originally posted at my blog ~ The Agonist
Last night Col. Allard and I (and Jack to a lesser extent) went around and around and around on the issue of Hezbollah and Hamas. It was a really frustrating conversation because Col. Allard looks to Michael Ledeen when it comes to ideas about Iran and Israel and Palestine (again, to a lesser extent). The Ledeen school of thought is close to the Kristol-PNAC school of thought: there is little room for nuance and it's all Iran's fault.
As I have said before, in other venues, there is circumstantial evidence that Iran influenced Hezbollah's latest escalation. After all, Iran was about ready to be dropped under the bus by China and Russia. I'm not 100% sure what the connection between the nuclear enrichment negotiations are, but the timimg is too much of a coincidence.
What really burned me up last night was the insistence that Hezbollah is a puppet of Iran. They're not. They are a central part of the fabric of Lebanese society. Don't believe me, well then just look at this photo:
Who is it these two, obviously middle class guys, are watching on TV? And this is just one sample among many. Whether we like it or not Hezbollah is a part of Lebanese society and I seriously doubt that a two or three week Israeli air-campaign is going to change that reality. And if an air campaign is Israel's reaction after this escaltion, well, then Olmert is even more timid than I thought--and the Israelis need to get rid of him, fast.
But the most worrisome aspect of the argument which was had by all last night on the radio was the deep divide between the Colonel's view of international actors like Hezbollah, Hamas and Al Qaeda and my view. The Colonel, at least as I have heard him argue, sees these groups as tools of states. This is a decidedly pre-9/11, more Cold War, way of looking at how they are organized, what kind of friction they can create and how we should fight them.
I, however, see them much more differently. I see them as manipulators of states and infectors of states much more than as the tool of states. And it seems I am not alone. There is no question that Hezbollah was created by Iran, but a similar state originating genesis could be made for Al Qaeda--except it wasn't Iran that germinated the seed.
I've made this argument here before and I'm pretty sure I am right about this. The problem is that my argument is harder to make. It's not as simple, or over-simplified, or as elegant as the neo-con hookah puffing Kristol and Ledeen's lead us to believe. It's not "soundbite-able."
All non-state actors (right down to Amnesty International) exist in the gray areas--places in which the modern nation state has trouble enforcing its monopoly of force, or other critical functions. Violent non-state actors are geopolitical shadows who use violence to achieve political ends in ways nation states more often than not find immoral--or more importantly, delegitimizing. And in this there is a difficult paradox at work. Nation states, were they to use the methods of non-state actors (not limited to the violent ones, mind you), would often times find themselves with less legitimacy. Conversely, non-state actors, however, seem to gain legitimacy when the utilize the same methods. And thus, nation states are seriously hampered in their fight against non-state actors.
Thus, for now, Bush, Blair, Olmert and others are content to blame Iran for the actions of Hamas and Hezbollah. Of course, it's easier to blame someone else for violence than investigate the sources of that violence--why study and learn when you can blame? And by focusing on the blame, as a short-term tactical political palliative, as opposed to the solution, we loose our ability to influence the outcome of events. No longer are we shaping history, as Ian said in another context, we are only watching it.
Or, rather, as Arkin says,
"[B]y assuming that Iran or Syria or China are all-powerful and thus evil for NOT taking action, we make two mistakes: One, we absolve ourselves -- the United States -- of any responsibility for what unfolds in the world. . . Second though, we misread the dynamics of what happens in the halls of power, thus robbing ourselves of an understanding of the way the world really works, and thus any say in the future."
One thing we did agree on last night was that our ulimate reaction to 9/11 was a giant failure of imagination. Sadly, we still find ourselves deficient in that category.
I might have more on this later.
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 12
Now they can pull a Pontius Pilate, and wash their hands of the affair (4) to make a ton of money off of the American Tax Payer (beware of the Ides of The Military Industrial Complex), and (5) to position themselves for a military strike against Iran.
Chaos is their business, their only business. The reason why you don't see it is because you are looking for some kind of moral vision well beyond the them vs us simple simon scenario. What's in front of your face, Sean-Paul is what's happening. It is no mistake. And it's liable to get a HELL OF A LOT worse. Because if they wipe the Shias out or continue to destabilize the region, and unleash their Zionist pit bull on civilian populations, the unforeseen consequences will be biblical. How will Almighty God react to such blatant murderous arrogance?
Well written article on a timely subject which I hope generates further discussion.
But all of that is rather aside from the point of the essay in that much, if not most, of what informs our current international relations thinking is that all non-state actors are terrorists and therefore evil and must be destroyed. Nothing could be more wrong, after all not all non-state actors use violence to achieve their aims. Too much of international relations is oversimplified in our world by a 'moral clarity' informed by neither clear thought or ethics. And that is sad.
http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.jsp?articleId=281474976768064
is germane to the discussion
Hamas is no longer stateless. It was elected in a free, democratic election to govern the Palestinians. So was the current government in Iran, wasn't it? Insist on bringing democracy to the Middle East as an ideal on which war in Iraq was based, and this is what you're gonna get. Like it or not. AND, topple Saddam, strongly backed by the Sunnis, and you have Iraq set up to be taken over by Iran when the US leaves, don't you? Very smart. That doesn't exactly accomplish the goal of setting up Iraq as a wedge against Iran, because of both ethnic and religious ties between the now more powerful forces in Iraq.
As for Hezbollah, are you sure it was created by Iran? I haven't totally investigated its history yet, but there was a UN requirement that when Syria left Lebanon, the Lebanese government, free at last to govern without Syrian interference, would disarm them and prevent them from congregating in southern Lebanon to threaten Israel. That wasn't done, and isn't it Syria that's been funding them and providing those missiles? They're a powerful political party within Lebanon, not at the top of the government but not entirely stateless, either.
The one truly stateless group seems to be al Qaeda, originally of Saudi Arabian origin, sort of like Robin Hood and his merry band. I think Iran is conveniently being used as the boogie-man, responsible for all evil -- because we badly miscalculated what the ultimate political results would be if we invaded Iraq.
Your perspective is refreshing. I appreciate your phrase "failure of imagination." It is the most succinct definition I have heard. And perhaps the best response to those narrow visions of Rumsfeld and Rice.
Perspective, I believe, has a great deal to do with all our failures in this area. Our leaders just can't see the world through Mideastern eyes, and, unfortunately our present leadership requires the most simplistic of viewpoints.
I'm afraid, too, that Abu's comments strike a note with something nagging at the back of my mind since 9/11, that the American leadership which found that tragedy so profitable politically may think that chaos in the region is preferable to organized and purposeful states with agendas of their own. There simply are times when I am astounded at the nonchalant attitude of Bush and Cheney at the disaster they've created in Iraq. Bush says he doesn't agonize over his decisions but the bland exterior of Cheney and Bush's good-ole-boy tooth-sucking "What Me Worry?" pose are more frightening than anything else I see on the tube.
"Hezbollah has become an enterprise in the dahiya, often outperforming the state. It runs a major hospital as well as schools, discount pharmacies, groceries and an orphanage. It runs a garbage service and a reconstruction program for homes damaged during Israel's invasion. It supports families of the young men it sent off to their deaths. Altogether, it benefits an estimated 250,000 Lebanese and is the country's second-largest employer."
It's no wonder Nasrallah joined Hezbollah. There are some interesting comments posted right here on Gather about the entire article.