Ken Hilving 

Solving Iraq

The situation in Iraq parallels the situation in every city in the world with organized crime (are there any without?) in a number of ways.

• There is an outside military or paramilitary force given responsibility for maintaining order. In Iraq this is the coalition forces plus the Iraq police and military, while in cities there is the police.
• There is an inside group or groups that refuse to recognize the legitimate authority. In Iraq, they are called insurgents and terrorists. In cities, these are gangs and criminal organizations.
• The inside group gets outside help from affiliated groups elsewhere. In Iraq, these are known as foreign jihad fighters. In the cities both gangs and other organized criminal organizations at times have members from other locations come in.
• The groups that oppose the legitimate authority are constrained only by their own rules and will routinely use terror tactics to maintain their control.
• Much rhetoric is applied to the supposed cause of the lawless groups, with the general population and legitimate authority assuming blame. I believe this provides us with a false sense of some control. I have not seen where any supposed cause has ever been successful in eliminating the lawless element in the long term.
• The local population does not routinely support the efforts of the legitimate authority. In both cases, the reason is fairly simple. The legitimate authority is not an integrated part of the neighborhood, is not always available, and is often unable to provide security against retribution. The inside organization is somewhat integrated into the neighborhood, at least with a physical presence. They deal harshly with anyone who aides the legitimate authority.
• The legitimate authority is held to a high standard of behavior and a great deal of constraint by law and by the local, national, and international media. Actions by any member of the legitimate authority are deemed the responsibility of the highest levels of leadership. The inside group is not held to any standard of behavior, choosing to ignore any external law and immune to media reaction. Leadership is often unclear outside of the group.
• The local population does not routinely support the efforts of the legitimate authority. In both cases, the reason is fairly simple. The legitimate authority is not an integrated part of the neighborhood, is not always available, and is often unable to provide security against retribution. The inside organization is somewhat integrated into the neighborhood, at least with a physical presence. They deal harshly with anyone who aides the legitimate authority.
• The legitimate authority is held to a high standard of behavior and a great deal of constraint by law and by the local, national, and international media. Actions by any member of the legitimate authority are deemed the responsibility of the highest levels of leadership. The inside group is not held to any standard of behavior, choosing to ignore any external law and immune to media reaction. Leadership is often unclear outside of the group.
• The local population will openly complain about the legitimate authority by word and by public demonstration. The inside group is never publicly criticized, and blame for their actions is often placed at the feet of the legitimate authority. I surmise this again for the simplest of reasons. The legitimate authority does not use retribution for negative statements against them, and often tries to respond to complaints. The inside groups only response to criticism is harsh retaliation.
• Members of the legitimate authority are able to criticize the actions or direction of their leadership with minimal risk, and the media has no problem finding members willing to do so. Membership in the legitimate authority force is typically for limited terms of time. The inside group tolerates no criticism. Absolute loyalty by all members for life is demanded. Family members serve hostage to this loyalty.

I believe that the same solution can be applied to Iraq and to law and order in any community. Solve either one first, and apply to the other.

Maybe the answer lies in the flip side of the coin of freedom - responsibility. If everyone takes responsibility for their own actions, and for the welfare of all other members of their community, then the ability of any predatory group to function will be stopped. It seems to me that a rise in crime and terror has followed our general increase in reliance on police and courts of law to resolve problems. Of course, the risk is that instead of law and order we have chaos and anarchy. Or is anarchy the pinnacle of democratic rule, with each individual sovereign?