State vs. Non-State
Europundits writes a very good post about how our current world view ineffectually enables us to destroy robust criminal and non-state actors.
I think these armed gangs didn't even know what they stumbled upon, this loophole in the nation state system, but it's working for them, and hence, they continue to use it.
The Bush admin chose to view the problem of non-state actors as functionaries of masters or state actors. That is one way to look at the problem and in the absence of other ways, makes a lot of sense. Al Queda functioned by having a safe "haven" in Afghanistan. Hamas relied on the support of Saddam Hussien and other Arab governments. Hezbollah exists because of a failed state in Southern Lebanon and by funding from Iran and Syria.
It is important to note, however, this is not just a neoconservative view. Many subscribe to the view that states are the primary movers in international relations and not subscribe to the Bushian outcome. Case in point, many hardcore leftists blame the United States for empowering illegitimate movements to seize government control in South America, and point to the United States supporting Saddam and the Taliban and so forth in other times against the Soviet threat. This view of state-ness pervades the thinking of most everyone, including non-state actors, I think, many of whom try to seize control of states, ie Hamas.
Am I naive in thinking that the civilized world should band together to resist these non-state threats? Judging by my previous post, I can't even seem to reasonable agree between my friends that Hezbollah should be destroyed. We end up arguing about whether Israel is capable of doing it and in the absense of that, how they ought to act, and so forth, all this minutia, than in effect, just kicks the can down the street.
I don't understand why the world, the UN, can just agree on one thing: Hezbollah should not have guns and missiles and then figure out a way to get rid of them. I don't understand why Arab governments won't explain to their people that whatever grievances they may have, Hezbollah ain't gonna help. I don't understand why Israel is left alone to fight this battle and then criticized in the manner in which they fight it.
But whatever, the truth is, it doesn't affect me all that much. I can just go watch Brewster McCloud this evening and work on my screenplays. Why, in short, should I give a flying shit about the middle east and let their misery affect me?
I sometimes wonder if we just didn't pay attention to the middle east whether the problems would go away. Sort of like ignoring a stalker. Because honestly, the only attention we pay to the region is when there is violence. If these groups got no attention for their violence, would they realize how wasteful and stupid it is? What if suicide bombing got no media attention? Would it cease to be a useful tactic? Would it diminish it's value?
If we just didn't need the oil....
1 comment:
i support strong, liberal states in the middle east. i believe democracy is more likely to produce a liberal outcome because of transparency and accountability than an autocratic transition to democracy. However, I am willing to look at that on a case by case basis, because in some cases more mellow autocrats are able to liberalize, like in Jordan or South Korea.
i expect strong liberal states to be able to if not completely destroy, at least try to put down or co-opt militias and terrorist organizations working within those states. i recognize that strong illiberal states, like saddam's iraq are able to control their states through terror. but i do not support strong illiberal states because in the long term it yields lots of misery and lots of people turning towards islamic fascism - in egypt, saudi arabia, etc.
what i want to see in the middle east are hollywood movies, starbucks coffee, and not all women wearing birkas. i want people to be happy, have options for careers, to be able to play soccer and drink alcohol if they want. and i want them to stand up to the terrorists and autocrats and demand something better of their countries.
the problem is: the autocrats don't allow these things to happen. and then the terrorists prey on the victims.
iraq was a test. it was what arab intellectuals have been asking for for years, the promise that, if they got the gun taken away from their head, they could liberalize and modernize their countries. we took the best bet - a brutalized state (iraq), which also happened to have the most educated population in the middle east and took the gun away from saddam, hoping, that an iraqi george washington or nelson mandela would step forward, someone who could be strong and humble. it hasn't happened.
so, yes, i want to have my cake and eat it to. perhaps it was naive.
transitional governments are weak - articles of confederation, etc, and yes, that opens opportunities for insurgents and terrorists. but i still think that if arabs and muslims had the courage to self examine themselves and their countries, they would be able to defeat the fascist movement taking over their religion. if the lebanese stood up and said they needed international help to disarm hezbollah, and they were going to lead the charge, we would follow them and together, we could do it.
alone, neither they, or us, or israel looks like they can do it.
in the end, i think it is an issue of will. i think arabs are ambivalent about the fascist movement. i think somewhere between getting their asses handed to them by the israelis and the west for the past 800 years in war has led them to a psychology of victimhood and they don't trust anyone - their own governments included. but what can we do? force 100 million people in therapy?
in the long term, i support liberalization of states in the middle east. in the short term, i support killing as many terrorists as possible. that's as nuanced as i can honestly get.
Post a Comment