Dr. Demarche on the Bay Blog: What about the next Hezbollah?
As always, it’s good to hear from Dr. Demarche, the FSO with prose punch.
Dr. Demarche sent me this contribution last night. I’ve titled it: The Next Hezbollah: War With a “Non-State Actor”
Is anyone thinking about the next Hezbollah, and the one after that?Has it really only been less than a year and half that the world (especially the blogosphere) celebrated the “Cedar Revolution”? Contrasting the pictures that were broadcast out of Lebanon then with those we are seeing today, it seems as if those heady days are long, long past. I think it is safe to say that not many people, professional analysts included, expected this (although in retrospect we should have). Heck, even Hezbollah did not expect Israel’s reaction to be so forceful, as reported on the 25th by the AP:
“A senior Hezbollah official said Tuesday the guerrillas did not expect Israel to react with an all-out offensive after the capture of two soldiers, the first acknowledgment by the group that it had miscalculated the consequences of the raid two weeks ago.”
“The truth is — let me say this clearly — we didn’t even expect (this) response … that (Israel) would exploit this operation for this big war against us,” said Komati.
It is important to note that in the above quote when Komati says “us” he means Hezbollah, not Lebanon. Israel is not at war with the state of Lebanon; it is at war with a “non-state actor” in the parlance (Hezbollah), which happens to be in Lebanon. This is a fairly new concept in the era of the modern state. Barbarians, for example, may have besieged ancient Rome, but at the time the “state” was a minority. Today the state system is firmly entrenched, and the “barbarians” are largely within. My question is this, now what?
Groups such as al Qaeda, Hezbollah and others cross borders at will, their memberships are ideologically homogeneous, but diverse in nationality. Efforts to destroy these organizations are bound to cross multiple borders, as we have already seen, something for which international law and the so-called international community (which supported Israel’s withdrawal from the very territories that are now the launch points for cross border attacks by terrorists) are woefully unprepared. Should you have any doubt of this I offer the talks in Rome this week as proof. Those engaged in finding a solution to the current state of affairs should keep one thought in the back of their minds: this will not be the last time the world will have to face such an event.
Traditional methods of sanction appear to be non-applicable to entities such as these- how do states sanction organizations that transcend borders and are privately funded? No mechanism exists to hold non-state actors accountable for their actions, even though they now have the potential to cause the same, or even greater, level of destruction than do many states.
Global policy maker must shift their thinking. Al Qaeda, Hezbollah and the like are not organizations that can be “contained”, they do not field armies that can be squared off against and defeated. In a way they are reminiscent of Mao’s idea that “the people are like water and the army is like fish”, but these fish swim in every sea. The current battle may rage in Lebanon between Israel and Hezbollah, but the bottom line is that this is a battle between a state and a non-state actor, and the world is not prepared to deal with this new reality, even today. Let’s hope those working to settle the current battle keep their eyes on this bigger picture, too.
Copyright Dr Demarche. And many thanks.
The astonishing thing is that we’ve been told this, in no uncertain terms, for a long time. * “The Changing Face of War: Into the Fourth Generation”, by Lind, Schmitt, Sutton, and Wilson, Marine Corps Gazette, October 1989 * “The Transformation of War”, Martin Van Crevald, 1991 * “Modern War: A French View of Counter Insurgency”, Roger Trinquier 1961 (!!) All these are easily found by google. The real question is why the american military institutions do not adapt, for decades at a time. ED NOTE: DeMarche mentions barbarians, so arguably we’ve been told this for a few thousand years.
Comment by Laocoon — 7/27/2006 @ 8:46 am
Al-Qaida Calls for Holy War Against Israel — And The Rest of The World, Too…… AP reports: “Al-Qaida’s No. 2 leader issued a worldwide call Thursday for Muslims to rise up in a holy war against Israel and join the fighting in Lebanon and Gaza until Islam reigns from “Spain to Iraq.” In the message broadc…
Trackback by California Conservative — 7/27/2006 @ 9:27 am
These are excellent point, however I do not believe Hezbollah meets the non-state actor test in quite the fashion of an al Qaeda. Rather than being largely privately funded, Hezbollah is a proxy of the governments and ruling elites of Syria and Iran. These latter two are indeed state actors and as such entirely subject to the range of sanctions - both military as well as economic - and measures in “international law” as any other in these (arguably) increasingly post-Westphalian times. The problem is not that Hezbollah is an non-state puzzle incomprehensible to the minds of jurists. The problem is that nobody - including the Israelis - are as yet prepared to challenge the the states who have armed and funded them.
Comment by Flea — 7/27/2006 @ 9:30 am
Islamofascists should be declared , like the pirates of old, and should be liable to summary judgement and execution. States harbouring them should receive the same treatment as the North African regimes did in the days when the US Navy was eradicating the Barbary corsairs. If that means going in, wrecking a nation and then pulling out, so be it.
Comment by David Gillies — 7/27/2006 @ 9:31 am
This is not primarily about the military. This is about our systems of laws, international treaties, systems of courts, rules of extradition, international diplomacy, international money transfer, international communication, arms licensing, manufacturing and shipment, intelligence gathering and analysis, … The military is prepared, or at least continually evolving, to meet the military aspect of these threats. Our society, and societal conventions, as listed supra and partially, are not.
Comment by John Lynch — 7/27/2006 @ 9:32 am
TO: Austin Bay RE: What a Bunch of Bozos ““The truth is — let me say this clearly — we didn’t even expect (this) response … that (Israel) would exploit this operation for this big war against us,†said Komati.” — Hezzboohoo, cited by someone else These guys don’t pay much attention to reality. Either that or they lie like the dogs they are. The cretins in Gaza tried this same stunt days before and the Israelis mobilized and invaded. Then Hezzboohoo does it and they can’t see the ‘writing on the wall’, writ bold? Give the Israelis full rein and all the support they need to (1) irradicate THIS group, (2) Iran’s nuclear program, if they’re stupid enough to provoke them (enough) and (3) deal with any other such [future] group and nation-state that supports them accordingly. Regards, Chuck(le) [They came at us the same old way and we defeated them the same old way. — Wellington at Waterloo]
Comment by Chuck Pelto — 7/27/2006 @ 9:35 am
Quietly, calmly, we need to count the cost of not treating the threat of Hezbollah seriously in the implementation of SCR1559. If we had properly insisted on the disarming of Hezbollah in accord with SCR1559, would it have been more costly than the Israeli operation or less? The proper response to this round is to gather lessons and ammunition so that next time we can behave better. Oh, and pray, lots of prayer.
Comment by TM Lutas — 7/27/2006 @ 9:42 am
War with a non-state actor is analogous to fighting cancer. The equivalents to surgery, chemo, and radiation are open warfare (like surgery, not always possible), special ops, and disruption by all other means possible — from criminal prosecution to seizure of assets. Essential in both is remaining utterly unrelenting: you may never be able to kill it off completely, but if you let up even slightly it will inevitably grow back.
Comment by Cronaca — 7/27/2006 @ 9:56 am
Laocoon - How do you think the military ought to adapt? No snark - I really am curious. It’s a sticky problem, since the military represents part of a state monopoly on the use of force, and the flip side of that coin is tacit acknowledgment that civilians are to be protected, not suspected. I’m not sure there’s a way to train members of the military, all the way down to the greenest recruit, to fight an enemy that always hides in civilian clothing and civilian settings, never wears a uniform or distances himself from “illegal” targets, without becoming honestly (not rhetorically) fascistic. What to do? We don’t want the military purely to react - only shoot back; that’d kill strategy and tactics both. But we don’t want them to make tragic mistakes by being proactive on the basis of association, similarities of dress that might be coincidental (or even purposeful on the part of the enemy - a [so far] ridiculous example would be if every terrorist of some group always dressed as a priest or nun), or other possibly irrelevant characteristics. So… what to do? Apologies in advance for typos; my browser is hiding about a quarter of the right-hand side of the comment box and I see no way to preview.
Comment by Jamie McArdle — 7/27/2006 @ 10:23 am
One of the conceits of globalization was that the reduction of power of nation-states and the removal of barriers to free movement of ideas, people, capital, and goods would give us a new Utopia. Of course, that’s not what happened. The more open a system to more vulnurable to attack by those with an interest in something other than the health of that system. Computer networks and viruses, for example. A even better example is from biology. We have skin for a reason. One main function is to prevent the invasion of parasites. Today we’ve willfully created a world with fewer and fewer “skins” - the reulst is infections. The nation-state will be revigorated by our era as we learn once again that enemies still lurk.
Comment by Whitehall — 7/27/2006 @ 10:33 am
How were pirate handled two hundred years ago. They were also a non-state miitary force.
Comment by Tim Gannon — 7/27/2006 @ 10:34 am
I am not sure I agree. Non-state actors can not act effectively without state support — tacit or otherwise. Even private funding must be laid at the door of those states from which the funding orginated. If we hold these states strictly accountable, the cost of war by proxy goes up. In essence that is what Isreal is doing now. It is what the US did and continues to try to do in Afganistan and Iraq. It is the only possible response.
Comment by Mark Weinburg — 7/27/2006 @ 11:07 am
From the Austin Bay Blog: “What about the next Hezbollah?”… A very timely post on the “Austin Bay Blog” by the contributor Dr. Demarche asks What about the next Hezbollah?. As the writer points out: Groups such as al Qaeda, Hezbollah and others cross borders at will, their memberships are ideologic…
Trackback by Prydain — 7/27/2006 @ 11:36 am
Austin, Could you do something about blinking ads on the sidebar? They make your blog very difficult to read. Bless you, Simon
Comment by M. Simon — 7/27/2006 @ 1:11 pm
State actors that have two UN human rights, free speech and free religion, do NOT sponsor terrorism. Those states which have signed the UN Declaration of Human Rights, and are “violating international law” by not accepting free speech and free religion, should lose the protection of borders of national sovereignty. Iran & Syria both need regime change — either to accept free speech and free religion, or have new leaders that do. The “sustainable ceasefire” should include disarming Hez AND insisting on free speech in S. Lebanon.
Comment by Tom Grey - Liberty Dad — 7/27/2006 @ 1:22 pm
Syria knew how to deal with internal non-state actors that hide behind civilians - Hama. Jordan - Black September. The real problem is that civilization is too civilized to deal with barbarians. Populations will not be a sea for the fish if they fear severe and indiscriminate violence. Once that fear is there community self policing takes over. Aligator problem? Drain the swamp. Even if it means destroying the fishes in the swamp. Do we have the will? Our enemies believe we don’t.
Comment by M. Simon — 7/27/2006 @ 1:25 pm
I meant to say Islamofascists should be declared ‘hosti humanis generis’ (enemies of all mankind) but the spam filter threw out the italics in the original.
Comment by David Gillies — 7/27/2006 @ 1:31 pm
Flea - you are on the mark. It is a distraction to call these ‘non-state actors’ when they are clearly not independent of other states for support. Dr Demarche is right that they will multiply, however. And your final point is the real killer: as long as the state sponsors are not confronted, the problem will grow, to the point that these groups will have access to nuclear weapons in the next decade. The mullahocracy knows that as long as Iran is not confronted directly, they are winning. They are clearly counting on the appeasement philosophy that dominates their non-Islamic enemies, and they are working it quite effectively. The Hezzbozos may have made a mistake, but it it one the real enemy will learn from: the military effectiveness of the IDF in the guerrilla friendly terrain of south Lebanon, and more importantly, the strength of the will to fight of both Israel and it’s friends. Every day that goes by without action against Iran and Syria puts the mullahs in the mood to party. So, how important are these ‘non-state actors’? In reality, they only get important when their sponsors are left alone. The solution? Every time the stooges like the Hezzbozos act, the sponsors should be punished.
Comment by Cliff — 7/27/2006 @ 2:59 pm
J. McArdle asked, ‘how should the U.S. military adapt?’ (not snarkily, BTW) The 1989 article outlined two versions of 4GW, the high-tech way recommended for America, and the low-tech way - which he suggested Muslims might take. 4GW is not just more barbarism, contrary to our editor’s comment. It is a grand turning movement, completely bypassing the military, and acting directly on the target population (versus the old model of defeating the army, causing the king to resign, and assuming the passive population will just go along with the change). One way to adapt would be for the U.S. Army to field small bands of special forces with very sophisticated sensors, vehicles, and self-defense weapons. And I mean bands of 3 to 5 men, not large formations like the companies we deployed in Iraq and even Afghanistan. Just yesterday I was talking to a senior south american anti-terrorist fighter, who suggested that we should have done that in Afghanistan. One little team finds mullah Omar’s bunker, a B-52 drops a modified tank barrel (aka GBU-28) from 60K feet, and the team zips away. Quietly slitting the throats of 1/3 of Saddam’s family might have a salutory effect - especially as he would know 2/3 were still vulnerable. Nasty - but a lot less nasty than the war we got. If the terrorists are legally classified as pirates, then the classic remedy of “privateers” is available. That is, private individuals are legally allowed to kill any pirate they catch, by any means, anywhere, anytime. Of course, this would then allow the creativity of small business to equip the “small teams” which I mention above, rather than relying on a ponderous gov’t bureacracy. Ralpha Peters wrote, in “The Counterrevolution in Military Affairs” that “We are seduced by what we can do; our enemies focus on what they must do.” They do what they must to bypass our strengths and hit our weaknesses - which is the essence of tactics (at least as far back as Sun Tzu). Another way to find possible paths is to assume we can not continue the current one. Assume we can not rely on high-tech fighter planes, high-tech sensors, massed ground formations, and so on. I would have to ask other readers to think on this problem. Everytime I think about it, I come up with answers that make logical and military sense, but which most people would hate. Just like the Japanese, who were so loath to give up Samurai culture in favor of firearms, even when firearms were defeating them. Asked why they used human bombers, the Algerians told the French “You have planes; we don’t.” It solved the problem, but it required a big mental change. This is why no one acted to stop the coming of WWII: any plausible action required changes too radical and unpleasant to contemplate. So they temporized and hoped, until it blew up in their faces. We can’t change while keeping everything the same - so what are the fundamental and radical changes needed to fight and win without high technology?
Comment by Laocoon — 7/27/2006 @ 3:38 pm
John Reid has suggested that the laws of war be revised to deal with this. http://www.rusi.org/events/ref:E442BBE1E9CEF3/
Comment by rich — 7/27/2006 @ 4:50 pm
[…] Dr. Demarche, at Austin Bay, identifies the problems attendant upon responses by states to attacks by non-state entities. Israel is not at war with the state of Lebanon; it is at war with a “non-state actor†in the parlance (Hezbollah), which happens to be in Lebanon. This is a fairly new concept in the era of the modern state. Barbarians, for example, may have besieged ancient Rome, but at the time the “state†was a minority. Today the state system is firmly entrenched, and the “barbarians†are largely within. My question is this, now what? […]
Pingback by Never Yet Melted » Dealing With The New Reality — 7/27/2006 @ 5:41 pm
I think that John Reid’s suggestion that we alter the rules of war is a step in the right direction, but so small a step as to be merely symbolic. It might be even a harmful diversion of energy. Many people would argue that we already have a legal regime which allows appropriate responses, but which is being bypassed by non-legal means. This bypassing is an essential concept of 4GW with which our hyper-legalistic society can not come to grips - which is precisely why it is an essential part of the 4GW strategy: hit them in ways they can not even understand, let alone thwart. Hit weakness and avoid strength, and confusion is certainly a weakness, so you must keep your enemy confused to ‘dislocate’ his strength in all dimensions, at all levels. The Geneva Conventions specifically state that the following war crimes forfeit all protection under the convention: fighting out of uniform; fighting outside the avowed and formal command and control of a sovereign state; fighting from religous, medical, or residential facilities; taking hostages; storing weapons in religious, medical, or residential facilities; targeting uninvolved civilians; using the presence or movement of civilians to shield military operations; and many more. Can anyone seriously deny that the ‘terrorists’ do these as a matter of course? Yet we do not respond in the ways which the international laws of war allow. All the laws against piracy are still on the books, yet we do not attack “The Dread Pirate Bin-Laden” (to borrow a recent phrase). A sovereign state bears direct responsibility for attacks out of its territory, no matter how small (remember The War of Jenkins’ Ear?) - yet we condemn cross-border retaliation. Invading a soverign state’s territory - which includes its embassey - is a sufficient causus belli, yet we have tolerated both explicit states and shadowy proxies to do exactly that. Attacking through shadowy proxies used to just provoke immediate retaliation against the sponsor - or even suspected sponsor, or even condoner of attacks. To supress such groups or bear the consequences was considered part of the responsiblity of national sovereignity: you must control your territory, even to the extent of preventing bandits and pirates from attacking out of your territory. (Remember that song about “the halls of tripoli”? Ever wonder why we attacked a Libyan city, Tripoli, because of the Barbary Pirates?) Heck, a really legalistic reading would say that the 1991 Gulf War never ended, and Iraq never for a minute abided by the terms of the cease-fire (remember all that firing on American airplanes?), and hence a state of war has continued unabated from 1991 to 2003. It would further say that Iran invaded the United States in 1979 by seizing the embassey (something even the Nazis never tried), providing classic justification for unlimited warfare. And so on ad nauseam. But the legal niceties are not operating, and have not for decades. Why not? Again going back to Trinquier: a hallmark of modern war is that only one side recognizes itself as being at war, and a major strategic goal of a 4GW belligerant is to keep it that way. It’s another example of the two major tenets of strategy: dislocation and exploitation (to summarize B H L Hart). Revising the laws of war, or insisting on actually following the current ones, is a pointless exercise when one’s society does not really believe a war is going on. Look at the arguments of “disproportionate response” we hear about Israel and Hezbollah. Proportionality is good and reasonable in peacetime police operations, where the huge power of the state should be restrained. But it is much less relevant in war. After all, we fire bombed the German cities (full of civilians!) when they had never fire bombed the US. Believe me, the blitz against London was far less destructive than what we did to Dresden, Hamburg, Berlin, etc. We did not care about proportionality - we cared about smashing the enemy so hard his grandchildren would not dream of rising up. The horrible and tragic fact is that it worked: nationalism is still perceived as a recipe for suicide in Europe. Even WWI, that mass slaughter in the trenches, did not discredit nationalism there - but smashing their capital cities did. And who would really want to go back to the days when fervent, aggresive nationalism of the 1912 or 1932 variety was widespread? “Dulce et decorem est, pro patria more” is discredited, but “dulce et decorem est, pro Allah more” is not, and probably won’t be until a similar percentage get slaughtered. And who would not reel in terror at that kind of carnage? Anyway, I think changing the laws of war is not nearly enough. The problem is how to deal with the grand turning movement of 4GW, wherein all the formal military structures are bypassed in order to act directly on the opposing population. Even our definition of ‘war’ and ‘victory’ needs to change. For example, if the government destroys our army and remains in power - but we remake their society in the model we want, then who won the war? This is not a hypothetical example, as one could argue that this is precisely what happened in Egypt, and several other places. And it did not happen in Syria, because it was stopped at Hama.
Comment by Laocoon — 7/28/2006 @ 6:27 am
I’ve linked to you here: http://consul-at-arms.blogspot.com/2006/07/re-dr-demarche-on-bay-blog-what-about.html
Comment by Consul-At-Arms — 7/28/2006 @ 10:55 am
The World Fights Islamofascists for a Reason… This is ridiculous. The other day I wrote a post on the fight Israel is taking to Hezbollah, in response to recent provocations. In an update I included a comment by a brand spanking new Blog calling for a Free…
Trackback by Sneakeasy's Joint — 7/28/2006 @ 11:23 am
our definition of ‘war’ and ‘victory’ needs to change. How soon until opposing ideologies in the West(not governments)take up arms and oppose the ‘proxies’ with violent force? Funding by corporations and other means, I believe, would be easily accessible. During Roman times, if any citizen with credentials was harmed, robbed, etc….Roman Legions would destroy everyone and everything associated with those involved in the matter. If the culprits could not be determined, the entire region received retaliation. The purpose was to make a violent action against one of their citizens so abhorrent, that no one would ever consider the act. Accordingly, it was up to the larger community to manage their locale or suffer the consequences. Accordingly, why haven’t the ’states’ of the Middle East not controlled or eliminated these proxies? I think we all know….they agree with their actions. Therefore, they should suffer the consequences. Sooner or later, the rule of the jungle will apply. Ridiculous as it may sound, John Travolta’s character in the movie ‘Swordfish’ has the right idea.
Comment by TJ MASONIUS — 7/28/2006 @ 12:55 pm