Thank YOU, Brian and Bev. I have enjoyed this enormously. I thank you for your time, your wise comments, and your commitment to public dialogue. I am honored to be in your company.

Yes, I have had a number of events around UT in recent weeks. I will have more coming soon. (Next two weeks I am in DC and the midwest for book events.)

Please email for more info on Austin and other book events:
suri@austin.utexas.edu

I like to look at it as empowering people to make informed and thoughtful choices. Democracy should never be excuse for ignorance, hatred, and fear-mongering.

Yes, that is why I think we need to think more about how we are educating the citizens who vote in our elections. I am sorry, but I see too much ignorance and fear in our electorate. I also see too many efforts to limit participation by young people who are often well educated and much more willing to invest in our country.

Yes, in these difficult economic times I think we are reversing course. This will save us from another Iraq. It might, however, mean that we will not support major positive openings, like the Arab Spring. Foreign policy is always about balance. We must avoid over-reactions of nation-building everywhere, or nation-building nowhere. I believe in the golden mean.

There is something to be said for many of these competing models, but I think US nation-building stands up pretty well in comparison. Instead of rejecting it, my book tries to examine how we can do it better (for ourselves and others) based on historical experience.

Competing models for American-style nation-building:
1. Traditional empire – eg. British in India
2. Isolationism — focus only within our own borders
3. World government
4. Intervention for short-term economic gain — China today
5. Balance of power — Bismarck in late 19c Europe
6. Regionalism — focus only on particular areas of interest

Yes, I try to elucidate the neocon short-sightedness about nation-building in both Iraq and Afghanistan.

Yes, absolutely. Bombing civilians is a terrible way to build trust and partnership. If we are committed to nation-building in a particular place, we need boots on the ground. Bombing, especially with drones, must be kept to a minimum.

I am not sure that it is because of nation-building that we get dumped on at home. We would be better off at home if we said there are key governing institutions and experiences that are worth investing in — at home and abroad. We should invest good government where we need it most — our cities and our foreign counterparts who matter most to our safety, prosperity, and security. This was the calculation in Western Europe after WWII. That was a good calculation.

I am certain that Vladimir Putin in Russia and other authoritarians look to China today as a model. I think that is a mirage. The Chinese model will only work so long as the regime can promise continued economic growth on unprecedented scales. Beyond that, the communist leadership has no legitimacy. All regimes face economic difficulties, particularly when the world economy is so weak. In a time of economic slowdown, how will the Chinese people react? How will the government maintain legitimacy? I would NOT bet on China. I would bet on India, where you have a strong nation-state in formation.

Yes, I agree 100%. I have heard many stories like this. The problem was that the neocons wanted nation-building on the cheap, and for the enrichment of their friends. They violated all 5 Ps that I advocate in my book:
1. Partners — they rejected them
2. Process — they had formulas and simple answers, no process
3. Problem-solving — they didn’t care
4. Purpose — they never got locals to invest in a common purpose
5. People — they disdained the very people they claimed to save

We have to be careful not throw the baby out with the bath water. Nation-building is still a worthwhile and practical cause when we choose our cases carefully and we follow some of the “lessons” from our long history of doing this. Those are the reasons I wrote this book. I hope this discussion helps prevent a replay of the horrors exhibited by our society in Iraq.

Yes, as Brian says, I believe that nation-building must start at the grass-roots, but leaders and elites have a major role to play. Another way of putting it: nation-building involves top-down support for grass-roots mobilization.

Yes, our infrastructure stinks. In some places (including the Northeast) it looks “3rd world.” Then we have local leaders, like Governor Scott Walker in Wisconsin, who reject federal money for high-speed trains. This is the opposite of nation-building.

I think we might have a second (or third) reconstruction for international infrastructure (“internal improvements” as they were called in the 19c), IF:
1. The economy does not improve and joblessness remains high
2. The erratic weather from early global warming begins to scare more people
3. Business leaders begin to make a case that they need better infrastructure for efficiency
4. Gas prices rise above $4.50 a gallon

Yes, the cooperation with local elites in the Philippines surely stunted many forms of social and economic development. It surely set back land reform, as you say.

My question is, what were the better alternatives? The Philippines has failed to grow and develop as many might have hoped, but it has come a long way (I think) from under the Spanish, and it has avoided the far worse alternatives seen in many other developing nations — Burma, Cambodia, Algeria, etc. The elites have helped to create a functioning Filipino nation, as I see it, but one with many of the limitations that you so rightly articulated.

By the way, I think many of the problems with Filipino nation-building are evident in other cases — India, South Korea, etc.

Yes, I think JFK could have charted a different course, especially after the Cuban Missile Crisis. I am skeptical, however, that he would have done things differently if he had lived past November 1963. JFK had strong interests in selling an activist, militaristic, development agenda. He had made too many rhetorical commitments to a “New Frontier.” He was also very anxious of growing Chinese communist influence. I think JFK would have followed a path similar to LBJ’s in Vietnam. JFK would have done far less for civil rights and other issues inside the US. For all his failures abroad, LBJ was a great nation-builder at home.

Thanks for reminding me of this great questions, Brian. WWII sparked minimal domestic opposition because I think the enemies were so clearly odious and their threat to core American interests was so obvious after December 7, 1941. FDR used those elements to steer the American people into a collective enterprise that the prior 9 years of the New Deal had prepared them for, at least psychologically. I really like Mike Sherry’s book on this topic, _In the Shadow of War_.

I share your criticism of the US military-industrial complex. We have indeed become much too overmilitarized in the ways we allocate resources and exert our national power. The military is too large and too powerful in our society. My hope is that a fuller vision of nation-building, at home and abroad, will help shake us out of this terrible situation. We have so much latent power in other areas that received insufficient attention and support. I see this with undergraduates every day. They really want to change the world through non-military means. Even after 9/11, we have offered them too few opportunities. ROTC is still the only major government program that offers scholarships and assured employment on behalf of the “national interest.” Why don’t we have an ROTC for diplomats, for educators, for agrarian specialists, etc.?

Great question. One of my points in the book is that “great” leadership requires adaptation, flexibility, even a willingness to backtrack and admit mistakes. Moral clairvoyance is over-rated.

The great adapters to local conditions and international circumstances are the heroes of my book:

James Madison and George Washington
Abraham Lincoln and Oliver Otis Howard
William Howard Taft
Herbert Hoover (after WWII) and Harry Truman

The “failures” are those who cannot adapt, especially JFK and LBJ in Vietnam, Bush in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Yes, the record in Haiti is horrible. The US shares a lot of the blame. Nation-building has never worked there because even when foreigners have tried to help, they have never invested locally. They have also refused to partner with key local actors. Haiti has suffered from a combination of intermittent indifference and then repressive efforts by foreigners, including the US.

Thanks, Brian. It is perilous to connect history with current policy too directly. As you know, however, I like doing this. In addition to the “5 Ps” in my book, here are some lessons from the specific cases:

1. Founding — effective institutions can create a new “people,” as happened in the late 18c
2. Civil War Reconstruction — Investments in newly empowered local groups, through state institutions, can pay real dividends.
3. Philippines — civilian governance and cooperation with local elites can work.
4. Post-WWII — investment, political adjustment, and security must go hand-in-hand
5. Vietnam — the US must work with the most credible and effective local nation-builder, even if he/she is a communist or an Islamist
6. Afghanistan/Iraq — nation-building requires real US commitment. Half measures are disastrous