Kilcullen on Narratives in Iraq

Curtis,

You make a great point here about how our ideas are just dreams, and we need to ‘maintain a field’ in which they are well-received. This is where 5GW merges with political economy, and Enterra DiB as you mentioned in a previous comment. Economic development has the effect of changing the basic structure of society, because in a capitalist nation with a state that protects property, property itself becomes the means to achieving long-lasting power. Everyone agrees in a capitalist society on the protection of property, therefore, there is broad agreement on the idea of social power, and one that is protected by the state with relatively minor state-monopolized violence.
It is not so in the states of the Gap, where access to the state is the real source of power, and the state in turn is used to amass wealth. There are no limits of power here, and this has profound implications for all individuals in society. Because it creates uncertainty about the future (for example property is not guaranteed), social cooperation tends to be far less limited. The social perception of power that is actively shaped by political elites who emply power for private gain at will, is simply not conducive to democracy. Democracy requires a social conception of power characterized by sufficient limitation in its use to permit social cooperation. Capitalism (one big cooperative endeavor) has the tendency of breaking up vertical social structures and replacing them with a more atomized one. This is the social dislocation Polanyi scorns, yet Smith sees it as profoundly significant since it tears the peasantry away from the feudal obligations of the lord. Much like modern day praetorian elities, feudal lords had no check on violence, and it took capitalism to break up their social position and transform social ideas about power. ‘Maintaining a field’ requires political economic development that separates civilians from praetorian elites and destroys the social base of power that gives elites power over their clients. This process will endenger a new ideological consensus about power, one that is conducive to democracy and our own 5GW message.

Steve,

Sorry for the delayed response! (Site admin stuff has eaten my time.)

Economic development has the effect of changing the basic structure of society

With economic development come the prospects that:

The activity occurring in the environment may more easily be initiated by individuals within the environment. They have their own hands which they are using to shape their own environment. The strong “message” they get from that: they are not proxies shaping their own destiny for someone else but the creators of their own destiny.

I am not sure that property is the real focal point, however. More like, personal space (metaphorically speaking!)

It is not so in the states of the Gap, where access to the state is the real source of power, and the state in turn is used to amass wealth.

Strongly agree. The top-down message delivered by totalitarian regimes: “You are the state’s proxies!”

Democracy requires a social conception of power characterized by sufficient limitation in its use to permit social cooperation.

Not so long ago on tdaxp, I remarked on the distinction between two types of “freedom” —

a) freedom from responsibility, and
b) freedom to be responsible.

Much of what we see in the insurgencies of Iraq (there are several, no?) is the first, a. The type of swarming that occurs, even on our own Blogosphere sometimes, is a type of freedom to be free from responsibility. The responsible party becomes someone else: “the majority” or “the state” or “our enemy (who caused us to do this” or “the will of Allah.)”

So I’m hesitant to elevate the notion of limitations as a basis for social cohesion and productivity, although I understand the utility of the concept.

The second choice, b, is preferable, imo. Once people have the freedom to be responsible for their own lives (meaning both, the necessary powers to effect change in their own lives, and also the non-interference by others wishing to have a say in that change), then you’ll see the kind of resiliency you are looking for.

Plus, from a 5GW-oriented p.o.v., you want people to feel free to be responsible. That way, they’ll act with less suspicion, and not only that, they’ll keep acting. They’ll believe they are the masters of their own destinies.

The specter of America in Iraq is preventing this there.

Curtis,

I think both the freedom to be responsible and freedom from responsibility are complimentary forms of empowerment. And this is where 5GW on a grand scale may diverge from the current Robb/Hammes approach, which emphasizes one superempowered individual as opposed to generating empowerment across an entire society.

Also, right on about personal space, but I think the institution of property can serve to ‘stabilize’ personal space, and give it legal rights that are inalienable to the individual. When social systems are in place that guarantee personal space through property rights, then I think individuals will be more apt to act responsibly within the boundaries of a property system.

Now certainly I’m speaking ideally here, and no perfect system of property exists that is impossible to subvert, but in developed countries the argument could be made that the property system is well established in the minds of citizens. If not, it would be impossible to navigate and use the property system for our own ends. But, in a country like Iraq, to be responsible means that one knows he (or she) will have the tools available to take on responsibilities, and that these tools (property) will not be destroyed or appropriated by someone else unwillingly.

WRT Iraq, yes, our specter prevents Iraqis from assuming responsibility. It is an ironic paradox of state/nation building that cannot be avoided: how do we get indigenous groups to act on their own when we try to do everything for them? It is this transition that we still cannot manage, maybe because we have yet to find pols on the ground who have the resources to act independently.

Steve,

“I think both the freedom to be responsible and freedom from responsibility are complimentary forms of empowerment.”

I kinda/sorta/somehow see the connection, since freedom to be responsible for A, B, and C, may mean freedom to not have to hassle with X, Y, and Z. To the degree that we are each quite limited, with only a small range of operational and observational capability, and are therefore restricted to some A, B, and C — unable to be all places at once, as it were — then freedom from having to worry about D, E, and F, would be beneficial. (Worrying about anything but A, B, and C would distract us from those, or limit our ability to be responsible for those efforts.)

Naturally, this would raise some serious questions about the natures of democracy and capitalism. The vote is a kind of salve for our limitation, by which we delegate responsibility for X, Y, and Z to others. This delegation in turn produces a system 1) that is characterized by very indirect chains of cause & effect, in which individuals may only claim indirect and weak responsibility for X, Y, and Z, if even that; and 2) that allows individuals to disregard X, Y, and Z, as being none of their concern or in fact quite foreign to them, perhaps opposed to them. The “people” are one thing; the “state” — which is really other people, or those delegates — are another. Each is concerned with the operation of only his own immediate environment/domains and may be distracted or weakened if he invests too much effort trying to be responsible for events exterior to that localized environment.

“And this is where 5GW on a grand scale may diverge from the current Robb/Hammes approach, which emphasizes one superempowered individual as opposed to generating empowerment across an entire society.”

Yes. I once included a consideration of the two types of superempowerment when contrasting Barnett with Robb. It would seem that Barnett’s approach (which we at D5GW have often labeled “5GWish”) requires the general superempowerment of individuals across the spectrum, as an antidote to the Robbian one-man-killing-crew. With regard to some recent considerations on the idea of kinetics, this means creating more routes for the channeling of powers, not only as a distracting maneuver (“jobs” vs “guns”) but also as a method of equalizing the kinetics across the system, or forcing kinetics into indirection. It is a kind of perpetual, systemic, mass deflection.

“in developed countries the argument could be made that the property system is well established in the minds of citizens.”

Perhaps the idea of a “property system” means more than land-as-property or homes-as-property or businesses-as-property, but includes also the personal property, such as watches, DVD players, and clothing? The latter is closer to my idea of “personal space” and promotes responsibility for one’s own affairs: i.e., give somebody something to protect, and he must invest a large portion of his energies in protecting it. (Conversely, take everything away from him, and he has nothing to lose by attacking another.)

“It is an ironic paradox of state/nation building that cannot be avoided: how do we get indigenous groups to act on their own when we try to do everything for them? It is this transition that we still cannot manage, maybe because we have yet to find pols on the ground who have the resources to act independently.”

This consideration is itself paradoxical. I.e., our foes are the “pols on the ground” who seem quite capable of finding the resources to act independently of us.