A Flawed Strategy for the "War on Terror"

[FascistLibertarian]

We should also remember that Sadam and the Taliban did not have 100% control over their own countries. Why should we expect we will do better?

If having a standing army is not a requirement for being a nation state, only the ability to raise one, then all sorts of organizations that are not usually considered to be nation states share that ability, including trans-national corporations (which, historically, I should point out often had the right to tax as well).

It still brings us back to the point hat nation states are just one type of organization amongst many that provide the same "services".

Hi Marc!

I am just saying that to be a nation state you need the ability to raise an army. Not that everyone that can is a nation state.

The issue of services is spot on. I see it in two ways
1) You can pay so you hire Blackwater
2) You are poor, your house gets bombed, the non-state organizations which we label terrorist are able to provide better service. People naturally will trust the non state player which is looking out for them. Plus these people get targeted by the powerful countries which makes them look like heros and us like bullies.

Transnational corps are building their own armies...... Its the thing that makes sense. I dont really see what can be done to stop considering we live in market economies.
Shell has to either hire mercs in Nigeria or leave.
Traditionally these companies were National (ie Dutch or British joint stock companies).
National companies still exist of course.

The nation state is a construction, if it cant provide people will lose faith.
I love Canada (best country in the world!), how long that would be true if I couldnt get power and the French were bombing our cultural symbols I dont know.

I think for Iraq the question is how unified should the country be? Ie Regional autonomy and local forces?

[marct]

Hi FL,

I am just saying that to be a nation state you need the ability to raise an army. Not that everyone that can is a nation state.

Oh, I know that . Still and all, I think it goes to the core of what a "state"means, whether that's a nation state or a tribal state - a combination of ability and lived reality as it were.

The issue of services is spot on. I see it in two ways
1) You can pay so you hire Blackwater
2) You are poor, your house gets bombed, the non-state organizations which we label terrorist are able to provide better service. People naturally will trust the non state player which is looking out for them. Plus these people get targeted by the powerful countries which makes them look like heros and us like bullies.

Blackwater?!? Sheesh! I'd far rather hire Executive Outcomes than Blackwater!

More seriously, there are some serious economic and logistics costs involved in having any type of armed forces. What we are seeing now is a shift in the cost of the offense-defense-speed-identification equation; basically a cost ration between offense and defense modified by the cost of speed of delivery and target identification.

Transnational corps are building their own armies...... Its the thing that makes sense. I dont really see what can be done to stop considering we live in market economies.
Shell has to either hire mercs in Nigeria or leave.
Traditionally these companies were National (ie Dutch or British joint stock companies).

Yup. I was thinking of the Dutch East India Company and the British East India Company in particular. Of course, we could also add in the HBC for Canadian content .

The nation state is a construction, if it cant provide people will lose faith.

Yup, and, just to get back to the start of this entire thread (), there are some pretty serious implications for policy and planning as well as international politics coming out of this.

Marc