JOURNAL: Open Source Conflict in France

As the violence in France reached its tenth consecutive night, the torched car index reached 1,300, and the geography outside government control radically increased, it has become clear that a classic riot over a lack of economic opportunity and justice has morphed into something else entirely. For the regular readers of this notebook, this wasn't entirely a surprise. We have been tracking the rapid spread of open source conflict and systems disruption. We also fully expected its eventual emergence in the West. The only surprise was the grand nature by which it announced its arrival.

Most observers will claim that this situation is due merely to racial/ethnic intolerance and bad economic policy. I think it runs deeper. Here's some brainstorming on why this occurred:

Open source conflict emerged spontaneously in France due to its particularly potent combination of criminal networks and Islamic otherness. The bonding of the two -- the economic self-interest and techniques of criminal networks with the moral cohesion and antagonism of Islamic otherness -- provided all the necessary preconditions for this outbreak (read more about Guerrilla Entrepreneurs). The spark that took this from a riot to open source war, was the attempt by the French Interior Minister (Sarkozy) to eliminate the parallel criminal economy that provides the main means of economic advancement and status in many of these immigrant communities. This economy is particularly important given the rise of the brutally flat globalized economy, where each individual is in direct competition with everyone else in the world (it therefore engenders primary loyalties). A crackdown meant economic annihilation. France is clearly unable to offer any meaningful alternative economic opportunity, and these boy/men know it.

The response to this encroachment on economic autonomy has been a campaign of relatively bloodless systems disruption. This limited violence carries a simple but limited message: "get out of our way." It does so without crossing the line into full scale war (an earmark of westernized global guerrillas?). Over time, this may become a familiar pattern of evolution: as the state loses its ability to monopolize the provision of economic opportunity, it will soon lose its monopoly on violence.

Other briefs that have relevance to this:

May 2004: The New Blitzkrieg
July 2005: Emergent Communities dedicated to War
March 2005: Transnational Gangs

Comments

[georgb]

brilliant analyses. the sympathy some people felt for the 'frustrated youth' is gone for good now. the state will attempt to crack down on the rioters, prisons will be overflowing. this will be extremely expensive, but there is no alternative.
on top of that the state will most likely try to create job programmes in the sub urbs. it is possible, though, that this will be too expensive for france. in the end this might be a permanent problem.

[ylr]

The events in France clearly show that something new is developping, however your analysis need to be refined :
1) The rioters do not reject State help, actually they are rioting to get more financial subsides. Theses communities are already heavily supported by social programs, but in true State-run programs this hasn't cured anything and probably made things worse.
2) Female Muslim (aka "beurettes") do not suffer from the same economic faillures as their male counter-part. For some reasons, they are integrating French mainstream economy much more successfully. They don't seems to take part in the riots.
3) The bulk of the rioters seems to be teenagers, sometime just 10 years old. Adult do no seems to take part in it, except maybe by allowing their sons to run amok. There is a tradition in theses communities to not closely watch their childrens (teenagers hanging outside at midnight are a common occurence) however so maybe they aren't even aware of their actions.

The rioters display strong primary loyalties that is against the French State (they are torching States symbols but in a childish way, eg public transports and schools but not social security or unemployement agencies) but it is more complex than an Muslim immigrants vs French clash. It seems to be within the Muslim communities that a fault line develop, with a subset of the male teenagers actively rioting, whith the rest (adults and female teenagers) not taking parts.

[Countergang]

You have an interesting hypothesis here, which I'll paraphrase: "As the state loses its ability to monopolize economic provision, it will soon lose its ability to monopolize violence."

However, at least in the short run, according to your post, it looks like the hypothesis should be something like this: "As states attempt to monopolize economic provision (i.e., by cracking down on illicit economic activity), contenders will arise who may attempt to challenge the state's monopoly on violence."

How the state responds to these contenders is really the crucial question. In other words, your hypothesis is contingent on state responses, and as such, we can think of these riots and similiar conflicts as "tests" for the viability of a state.

The riots might also be a test for the challengers. In other words, the outcome of the conflict (or the process by which the conflict proceeds) depends on how the challengers organize both for economic provision and violence.

I also have a question regarding the language with which you discuss the topic at hand. Max Weber's discussion of the state as "a human community that (successfully) claims the monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force within a given territory" places emphasis on the word "legitimate." Yet in many discussions of the topic today, the word "legitimate" drops out. It seems to me that this is important, if only because no state has ever monopolized the use of violence/force, i.e. all states face armed non-state challengers to some degree. I'd like to hear your thoughts on this matter.

[John Robb]

I have posted some links to earlier briefs that may be of value (in the body of the brief above). Thanks for the feedback. I will continue to revise this analysis.

[Cardenio]

No Justice No Cheese !

[Jeff Evans]

oh please

IT'S THE MUSLIMS STUPID!

[StrategyUnit]

Great analysis John.

Though I am confused by a small element of your article. You state a "potent combination of criminal networks and Islamic extremism" - but never really mention Islamic extremism thereafter. Could you please clarify?

I see the potential, but as you note the rioters seem to be more about criminal gangs need for market protection leveraging the rioters - than an "Intifada" as portrayed by many in the blogosphere.

Also, I think I should mention to folks that "Networks and Netwar" by Arquilla/Ronfeldt maybe a good read to better understand the power of these type of organizations. "Street Gangs" is another good read, but with too limited of a case study (Narco-gangs in the Americas).

Links to the books are on my blog. They are available free through RAND and US War College.

Cheers

[Martin Bright]

Your analysis is very interesting but it gives too much credit to the thugs who are creating this violence. Yes, thugs. Not youth: youth do not damage property or set vehicles on fire, vehicles that probably belong to their immigrant and economically disadvantaged neighbours, not the rich and racist they are arguably "protesting" against. Let's face it, the violence is still very arbitrary even if government targets are being attacked.

As for Sarkozy daring to crack down on the criminal networks you speak of, I think that's also stretching it. The ghettos are inflamed because he dared to point out the hypocrisy of today's "youth". The "youth" who claim to be such victims yet benefit fully from the state's social services. This violence is their rap video fantasy and a great night out. Nothing more, nothing less.

[Alex]

Sarkozy would dare to crack down on anything. If "crackdown" solved this it would be solved. I hold, however, to my prediction that this will be over by the end of November and will be largely forgotten by November 2006.

[kir]

Doesn't the current situation looks like people (muslems/africans) is trying to find limits until which the "power" (police, army, state in general) can be bend, and then to set them bent to this exact position ??

I do not honestly believe liberal France would resort to military-stile "peacification", so frequently used by US. From the other side, it looks like there's in fact no other option.

Aaa ??

[eeekkkkkk]

"potent combination of criminal networks and Islamic extremism"

That's propaganda not an analysis based in fact. In fact it is the exact same thing being said by Rupert Murdocks Media Outlets.

[Roland]

You're completely fooled by governmental manipulation. I doubted until this afternoon...

It's pretty clear that Nicolas Sarkozy set the suburbs alit two weeks ago. They perfectly knew what was going to happen. And today :
http://www.google.fr/search?hl=fr&q=banlieue&btnG=Recherche+Google&meta=

Tada ! A google search on the word "banlieue" ("surburb") with google.fr shows an ad for... Nicolas Sarkozy !

Disgusting. Please, don't play their game.

[Beowulf]

Could we add Paris as a city "going feral" according to Richard Norton definition and categories?

See link below:

http://www.nwc.navy.mil/press/Review/2003/Autumn/art6-a03.htm

"Imagine a great metropolis covering hundreds of square miles. Once a vital component in a national economy, this sprawling urban environment is now a vast collection of blighted buildings, an immense petri dish of both ancient and new diseases, a territory where the rule of law has long been replaced by near anarchy in which the only security available is that which is attained through brute power.1 Such cities have been routinely imagined in apocalyptic movies and in certain science-fiction genres, where they are often portrayed as gigantic versions of T. S. Eliot’s Rat’s Alley.2 Yet this city would still be globally connected. It would possess at least a modicum of commercial linkages, and some of its inhabitants would have access to the world’s most modern communication and computing technologies. It would, in effect, be a feral city."

[Dimitar Vesselinov]

Photos
http://www.jpney.com/reportages/Violences_Urbaines_93/

[Marcello]

"I do not honestly believe liberal France would resort to military-stile "peacification", so frequently used by US. From the other side, it looks like there's in fact no other option."

The emotional me would say:
1)Declare a curfew in all the troubled areas;
2)Execute on the spot all the scum,children included;
3)Have the corpses hung to lamp posts or towed by Leclerc tanks patrolling the streets, so that everyone can see what happens to anyone who dares to challange the State.If that does not work escalate further with concentration camps and the Hama option.

The rational me says:would that work without backfiring in horrible ways? Probably not.

[Adam]

Marcello it didn't work in the 1961 when Paris police really did execute hundreds of people (Algerians mainly, plus some unlucky bystanders), dropping their corpses in, among other places, the Seine.

http://www.sussex.ac.uk/history/documents/2._gordon_world_reactions_to_the_1961_paris_pogrom.pdf

The difference is that in the 1960's the really exciting terrorist methodologies we know of today just didn't exist. If the French police are callously stupid today its goodbye to the Louvre with the first truck-bomb. The French government know it too, they're just waiting for a good rainstorm to cool everything down.

[Marcello]

"The French government know it too, they're just waiting for a good rainstorm to cool everything down."

That was exactly what the rational me was trying to say.

[Boghie]

Mr. Robb,

We have sparred a bit over the definition of a Swarm Attack...

Could this be the the beginning of a world wide militant Islamic Swarm Attack?

Note that we have militant Islamic activity in the Middle East, France, Holland, England, NYC, Australia, etc... The activity need not be pure terrorism, executed by hardenned terrorist, or even driven by militant Islamic goals. It only has to be guided by the big boys.

We need to know much more. We need to know if there is a tie in (weak or strong) with the leadership of Islamic terror.

[OpenTorrent]

"The difference is that in the 1960's the really exciting terrorist methodologies we know of today just didn't exist."

True enough.... there is also that whole internet thingie that could put a whole damper on the executions.

Call it racism, call it racial cleansing... call it what you will.

Tell me one thing though... where is your news coming from!? If we've learned anything the last few years, it's that our media can not be trusted to give us truthful and unbiased information.

From the reports I have heard on network news, the reasons for the riot have gone from, "teens being physically abused by french police" to "racial discrimination" to "radical muslims causing financial loss by setting property ablaze"...

It is getting a bit hard to tell what the hell is actually going on...

[John Robb]

Boghie, this is more organic than that. A planned path is impossible. I also think it is a mistake to think of this purely in Islamic terms. It will go beyond that soon.

[Boghie]

John,

Point taken...

But, (there always is a but) in the case of assymetrical warfare there not need be a direct path - only a final solution...

The danger will be if the riots are currently Islamic - or become Islamic in the relatively near term.

Is there some group (oligarchy) pulling strings world wide to create a swarming attack - to attack the West in various ways, at various points, in a simultaneous manner.

I think that there may be a confluence of Islamism and economic and social rascism at work in France. I can only hope that the Islamist factor does not become predominate - we can deal with the other issues.

Is France French enough to fight in the GWOT?

We shall soon see...

[Edward]

I've seen no evidence that there is any Islamic militancy at work in these riots. From what I've read, all of France's Muslim organizations, including the most hard-line Salafis, have condemned the rioting, and the banlieue neighborhoods that are the most fundamentalist have also been the calmest.

Many of the rioters are not Muslim, and many of those who are are not particularly religious. Probably most rioters are at least nominally Muslim, but I believe that their motivation for rioting comes from their isolation from French society. Being in a religious minority may contribute to that, but basically in the same way that racism and being warehoused in the banlieues also contribute.