Wednesday, June 13, 2007
The civil wars in the Arab world: Hobbes vindicated?
I am in California and largely occupied for the next couple of days, so the obvious move is to toss out another controversial topic for our learned and ideologically diverse readers to chew on.
The mainstream media has finally come around to characterizing the civil war in the Palestinian territories. The imminent conquest of Gaza by Hamas follows resurgent internecine violence in Lebanon and the constantly morphing wars -- the plural is intentional -- inside Iraq. All of this violence followed a sharp reduction in the oppressive power of the central government or, in the case of Lebanon, Syria's occupation. In each case, "realists" argued that the removal of the police state would unleash waves of factional, tribal, or sectarian violence. This reflects the often only whispered opinion among Western "Arabists" that most Arab societies will blow apart if the central authority does not crush opposition.
The question is, are today's civil wars (1) the "natural" condition of Arab societies that are not repressively policed, (2) the product of neocolonial meddling on the part of other actors (including other Arab regimes, Iran, the United States and Israel) or (3) the expected result of generations and in some cases centuries of domestic and foreign repression?
Unleash the hounds, and discuss the implications for American foreign policy.
14 Comments:
By 
Final Historian, at
Wed Jun 13, 02:36:00 PM:
A good question. I will have to take some time to think on it.
By K. Pablo, at
Wed Jun 13, 03:16:00 PM:
There is a fourth possibility, tangentially related to #1, and that is religious. Your point in #1 may be overly racial.
Bernard Lewis refers to "Islam's bloody perimeter", where ethnically indistinguishable populations are religiously incompatible. Think Indonesia, Kashmir, the Phillipines. The civil wars may reflect a "bloody interior".
By GreenmanTim, at
Wed Jun 13, 03:49:00 PM:
I approach this question through the lens of development theory. I get longwinded on this stuff, so skip ahead to the next comment if you have limited time.
In the 1950s and early 60s, neoclassical economic theory posited that one could explain the differences between the development of society A and B by where they fell on a continuum of preconditions for takeoff (Rostoff's airplane metaphor). This is roughly equivalent to Tigerhawk's hypothesis #1.
This concept was roundly rejected by Dependency Theorists in the late 1960s and 1970s, who rightly pointed out that context matters and one size hardly fits all and wrongly placed the blame for under-development squarely on colonial and neo-colonial conditions imposed from outside and not on internal factors. Dependency Theory best describes Tigerhawk's hypothesis #2.
Critics of Dependency Theory say that there are many internal factors that influence how individuals and institutions behave that are not solely attributable to outside forces, and if you hope to change problem behaviors, you need to explain the cause more completely and with a deeper understanding of the assumptions behind the values and attitudes that inform behavior. The causal factors identified in Tigerhawk's hypothesis #3 are more closely in line with Transforming Institutionalism (which I hesitate to say in this forum has Marxist roots but has itself transformed beyond that discredited ideology to be a helpful way to structure analysis of disfunctional institutional behavior).
I believe that institutions (personal relationships, cultures, societies, businesses, religions)behave as they do because they are comprised of repetative patterns of behavior that select for certain group identifiers and outcomes and exclude others. These are not fixed in stone, but they are often assumed uncritically as part of belonging to the group when fact they no longer serve a unifying, relevant role in a modern context.
To give but one, non-Islamic example: Shakers as a sect remain celibate, and in an earlier time they were able to recruit new members: now there are 4 left and they are about to go extinct. A key attribute of their faith -celibacy - bears the seeds of their destruction.
People and institutions also act within a perceived "arena of choice." When we speak of expanding the pie or thinking outside of the box, we are making reference to the limiting factors that we impose on ourselves or that our institutions encourage us to accept. Expanding the arena of choice is one of the ways that institutions themselves transform. There is great risk to the individual and to the institution when certain core beliefs are challenged as inappropriate in a modern context.
I wear a necktie - when appropriate - because of cultural norms and expectations. It serves no other practical purpose beyond group identity and distinguishing those who belong in the group of professionally or formally attired people from those who do not. Female circumcision - more bluntly called genital mutilation by its critics - has served this same function in a number of African traditions, yet is widely discredited outside of these groups as inappropriate in a modern society that values women as whole human beings. Are either of these behaviors indespensible to group identity, and can there be appropriate substitutes for them? Most societies and individuals are not this self-reflective about their customs and behaviors, but that dynamic is at play in every institution.
Even if Tigerhawk's hypothesis #3 is the one that best explains the current condition in many Arab societies, posing it as the expected result of these factors raises the question of whether there is anything that can be done about it. After all, you've got centuries of internal and external repression to overcome. My glass is usually half full, and I believe institutions can transform and individuals can change behavior. Here are some preconditions for transformation to consider (and I borrow liberally here from economist Ann Seidman, one of my old professors):
Rule: Is there the enabling legal framework for change to take place (and the enforcement will to uphold the law)?
Opportunity: Do stakeholders in this transformation have the opportunity to participate and take advantage of what it offers?
Capacity: Do the affected individuals and institutions have the capacity to identify opportunities, design and implement changes, and assess results?
Communication: Are participants in the transformation adequately connected, informed and aware of the task at hand, the goals for change, and their roles moving forward?
Interest: Are stakeholders genuinely interested in the transformation and playing teir part in bringing about change?
Process: Are stakeholders engaged in shaping their own future, not just at the highest levels of societies but throughout societies strata and in partnership with external partners where appropriate?
Ideology: Are the previous categories and the transformatioin they seek to address consistant with the values and attitudes of the stakeholders and the wil of the governed?
The degree to which the answer to each of these categories is "yes" will give a good indication of the likelihood of successful transformation. I have yet to see a situation that had all the bases covered.
By 
, at
Wed Jun 13, 03:59:00 PM:
1- The problem is not Arab societies, per se. The problem is tribalism. In mfuch of the middle east, the loyalty is to the clan or tribe, not the nation-state. Nation-state is an almost meaningless concept, unless the tribe in charge has successfully crushed all the other tribes.
2- Colonial powers split up much of Africa and the middle east into states that had no relation to the mix of people therein. Suddenly, hereditary enemies found themselves in the same state, competing for power. The colonial power successfully used a "divide and conquer" policy that usually favored one tribe, and would support that tribe as it tried to surpress the other tribes. In Iraq, the British put Sunnis in charge of a majority Shia state knowing that they would have their hands full dealing with the Shia, and hoping they would become dependent on the support of the former colonial power to do so. (Oil wealth in Iraq made the support of the former colonial power moot.)
By our presence in Iraq, we have managed to temporarily unify groups that hate each other in a common cause to drive us out. When we leave, you will see a situation similar to what is happening in Gaza now as old scores are settled and "collaborators" are hunted down and murdered. Too bad for the Iraqis who bought into the American version of a new Iraqi state.
3- It's nice to think that all one's endemic problems are the result of what some third-party did decades or centuries ago. It is always there to be played in order to portray one's self or one's society as a victim. That way you don't have to accept any responsibility for your own life or your society's.
I think it's pretty clear that the Iraqi government is not going to meet many, if any, of the "benchmarks" they have been given as the price of our continuing involvement. In September, General Petraeus will report back to the Congress and tell them that many Iraqis are hedging their bets, waiting to see what happens before committing themselves. Expect the Congress to pull the plug then.
Mystery Meat
By Cardinalpark, at
Wed Jun 13, 04:10:00 PM:
Simplistically, these conflicts are based on irreconcileable world views or philosophies which also are fundamentally intolerant. Which means they cannot coexist, and therefore intend to fight to the death. Prior tyranny merely repressed and separated the antagonists, and/or focused the antipathy on shared psychosis - death to America or Israel being the favorites.
These fires need to burn til they burn out. Hamas, in particular, must be annihilated, because its world view is the most intolerant, violent and repressive. It is not amenable to reconciliation.
I would most enjoy seeing the Eypptian military roll into Gaza, decimate the Hamas fanatics and re-assume control of the territory. This would be politically acceptable around the globe and could lead to the most satisfying solution. It would also give the US something for its investment in Egyptian aid -- finally. Nothing would silence the antiZionist euro-brigade more than a Gaza under Egyptian control.
The solution to many of the problems we read about are very near at hand. Egypt to Gaza will quiet a lot of noise. The West Bank will be eminently more manageable.
By , at
Wed Jun 13, 04:29:00 PM:
If the Imperialist Running Dog United States just leaves the Middle East and never returns, Im certain all these troubles would dissapear and there would be peace, joy and 72 virgins for all.
By Purple Avenger, at
Wed Jun 13, 05:41:00 PM:
People in that area of the world have been at war with each other since the advent of recorded history.
By Dawnfire82, at
Wed Jun 13, 09:20:00 PM:
Trying to apply a unitary theory to three different conflicts is an exercise in futility, in my opinion. For instance, the 'tribalism' theory doesn't really apply in Gaza, where the warring factions are essentially rival gangs. The 'meddling colonials' doesn't apply to Lebanon, whose relationship with its former colonial power (France) has been almost nothing but benign. Despite certain similarities that may exist, understanding all of these conflicts requires separate analysis.
That said, the absence of a strong unifying force does lead to fragmentation. The only reason we have a united United States of America today is because the central government proved strong enough to physically beat its rebels into submission. If Iraq and Lebanon want to stand and function, they will have to do the same, and their problems seem to have less to do with ability and more to do with will. I'd bet money that the Lebanese Army could defeat Hezb Allah and unite the country under the central government's rule. But, plagues by memories of their civil war, they seem to prefer a slow bleed to a painful cauterization.
By Assistant Village Idiot, at
Wed Jun 13, 09:49:00 PM:
I suspect Dawnfire and GT are correct that there is not a one-size-fits-all answer. Reality is never as tidy as we would hope. CS Lewis even called that one of the marks of reality as opposed to wishful thinking, when we encounter something that has rough edges, paradoxes, and things that don't fit.
By antithaca, at
Wed Jun 13, 10:49:00 PM:
I read Hamid Dabashi's latest book Iran: A People Interrupted recently and he (or someone like him) would probably argue that all of these conflicts represent the expression of "cosmopolitan pluralism" and its rejection of the post-colonial narrative offered by Western intellectuals and other "inorganic" intellectuals.
Cosmopolitan Pluralism, of course, being the unifiying ideology that transcends Islamism, Socialism, and Nationalism and rejects the entire question of modernity v. tradition.
I don't know the "answer" to all of these conflicts but, I sure as heck don't buy Dabashi's ideas.
"Cosmopolitan Pluralism" doesn't seem to hold water. Hammas members don't kill Fatah members as an act of rejection towards the west. Do we REALLY think the 20yr old Gaza resident thinks about this as he throws his neighbor from a rooftop??
And Iraqi Shites don't kill Iraqi Sunnis to make Americans mad.
"these people" kill the other to get control of the next street corner or city block.
By Habu, at
Wed Jun 13, 11:48:00 PM:
I did not read the article you provided by Mr. Service. Instead I made an assumption. All scientific inquiry begins with one so I just made the necessary leap from science to Marx. After all;
Science was for Marx a historically dynamic, revolutionary force. However great the joy with which he welcomed a new discovery in some theoretical science whose practical application perhaps it was as yet quite impossible to envisage, he experienced quite another kind of joy when the discovery involved immediate revolutionary changes in industry, and in historical development in general.
Thus any article on the nostalgia of the Left for communism isn't such a great leap forward.
Allow me to point out that Marxist-Leninist-Stalinist roots go very deep into the rich earth of the Motherland. Like the Armillaria ostoyae, or Honey Mushroom whose use of tentacles, called rhizomorphs to spread and become the largest living organism on Earth communism will always have the same rhizome archetecture. It's allure is straight from "The Sultan's of Swing" .... "Money for Nothing" and the chicks for free....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nsz4GnR_g58&mode=related&search=
Anyway, like Islam it's a bitch to kill and we're noy gonna be able to do it anytime soon.... very bitch'n video.
By Harrywr2, at
Thu Jun 14, 11:41:00 AM:
I've got a map of WWII Strategic Supply Lines to the Soviet Union-
here
We talk about "vital" national interest in the West...but without those 1942 Strategic Supply lines...the Russians would all be speaking German..or they would have all starved to death.
To the Soviet Union...those lines weren't about "National Interest"...they were about National Survival.
The proxy "Wars" over those supply lines created societies incapable of any level social trust.
To go back to Hobbes...The city-state acting in it's own self interest was the basis of departing from the normal Hobbesian state of life.
For countries that were on those Strategic Soviet Supply lines...the city states failed to act in their own self interest.
As such, the populations have no reason to trust that the city-state will act in the interest of the population.
By patrick neid, at
Thu Jun 14, 03:17:00 PM:
these were the comments i left at the Belmont Club where he posted your idea...
.....civil wars are a necessary transit to becoming a society. will it always be this way? probably not. but it is now. i think problems arise with this thought because we tend to think of the world being all together in the 21st century scaled from rich to poor, educated to illiterate. the reality is, it stretches from now to probably back towards the 18th with pockets like radical islam trying to recreate the 8th.
if we were to accept this idea then we have to accept the ideas associated with each of those centuries. it wasn't 150 years ago that we killed 600,000 of our own with millions horribly wounded as we worked out our demons. in today's numbers that would be 6 million dead. despite the carnage who can refute our civil war as one of our defining moments.
i think all to often we try to prevent, for all the right emotional reasons, this natural growth--now taking place in the middle east--forgetting our own past.
is war our natural state? i haven't a clue. what i do know is every great nation living in the 21st century has gone through several civil wars to get where they are. thinking that other countries can skip this horrible rite of passage i think is naive. its akin to thinking teenagers can skip being teenagers before becoming adults. i don't believe it.
its with this in mind whenever a genuine civil war breaks out i see hope--we are getting closer to resolution.
-----------------------------------
and a follow up:
.... what i would add though is the "civil war" process can't be stopped. we will do what we do no matter how ham fisted because that's a 21st century imperative vs the centuries following behind.
any successes we have i think will always be transient as the larger deeper historical imperative plays out.
that said, with or without our participation/manipulation i think the middle east, if we are lucky, is entering their "french revolution" stage. romanticized as that period is now, we should not forget it comes with Robespierre, the Reign of Terror and the guillotine. the amount of heads rolling and put on spikes makes today's terrorists look like pikers.....
6/14/2007 11:09:00 AM
By , at
Fri Jun 15, 12:40:00 PM:
I think James Lileks has the best explanation, in the 6/15 "Daily Bleat" (emphasis added):
"I noted a buzz comment today that asked whether I might have any opinion about the situation in Gaza, something along the lines of a Nelson Ha ha. I understand the point, but it’s hard to be flippant about what this all means, either this summer or next. We’ve just seen the logical expression of Arafat’s legacy, defeated by people who took his tools and turned them to cause whose potency was trebled by its immersion in religious fundamentalism. In the YouTube clips below, the Beeb reporter says: 'Gaza’s secular foundations, undone in a hail of bullets.'
"Actually, no. They were undone long ago, undone in a hail of rhetoric that praised the bullet, worshipped the bullet, fetishized the finger on the trigger. Meet the old boss, worse than the old boss.
