Development Army?

In a speech given on Thursday evening in London the joint head of the British armed forces General Sir Richard Dannatt openly proposed what many in NGO’s have muted for some time that the role of the Armed forces should extend to Development support tasks. He called for the creation of ‘Stabilisation Specialists’ units within the military.

Richard Dannatt also stated that in certain circumstances he can see the British armed forces under the command of the British Government department for International Development (DfID) or the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. He said in his speech that the armed forces should deliver “civil as well as military effects within areas as diverse as governance, town administration, finance and banking, law and order and sanitation”.

He went on to suggest that; "an officer spending a tour with indigenous forces, followed perhaps by an attachment to the Department for International Development overseas, or a local council at home or a police force in Africa or elsewhere."

Certainly the lessons that the military have been forced to learn in Iraq and especially Afghanistan point to the importance of Development work in bringing stability and prosperity to areas that have been vastly affected by war and resulting civil upheaval. If branches of the military were to fall under the command of NGO or relevant Government departments such as DiFD or the Foreign and Commonwealth Office as suggested by Gen. Dannatt, post conflict situations could well be resolved more satisfactory than using purely military understanding, as is done at present.

If the scale were to be increased and this idea taken up by the US military for example the effect would likewise be amplified.

Present problems of poor relations with large proportions of the population in rural Afghanistan for example could be eased. Large numbers of civilian casualties have been caused by US bombing and as a result riots have broken out at checkpoints against the international military presence in that country. These situations may not have arisen if a stronger emphasis was put on coordinated military and development work from the outset of the West’s involvement in Afghanistan.

Similar problems plagued US and British troops for years after the invasion of Iraq, as development of that country was very slow to take place and it had become clear that the necessary plans had not been drawn up for development of Iraq prior to the invasion.

Several problems remain, not least the effectiveness of Development work at present in places such as Iraq and Afghanistan. Billions have been spent in both places and much of the funds are often misappropriated. Whether the military’s involvement in the future will make those handling such funds more accountable remains to be seen.

Secondly many in the Development sector opposed both the invasion of Afghanistan and then later the attack on Iraq. Their willingness to be involved and associated with any future operations may be doubtful and therefore may throw into jeopardy any possible future involvement with the Military.

General Dannatt’s speech may embolden those who believe in ‘Liberal interventionism’ as championed by former British Prime Minister Tony Blair. It may be that this method, usually associated with intervention by one or more country in the affairs of another may well in the end only sit well with a supra national organisation such as the United Nations. Seen as being above narrow national interests, the Development sector may prove to be more of a natural bedfellow with UN Blue Berets’ than with any one nations’ military.


Links & Resources:

Al Jazeera - Article highlighting calls for increased Aid to Afghanisatn by NGO's

Open Democracy - Article on the 'Blair doctrine' of Liberal Interventionism

Times Online - 'Sir Richard Dannatt, Army chief, calls for soldiers to learn nation-building'


Picture Credit: Capt Dave Muralt - Canadian Military