In the Middle East, Tyranny May Give Way to Anarchy

Post Reply
User avatar
Alexis
Posts: 1305
Joined: Tue Jan 03, 2012 2:47 pm

In the Middle East, Tyranny May Give Way to Anarchy

Post by Alexis »

In the Middle East, Tyranny May Give Way to Anarchy

A 2011 analysis from William Lind, the American strategist proponent of "4th Generation warfare" concept.
He points the fact that the major risk of Middle-East events for external powers such as the USA (& others) is the dissolution of existing States into cesspots of non-State entities the Somali or Iraqi way, with risks to the continued orderly exploitation of oil.

Definitely still a relevant analysis...

Some extracts:
The likelihood of any of the countries in the region becoming thriving, secular democracies is about equal to the probability we will balance the federal budget with bars of gold brought by flying monkeys. In the Middle East as in most of the world, the two options are tyranny and anarchy. When tyranny fails, anarchy moves in.
Disagreeable, and somewhat of an exaggeration... but partly true, at least for some Middle-Eastern countries.
the worst possible outcome of revolutionary events in the Middle East is the disintegration of states and their replacement either by statelessness—as we see in Somalia—or by fictional states, as in Iraq and Afghanistan. Within the territories that were formerly real states, power devolves to many non-state entities. Internally, war becomes a permanent condition, while externally there is no one with whom other states can deal. In the case of oil-producing areas, the flow becomes erratic at best.
(...)
Where the quest is for legitimacy, nothing is more corrosive than being seen as the servant of a foreign power, especially one that is widely hated. Bush’s invasion of Iraq and the endless war in Afghanistan made America into the “Great Satan” in the eyes of Muslims everywhere. At the same time, successive American administrations have openly given orders to our “allies” in the region and forced their compliance. We not only let the strings show, we painted them red, white, and blue. Now, in terms of legitimacy, America has the reverse Midas touch.
And Lind's prescription to America given existence of that risk:
What should our policy toward new entities in the Middle East be? If we understand we have the reverse Midas touch, we will also understand we should assume the lowest of profiles. First, remove the irritants. End the war in Afghanistan, close the American bases, shrink the embassies, and stop legitimizing Likud’s expansionism. Then work to have what happens in the Middle East stay in the Middle East. Lower the profile of our relationship with Israel. Be careful whom we admit within our own borders, including as refugees. (There may be millions.) Reduce our dependence on imported oil by raising the gas tax and using the revenue to bring back passenger trains.
In short, come home and close the gate. Leave our good Muslim friends to wage jihad on one another.
Most of Lind's prescriptions are well taken, but the one about closing bases in Gulf Arab countries is seriously flawed: Middle-East produces ~40% of global oil and includes >60% of remaining reserves, while global oil production has now reached a plateau and should begin to decrease with few years. Remembering that world economy depends on transportation & logistics, for which liquid fuels will remain for long the only practical option, descent into anarchy of main ME oil producers is just absolutely unacceptable for all external powers.

Still, with the really crucial countries concentrated around the Gulf, with Iran which is not presently threatened by anarchy and a series of Arab statelets whose population is small enough for them to be able to buy social peace, it is quite possible that anarchy will not spread there, therefore not threaten the oil flow. So on this particular issue of oil continuity the picture painted by Lind I think is too pessimistic.

In case the Gulf states descended into anarchy, threatening continuity of oil production, foreign (mostly US) intervention would be a given. The strings would not only be visible, they would be all that is left. :shock:

Small population size would make continued occupation for 30 / 50 years of these lands a far more practical proposition than continued occupation of Iraq was.
But it would be a very sorry solution indeed...
User avatar
Heracleum Persicum
Posts: 11574
Joined: Sat Dec 22, 2012 7:38 pm

Re: In the Middle East, Tyranny May Give Way to Anarchy

Post by Heracleum Persicum »

Alexis wrote:In the Middle East, Tyranny May Give Way to Anarchy

A 2011 analysis from William Lind, the American strategist proponent of "4th Generation warfare" concept.
He points the fact that the major risk of Middle-East events for external powers such as the USA (& others) is the dissolution of existing States into cesspots of non-State entities the Somali or Iraqi way, with risks to the continued orderly exploitation of oil.

Definitely still a relevant analysis...

Some extracts:
The likelihood of any of the countries in the region becoming thriving, secular democracies is about equal to the probability we will balance the federal budget with bars of gold brought by flying monkeys. In the Middle East as in most of the world, the two options are tyranny and anarchy. When tyranny fails, anarchy moves in.
Disagreeable, and somewhat of an exaggeration... but partly true, at least for some Middle-Eastern countries.
the worst possible outcome of revolutionary events in the Middle East is the disintegration of states and their replacement either by statelessness—as we see in Somalia—or by fictional states, as in Iraq and Afghanistan. Within the territories that were formerly real states, power devolves to many non-state entities. Internally, war becomes a permanent condition, while externally there is no one with whom other states can deal. In the case of oil-producing areas, the flow becomes erratic at best.
(...)
Where the quest is for legitimacy, nothing is more corrosive than being seen as the servant of a foreign power, especially one that is widely hated. Bush’s invasion of Iraq and the endless war in Afghanistan made America into the “Great Satan” in the eyes of Muslims everywhere. At the same time, successive American administrations have openly given orders to our “allies” in the region and forced their compliance. We not only let the strings show, we painted them red, white, and blue. Now, in terms of legitimacy, America has the reverse Midas touch.
And Lind's prescription to America given existence of that risk:
What should our policy toward new entities in the Middle East be? If we understand we have the reverse Midas touch, we will also understand we should assume the lowest of profiles. First, remove the irritants. End the war in Afghanistan, close the American bases, shrink the embassies, and stop legitimizing Likud’s expansionism. Then work to have what happens in the Middle East stay in the Middle East. Lower the profile of our relationship with Israel. Be careful whom we admit within our own borders, including as refugees. (There may be millions.) Reduce our dependence on imported oil by raising the gas tax and using the revenue to bring back passenger trains.
In short, come home and close the gate. Leave our good Muslim friends to wage jihad on one another.
Most of Lind's prescriptions are well taken, but the one about closing bases in Gulf Arab countries is seriously flawed: Middle-East produces ~40% of global oil and includes >60% of remaining reserves, while global oil production has now reached a plateau and should begin to decrease with few years. Remembering that world economy depends on transportation & logistics, for which liquid fuels will remain for long the only practical option, descent into anarchy of main ME oil producers is just absolutely unacceptable for all external powers.

Still, with the really crucial countries concentrated around the Gulf, with Iran which is not presently threatened by anarchy and a series of Arab statelets whose population is small enough for them to be able to buy social peace, it is quite possible that anarchy will not spread there, therefore not threaten the oil flow. So on this particular issue of oil continuity the picture painted by Lind I think is too pessimistic.

In case the Gulf states descended into anarchy, threatening continuity of oil production, foreign (mostly US) intervention would be a given. The strings would not only be visible, they would be all that is left. :shock:

Small population size would make continued occupation for 30 / 50 years of these lands a far more practical proposition than continued occupation of Iraq was.
But it would be a very sorry solution indeed..

.

that whole space like a rotten tomato, looks fine but try to touch it :lol:

ripe to be picked, harvested, by :lol: :lol: :lol: Iran

Only Iran has all needed to take care of that space .. nobody else



.
Ibrahim
Posts: 6524
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2011 2:06 am

Re: In the Middle East, Tyranny May Give Way to Anarchy

Post by Ibrahim »

Strongly prefer anarchy to tyranny.

The libertarian gun-loving conservatives on the forum should agree with me, unless there is some other variable I am not accounting for....
User avatar
monster_gardener
Posts: 5334
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2011 12:36 am
Location: Trolla. Land of upside down trees and tomatos........

Anarchy vs. Tyranny..........

Post by monster_gardener »

Ibrahim wrote:Strongly prefer anarchy to tyranny.

The libertarian gun-loving conservatives on the forum should agree with me, unless there is some other variable I am not accounting for....
Thank You VERY Much for your post, Ibrahim.......
unless there is some other variable I am not accounting for
Sadly there is........

The sinful, depraved, violent nature of human beings*..........

I believe I tend to Minarchism,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minarchist

But remembering those tragic words in the Tanakh/Old Testament that tend to follow awful atrocities........

"In those days there was no King in the land and every man did what was right in his own eyes"

If forced to choose.....Better to have a king........

And perhaps a bad king may sometimes be preferable to a good one......

Remembering that the worst tyrants are often those who think themselves and what they do to be good.......

Note in the example of Ancient Israel, that having a King does NOT mean the common people are unarmed........

Quite the contrary.... Saul, the first legitimate king of Israel was desperate to arm the common people after Palestinians ;) ** attempts at diarming them.....

And being armed means that the king/tyrant and his bully boyz may have to decide how much a particular plan of oppression is worth before proceeding with it.........

And that while guns were not available other ranged weapons were VERY much part of the equation.........

Then as now ranged weapons were equalizers for both men and women......... Took down at least 2 kings one of whom was real bastard ;) :twisted: of a king named Abimelech who a woman wasted with a heavy duty ranged weapon...... The king was mortally wounded and so embarrassed by being bested by a bitchy Grrl that he had a henchman finish him off with a coup de grace to avoid been known as the king that a woman killed...... Needless to say it didn't work..........

*Also known as Egotistical Chaos Monkeys who think the world revolves around them.......
Note that this includes the 98%er ;) Humans known as chimpanzees........


**More commonly known in their day as Philistines/Peleset
For the love of G_d, consider you & I may be mistaken.
Orion Must Rise: Killer Space Rocks Coming Our way
The Best Laid Plans of Men, Monkeys & Pigs Oft Go Awry
Woe to those who long for the Day of the Lord, for It is Darkness, Not Light
Post Reply