|
Where to start,
The population issue is essential for two reasons. Throughout history conflict has been closely associated with surges in population. Population pressure forces nations or ethnic groups into predatory behaviour in order to survive. Competition over resources, predation and fear of attack/miscalculation are invariably the source of conflict and war, ethnicity and religion are secondary and are used as a justification for agressive behaviour.
The middle east is currently undergoing an enormous population surge whereas most of the rest of the developed world has an ageing population. A population that outruns the capacity of the government and economy to support it is in serious trouble. People dont just sit around idly they look for someone to blame. Racial hatred, revolutions are intrinsically linked to economic conditions.
The converse of the population issue is that a state in order to be secure needs to feel it has advantages relative to its neighbours. Great power status is linked to population, military strength and the capacity of the economy to support that military. See the work of Paul Kennedy.
A growing population that can be supported by its economy means an increase in the taxpayer base and more importantly gives the government more soldiers.
As a general rule the side which has the greatest military technology wins. But superiority in numbers, a larger economic base and home ground advantage are better . Numerous examples demonstrate this.
Germany started WW2 with the most modern war machine in the world easily conquering all of Europe. However the German army was ground into the dust by the Soviet Union. The German army like the USA and Israel placed great store in training, the best equipment and high morale. But it was annihilated by the Soviet Union which had a vastly larger resource and economic base than the Germans and vastly superior numbers. The Western allies may have supplied material support but most Soviet equipment was home made. World War 2 was won on the Eastern front. See the work of John Mearscheimer Tragedy of Great Power Politics.
A better example is Algeria. The French colonists like the Israelis thought they could have a little slice of Europe in the Middle East. They thought wrong. France had measurably greater military technology than the Algerians. Despite hundreds of thousands of Algerians slaughtered, the Algerians won. There are no French presence in Algeria now.
Lebanon. In an effort to smash the PLO and the Syrian army Israel invaded Lebanon in the early eighties. Israels superior airpower smashed the armies of Syria and destroyed the PLO presence in Lebanon for good. It defeated those groups because it had superior technology and the PLO and Syria fought on Israels terms. Israel still lost the war in Lebanon because Hizbullah refused to fight on Israels terms. Despite killing vastly more Lebanese, the Israeli army is not set up to fight a prolonged counter insurgency war, it is set up to fight Clausewitzian wars ( wars between states, with war being conflict by other means) Without the goodwill and active support from the population Clausewitzian armies cannot beat insurgencies. For a recent example see the conflict in Chechnya where a Russian army has never beaten irregular forces. For reference see Lieven's Chechnya: Tombstone of Russian Power.
Insurgencies are typically waged by poor people because rich people have more to lose by fighting. This point is demonstrated by the terrorist groups ETA and the real IRA who operate in wealthy countries and have wage a low scale insurgency for a long time but who have low levels of active support. All in all very few people have died because those terrorist groups have difficulty mobilising support from their constituent population. They might be sympathetic to the cause but self interest ie holding down a job and paying the bills means only the most fanatical become terrorists. Compare them to the FARC and the Tamil tigers. Being an insurgent makes sense because the guerrilla is unlikely to have well paid employment.
Research has causally linked conflict with the level of economic development. Studies of civil wars show that it is economic development rather than any other criteria which makes a region prone to conflict. See Collier and Hoeffler, Fearon and Laitin. Collier and Hoeffler's work can be accessed from the World Bank webpage.
The 9/11 hijackers are a poor example of insurgents. No doubt Bin Laden picked Saudis to fly the planes in order to drive a wedge between the USA and Saudi Arabia. It worked.
Superior technology does not guarantee military success. Humans are adaptive to their enemies, either they adopt their enemies tactics and equipment or they innovate and get around their enemies advantages. See the work of Keegan and also Unrestricted Warfare, by Qiao Liang and Wang Xiangsui.
Nuclear weapons, F16's and cruise missilles are out of the reach of insurgents so they find new ways to attack. The best bang for the buck weapon devised is the suicide bomber. They are far cheaper to use than to train a soldier and they cause widespread mayhem and panic because they achieve suprise. That is why numerous insurgencies use them. Chechnya, Israel, Sri Lanka have all seen the use of suicide bombers.
The use of suicide bombers may be couched in religious terms but is in fact an economically efficient tactic of warfare. For the economics of suicide bombing see:
Rational Martyrs vs. Hard Targets: Evidence on the Tactical Use of Suicide Attacks by Eli Berman David D. Laitin
Willingness to die becomes an absolute key to success. In an insurgency the government troops are typically reluctant soldiers. They may want to serve their country but they would much prefer to minimise risks and get home to the wife and kids. The government places a higher value on the lives of its soldiers than does the insurgency. Accordingly government forces will use whatever tactics minimises the chance of dying which invariably plays right into the hands of the insurgents. Heavy bombardments, airstrikes are invariably used in counter insurgency operations. Despite any attempts to minimise civilian losses, houses get destroyed and non-combatants get killed. Indeed the insurgents may put them in harms way to make sure that they get hurt. This benefits the insurgents as they lead to more recruits down the track.
Democracy itself doesnt help stop wars and does not lead to a reduction in religious belief. The USA is one of the most religious countries in the world and the worlds most economically advanced. Democracy does mean however that the political leaders have to pay closer attention to the wants of the population. If the population wants war, it gets it. Both Britain, France and Germany had parliaments based on almost universal suffrage prior to World War 1. The governments and economic elites at the time were extremely loath to enter war but enter war they did because of fear.
The need for state security is a far greater determinant of state action than the nature of the regime in charge. Iran will get nuclear weapons eventually irrespective of what Israel does. Indeed their need for security means they must have them come what may. Pakistan bent all its will to get nuclear weapons when India got them, and it is developing rockets which can deliver them as far as Europe. Why would they need to do that? Rumour has it that the Pakistani nuclear research was partially funded by the Saudis and I know for a fact was financed by the illicit selling of nuclear technology to Iran. That was covered in a 4 Corners documentary on Australian television.
Israels attempt to support the Kurds as a wedge against Iran is fraught with extreme danger. The Kurds safest option is a federal Iraq. All Iraqs neigbours are loath to see Kurdish independance because this threatens their territorial integrity and therefore its survival. Syria, Turkey and Iran and the Kurds are motivated by fear. Security is paramount. If the Kurds see that belonging to Iraq doesnt make it safe for them they will try for independance. Islamic fundamentalists in contrast loath and despise the current middle east order. If Israel is training the Kurds and the Islamic fundamentalists know they will attack the Kurds both to attack their hated enemy and go to paradise and shake up the middle east order. Thus the Kurds will be forced to seek independance because a federal Iraq wont protect their interests. Kurds in Turkey, Syria and Iran make seek to join them and this would not be tolerated by their governments.
Turkey, currently an Israel ally will abandon Israel for supporting the Kurds.
Iraq is much like the Balkans prior to World War 1 with many powers with competing interests. Iraq is not an ethnically homogenous entity making it unstable which is no doubt why the Sunni fundamentalists have been attacking Shia religious centres. Obviously Iran does not want that to happen and is in all likelihood supporting the Shia in the south, much as the Israelis are supporting the Kurds in the north. The chances for political stability in that environment are slim.
Uncertainty breeds revolution, the chances of many Middle East states existing in their current form in 10 years cannot be guaranteed.
|
