by Phillip S. Meilinger
Download the Full Article: Primitive Violence, Culture, and the Path to Peace
There is an old saw among political scientists that democracies seldom fight other democracies. Although the accuracy of that statement often hinges on definitions—was 1914 Germany an autocracy because of the Kaiser, or a budding democracy because of an elected Reichstag—it is nonetheless largely valid. It has thus been a tenet of US diplomacy to urge the spread of democracy worldwide. Richard L. Armitage, the former Deputy Secretary of State, said recently in an interview: "every President except John Quincy Adams has been involved in the belief that the world is made better by a U.S that is involved in the protection of human freedoms and human rights across the board." He went on to assert that "every postwar President has believed we have a duty to spread democracy."
At times, as with Presidents Ronald Reagan and both Bushes, that quest has been a major factor in foreign policy. Ironically, when President Barack Obama accepted his Nobel Peace Prize, he stated that negotiations would not force terrorists to lay down their arms; rather, "force is sometimes necessary [and that] is not a call to cynicism—it is a recognition of history." He went on to argue that "the instruments of war do have a role to play in preserving the peace" and that "force can be justified on humanitarian grounds, as it was in the Balkans, or in other places that have been scarred by war. Inaction tears at our conscience and can lead to more costly intervention later. That is why all responsible nations must embrace the role that militaries with a clear mandate can play to keep the peace." These are interesting words coming from a man not viewed as a hawk; yet, implementing such a vision is problematic.
Wishing for peace and the growth of democracy will not produce them. Although the fall of the Soviet empire has spawned nascent democracies in Eastern Europe and the Balkans, Russia itself seems to be backsliding into its traditional form of Oriental despotism. The democratic experiment in tribal Afghanistan is certainly an advance over the dismal situation that had existed under the Taliban, but the future of freedom in that unhappy nation is not assured. As for Iraq, time will tell if elections are truly inclusive and credible enough to bring all parties to the negotiating table of democratic government, much less whether the government can defend itself against hostile neighbors and internal rebels.
When looking ahead to the prospects of democracy spreading in dark corners of the globe, it may be useful to look backwards first. The tribal, fractional, culturally driven, and in some ways primitive nations we are trying to influence today are not unlike those we have confronted in the past.
Download the Full Article: Primitive Violence, Culture, and the Path to Peace
Phillip S. Meilinger is a retired Air Force colonel with a PhD in military history from the University of Michigan. He is the author of eight books and over eighty articles on military theory and practice.
About the Author(s)
Comments
Xen:
Excellent points. But I am not sure even if we can militarily establish "order" to use your word or perhaps control in Afghanistan with the number of troops that we have there now. But even if we were able to do so, in order to maintain that control so as to allow Afghan institutions to grow will not happen overnight, or in 18, months, or even in 18 years. It will be a generational effort. The British Army was able to establish effective control over key areas and populations during the Malayan Emergency but compared to the challenges and complexities that the US faces in Afghanistan today the British in Malaya from 48-62, relatively speaking, had it easy, way easy.
gian
I think the article is spot on that Western governments CAN impose peace on tribal cultures. And maybe we should when it serves a greater purpose.
But, I don't see how democracy is a vital part of this. According to a quick wikipedia check, Native Americans did not have full citizenship/suffrage until 1948. Well, after the Western US was secure. Even the 14th Amendement of 1868 excluded most Native Americans.
So, the US Army did impose peace on the Native American tribal culture, but did so without imposing democracy on them and <i>without their consent</i>. This is important because, as the article states, the warfare culture of those tribes was just as brutal if not more so than modern tribal cultures. But no "hearts and minds" were won, they weren't convinced by infrastructure and development projects to "buy in" to democracy. Order was imposed by force. While the article also mentions that economic stability contributed to the greater peace through greater opportunity, I doubt this was a purposeful policy goal of the United States and more a by-product of the imposed security.
I believe order can be imposed on Afghanistan, but I'm not convinced that "cutting and pasting" a Parliamentary democracy on to the society is necessary or even beneficial to that effort.
Its a small assessment of one culture, why did certain Britain's align with the Romans and others, especially the celts fight them, King Alfred fought and defeated the danes but yet the key to his lasting peace was actually dividing the lands and reaching a compromise. Think this is a slightly narrow view of tribal culture.