Who Voted for Nation Building?

Nation building was discussed during the campaign, though it surely wasn't on the ballot. If so, I would have voted no.

According to wiki:

“Nation-building refers to the process of constructing or structuring a national identity using the power of the state. This process aims at the unification of the people or peoples within the state so that it remains politically stable and viable in the long run. Nation-building can involve the use of propaganda or major infrastructure development to foster social harmony and economic growth.”

What people on Earth need it? Whose job is this? Historically, nation states evolved and transformed from something less formal. Sometimes they began as tribes, royal kingdoms, and dictatorships including military dictatorships. Often, the process involves internal strife and civil war among different people sharing common geography. At this stage in global development, a few such places remain where people are not represented by a state, or where the label on a territory is externally imposed with less meaning among the people who live there. In Africa, for instance, many places changed names in recent history as this was symptomatic of immature organization of people with deficient representation from a central government or authority. The same is true of Palestine and Afghanistan and even some territories such as the Basque region of Spain, or various elements of former states of the Soviet Union, and the Kashmir territory between India and Pakistan. The United Nations is an institution with authority to address the needs of humanity to resolve conflict that threatens innocent people. Surely, Afghanistan and Iraq are places in need of continuing assistance from developed nations that are members of the UN. Is it the job of the United States to engage in nation building? Maybe though not alone; the US can be a partner in the process of resolving conflict and developing stability, though unilateral action is unwise and inappropriate. The level of involvement is a matter of the people to decide through the government process. The President can advise, though Congress must consent on funding. Surely, the lead Department in such an effort is the State Department with support from the Military. This should not be a military led initiative. YJ

[q url="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34218139/ns/world_news-washington_post"]

"Afghan plan to test limits of nation-building

‘You can’t be half in and half out. Afghanistan is going to take time’

From Somalia, Cambodia, East Timor and the Balkans in the 1990s to Iraq today, world powers have at best a mixed record when it comes to establishing functional, stable governments in countries devastated by war. The efforts have been long and costly, tangible results often hard to measure, and support for a prolonged involvement difficult to maintain. Congressional leaders have already voiced deep skepticism about pouring billions more dollars into an American-led war that so far has shown little progress toward making Afghanistan self-sustaining." [/q]