from the most disorganized but violent, to the almost state-like Hezbollah. You certainly can't compare Hezbollah with AQ, or Hamas or the Mahdi Army in Sadr City.

can use violence in ways states cannot.

Mmmm? Want to expand on that?

...has a monopoly of force within its area. I see an organizations that has significant control of this sort in the region, but I don't see a monopoly. Simple question - given their beliefs and given what a hot button issue it is for many observers, why can't I find any mention of the imposition of Sharia law in southern Lebanon? If it existed I'd expect to trip over outraged references to it and if Hezbollah could get away with it (i.e., had a monopoly over the use of force) I'd sure expect them to have imposed it.

Are they something different than a typical guerilla movement, yes. Are they a potential proto-state, further along that continuum than most any other group, in my view, yes. I just don't think they're as far along that continuum as you describe above.

"We declared war on terror, it's not even a noun, so, good luck. After we defeat it, I'm sure we'll take on that bastard ennui." - Jon Stewart.

Anyone else have military forces in their territory other than the occasional Israeli incursion? Could Lebanon forcibly disarm them? I'd call it a monopoly - no one else has it where they are. Are they as secure as they'd like? No.

I mean Canada has a monopoly of force in Canada, but if the US felt like it they could end it tomorrow. So, we wrote a bunch of laws to make them happy after 9/11 including acts that are probably worse than the Patriot Act.

Does that mean we aren't sovereign?

(I know some people who would argue yes.)

Being weak doesn't mean you can't have a monopoly of force over an area.

...monopoly of force as a criterion for the state, that element of force which is applied to the populace making up the state seems to be by far the more important aspect. I'm most familiar with notions of the state from theories of state formation (as an archaeologist I specialized in a period where early state societies were forming), so I'm biased towards this interpretation of relative importance internal vs. external, but it doesn't seem inconsistent with what exposure I have had to the idea via poli sci.

"We declared war on terror, it's not even a noun, so, good luck. After we defeat it, I'm sure we'll take on that bastard ennui." - Jon Stewart.

Ah, well such training as I have is socio and cultural anth - and specifically I was heavily influenced by Weber. I know almost no Poli Sci.

some finance and econ.

I pretty much agree with this:

highlighting a pervasive weakness in worldview, but lets be cautious in not going too far in pointing that inadequacy out. Yes, absolutely non-state actors are actors first and foremost, and that's something far, far too frequently overlooked by this administration, but they aren't co-equal with most state sponsors.

Like I said to Ian, there is a range. Not all NSAs are created equal and not all of them are equal. Interesting thoughts about Iran dragging Hezbollah into this. Hadn't considered that.

Hezbollah's on the extreme end of NSA (a word I don't like) then. The only other groups that come close that I can think of off the top of my head are the Tamil Tigers (yeah, they have a navy) and the Islamic Courts Union.

The Taliban is working on it though.

NSAs. It's rather bureaucratic.

...description of the relationship, and I can't say that I envy you the task - I just can't accept the notion that even Hezbollah manipulates and infects Iran more than Iran manipulates and infects Hezbollah.

On other topics this, in particular, strikes me as a fruitful area for exploration:

Nation states, were they to use the methods of non-state actors (not limited to the violent ones, mind you), would often times find themselves with less legitimacy. Conversely, non-state actors, however, seem to gain legitimacy when the utilize the same methods. And thus, nation states are seriously hampered in their fight against non-state actors."

This would be particularly fruitful were one to break away from the relentless focus on the kinetic side. That "not limited to the violent ones" that's crucial. There's a whole range of stuff that a nation state can't do on the non-kinetic side that a non-state actor can do. Just to riff for a second, I wonder if if the single biggest determinant is that a non-state actor can put up with multiple sources of authority and can be strengthened in spite of their existence and even use this as an asset, while a state can not (hence, for example the focus on a monopoly over force in the criteria that Ian highlighted above and I objected to).

"We declared war on terror, it's not even a noun, so, good luck. After we defeat it, I'm sure we'll take on that bastard ennui." - Jon Stewart.

Yes, there are multiple sources of authority, and force is not the only one. Force, however, is the ace card, and if you cannot defend yourself against force then you are always able to be trumped. But if I want to undermine a government, I don't necessarily start with force - I move into those places that it has abandoned in the social sphere. The Madrassas in Pakistan are a prime example.

...are multiple sources for authority in the sense of multiple mechanisms, such as coercive force vs. I dunno, civil affairs. What I mean is that non-state actors are better able to handle there being multiple legitimators of authority, in the sense that Hizbollah can accept not having a monopoly in many spheres and still be viewed as being legitimate (and can steadily increase that legitimacy), while the Lebanese state can't accept not having a monopoly in most or all spheres without being de-legitimated.

Sort form: non-state actors can co-exist with states and maintain their legitimacy, however state actors can't co-exist with non-state actors and not have their legitimacy undermined.

"We declared war on terror, it's not even a noun, so, good luck. After we defeat it, I'm sure we'll take on that bastard ennui." - Jon Stewart.

the thought that far but I will ponder that some this evening. Hmmmmm. . . an archaeologist? First time you've ever mentioned this. Please, do tell more.

...times here and there, though I much more frequently refer to myself as a recovering academic (they have a twelve step program, but it's very intricate ;) ). The short form is that I specialised in lithic technology from the Neolithic and succeeding periods of the southern Levant.

"We declared war on terror, it's not even a noun, so, good luck. After we defeat it, I'm sure we'll take on that bastard ennui." - Jon Stewart.

own position. I think you overstate how much credit I give to NSAs like Hezbollah and Al Qaeda when it comes to infecting and manipulating. I don't think anyone can really tell who has the upper hand in some of therse relationships, and who is using whom. I think, as with many other aspects of the whole NSAs debate it is about degree and not the black and white, monolithic type debate we've thus far had that I want to bring out.

That being said, I'm not sure if I ever said, "Hezbollah manipulates and infects Iran more than Iran manipulates and infects Hezbollah." I know very, very little about the relationship between the two and not nearly enough to make that judgement, which was certainly not my intent. I just think it is a lot more important to look at Hezbollah and others as not terrorists organizations and thus 'evil' as opposed to entities that have their own interests parochial and otherwise, to defend.

I see them as manipulators of states and infectors of states much more than as the tool of states."

to mean. If that's a poor read, then fair enough - I would only suggest that a reasonable person (at least I think I'm reasonable ;) ) could interpret it the way I did. Given the biases that you've in my view correctly pointed out, I think you need to guard particularly against folks interpreting you as simply reversing the commonly accepted power dynamic, because that's what their held bias would lead them to do. I'm really receptive to the notion of non-state actors as independents and the way that it was formulated in the quote above sets even my biases off.

"We declared war on terror, it's not even a noun, so, good luck. After we defeat it, I'm sure we'll take on that bastard ennui." - Jon Stewart.

careful when I wrote it. And I will do as you suggest in the future. Good idea. Becauser you are right, people are likely to see the polar opposite in what I say, 1.) because I am not clear enough and 2.) their preconceptions encourage them to see it their way.

idea. I think one could write a book about it. Maybe it was you who suggested I include non violent organizations when I discussed NSAs, maybe someone else. But it was a good suggestion that led towards more thought. It's a damned interesting area of IR to study, were one so inclined.

...law in this situation:

Does that mean the United States can continue the bombing 'til we are successful in riding ourselves of this malignant organization within one of the provinces?

...in your quote above (i.e., when a "host" country can't police its own territory and keep a group from using it as a springboard for attacks on a third party), is that the third party is allowed to attack the group doing the attacks. However, I don't believe that they're allowed to attack the host country directly, and have to be pretty circumspect about what assets they hit there. That said, if something belonging to the host country confers a substantive military advantage to the group attacking from the host country, it becomes a valid target.

There's quite a decent Q and A piece from Human Rights Watch here that covers this more authoritatively.

"We declared war on terror, it's not even a noun, so, good luck. After we defeat it, I'm sure we'll take on that bastard ennui." - Jon Stewart.

Our Little Cluster*@k Gets Worse

It's not as if the war in Iraq couldn't get much worse in a geopolitical sense, right?

Turkish officials signaled Tuesday they are prepared to send the army into northern
Iraq if U.S. and Iraqi forces do not take steps to combat Turkish Kurdish guerrillas there — a move that could put Turkey on a collision course with the United States.

xlink

That said, if something belonging to the host country confers a substantive military advantage to the group attacking from the host country, it becomes a valid target.

I wonder what the Turks might think is covered by that?

My understanding is that this type of assymetry:

I didn't see in the link where it described combatants who aren't equally matched militarily (degree of weapon technology and destructive power, or in number superiority) and how those factors affect the safety of civilians."

...has no significant relevance, other than the fact that force used should be proportionate (e.g., if one is attacked with conventional arms, one shouldn't nuke the attacking nation to glass, to pick a silly example). The safety of civilians is considered to be highly important at all times, and all reasonable steps are to be taken to safeguard them.

In this case, I don't think that one would have a very good case that the force used is disproportionate - there may be better cases to be made that targetting some of the things that the IAF has constitute a violations.

"We declared war on terror, it's not even a noun, so, good luck. After we defeat it, I'm sure we'll take on that bastard ennui." - Jon Stewart.

In the analogy that you cite:

A more extreme example is bows and arrows against guns. The combatant who has the luxury of owning a gun has to take greater care that he/she doesn't abuse his superiority against his lesser equipped rival, because proportionality is part of the Geneva conventions that apply to combatants and their treatment of nonconbatants."

...if I as a nation am attacked by a group of guys with bows and arrows, if they're attempting to kill my soldiers or citizens, I can gun them down with a rifle at my leisure. That is proportional use of force - a lethal threat met with proportional response, even if it is technologically more sophisticated and manifestly more effecient and effective in its lethality. What wouldn't be proportional would be to wipe out a big chunk of the surrounding terrain, destroy infrastructure not associated with the conflict and kill many civilians.

As one of the CF guys that I pay attention to opinion-wise once said: If you ever find yourself in a fair fight with a tenacious, equally well-equipped adversary possessing a tactical situation as good as your own, be very careful what you do because thusfar your tactics have sucked, very badly.

"We declared war on terror, it's not even a noun, so, good luck. After we defeat it, I'm sure we'll take on that bastard ennui." - Jon Stewart.

As one of the CF guys that I pay attention to opinion-wise once said: If you ever find yourself in a fair fight with a tenacious, equally well-equipped adversary possessing a tactical situation as good as your own, be very careful what you do because thusfar your tactics have sucked, very badly.

I believe getting into an equal tactical situation means your strategy has failed, actually. ;)

The idea is to have won the battle before the battle is fought. Easier said than done, as I'ms ure you know better than I, but still a rule to remember.

The other thing to remember is that the other guy may have different criteria for victory or loss than you do.