Armies of Davids v. Loose Networks
Tom Barnett points to a post at The Coming Anarchy. While the post is interesting (I don’t buy the specific logic proposed in it), One of the comments caught my eye:
(Quoted from the post) "This solution would require renouncing the state’s monopoly on violence by using Shiite and Kurdish militias as a counterinsurgency. This is similar to the strategy used to halt the insurgencies in El Salvador in the 1980’s and Colombia in the 1990’s.
The thought that popped into my head about this was the difference between an Army of Davids and the militias proposed as a solution to sectarian violence. The Army of Davids presumably has a shared goal and one that is shared with the populace at large - suppresion of the terror event and the restoration of peace and order.Michael said: "I wonder if this would also work with the American public in our homeland defense. I’m thinking of the Army of Davids vs. the Jihadi’s loose network"
A militia as envisioned doesn’t have the populace’s-at-large interests in mind. They want their area to be protected from an incursion or uprising of a minority. The militia likely won’t care of the central government lives or dies as a result of the actions they take.
