managerial systems. It includes efforts to improve governance capacity, political moderation, and good governance—ethos as well as structure—as part of broader capacity-building activities within a society.
Supported by appropriate policy and legal frameworks, capacity building is a long-term, continuing process, in which all actors contribute to enhancing the host nation’s human, technological, organizational, institutional, and resource capabilities.
1-36. Capacity-building activities may support a partner-nation leadership or build on existing capacities; it may focus on reforming extant capacity or developing a new capability and capacity altogether. To some degree, local capacity always exists; capacity-building activities aim to build, nurture, empower, and mobilize that capacity. Those efforts can be facilitated through groups or individuals. They can be broad, long-term efforts or targeted to specific responsibilities or functions to achieve decisive results sooner.
Initial response actions reestablish a safe, secure environment and provide for the immediate humanitarian needs of the local populace. All following efforts aim to build partner capacity across the five stability sectors defined in chapter 2 and the Department of State publication, Post-Conflict Reconstruction Essential Tasks. (See chapter 2 for a detailed description and discussion of these tasks.) 1-37. Capacity-building activities develop and strengthen skills, systems, abilities, processes, and resources. Host-nation institutions and individuals need to adapt these activities to dynamic political and societal conditions within the operational environment. Most capacity building focuses on long-term technical assistance programs, which may include—
Human resource development.
Organizational development.
Institutional and legal framework development.
1-38. Human resource development is the process of equipping individuals with the understanding, skills, and access to information, knowledge, and training that enables them to perform effectively. Human resource development is central to capacity building. Education and training lie at the heart of development efforts; most successful interventions require human resource development to be effective. Human resource development focuses on a series of actions directed at helping participants in the development process to increase their knowledge, skills, and understanding, and to develop the attitudes needed to bring about the desired developmental change.
1-39. Organizational development is the creation or adaptation of management structures, processes, and procedures to enable capacity building. This includes managing relationships among different organizations and sectors (public, private, and community). Institutional and legal framework development 1-8
FM 3-07
6 October 2008
The Strategic Context
makes the legal and regulatory changes necessary to enable organizations, institutions, and individuals at all levels and in all sectors to perform effectively and to build their capacities.
RULE OF LAW
1-40. During stability operations, it is imperative that the local populace have confidence that they will be treated fairly and justly under the law. They must also believe that they will have access to justice, have an open and participatory government, and trust that all persons, entities, and institutions—public and private—are accountable to the law. Rule of law is a principle under which all persons, institutions, and entities, public and private, including the state itself, are accountable to laws that are publicly promulgated, equally enforced, and independently adjudicated, and that are consistent with international human rights principles. It also requires measures to ensure adherence to the principles of supremacy of law, equality before the law, accountability to the law, fairness in applying the law, separation of powers, participation in decisionmaking, and legal certainty. Such measures also help to avoid arbitrariness as well as promote procedural and legal transparency.
1-41. Rule of law establishes principles that limit the power of government by setting rules and procedures that prohibit the accumulation of autocratic or oligarchic power. It dictates government conduct according to prescribed and publicly recognized regulations while protecting the rights of all members of society. It also provides a vehicle to resolve disputes nonviolently and in a manner integral to establishing enduring peace and stability. In general terms, rule of law exists when:
The state monopolizes the use of force in the resolution of disputes.
Individuals are secure in their persons and property.
The state is bound by law and does not act arbitrarily.
The law can be readily determined and is stable enough to allow individuals to plan their affairs.
Individuals have meaningful access to an effective and impartial justice system.
The state protects basic human rights and fundamental freedoms.
Individuals rely on the existence of justice institutions and the content of law in the conduct of their daily lives.
1-42. Typically, operations conducted to support rule of law are part of broader interagency and multinational efforts. Within the USG, the Department of State leads and coordinates reconstruction and stabilization operations, including activities to establish and support the rule of law. The primary U.S.
interagency partners for these efforts are the Department of State, the U.S. Agency for International Development, and the Department of Justice. Operations that support rule of law are planned and executed with these interagency partners, but will normally include representation from other organizations, agencies, and multinational partners, when applicable.
1-43. Effective rule of law establishes authority vested in the people, protects rights, exerts a check on all branches of government, and complements efforts to build security. It accounts for the customs, culture, and ethnicity of the local populace. Adherence to the rule of law is essential to legitimate and effective governance. Rule of law enhances the legitimacy of the host-nation government by establishing principles that limit the power of the state and by setting rules and procedures that prohibit accumulating autocratic or oligarchic power. It dictates government conduct according to prescribed and publicly recognized regulations while protecting the rights of all members of society. It also provides a vehicle for resolving disputes nonviolently and in a manner integral to establishing enduring peace and stability.
FRAGILE STATES
1-44. The United States has a long history of assisting other nations. This assistance may come as humanitarian aid, development assistance, free trade agreements, or military assistance. Fragile states, however, pose a particularly complicated challenge. The weakness of these states, especially with respect to governance institutions, threatens the success of any development effort. Development activities within weak states require extended time commitments to build partner capacity in key institutions and to improve the lives of their citizens.
6 October 2008
FM 3-07
1-9
Chapter 1
1-45. A fragile state is a country that suffers from institutional weaknesses serious enough to threaten the stability of the central government. These weaknesses arise from several root causes, including ineffective governance, criminalization of the state, economic failure, external aggression, and internal strife due to disenfranchisement of large sections of the population. Fragile states frequently fail to achieve any momentum toward development. They can generate tremendous human suffering, create regional security challenges, and collapse into wide, ungoverned areas that can become safe havens for terrorists and criminal organizations.
1-46. The term fragile state refers to the broad spectrum of failed, failing, and recovering states. The distinction among them is rarely clear, as fragile states do not travel a predictable path to failure or recovery. The difference between a recovering and failed state may be minimal, as the underlying conditions, such as insurgency or famine, may drive a state to collapse in a relatively short period. It is far more important to understand how far and quickly a state is moving from or toward stability. The fragile states framework, developed by the U.S. Agency for International Development, provides a model for applying U.S. development assistance in fragile states. This framework serves to inform understanding for intervening actors, providing a graphic tool that describes the conditions of the operational environment.
(See figure 1-2.) National Security Presidential Directive 44 frames this spectrum as “foreign states and regions at risk of, in, or in transition from conflict or civil strife.” (Paragraph 1-65 discusses this policy directive in detail.)
Figure 1-2. The fragile states framework
1-47. Fragile states can be defined as either vulnerable or in crisis. A vulnerable state is a nation either unable or unwilling to provide adequate security and essential services to significant portions of the population. In vulnerable states, the legitimacy of the central government is in question. This includes states that are failing or recovering from crisis. A crisis state is a nation in which the central government does not exert effective control over its own territory. It is unable or unwilling to provide security and essential services for significant portions of the population. In crisis states, the central government may be weak, nonexistent, or simply unable or unwilling to provide security or basic services. This includes states that are failing or have failed altogether, where violent conflict is a reality or a great risk.
NATIONAL STRATEGY
1-48. National strategy is based on a distinctly American policy of internationalism that reflects the interests and values of the country. It clearly aims to make the world a safer, better place, where a community of nations lives in relative peace. To that end, the National Security Strategy and subordinate supporting strategies focus on a path to progress that promotes political and economic freedom, peaceful relations with other nations, and universal respect for human dignity.
1-49. The body of security strategy that shapes the conduct of stability operations includes the National Security Strategy, the National Defense Strategy, and The National Military Strategy of the United States of America (known as the National Military Strategy). Related strategies include the National Strategy for Combating Terrorism, the National Strategy for Homeland Security, and the National Strategy to Combat Weapons of Mass Destruction. Together with national policy, strategy provides the broad direction necessary to conduct operations to support national interests. (See figure 1-3.)
1-10
FM 3-07
6 October 2008
The Strategic Context
Figure 1-3. Strategy and policy references for stability operations
NATIONAL SECURITY STRATEGY
1-50. Fragile states tend to attract destabilizing forces, manifesting the potentially dangerous effects of rapid globalization. This poses a national security challenge unforeseen even a decade ago yet central to today’s strategic environment. While the phenomenon of fragile states is not new, the need to provide a stabilizing influence is more critical than ever. This challenge is at the core of the current National Security Strategy. Essentially, national strategy aims to—
Promote freedom, justice, and human dignity while working to end tyranny, to promote effective democracies, and to extend prosperity through free trade and wise development policies.
Confront challenges of the strategic environment by leading a growing community of nations to defeat the threats of pandemic disease, the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction,
terrorism, international crime, human trafficking, and natural disasters.
1-51. The National Security Strategy outlines the President’s vision for providing enduring security for the American people in a volatile, uncertain, and complex strategic environment. It sets a course for statecraft, providing the broad national strategy for applying the instruments of national power to further U.S.
interests globally. At the heart of this strategy is the nation’s approach to stability operations: to help create a world of legitimate, well-governed states that can meet the needs of their citizens and conduct themselves responsibly in the international system.
1-52. The National Security Strategy addresses stability operations within the broad engagement strategy for regional conflict. These regional conflicts significantly threaten national security; they rarely remain isolated and often devolve into humanitarian tragedy or anarchy. External actors exploit them to further their own ends, as Al Qaeda continues to do in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Even when a particular conflict does not directly affect national security, the long-term interests of the Nation often are affected. For this reason, the national strategy identifies three levels of engagement for addressing regional conflict: Conflict prevention and resolution.
Conflict intervention.
Post-conflict reconstruction and stabilization.
1-53. The most effective long-term measure for conflict prevention and resolution is the promotion of democracy and economic development. Effective democracies generally resolve disputes through peaceful 6 October 2008
FM 3-07
1-11
Chapter 1
means, either bilaterally or through other regional states or international institutions. Stability tasks executed as part of a theater security cooperation plan under the operational theme of peacetime military engagement generally fall in this category.
1-54. Conflicts that threaten the Nation’s security, interests, or values may require direct intervention to restore peace and stability. Stability tasks executed at the higher end of the spectrum of conflict, typically under the operational themes of major combat operations or irregular warfare, fall into this category.
1-55. While military involvement may be necessary to end a conflict, peace and stability endure when follow-on efforts succeed. Such efforts aim to restore order and rebuild infrastructure, governance, and civil society institutions. Success depends on the early establishment of strong local institutions such as effective police forces and functioning justice and penal systems. This governance capacity is critical to establishing rule of law and a market economy that ensure lasting stability and prosperity. At the same time, reconstruction and stabilization efforts rely heavily on the early involvement and support of the local populace with identifying and rebuilding critical infrastructure. Such infrastructure helps societies and institutions to function effectively. In this category, stability tasks generally characterize the overall mission, regardless of the predominant operational theme.
1-56. Reconstruction is the process of rebuilding degraded, damaged, or destroyed political, socioeconomic, and physical infrastructure of a country or territory to create the foundation for long-term development. Stabilization is the process by which underlying tensions that might lead to resurgence in violence and a breakdown in law and order are managed and reduced, while efforts are made to support preconditions for successful long-term development. Together, reconstruction and stabilization comprise the broad range of activities defined by the Department of Defense as stability operations.
NATIONAL DEFENSE STRATEGY
1-57. Reinforcing the direction of the National Security Strategy, the National Defense Strategy emphasizes the threat to national security posed by the inability of fragile states to police themselves or to work in cooperation with neighbor states to ensure long-term security. These states often undermine regional stability, threatening broader national interests. The National Defense Strategy recognizes the need for building partner capacity in these states. Built on the understanding that the national security of the United States closely ties to security within the broader international system, the National Defense Strategy focuses on the use of programs to build partnerships that strengthen the host nation’s ability to confront security challenges. Security cooperation, the principal vehicle for building security capacity, supports these states by—
Encouraging partner nations to assume lead roles in areas that represent the common interests of the United States and the host nation.
Encouraging partner nations to increase their capability and willingness to participate in a coalition with U.S. forces.
Facilitating cooperation with partner militaries and ministries of defense.
Spurring the military transformation of allied partner nations by developing multinational command and control, training and education, concept development and experimentation, and
security assessment framework.
1-58. The National Defense Strategy also recognizes the need to foster interagency coordination and integration in these efforts. Such efforts draw a vital link between the Department of Defense and Department of State in the conduct of stability operations. The National Defense Strategy emphasizes the need to establish conditions of enduring security to support stability operations, necessary to the success of the other instruments of national power. Unless the security environment supports using civilian agencies and organizations, military forces must be prepared to perform those nonmilitary tasks normally the responsibility of others. Thus, the National Defense Strategy clearly establishes the intent of the Secretary of Defense to focus efforts on tasks directly associated with establishing favorable long-term security conditions.
1-12
FM 3-07
6 October 2008
The Strategic Context
NATIONAL MILITARY STRATEGY
1-59. Prepared by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the National Military Strategy is consistent with the National Security Strategy and National Defense Strategy. It specifies the ends, ways, and means necessary to ensure national security and interests, and to pursue national interests at home and abroad. It also describes and analyzes the strategic environment as it affects military operations, as well as the most significant threats in that environment.
1-60. The National Military Strategy echoes the National Defense Strategy on the necessity of interagency integration, emphasizing the role of interagency partners and nongovernmental organizations in achieving lasting success in stability operations. It establishes the requirement for the joint force to retain the capability to conduct full spectrum operations, combining offensive, defensive, and stability tasks simultaneously and to seamlessly transition between them. Finally, it highlights the need to integrate conflict termination measures with the other instruments of national power, ensuring unity of effort toward a common set of national objectives. (See appendix A for a discussion of interagency, intergovernmental, and nongovernmental organizations in stability operations.)
NATIONAL AND DEFENSE POLICIES
1-61. Consistent with the national strategy, U.S. policy focuses on achieving unity of effort through an integrated approach to intervention. This approach, echoed throughout defense policy, is fundamental to unified action. Through this approach, the nation synchronizes, coordinates, and integrates activities of governmental and nongovernmental agencies and organizations toward a common goal. As expressed in the National Security Strategy, American foreign policy adopts this approach to help fragile, severely stressed states. It helps their governments avoid failure or recover from devastating disasters by reestablishing or strengthening the institutions of governance and society that represent an effective, legitimate state.
1-62. Interagency cooperation and coordination has long been a goal of national policy. From the post-World War II administration of President Harry Truman through the current administration, every president has prioritized improving the interagency integration process. When Congress passed the National Security Act of 1947, it included formal interagency consultative structures to coordinate national intelligence and policy, ensuring the presence of seasoned government experience to provide advice on presidential decisions. President Dwight Eisenhower’s experience as a military commander led him to establish interagency structures to oversee the development and implementation of policy.
1-63. In 1962, President John Kennedy signed National Security Action Memorandum 182 to ensure unity of effort in interagency operations outside the United States. Seven years later, President Nixon signed National Security Decision Memorandum 3 assigning authority and responsibility for directing, coordinating, and supervising interagency operations overseas. In addition, in 1997, President Clinton implemented Presidential Decision Directive 56 creating formal interagency planning processes to support future contingency operations.
1-64. Ultimately, every presidential administration in the past 60 years has implemented some form of policy directive in an attempt to spur cooperation and collaboration among government agencies. Some have been more successful than others have, but none has survived a change in administration. As long as this trend continues, true integration across the interagency will remain elusive.
NATIONAL SECURITY PRESIDENTIAL DIRECTIVE 44
1-65. In 2005, President George Bush signed National Security Presidential Directive 44 (NSPD-44).
NSPD-44 outlines the President’s vision for promoting the security of the United States through improved coordination, planning, and implementation of reconstruction and stabilization assistance. This policy is significant for two reasons: it was his administration’s first attempt at defining national policy for interagency integration, and it was the first time that any administration implemented interagency policy focused on stability operations. In addition, NSPD-44 formally acknowledged that the stability of foreign 6 October 2008
FM 3-07
1-13
Chapter 1
states served the broader national interests of the United States, recognizing stability operations as a necessary capability of the Federal government.
1-66. NSPD-44 assigns lead agency responsibility to the Department of State for these operations, directing the Secretary of State to coordinate and lead integrated USG efforts and activities. These efforts and activities involve all U.S. departments and agencies with relevant capabilities, to prepare, plan for, and conduct reconstruction and stabilization activities. It also mandated the Secretary of State to coordinate with the Secretary of Defense to ensure the integration and synchronization of any planned or ongoing U.S.
military operations across the spectrum of conflict. The policy also authorized the Secretary of State to delegate that authority to the coordinator for reconstruction and stabilization to—
Lead USG development of a civilian response capability for stability operations.
Develop strategies and plans for stability operations.
Coordinate USG responses, including foreign assistance and foreign economic cooperation, in stability operations.
Ensure coordination among the USG agencies.
Coordinate USG stability operations with foreign governments, international and regional
organizations, nongovernmental organizations, and private sector entities.
Develop plans to build partner capacity for security.
1-67. To assist the Secretary of State, NSPD-44 called on an interagency office within the Department of State specifically created to enhance the nation’s institutional capacity to respond to crises involving fragile states. Based on an April 2004 decision of the National Security Council principals committee, former Secretary of State Colin Powell created the Department of State, Office of the Coordinator for Reconstruction and Stabilization (S/CRS) in July 2004. This office leads, coordinates, and institutionalizes the USG civilian capacity for reconstruction and stabilization and conflict transformation. It is designed to create mechanisms, tools, and processes to help reconstruct and stabilize societies in countries at risk of, in, or in transition from, violent conflict or civil strife, so they can reach a sustainable path toward peace, democracy, and a market economy. S/CRS is the first USG entity specifically created to address stability operations.
1-68. To establish a stable and lasting peace based on the fundamentals of conflict transformation, stability operations capitalize on coordination, cooperation, integration, and synchronization among military and nonmilitary organizations. To that end, S/CRS has led interagency partners by developing three distinct yet tightly linked capabilities that can be customized in scale and scope. These capabilities are composed of the Interagency Management System (IMS) for reconstruction and stabilization, the whole of government planning framework, and the Civilian Response Corps (CRC).
1-69. The IMS is a management structure designed to assist policymakers, chiefs of mission, and military commanders who manage complex reconstruction and stabilization activities. This structure assists them by ensuring coordination among all USG stakeholders at the strategic, operational, and tactical levels. It consists of three structures flexible in size a