"The true enemy: human tribalism"

[Kirkhill]

I think Jonathan Kay has identified the critical dynamic here but I am not sure that I can agree with his characterization of tribalism as an enemy.  I don't accept that tribal organization is any more inimical to our lifestyle than is family organization.  In fact tribalism may be a useful construct for a wired age where borders mean less and less.  Wired communities and tribes have in common the fact that both ignore borders. Both have an element of volunteerism in them in that it is hard to compel someone to belong to a tribe.  They can be expelled or exiled by a tribe, or they can be killed, but it is hard to enforce membership.

Individual, Family, Clan, Tribe, Nation, Empire.

We recognize the terms and the increase that they represent but the size of each, the nature of each (blood, marriage, language, culture, belief) is up for grabs.  On the other hand each of them can be recognized as sovereign and/or suzerain, be recognized potentially as a state by other Individuals-Families-Clans-Tribes-Nations-Empires recognized as states.  The union of those elements into larger entities can be voluntary or forced. It can be through coercion or persuasion or duplicity. 

Ultimately though the definition resides with the individual and how the individual sees him or herself.  Some people identify with the empire that claims suzerainty over them.  Others reject their mothers, fathers, brothers and sisters.

I think that the appropriate model for resolution in Dar-al-Islam is the same as everywhere.  It is to find leaders, people that are followed out of honest respect and not fear, leaders that we can engage and convince and support.  Just as is being done in Anbar. Just as was done in Afghanistan when Karzai gained legitimacy through the Loya Jirga process.

This ultimately is what went wrong with the process of disbanding the Iraqi Army.  That organization was a body of bodies each with leaders and potential leaders.  The right strategy was to find the leaders then move out the "dinosaurs" and promote suitable replacements from within and finally, hold them accountable for their actions and the actions of their subordinates.

I do agree with JK's last statement.

"As for foreign entanglements, it's worth noting Fox's warning that our own Western march to individualism took centuries -- a grinding process in which we moved "from tribalism, through empire, feudalism, mercantile capitalism and the industrial revolution … shrugging off communism and fascism along the way."

In Iraq and Afghanistan, we are essentially asking the locals to cram all of this into a few years. We shouldn't be surprised if it takes a little longer."

In short, contrary to modern opinion, we must work with despots if despots are what their supporters desire.  Now if they are acting against the wishes of those they claim to be supporters  then that is another matter.  But for long term conversion of societies from despotism to democracy dialogue is required and that can only occur in a secure environment amongst people with full bellies.

The true enemy: human tribalism
Jonathan Kay, National Post 
Published: Tuesday, December 18, 2007

The clash of civilizations we're living through is widely seen as a battle between Islam and Christendom. I'm convinced it's more basic than that. The reason Iraq and Afghanistan remain unsettled battlefields isn't that our two civilizations can't agree on the nature of God. It's because we can't agree on the nature of man.

In the West, we take it for granted that human beings are autonomous individuals. We decide for ourselves how we dress, where we work, whom we marry. Our political system is an atomized democracy, in which everyone is expected to vote according to their own idiosyncratic values and interests. Our pop music and movies are about misunderstood loners. The ethos of individual empowerment fuels daytime talk shows.

Individualism has become so fundamental to the Western world view that most of us cannot imagine any other way of conceiving human existence. But in fact, there are billions of people on Earth -- including most of the world's Muslims -- that view our obsession with individualism as positively bizarre.

In most of South Asia and the Middle East, humans are viewed not primarily as individuals, but as agents of a family, tribe, clan or sect. As Rutgers scholar Robin Fox wrote in a brilliant essay -- excerpted in last month's issue of Harper's magazine -- this explains why so many Arabs marry their cousins. In tribal societies, your blood relations are the only people you can trust.

This fundamental difference in outlook explains much of what we find barbaric about traditional Muslim cultural practices. Honour killings -- to take a newsworthy example -- strike Westerners as a particularly horrific species of murder. But that's because we think of people as individuals. If you instead see a woman primarily as a low-status breeding agent of her patriarch's clan, everything changes. By taking up with an unapproved male, she is nullifying whatever value she once had as a human. In fact, her life has negative value in the sense that her shameful lifestyle is an ongoing humiliation to the men expected to enforce discipline within the clan's ranks.

An intractably tribal outlook also makes Western-style democracy impossible -- which explains why nation-building in Afghanistan and Iraq has become such a thankless slog.

The reason many of us post-9/11 hawks had such high hopes for these campaigns is that we shared George W. Bush's sunny claim that "Freedom is universal. Freedom is etched in everybody's soul." It turns out that's not true. As Fox notes, freedom and individualism are relatively recent development in human history. Tribalism, on the other hand, is a deeply rooted instinct that has been "etched" on our evolutionary psychology since simian days. Even in Western societies, you can still see it rise to the surface when tensions flare (a point Paul Haggis made with exquisite artistry in his Oscar-award winning film Crash).

Democracy requires consensus-building and shared values. But in tribal societies, politics is viewed as a battle of all-against-all, in which the strongest tribe openly appropriates the state apparatus to enrich itself at everyone else's expense.
In this regard, Saddam Hussein was the ultimate tribal leader. Not only did he restrict his inner circle to Sunnis, but they were Sunnis from his own narrow Tikriti sub-clan. The idea of creating a "representative" government that includes Kurds and Shiites with their own independent power bases would have struck him as completely insane. So would the idea of handing over power to another tribe merely because its leaders chalked up more votes in an election. During most of human history, letting another tribe lord over yours meant yielding the power to pillage your granaries and rape your women. (In parts of Africa, it still does.)

This explains why the United States and NATO have gotten nowhere with grand national political projects in Iraq and Afghanistan, which are both intensely tribal societies. Instead, progress has come at the micro level -- with military commanders sitting down with individual tribal patriarchs and, essentially, bribing them with guns and money. In the West, we call that corruption. In tribal societies, it's politics.

Is there something about Islam that serves to lock in mankind's inherently tribal instincts? Perhaps. The word Islam translates to "submission." And empirically speaking, there seems to be something within the faith that discourages individualism and the democratic freedoms associated with it.

On the other hand, the non-Muslim nations of sub-Saharan Africa are every bit as tribalized as the Muslim nations of North Africa and Asia. And for all the media focus on Aqsa Parvez, several of Canada's first honour murders actually were performed by Sikhs. In any case, the successful integration of hundreds of thousands of Muslims into Canadian society shows that, after a generation or two, at least, the faith hardly prevents immigrants from coming around to our democratic, individualistic ways.

As for foreign entanglements, it's worth noting Fox's warning that our own Western march to individualism took centuries -- a grinding process in which we moved "from tribalism, through empire, feudalism, mercantile capitalism and the industrial revolution … shrugging off communism and fascism along the way."

In Iraq and Afghanistan, we are essentially asking the locals to cram all of this into a few years. We shouldn't be surprised if it takes a little longer.

 

[Infanteer]

Lone Wolf Quagmire sent me an article by Steven Pressfield that basically highlighted Tribalism (as opposed to religion) as the main force of resistence in Afghanistan.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

I sent this to the author this morning:

I enjoyed reading your article on Tribalism. I think it is a rather overlooked beast that few here understand. I had to convert to Islam to marry my Malaysian wife, this gave me an opportunity to see Islam from the inside out. (Note I am a bad Muslim, I love Ham and Guinness to much)

From my readings of Muhammad's life, early years and the beginnings of Islam, I get the sense that he also understood the limitations of tribalism, combined with animalism which in effect kept the tribes of Arabia, dysfunctional, broken and weak. As much as they don't want to talk about it, Islam is a mixture of several religions mainly Judaism and Christianity along with incorporating the pre-Islamic practices around the Kaaba. He also saw how Christians and Jews benefited from their faith and wanted to bring that power to his people.
While Muhammad was successful in creating a one god religion to help bring cohesion to the tribes, he ultimately failed to break the bonds of tribalism and I would say that tribalism swallowed Islam and converted it to it's own benefit. Many see Islam as being hostile to woman, yet it was Muhammad that actually codified the first laws to protect the rights of Arab woman and if you look at his first wife and his last you can see that he liked woman with strong character. The problem of course is that the interest to improve things under Islam died with the prophet, although it did improve occasional under a few enlightened leaders.
Wahhabism in my belief is Arab tribalism disguised as a religion. It is popular because it confers power unto those that are threatened by Western Ideals battering at their doors.

Anyways enough of my ramblings, back to work. By the way my Muslim sister inlaw who's job is to "re-educate" hard core Imams, refers to Islam as the "Religion of stones"

 

[Edward Campbell]

This is an incomplete thought, but:

Kay falls into a common error. He assumes that there is a united “West,” and coherent “we.” I don’t believe that.

The individualism Kay suggests is a hallmark of the West is, to be sure, more pronounced throughout the “West” than it is in, say, Arabia and it is even more pronounced there than in Confucian China but I would argue that, in terms of individualism, Spain and Greece, charter members of Kay's "West," are closer to Jordan than they are to Australia or England.

Individualism, the idea that the individual is sovereign and that the state is a convenience created by individuals to meet their needs, is a very strange doctrine for all but a few hundred million of the earth’s billions. Most people, including most people in the “West” believe that states are the natural order of things and that people are, somehow or other, magically perhaps, elements of the state – cogs in the wheels.

This is, in most respects, a natural progression from ideas of divinity. If one believes that gods made men then it’s not a big jump to believing that the same gods made kings and endowed them with divine rights which were transferred, in the fullness of time, to the state. In this thought process it is natural for the individual to be a subject.

When one decides that, no matter who (what) created what (who), the gods don’t get to pull the strings then, naturally, the divine right of kings falls by the wayside and the sovereign and her state become servants of the people – a collection of individuals but not a collective. This is a huge leap and it is not a commonly held point of view – in fact, it is a rare point of view.

I do not accept that there is a “West” or a “we.” There are ever shifting groupings of broadly “Western” nations that have periodically coincidental interests, but the “West” is, in reality, a myth – it is too big, too fragmented and to “free” to be any kind of monolith. In fact, the core of the “West” (Britain (and its daughter republics and dominions), France, Germany, Greece, Italy, Scandinavia and Spain) have spent most of the past 350 years in a gigantic civil war – that may not be over yet – that, periodically, dragged in the oriental neighbours like the Slavs and Arabs and, in the 20th century, even the East Asians.

While the “West” may be a cultural myth, it is, also, a geo-political and economic reality. It is the First World: modern, sophisticated, enlightened and moderate. It is capitalistic – even within its most social-democratic members. It is ‘tolerant’ – a strange words which implies that we accept, as a matter of neighbourliness or good manners, that which is, in reality, not good for us. But it is not united.

Canada shares few vital interests with Spain, for example; we share several with the USA but we also have some fundamentally opposite interests. “We” is only a useful word when Canadians are talking about Canada or Belgians about Belgium and so on.

We (Canada) do have some well established, traditional allies – nations with which we have stood, shoulder to shoulder, for a century or more and with which we still share common social, political, cultural and economic vital interests. You can count them on one hand – not one is on the European continent.

We need to work with the other members of the “West, ” such as it is - because we are also one of its “charter members” and its other members are closer to us than, say, the Chinese. The fact that e.g. France is ‘closer’ to us than China does not mean that it is any friendlier or, conversely, that China is some sort of enemy. France is not any particular “friend” of ours; nor is it an enemy. Ditto for China. France is just more familiar and has played a more prominent role in our history.

 

[Greymatters]

This is explored by humanist theorist Desmond Morris (The Human Animal) as well as some other popular theorists, who opine that we in North America are a Supertribe rather than a nation or empire 

 

[Kirkhill]

I'm still rather partial to Joel Garreau's "Nine Nations of North America" (Avon Books, 1982)

1.  New England (Including "The Boston States", "The Maritimes", Newfoundland and Labrador)
2.  Quebec (Self-Evident although parts of New Brunswick and Ontario would also be possible)
3.  The Foundry (New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Indiana, Michigan, Parts of Illinois, Southern Ontario)
4.  Breadbasket (Western Mississippi Basin from the Gulf Coast to Winnipeg and Saskatoon)
5.  Dixie......
6.  The Islands, (Miami and the Caribbean)
7.  Mexamerica (Mexico and the South West Borders - This seems to have expanded since 1982)
8.  Ecotopia (Great name - west coast fringe from San Diego through LA, San Francisco, Portland, Seattle, Vancouver and Prince Rupert to Ketchikan and Anchorage)
9. The Empty Quarter (West Texas and Nevada, through Colorado, Wyoming and Montana, on past the interior of BC, Alberta and Western Saskatchewan into the Canadian Shield, the Territories and the Arctic Archipelago as well as the majority of Alaska)

1.  Lives on History
2.  Lives on Culture
3.  Lives on WW2 Technology
4.  Lives on Agriculture
5.  Lives on Memories
6.  Lives on Tourism, Financing and......
7.  Survives
8.  (I am not sure what they do to support themselves)
9.  Lives on Resource Extraction.

 

[Greymatters]

8. Asian-Pacific international transportation nodes would pretty much fit there...

 

[Kirkhill]

Very good point.

 

[Kirkhill]

I think I am going to be putting this guy on my read list.

He argues, essentially, that we are back on the merry go round. In getting rid of the European  Nation State the Europeans have reopened older fault lines resulting in further separation and distancing between peoples.  France is no longer France.  It is a home for Normans, Bretons, Poitevins, Occitans, Basques, Provencales, Burgundians and the occasional Frank. 

The outcome of the European Union will be the walled fiefdoms of the city-states of the Holy Roman Empire.  As that was neither Holy, nor Roman, nor an empire in the words of Churchill might we expect that the Union will be neither United nor European?

Borders in the New Nomadic Age

31/12/2007

 
Sayyed Wild Abah

Previous Articles
Money, Freedom and Security in 2007 
American Withdrawal from Iraq and the Indian Scenario
Futile Wars 
The Pakistani Ordeal and the Turkish Lesson 
The Iranian Crisis... And New Ideological Wars 
The Return of Rafsanjani 
Morocco After Basri
Jews against Israel 
Algerian-Moroccan Relations
The Normalization of Arab Opposition


One of the common myths of our times is the prevalent belief that the world has become a united village where borders and districts no longer exist as a result of globalization. The national state is no longer capable of controlling the movement of people, commodities, and ideas.

But what if the scene has been reversed? What if new types of borders have emerged that are more effective and far-reaching?

What may be said of the thick wall that the US has built on its borders with Mexico? And the wall that Israel built to separate between it and the occupied Palestinian territories? And what of the fortified wall erected by the occupying American power in Baghdad to secure its headquarters and the Iraqi governmental offices?

We may also add to these walls and barriers the isolated districts in major Western cities that are designated to political refugees, illegal; immigrants and the socially marginalized.

In his book “Murs et frontières: De la chute du mur de Berlin aux murs du XXIe siècle” (Walls and Borders: The Collapse of the Berlin Wall and the Walls of 21st

Century), French researcher Michel Fournier argues that the collapse of the Berlin Wall did not result in the widely believed notion of the obliteration of borders that split Europe up. In fact; Fournier states that it marked the start of a new phenomenon, which is the proliferation of borders and the diversity of the forms of barriers and walls.

Over the past 15 years, tens of thousands of kilometers of new political borders have been drawn in Europe and Asia, of which 2,800km were established in the Old Continent mainly as a result of the Balkan Wars.

However, these traditional borders are no longer the only type of restriction between nations and states, and perhaps they were even more capable of linking between people than the new post-modern types of frontiers. The old barriers played a double role in that they both set demarcation lines but were also simultaneously a point of convergence and meeting. As for the new borders that are based on the ruins of the traditional concept of ‘place’, they end up secluding through the very same channels of communication.

The renowned French philosopher Etienne Balibar has revealed through his new book ‘Très loin et tout près’ (Very Close and Very Far) that the disintegration of the European nation as a result of the global integration movement has succeeded in demolishing the customary mechanisms of separation between national entities that had been formed in modern times through an ‘organic cohesion’ that was a product of various understandings of people, nation and state. This resulted in the emergence of a profusion of new patterns of barriers that could no longer be contained within the existing central structure.

Thus, the continent united politically and economically but divided culturally, linguistically and on a religious level behind the national demarcation lines. The linguistic maps that had been formed in the 19th Century from oral-historical perspectives are no longer valid; they too surpassed the linguistic borders to become disputes about elimination  even in countries with a long history of national centralism. France, for example, has over 10 languages aside from its official first language.

There is no doubt that the extreme case in Europe today is Belgium, where indicators of the disintegration caused by the conflict between the Walloon and Flemish languages have become explicitly clear.

In addition to these conspicuous borders are also cultural boundaries that have become a wide cause for concern worldwide; with a pivotal strategic wager entailed. By extending this logic of borders, Turkey, for example, is eliminated from the European expansion project even if it has adhered to almost all of the conditions and demands for accession, including the choice of political secularism.

Also among these indicators are the surveillance borders that have largely replaced the role of regional physical barriers. The latest surveillance technology is more effective and efficient at eradicating the traditional barriers and it fulfils the same role in a smoother manner.

In his work, Michel Foucault had warned of surveillance systems and forms of punishment [Panoptican] and believed that the contemporary state had traded physical oppression for regulation and control techniques that take charge of people’s lives and guides their desires and knowledge  which is something that has reached its utmost degree of fulfillment nowadays.

Another new barrier is the borders that are a consequence of the collapse of the traditional family structure, which is no longer based on gender segregation but rather on a variety of interrelated patterns between familial structures that separate between a single gender in various distinct formations.

Therefore, it would not be accurate to say that globalization has erased all borders and united the world so that it “has become flat”, as Thomas Friedman famously said. In fact; what happened was a regression in the history of mankind so that it has reverted back to it nomadic state with its wide open spaces, restrictions and new limits.

 

[Greymatters]

Interesting...

First point, wall-building has been a phenomenon of great historical proportions but I dont think he has included all walled fortifications of the past in calculating his 2,800 km, i.e. the great wall of China, Hadrians wall (UK), and every major castle and fortification in NAmerica Europe and Asia still present, which would easily exceed 2,800 km, not even including the walls of historical sites like Jericho and Troy of which we have uncertain facts but know they were fortified. 

Second, this theory was first brought up after 1997, when the former USSR broke up and then was followed by the formation of new nationalist efforts in the Balkans, Ukraine, and East Timor.  The difference is that the first time it came up, it described the process as being that 'the people' were taking back authority from totalitarian governments, which is the opposite of what this person is saying...

 

[Kirkhill]

GM, I don't think the 2800 km referred to actual walls.  I think it refers to the boundaries of the new states within Europe.  ie The Czech-Slovak (Bohemia-Moravia) border, the Slovenia-Croatia border, Kosovar-Montenegran border, perhaps the Lithuanian-Latvian-Estonian borders etc.  Borders that are claimed by new nation-states even if they are open borders that are subsumed by the EU empire.

As to your second point I think the Euros have had so much experience dealing with changing borders over the millenia that it doesn't take long for those with access to government and money to figure out how to put themselves back on top again.

Which kinds of leads into this article from the Telegraph about Tribalism in Africa:

Kenya and the future of African democracy
By David Blair
Last Updated: 12:01am GMT 03/01/2008

Can it be worth the price? As children suffer death by fire inside a village church and hundreds of people are butchered in slums across Kenya, one profoundly disturbing question arises from their suffering: is Africa's democratic experiment worth the cost in blood?....

Why is this? Democracy in Africa does not work in a way that we might find familiar. Despite all the focus on personalities and trivia, questions of policy still matter in British elections. Votes are won and lost on the performance of the economy or the management of the NHS.

In Africa, politicians rarely bother to campaign on policy or ideology. The president's performance in office, his ideas for running the country, his handling of the economy - all these are often irrelevant.

In countries like Kenya, tribal loyalties are by far the most important determinant of voting behaviour. Put bluntly, you vote according to who you are, not what you believe.

So Mr Kibaki could rely on most of his fellow Kikuyus to back him, no matter how useless and corrupt his government happened to be.....

The same thing could be said of Pakistan and the Bhuttos (which I now understand to be a Sindi clan that perceives the Punjabis as a threat as much as the Army, the ISI and the hillmen).  It might also be said of the Wahhabis of the desert hills between Saudi and Yemen. Tribalism is certainly a factor in the Awakening movement in Iraq and the Sunni-Shia struggles over the last millenium or so.

Perhaps it is time to follow Petraeus's lead and embrace tribalism.

This from an American document I read some time back:

....We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.....

Governments are instituted among Men (and Women) to permit safety and happiness.  The powers and organizing principles of the Government are whatever the people feel most comfortable with, whatever they believe will best deliver Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.  It is their Right to organize themselves in whatever manner they deem fit.

This does not demand Democracy.  It does not preclude Monarchy or theocracy or tribalism.  When this document was written in 1776 all those decisions were in the future.

However as a statement of the relationship between Governor and Governed it can't be bettered.  If the majority of the people of the world prefer to be led by their incompetent cousins who are we to gainsay them?  As long as they keep their fists in their pockets and away from my nose then we should all get along just fine.

 

[Dare]

I'd have to agree. I think that's one of the most ignorant things I've read in a while. Do we declare a war on tribalism now? A natural human tendency. Maybe we should declare wars on emotions too. Anger is our enemy!

The nation (state or stateless), or the ideology that threatens our nation (state or stateless) verbally or otherwise, existential or otherwise is our enemy.

What tribe is the author in? That's what I'd love to know. And I'd disagree with Kirkhill on this

"In short, contrary to modern opinion, we must work with despots if despots are what their supporters desire.  Now if they are acting against the wishes of those they claim to be supporters  then that is another matter.  But for long term conversion of societies from despotism to democracy dialogue is required and that can only occur in a secure environment amongst people with full bellies."

I agree with working with despots.. provided the aim is to ultimately overthrow said despots. I also don't think that securing the despot (or allowing the despot security) is required to bring about democracy. Spreading the value of democracy and the foundations it depends upon is important, however, even the starving can choose democracy. It may simply be difficult to work to ultimately change cultures that do not have the same values which build appreciation for democracy and all that goes with it. No one is expending serious resources to export this culture. Dialogue is required but I do not believe dialogue can only occur in a secure environment amongst people with full bellies. It may be more difficult, but the long reach of a despot through the decades after he is reinforced is far more difficult a barrier. Not mostly in relation to militarism but into a culture of acceptance of illegitimate authority and tolerance to crime. Apathy is far more deadly than hunger. True security will grow once the west learns and develops a piercingly effective method of exporting a compelling training program to breed assertive people of principle who will defend themselves and their tribe while demanding rights to self determination. To permit and/or actively support the despot in his oppression is to undermine our principles and our moral standing. This may be required when phrased in the context of a larger conflict where the despot is oppressing our enemies. However ultimately our enemies must be pacified or destroyed and the despot removed. There really is no substitute for victory. To keep an apathetic citizenry fed under despotism is to keep despotism alive. To prolong misery, as who will revolt if they are relatively content and have to but only keep their gaze down?

sic semper tyrannis

 

[Kirkhill]

Dare I think the problem is one of timing and capacity.

There are currently about 200 countries in the world.  And if every Nation got its own Wilsonian Nation State we could be looking at hunt dreds more.  As it is we can't keep up with the failed/failing/unwilling-to-cooperate states.  As noted elsewhere our first interest is stability. 

If we go around overthrowing despots the first thing we will create is disorder that we will be responsible for fixing.  The second thing we will be creating is enemies of all the prospective "clients".  They will be entirely unlikely to cooperate if they know that they are going to be chucked in the local jail and hanged at the first opportune moment.  Far better to get ahold of an amenable despot and convince him of the error of his ways and that there is more money to be made as a democratic capitalist than there is as an autocratic despot.    I like the Oman model.  The old Sultan of Oman was very set in his feudal ways.  This caused all sorts of upset amongst his subjects that was exploitable by the enemies of "The West" - a problem when Oman controls the entrance to the Persian Gulf and the Straits of Hormuz.  The solution was to take his son aside and encourage him to put his old man into early retirement.  Oman has been a reliable ally and relatively stable country ever since.  Nobody will confuse it with a democracy but its people are sufficiently satisfied with their modernized feudalism that they are not revolting.  In the meantime the Sultan has got the room to slowly and gently implement reforms so that he keeps up with, ahead of, only slightly behind, his subjects.

Occasionally for strategic reasons, or because the behaviour is so egregious then there comes a need to intervene.  But we don't have the resources to go intervening everywhere all at once and immediately stabilize the resulting situations.

That's why I suggest working with despots.  Many of the world's most renowned and best remembered rulers have been despots. A benign despot is actually the best placed individual to bring about reforms.  MacArthur could be seen in that role in Japan.  Cyrus and Alexander.  Edward I (Hammer of the Scots that the bastard was he was still a key figure in the creation of modern England).  Henry VII and VIII (Yes Anne Boleyn's executioner was key in creating many of the modern institutions of England).  Francis I of France.....

We shouldn't run away from the advantages of a well placed despot.

 

[TCBF]

"You're here to defend democracy - not spread it!"

;D


[Edited so that it isn't my 'here'.  ;D]

 

[Dare]

Dare I think the problem is one of timing and capacity.

There are currently about 200 countries in the world.  And if every Nation got its own Wilsonian Nation State we could be looking at hunt dreds more.  As it is we can't keep up with the failed/failing/unwilling-to-cooperate states.  As noted elsewhere our first interest is stability. 

If we go around overthrowing despots the first thing we will create is disorder that we will be responsible for fixing.  The second thing we will be creating is enemies of all the prospective "clients".  They will be entirely unlikely to cooperate if they know that they are going to be chucked in the local jail and hanged at the first opportune moment.  Far better to get ahold of an amenable despot and convince him of the error of his ways and that there is more money to be made as a democratic capitalist than there is as an autocratic despot.    I like the Oman model.  The old Sultan of Oman was very set in his feudal ways.  This caused all sorts of upset amongst his subjects that was exploitable by the enemies of "The West" - a problem when Oman controls the entrance to the Persian Gulf and the Straits of Hormuz.  The solution was to take his son aside and encourage him to put his old man into early retirement.  Oman has been a reliable ally and relatively stable country ever since.  Nobody will confuse it with a democracy but its people are sufficiently satisfied with their modernized feudalism that they are not revolting.  In the meantime the Sultan has got the room to slowly and gently implement reforms so that he keeps up with, ahead of, only slightly behind, his subjects.

Occasionally for strategic reasons, or because the behaviour is so egregious then there comes a need to intervene.  But we don't have the resources to go intervening everywhere all at once and immediately stabilize the resulting situations.

That's why I suggest working with despots.  Many of the world's most renowned and best remembered rulers have been despots. A benign despot is actually the best placed individual to bring about reforms.  MacArthur could be seen in that role in Japan.  Cyrus and Alexander.  Edward I (Hammer of the Scots that the ******* was he was still a key figure in the creation of modern England).  Henry VII and VIII (Yes Anne Boleyn's executioner was key in creating many of the modern institutions of England).  Francis I of France.....

We shouldn't run away from the advantages of a well placed despot.

I agree for the most part, that is why I put in the caveat of there being tolerance for that in the scope of a larger war. However, I believe that in the long run it is against our strategic interest. I'm not advocating specifically military destruction of all despots by us at once, however, I am suggesting that there must be a constant cultural pressure pushed against despotism. I also believe theres a difference between a strong leader and a despot (who controls rather than leads). A very fine line, for certain. I thought of editing my post as it does come off as I was advocating a kind of global conquest by the sword. I am looking for war in the dominion of minds and hearts. I watched an interesting documentry with a KGB defector from the early days of the cold war. He mentioned that the KGB actually spent only 10% of its resources on what we would define as traditional espionage activities. The rest went to demoralization and subversion... attacking and subverting our culture. They brought the fight to our hearts and minds. This is what we need now more than ever. As we are unwilling to militarily decimate the enemy through extreme measures we have to convert them. All the we seem to be able to do is sell them Islam lite. Something that really does not take much effort to flip back to Islam not-so-lite. We need to not sell, but imbue the enemy with the major pillars of our values if we expect them not be tricked but to actually see our perspective and then to carry on a societal structure that can only be anchored on these values. Absolutely the Oman model is a good one strategically, and I'm not suggesting we stop these sorts of activities in the scope of a larger conflict. Just that this be a first step in removing that despot after the greater threat is taken. I believe that to allow a despot to sit on resources valued in billions is no longer acceptable in todays world. Especially when that despot is steeped in ideology that vows our destruction. It is vital to our national security to move against such a considerable threat. It is unfortunate that now we can no longer stand down our armies and wait to be hit before countering. There must be vigilance not just to watch like a hawk as we do. We must move forward like a missionary with a missionaries zeal and conviction. That is the battlefield. This is where Osama and Putin, etc are winning. They're 100% on the offensive. Detailed in their descriptions of and advocating the superiority of their culture. Where are we in this fight? Condy Rice saying Putin is doing bad things? Where are we promoting our values abroad in an assertive manner? This is where we are losing, this is why they keep gaining recruits and why they may even be able to open up new fronts further in the heartland of western civilization soon. We took a policy of ignoring kooky leftists and resting on our laurels then applied it to theocratic zealots. That needs to change. We need to answer these people.

 

[Kirkhill]

Dare, I think I could make the argument that the model for your hearts and minds campaign is the original NGO - the Masons.  Forget what secrets the Masons may or may not have held the real reason that they were perceived as subversives by Lutheran, Gallican, Anglican and Catholic Princes, and the Pope himself, was that they preached and modelled egalitarianism (The Rank is But the Guinea's Stamp. The Man's The Gold for all that), free thinking and tolerance.  That sat not so well with those with a vested, and heartfelt, belief in the necessity of maintaining a single Truth, no matter what the Truth, but a single Truth so that Order would prevail.  If no Order then the fear, equally well founded, was of the deluge.

The Masons seem to have spawned the Elks, the Lions, the Eagles, the Rotarians, the Kiwanis...... and, possibly the Socialist International and the Comintern.  Not that there is a direct connection from the Masons to the Communists (as the Fascists would have it) but once the Masons set the standard of people of like mind getting together to discuss life, the universe and everything it doesn't seem to be a long step to finding the anarchically inclined to get together for a pint.  Thus the injunction in Canada, the US and most western countries against preventing people from freely associating.  It wasn't just about unions.  The injunction was put in place because the Princes feared people getting together and talking amongst themselves without the benefit of commisars, priests or teachers.

That ability to freely associate does tend to make our society vulnerable to the type of tactics you describe the KGB employing. 

Question - how do you get Arabs to recite Burns?

 

[Gunner98]

The imposition of "borders" like the Durrani line in Afghanistan did not divide the tribe, but it did lead to the perception that insurgents are flowing freely across the "border."  In reality they may be returning to the tribal home which is externally regarded as a "safe haven".

This may be a tangent but, I think it is interesting how the European union is creating a border-free zone for many European countries.  "The Schengen agreement, which allows passport-free travel across the area, now embraces 24 nations." (Ref: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7153490.stm )

This strange is when you consider that Europe is taking down its borders while Canada and Mexico face new and increasing challenges with the US along its borders.  They have a Union and we rely on a Free-trade agreement and soon passports.

Not all of Europe went with the Union and the Euros, countries like Norway have resisted (for now.)

 

[Greymatters]

This strange is when you consider that Europe is taking down its borders while Canada and Mexico face new and increasing challenges with the US along its borders.  They have a Union and we rely on a Free-trade agreement and soon passports.

Not really.  I dont believe any European country has as big of a bullseye painted on its butt as the USA does...

 

[Dare]

Dare, I think I could make the argument that the model for your hearts and minds campaign is the original NGO - the Masons.  Forget what secrets the Masons may or may not have held the real reason that they were perceived as subversives by Lutheran, Gallican, Anglican and Catholic Princes, and the Pope himself, was that they preached and modelled egalitarianism (The Rank is But the Guinea's Stamp. The Man's The Gold for all that), free thinking and tolerance.  That sat not so well with those with a vested, and heartfelt, belief in the necessity of maintaining a single Truth, no matter what the Truth, but a single Truth so that Order would prevail.  If no Order then the fear, equally well founded, was of the deluge.

The Masons seem to have spawned the Elks, the Lions, the Eagles, the Rotarians, the Kiwanis...... and, possibly the Socialist International and the Comintern.  Not that there is a direct connection from the Masons to the Communists (as the Fascists would have it) but once the Masons set the standard of people of like mind getting together to discuss life, the universe and everything it doesn't seem to be a long step to finding the anarchically inclined to get together for a pint.  Thus the injunction in Canada, the US and most western countries against preventing people from freely associating.  It wasn't just about unions.  The injunction was put in place because the Princes feared people getting together and talking amongst themselves without the benefit of commisars, priests or teachers.

That ability to freely associate does tend to make our society vulnerable to the type of tactics you describe the KGB employing. 

Question - how do you get Arabs to recite Burns?

I agree it would be somewhat similar to the Masons. Vastly more secretive, and state sponsored. They'd also have to actively recruit! No to be one ask one. They'd have to push. Of course Masons are often mentioned in the same breath as Zionists. They are obviously a threat to what extremists represent (perceived often more than in reality.) But these foundations are being eaten away very fast. The types of people initiated now often wouldn't have been 20 years ago. The old men are passing on now and the younger generation may not be up to the task. Pushing the value of everyone being able to laugh and have a pint together probably isn't going to fly with someone who would be inclined to the types of extremism we are fighting. We need to push more than just brotherhood of Man. Besides that, they're not a mechanism of war. I'm talking about a tool of warfare. Somewhat like a very large psychological operation. Basically, we need to inject a radically large sum of resources into a new intelligence branch that is involved in seeding and growing networks not for just intelligence but for ideology.

The primary purpose should be for spreading ideological values decentralized and in a viral distribution method. The amount of aggression and assertion we use in military maneuvers needs be exceeded only by this thrust of values. Making friends and influencing people. Hearts and minds. Whatever you want to call it. It's all the same basic idea. Our enemies are doing it and we need to do it better on scale with our capacity. Winning hearts and minds isn't handing out candy to kids when you're on patrol or building a school. We need to stop underestimating the intellectual ability of the populations we fight amongst and the intellect of our enemy. Radical extremism does solve real tangible problems that people on the ground can measure. It creates others, of course. If we sincerely believe our way of life is better and worth fighting for, we need to explain this. We should be able to point out caveman behavior (literally, in this case) and why it's not a good thing to live by. This war is being fought as though the enemy can not talk directly to our citizenry easily. We're using Cold War informational warfare strategies with modern tactics. We scoff at what Osama says because we're trying to portray the concept that what he's saying is so silly and that our system is so much obviously better we don't even need to respond.

Well we do. Because to most of the world our system is *not* obviously better through a prismatic lens. Make no mistake, if we had 80% of world support excluding Afghanistan, we'd have won the insurgency in Afghanistan already. As someone said in another thread that a critic was 'just a troll'. This is how we treat Osama, as a troll. Trolling as I recall from the early days was posting a position to get a reaction for the pure enjoyment of seeing people get worked up about how they disliked what you said. Osama isn't trolling. Most of the people that come on here are not trolling. They're legitimately confused about what the realities are. They truly believe what they're saying. We need to talk to these people. We need to get the facts straight. We need to recruit these people to our tribe. They don't have to gather intelligence for us. They don't have to fight for us. They don't have to support our fighters. But we want them in our tribe so they don't do the same for the other side. We want them to spread the ideas and values we have. They don't have to accept all of them. A spread spectrum would be fine so long as we regain the momentum. They are the battlefield. We need a public push, and a secret push for ideology. A "state department" that doesn't just promote trade and diplomacy, but the core values that the country is built on. It's not enough to rely on just members of Parliament or the US executive and our western media to do this.

They're horrible. Let's be honest, they're doing more harm than good in this realm. Sound bites here and there doesn't negate Osamas hour long rants. Leadership isn't being silent while you watch the guy across the street get beat up in hopes that your very large physical presence is the sole required discouragement. We then move into physically take action. But if they keep producing these bullies, how do we stem the tide other than to push the rule of law as a force of good. A way to live by. There is a vacuum for this and our enemies are not only filling it but they have the momentum. We've put ourself into a bind, spending so much into the military technology realm but without the political will to put it to strategic use as it would have been in the past. We've sacrificed our propaganda ability to the western media and Hollywood. They who now hold the monopoly on the world vision of the western world. A vision most of us here on army.ca know is skewed. Most of the world does not know this, and if they do they often think it's skewed the other way. This is the fertile ground our enemies thrive off. We may have the physical terrain mastered but they are making huge gains in the social terrain. That's the ground we need to conquer. This should be a political and military objective above all others and the resources put into it should reflect that.

And I'm not talking about clumsily going around trying to be buddies with everyone. True friends have commonality beyond simply being human, alive and liking those two facts. These enemies are not going to surrender like previous enemies we've had nor are they going to make true peace like the Brits seem to foolishly think they will. We're fighting cultist tribes. We need to confront every aspect of what motivates them and deconstruct it. We need to remotely deprogram each terrorist factions cultist tribe through these actions.

We need to advocate our tribe's reason for existing and it's legitimate superiority, not based on religion or ethnicity, but based on basic truths and the love of peace, justice and freedom. This is the long war. Beyond a victory or retreat from Afghanistan (depending on the wisdom of Governance.)

I hope that all makes sense without paragraphs.

 

[Kirkhill]

Dare, any chance you could go back and modify that by hitting ENTER from time to time?

A line break from time to time would help.