Nation state and non-nation state actors

[selil]

I picked a project recently based on the fact I don't know squat about it. My research questions is

"Can the nation states created by the treaties and tradition of Westphalia respond adequately to non-nation state actors and the rise of a corporate state environment, and what are those impacts on homeland security"

My thesis is "The fundamental and traditional expectations of nation states are in conflict with the reasonable and prudent execution of homeland security in an era of rising non-nation state actors".

Kind of tough to prove in five to seven pages but heck.....

I have materials spanning from Clausewitz to Robb but I'm sure I'm missing something. If you have any favorite sources that might be used I'd be all ears. There has been some work along these lines and I'm sure I'll stumble across an entire conference proceeding but I'm learning. This is my test pass at framing a much larger question within my discipline.

Harassment expected, help hoped for.... Let the flogging begin.

[TT]

van Crevelds Transformation of War (you probably already have this on your list) and his 1995 (?) The Rise and Fall of the State (or something like that)

There is one or more other books on the tip of my tongue but as I am in DC I don't have my book shelf behind me to swivel round and peruse. Sorry.

[TT]

You may find the following of interest:

Philip Bobbitt; The Shield of Achilles: War, Peace and the Course of History

Precis from Amazon.co.uk:

'Bobbitt posits that certain wars should be deemed epochal--that is, seen as composed of many "smaller" wars. For example, according to Bobbitt the epochal war of the 20th century began in 1914 and ended with the collapse of communism in 1990. These military affairs--and their subsequent "ultimate" peace agreements--have caused, each in their own way, revolutionary reconstructions of the idea and actuality of statehood and, following, of relationships between these various new entities. Of these reconstructions (including the princely state, the kingly state, and the nation-state), Bobbitt is most interested in the current incarnation, which he calls the market-state: one whose borders are scuffed and hazy at best (certainly compared to earlier territorial markers) and whose strengths, weaknesses, citizens, and enemies roam across cyberspace rather than plains and valleys. The Shield of Achilles is massive and demanding.'

Not sure whether Bobbitt or van Creveld connect to your hypothesis about 'homeland security' per se, but they both get at the state side of the equation.

Given the focus on homeland security, some of the literature on globalization and its impact on the state might be of interest. I am afraid that I am not particularly familiar with this set of literature, and so cannot really recommend anything specific. But Susan Strange was one of the early writers on glob'n and the state.

Hope this is of some little help.

[Schmedlap]

My impression is that you are focusing your research on military classics. If so, why? Isn't this a political problem?

[selil]

Thanks to all. I have a copy of both Van Crevalads work on the way that I've be eagerly waiting for.

I have been looking at globalization and subjects newer than the classics such as Robb's new book. I need to be able to tie traditional nation states to new politcal paradigms. The methods of conflict are part of the shifting political landscape. From the stand point of homeland security the original concept of homeland security was anti-terrorism (stateless actors), and now there more of an all hazards aproach to how it works. There is some work on the topic, but from what I've read so far not much.

From my notes.

How does the nation state respond and what happens when the adversary is just as capable as the state?

The traditional state has certain expectations found in doctrine and law in how it acts on agression, but what happens when those expectations aren't well founded?

Robb, talks about superior adversaries that can spend little and create massive economic loss. How does that financial asymetry effect homeland security?

Lind, Hammes and others talk about generational warfare but is it possible those same types of generational aspects are found in civil and homeland defense?

Have we instantiated through conflicting requirements inapropriate responses or inefectual responses as a nations state towards homeland security?

There ... now you have all one page of my notes.... I won't show you the doodles of me shooting arrows at myself.

[Brian Hanley]

The underlying question is, "What does a VNSA (violent non-state actor) require in order to be as capable as the state?" A corollary is, "What does it mean to be as capable as the state?" I'd say the second is a combination of ideology and indoctrination. The first is an ability to cause death equal to the state. Ideology is always primary.

We see with Islamism (also with ELF and the Aum cult, but on a much smaller scale) the ability to serve up a motivating ideology and then follow it with death dealing capacity. One could even use Kaczynski as an example of a cult of one. He served himself an ideology, indoctrinated himself, then used it to attack others on an individual scale.

Here are a few references you might find useful.

Byman, D., P. Chalk, et al. (2001). Trends in Outside Support for Insurgent Movements. Arlington, VA, RAND.
Hanley, B. (2007). Chapter 16 - Understanding and Countering the Motives and Methods of Warlords. Countering Terrorism and Insurgency in the 21st Century. J. F. Forest. Westport, CT, Praeger Security International. 2
Maj. Troy S. Thomas, U. and U. Maj. William D. Casebeer (2004). "Violent Non-State Actors: Countering Dynamic Systems." Strategic Insights, Center for Contemporary Conflict, Naval Postgraduate School.
Pape, R. (2005). Dying to Win: The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism. New York, Random House.
Thomas, T. S., S. D. Kiser, et al. (2005). Warlords Rising: Confronting Violent Non-State Actors. New York, Lexington Books.
Wrong, M. (2001 ). In the Footsteps of Mr. Kurtz: Living on the Brink of Disaster in Mobutu's Congo. New York, HarperCollins Publishers Inc.

[MountainRunner]

Selil,
Some quick thoughts:

Your thesis starts pits the "nation-state" against a non-state actors. If you re-examine your starting point, you'll probably find some new paths. First, I'd suggest looking at Bobbitt's etymology of states (particularly, state-nation, nation-state, market-state). Then, I'd suggest looking at what binds the non-state actors your particularly interested in and I think you'll find an "imagined community" that binds them together. In other words, you'll find a nationalism of a different sort than we are comfortable with thinking of it. Then, what are you left with? Is it Weber's bureacracy-based definition that a state is state if it has a monopoly of force within its territory? Third, define homeland security in modern globalization where a flippant remark by a Chinese finance minister can cause more finanicial damage to the U.S. than a VBIED or even a series of IEDs.

How do the goals of each come into conflict? Don't get buried in the tactical if you want to look at rational (rational to the actor, not yours, which means looking at justification as well, perhaps Jurgensmeyer's Terror in the Mind of God, among other) actors. What does the NSA aspire to? Do the members really know or are following Gramscian leadership for personal gain?

Just some quick thoughts....

[selil]

Thanks MountainRunner some great food for thought. I've been stuck the last two days on the same sentence having written myself into a corner. This haleps a LOT. Especially the comment about the finance minister. I guess I should find out who said it first "perception is reality".