class: center, middle, inverse, title-slide # Dirty Wars ## 2: War and Political Order ### Jack McDonald --- class: inverse # Outline .pull-left[ > Dirty wars are conflicts where one or more parties denies the political, legal, and/or moral status/standing of their opponents. Difference between denial of status, and denial of standing (right to seek redress) ] .pull-right[ - Understanding War - Securing and Challenging the State - Defending Political Order and Political Community - Rebellion and Political Enmity - Inherent Practical Dilemmas ] ## Main Points Ideas of right and wrong in war and security are inherently tied to existing political orders Some conflicts are effectively disagreements within the confines of an order, others involve attempts to fundamentally reorder it "Dirty" conduct in war and security often arises from the inherent political hatred and practical dilemmas involved in conflicts over political order ??? 1. part one my theory of War last week war political pressure lots of stuff this week lots of stuff on going through these four things in Order Part one I'm going to explain a theory of war this is my understanding of what war is and what is interesting about War part two will you talking about political order itself to scan a key concept and its relationship to political community and the way in which elites tend to defend Political part three and we will be talking about rebellion and political enmity particularly ideas of citizenship and Treason part four will be looking at security and essentially challenges to the State part five will be looking at inherent YC's practical dilemmas are associated with war and national Security --- class: inverse # Part 1: Understanding War ??? 1. this section looks at the key issue which is what explains the rules in the context of warfare I'm going to outline the key problem as I see with Clausewitz's theory which is that rules are inherent to any kind of violent exchange of violent activity even by their absence the key thing will be talking about in this class are in this section is ways of thinking about warfare in a social context that is a non-dyadic Context and give you kind of a view of explaining everything from how and why parties in a war will cooperate with each other to how and why they break the rules of that conflict in the context that conflict --- # Dyadic Interactions .pic80[ ![Ngo Dinh Diem, and President Eisenhower, 1957, Public Domain](img/2020/diem.jpg) ] > ...when the expressed goals in a war are not being achieved, a number of _unexpressed_ goals are nevertheless being fulfilled. David Keen, _Useful Enemies_ ??? 1. Dyadic interactions are at the front of Clausewitz's theory of war and I'm presenting them here towards the back because I think that you need to see war in its wider coalition context for you jump straight to the dyadic this way of understanding war posits that in highly integrated and interdependent societies with the distribution of power coalitions and coalition formation is the key activity and What where this systemic effects are less of an issue you may see more in terms of the importance of just the dyadic Importantly in most series awards recognise that dyadic interactions can lead to escalation and restrict In my view one of the key issues in war is the fact that both parties to the conflict will be competing within a wider political systemic Therefore there are usually countervailing pressures in favour of restraint and warfare Therefore even when we see carnage or widespread rule breaking we must also look for cooperation and restraint --- # Control and Coalitions > ...we find ourselves with four ideas relating to war and war strategy — that there will be war, that the aim of war is some measure of control, that the pattern of war is not predictable, and that the ultimate tool of control in war is the man on the scene with a gun. John C. Wylie, _Military Strategy_ > The most effective strategies do not depend solely on violence – though this can play an instrumental role, by demonstrating superiority as much as expressing aggression – but benefit instead from the ability to forge coalitions. Lawrence Freedman, _Strategy: A History_ ??? 1. Central to my understanding of war is the relationship between control and coalitions in the context of adversarial Interactions control comes from John Wiley & Sons I Lawrence Freeman has good quote on coalitions I think the key thing is all war exists in the context of positive and negative coalitions you can see the effects of rules in how they enable or prohibit the formation Coalitions the importance of coalitions may vary depending on the conflict and therefore the current dyadic constraints may come to matter more than Coalitions --- # Communication > under broad conditions the fact that fighting is costly and risky implies that there should exist negotiated agreements that rationally led states in dispute would prefer to war... > two mechanisms, or causal logics, explain why rationally led states are sometimes unable to locate or agree on such a bargain: (1) the combination of private information about resolve or capability and incentives to misrepresent these, and (2) states' inability, in specific circumstances, to commit to uphold a deal. James D. Fearon, _Rationalist Explanations for War_ ??? 1. rationalist theories of war see war as a realm of communication bargaining that is because war is always destructive we have to explain why agents result war in the first place in this there is the idea that agents will perceive or to benefit than to lose in a conflict situation violence particular coercion is a form of costly signalling which reduces uncertainty by communicating your intent to an adversary and this takes place centre stage in public diplomacy but also offstage in private diplomacy and an secret covert coercion --- # What Explains the Rules of War? .pic80[ ![Network graph, wikimedia commons](img/2020/network.png) ] - Cooperation - Competition - Coercion - Conflict - Carnage ??? Schelling quote from p.3-4 1. Okay so am essentially there are five seas cooperation competition coercion conflict and carnage my argument is that you can understand the rules of war by the balance between these five colour forms of interaction in a dyad sign will tensely this departs from Callas's metaphor of the deal explain all five of these things Key point about this is social context-war is always exist in the context of Coalitions this is why rules matter because rules define Coalitions --- # Rules as Common Knowledge ![Rorschach inkblot test, from Wikimedia Commons](img/2020/test.jpg) ??? 1. one of the functions of rules is to generate common Knowledge rules reduce uncertainty in conflict Uncertainty is a key feature of conflict there is always areas open to interpretation In this sense are war is a ritual activity which enables coordination within a state and at the interstate level and communication with adversaries Meta level's control coalitions communication coordination also capabilities --- # Coordination Between Levels ![Mandelbrot set, from Wikimedia Commons](img/2020/mandelbrot.jpg) ??? 1. War is a coordinate activity The coalition view war is caught coordinated. To bottom states will coordinate with allies and seek to inhibit their opponent from coordinating with allies states will also need to coordinate within themselves Institutions and organisations that constitute the state will also have to engage in coordination with other institutions and within themselves And so this kind of fractal coordination runs through What You don't generate military power without internal coordination lack of coordination can severely affect generation military power --- class: inverse # Reflection Question .large[To what extent, and how, are competing theories of war important for practitioners?] ??? 1. asd 2. asd --- class: inverse # Part 2: Securing and Challenging the State ??? 1. so in this section we can look at the main kind of clusters of security challenges to states states face and these are crime terrorism and insurgency we can look at institutions and organisations essentially the security apparatus that state typically have tthen we going to her continue from our ideal coordination look at how these things are usually coordinated together and and what this means for study of international security transnational security --- # Perspectives on National Security (1) Realism - Explaining state behaviour by desire for power and absence of international government (Classical) - Explanation lies in anarchical structure of international system and principle of self help among similar units (Neorealism) - Explanation from domestically derived preferences, eg balance of interests such as fear and greed (Neoclassical) Liberalism - States are institutions, subject to capture/reconstruction - Explanations of conflict in terms of social identity, commerce, state character and integration with other states ??? 1. international security interstate security partnerships are also important one common feature of what we call dirty wars is relationships between security organisations between states interstate partnerships include intelligence partnerships policing partnerships and military partnerships this is perhaps distinct from the use of proxy forces where state a partners with a nonstate armed group in State B again here coordination matters how why states interact with one another and the assistance they give has ramifications for institutions such as international law but also for common constitutional war powers ring transnational security one thing a dirty wars do bring attention to is transnational layers of the international system these can be an the way in which states can manipulate transnational are architecture such as counterterrorism financing but also many of the groups Estates face tend to be transnational in their goals are for example pan- national revolutionary communism all Al Qaeda and associated fundamentalist organisations so we can see is coordination to secure the state occurs in multiple layers and the boundary between these layers are permeable furthermore to her group seeking to challenge estate often manipulate their boundaries of governance or global governance or international regulation --- # Perspectives on National Security (2) Constructivism - Security is a social construction, non-material/ideational factors are central to this - Conventional: National identity (history/context) helps determine content of a state’s interests - Critical: How do narratives of national identity come to dominate a context? - Norms (shared expectations of behaviour by particular identity) crucial to understanding politics - Securitization, where securitizing actor defines issue/actor as an existential threat to a referent object, and this is accepted by the audience Critical Theory - As opposed to problem-solving theory: “How did this order come about?” instead of “How do I fix this?” - How do the “facts of life” come to be reified as such? - “Security is what we make of it” (Ken Booth), aim for emancipation as it produces true security ??? 1. international security interstate security partnerships are also important one common feature of what we call dirty wars is relationships between security organisations between states interstate partnerships include intelligence partnerships policing partnerships and military partnerships this is perhaps distinct from the use of proxy forces where state a partners with a nonstate armed group in State B again here coordination matters how why states interact with one another and the assistance they give has ramifications for institutions such as international law but also for common constitutional war powers ring transnational security one thing a dirty wars do bring attention to is transnational layers of the international system these can be an the way in which states can manipulate transnational are architecture such as counterterrorism financing but also many of the groups Estates face tend to be transnational in their goals are for example pan- national revolutionary communism all Al Qaeda and associated fundamentalist organisations so we can see is coordination to secure the state occurs in multiple layers and the boundary between these layers are permeable furthermore to her group seeking to challenge estate often manipulate their boundaries of governance or global governance or international regulation --- # Perspectives on National Security (3) Feminism - Liberal and radical: exclusion and equality, and the essential problems of patriarchy - Role of women in war as both participants and victims International Political Sociology - Security is about sacrifice, so who gets to determine what (or who) gets sacrificed? - (in)securitization: Security produces insecurity, and the actors attempting securitization can never know the results of their actions - Internal security merges with external security (e.g. GWOT) ??? 1. international security interstate security partnerships are also important one common feature of what we call dirty wars is relationships between security organisations between states interstate partnerships include intelligence partnerships policing partnerships and military partnerships this is perhaps distinct from the use of proxy forces where state a partners with a nonstate armed group in State B again here coordination matters how why states interact with one another and the assistance they give has ramifications for institutions such as international law but also for common constitutional war powers ring transnational security one thing a dirty wars do bring attention to is transnational layers of the international system these can be an the way in which states can manipulate transnational are architecture such as counterterrorism financing but also many of the groups Estates face tend to be transnational in their goals are for example pan- national revolutionary communism all Al Qaeda and associated fundamentalist organisations so we can see is coordination to secure the state occurs in multiple layers and the boundary between these layers are permeable furthermore to her group seeking to challenge estate often manipulate their boundaries of governance or global governance or international regulation --- # Crime, Terrorism and Insurgency .left-40[ ![Pablo Escobar, 1976, public domain](img/2020/escobar.jpg) ] .right-40[ > criminal groups have increasingly engaged in political activity in an effort to manipulate operational conditions present in the rising numbers of weak states; whereas terrorist groups have increasingly focused on criminal activities to replace lost financial support from state sponsors. Tamara Makarenko, _The Crime-Terror Continuum_ ] ??? 1. states typically face challenges to the political order and these can be divided loosely into crimes that are committed against the rule of law and crimes that are committed against the political order New York note that this division is not perfect criminal activity is a challenge for states and is political here we may consider crime to be an issue when it undermines the order of the state itself so for example political corruption or criminal groups that can threaten the state monopoly of force terrorism is often is obviously criminalised activity within state terrorism is an inherently political activity terrorist groups can run the command of useless incompetence and to highly organised and motivated groups seeking significant political change within our state hear what was going to take as insurgency is worth a little group challenges the political order estate itself backed by the use of organised armed force all of these divisions intermingle and it's important to note that these concepts and boundaries are up in the air within the literature Key differentiations are ability to use coercive force either against the state organs population ability to use large-scale militarised force again either interstate population and a goal of carving out autonomy from the state versus separation from the state versus the overturning of state apparatus for the capture of the state itself --- # Institutions ![Lady Justice, Wikimedia commons, Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported](img/2020/ladyjustice.png) ??? 1. One way of viewing a status as a set of institutions in political science we study institutions as the sets of rules and practices that govern political life in this sense the rule of law is an institution as are the formal mechanisms of government institutions can also be informal and we find this in financial practice institutions are not neutral and institutional arrangements with the state often determine its character or are intimately related to its character e.g. the difference between democratic and authoritarian states --- # Security Apparatus .pull-left[ ![FBI Badge, FBI, public domain](img/2020/badge.jpg) ] .pull-right[ ![FBI National Crime Information Center, FBI via twitter](img/2020/ncic.jpg) ] ??? 1. states are bundles of institutions and organisations when you look under the hood organisations and organisational theory and seeks to understand how my organisation behave the way in which they do the security apparatus of the state are the organisations of the state are devoted to national security note that this in many states is defence against internal and external threats one key division within many states are organisations are dedicated and have authority to act against internal threats but as organisations that typically face outwards this particular case with intelligence organisations, and also police which are typically a domestic organisation military forces typically are constrained in their ability to operate on her and keep the domestic peace in liberal democratic societies but often contribute capabilities to the preservation of domestic national security --- # Coordinating Security .pull-left[ ![LBJ in the situation room for Khe Sanh, public domain](img/2020/situationroom.jpeg) ] .pull-right[ ![US Intelligence community, public domain](img/2020/usic.jpg) ] ??? 1. one point about an viewing estate is a bundle of organisations as organisations operate on the resource constraints furthermore the unclear space and divisions of national security often lead to turf wars organisations and their leaders typically seek to maintain organisational autonomy and this may be a problem for political leaders who wish to allocate resources efficiently or to not have to deal with squabbles between institutions furthermore organisations are self-identity often isn't conflict with missions set by political elites this means one of the primary goals or jobs of central government is to coordinate and the security apparatus of the state this is much easier in liberal democracies when our organisations are not vying for complete control over one another and are perhaps not a threat to the political elites in question Sheena Grayson's work shows how the design of internal security organisations in authoritarian states can be driven by coop proofing concerns --- class: inverse # Reflection Question .large[Given how many social factors might affect a state's construction of, and response to, security threats, is it ever right to call such a response objectively rational?] ??? 1. asd 2. asd --- class: inverse # Part 3: Defending Political Order and Political Community ??? 1. One key advances in my lifetime I guess is recognition of the importance of empire in international relationship that is when I took my undergrad in War studies most of the teaching about international relations was framed on nationstates and following the Treaty of Westphalia I think the core thing will look at in this part is how different kinds of polities political communities have different political orders and how the defence of that order can be quite different in particular defending and changing a political order sometimes involves violence but depending on the audio seeking to change or defend that violence can be military but also can be a political repression and in fact I think one of the key observations from postcolonial literature is how integral violence was to ordering projects and empire In this part would then look at and political units ordering activities institutions and Organisations --- # Imperial Defence to National Security .pull-left[ .pic80[ ![British Empire in 1897](img/6/empire.jpg) ] ] .pull-right[ .pic80[ ![Truman signing the 1947 National Security Act into law](img/6/nsa1947.jpg) ] ] > The British Empire is pre-eminently a great naval, Indian and Colonial Power. There are, nevertheless, no means for co-ordinating defence problems, or for dealing with them as a whole... Lord Esher, _The Esher Report_ > We know roughly what people have in mind if they complain that their government is neglecting national security or demanding excessive sacrifices for the sake of enhancing it. Usually those who raise the cry for a policy oriented exclusively toward this interest are afraid their country underestimates the external dangers facing it or is being diverted into idealistic channels unmindful of these danger. Arnold Wolfers, _"National Security" as an Ambiguous Symbol_ ??? Wolfers quote p.483 National security is essentially about the defence political orders National security is also relatively new terms National security presumes the existence of the nation also of a state to be defended And there are obvious precursors in almost every type of order and defence of the monarch defence of the realm one the interesting things about and the British Empire is that essential well past its peak before serious effort went into thinking about Imperial defence and recognising the problems of defending the Empire as a whole integral units So how do we get from Imperial defence to national security? --- # Order in Context: Ireland and N. Ireland .left-column[ ![famine of 1845-49](img/6/famine.jpg) ![Fenian bombing campaign](img/6/fenian.png) ] .right-column[ - Irish Rebellion of 1798 - Effectively a civil war, with atrocities (over 10k dead) followed by guerrilla campaign until 1803 - Acts of Union 1800 removes what’s left of Ireland’s independence - Failed Rebellions - Young Irelander rebellion (1848) quashed by (new) police, 2 dead - Fenian Rising (1867) 12 people killed, then most went home - Fenian Dynamite Campaign, 1881-1885 - Special Irish Branch formed 1883 to combat campaign - Easter Rising 1916 - Lasts 5 days, put down by military and police - Irish War of Independence 1919-1921 - IRA makes a point of targeting RIC/state infrastructure. Black and Tans (temporary constables) and Auxiliaries (RIC paramilitaries made up of ex soldiers) infamous for use of force ] ??? Protestant landholders in north east, catholic peasants 1700s Irish Nationalism Potato Famine in 19th C Early 19th C Catholic Emancipation Home Rule debate --- # Ordering Activities > Extremists of all kinds use malevolent narratives to justify behaviour that contradicts and undermines the values that are the foundation of our society. If left unchallenged, these narratives fragment and divide our communities. We protect the values of our society – the rule of law, individual liberty, democracy, mutual respect, tolerance and understanding of different faiths and beliefs – by tackling extremism in all its forms. HMG, _CONTEST_ > It is up to us to organize the people. As for the reactionaries in China, it is up to us to organize the people to overthrow them. Everything reactionary is the same; if you don't hit it, it won't fall. It is like sweeping the floor; where the broom does not reach, the dust never vanishes of itself. Mao Tse-Tung, _The Situation and Our Policy After the Victory in the War of Resistance Against Japan_ ??? Observation of Charles Tilly at all that violence is fundamental to the generation of political orders Essentially activities a state can be seen as ordering activities so little cooperation in this frame is an ordering activity political repression equally interstate violence as an ordering activity as is revolution political violence is often about the generation of a specific type of political order that enables an actor to thrive or achieve its goals conflict actors such as warlords and so on are not so much disorderly actors as actors that generate an order which enables them to exert power is the maximum extent possible --- # Ordering Violence in Context: DR Congo > The Second Congo War heralded a profound militarization of the Congo’s political settlement. Power was largely exercised through multi-layered political-military networks that regrouped government and rebel actors from countries in the region and domestic political-military movements striving to take control over the country. -- > These actors were in turn linked to myriad small-scale militias resisting or allying with these external and national security forces, while also fighting for more localized spheres of influence and agendas, often linked to conflicts around identity, territory and local authority. Judith Verweijen, _Stable Instability_ ??? Verweijen quote p.21 https://www.refworld.org/pdfid/57e92e4d4.pdf 1. --- # Ordering Institutions and Organisations .pull-left[ ![Stasi HQ](img/6/stasi.jpg) ] .pull-right[ ![AAD, a paramilitary group](img/6/aad.jpg) ] ??? 1. all institutions and organisations ordering institutions so we look at institutions as elements of a state what we see are things that support a particular political order return to organisations that form part of the state we see the functional generation of order and therefore security forces institutions and organisations are always committed to a specific political order one of the issues with liberal democracies is that because liberalism posits free debate as its central tenet we have rather hazily defined communal goals this is why when you examine things like the security service in the UK they are committed to the existing political system and as a means of supporting freedom and democracy obviously if you consider the existing political system as a source of repression or antidemocratic then you're gonna challenge the system itself --- # Institutions In Context: GWOT > Just as FBI bureaucrats were instrumental in nurturing anticommunism during the early Cold War, they also helped to discredit the KKK and other "hate groups" during the 1960s. -- > FBI bureaucrats acted as guardians of the nation, neutralizing and destroying the new enemy. By the late 1960s, KKK (as well as Black Nationalist) extremists would eclipse Communist subversives in national security discourse. -- > At this point, the FBI was disrupting and neutralizing non-violent Communist, socialist, civil rights, Black nationalist, and antiwar organizations on the one hand, as well as violent Klan, Nazi organizations on the other. John Drabble, _To Ensure Domestic Tranquility_ ??? Drabble quote p.327-8 in this slide we connect organisations and institutions at the substate level II the promulgation of a state provision to grand strategy and world order obviously this occurs in the can of rogue states idea but also war on Al Qaeda is not just war against a group it's war that is cementing the centrality of states to political order so therefore the institutions that are securing the state also securing a particular vision of international water even as perhaps they break the rules of the international order itself --- class: inverse # Reflection Question .large[ What can your own government do to you for dissent, subversion, and sedition? ] ??? 1. asd 2. asd --- class: inverse # Part 4: Rebellion and Political Enmity ??? 1. in this part of the lecture we are going to look at political order from block particularly how rebellion relates to political order one of the things we note is that these kinds of wars tend to be the most brutal civil war is often the most brutal form of warfare Key kind of feature here is the cleavage of political units as some seek to defend the pre-existing order another seek to overturn one important featu re here that will come about later is the role of citizenship in these kinds of conflicts e.g. who belongs to a state who belongs to political community what colour protections can I give an two rebellious citizens speak --- # Citizenship and Treason .pull-left[ .pic80[ ![Carrie Nation postcard](img/6/carrie.jpg) ]] .pull-right[ .pic80[ ![Mario Savio](img/6/savio.jpg) ]] -- > There is a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious, makes you so sick at heart, that you can't take part. You can't even passively take part! And you've got to put your bodies upon the gears and upon the wheels, upon the levers, upon all the apparatus, and you've got to make it stop! And you've got to indicate to the people who run it, to the people who own it — that unless you're free, the machine will be prevented from working at all! Mario Savio - Social movements - Terrorism - Insurgency - Coups ??? 1. one of the key things about dirty wars is essentially about treason or members of political community turning against this raises the question of what duties individuals have to a given political order this duties often express the relationship of citizens and the state and what are the limits of dissent to a political order? One of the things will have to grapple with here is essentially unjust orders and the way in which a treat assistance citizenship is an important definition to rate raise here --- # Political Enmity .pic60[ ![Carl Schmitt, again](img/6/schmitt.jpg) ] > In comparison with a war of absolute enmity, the contained war of classical European international law, proceeding by recognized rules, is little more than a duel between cavaliers seeking satisfaction. To a communist like Lenin, imbued with absolute enmity, such a war could only appear to be a mere game, a game that he would play in order to mislead the enemy, but one which he basically despised and thought risible. Carl Schmitt, _Theory of the Partisan_ ??? 1. characteristic of dirty wars is the presence of political enmity this is essentially the politics of hatred that goes beyond the rules the idea of culture it was all political units are constituted by the enmity towards outsiders obviously this is quite contentious one of things we can't really cover in this course entirely is sources of political enmity because they are too numerous all are going to treat here as political enmity is essentially a form of political opposition that leads individuals or organisations to seek to reorder or overthrow the state or to protect the state that leads on to beyond the bounds of the rule of law --- # Rebellion, Revolution, Uncontained War > When they poured across the border > I was cautioned to surrender, > this I could not do; > I took my gun and vanished. Leonard Cohen, _The Partisan_ > The modern partisan expects neither justice nor mercy from his enemy. He has turned away from the conventional enmity of the contained war and given himself up to an other — the real — enmity that rises through terror and counter-terror, up to annihilation. Carl Schmitt, _Theory of the Partisan_ > The relevant distinction at work in terms of force and politics... is that between battle and repression: is the violence in question warfare, with organized, reciprocal fighting, or is it the everyday operations of the security apparatus in surveilling and enforcing order?The ambit is not between war and a beatific state of peace, but between armed resistance and the reign of punitive expeditions, police, spies and death squads. Tarak Barkawi, _Decolonizing War_ ??? 1. what we find in rebellions revolutions is often the lack of restraint this is trans idea uncontained war whether or not the rules of war can apply in the context political enmity is a really interesting question this means we'll also be looking at perhaps the limits of restraint and war in general after all if you hold that system is entirely unjust and the people who support it are murderous why should they are live effectively --- # Uncontained War in Context: Vietnam > The essential contradiction in our society at that time was the contradiction between, on the one side, our nation, our people, and on the other, the French imperialists and their henchmen, the reactionary feudalists. We accordingly put forth the slogan "To exterminate the reactionary colonialists and the traitors." As a result, as early as the first years of the Resistance War, a number of the most reactionary of the landlord class were repressed in the course of the operations against local puppet administration and traitors. Võ Nguyên Giáp, _People's War, People's Army_ -- > Salan took the Algerian partisan for the absolute enemy. But all at once, a far worse enemy turned up on his back: his own government... Carl Schmitt, _Theory of the Partisan_ ??? --- # Political Enmity in Context: Argentina > As formulated by Raul Alfonsin before he became president in 1983, the question is why Argentina, a rich and democratic nation in the 1920s, reverted to a process that moved it toward underdevelopment, authoritarianism, and violence... -- > Understanding the social question in Argentina is basic to understanding both the guerillas' response and the generals' dirty war... -- > When symptoms are of major concern, the social question takes the form of the subversion problem. But underlying the subversion problem lies the redistribution problem, and behind it, the property question... -- > Instead of a final solution to the social question, the armed forces attempted a final solution to the subversion problem. Donald C. Hodges, _Argentina's "Dirty War"_ ??? --- class: inverse # Reflection Question .large[ Do you think terrorists or insurgents ever deserve to have their citizenship removed? Why? ] ??? 1. asd 2. asd --- class: inverse # Part 5: Inherent Practical Dilemmas ??? 1. one thing that dirty wars brings attention to are the inherent practical dilemmas of securing and challenging the state that is we can't just think of rules and institutions, we have to look at some of the underlying dilemmas facing organisations on either side of these conflicts in this sense we are either kinda medium position and between realist conceptions of international war and international order which focus upon and inherent dilemmas or structural explanations and for behaviour sometimes rooted in rational expectations and utility theory and social constructivism or post positivist approaches that place heavy emphasis on ideas and see the social life and interaction is inherently mutable attention will look at for kinder classes of dilemma here inherent dilemma of control that is how you control an opponent when they resort to force the dilemma facing insurgents balancing challenging the state and versus maintaining support dilemmas facing leaders on either side kind of conflict and organisational dilemmas-the problems facing the organisation's to carry out the dirty work --- # The Dilemmas of Control A practical dilemma is something largely independent of ideas. For example, to succeed in any adversarial situation, the fact that an opponent has free will/agency is likely to give rise to a set of practical dilemmas. > The primary aim of the strategist in the conduct of war is some selected degree of control of the enemy for the strategist's own purpose; -- > this is achieved by control of the pattern of war; and this control of the pattern of war is had by manipulation of the center of gravity of war to the advantage of the strategist and the disadvantage of the opponent. John C. Wylie, _Military Strategy_ -- > ...the control sought in war should be neither so extreme as to amount to extermination - this is probably a cultural value judgment of the writer, and might not be valid in the eyes of one from a less humane culture - nor should it be so tenuous as to foster the continued behavior of the enemy as a hazard to the victor... ??? 1. so as outlined in my understanding Warburton controls a central feature of what war the issue is how to exert control over an adversary and the means by which this can be achieved Clausewitz's theory deal wrestling overthrow attacking centres of gravity-does this work cock? The dilemma for states is that the use of force to coerce or control an opponent is inevitably imprecise and therefore when an opponent hides themselves within a population mistakes will inevitably me made so the dilemma is how to use force or other tools to control one's adversary without sign or dangerously losing the support of the population second dilemma how to use force effectively without violating the institutions of the state or without self subversion of your political culture these dilemmas are effectively similar for the challenges to state, except the challenges often lack state capabilities and therefore may have to resort to action such as terrorism in order to succeed --- # The Dilemmas of Insurgency > A point often missed is that _Small Wars_ is not simply a book about warfare against 'savages'. Partisan warfare in 'civilised' countries is also included. Daniel Whittingham, _'Savage warfare': C.E. Callwell, the roots of counter-insurgency, and the nineteenth century context_ Survival and escalation Population control Identity & Identification One-sided violence ??? 1. continuing from the dilemmas of control insurgency poses specific dilemmas about states and their relationship to citizens for example how should one treat and rebellious citizens as criminals four insurgents insurgency poses, next central dilemma which is how to use force to destabilise the state and erode away away at its capabilities without provoking massive overreaction the may crush you furthermore insurgents must live off the people and therefore have to use a mix of corporation coercion and to survive with the population are simultaneously trying to persuade --- # The Leaders' Dilemmas > Most people in any culture, therefore, will take for granted a particular course of action or consider only a few alternatives. That they choose from a restricted set will, for most of them, remain below the threshold of consciousness, because they seldom encounter individuals who take for granted quite different assumptions. David J. Elkins and Richard E. B. Simeon, _A Cause in Search of Its Effect, or What Does Political Culture Explain?_ Political survival in a given political culture Coordination problems Capability issues ??? 1. four leaders on either side they are faced with quite interesting dilemma about political survival returning to our team of competition political elites are typically in competition with other elites and seek to replace them, if not they are reliant upon a select route and that may break their win, winning coalition leaders must therefore balance their own political survival against the survival of the political order against their political capital they'll need to expend to maintain their coordination of security apparatus if a leader is insecure either insurgent or incumbent and they may need to take action which is inherently weakens their ability to fight adversary in order to survive in place fundamentally in democracies her the buck stops with political elites and there is no higher kind of authority or manual in many senses to tell them what they should do --- # The Institutional Dilemmas (Organisations) > Indeed, the case of COINTELPRO-New Left shows that endogenous organizational processes within state agencies are key to understanding the level of repression received by particular protest groups. Rather than directly resulting from these groups' size, level of activity, or predilection for violence, the patterning of repression by the FBI was bound by the flow of information within the bureau and the consequent ability for SMOs to become visible at the national level of the FBI. David Cunningham, _The Patterning of Repression_ ??? Cunningham quote p.234 1. security organisations face with political challenges the state face a variety dilemmas based on the character of the organisation the key dilemma is how to treat or conceive of an opponent for example military's can treat opponents as enemies or military targets whereas police how much tougher time adjusting to this kind of idea organisations may need to work in close coupling with other organisations that have very different ideas or organisational attitudes towards threats to the state and fundamentally the use of violence is often difficult to manage within an organisation enacting violence it has a psychological cost for the individuals concerned and organisations essentially need to ensure that the organisation continues this may be a problem if you're working police are getting brutalised --- class: inverse # Reflection Question .large[Are there any dilemmas relevant to war and national security that you recognise as important, yet do not find interesting? Why is that?] ??? 1. asd 2. asd --- class: inverse # Part 6: Conclusions and Connections ??? 1. asd 2. asd --- # Key Issues .large[ What is war, what is security? Why does that matter? Political order delimits acceptable conduct within a social system Wars involving disagreements about legitimate political order are often vicious Practical features of organising for war and security matter! ] ??? 1. asd 2. asd --- # Key Questions .large[ If political order is so important, why do people disagree about the definitions of existing political orders so often? Are states anything more than a bundle of institutions and organisations? Is it possible to challenge a political order in a contained manner? ] ??? 1. asd