Wednesday, November 14, 2007
THE PSYCHOLOGY OF THE WARLORD
Kent's Imperative had a post up that would have been worthy of Coming Anarchy:
Enigmatic biographies of the damned
"....Via the Economist this week, we learn of the death of an adversary whose kind has nearly been forgotten. Khun Sa was a warlord who amassed a private army and smuggling operation which dominated Asian heroin trafficking from remotest Burma over the course of nearly two decades. In the end, despite indictment in US courts, the politics of a failed state permitted him to retire as an investor and business figure, and to die peacefully in his own bed.
The stories of men such as these however shaped more than a region. They are the defining features of the flow of events in a world of dark globalization. Yet these are not the biographies that are taught in international relations academia, nor even in their counterpart intelligence studies classrooms. The psychology of such men, and the personal and organizational decision-making processes of the non-state groups which amassed power to rival a princeling of Renaissance Europe, are equally as worthy of study both for historical reasons as well as for the lessons they teach about the nature of empowered individuals.
Prospective human factors and leadership analysts are not the only students which would benefit from a deeper pol/mil study of the dynamics of warlords and their followers in the Shan and Wa states. The structures which were left behind upon Khun Sa’s surrender were no doubt of enduring value to the ruling junta, and tracing the hostile connectivity provided to a dictatorial government by robust transnational organized crime is an excellent example of the kombinat model in a unique context outside of the classic Russian cases..."
Read the rest here.
There are no shortage of warlords for such a study. Among the living we have Walid Jumblatt, the crafty chief of the Druze during the 1980's civil war in Lebanon, the egomaniacal and democidal Charles Taylor of Liberia, Gulbuddin Hekmatyar the Islamist mujahedin commander and a large assortment of Somali, Colombian, Indonesian and El Salvadoran militiamen and paramilitaries. The history of the twentieth century alone offers up such colorful characters as "The Dogmeat General", the ghoulishly brutal Ta Mok of the Khmer Rouge, "The Mad Baron" Ungern von Sternberg, Captain Hermann Ehrhardt and Pancho Villa among many others.
What would such a historical/cross-cultural/psychological "warlord study" reveal ? Primarily the type of man that the German journalist Konrad Heiden termed "armed bohemians". Men who are ill-suited to achieving success in an orderly society but are acutely sensitive to minute shifts that they can exploit during times of uncertainty, coupled with an amoral sociopathology to do so ruthlessly. Paranoid and vindictive, they also frequently possess a recklessness akin to bravery and a dramatic sentimentality that charms followers and naive observers alike. Some warlords can manifest a manic energy or regularly display great administrative talents while a minority are little better than half-mad gangsters getting by, for a time, on easy violence, low cunning and lady luck.
Every society, no matter how civilized or polite on the surface, harbors many such men within it. They are like ancient seeds waiting for the drought-breaking rains.
Kent's Imperative had a post up that would have been worthy of Coming Anarchy:
Enigmatic biographies of the damned
"....Via the Economist this week, we learn of the death of an adversary whose kind has nearly been forgotten. Khun Sa was a warlord who amassed a private army and smuggling operation which dominated Asian heroin trafficking from remotest Burma over the course of nearly two decades. In the end, despite indictment in US courts, the politics of a failed state permitted him to retire as an investor and business figure, and to die peacefully in his own bed.
The stories of men such as these however shaped more than a region. They are the defining features of the flow of events in a world of dark globalization. Yet these are not the biographies that are taught in international relations academia, nor even in their counterpart intelligence studies classrooms. The psychology of such men, and the personal and organizational decision-making processes of the non-state groups which amassed power to rival a princeling of Renaissance Europe, are equally as worthy of study both for historical reasons as well as for the lessons they teach about the nature of empowered individuals.
Prospective human factors and leadership analysts are not the only students which would benefit from a deeper pol/mil study of the dynamics of warlords and their followers in the Shan and Wa states. The structures which were left behind upon Khun Sa’s surrender were no doubt of enduring value to the ruling junta, and tracing the hostile connectivity provided to a dictatorial government by robust transnational organized crime is an excellent example of the kombinat model in a unique context outside of the classic Russian cases..."
Read the rest here.
There are no shortage of warlords for such a study. Among the living we have Walid Jumblatt, the crafty chief of the Druze during the 1980's civil war in Lebanon, the egomaniacal and democidal Charles Taylor of Liberia, Gulbuddin Hekmatyar the Islamist mujahedin commander and a large assortment of Somali, Colombian, Indonesian and El Salvadoran militiamen and paramilitaries. The history of the twentieth century alone offers up such colorful characters as "The Dogmeat General", the ghoulishly brutal Ta Mok of the Khmer Rouge, "The Mad Baron" Ungern von Sternberg, Captain Hermann Ehrhardt and Pancho Villa among many others.
What would such a historical/cross-cultural/psychological "warlord study" reveal ? Primarily the type of man that the German journalist Konrad Heiden termed "armed bohemians". Men who are ill-suited to achieving success in an orderly society but are acutely sensitive to minute shifts that they can exploit during times of uncertainty, coupled with an amoral sociopathology to do so ruthlessly. Paranoid and vindictive, they also frequently possess a recklessness akin to bravery and a dramatic sentimentality that charms followers and naive observers alike. Some warlords can manifest a manic energy or regularly display great administrative talents while a minority are little better than half-mad gangsters getting by, for a time, on easy violence, low cunning and lady luck.
Every society, no matter how civilized or polite on the surface, harbors many such men within it. They are like ancient seeds waiting for the drought-breaking rains.
Labels: 4GW, history, kent's imperative, psychology, war, warriors
¶ 7:55 PM
Comments:
<< Home
Wonderful post, awesome graphic.
The opposite question is perhaps more interesting: such human "pathogens" are always with us -- what's interesting is why they sudden rise to dominance in a society? What mechanisms keep these people from gaining power in most healthy societies? What circumstances allow them to gain power?
Also, are such individuals functional for the group? Do they ever leave things better than they found them?
The opposite question is perhaps more interesting: such human "pathogens" are always with us -- what's interesting is why they sudden rise to dominance in a society? What mechanisms keep these people from gaining power in most healthy societies? What circumstances allow them to gain power?
Also, are such individuals functional for the group? Do they ever leave things better than they found them?
hi FM
Thanks. That was Frazetta's best painting IMHO.
You've asked a question that bedevils historians ( or at least their grad students) is it the man or the times that makes the man?
Ian Kershaw, quite ambitiously, set out to prove that even Hitler was a product of forces beyond his control. He couldn't quite do it, even in the first book prior to Hitler coming to power but he did illustrate where Hitler exploited chance events with greater balance and effectiveness than most historians.
However most leaders are not Hitler, Stalin or Mao.
Thanks. That was Frazetta's best painting IMHO.
You've asked a question that bedevils historians ( or at least their grad students) is it the man or the times that makes the man?
Ian Kershaw, quite ambitiously, set out to prove that even Hitler was a product of forces beyond his control. He couldn't quite do it, even in the first book prior to Hitler coming to power but he did illustrate where Hitler exploited chance events with greater balance and effectiveness than most historians.
However most leaders are not Hitler, Stalin or Mao.
Great post!
And thoughtful follow-up question by Fabius Maximus. It is noted that all of the current "Warlords" mentioned, reside in "Gap" countries where the ruleset have collasped or never occured. Even the early 20th century characters existed in countries that were failing states at that time. A Hobbesian "state of nature" seems to best describe the circumstances that provide a fertile seedbed for them to bloom.
As for their leaving things for the better. Checking the bio's of the examples noted, their major contribution to society may be to stimulate others to seek order by creating a ruleset that results in a functioning nation. In the distance past as nations arose, some of this type became benevolent despots, and out of that orderly society began to evolve.
It a subject that needs examined,in all related academic fields.
And thoughtful follow-up question by Fabius Maximus. It is noted that all of the current "Warlords" mentioned, reside in "Gap" countries where the ruleset have collasped or never occured. Even the early 20th century characters existed in countries that were failing states at that time. A Hobbesian "state of nature" seems to best describe the circumstances that provide a fertile seedbed for them to bloom.
As for their leaving things for the better. Checking the bio's of the examples noted, their major contribution to society may be to stimulate others to seek order by creating a ruleset that results in a functioning nation. In the distance past as nations arose, some of this type became benevolent despots, and out of that orderly society began to evolve.
It a subject that needs examined,in all related academic fields.
Excellent post, Zen. I like the metaphor at the end of the post.
Like fabius I want to pose a slightly different question. In a breakdown, or a prolonged period of anarchy, are there leaders who struggle to maintain a civilized way of life, as best they can? Who are strong, and willing to fight to defend their people, but who do so acting on ethical principles, e.g., from a desire to provide security rather than profit from anarchy?
Warlords are the headline grabbers, but perhaps the history of "decline and fall" is as much about those who struggle against the darkness (and to bring about a new order) as those who seek to bring civilization down.
Like fabius I want to pose a slightly different question. In a breakdown, or a prolonged period of anarchy, are there leaders who struggle to maintain a civilized way of life, as best they can? Who are strong, and willing to fight to defend their people, but who do so acting on ethical principles, e.g., from a desire to provide security rather than profit from anarchy?
Warlords are the headline grabbers, but perhaps the history of "decline and fall" is as much about those who struggle against the darkness (and to bring about a new order) as those who seek to bring civilization down.
# posted by 
: Thursday, 15 November, 2007
: Thursday, 15 November, 2007
Hi historyguy,
Hobbesian is a good descriptor. The 1911-49 Chinese civil war, the Russian civil war after the Bolshevik revolution, early Weimar, all societies with social contracts that collapsed and/or weakly enforced rule-sets.
Hi strat
Thanks!
"In a breakdown, or a prolonged period of anarchy, are there leaders who struggle to maintain a civilized way of life, as best they can?"
Charlamagne and Henry VII come to mind. They not only held the line, they built.
Hobbesian is a good descriptor. The 1911-49 Chinese civil war, the Russian civil war after the Bolshevik revolution, early Weimar, all societies with social contracts that collapsed and/or weakly enforced rule-sets.
Hi strat
Thanks!
"In a breakdown, or a prolonged period of anarchy, are there leaders who struggle to maintain a civilized way of life, as best they can?"
Charlamagne and Henry VII come to mind. They not only held the line, they built.
"Men who are ill-suited to achieving success in an orderly society but are acutely sensitive to minute shifts that they can exploit during times of uncertainty, coupled with an amoral sociopathology to do so ruthlessly. Paranoid and vindictive, they also frequently possess a recklessness akin to bravery and a dramatic sentimentality that charms followers and naive observers alike. Some warlords can manifest a manic energy or regularly display great administrative talents while a minority are little better than half-mad gangsters getting by, for a time, on easy violence, low cunning and lady luck."
Also sounds like the leadership in Enron. But business and state actors are good and the non-state actor indians are bad? Amirite??
Also sounds like the leadership in Enron. But business and state actors are good and the non-state actor indians are bad? Amirite??
# posted by : Thursday, 15 November, 2007
: Thursday, 15 November, 2007
Anon,
"Also sounds like the leadership in Enron."
Except perhaps for the pillage and rapine component, yes.
"But business and state actors are good and the non-state actor indians are bad? Amirite??"
Not certain I follow. Enron justifies, what? Hezbollah ?
"Also sounds like the leadership in Enron."
Except perhaps for the pillage and rapine component, yes.
"But business and state actors are good and the non-state actor indians are bad? Amirite??"
Not certain I follow. Enron justifies, what? Hezbollah ?
"In a breakdown, or a prolonged period of anarchy, are there leaders who struggle to maintain a civilized way of life, as best they can?"
Legendarily, King Arthur.
How many people tried to stem the barbarian tide when the Western Roman Empire fell to the barbarians? Names lost forever to history.
Post a Comment
Legendarily, King Arthur.
How many people tried to stem the barbarian tide when the Western Roman Empire fell to the barbarians? Names lost forever to history.
# posted by : Friday, 16 November, 2007
: Friday, 16 November, 2007<< Home
