by Eric Martin
An article appeared in the New York Times over the weekend which contained some interesting analysis of the Sadrist trend's recent fortunes. The lede:
The militia that was once the biggest defender of poor Shiites in Iraq, the Mahdi Army, has been profoundly weakened in a number of neighborhoods across Baghdad, in an important, if tentative, milestone for stability in Iraq.
It is a remarkable change from years past, when the militia, led by the anti-American cleric Moktada al-Sadr, controlled a broad swath of Baghdad, including local governments and police forces. But its use of extortion and violence began alienating much of the Shiite population to the point that many quietly supported American military sweeps against the group.
To some extent, the author is correct to note that the Sadrist trend has been weakened. Considering the size and scope of the anti-Sadrist operations that have been undertaken over the past several months, it would be remarkable if the trend hadn't suffered serious setbacks. As I argued recently, while disagreeing with Andrew Lebovich's contention that the anti-Sadrist actions had actually made the movement stronger:
While I agree with Lebovich that the recent anti-Sadrist operations in Basra, Sadr City and Amarah don't pose a "serious threat to the organization" itself (the org. is too big with too, long a tradtion), the military campaign has proven to be a setback for the Sadrists both politically and with respect to their militia. And that is exactly what these campaigns were intended to achieve. They were undertaken with an eye on the upcoming election schedule (with local elections slated, tentatively, for this fall, and nationwide elections to be held in 2009).
The Times article takes note of the upcoming election calendar as well:
The shift comes at a crucial moment: Iraqis will vote in provincial elections in December. The weakening of the Sadrists in national politics clears the stage for the group’s most bitter rival — a Shiite party led by another cleric, Abdul Aziz al-Hakim. One of the party’s members, Jalal al-Din al-Sagheer, a sheik and a member of Parliament, is arranging state aid for Sunni families willing to move back to Topchi.
Where the Times piece gets it wrong, however, is in the sweeping nature of the accusations that the Sadrist trend is an unpopular movement akin to a "criminal enterprise" - unpopular even in Sadr City! The characterization was so strong that it prompted this reaction from Joe Klein:
This piece reinforces what I'd been hearing from other sources: that the Mahdi Army was as much a criminal enterprise as it was a political movement.
Klein's assessment (or that of his sources) is misleading and ill-informed for at least a few reasons. First, the Sadrist trend represents a religious and social tradition that has deep roots in southern Iraq that stretch back hundreds of years (in terms of the religious foundations) and many decades politically. Sadr's father and his father's cousin were extremely well respected and highly influential (to this day) Shiite religious scholars (Grand Ayatollah's both).
The Mahdi Army militia (or Jaish al-Mahdi, "JAM") is, in many ways, a separate entity from the political/social services apparatus, and is a relatively recent incarnation. Therefore, Klein is wrong to suggest that the JAM is the primary manifestation of the Sadrist trend and that, thus, the JAM's sins are more indicative of the true nature of the Sadrist trend than the long standing religious, political and social doctrine that are woven into the fabric of the Shiite south.
Second, while there is little doubt that elements of the JAM have partaken in sectarian cleansing and criminal activities, the Times article insinuates that the problem is more widespread than it is. The Sadrists have proven quite adept at delivering vital social services (through the Office of the Martyr Sadr, or "OMS") to many Iraqis for decades. In recent years, in fact, the OMS has performed better than the Iraqi government in this regard. This ability has proven a source of popularity for the movement. In response to this success, one of the stated goals of the Maliki government is to attempt to outpeform the OMS in Sadr City and elsewhere and thus sap support away from the Sadrist.
But if the accusations in the article are correct, why would the Maliki government have to do anything other than remove the onerous presence of the Sadrists? Along these lines, wouldn't widespread criminal activity, extortion and graft committed by the Sadrists tend to undermine the support they receive for delivering vital services? Can a movement derive popular support for its provision of community services while simultaneously victimizing the same community so pervasively? Something doesn't add up.
However, as mentioned above, elements of the JAM (and other armed groups that claim the mantle of the JAM without official blessing) have engaged in some of the bahavior described in the Times article - and worse. As a result, and as a result of the losses suffered at the hands of US forces, Moqtada al-Sadr is attempting to revamp the JAM, purge the criminal/disloyal elements and redefine its force structure (as discussed here).
While the Sadrist movement has been weakened, and while it has been forced to recalibrate and refine its structure, it is too large a social phenomenon to simply marginalize (as the Bush administration has done since before the invasion without exception). This remains true whether we pretend, contra the facts, that the Sadrists are an Iranian cat's paw, or we convince ourselves that the Sadrist trend is really just a militia operating primarily as a criminal enterprise. As usual, we would be better dealing with reality, even when inconvenient.
The Sadrists have proven quite adept at delivering vital social services (through the Office of the Martyr Sadr, or "OMS") to many Iraqis for decades. In recent years, in fact, the OMS has performed better than the Iraqi government in this regard. This ability has proven a source of popularity for the movement. In response to this success, one of the stated goals of the Maliki government is to attempt to outpeform the OMS in Sadr City and elsewhere and thus sap support away from the Sadrist.
Isn't the delivery of social services absolutely SOP for insurgents, outlaws, guerrillas, criminal organizations, political machines, etc.? This is not new. So why is Maliki playing catch-up?
I'm not very familiar with the workings of Iraqi politics, but surely this source of Sadrist strength was, or should have been, wholly unsurprising.
Posted by: Bernard Yomtov | July 28, 2008 at 04:16 PM
Can a movement derive popular support for its provision of community services while simultaneously victimizing the same community so pervasively? Something doesn't add up.
Actually, that sounds exactly like a standard organized crime modus operandi. Terrorize and extort just enough to keep everyone a little scared all the time but aware things could be much worse, spread some favors around to key people, and ostentatiously support a few religious charities so ordinary people feel you are in some way on their side. Very much like a government, but more brutal and less participatory than most modern ones.
Posted by: trilobite | July 28, 2008 at 04:16 PM
Actually, that sounds exactly like a standard organized crime modus operandi.
Yes, but the organize crime syndicate is not popular, and wouldn't garner many votes in an election. In terms of COIN, they don't perform well as insurgents ala Bernard's comments.
I'm not very familiar with the workings of Iraqi politics, but surely this source of Sadrist strength was, or should have been, wholly unsurprising.
Ironically, the reason that Maliki and ISCI have not been able to steal Sadr's thunder in this regard are that: 1) they have been prone to corruption, embezzlement and cronyism; and 2) they mostly haven't cared about serving many Iraqi regions.
Last year, there was a big announcement by ISCI that it was going to start focusing on poor Iraqis and their needs. The reaction: what took you so long?
Posted by: Eric Martin | July 28, 2008 at 04:23 PM
The Mahdi Army militia (or Jaish al-Mahdi, "JAM") is, in many ways, a separate entity from the political/social services apparatus, and is a relatively recent incarnation. Therefore, Klein is wrong to suggest that the JAM is the primary manifestation of the Sadrist trend and that, thus, the JAM's sins are more indicative of the true nature of the Sadrist trend than the long standing religious, political and social doctrine that are woven into the fabric of the Shiite south.
I agree with you that Sadr's father/grandfather were influential, but the public perception of JAM is closely tied to the public perception of OMS. Why else would have Muqtada himself called for the ceasefire in August 2007 after JAM thugs wreaked havoc in Karbala.
The Sadrists have proven quite adept at delivering vital social services. Certain sect restrictions apply to that statement. If I was Sunni, I probably wouldn't be lining up at the gas station run by OMS.
Posted by: LT Nixon | July 28, 2008 at 04:41 PM
What do you call an organization that establishes a militia (8:15; 9:39; 3:169), subjugates the population (2:191; 3:56; 4:89; and 106 others), and demands payments from the subjugated population in exchange for protection (9:29)?
You could call it lots of things.
Criminal, political, religious, a RICO violation, whatever.
Posted by: Brick Oven Bill | July 28, 2008 at 05:15 PM
You could call it lots of things. Criminal, political, religious, a RICO violation, whatever.
The federal government? (RON PAUL!)
The premises of this debate are just wrong. After the US invaded Iraq and overthrew the government, the Mahdi Army had a force monopoly in Sadr City and provided law & order governmental functions for 1.5 million Shiites, who presumably appreciated the relative absence of ethnic cleansing.
Now that the Maliki regime can exercise minimal control over Sadr City, Joe Klein wants to retroactively declare the Sadrists a criminal conspiracy?
Sorry, it doesn't work that way. You can debate whether the Sadrists were a good government for Sadr City or not, but you don't get to deny that they were the government.
Posted by: theo | July 28, 2008 at 06:37 PM
From the excerpt of the Times article:
One of the [ISCI] party’s members, Jalal al-Din al-Sagheer, a sheik and a member of Parliament, is arranging state aid for Sunni families willing to move back to Topchi.
In the expectation of winning their votes in the maybe-in-December elections?
That first struck me as wishful thinking. But the grim calculation might be that urban Sunnis are so reduced in numbers that their only political choice will be which Shiite faction to back.
Posted by: Nell | July 28, 2008 at 06:49 PM
What is odd is the pretense that militia power and criminal activity as something unique to the Sadrists, as opposed to Hakim's organization. From all accounts, criminality is rife throughout all of the political parties. How much difference is there between Sadr criminality described here and the corruption of those in power (except that one is probably retail vs. wholesale)?
The coverage is skewed here because somehow demonizing Sadr and weakening him allegedly means "we are winning," with little thought to what is taking control as his power lessens.
Posted by: dmbeaster | July 28, 2008 at 07:14 PM
In the expectation of winning their votes in the maybe-in-December elections?
That first struck me as wishful thinking. But the grim calculation might be that urban Sunnis are so reduced in numbers that their only political choice will be which Shiite faction to back.
This is a very good point. If the Sunnis have to reach accommodation with a Shia dominated govt., Moqtada al Sadr and JAM don’t look very appealing, do they?
In trying to read the tea leaves from afar, it seems like something has come unstuck in Iraqi politics recently, to the benefit of the Maliki govt. and to detriment of Moqtada al Sadr’s position.
The problem for JAM is that they don’t seem to have any natural allies amongst the other armed factions in Iraq. If appears that both we and the Iranians have closer ties with and are able to work with Maliki more effectively, while the Sunni tribes and the Kurds would both have reason to fear JAM coming to power.
I think the key shift may have taken place behind the scenes earlier this year in the form of improved relations between the Maliki govt. and Iran. From an Iranian perspective, there was a risk for them that a unified Iraqi govt. might be too friendly with the US and too willing to respond to pressure from our side pushing them to take a hostile stance vs. Iran and supportive of an American attack on them. It looks like the window for that turns of events is closing due to a variety of factors, most notably the increasing likelihood that a drawdown in US forces will occur over the next two years and the decreasing appetite in the US for a strike against Iran (for example as signaled in this year’s controversial NIE re: Iran’s nuclear program).
As a result the Iranians no longer need JAM to remain viable as an insurance policy against a too strongly pro-US/anti-Iran Iraqi govt., and now Maliki appears to have gotten a green light from Tehran that they will do nothing to oppose him or intervene to change the outcome if he moves to eliminate JAM as an armed rival, or at least that would be one possible interpretation of the way the spring battle in Basra played out.
/wild speculation, few facts
Posted by: ThatLeftTurnInABQ | July 28, 2008 at 07:24 PM
Reality is cool. It often sucks, but it’s better to meet that head on…
Can a movement derive popular support for its provision of community services while simultaneously victimizing the same community so pervasively?
Er, Hezbollah? Hmmm – Iran again…
Second, while there is little doubt that elements of the JAM have partaken in sectarian cleansing and criminal activities, the Times article insinuates that the problem is more widespread than it is. The Sadrists have proven quite adept at delivering vital social services (through the Office of the Martyr Sadr, or "OMS") to many Iraqis for decades.
“…while there is little doubt that elements of the JAM have partaken in sectarian cleansing and criminal activities…”
Why not full stop right there?
Sadr is a thug. JAM is a mafia wanna-be.
It’s not “a social phenomenon” – it’s a gang. Sometimes things really are just black and white…
Posted by: OCSteve | July 28, 2008 at 07:44 PM
Iraqi general explains his view of the current situation.
Posted by: DaveC | July 28, 2008 at 09:40 PM
Why not full stop right there? Sadr is a thug. JAM is a mafia wanna-be.
I think there's no question that JAM is staffed with some extremely bad guys and that JAM as an institution has done some very very bad things. These are not nice people.
It’s not “a social phenomenon” – it’s a gang. Sometimes things really are just black and white…
You may wish to read War Making and State Making as Organized Crime...this is one of those times where I agree with your assessment in general (see above: Sadr is a bad dude) but I think it lacks nuance and that nuance is vital for really understanding the situation. My government takes money from me. If I refuse to pay up, my government will shoot me dead. Oh, that won't be their first choice and it won't be their intent, but sure as the sun rises in the morning, it will happen. They'll send a bunch of armed men to take me into custody and when I react in the natural way to armed men breaking into my house (i.e., by shooting them), they'll react to my self defense by shooting me dead.
But the government doesn't just steal from me: it provides services with the money it takes from me by threat of force. In particular, it provides security forces to protect me from competing criminal enterprises that want to take my money in exchange for protecting me from yet other criminal organizations. The government also runs a nifty social services network; that sort of thing helps it gain legitimacy.
But wait you cry! Our government's legitimacy is derived from free and fair elections! Well, Sadr seems pretty good at winning elections, and arguably the violence directed against him by Maliki's government and his servants in the US military is pretty clearly intended to weaken his expected electoral success. Despite our awesome elections, we don't really get to choose that much. That's why many people don't vote.
I really hate to bring this up because we've all done this dance before: conservatives say bad guy does X, liberals jump up and say well yeah, but the US government does X too, conservatives react with outrage at the liberal inability to accept simple moral claims or escape from "mommy he did it first" thinking. Mindless discourse about moral equivocation follows while no one learns anything. Despite the form, that's not what I'm trying to say. I think the US government is great. I think it is better in many ways than many peer governments. But I also think that all governments, when you get right down to it, have a lot in common with organized crime. That doesn't mean that organized crime is good or that mobsters are nice guys who are just like the kind folks that work in the Social Security Administration -- they're not. But it does mean that I think we could all do with a little less preening moral sanctimony about how awful those monsters in JAM or Hezbollah are. They may be awful (I think they are), but the awfulness comes from their actions and not the fact that they lack a "government" stamp on their forehead.
To look at this another way: what do you think the difference is between the US Army and a gang of thugs? I think the big difference is that the Army committed itself as an institution to punishing unlawful violence. The only problem here is that that's a joke: the Army only punished unlawful violence committed by low ranking enlisted men. How many high ranking officers were imprisoned over Bagram or Abu Gharib? Obviously, other differences exist, but that rule of law bit is pretty important and it seems non-existent now.
Posted by: Turbulence | July 28, 2008 at 10:30 PM
But I also think that all governments, when you get right down to it, have a lot in common with organized crime.
Have you ever known, or dealt with, someone who was, by profession, an organized criminal?
All governments do not have much in common with organized crime. Some do. Most do not.
Just trying to inject a little reality here.
Thanks -
Posted by: russell | July 28, 2008 at 11:05 PM
"Iraqi general explains his view of the current situation."
And if Iraq, however slowly, actually is or begins to or is on the way to, pulling itself eventually together into some form of political reconciliation and the development of a generally accepted, vaguely competent, minimally non-corrupt, government, nobody will be happier than I am.
However, other piece linked in that Time piece is not quite so cheery.
But if things are truly going to eventually make for a political reconciliation: great!
Presumably eventually this will happen.
Questions of what decisions were and weren't criminal, or wise, are distinct from that presumed eventuality, to be sure.
Posted by: Gary Farber | July 28, 2008 at 11:16 PM
Oh, here's what happened to this comment: it's sitting in this other tab, unposted. That explains that. Thought I posted this some time ago.
"It’s not “a social phenomenon” – it’s a gang."
What's the contradiction you're positing, and what's your evidence for it? There's simply endless evidence otherwise.
"Sometimes things really are just black and white…"
Rarely. The Mafia sometimes helps people, too.
Posted by: Gary Farber | July 28, 2008 at 11:17 PM
Have you ever known, or dealt with, someone who was, by profession, an organized criminal?
How could that possibly be relevant to anything? I've never known someone who was a President of the United States, but I feel pretty competent opining on what the job might entail and who might be better suited for it. Isn't the same true for you?
If you're trying to imply that mobsters are monsters, I already agree with you. My claim is that they're monsters because of their actions and not because we call them mobsters; the same behavior committed by a government agent makes that agent no less of a moral monster. I did not think this was a controversial claim.
All governments do not have much in common with organized crime. Some do. Most do not.
I guess it all depends on what you mean by "much". I don't think arguing over how much qualifies as much will be particularly fruitful, so let me amend my previous statement by saying that governments share significant commonalities with large and persistent criminal organizations.
This might be a question of where you stand. Dilawar's family might not see much difference between the US government and organized crime and I for one would lack the guts to tell them how wrongheaded their thinking is. Perhaps you'd be braver than I? White middle aged suburban homeowners in the US no doubt hold a very different view.
Let me phrase it in these terms: how corrupt does a city police force have to become before we can say that they are akin to organized crime? If they refuse to answer 911 calls from minority areas, is that enough? If 50% of confessions are extracted through illegal means, is that enough? If 30% of the officers take bribes or keep drugs and money, is that enough? Or would you like to argue that there is literally nothing that a city police force can do that would make it akin to organized crime?
Just trying to inject a little reality here.
I hope that reality might include the notion that good things, even necessary things, need not be completely good in all particulars. Where by things I mean governments.
Posted by: Turbulence | July 29, 2008 at 12:24 AM
Can a movement derive popular support for its provision of community services while simultaneously victimizing the same community so pervasively? Something doesn't add up.
Yes - good examples: the IRA and the PKK.
Posted by: novakant | July 29, 2008 at 05:09 AM
"Yes - good examples: the IRA and the PKK."
Almost any good communist insurgency, as well.
Posted by: Gary Farber | July 29, 2008 at 06:20 AM
How could that possibly be relevant to anything?
Because it would be an indication to me that you are talking about something you know something about.
I'll make this very simple. Corrupt governments are corrupt versions of a constructive, useful institution.
Not so organized criminals. They are not corrupt at all. It is their nature to be predatory and violent.
Bad governments kill, exploit, and abuse the folks who live under them. Organized criminals who do the same are, by contrast, perfectly embodying their reason for being.
What I object to is the "necessary evil" meme that gets attached to government. IMO it's false, and toxic.
There is nothing evil per se in government. There are good governments, and bad ones, but their is nothing inherently bad in the institution itself.
Thanks -
Posted by: russell | July 29, 2008 at 08:10 AM
Because it would be an indication to me that you are talking about something you know something about.
OK. I do not personally know any mobsters. Is it your contention that I'm too ignorant to write anything about the mob, such as "the mob does extremely bad things"? Also, you still haven't addressed my earlier question as to whether you think people should only speak about things that they have first hand experience with so that, for example, no one should speak about counterinsurgency unless they themselves participated in a counterinsurgency operation.
Really russell, this sort of childish name calling should be beneath you.
I'll make this very simple. Corrupt governments are corrupt versions of a constructive, useful institution.
Hezbollah looks pretty damn useful and constructive to me. But they're not a government, right?
Not so organized criminals. They are not corrupt at all. It is their nature to be predatory and violent.
Our government brought about the deaths of a million people for no apparent reason.
Bad governments kill, exploit, and abuse the folks who live under them. Organized criminals who do the same are, by contrast, perfectly embodying their reason for being.
All governments kill, exploit, and abuse people. I note that your construction implies that governments' ill effects are limited to the people being governed when in fact, the governmental abuse is often exported. I prefer not to systematically erase our Iraqi victims from history if you don't mind.
I don't really care what an organization's "reason for being" is; I care about its actions. "Reasons for being" are pretty lies people tell themselves to justify their actions. Can you explain to me how the US government's "reasons for being" makes the million dead Iraqis any less dead or makes their deaths any more legitimate?
What I object to is the "necessary evil" meme that gets attached to government. IMO it's false, and toxic.
There is nothing evil per se in government. There are good governments, and bad ones, but their is nothing inherently bad in the institution itself.
I'm not aware of any governments that haven't abused their power in significant ways at some point in their history. Most abuses of power are never written up because the victims have no recourse. Is the notion that power corrupts really so strange to you?
Posted by: Turbulence | July 29, 2008 at 09:39 AM
Certain sect restrictions apply to that statement. If I was Sunni, I probably wouldn't be lining up at the gas station run by OMS.
Absolutely LT. Very true.
Er, Hezbollah?
You think that Hez victimizes the Lebanese Shiites and, what, they're just too stupid to realize that they'd be better off without? Maybe Israel would take care of them? The PLO? Or Lebanon's other confessional powers?
Why not full stop right there?
Sadr is a thug. JAM is a mafia wanna-be.
It’s not “a social phenomenon” – it’s a gang. Sometimes things really are just black and white…
The reason I don't stop there is because that would be stopping short of developing an informed opinion. The Sadrist movement has been around for decades. Its religious foundations have been around for centuries. The Sadrist network has been tending to the needs of Iraqi Shiite communities for decades - since before Moqtada was even born.
You think Moqtada invented this? Quite the contrary, he is only where he is because his father and two older (and more qualified) brothers were murdered by Saddam - leaving only Moqtada to continue the movement.
You are conflating the JAM with the OMS the same way Joe Klein is. That would be a massive error in perception, however, which would lead to underestimation of the Sadrist and poor policy choices.
Better to know the facts going in and make policy based on those facts. Seems simple enough, but after two Bush terms, these are lessons that we may need to re-learn.
Posted by: Eric Martin | July 29, 2008 at 10:03 AM
Sorry, it doesn't work that way. You can debate whether the Sadrists were a good government for Sadr City or not, but you don't get to deny that they were the government.
I generally agree with this, but it makes me think of something else: Amarah.
The Sadrist have been in control of the Amarah government for some time, and it had become the leading example of good governance in Iraq.
There was little to no militia violence, and development was proceeding relatively well. That is, until the Maliki government swooped in on one of its military operations.
Food for thought.
What is odd is the pretense that militia power and criminal activity as something unique to the Sadrists, as opposed to Hakim's organization
Exactly.
Posted by: Eric Martin | July 29, 2008 at 10:11 AM
Turb,
You have the advantage in this because you are taking the cynic's position. While it is relatively easy to link government to a criminal enterprise, Russell's point that one can imagine a government operating in some way in a totally beneficial way, it is difficult to imagine a criminal enterprise doing so in a way that is an unalloyed good.
To put it another way, one can imagine (albeit with difficulty) a world without criminal enterprises, but it is a little more difficult to imagine a world without a governing entity that adjudicates and enforces laws, even if you take syndico-anarchism to its final conclusion.
Rhetorically, this is a safe castle to place your arguments in, but it means that it is difficult to argue for any kind of collective action that spans any significant amount of time. With sincere respect, are you arguing this because it allows you to take a rhetorically irrefutable position, or because you actually believe it? And if you believe it, what is the logical outcome of believing that a criminal enterprise and a government are the same phenomenon only separated by degrees of difference rather than by some brighter dividing line?
Posted by: liberal japonicus | July 29, 2008 at 10:12 AM
sorry, syndico-anarchism should probably be Anarcho-syndicalism
Posted by: liberal japonicus | July 29, 2008 at 10:14 AM
Russell and Turbulence--
I'm kinda doubtful there's any matter of fact at issue in the dispute between you two. I'm assuming Russell agrees that the US government has done numerous criminally awful things to people overseas and sometimes to people here at home. Right now we've got war criminals in charge who will probably never face criminal prosecution, if Cass Sunstein has his way.
Russell is concerned, I think, that Turbulence's rhetoric is a slippery slope that leads to the common libertarian/Randian argument that government and taxation equals organized crime and theft. But I doubt that Turbulence thinks, for example, that Social Security is morally tainted because the government forces people to pay taxes to fund it.
Posted by: Donald Johnson | July 29, 2008 at 10:19 AM
Russell's point that one can imagine a government operating in some way in a totally beneficial way, it is difficult to imagine a criminal enterprise doing so in a way that is an unalloyed good.
Oh, I can imagine any damn thing I please, but I'm smart enough to realize that my imagination doesn't really matter? Can I imagine a perfectly good government? Sure. Can I imagine a perfectly good government that is exists in a world in which unicorns are absent? No. I really don't understand why we're talking about unalloyed good: there are no large organizations of any kind that have ever been an unalloyed good; discussions about what sort of organizations might be an unalloyed good make about as much sense as discussions as to what color unicorns are best.
To put it another way, one can imagine (albeit with difficulty) a world without criminal enterprises, but it is a little more difficult to imagine a world without a governing entity that adjudicates and enforces laws, even if you take syndico-anarchism to its final conclusion.
Um, I actually cannot imagine a world without criminal enterprises. But I am familiar with "governments" in the real world that spent very little time worrying about law and almost all their time acting like organized crime.
Rhetorically, this is a safe castle to place your arguments in, but it means that it is difficult to argue for any kind of collective action that spans any significant amount of time.
I think you're reading too much into my comments. I don't think the commonalities between governments and organized crime mean that we should abolish government; I like my government most days. All I asked for was less preening moral sanctimony when it was unwarranted.
With sincere respect, are you arguing this because it allows you to take a rhetorically irrefutable position, or because you actually believe it? And if you believe it, what is the logical outcome of believing that a criminal enterprise and a government are the same phenomenon only separated by degrees of difference rather than by some brighter dividing line?
I pretty much believe it. If I lived in Hezbollah's or JAM's territory, I'd probably do what I do now: pay my taxes and act like a good citizen. Part of that would be due to my hatred of getting shot while part of it would stem from my belief that these organizations are mixed entities that have done a great deal of good and in any event perform a necessary role. From my perspective, it doesn't matter whether the effective power in your town is a government or a criminal entity: what matters is whether or not they're threatening you and how good their behavior is. I might not rat out JAM officials to the central Iraqi government even though I might be willing to rat out crooked Baltimore cops to the FBI. Does that make sense?
Posted by: Turbulence | July 29, 2008 at 10:32 AM
But I doubt that Turbulence thinks, for example, that Social Security is morally tainted because the government forces people to pay taxes to fund it.
Donald, you are correct.
Posted by: Turbulence | July 29, 2008 at 10:34 AM
Is it your contention that I'm too ignorant to write anything about the mob, such as "the mob does extremely bad things"?
Not at all. Just trying to figure out where you're coming from.
Also, you still haven't addressed my earlier question as to whether you think people should only speak about things that they have first hand experience with
Everybody is free to speak out about anything they like. And no, it's not necessary to have first-hand experience of something in order to have intelligent or insightful things to say about it.
I was just trying to figure out where you were coming from.
And I'm definitely not calling you any names.
Look Turb, you will get no argument from me about the fact that power corrupts, that governments frequently engage in predatory violence against both their own and other people, or that our current government in particular has started an illegitimate war and killed a lot of people. Regarding the last, I'd like to see the principals made to answer for it.
I object to the "government is a necessary evil" concept. Government is a natural and legitimate human institution. It's the way that humans in groups larger than, say, 50 organize their common, public life.
Saying that government is a necessary evil is like saying that families are a necessary evil. I guess you could look at it that way, but it would an extraordinarily negative and pessimistic view of fundamental human nature and culture.
Crime is inherently destructive, bad, and wrong. Governments, like families, are not. Most are corrupt to some degree, like most families are at least somewhat dysfunctional, and some (in both cases) are spectacular disasters. But the underlying institution is legitimate and worthwhile.
That's all I'm saying. At this particular juncture in our nation's common life, I think it's something worth emphasizing.
My apologies if my question about your exposure to organized crime was offensive.
Thanks -
Posted by: russell | July 29, 2008 at 10:37 AM
Is it your contention that I'm too ignorant to write anything about the mob
Sorry, just a brief final comment to clarify where I was coming from with my question to you about whether you had any experience with organized crime or not.
Basically, my thought there was, "If you had some experience with that, you wouldn't say that".
Which may or may not be true. In any case, it is certainly not necessary for you, or anyone, to have personal experience of something in order to have useful things to say about it.
Again, my apologies if the question was offensive, no offense was intended.
Thanks -
Posted by: russell | July 29, 2008 at 10:56 AM
Russell is concerned, I think, that Turbulence's rhetoric is a slippery slope that leads to the common libertarian/Randian argument that government and taxation equals organized crime and theft.
Donald, you are correct.
Thanks -
Posted by: russell | July 29, 2008 at 11:04 AM
Regarding the last, I'd like to see the principals made to answer for it.
But they won't. So your desires seem beside the point. We're not going to see real justice here. Maybe governments are like criminal organizations that have grown large enough to avoid punishment for their bad acts ;-)
I object to the "government is a necessary evil" concept. Government is a natural and legitimate human institution. It's the way that humans in groups larger than, say, 50 organize their common, public life.
Eh, I don't know what it means to say that government is natural. I mean, the strong take from the weak is natural and so is Tuberculosis and so is beating your wife. I also don't know what it means to say that government is legitimate. Legitimate according to who? Talking about practical legitimacy (as a proxy for popular feeling) seems like a useful thing but legitimacy in the abstract seems unhelpful to the discussion. If I say that structuring social institutions according to the dictates of my church is just natural and legitimate, would you agree?
Saying that government is a necessary evil is like saying that families are a necessary evil. I guess you could look at it that way, but it would an extraordinarily negative and pessimistic view of fundamental human nature and culture.
It depends. There have been times and places in which "family" amounted to virtual slavery whereby the enslaved got some protection from want and non-family violence in exchange for their slavery and the dim prospects of a better station in the distant future. That sounds like a necessary evil to me. I don't think we should assume that family relations have always and everywhere resembled your particular family history.
Crime is inherently destructive, bad, and wrong.
Doesn't that depend on what you mean by "crime"? I don't think that selling a little dope to a cancer patient suffering mind-shattering pain is really inherently destructive, bad, or wrong. I'd bet that most agree with me. I'm pretty sure that certain corporate practices, while not actually "crime" do qualify as inherently destructive, bad, and wrong. So again, what do you mean by crime: does crime mean all the things that russell finds morally objectionable or does it mean all the things that state declares illegal?
Also, if we're talking about things that are inherently destructive, bad, and wrong, the Iraq War simply has to top the list. So, does that mean the US government is a criminal organization? Of course not! Bringing about the deaths of a million Iraqis is not actually a violation of US law, or at least not one which will ever be prosecuted.
Again, my whole point is that we should focus on what organizations do, both good and bad rather than deciding that good or bad acts don't count because an organization is or is not a government. Governments have the privilege of saying "bad stuff that we don't like is a crime, as long as the people doing it are not us" and that's great, but it is hardly the whole story.
Governments, like families, are not. Most are corrupt to some degree, like most families are at least somewhat dysfunctional, and some (in both cases) are spectacular disasters. But the underlying institution is legitimate and worthwhile.
It often is. Having no government whatsoever is very very bad.
That's all I'm saying. At this particular juncture in our nation's common life, I think it's something worth emphasizing.
I suppose. Frankly, I think the slippery slope you're worried about is a little ridiculous because I think it is very obvious that "no government at all" is an extraordinarily awful idea. That's why I think the Randians are never going to be successful; no one wants to live in Somalia.
My apologies if my question about your exposure to organized crime was offensive.
No worries.
Posted by: Turbulence | July 29, 2008 at 12:47 PM
Legitimate according to who?
Legitimate according to me.
I'm not a philosopher. I look around at what people do and try to make sense of it. Here's what I see.
Humans create governments to manage their common life. Nobody makes them do it, they just do it, like they live in family groups, grow food to eat, and make music.
It's just something people do. It's an expression of human nature. It doesn't need me to justify it.
Criminal behavior, likewise, is something people have always done. The difference between criminal behavior and government is that criminal behavior is intended to be predatory and abusive, while government is not. It's a significant difference.
That's my best answer. I got nothing better. If that doesn't do it for you, we'll have to agree to disagree.
Thanks -
Posted by: russell | July 29, 2008 at 01:15 PM
At risk of being a tad less abstract then the conversation has become: the great success in Iraq.
Posted by: Gary Farber | July 29, 2008 at 02:33 PM
So your desires seem beside the point
Ain't that the truth! :)
Thanks -
Posted by: russell | July 29, 2008 at 03:14 PM
Dearest Mookie, Dearest Sadr,
Here I am at Camp Muqtada
Iran is very entertaining
And they say we'll have some fun when we start training.
You remember General Petraeus?
He took Baghdad and didn't pay us.
All the Shi-ites hate the Sunnis
and the Kurds are from the boonies
Wait a minute
They've stopped shooting
No more killing
No more looting
People voting, gee that's better
Mookie, Sadr, kindly disregard this letter.
Posted by: Mr. Forward | July 29, 2008 at 03:51 PM
Nice that someone else remembers Allan Sherman.
Posted by: Gary Farber | July 29, 2008 at 04:06 PM
I don't see the definitional difference well enough to understand what you are saying.
From where I sit, the history of governments involves a lot of intended predatory and abusive behavior. I would go so far as to guess that a very large majority of the history of government behavior is predatory and abusive. The USSR for instance was clearly a strong government model and was also clearly predatory and abusive.
Which isn't to say that governments are always bad, just that I don't understand how you can formulate the difference between criminal behavior and government behavior as the difference between predatory and not predatory or abusive and not abusive. If those are the main areas of inquiry, the difference between 'government' and 'criminal' is just who writes the laws.
(Please understand, I'm not actually saying that the only difference is that governments get to write laws. I'm saying that governments are regularly predatory and abusive, so you can't use a measurement on those dimensions to distinguish between government and non-government.)
Posted by: Sebastian | July 29, 2008 at 05:10 PM
I don't see the definitional difference well enough to understand what you are saying.
There are certain things that humans typically do in the process of being here. They raise crops and animals for food, they build shelters to live in, they make useful things, they trade goods with each other.
They also create institutions to manage their common, public life. Simple communities create simple ones, more complex communities create more complex ones. But they create them.
These institutions, at least some of them, are what we call government.
People are often bad, both individually and en masse. By "bad" I mean they deliberately intend, and do, harm to each other and to other beings.
The forms or artifacts through which they do these bad things are normally not inherently bad. The actions are bad.
If I defraud you in the course of trading with you, trading goods is not evil. I'm a bad actor.
If I abuse a member of my family, families are not evil. I'm a bad actor.
If I use the power granted to government to harm or abuse you, government is not evil. I'm a bad actor.
Organized criminal behavior -- things like mafias -- aren't quite like this. They are predicated, at their core, on doing harm. Doing harm is what they do. It's why they exist.
That isn't true of governments.
And yes, I know Marlon Brando was a nice old paterfamilias in The Godfather, but that was a movie.
This is about the best I can do. If it's still unclear, maybe it's time to move on.
Thanks -
Posted by: russell | July 29, 2008 at 06:17 PM
Can a movement derive popular support for its provision of community services while simultaneously victimizing the same community so pervasively? Something doesn't add up.
Yes - good examples: the IRA and the PKK.
Add - many big city political machines.
Posted by: Bernard Yomtov | July 29, 2008 at 06:29 PM
Organized criminal behavior -- things like mafias -- aren't quite like this. They are predicated, at their core, on doing harm. Doing harm is what they do. It's why they exist.
I think this is where I part ways. Some groups are like that. But consider an Iraqi militia. There are death squads roaming about killing your people trying to intimidate you all into leaving. So you organize a posse to establish some measure of collective security. Fighters can't work for free and you need to cover the cost of weapons, ammo, and death benefits, so you have to shake down the locals, especially the still functioning local businesses. Some of them may even be happy to pay up! Payments to people they trust beat getting killed by death squads any day.
But some people getting shaken down aren't going to like it one bit: they'll think that you are working with the death squads or that you're killing people and blaming it on the death squads or that you're not really protecting anyone but you're still pocketing the cash or whatnot. From their perspective, you're organized crime. If you decide to diversify your funding sources by trafficking in drugs or weapons or other contraband, that impression is bolstered.
So, is your outfit organized crime? I think so. Is it predicated, at its core, on doing harm? Maybe. It certainly does harm in some ways but it also does some good things. Which one dominates depends on the details. But focusing obsessively on what the organization is predicated upon seems like a losing proposition to me: we know less than we think we do about these organizations and in any event, organizations often change substantially over time. Actions matter and are far easier to measure and assess than your opinion about what an organization is predicated upon.
Posted by: Turbulence | July 29, 2008 at 06:34 PM
But focusing obsessively on what the organization is predicated upon seems like a losing proposition to me: we know less than we think we do about these organizations and in any event, organizations often change substantially over time. Actions matter and are far easier to measure and assess than your opinion about what an organization is predicated upon.
Possibly related is this news item
Federal investigators for the United States determined several accounts that existed at the Bank of New York were used illegally to transfer funds in and out of Russia in violation of currency controls, causing the Russian Federation billions in damages. Under the RICO statutes, plaintiffs are entitled to treble damages. This is the largest civil suit ever brought by a foreign government against a U.S. corporation.
"The Customs Service and Russia as a whole were devastated at the time by the economic conditions created in large measure by capital flight which the Bank of New York illegally aided and abetted," said Steven C. Marks, plaintiff's U.S. attorney with Podhurst Orseck, P.A. "Under the circumstances, we are confident, after its thorough review of all the evidence, the Court will agree this is indeed a proper and appropriate application of the RICO statute."
Quoting this sounds like I am shifting to Turb's point of view, but I do think that there is a common sense point lurking under Russell's comment, and failing to acknowledge it does sound like Randian whinging. YMMV.
Posted by: liberal japonicus | July 29, 2008 at 07:00 PM
But consider an Iraqi militia.
I think I understand the point you're trying to make. The only point I'm trying to make is that reasoning from the anarchic conditions on the ground in Iraq to this:
But I also think that all governments, when you get right down to it, have a lot in common with organized crime
is kind of a big leap.
Iraqi militias may have quite a bit in common with organized crime. They may also be the closest thing to a "government" that is available to certain populations in Iraq.
All of that sucks, and all of it is not what we normally are talking about when we talk about "government".
I'm not trying to finesse your point with crafty words. I'm trying to ground the discussion of government in something like a more normal, workaday understanding of what government is.
I also don't mean to detract from your broader point. It may be that I've just developed a kind of startle reaction to "government = crime" after listening to criminals in government tell us that it's actually government that's the problem for lo these last 7, or 25, or 35 years.
In our particular context I don't think government is the problem. I think criminality is the problem. And, I think it's important for us, here, and now, to not forget that.
I think I've made my point, and I also think this (by which I mean my insisting on making and re-making the same point) is beginning to distract from the original sense of the thread, so I'll stop now.
Thanks -
Posted by: russell | July 29, 2008 at 07:21 PM
My government takes money from me. If I refuse to pay up, my government will shoot me dead. Oh, that won't be their first choice and it won't be their intent, but sure as the sun rises in the morning, it will happen. They'll send a bunch of armed men to take me into custody and when I react in the natural way to armed men breaking into my house (i.e., by shooting them), they'll react to my self defense by shooting me dead.
From ensuing discussion, it seems clear you mean this as hyperbole, but I've heard so often from libertarians, it really rankles.
If you don't pay the government, they will garnish your wages. If you're self-employed, they'll probably find other ways of extracting the money from you. Your taxes are NOT taken with a GUN TO THE FACE, no matter how often silly libertarians (are there any other kind) like to use this canard.
The police are more likely to enter your house without permission if your poor and/or a minority, not because you're behind on your taxes.
Sheesh.
And now, back to the gov't vs Mob discussion...
Posted by: Jeff | July 29, 2008 at 08:01 PM
I think you're missing, or at least not making, a basic point, Turbulence, one which Russell's comments contain within it, but not overtly stated: governments are merely the embodiment of the decisions of certain people. They're as good or bad as the decisions of those people, and the acts of those people.
What makes a government good or bad is an elementary thing we used to teach in civics class, a cliche: a genuinely representative democracy genuinely represents the wishes of its people, and when the rights of minorities and other civil liberties are guaranteed against the transitory whims and fads of the mob, we wind up with something we can reasonably call a "good" government: one that is reasonably representative, fair, and just.
Other kinds of governments are only "good" insofar as they follow the whims of "good" rulers, who will come and go arbitrarily, absent constitutonal democracy or some other stablizing mechanism that guarantees rights, keeps the rulers' powers from being arbitrary and unjust; they can't be relied on.
Thus why we have this whole theory about democratic republics being a Better Thing than, say, oligarchies, dictatorships, lands led by revolutionary committees, and so on.
Sometimes some on the left lose sight of this forest, though overly focusing on trees. Once conservatives were said to value these sorts of practical ideals, embodied in the Federalist Papers, and the ideals and thinking of the American Revolution, and the enlightnment, and earlier in British democracy, and to some degree going back to Greek democracy.
They're still good ideas, even if they're cliches almost everyone seems to forget about sometimes.
Call me a cock-eyed optimist, but I believe in them.
And thus I believe in a way to distinguish "good" government from "bad" government by more than the results.
It's a sad and shrunken form of conservatism that doesn't remember to conserve these ideas.
Theory matters along practice. It gives us a framework to analyze things by.
Even, dare I say, an ideology.
Posted by: Gary Hussein Farber | July 29, 2008 at 10:54 PM
It's a sad and shrunken form of conservatism that doesn't remember to conserve these ideas.
classic conservatism contracted a virulent stain of post-modern flu (an intellectual form of dysentery, actually) and died of complications. RIP, and while it had its faults, nonetheless I mourn its passing.
now, matters are worse.
Posted by: ThatLeftTurnInABQ | July 29, 2008 at 11:58 PM
What makes a government good or bad is an elementary thing we used to teach in civics class, a cliche: a genuinely representative democracy genuinely represents the wishes of its people, and when the rights of minorities and other civil liberties are guaranteed against the transitory whims and fads of the mob, we wind up with something we can reasonably call a "good" government: one that is reasonably representative, fair, and just.
So, if we held a referendum on whether to exterminate the people in a neighboring country so that we could seize their land and the majority of the citizenry agreed, that would constitute a "good" government? I'm not used to thinking of genocide as "good".
I never found civics class very useful in part because it focused on meaningless generalities that weren't very practical. How representative is representative enough? How strong need the guarantees of minority protection be in practice? How fair and just must a society be to qualify as good? Does imprisoning 1 out of 3 black men count as just? What about differential sentences between crack and cocaine? The standard as you described it is completely subjective which is...pretty worthless.
This inability or unwillingness to engage with the real world is what I hated about civics class. Do you really want to claim that representative democracies are inherently good because they more reliably produce positive outcomes? Why should we believe that is always and everywhere true? If I present evidence suggesting that in the modern age, democracy reduces stability of developing nations, can that change your assessment in any way? Or are we irrevocably committed to claiming that representative democracies are always and everywhere ideal, no matter how badly they're implemented?
Posted by: Turbulence | July 30, 2008 at 02:07 AM
Gary, on rereading, my last comment was way too forceful. I'm not arguing that representative democracies are inherently unstable. The points I'm trying to make are:
1. representative democracy in and of itself is worthless; what matters is how effective it is
2. that effectiveness hinges on details that bore most people; consequently, most of the talk I hear about representative democracy is self-congratulatory wankery spluttered by people who lack the interest or skills in understanding how to make representative democracies work in practice
3. the fact that we don't have a good explanation for what happens as representative democracy decreases bothers me greatly; America is a very wealthy country and if you made our governing institutions less representative, do you really think our society would disintegrate? Life in Singapore seems pretty good even though it is a democracy in name only.
We have a pretty shockingly undemocratic system of government relatively speaking: congressional reps represent far more people than equivalent representatives do in other countries, the Senate is grossly anti-majoritarian, the electoral college is a joke, our fixation with first past the post voting is lunacy, etc. Our commitment to minority rights has, shall we say, not been reaffirmed over the last few years. And yet we survive. Maybe representative democracy is primarily beneficial as a placebo.
Let me put it to you this way: if you want to argue that representative democracies bring about better social outcomes in a more reliable manner, I'd like to see that explained in a serious manner with scoring for what constitutes representative and comparisons of a model against real world data. Give me that and hold the mindless platitudes from civics class. I had enough sanctimony for the day.
Posted by: Turbulence | July 30, 2008 at 02:28 AM
"Gary, on rereading, my last comment was way too forceful."
I'm glad you so successfully moderated it with this comment, then.
"So, if we held a referendum on whether to exterminate the people in a neighboring country so that we could seize their land and the majority of the citizenry agreed, that would constitute a 'good' government?"
It might be a "good" government, and a bad outcome; those are two different categories; it might also be suggested that we weren't discussing externalities; it might yet also be suggested that along with guaranteeing certain civil rights and liberties which restrict full democracy by placing a higher value on certain individual and minority rights, that a system which similarly guarantees certain human rights considerations in foreign policy would also be an improvement on democracy-up-to-now. Everything is considerably more perfectible, let alone contemporary America; I'm reasonably sure I didn't announce that We Were Wonderful, or that Our Democracy Is Teh Greatest!!!, or anything of the kind.
As it happens, I also don't recall making the argument that representative republican democracy with various guaranteed rights cures warts, is non-fattening, or otherwise leads to perfection; I simply suggested that it tends to be better than dictatorships and oligarchies. If you'd like to argue against that assertion, feel free; if you'd like to argue that said form of government doesn't bring perfection or ponies for all, you'll have to find someone else to argue with.
As for further specifics, while I'm not planning on writing a book in the margins of this comment box, there are quite a few who have, and we have a whole series of case laws and SCOTUS decisions and law journals and the like that do engage in such finer detailed debate, as you desire; you might or might not find them of interest.
As the rest of your statements tend also towards generalities, I'll do you the favor of not attempting to make further general or abstract arguments in return.
But I don't find the argument that we need a detailed scoring system to determine that democracy is, overall, generally a better system for more people than dictatorship to be utterly compelling, myself. YMMV. And neither do I object to anyone presenting a scoring system, any more than I feel a desperate need to find one tonight.
"I had enough sanctimony for the day."
Tends to be catching, doesn't it?
Posted by: Gary Farber | July 30, 2008 at 03:35 AM