most importantly it was found that when the innate power to make economic policy decisions were to be given as a sole responsibility to one single entity, then the economic recovery of the nation would not only be much quicker, but also much more effective. (Dobbins; McGinn; Crane; Jones; Lal; Rathmell; Swanger; Timilsina, 2003)

Therefore, this meant that when the power to make economic decisions were to be delegated to the local governing elites, who would, more often than not, have their own priorities, it would, in the long run, serve to dilute and minimize the effectiveness of the changes being brought in as a result of the nation building efforts. (Dobbins; McGinn; Crane; Jones; Lal; Rathmell; Swanger; Timilsina, 2003) Certain idealistic reforms, designed for the long-term improvement and benefit of the nation, must at times, perforce give way to short-term and certain immediate and urgent global concerns of the occupying power. (Dobbins; McGinn; Crane; Jones; Lal; Rathmell; Swanger; Timilsina, 2003)

In Germany, the attempts at democratization undertaken by the United States of America after the conclusion of the Second World War was not a very difficult undertaking, because of the fact that Germany had already had experience in the tenets of democracy. In addition, it was surrounded on all three sides by true democracies, Germany's neighbors, and this meant that Germany's integration into the dense network of democratically based international institutions, such as, for example, the NATO, and the European Coal and Steel Community, was quite inordinately simple and uncomplicated. (Dobbins; McGinn; Crane; Jones; Lal; Rathmell; Swanger; Timilsina, 2003) It must be noted that Japan did not have these same opportunities, but despite this fact, Japan was quite rapidly transformed into a democracy, perhaps due to the intense nation building efforts that were undertaken by the U.S.A., which had made the important decision to co-opt Japanese institutions, and also the unilateral process of nation building. (Dobbins; McGinn; Crane; Jones; Lal; Rathmell; Swanger; Timilsina, 2003)

First and foremost, the occupation authorities of the U.S.A. made the major decision of both retaining as well as adapting existing Japanese Institutions, and take on the role of supervisors, perhaps because of their basic lack of knowledge of the Japanese language, and also because of a lack of technical capabilities. Therefore, in this manner, the U.S.A. made complete use of the existing political and bureaucratic apparatus, without having to resort to building them right form scratch. (Dobbins; McGinn; Crane; Jones; Lal; Rathmell; Swanger; Timilsina, 2003) In certain relevant areas, like for example, in the Japanese Constitution, the Japanese Police Department, and other important areas, the United States did undertake efforts to change and modify them. Eventually, the U.S. occupation was managed through a completely and fully articulated Japanese Government, which consisted of a wide range of personalities, including the Prime Minister, the Emperor, the Courts, the Ministries, and the Parliaments. In comparison to German occupation, all these various institutions had to be abolished, and then rebuilt, right from scratch. (Dobbins; McGinn; Crane; Jones; Lal; Rathmell; Swanger; Timilsina, 2003)

In Japan, as stated earlier, the basic occupation authority was concentrated on one single nation, and indeed, one single individual, Douglas MacArthur. This meant that this person did not need to consult with other countries in his nation building activities, whereas in Germany, it was entirely different, and furthermore, the two most important international bodies for oversight and for consultation, namely the 'Far Eastern Commission', and the 'ACJ', had little or no impact on the entire process. (Dobbins; McGinn; Crane; Jones; Lal; Rathmell; Swanger; Timilsina, 2003) Unilateralism also helped the United States in concentrating all its energies and resources in the overall reconstruction efforts and to expend less energy in trying to forge a consensus between the partners, as it happened in Germany. (Dobbins; McGinn; Crane; Jones; Lal; Rathmell; Swanger; Timilsina, 2003)

It was immediately after the Second World War that the United States of America undertook its nation building efforts in Germany and in Japan, with quite different results. However, it must be noted that the United States did inordinately succeed in helping to rebuild both these defeated nations into new democracies. This rebuilding did not happen without expense, however, and the entire effort took more than a few billion U.S. dollars. (U.S. Involvement in Nation Building before Iraq) As a matter of fact, these two nation building efforts are often recognized as the two very important and very successful stories in nation building, anywhere in the world. What became evident was that democracy could indeed be brought in to nations that had absolutely no connection or relationship with democracy as such and that these efforts can indeed be undertaken, and excellent results can be expected. Recently, however, the U.S.A. has undertaken nation building efforts in Iraq, and there are two important reports on this matter, and what exactly America can hope to establish in Iraq. (U.S. Involvement in Nation Building before Iraq)

One is a policy paper written by two important researchers from the 'Carnegie Endowment for International Peace', entitled 'Lessons from the Past: The American Record on Nation Building', brought out in the year 2003, and the other is the book by the Rand Corporation, one of the most important think tanks of the U.S.A., entitled 'America's Role in Nation-Building, from Germany to Iraq', also released in 2003. (U.S. Involvement in Nation Building before Iraq) These two reports were in complete agreement that each and every involvement by the United States of America is not a nation building effort, and also that the U.S. effort must follow certain guidelines in any such efforts, like for example, it must perforce be for the innate purpose of changing, or propping up the regime. It must also deploy large numbers of U.S. ground troops, and it must also involve these troops, as well as large numbers of civilians in the basic political administration of the country. (U.S. Involvement in Nation Building before Iraq) If all three of these criterions are met, then it can be termed as a nation building effort, as it happened in Germany after the World War II was concluded in May 1945, after which the victorious French and British and American and Soviet forces set about occupying particular zones in Germany, and in setting up military governments. (U.S. Involvement in Nation Building before Iraq)

It was in 1947 that the multi-billion dollar 'Marshall Plan' was created, with the purpose of rebuilding and also strengthening the various democracies of Western Europe, and America took up the lead in transforming Germany from the dictatorship that it was, into a democracy. Therefore, the U.S.A., at the outset, outlawed the Nazi Party, and then disbanded the military and fired all the existing government officials. After this, a new German Police force was trained by America, to take over most law enforcement functions. (U.S. Involvement in Nation Building before Iraq) The very first National Elections in Germany took place in the year 1949, in the combined English, British and American occupied zones. This election in fact formed the 'Federal Republic of Germany', and since then, Germany has remained a strongly democratic nation. As far as Japan is concerned, after its surrender following the devastating atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945, America was alone in occupying the nation and building it up into a democracy, and General Douglas MacArthur was the Supreme Commander of the reconstruction efforts being undertaken. (U.S. Involvement in Nation Building before Iraq) He wrote a new democratic Constitution, which the Japanese adopted in the year 1946, and one specific condition was that Japan must forfeit war forever. Democracy is now firmly rooted in Japan. (U.S. Involvement in Nation Building before Iraq)

In Afghanistan, following the Al Quaeda Terrorist attacks in September 11, 2001, on the World Trade Center in the United States of America, the United Nations gave a firm approval of the subsequent U.S. attacks on the Taliban Regime in Afghanistan. The reason may be that it was in fact the Taliban that had provided a refuge for the terrorists of the Osama bin Laden's Al Quaeda terrorist outfit that had launched the attacks. (U.S. Involvement in Nation Building before Iraq) Today, peacekeepers from the United Nations and from the NATO maintain peace and order in Kabul, the Capital city of Afghanistan, while at the same time, more than 10,000 numbers of U.S. troops are engaged in ferreting out members of the terrorist Al Quaeda outfit. It must be mentioned that even today, on account of the widespread and widely prevalent unrest and disorder and also violence in several parts of Afghanistan, the peace keeping and the nation building efforts have not taken off to a satisfying start as yet, and all efforts are being concentrated on maintaining law and order within the country. (U.S. Involvement in Nation Building before Iraq)

Both the Rand Report, as well as the Carnegie Report offers a similar opinion, that it is much too early to judge the effectiveness of the nation building efforts being undertaken by the United States of America, in Afghanistan. Both the Reports also state that in order for nation building efforts to be effective, there must be a suitable situation in that country, and among other conditions, some of the more important ones may be that, first and foremost, nothing at all can actually be achieved if the nation is not secure. (U.S. Involvement in Nation Building before Iraq) In other words, people must feel secure and confident enough about themselves to be able to go out and conduct their daily routines and lives and activities without fear. Therefore, it means that there must be more numbers of ground troops in the country. Secondly, if the nation building efforts were to be successful, then its peoples must be united, and possess a strong national identity, and it will do more harm than good if the entire nation were to be torn into several factions depending on ethnicity and other factors. (U.S. Involvement in Nation Building before Iraq)

In addition, the efforts would be successful only if the local people of that country were to become involved in taking over and running some of the most basic tasks of the Government, like it happened in both Japan and in Germany. The Carnegie Report especially states that if an outsider were to take over these basic duties, then it would be completely unfavorable, and the outsider would inevitably be seen with hostile eyes. (U.S. Involvement in Nation Building before Iraq) If the country were to be economically developed, then it would be easier to bring in democracy. Otherwise, it would be much too difficult, as it is happening in Afghanistan, which is a completely economically under developed country. Thirdly, it would help to a great extent if the entire undertaking were to be based on multi-lateralism, because of the simple fact that it would be a less expensive affair on account of the involvement and the sharing of the expenses by other countries. (U.S. Involvement in Nation Building before Iraq)

The support of other neighboring nations would be guaranteed as well, and this would indeed "go a long way towards ensuring the success of the ongoing nation building efforts." (U.S. Involvement in Nation Building before Iraq) The Rand Report mentions that nothing can be achieved in one single day, and in this particular case, a time period of at the very least, five years, must be given to the United States, before it can be judged for the effectiveness of its nation building efforts in Afghanistan. Therefore, the more the level of efforts put in, and the more numbers of troops deployed, and the more amount of time spent on the efforts, the better would be its eventual success. (U.S. Involvement in Nation Building before Iraq)

In Afghanistan, as compared to what the U.S. forces were able to achieve in Somalia, in Kosovo, and in Bosnia, there is a clear 'regression', and perhaps the reason may be that the efforts are considerably less expensive than in the other nations. In Iraq, however, the challenges that the United States is facing today, are large and considerable, and according to the Rand Report, there are four valuable and extremely important lessons to be learnt form this particular experience. One is that it is a fact that democratic nation building will work, provided sufficient and adequate resources are offered and are available. (Nation Building, the Inescapable Responsibility of the World's only Super Power: Rand Review) However, it must also be remembered that such inputs may be very high, and that, as a result, they may not be available with ease. In a comparison with the numbers of troops that were used in a similar nation building exercise in other countries, and especially in Kosovo, and if the same levels of troop commitments that were used in Kosovo were to be used in Iraq as well, then it would mean that the numbers would be almost 500,000 U.S. troops and also coalition troops through the year of 2005. (Nation Building, the Inescapable Responsibility of the World's only Super Power: Rand Review)

In reality, in Iraq today, there are about 150,000 coalition troops deployed today. In addition, according to the Rand Report, to add to the military forces deployed in Iraq today, there must also be a significant number of international civil police in the country, and if today, the U.S.A. wished to achieve a similar level of civil police deployment in Iraq as it had in Kosovo, that is, about 5,000 police, then it would mean that in Iraq, there would have to be an immediate infusion of a minimum of about 53,000 international civil police officers, through 2005. (Nation Building, the Inescapable Responsibility of the World's only Super Power: Rand Review) In the same way, although it is a fact that it is indeed much too early to accurately predict the required levels of foreign aid for the United States to successfully rebuild and restructure Iraq, comparisons can be drawn form previous cases. (Nation Building, the Inescapable Responsibility of the World's only Super Power: Rand Review) For example, if the level of foreign aid that was provided in nation building efforts in Bosnia were to be given to the U.S.A. today in its ongoing efforts in Iraq, then it would mean that the country would eventually require about $36 Billion in aid from today through the entire year of 2005. Conversely, aid at the very same level of what had been given in the case of Afghanistan would come up to a sum total of about $1 Billion over the next few years. (Nation Building, the Inescapable Responsibility of the World's only Super Power: Rand Review)

Iraq would also need large amounts of funds that must be used for humanitarian aid and also for budgetary support, and it is also highly unlikely that taxes levied on the Iraqi oil sector would be at all sufficient to be able to fund the rebuilding and the reconstruction of the Iraqi economy in the foreseeable and near future. This is actually based on the experiences that the U.S.A. had previously had in Kosovo and in Bosnia, both of which had a higher par capita income than Iraq, and this would naturally entail that budgetary support would be needed for quite some time, in Iraq. (Nation Building, the Inescapable Responsibility of the World's only Super Power: Rand Review) This would in turn mean that if the U.S.A. were to hope to manage the basic budgetary expenditures in any way at all, then the post-conflict authorities in Iraq must, at the outset, establish a reasonable and practical level of expenditure, and then go about the creation of a transparent tax system, and then request foreign donors to donate funds generously so that the nation would be able to get back on its feet immediately. (Nation Building, the Inescapable Responsibility of the World's only Super Power: Rand Review) This would most probably be the best and also the most effective means of economic recovery for the entire nation in the near future. (Nation Building, the Inescapable Responsibility of the World's only Super Power: Rand Review)

According to Richard A Clarke, the White House Anti-terrorism Coordinator under the American Presidents Clinton and George Bush, and the author of the book 'Against all Enemies: Inside America's War on Terror', most Americans are completely unaware of what exactly they are up against in their war against terrorism and in the subsequent nation building efforts being undertaken by their government. For example, the Al-Quaeda terrorism network, which has been constantly depicted as being one of the super powers of terrorist and jihadi networks, is, as a matter of fact, only a small operational component of an extreme and a violent movement, prevalent all over the entire globe, intent on waging a 'holy war' to protect their own interests. In the same way, almost all Americans today are unaware of the real dangers behind the Iraq debacle. (Clarke, 2004) It must be noted that when the United States supports a democratically illegitimate government in Iraq, or when it conducts several counter insurgency operations in Iraq that end up killing numerous civilians, in the hope of eliminating more terrorists and Al Quaeda extremists, the result may be that many terrorists may indeed be eliminated. (Clarke, 2004)

But at the same time, there might be a completely unwarranted result of these very acts leading to the development of a feeling of sympathy for the Al Quaeda activists and the jihadists, and also for all Muslims, throughout the world. Maybe, in the long run, this would lead to the creation of more resources and funds for the terrorist organizations, so that they may be able to carry on their various activities undeterred, and therefore, the United States must start to pay more close attention to how exactly all its actions would end up affecting these groups. (Clarke, 2004) As a matter of fact, fresh evidence shows that popular support for the Iraq insurgency is gradually increasing not only in Iraq, but also all over the Arab and the Muslim world, and this in turn means that the United States in slowly losing out in the area of global ideas and support. (Clarke, 2004)

For example, in Iraq, as recently as 7 November 2005, a suicide bomber happened to blow up his vehicle at a check point located to the South of Baghdad, and in the process, killed four American soldiers, when Iraqi and U.S. troops were busy battling Al Quaeda led militants in the small town of Husaybah. The Al Quaeda in Iraq thereafter supposedly released a statement through the Internet that the Iraqi government must stop the offensive at once, 'or else...' (Reid, 2005) These four U.S. deaths brought to 2,051 the numbers of U.S. soldiers who have died in Iraq after the commencement of the Iraqi War in the year 2003. It must be remembered that allegations of prisoner abuse at the Abu Ghraib Prison in Baghdad brought international attention to the U.S.A. In 2004, and the president George Bush subsequently defended these interrogation practices, that led to the abuse of prisoners, by stating that it was a part of the investigative process, and in fact, he also lobbied strongly against a Congressional drive to outlaw torture. (Reid, 2005)