In partial response to Chirol’s post on colonizing Nepal—which I suspect was provocative in part to elicit good comments—look what picture and caption the New York Times has on the front page today:

A Nepalese police officer tried to stop his men from beating demonstrators in Katmandu Saturday.
This is exactly what Kaplan has been talking about for the past three years. To quote from notes of a Kaplan address at Philadelphia’s Foreign Policy Research Institute in 2003:
The U.S. had 550,000 troops in Vietnam but didn’t accomplish much. By contrast, at no point between 1979 and 1992 did we have more than 55 special forces trainers on the ground in El Salvador, but with just those 55 and a few hundred support personnel, the U.S. was able to help the rightwing groups suppress the leftwing groups and then the regular army to absorb the rightwing groups and turn them into a professional army that respected human rights. El Salvador today may not be a success story, but in an imperfect world it is about as normalized as one could reasonably hope. Because you cannot fix a whole society or its whole military, you have your elite units train the trainers of their elite units. You work to convert a few elite units in the host country’s military and train them to go after a few pivotal targets, thus achieving maximum effect with minimum manpower
And in a similar article on El Salvador that same month:
U.S. security-assistance programs also professionalize foreign militaries, thus helping to prevent coups and to improve the human-rights climate. In the 1980s in El Salvador, Colonel J. S. Roach, a member of the operational planning team there, observed that “the Salvadoran military understood they weren’t supposed to violate human rights, but they believed they were driven to extreme measures by extreme circumstances.” One can debate what members of El Salvador’s military “understood,” but Roach’s team and others pounded home the point that violating human rights almost never makes sense from a pragmatic perspective, because it costs the military the civilian support so necessary to rooting out guerrilla insurgents. “Human rights wasn’t a separate one-hour block at the beginning of the day,” Roach said. “You had to find a way to couch it in the training so that it wasn’t just a moralistic approach.” Human-rights abuses didn’t come to an end in El Salvador, but observers agree that they were sharply curbed.
Do not overestimate what we can do. There is no magic right answer that fixes all the problems in Nepal or Iraq or elsewhere. With the limited resources, an enormous chaotic domestic politic, and shaky public tolerance in the US for even small-scale overseas interventions, the US has learnt to do the most about of good with as much as it can spare. We can only hope that cooler heads in the government like the police officer above prevail before its too late.

Comments to this entry
sun bin
April 16, 2006
4:36 pm
nepal does not have oil. halliburton is not interested in the pictures you posted at all.
however, this problem is also a good one (for nepal), as there is no reason to stay behind in the marsh. so there might be a quick solution which might work.
marquer
April 16, 2006
8:09 pm
By contrast, at no point between 1979 and 1992 did we have more than 55 special forces trainers on the ground in El Salvador, but with just those 55 and a few hundred support personnel, the U.S. was able to help the rightwing groups suppress the leftwing groups and then the regular army to absorb the rightwing groups and turn them into a professional army that respected human rights.
Demurring here, on the grounds that there's a faulty implicit premise. Left-wing revolutionary agitation did die down after the early 1990s, and after a lot of training effort had been expended on Central American militaries by the US.
Let us always remind ourselves of a classic analytical trap, to wit, that correlation is not necessarily causation. Something big happened in the background which this narrative does not clearly take account of. Prior to 1991, left-wing revolutionary movements all over the world had a superpower patron quietly operating in the background, greatly augmenting their effectiveness. See Chirol's note on the new Mitrokin book.
That then suddenly evaporated, choking off money, arms, training, logistics, and ideological indoctrination efforts (to say nothing of inherently discrediting the entire Leninist enterprise). One would surmise that even if the US had not been steadily pushing counterinsurgency models, that leftist uprisings would have been greatly reduced in their intensity and effectiveness by this one sea change alone.
One could posit a 1990s alternate history in which the USSR had begun internal reforms earlier and which had remained a viable and active progenitor of Latin American guerrilla action. It is hard to avoid the conclusion that places like El Salvador would have endured continued and amplified instability, and in some cases the outright collapse of central government, US training notwithstanding.
I have heard reference to "the Negroponte model" with regard to Iraq, to wit, the tacit tolerance by the US of extrajudicial death squads as a tool of counterinsurgency, which allegedly worked a charm in places like ES in the '80s and '90s. Needless to say, I reject the proposition that this had been of value in any sense in the first place, and consider that in its reapplication in an Iraqi context, it has merely served to pour gasoline on the embers of an Iraqi civil war.
Jay
April 16, 2006
10:06 pm
bq. God what crap
bq. the 550K troops in Nam won as much as they were allowed to - given the sanctuaries the PAVN had they were essentially on the strategic defense - they bought time for the ARVN to get good enough to fight the last major PAVN offensive [72] to a draw with relatively minimal gains
bq. Ted Kennedy and the NYT then took away their logisitic and air support after which they were beaten by a massive conventional invasion. However in the main they went down hard.
bq. Our lovely enemies in Salvador the FMNL had sanctuaries in Nicaragua [and to a lesser extent in the left dominated NGO refugee camps in Honduras and Guatemala] but it was a completely different war.
bq. And claiming that the US got the locals to respect human rights...ROFLMAO. They curbed the extremes by carrot and stick but only in the sense of making the mano blanco use a small bit of intelligence [i.e. rape - murder of US nuns is REALLY dumb; ditto killing the local head of the RC Church - our twits simply didn't grok media war]. The BIG change was on the political side. ARENA may not have been the forces of democratic vision, but they did offer SOME way for the locals to get SOME control of the hard boys. Enough people got tired enough of forever war to opt into the political process and ARENA managed to deliver enough basic governance to make the equation work...
bq. [...ARENA as a political party partly 'civilized' the death squad right but in fact lost the first elections. However they slowly came to accept electoral politics as a valid path to power as opposed to just killing people...]
Sonagi
April 18, 2006
6:37 pm
Jay
April 19, 2006
3:16 am
Kirk H. Sowell
April 23, 2006
1:33 am