Can you build partners with preditors?

**Van** · 05-17-2011

I think a more fundamental question is "Can you build partnerships with a factionalized state or group?"

Pakistan is an artifical state composed of four major and many minor ethnic groups slammed together. The groups have a fairly wide spread of what they consider their long term interests.

I would argue that you can have parterships with portions of a nation or group under a circumstance like this, but not with the whole group. The problem is that once you align yourself with one faction, the "with us or against us" mindset enters and you are, de facto, against a portion of the population.

This is why we can have a partnership with Israel, but not Palestine. While there are political factions in Israel, their objectives overlap to a high degree, and allow for internal compromise and collaboration. Palestine, however, is intensely factionalized, and has major players who won't accept internal compromise and collaboration with the others. (in statistical terms, Israel has a much smaller standard deviation than Palestine.)

The use of Predators and other stand off weapons to engage targets in Pakistan is a symptom of an underlying problem. The real problem when dealing with a factionalized entity is their internal divisions, trying to mitigate the underlying sources of the divisions, and develop a perception of common interests.

Or you can just pick a side and accept that you'll have enemies sharpshooting (figuratively and literally) every single thing you do in order to undermine your legitimacy, exploit your internal divisions, sap your political will, and place a drain on your military resources.

**davidbfpo** · 05-17-2011

This is a question of psychology - when trying to build long term partnerships is something lost when there is no shared risk?

In developed nations there will be a greater understanding of partnerships and politics, especially within the "chattering classes". This should make the psychology easier. The partnership will rarely involve the population, only state institutions, civil and military being perennial. There are exceptions to this, notably in Western Europe the Berlin Blockade (1947?) and the cruise missile deployment - even then it was a minority that was engaged.

No-one could have considered NATO without a US civil-military presence in Western Europe.

In my opinion where the difference is in less developed nations. No "boots on the ground" makes partnerships very limited even with state institutions, a point Stan and Tom Odom have repeatedly made regarding Africa.

Where is the partnership / shared risk with providing information to a drone controller? There is the chance of discovery and consequent penalties.