Thomas Friedman wrote in
an article about some of the fits and starts of peace that we have seen in the Middle East recently. In it he included this passage
I must respectfully disagree, and believe that especially in the Middle east we can capitalize on these very fears to improve it. To reference Political Science I essentially agree with Hobbes. In Leviathan, Hobbes argues that political sovereignty grew out of a fear of violent death
(Hobbes 1651, 84). In essence, according to Mr. Friedman this is what is currently motivating the changes in the Middle East. No government to date can promise an avoidance of death altogether. Not even the most stout theocracies make the attempt. But with careful planning violent death can become a thing that is relatively rare, as it has in most of the Developed World.
However, while terrorist organizations claim to be able to provide a degree of salvation after death, and even a theoretical terrestrial paradise, they bring an awful lot of very violent death with them, and that death can be seemingly indiscriminate. This is what has motivated the changes in the Middle East right now.
That said, the limitations of this motivation are not the limitations fear of violent death, but instead the fact that instead of creating a sovereign to deal with the issue, there is instead a precarious balance between people that hate each other, (e.g. Sunni's and Shi'ite, Jews and Muslims, Arabs and Americans). Eventually the common enemy will go away. In the case of Iraq, the only problem is making sure that the redployment and the disappearance of the threat is not too far separated in time. But all the other animosities are still there, and neither the Shi'ites nor the Sunni's are picking up and leaving. Essentially, there is still plenty of fear to go around.
Therefore, it is still possible to employ fear to guarantee a stable government, and an environment. The first step is to develop a dialog, which is hopefully happening now. If not, fighting common enemy has a way of bringing things together. After that the combatant parties can develop a pattern of checks and balances, and finally upon implementing that pattern watch it carefully until it has been in force for so long that it becomes taken for granted. This is how all treaties are written and peace is made. It can work in the Middle East as well, witness the border between Israel and Egypt which is now primarily patrolled by European troops in shorts for sunbathing. It all starts with fear, but it cannot be misdirected fear, and it must be strong.
On the small wars front, this same strategy can be employed writ small, and is essentially what has been driving the success of the surge. The problem is that until fear is piqued enough there is no desire for either side to negotiate. In order to keep the success of the surge going, a long lasting solution must be arrived at, otherwise once the fear decreases, instead of falling into a long terms stable situation, it will degrade into more violence. Basically, while it need not be the pseudo-dictatorial sovereign of Thomas Hobbes, some sort of Sovereign needs to be created and allow peace to rest upon that.
Originally Posted by Abu Suleyman
Bookmarks