Non-state actors... balancing?
Perhaps non-state actors such as al Qaeda are merely taking up the role of the Soviet Union: balancing against the dominant power.
Why are non-state actors at war with the hegemon, though, instead of states joining together to do so instead?
First of all, radical Islam, the belief system of those whom attacked on Sept. 11 and have conducted or attempted attacks since then, does not have a single supportive state capable of waging war with the United States. Eastern Orthodoxy has Russia, Christianity has the West, but there is no representative Muslim state or strong association of states.
Of course, even if there was a "Muslim" state, that state might not choose to go to war with the United States (although perhaps the United States might make the decision for them). It would have to be a radical Muslim state to initiate such a war.
Two other factors have discouraged states from joining together to militarily engage the United States: nuclear weapons and economic globalization.
If smaller states were openly hostile to the United States, superior American weaponry could negatively impact their way of life. Furthermore, economic interdependancy discourages open hostility.
It should be noted, however, that some states are playing or have played a role. China and North Korea have sold weapons, Afghanistan and the Sudan (temporarily) hosted Osama bin Ladin and others.
Other states have been implicated as well. I could check Lexis Nexis.
If anyone wants to hire me to examine this subject at length, I'm game.
A note before continuing: a distinction perhaps should be drawn between support for al Qaeda in its work before and including Sept. 11, and external state support for the insurgency in Iraq. There are differences in motivations, but certainly overlaps as well.
Nonetheless:
The actions of states today, and whether the encouragement of non-state actors to wage war against the hegemon can be easily explained as an expression of balancing, is worth looking into.
###
Note about Western guilt: Of course it can be argued that the policies of some Western European states -- implicitly allowing terrorists to operate out of the European contries in exchange for those terrorists to attack elsewhere -- permitted the culture to grow throughout the final decades of the 20th century.
What should be examined here, however, are the intentional acts of support of anti-U.S. militants.
The activities of the, um, United States, during the Soviet-Afghanistan war can be brought up as well. But that might not have been done if we would have known it could have led to anti-U.S. terrorism.
Why are non-state actors at war with the hegemon, though, instead of states joining together to do so instead?
First of all, radical Islam, the belief system of those whom attacked on Sept. 11 and have conducted or attempted attacks since then, does not have a single supportive state capable of waging war with the United States. Eastern Orthodoxy has Russia, Christianity has the West, but there is no representative Muslim state or strong association of states.
Of course, even if there was a "Muslim" state, that state might not choose to go to war with the United States (although perhaps the United States might make the decision for them). It would have to be a radical Muslim state to initiate such a war.
Two other factors have discouraged states from joining together to militarily engage the United States: nuclear weapons and economic globalization.
If smaller states were openly hostile to the United States, superior American weaponry could negatively impact their way of life. Furthermore, economic interdependancy discourages open hostility.
It should be noted, however, that some states are playing or have played a role. China and North Korea have sold weapons, Afghanistan and the Sudan (temporarily) hosted Osama bin Ladin and others.
Other states have been implicated as well. I could check Lexis Nexis.
If anyone wants to hire me to examine this subject at length, I'm game.
A note before continuing: a distinction perhaps should be drawn between support for al Qaeda in its work before and including Sept. 11, and external state support for the insurgency in Iraq. There are differences in motivations, but certainly overlaps as well.
Nonetheless:
The actions of states today, and whether the encouragement of non-state actors to wage war against the hegemon can be easily explained as an expression of balancing, is worth looking into.
###
Note about Western guilt: Of course it can be argued that the policies of some Western European states -- implicitly allowing terrorists to operate out of the European contries in exchange for those terrorists to attack elsewhere -- permitted the culture to grow throughout the final decades of the 20th century.
What should be examined here, however, are the intentional acts of support of anti-U.S. militants.
The activities of the, um, United States, during the Soviet-Afghanistan war can be brought up as well. But that might not have been done if we would have known it could have led to anti-U.S. terrorism.
posted by bp at
9:39 AM
2 Comments:
If it's a question of balancing, it may be more productive to look at historical cases of balancing rather than theorizing about a complex present with too many unknown realites (especially motives). In particular You reminded me of a comparison of 19th and early 20th century radicalism/terrorism with the present religious terrorism. They both rail against 'imperialism', injustice and asymmetry (primarily); many take their words to violence. Put in light of a balancing concept against a unitary power (as opposed to a concert of powers), the 19th century might say much about the present.
By
Anonymous, at 5:21 PM
It definitely can be looked at as an anti-imperialist battle (with religious roots of course), but if you're referring to the late 19th century/early 20th century domestic anarchists, I think that lacks a key element we see here -- internationalization of violence, sometimes supported by other states.
Although some of the communist "terrorists" in the early 20th c. in America were ideologically influenced by what was going on overseas, I think they were U.S. citizens. So that's like the British citizens bombing their own tube.
When I think of Sept. 11, it's a whole diffferent scenario, the sinister example of the power of globalization.
(Then again, Paul Krugman loves to attempt to point out that the late 19th/early 20th century era was more "globalized" than we are today. Economically, maybe. But transportation and communication are obviously far more international than they were 100 years ago.)
But the attacks on the United States are easy to parallel to any attacks on an imperial power because that is a huge part of what they are -- anger about U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia, anger about Israel, anger about U.S. troops in Iraq. You're right. But while "bringing the man down" isn't totally balancing, I think it does contain some elements of it.
By
bp, at 12:25 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home