Today the U.S. army released a new version (14 MB PDF) of its Field Manual for Stability Operations.
The announcement in yesterday’s WaPo opened:
The Army on Monday will unveil an unprecedented doctrine that declares nation-building missions will probably become more important than conventional warfare and defines "fragile states" that breed crime, terrorism and religious and ethnic strife as the greatest threat to U.S. national security.
I am not aware of any country that has no crime, no terrorism and no religious or ethnic strife of one kind or another. So who will define what states are "fragile"?
The first sentence of the introduction to the field manual may give an answer:
Today, the Nation remains engaged in an era of persistent conflict against enemies intent on limiting American
access and influence throughout the world.
Is every entity that is "intent on limiting American
access and influence throughout the world" now an enemy?
The doctrine of military "stability operations" seems to be driven by two urges:
- to justify "intervention" in form of "stability operations" under the pretext of ill-defined "instability" whenever and wherever one likes
- the U.S. military’s organizational drive to encroach on foreign policy issues that should be the task of the State Department and to militarize all foreign aid
Yesterday’s WaPo piece included this somewhat ambiguous graph that had me wonder:
"This is the document that bridges from conflict to peace," said Lt.
Gen. William B. Caldwell IV, commander of the U.S. Army Combined Arms
Center at Fort Leavenworth,
Kan., where the manual was drafted over the past 10 months. The U.S.
military "will never secure the peace until we can conduct stability
operations in a collaborative manner" with civilian government and
private entities at home and abroad, he said.
At home and abroad – hmm …