Secret Wars Episode II
For human rights campaigners, Kadyrov’s inauguration will be a dark day. Until recently he headed a militia of more than 8,000 men known as the ”Kadyrovtsy”. According to countless eyewitness reports, his men — who have taken control of Chechnya’s security from the Russian army — have abducted, tortured and summarily executed people they suspected of links with Islamic rebels opposed to Moscow. What of this secret war in Chechnya that Russia is waging? Obviously, one would respect state sovereignty and accord Putin's government inalienable rights of monopoly of force within its borders to effectively deal with insurgencies and radical elements undermining national security. On the Islamofascism front, however, all is not so clear-cut: Hamas has actually been accorded special status by Russia in not appearing on the latter's list of terrorist groups - I questioned the sensibility of that move a few weeks ago, and I continue to pose that exact question to anyone who can answer it: if Hamas is legitimising Chechen resistance, infusing it with transnational capabilities of funding and recruitment, are Russian leaders prepared to confront the challenge? Can we trust Putin to his devices to exterminate terrorist spawn, or will we envisage the disintegration of the Nation-State as demographics accords the Muslim population a vantage point from which to subvert state sovereignty for transnational ideological consensus?
This is the second part of a multi-post series [Part 1 here].
Secret wars are rendered so, sometimes by transnational progressivists in their attempt to caricature it as tragedies that could be averted if only Nation-States intervene in them, all the while knowing deep down that such a course-correcting move would remove the only basis of galvanising support for the progressivist movement - thus, they demand the impossible from governments, placing an onus so huge on them such that secret wars such as those in the Congo and Darfur will never seem to be resolved due solely to the Nation's incompetence.
Refusing to engage with NGOs and activist groups who are actually doing something substantial to not only promote the cause, but also to employ collective pressure on businesses and investors associated with trade with these non-compliant, belligerent regimes: the scope of action is varied and accessible to the common man who is concerned, and yet they spend their time and funding on simply promoting the cause, since it requires absolutely minimal effort and still allows them to gain the higher moral ground against the "cruel" governments.
And of course, the next phase that engenders from their posited proposals is the steady decentralisation of power in the context of the international system of states: discredit the Nation-State by foisting upon it unrealistic expectations, bombard and besiege it with unrelenting pressure without considering the limitations of its power to influence events elsewhere - and magically waving away the necessity of time to be factored in for results to be achieved, as seen in Iraq - and instead seek to encourage individuals to place their faith and beliefs in concepts that bypass any domestic constitution, laws and jurisdiction: international law, 'universal' human rights, 'women's rights' and so on.
Seemingly unobserved is the sneaky, surreptitious process by which secret wars are rendered unto a template of binary characterisation, stripped of its intricacies and uniquely variable elements that set it apart from 'just another humanitarian crisis' - notice how that phrasing alone imbues the predicament with, ironically, a sense of nonchalance replete with careless assumptions that 'intervention' will solve everything. In fact, it has come to my attention that nations in which secret wars transpire and erupt, protection of the very concept of state sovereignty is far more important to governments - they know that intervention will compromise that sacred dimension to no end: it is a slippery slope that will justify one generic one-size-fits-all textbook solution after another. That precedent spells disaster.
Russia has always had to deal with Chechnya in its own backyard, and Putin isn't one to shy away from exploiting the full extent of state monopoly of power. Having consolidated ideological consensus throughout the branches of government, Putin has been able to utilise other state institutions like the FSB to further strengthen state security. The threat of Islamic fundamentalism has crept into Chechnya, but not without Putin's knowledge - he has only recently handed the Chechen portfolio over to his 'little Saddam': A former amateur boxer renowned for his love of violence, he owes his coronation to Vladimir Putin, the Russian president, who is banking on him to bring stability. Putin has already awarded Kadyrov the Hero of Russia medal, the country’s highest accolade.
Similar to this predicament but far more advanced in its stages is that of Pakistan and Waziristan: there is absolutely no ambiguity whatsoever regarding the utter failure of the Pakistani government to secure its own borders and mount effective counter-intelligence against aQ operatives and sympathisers within Pakistan itself: widespread rumours of these collaborators existing and proliferating information within the administration and bureaucracy do not demonstrate a concerted national effort to stem the expanding Taliban influence from Waziristan. And given aQ's predilection for instability and its skilful exploitation of these situations, one would not be reckless to suggest a fragmentation of the Nation-State as more ethnic groups become tempted to break away from Pakistan, rendering the nation less potent to deal with a coup that could very easily place nuclear arms in the hands of terrorists.
The nature of these two theatres of war pose the question that Nation-States are reluctant to answer: when do internal conflicts turn transnational, and to what extent can we be sure of governments' capabilities of countering and containing these secret wars? To deal with the threat, one must obviously define and recognise its dimensions of strengths and weaknesses. While Musharraf still naively believes in the utility of concessions, Putin accommodates Hamas - neither leader seems to have grasped the essential explosive potential of a widening disaster.
The argument for "humanitarian intervention" is a slippery slope - set the precedent and each successive attempt at justification runs the risk of becoming progressively easier while ignoring the true effectiveness of intervention. Interveners adopt self-rationalisation and in turn downplay any criticisms of "what if" cases. Occasionally, they are forced to confront the sobering demerits of the situation - think Iraq; justification shifts from whether intervention was necessary in the first place to whether maintaining a presence is logical.
Is there a secret war in Iraq that justifies presence of US troops there? One can argue that the war between Shiites and Sunnis is hardly a secretive one - magnified beyond state proportions on a regional scale. Yet what people fail to realise is that the secret war within Iraq is within the Shiite bloc itself: pro-Iranian SCIRI, Iranian-funded Sadrists versus moderate Sistani adherents and secular Shiites. Maintaining a presence there also involves ensuring that whatever emerges from Iraq will not run counter to strategic interests of the US.
Is there such justification for intervention in Pakistan and perhaps Russia? Neither will be convinced of such action against their own sovereign states, and the amount of domestic and international resistance against such a venture would be gargantuan, to say the least. That is why I propose that neighbouring states should cooperate with each other to provide a solution, instead of deferring to the international community. These states are more likely to be more sensitive to specific aspects of the security problem, the culture, political atmosphere among other factors. They are also likely to be more responsive to changes in the scenario as opposed to a multi-state coordinated effort. Of course, a crucial prerequisite of this mode of action is that neighbouring states have the necessary resources to handle the task.
One must realise that it is absolutely necessary for the neighbouring states to be fully convinced of the appropriateness of intervention, and taking into account costs to their own states and accepting the probable consequences of such a move. Secret wars such as those in Waziristan require neighbouring states like Afghanistan, India and possibly China to cooperate and arrest the burgeoning crisis before it turns transnational. As for Russia, unlike Pakistan's neighbours which do have the economic potential to sustain intervention, its near abroad consists of small nations who already are preoccupied with deterring intervention from Russia. In addition, Russia has shown itself adept at punishing those who disagree with it through resource deprivation. Russia may have to face its beast alone.
How long can these wars remain secret?
Labels:
Transnational Progressivism
5 spoke up:
And what do you do when Nations like Iran and Syria interfere with neighboring States like Iraq, Lebanon, KSA and Turkey by funding and giving aid and assistance to sub-National groups in each? We are seeing, from what I have read on Power, Faith and Fantasy a problem that started with American evangelical schools in the Middle East promoting pan-Arabism and Nationalism, which ran head-on with the decaying Ottoman Empire. After WWI the factionalization between Nationalists, wanting States that could have religious identity, and Religion having no States went right into each other in a grand smash-up across the Middle East.
The US under Wilson decided to put *trade* with the Ottomans BEFORE supporting freedom, and did NOT declare War on the Ottomans. That, I think, was the start of what would later become 'Realism': trying to get economic security *first* before human liberty. By encouraging Nationalism, but not linking that with human rights in a firm way, the Christian schools that taught the first generation of Nationalists, and such folks as Nasser, brought forth the despotic trainwreck that would follow aided by Wilson being unable to do the right thing to oppose the entire set of Powers that were allied against France, Britain and Russia.
He was lukewarm, at best to the secret Sykes-Picot treaty, between Britain and France, to establish a Jewish homeland in Palestine. His first reaction was: how can I push something that sounds like a form of tea to the American People? Wilson would vacillate on that, on declaring war against the Turks and put commercial interest ahead of human interest, even *after* hundreds of thousands of Armenians were slaughtered by the Ottoman's and much US private aid had already gone to those provinces. He would not put going to war with a bloody tyranny ahead of commercial trade and stability, thus endangering *both* in the long decades that would follow.
By taking a later problematic stance of not going to war, but supporting a Jewish homeland, the US tried to straddle the fence with the usual result when both legs come down squarely on either side. Wilson made a bad war *worse* by not prosecuting it fully and being a FULL Ally to the British and French. In not doing that he lost the US position at the table at Versaille and in the Middle East, allowing the colonial powers to divide up the Ottoman Empire because he did not want to get the hands of the US dirty there.
The predictions of those on the ground that this would be a long term loser due to Islam and fundamentalism have proven correct: they properly appreciated the tyrannical nature of Islamic Imperial outlook and warned heavily against standing on the sidelines. Teddy Roosevelt from Congress urged Wilson to join in the war fully, because he understood that this made the US a full partner in European eyes.
Now we are stuck with a war in which it was made worse by the US not taking part fully and an even worse peace because the US was *not* at the table to help sort peoples out into Nations and towards freedom. That strain of wanting to negotiate always, try to find agreement amongst Nations that were already at war and had no compunction about *that* opened up this pathway to diminish the Nation State.
By conceiving of the 'League of Nations' after WWI, the US started to change the outlook that the Nation State might not *be* Sovereign. Congress rejected it for good reason: it would not sell and was unconstitutional as the People said the Nation *was* Sovereign. The more that this outlook that Nations are not the sole actors for their People and not Sovereign for them, the worse off we get. Transnationalism wants to point out the problems of the Nation State system which are *caused* by this very attitude and then further try to diminish the Nation State by pointing out that it cannot solve 'humanitarian crises'. Transnationalists will not tell us what WILL solve those crises.
And that is the the problem in accepting their viewpoint: it leads not forward but backwards to authoritarianism. Accepting that everything will be *better* because a group asserts it and offers nothing to demonstrate it is accepting the word of authority over the old line from Missouri: Show me.
Nations *can* solve humanitarian problems if it is in their National Interest to do so. If it isn't they can allow their Citizens to find a better way to do it with the consent of the larger community of the Nation. So long as you do not risk National Sovereignty in your actions, and the Nation is neither here nor there, then go forth and do good openly and above-board!
Instead we get nefarious groups unwilling to show their face because they represent no one but themselves and are only backed by those wanting to destroy, not build. If they could build they would show it and prove it, beyond little hospitals... notice how well Hamas has done actually *governing* Palestine? They were one of these 'legitimate armed political parties' that the Left so touted... providing all sorts of goods... but in the end only to help that group out, not the wider Nation. Ditto with Hezbollah. And al Qaeda. And FARC. And Shining Path.
They cannot build nor stand for anything except *themselves*. The do not reach out to build towards anything save despotism and Empire.
But they sure can find excuses to *kill*.
Thanks for nothing, President Wilson.
You started killing generations because you were unwilling to commit fully to war.
And put the value of human liberty beneath that of trade.
And yet we still hear those on the Right touting just this thing... and it erodes at Nation States because trade is not held accountable to *anything*.
Strange that those supporting this forget that the US was FREE before it had any Free Trade. Apparently winning only 20% of a war gets you defeated in the long run. Save trade and sacrificed freedom. And National Sovereignty.
WWI was not 'won' but 'un-lost'.
What we have today is our repayment for not wanting to win, only not lose.
What we are witnessing is heartbreaking. The tranzis will not allow the West to do what is necessary to defeat the forces of evil in the middle east. Will they now remain mute about human rights abuses such as Darfur or will cry about it and do nothing as does the UN?
After posting the dismal Bing West article I started formulating a draft post earlier today that looks back at the left's unrelenting criticisms of the Allies efforts in Iraq.
As long as I live I will never be able to forget or forgive the behavior of the Democrats and the other assorted tranzis with their unrelenting criticism of the United States.
If there is any justice in this world, historians will record how the Democrats and other assorted leftists undermined this effort every step of the way. Remember this!
The New American Century.
America was colonizing Iraq.
Blood for oil.
Abu Ghraib.
These were the calumnies that immediately came to mind. Perhaps you would like to collaborate?
a jacksonian,
Wilson has surely left behind more than his fair share of problems; though my knowledge of the man is rather limited to his role leading up to the Treaty of Versailles, I can say for sure that his ineptitude resulted in a terribly mismatched, self-contradictory agenda that ensured the seeds of another major conflagration twenty years later, exemplifying rather tragically the axiom in international affairs that alliances can only do as much as the individual members want it to accomplish. After making fanciful promises to the British and French, he failed to take into account Congress action against approving the Treaty, thereby ensuring that the document itself was a false front of unity - no Nation had the resolve, will or capabilities to back it.
I shall find out more about the man in due time.
whit,
I'd love to - what exactly are you working on for now?
I've done nothing other than begin cataloging the various propanda and lies such as when the CIC congratulated the returning sailors aboard an aircraft carrier and the left mercilessly and relentlessly twisted the meaning of the "mission accomplished" banner.
I have been thinking that the left and its media have been the terrorist's best propaganda tool just as it was for the Communists in the 1920's and 30's. In this day of instant communication and moral equivalence, it has become impossible to conduct the kind of warfare necessary to defeat an enemy as was done in the past.
Harrison - The reason he was limited in leading up to Versailles and left *out* of the Treaty of Paris and Lausanne, which reconfigured the Middle East is that he did not go to war against the Ottoman Empire, which was Germany's Ally.
Theodore Roosevelt who was in Congress urged Wilson to also declare war on the Ottoman's as, if he didn't, the US would have a limited role to play post-war. Plus it would address the then ongoing Armenian Genocide.
President Wilson did not do that. He put forth that *trade* with the Ottoman's was too important. Trade trumped fighting the Ally of the Kaiser. And so the US was seen as the 'junior partner' by Britain and France and marginalized because of that decision.
That is not a minor role, but one crucial to the main problems we are in *today*. That meme of trade trumping liberty and the fight for same is now used today by those on the Right unwilling to endanger trade with China due to human rights abuses. If the idea that *trade* could make people free were true, then the folks in the Middle East would be wonderous democracies by now.... only 90 years at it! Somehow that hasn't happened. And the post-war ideal of an international body to 'oversee' disputes between Nations didn't work too well, either... both in the form of the League and the UN. Doesn't seem to matter if the US is in such deliberative bodies. They don't solve problems, because they can't.
That dual legacy of Woodrow Wilson now permeates the Right, with their splendid free trade ideas that go nowhere, and the Left with Transnationalism. And T. Roosevelt wasn't *alone* in Congress urging Wilson to ask for a broad declaration of war.
A bad war. Not fully entered. Never fully settled. And would lead to future problems, genocide and the slow crumbling of the Nation State. Because of one man's grand ideas for the future.
And now we *pay* for that trade.
Post a Comment