The Possum Bistro

The Nation State under Westphalian concepts is the sole holder of Foreign Policy for the people within that Nation. Non-Nation State actors have taken upon themselves to start abrogating that concept on a global basis. The large negative of that is that nothing coherent in the way of accountablity is offered by these non-Nation State actors and they, thusly, operate in a fashion that is counter not only to Nation States but the international system amongst Nations. By fitting into this niche, the Modern Nation State is in a bind because it lacks tools to deal with such things as they are more than just mere criminal enterprises: they are autonomous organizations using the trade of war to achieve their ends. That is why the entire US Federal Government finds itself highly limited in its modern approach to al Qaeda and Abbu Sayyef and such, as the cumulative National tools of war, law enforcement, diplomacy and such find that they do not *fit* into opposition of non-Nation State actors. And against a foe willing to divide/sub-divide and parse down National units internally via conflict until only amenable pieces are left that are so distraught that they are unable to resist attack and takeover is the means and method put forth for them to achieve Empire, there is no panacea from the National end to work against them.

Addressing Nation States using such as semi-autonomous Foreign Legions is a start, but not a complete whole as the removal of the National support then makes them revert to fully autonomous non-Nation State actors. Thus, even removing Iran and Syria leaves one with multiple Hezbollah organizations with inter-affiliations now put fully onto their own means to survive. They may not survive at current levels, especially the Lebanon branch, but those in Venezuela, Brazil, Argentina (most likely one umbrella organization), Balkans, Chechnya, KSA and generically in the Indonesia to Oceania area, become dispersed threats left to their own devices. They then reside fully in the Transnational Terrorist internetwork system, outside anything even multiple Nation States can address. And they can *still* seek help from other rogue Nations above and beyond interacting with merely criminal enterprises for support.

The modern concept of warfare, military power and addressing such does not *fit* that space. The concentration of power to Nation States in the 20th century left a full ecological realm that the 19th century Nations *did* address, although not fully, and countered such non-National rogue actors. I have talked on this subject many times before, probably best addressed in a response post I did to Tigerhawk throwing the idea open previously. By limiting our conception of Nation State to the near modern, 20th century, the actual tools the Nation State can wield are limited in design and conception. By coming out of the era of the supremacy of the Nation State as the ONLY actor on the stage of global affairs, we come to think it has been always thus.

It has *not* and, in point of fact, the Constitution has enshrined within it the entire Other War Powers under the Letters of Marque and Reprisals language so as to involve private citizens and their companies to perform war activities for the Nation State and operate in areas that Nation States could not go. These are warpowers and war commerce powers to go after shipping and commerce with the enemy. Against Nation States the National military is fully allowed to go after Enemy Nation's commerce. Against non-Nation States they are prohibited from doing so against commerce of Nations. Congressional Warrants to certify Privateers and the Executive drawing up lists of people, organizations and working with Congress to define the commerce that needs to be stopped, and thusly putting broad powers to Citizens and their companies to take part in warfare in modes that can address individual shipping items within vessels and take the whole vessel and its content in reprisal for the Nation. Further, on land storage and commerce may also be targeted and either taken or destroyed depending on what the Executive puts forth to enact Congressional mandates. These are *not* mercenaries, but private individuals and companies acting in accordance to the War Powers of the United States. They cannot be written off by Treaty as that is tantamount to amending the Constitution and the set procedure for that is described within that system and does NOT include Treaties. Only We the People may do that. So it sits as the 'other war power' of the United States, unused since the Civil War.

No Treaty may remove it as it is a Grant of Power from We the People to Our Government.

Other Nations with other concepts of Powers have signed this away as a War Power, although they could renounce such Treaties and reclaim those powers, none have done so. Only the United States considers such War Powers a Sovereign Right that may not be taken down by anyone *except* We the People as set out in the Constitution.

And it is the *perfect* tool for this era in which actually figuring out who is transporting what to whom is a deadly puzzle... using the very systems, means and methods that are amenable to individuals and companies to ferret out, seize, prove contents, and then auction it off or claim National Prize Money, although the former has always been more lucrative to companies in times past.

When the Federal Government cannot figure out how to fight an enemy, it *must* come to We the People for help.

That is how the system was designed to work, where Government serves the People and *not* the people serving the Government.

By fitting into this niche, the Modern Nation State is in a bind because it lacks tools to deal with such things as they are more than just mere criminal enterprises: they are autonomous organizations using the trade of war to achieve their ends.

Perhaps some might call it harsh, but do the recent visits to Syria by Democrat careerists (because that's what they really are: power-hungry, partisan and utterly delusional) constitute criminal activity? Surely they act autonomously of the government - not only that, but devoid of sensibilities and sensitivities to Foreign Policy as a tool wielded by the presidency. Perhaps our legal system does not yet espouse the jurisdiction necessary to persecute these treasonous traitors - until then, do expect anything less than coherent in our Foreign Policy projection and achievement.

Using the trade of war has been a strategy that has been well-exploited and executed by our enemies - the insurgents, the militias, the belligerent rogue states and their Foreign Legions. On the domestic front, the Democrats have acquired a penchant for denying that that trade actually exists, and strive instead to indulge in isolationism, however perilously unrealistic it bodes for the future.

And they can *still* seek help from other rogue Nations above and beyond interacting with merely criminal enterprises for support.

What is the basis of their "free radical" (no pun intended, but a pretty good one, I'd wager) status? Firstly, that their financiers are willing to employ the services of such Foreign Legions, accord them funds and weapons to achieve what looks like a concerted, all-encompassing agenda: the destruction of the West. Or at least that's what their supposed narrative would want us believe. Syria's interests diverge from Iranian, Sadrist, Sunni, aQ interests at some point, and one of our objectives should be to expose and exploit these differences.

If only Nation States could be convinced and made amenable to the concept of an overarching agenda: the disruption, if not the destruction, of belligerent enemies. Foreign Legions consisting of individual, autonomous actors could then traverse from continent to continent, country to country - in search of Nation States that desire to enlist their help in carrying out covert missions in these states. Of course, this course of action further dilutes the concept of the Nation State and would be weighed against the advantages that might be gained if such a parallel network is established: Foreign Legions may be recruited by anyone against anyone, and the hierarchy of threats ensures that more often than not, there will be internal espionage and subversion. Which leaves us in a tough spot: can we trust our "allies" sufficiently such that they would not manipulate the tools of the system against us? Is there any other alternative, given the decline of the Nation State and the seeming unpalatable nature of autonomous Foreign Legions?

These are *not* mercenaries, but private individuals and companies acting in accordance to the War Powers of the United States.

Agreed that the sovereignty of the people - the General Will as raw a concept sketched out by Rousseau - cannot be denied or abrogated by any institution of the state, because the government exists for the people and not the other way round.

But a jacksonian, without a formal agreement that dictates the necessity of respecting the manner and scope of permissible action with which to approach the impending crisis, the subtler elements of diplomacy (when needed) to convey limited objectives and means so as to effectively exercise coercive diplomacy without escalating the crisis may be lost in favour of blind, retaliatory action that may achieve the exact opposite effect than intended.

Even monetary incentives such as those you have suggested cannot guarantee that individuals within the people would be sensitive to the crucial sensitivity with which to bolster Foreign Policy and war powers. At best, our enemies would be faced with the horrifying and utterly real prospect of autonomous actors inflicting substantial damage on their operatives both in domestic and foreign territories - without the fear of sanction, PC or ROE, unlike how Nation States are constrained, as you have elucidated - and our Foreign Policy would be bolstered by the threat of potential force. At worst, our Foreign Policy may be incoherent and betray a divisiveness, a dichotomy between the government and its people - that alone is enough to give the enemy more motivation and reason to strike at us again.

If only there was some tacit channel through which the president and his team could work with the public on these issues, bypassing the obstructionist Congress.

What we have right now is the concept of the Public wielding war powers that would undoubtedly benefit the Nation State by bolstering our Foreign Policy and diplomatic efforts. What we need more than anything else is a Congress amenable to the concept of fighting cohesively as a people against the common enemy. That would at least guarantee the manner and scope of permissible action are monitored and sanctioned with clear objectives in mind, minimising the risks of overreach and harmful vested interests by actors who might seek to use "the trade of war to achieve their ends", whatever they might be.

Bob W published an entry over at The Bar with a similar idea. However, his paradigm relied on the government to provide for such forces, not private entities.

Both premises point out an inescapable fact; the Nation States have become inept.

Such schemes of these are being presented in an effort to bolster and support the Nation States to succeed in areas they apparently cannot.

This kind of system already exists in other forms. Look at the tribal groups within the Arab states; there are your private forces.

Though I can understand forming private groups for protection purposes, as the Nation States loose control, I can't see them as interacting with said state. Once "used up" for their purpose the Nation State would hunt down the private groups.

This is simply the nature of power.