What to do with failed states?

[celticlord]

Earlier this year, Somali pirates were all over the news, as was the acknowledgment and discussion of Somalia as a failed state.

Today, the Guardian reports that British senior military leadership estimate deployments in Afghanistan for the next 40 years.

Yesterday, Jeff Stein, writing on CQ Politics, speculates the Administration's real strategy for Afghanistan is to "...Decapitate the remnants of al Qaeda’s senior leadership — preferably with Osama bin Laden’s head on the proverbial pike — declare victory, and depart the field."

For those few who doubted that Afghanistan was not already a failed state, such comments at this late date should suffice to persuade.

So now what? If the US finishes off Al Qaeda then leaves Afghanistan, then what?

The problems of Somali piracy and the persistent presence of a malevolent Al Qaeda highlight the dangers of leaving failed states in their state of disrepair. Somalia and Afghanistan both show the folly of externally (and arbitrarily) imposing government and the apparatus of a modern state on tribal societies.

We can't force them to be nations; we dare not sit back and do nothing.

So what do we do?

 

[Oftencold]

I think a return to Colonialism would be in everyone's best interest. (We should allow a brief pause here for the P.C. crowd, Liberals, Progressives, and other frail souls to recover from their faints, spluttering rage, or stammering indignation as appropriate.)

Thanks to technology we are now far past the time when any tribe with access to modern weaponry can be allowed to run wild.

The multi-generational tutelage of a more mature nation should serve to protect the members of such a group from themselves, and others from them, until such time as their descendants are conditioned to accept peaceful civilization, equitable relations with other countries, and some semblance of the Rule of Law.

This approach suggests a means of dealing with the Palestinians as well, I note in passing.

For those who childishly reject such thinking as a relic of a past era, first, I'd remind them that they probably thought that about public beheadings and stoning until recently.

Secondly, I'd urge them to consider that history tells us that Civilization and Savagery do not coexist well, and that when Civilization does not replicate itself and displace Savagery, Savagery typically consumes Civilization.

Finally I'd urge them to confront the fact that Human Nature remains, and is thoroughly unimpressed with whatever claims to enlightened thinking they express. Human Beings frequently produce predatory countries, tribes, gangs and sects. Those who fail to grasp this and respond appropriately become prey.

 

[angrycarpenter]

Depends on what you mean by "do"

The key to dealing with tribes is to always keep your word. If you break your word once you will be liar to them forever. So many western powers have tried manipulate things in these countries and broken their word so many times that any negotiation is doomed by the past record.

The problem with most former colonies is that the existing borders were drawn without regard to or in spite of cultural boundaries. During the break-up of empires nation sized pieces of land were drawn up and handed to a tribal leaders who had experience in managing a few hundred square miles at best.

There isn't a border in Africa or the middle east that is not under dispute. So many groups have been forced to flee their traditional lands on account of nation building and ethnic cleansing that peace with the existing borders is impossible.

The only solution I can see is to quit trying to manipulate things and start managing things in the most painstakingly honest way possible and maybe in a hundred years the wounds of colonial domination will heal. Allow them to govern themselves in whatever way they see fit but at the same time bring as many of their young people here for higher education as we can.

Things will eventually come around but it will take decades and there are sure to be setbacks but if we continue to keep our word, honor all agreements and do not meddle too much in whatever government they have then they will crawl into the modern world.

 

[Donc]

Earlier this year, Somali pirates were all over the news, as was the acknowledgment and discussion of Somalia as a failed state.

Today, the Guardian reports that British senior military leadership estimate deployments in Afghanistan for the next 40 years.

Yesterday, Jeff Stein, writing on CQ Politics, speculates the Administration's real strategy for Afghanistan is to "...Decapitate the remnants of al Qaeda’s senior leadership — preferably with Osama bin Laden’s head on the proverbial pike — declare victory, and depart the field."

For those few who doubted that Afghanistan was not already a failed state, such comments at this late date should suffice to persuade.

So now what? If the US finishes off Al Qaeda then leaves Afghanistan, then what?

The problems of Somali piracy and the persistent presence of a malevolent Al Qaeda highlight the dangers of leaving failed states in their state of disrepair. Somalia and Afghanistan both show the folly of externally (and arbitrarily) imposing government and the apparatus of a modern state on tribal societies.

We can't force them to be nations; we dare not sit back and do nothing.

So what do we do?

What to do with failed states? When I seen the heading I thought you were referring to California.:mrgreen:

Somali piracy? Run support for any of our vessels going by.

Afghanistan, we did our job there, declare victory and give them a big atta boy and a hug on the way out the Door.


Close about half of the bases in other countries like Japan, Germany, say its time for someone else to be the worlds police force for a few years until we get our sh/t straightened out.

 

[celticlord]

What to do with failed states? When I seen the heading I thought you were referring to California.:mrgreen:

I thought about including Cali, but I figured I'd stick to the easy situations first.

 

[talloulou]

Nation building; of course. It's a pain in the ass and fraught with complications but you can't just sit around ignoring cesspool pockets of desperation while globalization is shrinking the world smaller and smaller with each new generation.

 

[Oftencold]

Do you base this on anything other than wishful thinking?

 

[Laila]

The problems of Somali piracy and the persistent presence of a malevolent Al Qaeda highlight the dangers of leaving failed states in their state of disrepair. Somalia and Afghanistan both show the folly of externally (and arbitrarily) imposing government and the apparatus of a modern state on tribal societies.

We can't force them to be nations; we dare not sit back and do nothing.

So what do we do?

I think a return to Colonialism would be in everyone's best interest. (We should allow a brief pause here for the P.C. crowd, Liberals, Progressives, and other frail souls to recover from their faints, spluttering rage, or stammering indignation as appropriate.)

Thanks for giving me that pause.
I'd rather not have Italy back in Somalia ... oh god, just imagining it is making me physically sick ... be right back whilst i go retch in the lavatory. :2sick1:

Colonials have done enough damage. Europeans have done enough damage.
The true extent can be seen by the fact Somalia was split up by them into 5 regions. British Somaliland, Italian Somaliland, Ethiopia (in the Ogaden), Kenya, and Djibouti.

The civilian administration that assumed power after independence became corrupt and was overthrown in a bloodless coup by Mohamed Siad Barre, who adopted the socialist model and secularist view.
Shoving secularism down a community of Muslims, banning tribal 'thinking'/gatherings/weddings. Infact he was a man obsessed people was after him eventually which led to him ordering strikes against his own people to keep control.

As Barre's regime became increasingly corrupt and unpopular, it resorted to force to crush all opposition. Torture, mass executions, pillage, and carnage were the regime's signatures.

In 1991 Barre was overthrown by opposing clans in the civil war. But they failed to agree on a replacement and plunged the country into lawlessness and clan warfare.

The Clan importance, and how integral it is, is generally overlooked or understated by the West. They do not truly understand how easy it is in setting off war in such a system.

Ofc, Somali's had their own method to deal with this at one time. We were very nomadic, still are infact and relied on our clan leaders and elders to discuss and deal with a problem. Usually meditators between clans, that was the role women once played as we belong to no one tribe as it went through the men.

And that is where Italy's legacy comes in that i mentioned previously, it weakened, fatally weakened the strength of clans and the leaders who did hold control and have ensured peace for hundreds of years destroying centuries of tradition which was based on consensus, debating and choosing a leader to represent you - our own method of democracy.

Ethiopia is stuck and vulnerable. Eritrea in the north and Somalia in the south, further helped by the stupidness of entering Somalia in 06 emphasized the possibility of Ethiopian Muslims becoming influenced or radicalized by Somalia´s Islamists which could ultimately ignite a devastating religious war in the country. Ethiopia does not want another war, historical distrust lie

In my opinion, i am from the North (Somaliland) and i do believe it should get independence solely for the reason that we will never ever be once again forced to join with the South again the only way being if a civil war happens and we lose (which we won't)

Somaliland can be a model for Somalia. It has a de centralised system, enabling clans within our region the freedom to rule itself but maintains the unity of Somaliland

A very delicate balance and has used the clan structure and tradition to its advantage to gain peace. After the civil war, we had the same problems with the south. The difference being we did not stupidly turn on one another for control

Somaliland is stuck in a lose/lose situation. But then again, we may be joining Somalia in the unstable factor if our dictator elected leader postphones the election ... again the little bastard but i digress.

What is happening in Somalia is getting beyond dangerous and worrying.

It has turned from a tribal civil war, tribes against warlords into a radicalisation.

Islam is beginning to become the factor which holds them all together and i cannot think of anything more terrifying than a Islamified Somalia. It has already spoke of invading Ethiopia, regaining the old regions that was once part of Greater Somalia which includes soverign nations around only emphasied by the first ever stoning occuring in HOA. I pity Kenya, it has had the brunt of the Somali refugees and with it the danger of extremists.

But still, what would i do with Somalia if i had the power?

I would give independence to Somaliland, allow Puntland to stay its own region, strengthen the countries around Somalia boxing it in. And then send in SOMALI soldiers to Somalia to deal with. I would never ever ever allow any western soldier or Ethiopian to touch Somali soil, that will spark a ridiculous and unneeded radicalisation and war, proven by 06 Islamists v. Ethiopia (Islamists winning ofc)
Cut off aid to Somalia, Why is the west spending millions in a country which has failed enabling them to rearm themselves?
Control Eitrea, Dijoubti also plays a role.

I think US and Ethiopia should talk to these people regardless their commitments to violence or ideology otherwise they may become part of global Jihadi networks and engage in suicide operations in Somalia and beyond.

And if all else fails, split it up according to clans and give it to the surrounding regions.
If they cannot control their country or make use of it, give it to Africans who will :2wave:

 

[Tashah]

The Clan importance, and how integral it is, is generally overlooked or understated by the West. They do not truly understand how easy it is in setting off war in such a system.

This is so true. Most Westerners have little practical understanding of clan and/or tribal systems. These systems do work, but they tend to work best as closed systems. The march of technology is eroding such dynamics from both within and without.

 

[Laila]

This is so true. Most Westerners have little practical understanding of clan and/or tribal systems. These systems do work, but they tend to work best as closed systems. The march of technology is eroding such dynamics from both within and without.

Indeed.
Without understanding such history and tradition, how can one try and find a solution to it?

 

[Orion]

I think a return to Colonialism would be in everyone's best interest. (We should allow a brief pause here for the P.C. crowd, Liberals, Progressives, and other frail souls to recover from their faints, spluttering rage, or stammering indignation as appropriate.)

Thanks to technology we are now far past the time when any tribe with access to modern weaponry can be allowed to run wild.

The multi-generational tutelage of a more mature nation should serve to protect the members of such a group from themselves, and others from them, until such time as their descendants are conditioned to accept peaceful civilization, equitable relations with other countries, and some semblance of the Rule of Law.

This approach suggests a means of dealing with the Palestinians as well, I note in passing.

For those who childishly reject such thinking as a relic of a past era, first, I'd remind them that they probably thought that about public beheadings and stoning until recently.

Secondly, I'd urge them to consider that history tells us that Civilization and Savagery do not coexist well, and that when Civilization does not replicate itself and displace Savagery, Savagery typically consumes Civilization.

Finally I'd urge them to confront the fact that Human Nature remains, and is thoroughly unimpressed with whatever claims to enlightened thinking they express. Human Beings frequently produce predatory countries, tribes, gangs and sects. Those who fail to grasp this and respond appropriately become prey.

First, what makes you think neo-colonialism isn't already happening?

Second, why do you think that the U.S. would make the best colonial power for "multi-generational tutelage"? On the 'civilization' scale I would call the U.S. one of the most backward, socially speaking; and right now, politically, it, among some of the world's other powers, is one of the most dangerous.

 

[Oftencold]

This is so true. Most Westerners have little practical understanding of clan and/or tribal systems. These systems do work, but they tend to work best as closed systems. The march of technology is eroding such dynamics from both within and without.

Well I certainly would support the notion of forbidding advanced technology (10th century and later) to savages. How about you?

 

[Tashah]

I don't believe technology is a bad thing. Rather that tribalism is an antiquated system of governance drowning in the tidal wave of modernism. Like I said up above, tribalism works, but only as a closed system which is virtually impossible in the new millennium.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

I think a return to Colonialism would be in everyone's best interest. (We should allow a brief pause here for the P.C. crowd, Liberals, Progressives, and other frail souls to recover from their faints, spluttering rage, or stammering indignation as appropriate.)

Remind me again why the colonial powers gave up their colonies. Was it because of PC concerns or matters of realpolitik?

 

[rathi]

Remind me again why the colonial powers gave up their colonies. Was it because of PC concerns or matters of realpolitik?

Lets see. France and the Netherlands fought failed wars to hold onto their colonies. Britain decolonized mostly without violence, although they did have a bit in Malaysia. They also tried to go after Egypt, but were blackmailed out of it by the Americans.

Colonies were hardly profitable in the first place, and rise of nationalism made the costs of holding them even higher. WW2 greatly weakened the Europeans, and the U.S. and U.S.S.R. were new global powers.

In conclusion, Colonialism mostly ended because it was no longer practical.

Colonizing Somalia would completely pointless. Democracies suck at counterinsurgency, and the cost of holding the area would be immense. Simply increasing naval activity is far more cost effective means of combating piracy.

 

[kaya'08]

Earlier this year, Somali pirates were all over the news, as was the acknowledgment and discussion of Somalia as a failed state.

Today, the Guardian reports that British senior military leadership estimate deployments in Afghanistan for the next 40 years.

You've read that wrong. The British senior military official said we could be there for another 40 years but beyond the military stage. In other words, humanitarian aid, educators, doctors, trainers, whatever.

The UK's commitment to Afghanistan could last for up to 40 years, the incoming head of the Army has said.

Gen Sir David Richards, who takes over on 28 August, told the Times that "nation-building" would last decades.

Troops will be required for the medium term only, but the UK will continue to play a role in "development, governance [and] security sector reform," he said.

Shadow defence minister Gerald Howarth said the UK had to be there long-term to achieve its objectives.

Gen Richards commanded 35,000 troops from 37 nations when he was head of Nato's International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan between May 2006 and February 2007.

He will take over from Gen Sir Richard Dannatt as the UK's chief of the general staff.

BBC NEWS | UK | UK 'may have 40-year Afghan role'

 

[Simon W. Moon]

Fyi

2009 Failed States Index - Interactive Map and Rankings | Foreign Policy

 

[kaya'08]

Re: Fyi

2009 Failed States Index - Interactive Map and Rankings | Foreign Policy

How is Turkey ranked as "In Danger" of becoming a failed state yet Mexico is one below it at "boarderline". That map is sheer testacles.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

Re: Fyi

How is Turkey ranked as "In Danger" of becoming a failed state yet Mexico is one below it at "boarderline". That map is sheer testacles.

2009 Failed States Index - FAQ & Methodology | Foreign Policy

"Some in the yellow zone may be failing at a faster rate than those in the more dangerous orange or red zones, and therefore could experience violence sooner. Conversely, some in the red zone, though critical, may exhibit some positive signs of recovery or be deteriorating slowly, giving them time to adopt mitigating strategies. Taken over time, however, these scores yield trend lines which can suggest future directions."​

 

[kaya'08]

Re: Fyi

2009 Failed States Index - FAQ & Methodology | Foreign Policy

"Some in the yellow zone may be failing at a faster rate than those in the more dangerous orange or red zones, and therefore could experience violence sooner. Conversely, some in the red zone, though critical, may exhibit some positive signs of recovery or be deteriorating slowly, giving them time to adopt mitigating strategies. Taken over time, however, these scores yield trend lines which can suggest future directions."​

Your point? Mexico is on the verge of collapse yet Turkey and Russia have managed to be labelled as far less stable which makes no sense.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

Re: Fyi

Your point? Mexico is on the verge of collapse yet Turkey and Russia have managed to be labelled as far less stable which makes no sense.

If you think that they have been labeled as "far less stable" then you have not bothered to read very far into the piece.
If you take some time to look into it and can make an argument about which criteria were mis-analyzed or mis-reported, I'd be glad to take it up w/ you.

Until then please accept this response:

"So you say."

 

[kaya'08]

Re: Fyi

If you think that they have been labeled as "far less stable" then you have not bothered to read very far into the piece.
If you take some time to look into it and can make an argument about which criteria were mis-analyzed or mis-reported, I'd be glad to take it up w/ you.

Until then please accept this response:

"So you say."

Failed states index indexes countries in the following according to how close they are to becoming failed states:

Critical

In Danger

Boaderline

Stable

Most Stable

As you may have figured, the further you go down the list the better. Now according to Turkey's and Russia's colour, they are "In Danger" of becoming failed states, yet, according to Mexico's colour, it is boaderline, which is below "In Danger", indicating Mexico is less likely to become a failed state. And acknowledging your previous post; The interactive map also ranks Mexico 75.4 which is lower than Turkey's score of 78.2 (the lower the scores the less stable, i believe), again indicating that Mexico is more stable this year than Turkey. So which is it? The index is out of date or evidently incorrect?

 

[Oftencold]

First, what makes you think neo-colonialism isn't already happening?

My vision involves it happening explicitly, which is a somewhat different case than the soft colonialism that is possibly happening to a minor degree.

Second, why do you think that the U.S. would make the best colonial power for "multi-generational tutelage"?

We're simply that only major power that is available and would not simply enslave the colonies.

On the 'civilization' scale I would call the U.S. one of the most backward, socially speaking; and right now, politically, it, among some of the world's other powers, is one of the most dangerous.

Well, this is delusional, so I have little to offer in the way of a rebuttal.

Try a little thought experiment. Imagine that some dark, expansive powered arose in some corner of the world, or some hideous disease threatened to extinguish millions of lives, or famine threatened a continent. Now whioch nation do you suppose would be most likely to produce aid for people outside of its own borders in any of these scenarios?

If you failed to say "The United States of America," it's time to consider anti-psychotic medication. If you said "The Peoples's Republic of China," it's time to check in to a mental institution.

Really, how did you ever get through medical school with such a distorted picture of the world around you?

 

[Oftencold]

Remind me again why the colonial powers gave up their colonies. Was it because of PC concerns or matters of realpolitik?

Both, depending on when and where.

In the best cases, they lost them when the colony in question asserted a desire for independence, and had matured to a point that a good case could no longer be made that they would be theat to the "parent country."

 

[Wiseone]

"What to do with failed states?" is a vague and therefore meaningless question. Perhaps something more specific?
Also I don't really like labels like "failed state" since these should be handled and thought out on a case by case basis, applying a label doesn't change anything. For example if one were to debate about if Iraq was a "failed state" or "dangerously close" you could have a very spirited debate but ultimately it wouldnt matter what you called it because that doesnt change the reality.