Bldg Partner Capac in Def FP

3 Credits · Level: Graduate, Juris Doctor, Undergraduate

Building Partner Capacity in Defense and Foreign Policy. Throughout its history, the United States has consistently committed its political, economic, and military resources to build the political and military capacity of allied and partner nations as central tenet of its foreign policy. Not surprisingly, this policy tends to be borne more out of political self-interest and utilitarianism than of altruism or humanitarianism. U.S. security--economic, territorial, and physical--is the primary driver for this approach and for decades, along with the convenient geography of two massive oceans, it has served us well. However, globalization, technology-enabled communication, and shifting cultural demographics have elevated a time-honored tactic—terrorism by state and non-state actors--to a strategic consideration by both the United States and its adversaries, even as the geopolitical landscape demands careful navigation among state actors. Each year the U.S. deploys national assets such as capital, personnel, development organizations, private foundations, NGOs, and non-profits in an attempt to stabilize, reconstruct, or even completely develop the political institutions, economy, and security of a failing or fragile state. Even in the best case, such interventions may prove ineffective; worse they may exacerbate conflict they aim to placate. In this environment, federal agencies, diplomats, and NGOs are the logical lead for these capacity building efforts, yet the real and present security threat of terrorism has resulted in militaries and intelligence agencies playing a seemingly ever-expanding role in security and institution-building (and even other assistance where access by others is limited by capacity or will). This course aims to examine some of the fundamentals of U.S. capacity building activities in partner nations (and, by default, state-building) and asks how approaches to achieve U.S. security policy outcomes vary across countries, within both the intervening and the intervened. We will consider these policy priorities within the context of the persistent global terrorist threat and the strategic shift away from counterterrorism and toward state actors.