If the State Falls, Does Society Crumble?
The lessons of Iraq pose challenges for our understanding of the state. Consider the gap that separates the Bush administration’s original theory with the reality on the ground today. The idea was that the Iraqi government would be "decapitated," and that once Saddam and his few henchmen were crushed, the country could breathe free and get on with the business of building a great society. Bush figured that he could use more force than Saddam and that would be the end of it.
But now look!
The Bush administration had the idea that the Iraqi state was somehow artificially imposed on an otherwise stable society. The reality is otherwise. Which raises the question: just how integral is the state to society? Is it the case that we can expect every society that loses its state to fall into chaos such as Iraq is doing today? FULL ARTICLE
Comments (15)
There's another technique that even a tyrannical State can use to cement itself over organic society: the clemency technique. This involves putting in a set of laws, but not enforcing them. What it amounts to, is: "The State has the right to initiate force against you for doing such-and-such, but the benevolent rulers are too good-hearted to do so, provided that you don't cause trouble for them. Long live the State!"
If the State's propagandists are sufficiently skilled, as well as sufficiently shameless, they can make any dissident who doesn't rate such "special treatment" appear as an aggressor against the State.
Published: January 25, 2007 8:41 AM
So right! Why did the US insist on keeping Iraq united? Decentralisation would have made internecine struggle pointless...
Published: January 25, 2007 8:52 AM
To put it another way, when the state falls, society reverts to its organic forms faster than you can say blood is thicker than water.
Published: January 25, 2007 9:24 AM
The scenario of an orderly separation into multiple states along societal lines seems unlikely, given the interests of Saudi Arabia in the Sunnis, Iran in the Sheites, and Turkey in the Kurds.
Published: January 25, 2007 10:40 AM
Time to apply the same logic to the USofA. I suggest 4 sovereign nations, West of the Rockies, from the Rockies to the Mississippi, and across the Mason-Dixon line. Each new nation will be able to feed itself, will have access to the sea lanes, and will be able to apply for U.N. membership.
Published: January 25, 2007 11:42 AM
Why would anyone in their right mind apply for UN membership?
Published: January 25, 2007 11:53 AM
"What they cannot do is get along under a central state ruled by some other group. This is the basis of the bloodshed."
I disagree that the establishment of a state is the cause of the current ethnic violence against civilians. Al Qaeda announced publicly about 2 years ago that it would target Shia civilians in order to ignite a civil war. Until then, there had been almost no ethnic violence, just insurgents fighting the US. The Shia waited patiently for the US to destroy Al Qaeda, while hundreds of Shia died. The US failed, so the Shia took self-defense into their own hands. The Iraqi government had nothing to do with it.
Published: January 25, 2007 1:35 PM
seems to me that 'death by gangs' and 'death by government' is still death. i don't think its true that "everything will be okay if the state got out of the way" ... that is as easily refuted by these arguments as is supported by them.
Published: January 25, 2007 1:48 PM
RogerM,
That is a mischaracterization of Lew's statement.
And don't believe everything you read on the MSNBC homepage.
Published: January 25, 2007 2:58 PM
I'm reminded of the notion that market can deliver a product twice as good for half the price of the government. But then I can't help but think if there are some things private markets won't touch with a ten-foot pole? If so doesn't that of course there are some things that should exist? Street lighting? Large standing armies? Or if the market won't do it then it's not worth doing?
But anyway society of course will crumble it is artificially held together by Government. India used to a loose collection of small countries until unified by the British and when the British left then a part broke off and became Pakistan. Likewise with Iraq the loss of Saddam has seen the nation crumble along natural cultural-religious groups hence showing the los of artificial glue. Interestingly if states of the U.S. could secede without retaliation, how many would?
Published: January 25, 2007 9:20 PM
Sam,
Street lighting has been privately provided in the past and in many places right now, also sewers and urban planning.
read "The Voluntary City"
Published: January 26, 2007 3:19 AM
I don't buy Lew's initial premise, that the role of the state as sole monopolist in the use of force is implausible. What we're seeing here in Iraq is exactly the struggle one would expect if people did wish to create a monopoly of power in the hands of a state where otherwise chaos existed. Some would go so far as to say that this concentration of power in a state is not only not implausible but necessary--the first person who decides to use force for his own ends will create friends and foes that start into motion a battle that ends utopian anarchic societies. At that point, sides are drawn and the battle for supremacy begins with the outcome being that one party will have a monopoly on the use of force. That in this case the sides are divided by ideology, however, does not make this a necessary component unless you want to reduce "ideology" to nothing more than a desire to stay alive at a given time followed by a bad case of the Stockholm Syndrome.
Published: January 27, 2007 11:51 AM
Lew Rockwell
“The point is that the state is unstable without an ideology to back it up, and convince people that it is necessary.”
Very true indeed, that is the main thing.
“So what should happen? The US should abandon Baghdad. It should, in effect, allow the country to "fall apart" in the same way that Gorbachev let his empire dissolve. Iraq would split into many states, some of them noncontiguous. Governing units of all shapes and sizes would appear. The main reason for the ghastly killing – fear of the rule by one group over another – would vanish. Here is the highest hope for peace in Iraq.”
A very good suggestion, the U.S. should leave as fast as possible.
Thank you very much for an interesting article.
Björn Lundahl
Göteborg, Sweden
Published: January 28, 2007 10:42 AM
If we pull out as suggested, Iraq will NOT simply "fall apart". Foreign forces, particularly the Iranian and Turkish armies, will swarm in and take control of those portions that most interest them, particularly those with oil. The Iranians are our archenemies, and we can't allow that. The Saudis will back the Al Qaeda Sunnis who will try to reconquer the whole of the country, particularly the oil producing portions.
We could pull out to the borders and just allow the factions to fight, but that won't necessarily stop foreign armies from pouring in, unless we make clear that we will actually use nuclear weapons to stop them. And if we did that, we would be handing the whole of Iraq back to Al Qaeda, since the Saudis will continue to back the Sunnis with everything ($$$) they got, while the Shiite Iran would be stopped from intervening. The Sunnis are the true "wolves" here, and with Saudi financial backing could reconquer the whole of the country if we weren't there. The Iraqui Shiites simply aren't a professional army that can hold power without foreign help, no matter the size of their majority. We have a real mess on our hands.
Published: February 4, 2007 10:41 AM
AndrewP,
You are assuming that some other nation(s) could achieve the unachievable - control Iraq at no cost. Let some other nation(s)take over the task at their expense. They can do no better or no worse than our failed efforts. Yet, their efforts would save us - the US taxpayers - billions in lost taxes and misspent capital structures (defense industries, etc.).
And, the fear of no oil given a regime change is specious at best. Remember, the Taliban had no trouble with opium crops for export during their reign in Afganistan. Money is money when you are a statist running a kleptocracy.
Published: February 4, 2007 11:04 AM