ABSTRACT
This chapter examines the ways in which the current expressions of stabilization constitute part of a historical progression that also includes pacification, counter-insurgency and peacekeeping. While not claiming that such terms are synonymous or lacking differences, the authors suggest that they share a logic of intervention that has remained stable for the past century, if not much longer. The way in which development assistance and coercive force are presumed to promote peace and security in unison remained as un-nuanced in the pacification of the Philippines in the late nineteenth century as it did in the early years of the post-9/11 wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. The difference between these experiences has thus not been the underlying rationale itself but rather the types of actors involved and the varied perspectives, principles and priorities which they brought to their respective interventions. The introduction of new actors to stabilization environments — particularly civilian agencies, including Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) and the United Nations — generated new challenges and opportunities for a practice which had for decades been primarily (though not exclusively) the domain of militaries.
