Proxy Wars were once used to describe the ability of a
Global Superpower to utilize a smaller state into completing their bidding.
This was usually associated with a goal of a regime shift, and would seek out a
transfer of power. However, with the post Cold War era came the birth of
non-state actors that required scholars to reexamine the standard definition of
Proxy Wars. In the past these wars were usually associated with the use of a
third party actor, and it normally took into consideration the intent of ruling.
Due to the large disparity in the standard of intent among non-state actors we
must question whether agendas should belong in the modern definition of Proxy
Wars.
Although there have been numerous occasions in which states
have worked with non-state actors during conflicts, there are a few instances
that I would like to focus in on and the four are: Syria and Hezbollah, Iran
and the Mahdi Army, the United States and the United Islamic Front, and lastly
NATO and the right to intervene. When looking at all of these situations there
exists a common thread, and that thread wraps itself around ideological
incompatibility among reasons of long and short term goals set by the States
who choose to use non-state groups.
1. Hezbollah: This case unlike the other three will be
used to demonstrate a case of ideological incompatibility. At the same time
this is an example of a state trying to use a non-state proxy (NSP) to achieve long-term
goals. The risk lies in the influence this new strong actor brings to the subsequent
neighboring government theaters, both in relation to unpredictability but also
in relation to the possible power shifts. Iran’s relationship with the
Hezbollah is both strategic and ideological. Similar to the Hezbollah, Iran is
also Shiite. As part of the pan-Muslim movement, Iran was pressing to spread
its ideological influence to the Shiite Muslims in southern Lebanon, and while
building up Hezbollah, it motivated the desire to put force on northern Israel.
Therefore, the Iranian Revolutionary Guard helped teach the Hezbollah how to
organize itself into an army, providing intelligence, explosives, engineering
knowledge, and communications. Although the Hezbollah in the past have been
rather coy with their response toward an attack on their sponsors, they now
however declare that they will find it difficult to stand aside if Israel or
the United States bombs Iran’s nuclear facilities. It has become an apparent
that the Hezbollah now act in accordance to Iran’s ideology and continues to fight
for a regime shift.
Some more readings:
2. Iran and The Mahdi Army: To supporters of the
Mahdi Army, it was believed that they acted as the military muscle of Iraq’s
Urban Shia Muslims, fighting to protect Shia parts of the country. It was
created in the summer of 2003, and was prompted by radical Iraqi cleric Moqtada
Sadr, who spoke in his sermons the need of a new prevention force. Quickly
after young men were being recruited near mosques to ‘defend’ the Shia Muslim
faith and their country. The force of the Mehdi Army was first felt in the
later year when rocket propelled grenades, heavy machine guns, and other
weapons, which had been uncommon to the normal Iraqi encounter. It later
surfaced that the United States accused Iran, a Shia spiritual ally, of
training, financing, and supplying the Mahdi Army forces. Here is another
example of ideological compatibility. Here the state uses the NSP to achieve short-term
goals of eliminating a foreign presence in support of ideology, and like the
Syrian case the NSPs are employed to deal with external actors
Cases
in which States are in search of world order:
3.
US and The United Islamic Front (a.k.a. The Northern Alliance): This is a case
where the non-state proxy is used to obtain a short-term goal, the ousting of
the Taliban. The United Islamic Front was a military front that came into
existence shortly after the Taliban took over Kabul. Although the front began
as a very small entity, it quickly grew as Iran, Russia, India, and other
nations began to poor resources into its cause. The United Islamic Front
however saw most of its prowess after the bombings of September eleventh. With
air support from the United States led forces, the front succeeded in retaking
Kabul back from the Taliban. When Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld was asked
for a comment on ‘forces against the Taliban he stated that the United States
would be helping the Northern Alliance and other Taliban opposition groups. The
US forces have focused in assisting with targeting, logistics, medical
assistance and communications. The following period shows inadequacies in using
the non-state proxies and a need to put 'boots on the ground' which could be
related to a shift in political goals. Here again the issue of empowerment is
raised. This is also a case in which supplies and support from a foreign power
are fed into a non-state group in relation to quelling an internal threat that
highly mirrors ideological interests.
http://www.defense.gov/News/NewsArticle.aspx?ID=44481
4. US/NATO: Unlike the other cases, this one is
rather broad and is not in reflection of a specific event, but rather it
surrounds the idea of global intervention. While this case is rather different
it does share similarities to the other cases involving world order supporter
states. Like the other non-state
proxies, NATO and intervening forces are usually brought into failed states or
rather into conflicts in which they are meant to impose law. Although it can be
assumed that these foreign actors can be considered a third party, but we must
realize that when dealing with intervention there is still always a goal or
ideal that is to be achieved. This goal will subsequently usually overlap with
a current actor, and a quasi alliance forms. For explanation purposes, assume
that State A falls into civil war and becomes Side A and Side B. Due to the
extent of this civil war NATO decides to send peacekeepers, and these actors
begin to work to bring Side A back into unison, you see that these peacekeepers
have essentially become a proxy non-state actor. It is here that we see that there exists
first an ideological compatibility, before support and action become an
influence. This is again an example of using NSP in regards to internal
enemies.
As
seen in the four cases above, the purpose and agendas of non-state actors are
highly erratic, and usually become players for larger states. This poses an
interesting argument because although states, such as Iran, may pour money or
resources into an organization, seeing as they are self-ruled a state can have
their ideals imposed elsewhere without being strongly rebuked in the wake of
conflicts. Non-state actors have become a growing force and global attention
should be brought towards the role that they currently play and will continue
to play. In the past, during the Cold War era, the United States and the Soviet
Union would implement smaller states, which one would believe they needed to
believe they were acting alongside the ‘winner’. However, as we see today, in
the presented examples and in current affairs that it has become much easier
and much more readily available to interact with a non-state group when
imposing ideals.
