Modern war: divesting states of nations: Part I

It is ironic that we talk of the modern war in the same week when Christopher Nolan’s film, ‘Dunkirk’ based on WWII is being celebrated. But Dunkirk was then – 77 years back – a story of extraordinary stoicism against heavy odds which became the turning point of the war and reversed the German juggernaut into an annihilating defeat. The same nations, with even stronger militaries today, have now devised a new strategy to win wars – divesting states of their nations without actually going to war.

Hop across into Syria, a nation on the edge of an abyss. Almost gone under and being held up by the failure of the opposing forces to give that final push to the edifice on which it stands. Russia is of immense help, though it is there to secure its own interests which includes keeping the incumbent government in place. But who is Syria fighting against? No Krauts, Yankees or the Bobbies. Not even Iraq – they are ideological partners; not Turkey – not in the way that states go to war. Turkey is in there to ensure its own perimeter of security, to ensure the Kurds don’t get a state, and in partial fulfilment to the American cause of seeing Assad go. That’s not war? That’s politics. War was Dunkirk.

Yet Syria is in a war, city after city dismantled at the hands of one group or another which alternatively include the rebels, the Kurds, Al Nusrah, Al-Qaeda or whatever of it still exists, and the IS of course. All are residents of Syria or Iraq suitably augmented by inductions from far and wide in this Project Divest Syria. This is the alternate war. When you don’t want to commit troops, or wish to avoid direct confrontation, you achieve objectives through this new theory of a self-consuming war within the borders of a state. In this case the state may remain, only the nation will disappear. A cleansing of sorts. And then one can fill in empty spaces with fresh settlements, foreign sponsors, and locals who will live under an imposed order. A nation-building of sorts; but were one to tire of it, easy to dispense with and walk away.

What became of Tunisia which presented itself as the first experiment in nation-makeover in the modern world? There was mayhem there, and then slowly guided by the powers that be resurrected as a democracy. Being the sole superpower needed value addition and what better than democratise the rest of the world, and what better place to start than the world of Islam which threatened as the most likely suitor for Huntington’s continuum of global conflict. Despite a Nobel Peace Prize awarded to those who were handed the reins, Tunisia faces an uncertain future with Trump deciding to walk away. All Yousef Chahed, Tunisia’s PM, hopes for is to be remembered by America as its only ally this side of the Mediterranean holding against IS and Al-Qaeda. Project Democracy seems doomed in Tunisia. A state exists, but without outside help may soon lose its identity of a nation. The rot is just about setting in.

Want another exhibit? Hop over to Libya, Tunisia’s next door neighbour. Can you spell or recall its current leader’s name, or any leaders name after Qaddafi? For some of us who are too possessed with Panama only, Libya counts amongst the most thriving spaces for the IS and Al-Qaeda in its most fertile recruiting grounds. And training spaces. No one governs Libya. There is a government in name, but it is more like Afghanistan, with only a limited remit over Tripoli and Benghazi. The rest is open country. It always was but Qaddafi had the tribes well within his fold and kept a nation and the state together. Today the state exists, but there is no nation.

Hop over next to Egypt. It has a state and a nation too but not a government. The army rules under Sisi, the army chief. Sisi survives with Saudi and American aid of billions, as long as he doesn’t let the undesirables (the Brotherhood) come back to power. Why hasn’t Egypt fractured? Answer: Too big and too old to crack, and its physical entity matters. It is a gateway to Gaza, which has been duly locked by Sisi in fulfilment of the conditions that retain him in power. The people of Gaza are devastated, but Israel survives happily. The state is what the good world needs against the baddies, not the people. Once a proud nation with a strong military, it is slowly losing its identity. A country as large as Egypt, with a history of eminence in the Arab world, has no voice – nowhere, not in the Arab world, not in Africa and not on the world stage. This is when a nation is lost to the state.

Afghanistan remains a work barely kept alive. When it is time for the US to bolt, it will dump it. For the moment only a shadow of the nation and the state survives under a contrived and illusory existence. Remove the stabilising agent in there, the US, and the entire edifice of the Afghan state and society will collapse. That will be doubly dangerous, especially for those who live around it; and that is disconcerting. Illusions of how grand a project Afghanistan is turning into are stories fed to the gullible. All signs for a long time have only pointed south and only a band-aid holds state and society together.

Till now has been only the lead-up, an appetizer. The main course is Pakistan and what is in play here, or has been for some time now, is a classic implementation of the theory of modern war – divesting the state of its nation. Dismantling the other half in a nation-state, where the state survives but not its people. At least not in the way that nations are recognisable.

Consider. Home to over 200 million, a nuclear power, it is not an easy country to be manipulated unless governments are nudged in that direction in self-interest. This is how it has always been. Also crucial for some time now in the world’s war against terror, it has a certain weight geographically as well as in how it disposes to the larger equation of strategic balance in the region. As a Muslim nation, these aspects gain even greater eminence. Buffeted by its own war against terror – due to bad policy choices over a sustained period of time – conveniently exploited now by regional adversaries, the country has held on despite the challenges. Its structures are strong and resilient and betray no signs of wilting under pressure. It was thus that rather than attempt to neutralise the state, instead a plan to divest it off its nation was first instituted. We have been on the receiving end of this facet of the modern war now for the last ten years, and it makes for a fascinating story.

This may just be the right time for some reflection and how we as a nation are being led into the trap of our own extinction.

To be concluded

Email: shhzdchdhry@yahoo.com