You Can't Teach A Pig To Sing

And, more to the point, you cannot create/impose a modern Western style nation-state on a traditional, tribal, majority Muslim society.  This brutally honest, brute fact is the single greatest lesson of the Afghan experience.  Even Iraq demonstrates clearly and convincingly the impossibility of imposing a "democratic" government on a society which is not traditional but is both tribal and majority Muslim.  The state of affairs in Pakistan indicates the absurdity of insisting that a majority Muslim society which is neither overtly tribal nor particularly traditional has made of itself a modern, Western style nation-state.

This should not be interpreted to mean that there are no Muslims who seek the individual power and dignity inherent to a democratic republic.  Nor should it be taken to imply that Muslim majority states do not merit a democratic republican form of government.  It certainly  should not be seen as averring that Muslim majority nations are not capable of creating and maintaining a democratic republic.

Experience, which is to say, history, demonstrates that the Western understandings of political and social organization cannot be imposed on a traditional, tribal, Muslim majority people.  History also demonstrates that there is a profound opposition to Western understandings built into Islam.  Many clerics in Muslim majority countries have pointed out that the strictures of Islam preclude the democratic republic as a "lawful" form of government as such exalts man over the deity by denying that the deity is the source of all law and all proper conduct by believers.  These clerics may or may not be a majority of all Muslim clergymen, but they and their understanding of the requirements of their faith deserve to be taken at face value.

Consider for a moment the reaction in Afghanistan running from Hamid Karzai to Afghans on the street to the tragic incident recently in which American gunships and artillery killed nine Afghan children all under the age of fourteen who were innocently gathering firewood in the wrong place at the wrong time.  Karzai bluntly rejected the personal apology offered by General Petraeus (a very rare action by the aloof supreme commander.)  Karzai and his people have protested this incident as they have previous "friendly fire" deaths of Afghan civilians.  At the same time the Afghan president and Afghan citizens generally have been mute regarding the far more numerous non-combatant deaths occurring as a result of insurgent suicide bombers and roadside bombs.

To the Afghans presently as to the Iraqis a couple of years ago, the notion of co-religionists killing non-combatants is far less offensive to sensibilities than is the killing of civilians by infidel troops.  This is not, as is often alleged, because they hold the "civilized" Americans and their equally "civilized" allies to a higher ethical standard than they do the "savage" insurgents.  Afghans today like Iraqis yesterday and, perhaps, Yemenis or Libyans tomorrow do not consider the Americans and other Westerners more "civilized," suitable to be held to a higher standard of conduct than indigenous "barbaric" fighters.

Quite the contrary.  Afghans today like the Iraqis of yesterday and any potential Muslim co-belligerent of the future see the Americans and other Westerners as both infidels and "savages" while believing their fellow Muslims are the "civilized" combatants.

Wait one, bucko.  Think about that assertion.  Consider it carefully.  The unwashed, flea bitten Afghan peasants living in stone huts way back in the hills with a history of tribal and clan violence which is far more bloody than the legendary feuds of Appalachians think of us, the Americans, the good guys, as barbaric, savage infidels who carry evil in their packs and speak blasphemy whenever they open their mouths.  The same folks, the ones our government has committed our troops to protect and nurture in their political, social, economic, and cultural "development" see what we are doing as threatening the very basis of identity, of society, of life itself.

In the estimate of the people we were assured would welcome our liberation, our uplifting, our presence, we are evil incarnate.  We are the very devil.  We are the barbarians.

It is an unpleasant and highly inconvenient truth to accept.  But, there it is.  Our Western understandings of politics, of society, of culture is utterly abhorrent to the recipients of our largess.  Even if there are individual Afghans, or Iraqis, or Libyans or Yemeni, or even Somali who would see American efforts to foster political, social, economic, and cultural change as good, they are and will continue to be a distinct minority.  The majority of each and all of these societies is satisfied with the status quo.  Even those who agitate for political revolution are essentially satisfied with the social and cultural status quo.

In this context it is critical to remember that the people who make the news are those who are in the minority. It is the feminists, for example, in Afghanistan or Egypt, Yemen, or Iraq who are news.  And, they are news because they are few and rare on the ground.  The same applies to advocates of Western style impartial law administered by an independent judiciary.  The proponents of a secular government or religious parity are equally news because they are so few and far between.

The non-newsworthy, which is to say the overwhelming majority, are quite happy if things go on as they have for generations, centuries.  All humans are afflicted with great inertia when it comes to change in the social and cultural milieu.  Even in the West, yes, even the US, extreme or very rapid change in the structures of society, or the norms of culture, are viewed at best with suspicion and at worst with rejection by many, even most of the society.  You need only think back to the Sixties to see that reality in dramatic and high profile operation.

The more traditional, the more tribal or the more Islamic a people are, the greater will be the inherent inertia, the resistance to change, particularly change which is imposed by outsiders, by infidels.  Islam alone by virtue of its theology, its sacred writings, its emphasis on precedent in the interpretation of Shariah is even more inertia laden, more resistant to change.  This resistance is boosted orders of magnitude when the change appears to be the artifact of the infidel.

Our efforts at nation-building were seen for what they have been: Change imposed by infidel outsiders which undercut not only Islam but the identity of the nation as well as its norms, values, and worldviews.  The fact that we saw our efforts as selfless in nature, lofty in goal, and beneficial in effect in no way alters the negative perceptions of the people in the crosshairs of our self-assigned noble mission of uplifting the locals.

The abject and counterproductive failure in Afghanistan particularly when taken in conjunction with what can be accurately but charitably characterized as an "incomplete success" in Iraq militates powerfully against any future interventions in traditional, tribal, majority Muslim societies.  This means quite simply that with the exception of retaliation based punitive operations or carefully considered humanitarian relief missions in the wake of natural disasters, the US and other Western states should refrain from any military or military backed endeavor in states such as Libya, Somalia, or Yemen.

To narrow the focus slightly, the reality of antipodal understandings as between the outside interventionary force and the target population means that those who argue there is no answer to the pirates of Somalia until there is a stable government in the place must refrain from seeking to create/impose such a government.  Any military intervention in Libya, even air attacks delivered with the greatest of care so as to limit civilian casualties, will necessarily result in indigenous opposition to the foreign, infidel action.

The combination of historical and recent experience allows the formulation of an axiom: Any attempt to stabilize a deteriorating or failing state will result in terminal destabilization.  A corollary would be: Nation-states cannot be created; they can only create themselves.

Looking forward, Secretary Gates is in Afghanistan today.  It is to be hoped that he is coming to the conclusion that the mission, the goal of nation-building so unwisely embraced by George W. Bush and his fellow muscular Wilsonians has failed and must be wrapped up as quickly and cleanly as possible.  It is also to be hoped that the reluctance, indeed the rejection, Secretary Gates expressed recently regarding interventions in traditional, tribal, majority Muslim societies informs the decision making which must be made regarding Libya, Somalia, and Yemen.

Remember these wise words: "You cannot teach a pig to sing.  It will fail and only annoy the pig."

Today's Eighth Deadly Sin--Corruption

Of late one gets a clear impression from the news that the entire world has its collective panties in a knot over corruption.  This big "C" is seen as being behind the successful recruiting efforts of the Taliban in Afghanistan.  Legions of critics assert that corruption is the single greatest feature abroad in Vladimir Putin's regime and Russia generally.  And, Transparency International, a group given to the study of such distasteful matters, assures us in a recent poll that perceptions of corruption are going up almost faster than can be tracked.

Apparently the defining feature of today's political, economic, and judicial arenas is the prevalence of corruption, that is the exchange of money for favored consideration.  Whether Mexico or Pakistan, Africa or Eastern Europe, there is a widespread view that without the handing over of money, it is impossible to have access to necessary governmental or judicial services.  Even in countries such as Denmark where no one seems to have had any direct encounter with corruption, the perception is that systems of law, economic order, political practices are rotten to the core with corruption and graft being normative.

The Geek has encountered discreetly outstretched palms in Asia, Latin America, and Africa--as well as the US.  Her Geekness has a great tale of how her family was held for hours at the border of Bulgaria back in the days of the Cold War while other vehicles breezed through only later to discover the reason for the delay was her father's probity preventing him from passing over the required amount of valeuta,  As these international encounters occurred long ago there is reason to believe that corruption is neither new nor as alarming in effect as recent reports hint.

If the journalists, academics, diplomats, and military people currently in such a snit over corruption and its harmful effects on US interests (to say nothing of local morality) were to take the briefest look at the diplomatic correspondence and the memoirs of travelers from a century or so back, they would quickly discover two salient facts.  The first was that corruption was rampant not only in the Ottoman Empire, but in the lesser developed regions of the world generally, East and West, North and South alike.  The second, and far more surprising fact, is the calm and creative way in which Americans and Europeans both diplomatic personnel and private citizens dealt with the plethora of corrupt officials and businessmen.

Only a few of the most moralistically inclined--mainly missionaries--actually objected to the widespread corruption or were of the view that corrupt officials prevented the exercise of diplomatic or commercial duties.  There were very few who saw the outstretched hands and unctuous smiles as undercutting the ability of foreign governments to function.  Whenever local citizens complained of corruption, it was with the same theme--the unfairness, the inequality with which the fruits of corruption were distributed.

To do business, as well as to prevent undue inflation in the bribe, graft, corruption, and kickback department, it was far from unusual to see Western embassies establish acceptable rates or percentages of corruption.  In short, the diplomatic establishments of the Western countries institutionalized corruption.  This model was quickly followed by commercial interests, tourists and, yes, even missionary organizations.

This approach allowed for corruption to be domesticated and, as a very real benefit, distributed with greater equity within the several recipient communities.  It set limits and promoted cooperative competition within the locals both official and private.

Once institutionalized, there was no functional difference between corruption at the governmental level and corruption at the personal as in the bribes offered to restaurant personnel under the rubric of "tips."  Both are understood, limited and fairly distributed forms of corruption.  Indeed, at the personal level, the institutionalization of bribery has reached the point that the fixed percentage is built into the bill presented to the diner.

Looking back, even to relatively recent years, corruption was so well understood by Western governments and businesses that it was factored in to aid packages, contracts, and all the other forms of transaction where the passage of money could facilitate matters.  In the Fifties and Sixties, there are numerous examples from both public and private accounts of the governmental equivalent of the comprehensive price system used by some restaurants.  Just one more line item, no big deal, no reason to pump up a storm of moral outrage; it's just the way things are done around here.

The fascination not to say fixation on corruption is another unfortunate legacy of the Sixties.  The fear and loathing, the spewing of moral opprobrium on corruption also paralleled the rise in concern on human rights which is a product of the Carter period.  The parallel may be accidental but it is all too evident--and even more destructive of effective international relations than the human rights matters.

The objection to corruption put forth by Afghans or Pakistanis is identical:  The bribes, the graft, the corruption generally is not equitably distributed; it is not available to all comers.  The same sentiment can be detected in venues as disparate as Nigeria and Venezuela.

It rather resembles studies done with chimps which show that as long as every member of a troupe gets the same goody, say a cucumber, everyone is happy.  But if some individuals get the much more prized melon slice or banana, those unfortunate enough to be stuck with a previously acceptable cucumber are outraged.  Dissent, even violence erupts.  Chaos ensues.  The inbuilt sense of fairness has been insulted.

So it is with humans.  As long as only some are eligible to receive the fruits of corruption or there is a wide differential between levels of corruption, the have-nots or have-less folks will be disturbed deeply and denounce the existence of corruption.  If given a fair share, the protests fade with the speed of Obama's approval rating.

This suggests an easy solution, an answer to the problem of corruption which will be cheaper and more effective than the efforts to stamp it out.  The answer is to duplicate past experience and build in the line item marked "corruption."  Sure, a more euphemistic term would be necessary lest the morally pure and high minded sorts in Congress and the media be offended, but rebranding comes easily to politicians.

It doesn't even harm the counterinsurgency effort in Afghanistan and elsewhere if the corruption flows in part to the insurgents provided it is used as a way of weaning these guys away from the lure of sleeping on the ground, eating bad food, and getting shot at.  Insurgents, other than the most hard core sort who need to be killed, are amenable to the seduction of ready cash.  That is as long as the cash is not tendered as a direct payment for abandoning the "Cause."  The goal would be a manageable black economy in which corruption becomes a weapon for the central government.

The stresses imposed on traditional societies by the Western challenge, particularly in places long wracked with internal conflict can and should be assuaged by a creative use of corruption.  The corruption is not going to suddenly vanish no matter how much it may be desired by the US government and others of well meaning orientation.  It is a necessary part of the human face of these societies as well as a way in which leaders justify their position in life.

Once the ground truths both past and present involving the Big "C" are recognized and understood, the presence of corruption should be used to the advantage of American policy.  To do otherwise is an act of incredible stupidity no matter how much moralizing is employed.  To reject the potentials for success resident in the proper use of corruption is akin to inviting either defeat or an unnecessarily prolonged and bloody effort.

But, we are Americans and thus not given to allowing unpleasant, not to say immoral, realities to impinge on our consciousness.