ABSTRACT
State stabilization and reconstruction are missions the American military would rather not perform. A traditional institutional aversion to anything resembling nation building was reinforced by the disastrous experience in Vietnam. 1 Most everyone else supports this view of civilian responsibility for stabilization and reconstruction in some form as well, whether involving international organizations, such as the United Nations (UN), or other U.S. governmental agencies, such as the new Office of the Coordinator for Reconstruction and Stabilization in the State Department. But the harsh historical truth is that no international or governmental agency has been as successful as the U.S. military in twentieth-century stabilization and reconstruction, and the capabilities gap between them for such missions remains a yawning chasm. The global war on terror has highlighted the importance of such operations and has set a high bar for expected results, both of which have significant implications for the organization and employment of American military power.
