In all aspects of life, various segments of our communities have a common perception of their function and purpose. The military is regarded for what it is, a battalion of soldiers whose primary purpose is war, the idea that they might change that perception is difficult conceptually and ideologically, one that I believe is flawed. I have often wondered at the logicality of the "hearts and minds" efforts of military contingents in some of the places I have been engaged such as Kosovo, Afghanistan and Aceh. It is not just simple a matter of their extensive capacity to do the work but their perception as to how they are primarily considered in a country where in the past, they may have crashed though doors, pulled down walls, taken captives and even wounded or killed people from the same neighborhood where they are now building a school or a clinic. In the event however that the security declines they can easily revert to that more aggressive mode should the need arise, the benevolent bully in the development cycle.

In most peaceful communities of the west, the military may be called out in moments of catastrophe and rightly so. They have the large machines, they have the manpower, the have the organizational structure and they have the logistics to support an immediate response however in terms of nation building they pose a political conundrum that is largely unnecessary and fraught with danger of abuse, abuse from both sides of the crisis. They do so however at a cost that is both economically and politically prohibitive.

Where I saw the largest military response to a crisis other than from a military position was in Aceh immediately following the tsunami. Air, sea and ground forces from a dozen countries had descended into the province to provide assistance that raised an immediate dilemma for the national government. The Australian army for instance bought in a large medical and engineering capacity and did an admirable job that made me proud to be associated with them yet the preceding conflict in Timor also bought in a political opposition from the national army who had in a de-facto manner, forcefully opposed them at the time of that incident.

Although there was capacity there was a sense of animosity and restriction on movement that severely curtailed what they could and couldn't do. More "friendly" armies however were given greater freedom of movement, particularly with their air wings that worked tirelessly distributing aid along the coastline

• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• next page >>

---

Add your voice

Know something about Can the US military be effective in nonmilitary efforts to revive a war-battered community??
We want to hear your view. Write now!