Emerging Neo-Feudal World Leaving .US, Global Security Behind By Steven Metz, World Politics Review
As the conflict with the so-called Islamic State (IS) swings back and forth, one thing is increasingly clear: Even if Iraq survives the fight intact, there is no chance it will ever return to the pre-war status quo where the government in Baghdad controls the entire nation. Neither the Kurds nor Sunni Arabs will trust the Shiite-dominated central government to protect them. The newly empowered Shiite militia leaders also will cling to their autonomy from Baghdad. If Iraq holds together at all, it will have a titular national government in the capital while regional potentates actually run the place. Local authorities may express fealty to the national government, but Baghdad will exercise little real authority outside the city itself.
Iraq is not the only country headed in this direction. Afghanistan, Syria, Libya and Yemen are on the same track. Others may soon follow. To any student of history, this should sound familiar: In a long arc from the Sahel to Afghanistan, the world is seeing the re-emergence of feudalism...
Comments
Just as communism burned itself out by over stretching its influence, so too does democracy as a set of universal values. Since the inception of the idea by Kant, it was posited then that a universal civilization is something grows and evolves naturally, without human interference. Recent attempts to forcibly install democracy in Iraq and elsewhere were doomed to fail from the outset. we can take hope, as Kant further stated, that progress is not linear but subject to backsliding and human interference.
It is my own belief that we'll see a resurgence of the democratic ideal if and when we finally meld democracy together with the rise of communication technologies. Until we find workable e-models of democracy in advanced Western societies our outdated democratic institutions will remain ineffective in the domestic sphere and a poor model for others to copy. To bring about the "end" of history, so to speak, we'll need to adapt, ironically, to democracy 2.0.
James
The emerging neo-feudal world comes as a result of:
a. Our erroneous/premature post-Cold War beliefs (in "universal values" and "the end of history") and
b. The actions we undertook, post-the Cold War, in these such erroneous/premature beliefs name (regime undermining; regime decapitation; regime change).
Thus, and in order to thwart/kill the emerging neo-feudal world (a contrary world of our very own making), and to get things back on track, we will need to:
1. Consign -- to the ash bin of history (at least temporarily) -- such ideas as "universal values" and "the end of history,"
2. Consign -- to the ash bin of history (at least temporarily) -- such associated (but extremely counterproductive) actions as regime undermining, regime decapitation and regime change. And,
3. In the place of these, adopt ideas and approaches similar to those that we held and used during the Cold War (to wit: a period where we understood the world more in terms of conflicting values and diametrically opposed goals).
Thus we must, specifically it would seem, return to the installation and support of "strongmen;" individuals who, by fair means or foul, might hold their states and societies together.
This so that, at some later date -- and by other ways and other means -- we might successfully transform these states and societies more along modern western political, economic and social lines.
(A neo-feudal world affording us, it would seem, no such similar and viable opportunity or reward?)
Bottom line?
Due to erroneous/premature ideas -- such as universal values and the end of history -- we jumped the gun in undermining, decapitating and/or changing regimes.
Why? Because the populations, at this time, are not yet ready to embrace (and fight for) Western political, economic and social norms and beliefs.
This being (1) the specific matter that (2) resulted in the emergence of (3) the present neo-feudal world.
So its "Back to the Future" (see "Cold War," "conflicting values," "diametrically opposed goals" and, indeed, "strongmen" above) for U.S. foreign policy and related actions.