After reading David Newman’s Creating the Fences of Territorial Separtation: The Discourses of Israeli-Palestinian Conflict Resolution for another class, I felt the topic of conflict resolution through shared space would be a pertinent issue to discuss for this class.  Newman details how much of the conflict between Israel and Palestine has been resolved by creating a system of new “walls” that serve to separate groups in an attempt to keeping violence down between the groups.  Building off of this framework, I believe that a gradual integration of these conflicting groups, and others like them may be more beneficial than complete separation.  The area around Israel and Palestine full of historic religious sites important to both Islam and Judaism, and as such they provide a venue from which group differences can be resolved.

Symbolic territories provide people with a sense of identity that they share with members of their cultural groups. Having a space that you share with members of your own group helps to strengthen the bonds within the group, and I think that if you bring these bonds to include those members of society that you are unfamiliar with, it removes some of the “unknown” aspect, and fosters less animosity. The cultural space helps to provide different groups with a common ground upon which they can begin to associate with one another, and ultimately leads to a breakdown of the knowledge barriers that created the fear and antagonism in the first place.

By going to a shared site, once antagonistic groups will see the other in a space that runs contrary to the images that led to their opposition. Rather than seeing the other as a group that is “against” their ideals, and which poses a threat to the preferred livelihood, shared sites place people in an ordinary situation where these visions are challenged. Seeing another group engage in similar practices as one’s own helps to show that the “other” is not that different, and should not be feared. I feel that shared sites are a good thing, as they normalize activities between once antagonistic groups, and establish a knowledge of the other that eliminates the sense of difference that had caused volatility in the first place.

Following the viewing of both The Shadow Company and listening to the guest speaker Alan Bell, I was intrigued by the ethical and moral dilemmas created by presence of a seemingly extraterritorial business entity showing up within one state to enforce the rules of another.  While security companies possess the material means to enforce their policies wherever they go, the question arises as to whether or not they should be allowed to.  Because they are only responsible for the “nouns” that they protect, and nothing more, they possess rights that extend themselves beyond the right of even a citizen, and I believe that there should be some sort of international board that keeps them in line and prevents them from overextending themselves if they wish to be seen as more than just “mercenaries” or “hired guns”.

One of the more curious events in the film was the scene where the security company was travelling at high speeds over the highway and in the wrong lane, pointing guns at those who got too close and even mentioning how they would open fire if people failed to respond to their signals.  I can understand the need to be aware of and fearing of all possible threats, but it becomes a little bit ridiculous when citizens are shot at by a group of people whom they owe no allegiance or obedience to.  These companies are neither the state that the citizen lives in, nor are they the military holding up the state, so for what reason other than the fact that these companies have guns, should the citizen follow a company’s orders.  It is completely possible that innocent citizens are being murdered without reason by groups that are not held responsible for their deaths.

Since the states in which these companies operate are typically failed or quasi-states, there is no natural government to pursue criminal charges against these companies, and the military in charge of the state often hire them on the company’s own conditions, they are given free reign with regards to how they choose to conduct themselves.  I believe that there needs to be some sort of supranational body, similar to the world court, that holds private security companies accountable for their actions.  In this way, groups that are willing to be held to the set standards of a typical military force can be considered as abiding by international law, whereas groups not willing to follow these standards will be recognized as threatening groups which other states can put down.  Private companies that operate as if they are above the law are essentially rebel militants that one state has sanctioned as legal in spite of it’s actual actions.

Private security companies operate in a sphere all there own, and without any real regulation, there is nothing to divide a security company from a paramilitary force, nor is their anything to distinguish their employers from that of a self-imposed dictator.

Following Aden’s discussion of terrorism on Thursday, I began to think about the different types of terrorist groups, currently at war with the Western world, (read United States), and how despite the various typologies and ideologies, they all seem to have a similar goal in removing Western (American) influence from the Middle East so that a new order can be established.   Even though these groups are often at odds with not only the military, but other terrorist groups, their hatred of western ideals and influence has united them in away that may make them difficult to officially “defeat”.  This blog post will seek to explore the problems that Western powers may face in attempting to settle the conflict in the Middle East, as I believe that the ideological base for many of these terrorist groups have already been established, and will continue on regardless of the actual groups that are participating in the violence.

Following September 11th, the world began its journey into the War on Terror, a war with seemingly no real definition.  Terror in itself is an abstract, no singular enemy embodies the role of “terror”, and as such, it makes little sense that the war can ever really end without a definitive definition.  The United States moved into Afghanistan to take on Al-Qaeda, intending to destroy the forces that were responsible for the devastation of 9/11, but as the war evolved, they began to include more groups as enemies, and the war became an extreme entanglement of military forces against multiple ideological systems.  As much as they may want to completely rid the world of terrorist threat, the very fact that they entered into the area and began to express their power and ideals only serves to rile up more enemies against them.  “Terrorists” do not like the United States, and the imposition of American (and subsequently Western), military, political, and ideological influences by virtue of the War on Terror will only serve to prolong the war, and widen the list of enemies who need to be shut down.

The United States, and the West as a whole, is essentially facing an invisible enemy, and it is one that has already shown itself capable of transforming in order to live on indefinitely.  When the US followed up the War in Afghanistan with the Invasion of Iraq, it was seen as a necessity, as it would remove Saddam Hussein from power and thereby remove a major enemy of freedom from the Middle East.  As we now know to be the case, this did not occur.  Although Saddam was removed, and a democratic government was installed, there was still a power vacuum that led to fighting among groups seeking out new forms of control, culminating in the arrival of ISIS to the region.  ISIS is already the product of an ideological transformation – existing as an off-shoot of Al-Qaeda, and they only serve to prove the difficulty that is faced when attempting to defeat an essentially invisible opponent in “Terrorism”.

As much as the US led West, may want to eliminate all terrorists from the face of the earth, it is physically impossible, as constant births, transformations, and rebirths allow terrorism to live on regardless of status of its individual parts.  Someone will always be able to create a new goal for their group, but ideologically, they will always be against the West.  As such, it becomes a difficult decision regarding what actions must be taken in order to end the “War on Terror”.  Should the US and its supporters continue to immerse themselves in Middle Eastern politics and war in order to promote peace and liberal ideals?  Should they vacate the area and leave it to its own devices, essentially abandoning all that they have been fighting for in the hope that order can restore itself?  Can they help establish governmental systems more natural to and ideologically aligned with the areas currently occupied?  These are all tough questions, and I am not the one to answer them, but they just help point out the difficulty of continuing on with the “War on Terror”.  On one hand – the war must continue in order to establish functional states, but on the other, the more intervention that occurs, the more likely it is to extend.  Ultimately the war will never truly end, and such is the problem with waging a physical war against an idea.

The world is a tumultuous place, with wars breaking out across the globe on a yearly and even monthly basis.  In many countries, security is merely a dream – and has been out of reach for decades, but fortunately for us here in Canada, conflict has remained off of our soil for over a century.  Because Canada is one of the safest countries in the world, some question the need for retaining a military force at all.  If we are not in need – what is the point.  We are currently involved in war, but none of the conflicts affect our home, so why should we bother – money spent on the military could easily be used to improve other aspects of the country.  Nevertheless, this blog post will present reasons as to why the military plays such a critical role for Canada, even if we are one of the safest countries in the world, as it asserts Canada’s independence on a global level.

1. Military activity protects Canadian sovereignty –  By giving up the armed forces, Canada will have no way to truly enforce its control over dangerous affairs at home and around the world.  Without a military, the Canadian government will be forced to rely on the help of other actors – be it other countries, or private contractors – when issues get out of hand and require physical intervention.  If such an event were to occur, the government would be placing its authority to truly “rule” the country into the hands of others.

2. Canada is a global power, and by giving up the military, we have the potential to lose that status – There are currently only 21 countries in the world with either no military, or extremely limited armed forces (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_without_armed_forces), and the majority of these nations are extremely small in size, with limited roles to play in the international system.  Many of these nations were former dependencies that have become sovereign states, but who still rely on others to protect them.  Furthermore, the states’ limited size prevents them from really posing a threat to other nations, and keeps them from being threatened.  Canada does not have this relationship with the world – it is an economic and political leader, and while not in the same category as say the US or China, it does fall into the second tier of world powers, and as such, should retain this status in all aspects – including defense.  Getting rid of the military removes Canada’s from being on par with the global elite, and instead places it alongside many of the globes more “forgotten” nations so to speak.

3. The inability to defend ourselves will increase our reliance on the United States – Canada and the US currently share an extremely close relationship, similar to siblings you could say.  Many of Canada’s policies and decisions are influenced heavily by the United States, but we do retain the right to make our own decisions independent of the US.  Like the American War in Iraq – despite US and British involvement – Canada did not declare war, nor did they send troops to the area.  Even though the US holds major sway, Canada reserves the right to make major decisions on its own accord.  If we got rid of the military however, we would likely turn to the US for assistance when it was required, and our relationship would shift from one of brothers, on equal terms, to that of a parent and child where one protects in exchange for the other’s obedience.  The US would become much more involved in our external affairs, and because they were our “protector”, they would influence our internal affairs on a much greater level as well.

Ultimately – Canada needs to retain its military presence in order to protect its strong and independent status on the global level.   Eliminating it would reduce our ability to control our own affairs, lessening our status to one of a near dependency because of our intense relationship with the US.

Iraq is currently in crisis, as it has fallen victim to the rapid rise of former al-Qaeda offshoot ISIS, a terrorist group seeking to unite the Sunni areas of the Middle East under a single leadership obedient to Sharia Law.  ISIS or the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, has been able to capitalize on the political weakness of its respective states, to capture key points of control throughout Northern Iraq and Syria, essentially forming the beginning phases of a new state.  ISIS has shown itself to be extremely effective in moving into its targeted areas and taking over very quickly, creating a sense of fear and establishing a form of power that elevates the group’s notoriety potentially beyond levels that it really deserves.  Neither Iraq or Syria are states capable of staving off ISIS on their own, due to a lack of both political power and military might; neither nation possesses the strength required to fight off such a dire threat, which allows ISIS to essentially take control of the country uncontested.

In order to put down the mass insurgency in the most effective manner, the United States needs to step back into the Middle East.  Although they have given aid to Iraqi forces and have cooridinated airstrikes in both Syria and Iraq, a full deployment of US troops is whats necessary to eliminate the threat that ISIS poses.  Many people will disagree with this opinion, but it is only fair for the US to do so, as their 2003 invasion is directly responsible for the current issues.  Following the toppling of Saddam Hussein’s regime, Iraq fell into chaos, as numerous groups sprang up to give themselves power.  Although Saddam was a unjust dictator, he was able to keep the numerous cultural, ethnic, and religious groups united under one government, but when he was gone, sectarianism spiralled out of control and ultimately led to the issues facing the country today.  ISIS as a group seeks to specifically unite the Sunni Muslim areas of the country against the current Shi’a regime in control of the state.  Potentially, one could assume that if Saddam had been left in power, the current religious divide would have never had the chance to develop into what it is today.

In order to give the Iraqi and Syrian states the power that it needs to maintain secure control of its region, the US needs to fully step back in to the area so that it can make up for the problems that it helped to create.  As the world’s top military power, the US possesses the capabilities to remove ISIS completely, and, as noted in this link, ISIS is not as secure in its presence as many would be led to believe.  Much of ISIS’ control rests on the ability to maintain a hold of towns near major roads up north, and its territory is likely focused specifically around these spots.  It is not a complete territorial control.  If the US were to enter and to take back these relatively small areas, there is the possibility that ISIS could be taken out of Iraq and Syria.

While ISIS is a threat, it has only got where it is today because of the US’ involvement and subsequent retraction from Iraq.  As such, I fully believe that in order to make just their relatively destabilizing actions in the Middle East, the United States must pledge full support to Iraq and Syria in the war against ISIS, and this means a complete deployment back into the area.

Over the past half decade, the world as we have once known it has completely changed.  With the start of the Arab Spring movement, numerous governments have fallen out of power in the Middle East, and the transitionary period that has resulted has been nothing short of a disaster.  Many states have been faced with mass protests that they have attempted to put down with violence, an action that only serves to create more dissent.  Countries are being violently ripped apart – governments are unwilling to give up and citizens are unable to completely overthrow their former leaders leaving states in a seemingly unending state of war.  The constant power and ideological shifts have left many of these Middle Eastern countries open to radical new groups who each seek to create a state in their own image, sometimes at odds with the established world order, forcing international intervention, particularly in Syria and Iraq.

Within the same period, inter-state conflicts have been on the rise, with Israel and Palestine launching missile attacks against each other, and Russia’s invasion of Eastern Ukraine.  In these cases, international allies have become important and have created widespread webs of interconnection.  Allied countries must balance what is most important for their own state, with what is necessary to maintain stable relationships with friendly territories.  The fear that I have however, is that the number of conflicts across the world will rise to a point where this management will become too difficult to control, and certain allied countries will split up, potentially pitting themselves against each other.

I believe that the countries that will fall victim to this situation will not be the smaller ones engaged in the current conflicts, but the major powers who support opposing sides and who will step in to intervene when wars escalate out of their comfort zone.  The two most likely candidates in my mind to turn this series of mildly interconnected international conflicts into a full fledged world war are the United States and Russia, as they are already at odds with one another, but both want to protect their slowly dwindling sphere of influence.  The United States is no longer the world superpower that it once was coming out of the Cold War; China has begun to encroach on its Asian neighbours, and it has witnessed a dramatic economic rise that has placed the US on edge.  With Russia’s rapidly increasing movement into the Ukraine, and its allies in states like Syria, a US opponent, the United States’ involvement in many of the current international conflicts puts it directly at odds with Russia.  Russia is already of US influence in Eastern Europe, and is participating in Ukraine as an attempt to wrestle the country from the westernization that many former Bloc states are witnessing.  If Russia were to escalate its involvement in the Middle East to further reduction of Western (read: United States) influence, it would bring itself directly in US opposition.

Currently, the United States and Russia are on poor diplomatic terms, and if tensions continue to escalate in other areas of the world where these two nations exert influence, it is possible that they end up at war with one another.  If this occurs, many of their respective allies will be plunged into a conflict that encompasses the entire world.  While the US and Russia may be the primary actors, that is not to say other states, like China, or groups, like Al-Qaeda or ISIS, won’t try to wrestle more power for themselves as well.  Although this whole scenario is hard to imagine, the current power vacuum in many areas of the world may be too tempting for major nations to keep out of, and I believe that war could quickly envelop the globe, leading us officially into World War Three.