Sanctuary or Ungoverned Spaces:identification, symptoms and responses

[Ken White]

at the time and the northern route got twice daily service except for Sunday while you had to wait for every other Sunday that UP swapped off with Santa Fe to get all your trains...

Uh, right. What WAS the topic? Ah, yes, Foiled States.

I still agree with Bob's World. Not at all sure that States who do not do it our way are necessarily failed, nor do I think we (the West in general) have either an obligation or even a right to interfere as often as we do. I know that most of the West's interventions have done harm as well as little good -- that's a matter of record. Bigotry is not expressed only by poor treatment or verbiage...

[slapout9]

Not at all sure that States who do not do it our way are necessarily failed, nor do I think we (the West in general) have either an obligation or even a right to interfere as often as we do. I know that most of the West's interventions have done harm as well as little good -- that's a matter of record. Bigotry is not expressed only by poor treatment or verbiage...

See it's that moral thing again

[Ken White]

no moral BS about it.

[Tom Odom]

Bob,

I served in a failed state as a defense attache charged with executing US policy that was simply impossible to apply in any meaningful way. That state was of course Zaire in Mobutu's declining years. Even before the Rwandan genocide finished sinking the Zairian ship, it was very clear the vessel was on the rocks and breaking apart. It had been doing so for years and US policy had sought to hold it together. We had done so for more than 30 years by the time I got on the ground but the end of the Cold War and 2 military mutinies had done what 3 decades of periodic rebellion had not done, namely driven Mobutu up country, leaving the state to collapse on itself.

US policy makers absolutely refused to see it for what it was: a non-state that had failed in its attempts (and ours as the West) to make it so. Because they refused to see it for what it was, we could not hope to address what it was going to become.

That is where I see the problem with the failed state moniker--most of the time the failed state was never a state to begin with. By that I mean a nation of people who saw themselves as a national body without having a gun at their collective heads. In these cases, we are not negotiating with governments, we are talking to individual leaders who may or may not actually control all, part, or none of the area in question. Our system of diplomacy including international diplomacy is built on the exact opposite premise: that governments control all regions and that if you plug into the correct government you can influence its behavior.

The reality is quite different and I would suggest that the classic application of gunpowder or gold is the answer in such cases, with the strong caveat that neither be applied unless absolutely necessary. Staying out is always easier than getting out. And if you do go in, go hard and get out before the dust settles.

Tom

[slapout9]

The reality is quite different and I would suggest that the classic application of gunpowder or gold is the answer in such cases, with the strong caveat that neither be applied unless absolutely necessary. Staying out is always easier than getting out. And if you do go in, go hard and get out before the dust settles.

Tom

Now your talking!! That is how criminals with 3rd grade educations consistently take over areas/countries all over the world....follow me and prosper...... oppose me and you will die. It ain't pretty but it is very effective!

[Steve Blair]

That is where I see the problem with the failed state moniker--most of the time the failed state was never a state to begin with. By that I mean a nation of people who saw themselves as a national body without having a gun at their collective heads. In these cases, we are not negotiating with governments, we are talking to individual leaders who may or may not actually control all, part, or none of the area in question. Our system of diplomacy including international diplomacy is built on the exact opposite premise: that governments control all regions and that if you plug into the correct government you can influence its behavior.

A much more concise statement of what I was rambling about above, Tom. Thanks!

[Entropy]

US policy makers absolutely refused to see it for what it was: a non-state that had failed in its attempts (and ours as the West) to make it so. Because they refused to see it for what it was, we could not hope to address what it was going to become.

That is where I see the problem with the failed state moniker--most of the time the failed state was never a state to begin with. By that I mean a nation of people who saw themselves as a national body without having a gun at their collective heads. In these cases, we are not negotiating with governments, we are talking to individual leaders who may or may not actually control all, part, or none of the area in question. Our system of diplomacy including international diplomacy is built on the exact opposite premise: that governments control all regions and that if you plug into the correct government you can influence its behavior.

Great comment Tom.

I'll be bold here and suggest that we're making the same mistake in Afghanistan. We've been working hard - or trying to - on governance for many years now and it should be not surprise that success hasn't yet come. IMO the only way "Afghanistan" will survive as a state in the long term is through a loose federation and not the centralized government structure that now exists.

[Tom Odom]

Great comment Tom.

I'll be bold here and suggest that we're making the same mistake in Afghanistan. We've been working hard - or trying to - on governance for many years now and it should be not surprise that success hasn't yet come. IMO the only way "Afghanistan" will survive as a state in the long term is through a loose federation and not the centralized government structure that now exists.

Thanks all first for the kind words.

I think you are on track here. I have not been there but I have read much of the history and I always brief it as a region which overlaps its nominal state neighbors. Maybe someday it will coalesce into a unified body; its history tells me that will not be done by force alone.

Best
Tom

[Eden]

My reading of its modern history - say since the Moghuls - is that Afghanistan is less of a state than it is the intersection of competing empires. That is, it has been a buffer zone where various interests - Persian, Russian, British, Indian, Chinese, Pakistani, et al - bumped and ground against each other. They often found that having a a buffer was more convenient than having a shared border, one of the reasons that Badakhshan province looks the way it does. The fact that it is a buffer zone that is virtually ungovernable only makes it all the more effective. Afghanistan, in other words, is the product of a perfect storm of geography, politics, demographics, and culture.

That is also why I have always thought that we would be more effective if we thought of ourselves as one amongst several competing insurgencies, rather than as a counterinsurgent.