Democracy during war is the new normal

The Wall Street Journal has an excellent article on the increasing involvement of military contractors, like Lockheed Martin, in D&G work. Why are military contractors working on these programs?

The U.S. government has hired the defense contractor [Lockheed Martin] to test an emerging tenet of its security policy. Called “smart power,” it blends military might with nation-building activities, in hopes of boosting political stability and American influence in far-flung corners such as Liberia.

U.S. officials are concerned that nations imperiled by poverty and political strife could spark regional conflicts and foster terrorist networks. Defense Secretary Robert Gates says the problem posed by failing states “is in many ways the ideological and security challenge of our time.”

My aversion to the term “failed state” notwithstanding, this is a fascinating policy turn. Currently, about half of the US government’s global funding for D&G programs is in four conflict-ridden countries: Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, and Sudan. The big question is whether this represents a transitory reaction to 9/11 or whether it is the new normal. The article suggests the latter:

Morgan Stanley defense analyst Heidi Wood says Lockheed’s early push into this realm sets it apart from competitors…”It’s a complete paradigm change.”

Some question whether big military contractors are the right ones to carry these programs out…

Others worry that once defense firms get into this business, their longstanding relationship with the U.S. government will end up driving more money into these initiatives, no matter the results. “It’s sort of like the soft-power industrial complex,” says William Hartung, director of the Arms and Security Initiative at the New America Foundation, a nonpartisan think tank in Washington, who is writing a history of Lockheed.

Defense firms are going into an area that was the domain of smaller firms and nongovernmental organizations, not shareholder-minded corporate giants. Mr. Hartung questions whether defense firms have a long-term commitment to this kind of work. “It’s a little bit outside their comfort zone and different from their normal corporate activity,” he says.

Recently, defense firms have begun investing in this direction. In January, DynCorp International Inc. bought Casals & Associates Inc., which specializes in building up public-health and legal systems in the developing world. The acquisition “furthers our alignment with the Obama Administration’s emphasis on the application of ‘smart power’ to global challenges,” said DynCorp Chief Executive William Ballhaus in announcing the deal.

In 2008, L-3 Communications Holdings Inc., a major military technology and services contractor, bought International Resources Group Ltd., which works on economic development, energy and other projects in dozens of countries.

The economic and political tenets of smart power are in many ways a modern extension of past U.S. foreign endeavors such as the Marshall Plan that helped rebuild Europe after World War II. “We cannot kill or capture our way to victory,” Mr. Gates said in a 2008 speech that outlined the new policy. He has said the biggest threats to U.S. security “emanate from fractured or failed states,” and to combat them, the Pentagon needs to engage with these countries in a way “that reduces the need for direct U.S. military intervention.”

Democracy during war is the new normal. While this means D&G budgets will most certainly be larger, it also means the funds are likely to be concentrated in basket cases. For years people who work in D&G have been asking for a seat at the policy making table. Now we have it. Lesson: be careful what you ask for because you might get it.