When the Only Tool You've Got is an Army, Every Problem Looks Like a War

Now here's damn good idea. From Robert Farley at Lawyers, Guns and Money:

In March, the Stimson Center released a report by Gordon Adams and Rebecca Williams reviewing U.S. security assistance programs. Titled “A New Way Forward,” the report argued that the United States should restructure its security assistance programs away from “security,” as defined in Cold War terms, and toward “governance,” which more accurately reflects U.S. interests in the post-War on Terror world. The difference is hardly trivial. “Security” assistance focuses on improving the tactical and operational capabilities of fielded armed forces, whether against domestic or international foes, while “governance” assistance aims to “strengthen state capacity in failing, fragile, collapsing and post-conflict states.” Potentially at stake are the resources dedicated to security assistance programs, which involve training, facilitation of doctrinal learning, and very often the transfer of military equipment.

I doubt Bashir Assad or the Saudi tyrants would welcome it, but I bet Tunisia would. So would Ivory Coast, not to mention Haiti.

And it even has a historical precedent: the Marshall Plan, which cemented Western Europe as our Democratic Allies for three generations.