THE FIRST INSTALLMENT OF THE LONG WAR

"We've made an agreement with the neighbours that, if we have another attack, they'll pick up their weapons and fight the invaders," said Fares Mahmoud, deputy preacher of the El Koudiri Mosque. To the Financial Times.

Iraq's state is hollow -- it exists but without any meaningful functionality. The easy way to visualize this is to view this within the context of Maslow's hierarchy of needs. A hollow state doesn't provide the first two layers, which by extension makes the layers above it inconsequential (contrast this to the US strategy for Iraq). These services, to the extent that they do exist, are being supplied by black markets (from gasoline to the 2 MW ad-hoc electricity network in Baghdad) and neighborhood militias. In order to get these services, the population has replaced any residual loyalty to the state with primary loyalties (to tribe, family, mosque, religion, gang, etc.).

Now that this transition to primary loyalties is complete, the feedback loops of ongoing decentralized conflict (see War's New Equilibrium for more on Spagat and Johnson's analysis on the new power law for 21st century warfare) and large scale systems disruption (I have lots of briefs on this topic stretching back to 2004) will ensure that it stays that way. Also, the alternative transnational market structures of black globalization, driven primarily by the smuggling of hundreds of millions of dollars in bunkered fuel every month, will provide much of the fuel to keep this situation going.

What this means is that Iraq will remain in this condition for decades (the same will be true with Afghanistan as it fractures under the weight of the transnational market for opium, as will Nigeria with oil). Increasing pressure on US forces (from all sides) and an inability to take sides will eventually result in a US withdrawal. Oil production from Iraq will remain at current levels -- below pre-war -- despite the need for it to supply rapid growth in global demand. Regional instability will follow and transnational terrorism will continue its meteoric growth rate. Unfortunately, unlike the US withdrawal from Vietnam, global integration will ensure that this conflict will follow US forces back home.

Comments

[Don Quijote]

Unfortunately, unlike the US withdrawal from Vietnam, global integration will ensure that this conflict will follow US forces back home.

For They That Sow the Wind Shall Reap the Whirlwind

[James Bowery]

There is a primary-loyalty-based reinsurance network structure I've discussed before which I call "clanarchy" that seems like it should form the basis for US intervention. Basically the goal is not to create a government, but a force-weilding reinsurance network of companies consisting of the primary loyalties. You get the clans to bet their assets (and asses) that stability will reign in areas where their clients do business, and their relations with other clans is mediated by the actuarial considerations of such.

This "warrior's insurance" necessitates a dialogue between two cultures that have been long separated by government: military and insurance underwriting.

I don't know how this dialogue can be initiated but if there is hope for stability in the middle east this is it.

[Aayush Iyer]

Actually, the self imposed civil rule seems almost normal, if you remove the tags we are associating with the current people in power. Iraq in a sense has grown because f the loss of it's unilateral decision maker. This decentralization might be the steps to a larger growing, but as you correctly pointed out can happen if there is a specific need to do so.

[Cardenio]

Our withdrawing and things settling down isn't in the GGs aggragate best interest. ( More chaos = more $. for the big GG ameoba ) If you're an arab today, your peace and security comes from being a ' made man ' ( the other kind of Maslow Need Pyramid that some people use )

If things actually start to settle down, the mechanism will act to drum up some business. ( Maybe Saudi Arabia ? ) You wouldn't be thinking of leaving now would you ?

[daCascadian]

It is all about laying the foundation for The Perfect Caliphate

"Proof depends on who you are. We're looking for a preponderance of evidence, and some people need more of a preponderance than other people." - John Kantner

[Duncan Kinder]

I would submit that even if there were some sort of solution to the Iraq crisis that would result in a viable Iraqi nation-state and a reasonably tranquil, terror-free MidEast, the United States, as a nation-state, still would be facing fundamental problems.

The reason: the current Mexican immigration issue. Actually, from the point of view of logic, Lou Dobbs is correct. The United States, in order to maintain itself as a nation-state, must secure its borders.

Dobbs then proceeds to assert that the United States, therefore, must take effective action to secure the borders. Unfortunately for Dobbs, if hundreds of thousands of people are willing to protest any effective action - which is the case - then no feasible effective action to secure the borders can exist. There would be too much opposition. We could spend a lot of time debating whether this opposition has merit, but in the final analysis the opposition nevertheless exists and will continue strong enough to defeat any border security.

Therefore, the result of Dobbs' logic is that the United States has lost effective control of its border, which is an essential attribute of any nation-state.

Of course, this also means that the United States' borders, being permeable to illegal immigrants, also would be permeable to terrorists. It also would mean that - since illegal immigrants and employers of illegal immigrants are not required to obey the law, that other people will wonder why they, instead, must file taxes, avoid jaywalking, follow environmental regulations, and otherwise follow the law.

[jon]

Duncan,

While I agree that we need to secure our borders more, I don't think that was the main reason people were marching in LA. I think that if there was some sort of mechanism where many, many more people were allowed into the country legally we wouldn't see these protests associated with closing the borders. Also, many people who are not immigrants or have parents and close family are opposed to the curent legislation because it criminalizes being a good samaritan. From what I understand the House version of the immigration bill would make it a felony to offer medical help without reporting the person. It would also criminalize church workers who offer food, water, and shelter from the elements.

Also, I really doubt that any terrorists will be getting across the soutern border. My gut feeling is that any average Mexican illegal that comes across someone that doesn't speak Spanish will go to the first authority they see and turn them in. The last thing Mexicans want is the next terrorist to get through the southern border of the US. If that happens they no that it will be incredibly hard in the future for anyone to get in.

I would also argue, that with the exception of their act to get into the country, illegal immigrants are the most law abiding citizens in the country. They can't even get pulled over by the police for speeding without being in danger of being arrested and deported.

[Duncan Kinder]

I don't mean either to praise or to blame the Mexican immigrants. I'm just calling the shots as I see them.

( Frankly, I'm from the greater Pittsburgh area, which has very few Mexican immigrants - legal or illegal - even when compared to such neighboring areas as Philiadelphia, Cleveland, or Columbus. So I don't have much of a dog in this fight. )

I'm sure there are statistics about immigrants relative criminality or lack thereof; but I would be surprised if they turn out to be either more saintly or more devilish than the rest of humanity. That being the case, terrorists should be as able to bribe, blackmail, coopt, inspire, or intimidate some of them as readily as they could members of any other group.

In the meantime, praytell, if they can disregard the border laws - just or unjust - and get away with it; then why, exactly, should I respect that state trooper at the local speed trap who wants to give me a ticket or respect the local magistrate who always gives credit to that trooper's testimony but never gives credit to mine?

[hibiscus]

you already have no worries. there is a solid law against hiring undocumented workers and nobody gets punished except the occasional political appointee. destroy your speeding ticket with the cop's pepper spray and drive away.

[Veteran]

The Second Iraq War will breed more McVeighs than the first one did.

[AoT]

If the world were really serious about free trade then they would open all borders that are open to products and money. The free market cannot function as is intended, whether you think that is good or not, if the flow of labor is obstructed while the flow of capital and goods is not. Despite this I do not think we will see the borders opened in a significant manner, legally, anytime soon. I also do not think that it would be catastrophic, economically or militarily, to open the borders. Sure, there would be problems, but by and large it would be an improvement. People get across already, and will continue to as long as we do not live in a police state, you cannot wall off the ocean.

[AoT]

Oh, and on a side note. Check out what's going on in france.

http://www.libcom.org/blog/

The kids from the banlieus(sp?) that rioted last year have srarted joining the protests against the new labor laws. Greek anarchists have been attacking french businesses in solidarity with the french students. Also one major europe wide labor organization has declared that they will go on strike in sympathy with the french young people, on top of occupations and protest in other countries: Germany, Sweden, Denmark, Japan, Brazil, the USA, New Zealand, Ireland and Turkey.

[daCascadian]

As mentioned above, "we" have already lost control of our borders (as have most other "First World" nation-states)

Anyone that actually wants "in" can do so while the social side of it still presents some issues

The Industrial Age is coming to an end as are all the assumptions that went with it (Hello 4G Warfare etc)

Time for New Rules !

The 2006 U.S. elections will be an interesting indicator of how big a struggle "We the people..." have in front of us to transition to the next set of acceptable rules

"There is nothing worse than a sharp image of a fuzzy concept." - Ansel Adams

[Josh Koenig]

I'm curious how all the hoopla over "border security" jives with the historical fact that the history of US immigration has always been in large part extra-legal.

They called Italians "wop" because that meant without papers. Many Irish illegals were pressed into civil war soldering (a move many would doubless applaud with the GWoT if it were feasible). The story goes on. In my old hood in Bklyn, there were pleny of undocumented Poles who were just looking to make it and had a cousin or something.

I understand that the proximity of Mexico (as well as the new economic paradigm) presents some unique problems, but I fail to see why illegal immigration is really a threat to the nation, as opposed to just a threat to waht you think your neighborhood should look like. Fear of "reconquista" seems extremely paranoid.

[AoT]

Actually, wop had nothing to do with "with out papers." That is a backronym that has been created; like "for unlawful carnal knowledge".

No one really used acronyms before the '50s.

[Capt. Jean-Luc Pikachu]

"Unfortunately, unlike the US withdrawal from Vietnam, global integration will ensure that this conflict will follow US forces back home."

I don't like where this is going. o_O

[Beta]

Islam does seem to have a profound influence that cannot be ignored. The "Hadith" prophecies a leader who will unify all islam named "The Mahdi". He is supposed to unite all islam against those who refuse to submit to the faith. At present the violent civil disruption in Iraq after the invasion and continuing terrorist attacks seem only a prelude to a 4GW type attack in which a leader will attempt to emerge.

There have been several leaders in the past who have attempted to identify themselves as 'The Mahdi' with limited to high levels of success. Saddam himself did try and use 'the chosen one' trick to attempt to walk through Kuwait. The ease of total system disruption in other nations poses a significant threat due to the type of warfare used.

In earlier contexts it was easier to defeat 'The Mahdi' as the technique of warfare converged to a conventional method that was susceptible to failure. Now, that does not seem to be the case; a repeat of Total System Disruption that fractured Imperial Rome seems possible almost everywhere in the world. Frightening indeed!

The only problem seems to be that disrupted and broken systems may not sustain themselves either and only cause a wave of political change.

[Mark]

John,

Thank you! What an insightful essay. Your Palo Alto audience must have been good for you.

[Brad]

The premise of this and other scenarios is that the West/US will not become as ruthless as their global guerrilla adversaries or that when the level of destabilization becomes great enough new counter alignments will not be forth coming. It seems to me that the ascendancy of the global guerrilla dynamic rests on the status quo of current engagement.

[Someone]

La Reconquista seems a lot less paranoid than it did before the demonstrations. The demonstrators, by measure of which flag they flew, seem to have more loyalty to the Mexican State than the American one.

Note the repeated incursions by kidnappers, drug dealers, former/current cops and soldiers.

Also note that America's leadership has dubious loyalties to the state. Bush's 'vigilantes' comment and McCain including himself as an illegal immigrant.

[AoT]

"The demonstrators, by measure of which flag they flew, seem to have more loyalty to the Mexican State than the American one."

Yeah, and all of the people flying Irish flags on St. Paddy's day want the Irish to take over.

[S]

The "whirlwind" hit our shores on 9/11 (and it was sowed in Afghanistan, Beirut, hijackings (plane and ship), embassy bombings in Africa, nightclub bombings, barracks, oil for food, ect...). Defense, without any offense, assuming we agree on an unmovable goal post, is a sure loser. We've lived it. Isn't that why the ME was sclerotic to the point of being stillborn? Whether or not Iraq is accretive or dilutive to our long war only time will tell. Asserting that our foe will follow us to our shores post iraq is somehow new perplexes: isn't that what happened on 9/11, and in Spain and London (not to mention a declaration of war by the enemy). Is this to say if we didn't act in afghanistan and Iraq, the "our shores" endgame would be different? No, the only thing that would be different is the potential infiltraitors would be more aplenty and perhaps come with better classroom prepareation. The days of blithly accepting virtual realities spun up by State are over. Give some credit for abandoning status quo realism in favor of redefining on the ground realities. Success is proportional to the risks assumed.

[S]

Forgot to mention thoughtful post as always - Cheers

[Cliff Nickerson]

When did the US have control of the borders? Oh, yeah. Never.
This is new control that we need (or don't need if you're anti-security) to establish, not some old control that we're trying to bring back.

[Adam]

"The premise of this and other scenarios is that the West/US will not become as ruthless as their global guerrilla adversaries or that when the level of destabilization becomes great enough new counter alignments will not be forth coming. It seems to me that the ascendancy of the global guerrilla dynamic rests on the status quo of current engagement."

Brad - an interesting point. The problem is that historically (1945-today) we have been as ruthless as the terrorists and it hasn't worked. Just take Israel for an example. No matter what they have tried the terrorists accept the inevitable losses and keep fighting. Worse, it seems that by inflicting punishment on the entire Palestinian community, the terrorists gain respectability for defending the Palestinians from the Israelis. Hamas' electoral success would be an example of that.

I suppose that the West could go further and operate in a manner which the Mongols would recognise: kill all the men, the women, the children, the animals, and then destroy the irrigation channels. It was, after all, the Mongols in the 1258 reduced Bagdhads population by 70% (around 700,000) - most of the victims being killed in the first few days alone. The blood literally flowed down streets. Politically this ended the direct link between modern 'Caliphate' leaders and Muhammed. It also exacerbated the decline in Islamic art and science which at that time led the world. Its rather hard to do art and science when the artists and scientists, and the people that support them, are dead.

For those with a sense of humour its worth noting that the Christians of the Bagdhad area were firmly on the side of the Mongols. The Mongols used the Christians as cannon-fodder infantry, but theres no record that the Christians minded. It beat the alternative in the short term (defined as the next morning). In the long term the more-than-slightly-annoyed Egyptians wiped out the Crusader states, in part revenge for the betrayal of the Christians of Bagdhad and Damascus.

Interestingly, despite the massive casualties the Mongols inflicted, they were defeated in Palastine (1260) by a combined Syrian / Egyptian army. Avoiding mass murder by foreign invaders being something of a effective selling point in alliance building . It didn't hurt that the Mamluks, under their legendary leader Baybars, were superb politician / soldiers. Today it is Baybars, not Saladin, that is remembered in the stories told in the coffee houses of Cairo. The West prefers to remember Saladin who *didn't* completely annihilate the Christian kingdoms, which is interesting in and of itself.

This all has ramifications today - US leaders are of course utterly politically tone-deaf and historically illiterate so they included 150 Mongolians in the pathetic Coalition that invaded Iraq... Bush even went to Mongolia and thanked them. The loss of Arabic good will wouldn't have been worth it even if the Mongolian troops were any use (and lets face it; NATO quality they aren't)

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2005-11-21-bush-mongolia_x.htm

More directly, who today would like to live in, or allow to operate, a nation that carried out Mongol style actions as a matter of public policy? Some might wonder how long before such policies came home. After all mass murder must be cheaper than dealing with politically awkward groups of the population. To put it another way: who'd want to live in Rwanda?

Overall therefore we cannot ramp up the level of violence without causing ourselves huge problems.

[Gyges]

"Terrorism following us back home"

"More T McVeighs"

Look to the contractors: overpaid professional killers, loyal only to Mamon. Just imagine what is going to happen when this crowd gets dumped on the US. War hardened with no war; a partiallity for big bucks but no opportunity for earning in a peace-economy.

Making borders securing is going to be the least of your worries.

Funny, really.

[Dimitar Vesselinov]

Disorder creates order

"According to a computational study conducted by physicists at Washington University in St. Louis, one may create order by introducing disorder.

While working on their model -- a network of interconnected pendulums, or 'oscillators' - the researchers noticed that when driven by ordered forces the various pendulums behaved chaotically and swung out of sync like a group of intoxicated synchronized swimmers. This was unexpected --shouldn't synchronized forces yield synchronized pendulums?

But then came the real surprise: When they introduced disorder -- forces were applied at random to each oscillator -- the system became ordered and synchronized.

They believe their findings might have potential in understanding the behavior of neurons and other phenomena."

http://www.kurzweilai.net/news/frame.html?main=/news/news_single.html?id%3D5441

[John Robb]

Dimitar, I saw that too. Very cool. Of course, we see that every day. I am usually hired to do this -- as an operational mind for an entrepreneur to transform random thoughts about a start-up into a business process, business model, and high performance organization that can accomplish it.

[The Dark Avenger]

Here's an interesting link between chaos theory and medicine:

http://www.didyf.unizar.es/info/jlsubias/Cor_tv04.eng.htm