Summary
As government officials cycle in and out of the public and private sectors while promoting personal interests, private-sector companies are the unquestioned winners in the process of American foreign nation-building, and the rest of the US and the occupied country lose. The US should no longer participate in extensive nation-building due to the infiltration of immense systemic corruption.
In the sixteen cases of United States nation-building activities since 1900, all but four have been an utter failure as seen through a traditional strategic military lens. As demonstrated throughout recent history, effective state institutions develop from the inherent social structure, culture, and belief system of a nation. Therefore, attempts by outsiders to impose their preferred form of government on other nations are bound to be futile, as the underlying culture of the people can seldom be radically altered. This begs the question of why the United States continues to engage in nation-building, and what are its motives, if not the installation of a peaceful, democratic, and sustainable government?
While democratization and national security may appear to be noble causes for foreign intervention, nation-building in practice can be considered neo imperial economic exploitation. Building the government and infrastructure of a foreign nation can enable the US to gain immense power and influence in the region, as well as to profit greatly. Democratization and national security are widely publicized as the grounds for American nation-building, but in reality serve as the justifications for its true motives, power, influence, and war profiteering. As government officials cycle in and out of the public and private sectors while promoting personal interests, private-sector companies are the unquestioned winners in this process, and the rest of the US and the occupied country lose. The US should no longer participate in extensive nation-building due to the infiltration of immense systemic corruption. This is not to say that we as a nation do not have a responsibility to intervene under certain circumstances.
One key example of American war profiteering through nation-building is when the US military gave highly lucrative, exclusive, “no bid” contracts to the then largest-ever construction entity, RMK-BRJ, which included Raymond International, Morrison-Knudsen, Brown & Root, and J.A. Jones Construction, for infrastructure development in Vietnam. In response, representative Donald H. Rumsfeld called for the investigation of what he claimed to be illegal contracts, as well as the relationship between the companies working in Vietnam and the Johnson administration, in particular Brown & Root’s extensive campaign contributions. These politically charged contracts were to become the norm, as is seen consistently throughout the US tenure in Afghanistan and Iraq.
According to President Biden, “our mission in Afghanistan was never supposed to have been nation-building… Our only vital national interest in Afghanistan remains today what it has always been: preventing a terrorist attack on American homeland.” Nation-building is much more than just an ideological mission. The United States had become deeply entrenched in lucrative nation-building contracts with private sector companies, as demonstrated through the Brown & Root controversy in Vietnam, which inevitably resulted in immense political pressure on administrations from these entities. While the US military withdrawal from Afghanistan led to the Taliban’s shockingly quick return to power, many military and corporate actors would consider the conflict a success. Former Air Force fighter pilot John Boyd explained, “people say the Pentagon does not have a strategy… they are wrong. The Pentagon does have a strategy. It is ‘Don’t interrupt the money flow, add to it.’” The majority of the approximately $5 trillion spent on the wars in both Afghanistan and Iraq have been transferred to military contractors, whose workers outnumbered soldiers in Afghanistanthree to one.
Regarding the American invasion of Iraq, similar to Vietnam, the individuals and companies with the closest connections to government officials benefited from the large amount of money flowing into Iraq. Halliburton, whose ex-CEO was then-Vice President Dick Cheney, started building tent cities outside of Iraq before combat was terminated. Kellogg, Brown & Root, a Halliburton subsidiary that profited greatly in Vietnam, also signed contracts to rebuild Iraq’s oil infrastructure. When Congress began investigating nation-building financial deals, the Bush administration quickly attempted to distance itself from any connections to war profiteering or corruption. Iraqi nation-building was not driven by humanitarian motives any more than was the American presence in Vietnam forty years ago; it was an unjustified war that was sustained by ideologues and war profiteers.
Peter Galbraith, a former US diplomat, simultaneously acted as an unpaid advisor to the Kurds during Iraqi constitution building negotiations, as well as a representative of the Norwegian oil company DNO. Interviews with many former government and business officials, along with legal records, reveal that Galbraith received rights to a $100 million stake in at least one Iraqi oil field in 2004 after helping to negotiate a contract for DNO to drill in Kurdistan. Given that Galbraith was instrumental in crafting the constitutional provisions that enriched himself, this major conflict of interestexacerbated Iraqi fears of American interference with the sole motive of controlling oil reserves, and the Iraqi government held the belief that Galbraith’s role in the negotiations and all oil contracts signed by the Kurdish government were illegal.
Exacerbating the Iraq war profiteering corruption was then Vice President Dick Cheney’s continued involvement with his former company, Halliburton. In the words of John Kerry, "While Dick Cheney claims that he has gotten rid of all of his financial interests in Halliburton, he's actually received $2 million in bonuses and deferred compensation from his former company since taking office in 2001.” Halliburton, an oil services and engineering company, won a $5 billion contract in 2001 to provide logistical support for troops in the Middle East. In March 2003, Kellogg Brown & Root was awarded a $7 billion “no bid” contract to restore and operate Iraqi oil wells. Cheney’s glaring conflict of interest is yet another example of the ease through which singular companies and officials can maximize their wealth through foreign nation-building.
American nation-building is not a humanitarian effort, but a corrupt, powerhouse, private-sector industry. It should be noted that when the United States first became involved in foreign nation-building, its efforts were for the purpose of defending its core security and economic interests, not for building a democracy. However, democratization is now voiced as one of the principal goals of many American nation-building activities. While Western democracy may work for the United States, that does not mean it is the most effective option for other nations with distinct cultures and histories. The United States’ nation-building attempts have created deep-seated resentment among foreign populations, as the US has essentially acted as a quasi-colonial ruler through its interference in local affairs. Unilateral nation-building enables extensive corruption in government contracts, and therefore the United States should only engage in multilateral humanitarian aid through regulated international institutions. The United States should discontinue its nation-building efforts, separate from necessary military intervention. Although the United States still holds an immense responsibility to prevent atrocities across the globe and ensure national security, it is imperative that we halt the harmful process of nation-building just for the sake of upholding the interests of unscrupulous, revolving-door war profiteers.
Sydney Blair is a sophomore at the George Washington University majoring in International Affairs. Contact: sydneyblair@gwu.edu
