The National Military Strategy emphasizes the recognition of human, cultural, and political continuities of armed conflict xxxx. This strategy calls for forces possessing cross-cultural capabilities that permit them to operate effectively among populations. Inherent in this vision is a mastery of language, cultural awareness, and an in-depth knowledge of peoples, political systems, religion, demographics, infrastructure, and a host of other factors that can vary significantly by country and region (xxxStrategic Studies Institute). The US can increase stability in Europe by employing a strategy that prioritizes state-building projects in former Soviet Union territory. As Russia continues to regain the prominence it once enjoyed, and the
…show more content…
In the immediate aftermath of an inter- or intra-state conflict that ends as a result of outside intervention, the task of establishing the requisite political order to govern the people residing in the former war zone falls to the occupying powers (states, international organizations or a combination of the two). Most significantly, those in charge—military officers and civilian officials alike—must allow at least some measure of participatory democracy as soon as possible in order to begin to earn the trust of the population of the territory under …show more content…
Once the launch of such a body becomes feasible, it is essential that it is at least broadly representative of the cultural composition of the society over which its members will preside. Understandably, the degree of difficulty in constructing a transitional government tends to correspond to the number of distinctive ethnic, religious and tribal groups involved in the process.
The ultimate political objective in carrying out a nation/state-building project is the creation of an enduring liberal democratic state. The administrative mechanisms therein certainly need not be identical in each case so long as they produce liberal democratic rather than autocratic governing bodies. In the end, whether a state has a presidential system, a parliamentary system or a combination of the two is not nearly as important as its long-term viability.
In the immediate aftermath of an inter- or intra-state conflict that ends as a result of outside intervention, the task of establishing the requisite political order to govern the people residing in the former war zone falls to the occupying powers (states, international organizations or a combination of the two). Most significantly, those in charge—military officers and civilian officials alike—must allow at least some measure of participatory democracy as soon as possible in order to begin to earn the trust of the population of the territory under …show more content…
Once the launch of such a body becomes feasible, it is essential that it is at least broadly representative of the cultural composition of the society over which its members will preside. Understandably, the degree of difficulty in constructing a transitional government tends to correspond to the number of distinctive ethnic, religious and tribal groups involved in the process.
The ultimate political objective in carrying out a nation/state-building project is the creation of an enduring liberal democratic state. The administrative mechanisms therein certainly need not be identical in each case so long as they produce liberal democratic rather than autocratic governing bodies. In the end, whether a state has a presidential system, a parliamentary system or a combination of the two is not nearly as important as its long-term viability.