CENTCOM thinks outside the box on Hamas and Hezbollah

[Bob's World]

Working through your circular arguments, first you proclaim:

"Anyone thought about the Lebanese and Palestinians who are violently opposed to Hamas and Hezbollah?"

So I suggest that by recoginizing these groups as part of the state they would more likely be held to task by such others. But then, you come back with:

"but that is not true. Very large and significant portions of the populations do condone their actions"

To which I would add "of course, all the more reason to recognize that these organizations speak for the state and that the state should be held accountable as well as the organizations for their actions."

We grant these groups sanctuary. Not just these two groups, in these two states; but ALL such groups in whatever states they emerge from. The information age (that yes, I realize you are equally dismissive of), or more importantly the knowledge age, that is fueled by the greater speed and availability of information is empowering populaces and non-state organizations in new ways. States are the last to recognize and adjust to this; as usual it is the previously disempowered (people as individuals and as organizations) that embrace the new tools first; and the ones who have power who resist it most as applied against them.

Either way you slice it, be it that these groups don't or do speak and act for the people of the state; the fact remains that they are more easily deterred from acting badly when allowed to operate within the system, and also held to task by the system. Outside the system they enjoy a tremendous sanctuary that I suspect we don't appreciate because so many still believe the simplistic cliche' that "sanctuary comes from ungoverned spaces."

Yet one more example of Fairy Tale-based COIN doctrine (the first being the Pied Piper theory of ideology, that well governed populaces will become radicalized by some seductive ideology and follow the espouser of the same to their doom.)

This one is "The Sherwood Forest theory of Sanctuary." Everyone knows how Robin Hood and his Merry Band took sanctuary in Sherwood Forest; but if the forest was destroyed or somehow denied to them, would they have no more sanctuary?? Of course not, there are other forests for what a forest provides; but more importantly the true sanctuary came from the support of a poorly governed populace (the illegitimacy and injustice of Prince John is legend as well), and their outlaw status itself. Sanctuary comes from such popular support and legal status (a sovereign border, a lack of state affiliation, an outlaw status). As an aside, we approach the AF-Pak problem like a mob of woodcutters going after Sherwood Forest. Even if you cut it down, you have only forced a change of address if you have not addressed the primary sources of sanctuary.

We need to move past fairy tale COIN and get real. We need to get real with groups like Hamas and Hezbollah and the states they live in as well.

[Tukhachevskii]

...are the bane of analysis everywhere. I know its a RED TEAM product and therefore is meant to be challenging and not taken too seriously (nothing wrong with thinking outside the box) but some propositions (and their implicit unexamined premises) caught my eye:

#1 Hamas and Fatah to work together? So what's been stopping them (AFIAK they hate each others guts). Fatah is a broadly speaking secularist organisation (this doesn't mean they are anti-Islamic or belive in separation of church and state but equates rather more to a pragmatic approach) whereas Hamas wants to destroy Israel in toto (if they don't, and the policy statement in their charter is just bunkum then ...why don't they delete it?). Fateh equates to a nationalist movement whilst Hamas equates to the political expression of the Ikwan's goals (and thus only the first step in a larger regional project). The one wants territorial co-existence (after a fashion) the other annihilation of Israel as the first step to the recreation of a regional Islamic re-awkening (Utopian, yes, but that doesn't mean they won't try; i.e., Bolshevism, Nazism, the French Revolution); hardly compatible policy positions. Getting the rival leaderships (and their international partners who manipulate things behind the scenes and risk losing influence/face) is another rquestion entirely.

#2 Integrating Hizb-allah's military wing into the Lebanese armed forces would simply turn that institution into a front organisation for Hizballah. Not forgetting that hizballah's political reach would be further extended and deepened into Lebanese society essentially, to my ears anyway, this sounds a lot like assisted state capture. Why not resussetate (sp?) Amal instead as a rival to Hizballah? G-d only knows what would happen to the internal sectarian and ethnic correllation of forces in what is, lets be honest, an extremely fragile state. Indeed, its only because Lebanon has been able to segregate Hizballah in the south by assigining what ammounts to a sphere of political influence that it has managed to attain some kind of functional administration elsewhere.

[William F. Owen]

Working through your circular arguments, first you proclaim:

"Anyone thought about the Lebanese and Palestinians who are violently opposed to Hamas and Hezbollah?"

So I suggest that by recoginizing these groups as part of the state they would more likely be held to task by such others.

Why would you recognise those who violently oppose you? Why share power with them and why with you

"but that is not true. Very large and significant portions of the populations do condone their actions"

To which I would add "of course, all the more reason to recognize that these organizations speak for the state and that the state should be held accountable as well as the organizations for their actions."

Why would their supporters want them to become irrelevant by ceasing to set forth their policy? Hezbollah is supported BECAUSE it is not the Lebanese Army. The Shia in the South are no particular friends of the Christians up on the Chouf and in Beirut below.

Either way you slice it, be it that these groups don't or do speak and act for the people of the state; the fact remains that they are more easily deterred from acting badly when allowed to operate within the system, and also held to task by the system.

So why would they want to do that - IF that was indeed the case? Do you really think this is something they don't know? They might be unreasonable, but they ain't stupid.

[Bob's World]

Why would you recognise those who violently oppose you? Why share power with them and why with you
Why would their supporters want them to become irrelevant by ceasing to set forth their policy? Hezbollah is supported BECAUSE it is not the Lebanese Army. The Shia in the South are no particular friends of the Christians up on the Chouf and in Beirut below.

So why would they want to do that - IF that was indeed the case? Do you really think this is something they don't know? They might be unreasonable, but they ain't stupid.

The implication, if indeed it is one, is on Western policy makers for not seeing that they need to take a new tact in dealing with this situation. The current tact of simply pouring more and more support into Israel to defend itself against the current structures around it is perhaps something many would call "stupid." The current tact also robs Israel of legitimacy in the eyes of its Arab neighbors, who deep in their hearts believe that it can only exist as a state with the support of Western powers, thereby driving them to destroy it far more than any (ideological) issues of religion do.

We help Israel more by helping them less; and

We disempower the terrorist arms of Hezbollah and Hamas best by recognizing fully their legitimate roles in the states of Lebanon and Palestine, and in turn holding those states responsible for their actions.

It may be counter-intuitive to many, but if the course we've been following for years is the "intuitive" one, I'd say it's long overdue to look seriously at the "counter."

[Tukhachevskii]

We disempower the terrorist arms of Hezbollah and Hamas best by recognizing fully their legitimate roles in the states of Lebanon and Palestine, and in turn holding those states responsible for their actions.

Do Hamas and Hizbullah have legitimate roles in their respective territories (what exactly are they doing that deserves the descriptor "legitimate"? If they did wouldn't the states within which they operate already be responsible for them?

Instead, aren't you actually legitimising the terrorist aims of Hizbullah and Hamas by recognising them in the first place? Do they have "terrorist arms"? Are there "moderate" elements in either organisation?

Can we expect to hold these staes responsible for organisations the we have now decreed belong to them? (anyone remember the "Axis of Evil"?)

[Bob's World]

Do Hamas and Hizbullah have legitimate roles in their respective territories (what exactly are they doing that deserves the descriptor "legitimate"? If they did wouldn't the states within which they operate already be responsible for them?

Instead, aren't you actually legitimising the terrorist aims of Hizbullah and Hamas by recognising them in the first place? Do they have "terrorist arms"? Are there "moderate" elements in either organisation?

Can we expect to hold these staes responsible for organisations the we have now decreed belong to them? (anyone remember the "Axis of Evil"?)

Hamas won a majority in the 2006 elections, and the West pouted. We want democracy, but only when it produces the results WE want. Shame on Israel and the "Quartet on the Middle East" for their response to that populace exercising its right to popular sovereignty and self-determination.

Similarly, in addition to its militant and large social service branches, Hezbollah holds several seats in Lebanon’s Parliament. They are part of the government.

I categorize these two groups as "quasi-state" actors. They are much like Army Warrant Officers. They are part of the government when it suits them, and they are outside the government and the law when it suits them. The West, like Army Commissioned Officers, allows them to play this silly game because we're not quite sure what to do with them.

We need to quit giving them the out, the sanctuary, of pretending they are not responsible for what their "outside the law" components do. Similarly, we need to hold the entire States and their populace accountable as well.

We have no tools that are effective for deterring or motivating a Hezbollah or Hamas so long as we put them on terrorist lists and refuse to recognize them as legitimate parts of these governments.

We do the same nonsense when we say "The ISI is sponsoring the Taliban." Why give Pakistan this out? Because we don't want to provoke a nuclear state?

We are better served, I think, by recognizing reality, and holding the majority responsible for the actions of their legitimate components.

Or we need to play the same game, as in "The United States didn't invade Iraq, the United States Army did." Oh, well, no problem then....

[Tukhachevskii]

I categorize these two groups as (#1) "quasi-state" actors. They are much like Army Warrant Officers. They are part of the government when it suits them, and they are outside the government and the law when it suits them. The West, like Army Commissioned Officers, allows them to play this silly game because we're not quite sure what to do with them.

We need to quit giving them the out, the sanctuary, of pretending they are not responsible for what their "outside the law" components do. Similarly, we need to hold the entire States and their populace accountable as well.



(2#)We do the same nonsense when we say "The ISI is sponsoring the Taliban." Why give Pakistan this out? Because we don't want to provoke a nuclear state?

We are better served, I think, by recognizing reality, and holding the majority responsible for the actions of their legitimate components.

Or we need to play the same game, as (#3)in "The United States didn't invade Iraq, the United States Army did." Oh, well, no problem then....

#1 Ok Hizballah and HAMAS are quasi-state organisations. Which means what? They are proto-statelike authority structures that control a territory and exert defacto soveriegnty? (as oppsoed to de jure?). Or are they non-state actors that inhabit a piece of territory and claim jurisdiction over it but haven't decaklred that outright? Or are they a semi-autonomous part of the governance system of a state?

#2 The ISI is a Pakistani government agency. But I agree that we shoudln't elide the government's role. The buck stops with the Prime Minister.

#3 Disengenuous (sp?) The US Army is not a quasi-state (AFAIK). It is an agency of the US government and the President is it's C-in-C. Is Saad Hariri Hizballah's C-In-C? Is the Cheif of staff of the Lebanese Army, Shawki Al Masri the chief of staff of the armed wing of Hizballah? I think not. And until it is I think it patently ridiculous to punish a country for a terrorist organisation operating in its borders and which holds it hostage. (Should we [Britain] have, by your logic, attacked or held accountable Eire for the actions of the IRA?

Moreover, holding Lebanon to account for the actions of Hizballah (which is a quasi-state within a fragile/weak state) has actually driven large sectors of the Lebanese community into the arms of Hizballah (in terms of political support for its existence/toleration). It allows Hizbuaalh to legitimate its claim to be defending Lebanon (which is hardly its raison d'etre) even though large sectors of Lebanese society vilify its existence (but if you're Lebanese, who do you support; Hizballah that occupies your land and claims to represent you or Israel which punishes you for Hizballah's crimes?). IFF (if and only if) Hizballah merges its military wing with the LAF can we begin treating it as part and parcel of the Lebanese state. Until then, let's to the Lebanese a favour and acknowledge that aren't as simple as we'd like them to be nor are they as easy to ammeliorate as we think with a semantic slieght of hand (I say again...anyone remember the Axis of Evil?).

[tequila]

Sorry, but the world is people and people don't change that much - especially in the Middle-East. Opinions and ideas basically remain constant. Form alters, function very, very rarely.

I couldn't disagree more. I think if anything the history of most of the last two centuries has been one of people changing their opinions and ideas in enormously revolutionary ways across the world, including in the Middle East, at a higher rate than has ever before existed in human history.

[William F. Owen]

I couldn't disagree more. I think if anything the history of most of the last two centuries has been one of people changing their opinions and ideas in enormously revolutionary ways across the world, including in the Middle East, at a higher rate than has ever before existed in human history.

Actually I'd agree but that was not the context of my statement.
Bob said "we're evolving." OK, but that's largely irrelevant to the nature of a problem with 2,000 years of reasons. The causes of conflict where I live are not things driven by recent events. They date back 1,000 of years in some cases. - and as recently as 60 years in others. A lot of other places as well.

I fully accept that society alters it politics, ethics and values, but it reverts to basics once folks start dying. Massacres and Genocide's mostly come from enduring ideas, not new ones.

[William F. Owen]

The current tact also robs Israel of legitimacy in the eyes of its Arab neighbors, who deep in their hearts believe that it can only exist as a state with the support of Western powers, thereby driving them to destroy it far more than any (ideological) issues of religion do.

Sorry, but nothing ANYONE can do will make Israel legitimate in Arab eyes. Nothing. That IS the source of the conflict? There is no peaceful resolution, other than recognition, or destruction.

We disempower the terrorist arms of Hezbollah and Hamas best by recognizing fully their legitimate roles in the states of Lebanon and Palestine, and in turn holding those states responsible for their actions.

That makes no sense. They are armed organisations. No arms, no existence. Recognising their legitimacy just makes them stronger.
"Give up the armed struggle and we will recognise you?" Is that the offer? If they are not being instrumental in opposing Israel, they will cease to exist.

Neither the populations or government would see themselves as responsible for their actions. Hezbollah doesn't become more vulnerable because its part of the Lebanese Government and Army. It just has access to greater resources/funds/manpower.

Moreover Hamas are the de-facto state in Gaza, and, as you note, Hezbollah is a part of the Lebanese Government. How is the Lebanese Government NOT responsible for Hezbollah action, right now? The exist in the Lebanon under the protection and patronage of the Lebanese.

What about inviting the Taliban to help form a Government in Kabul or Al Quaida in Iraq? Make any sense?

[Bob's World]

Actually Karzai is inviting the Taliban to help form the government in Kabul, and it makes tremendous sense.

Even British COIN recognizes the value of giving members of the insurgency real, but not too powerful, positions in the government help resolve an insurgency. Takes away their position that they are excluded from legal participation, and also forces them to have to actually perform, or merely be part of the problem, and not part of the solution.

The Levant is an emotional issue for many, and that clouds clear thinking, it certainly clouds US policy toward the region.

[William F. Owen]

Even British COIN recognizes the value of giving members of the insurgency real, but not too powerful, positions in the government help resolve an insurgency.

I have no issue with that - BUT it must be predicated on the "rebels" giving up the armed struggle - for ever. "Arms put beyond use" - as was the sticking point in Ulster for about 7 years.

That is exactly the condition I would look to progress. To force the armed rebels to give up arms. Use armed force against armed force. If the Hezbollah and Hamas wish to give up the armed struggle, then "Baruch Hashem!"

[Bob's World]

I have no issue with that - BUT it must be predicated on the "rebels" giving up the armed struggle - for ever. "Arms put beyond use" - as was the sticking point in Ulster for about 7 years.

That is exactly the condition I would look to progress. To force the armed rebels to give up arms. Use armed force against armed force. If the Hezbollah and Hamas wish to give up the armed struggle, then "Baruch Hashem!"

The arms issues is always a sticky one. Its the classic trust issue in any "Mexican stand-off" - who puts their gun down first? My personal position is that an armed populace is a critical component for keeping governments in check. The very fact that an armed populace is so challenging to a government in times of insurgency is the reason why the populace must remain armed. It's a bit of a Catch-22.

The problem, of course, is not the arms, but rather the motivation of populace to use them illegally to coerce changes in State behavior. Better when they are used in the passive role of the State not getting into certain bad behavior because they know the people are armed.

I would take the position that it is for the Government, the Counterinsurgent, to make the first move. To bring leadership into government (and not just anyone, the fact is that some are simply too dirty by their deeds and they will have to settle by sending in a Lieutenant who has less blood on his hands to move forward as an official in the new government) first, and then require the leadership of the movenment to use their influence to stop the illegal use of the populaces weapons.

I always discourage any talk of weapon's turn-in programs as short-sighted, impractical, and not likely to produce the very COIN effects that are desired by the program.

An Armed and Informed populace with a Voice and a Vote is the "Fourth Branch" of government in the US. This is what keeps the other three branches from getting in cahoots with each other to the detriment of liberty "for our own good."