"Thieves of State" shows how corruption endangers peace.

One of our greatest fears as shown in international headlines is terrorism by religious extremists.  For many of us it makes little sense that religious fanatics can get such a strong violent following that the rest of us become paranoid.  We credit ignorance behind it.  Sensible civilized people would never allow themselves to be bamboozled.

Sarah Chayes paints a different picture in "Thieves of State," subtitled "Why Corruption Threatens Global Security."  First she describes her own experience in Afghanistan and later other hot spots where she gradually came to understand different factors at work.  She examined our own Western traditions and current practices to help make sense of it.

The key word is corruption.  Some other words on the same theme are kleptocracy and extraction.  An unconnected citizen cannot get anything done without adding unofficial money to the procedure.  Many people trying to advance their career opportunities need money more than talent.   We frown on foreign cultures where it appears to be normal, but we overlook our own history and our own involvement.

She started out as a reporter for NPR (which I regularly listen to and first heard about this book) covering the Mid East and north Africa, picking up a comfort level with the Arab language.  She volunteered to work with government agencies as she was not satisfied just to write about problems.

In Afghanistan she worked with American diplomats and military leaders and over a period of time came to appreciate that corruption was everywhere and the Afghani citizens at the bottom were very displeased about it.  Some saw the only way to deal with it was to support the religious extremists who offered an alternative.  Sarah convinced me at least, as well as most of the Americans she worked with that corruption was a major problem. But those in authority thought it was more important to combat insurgents than to deal significantly with the corruption.  She worked with Petraeus, McChrystal, Mullen and many others.  She also worked with some Afghanis she trusted who helped her understand better the underlying pins.

You may have read many people accusing Hamid Karzai of being corrupt and didn't want to believe it.  How could the Americans support him and how did he remain in power?  American politicians and military leaders felt they needed his support more than they needed to clean up his governance.  The Afghan people seem ungrateful and ignorant, but in reality they live with corruption and hypocrisy and it makes them look for alternatives.  The Americans are often seen as enablers.

She then explored other hot spots including Nigeria, Morocco, Tunisia and Uzbekistan and found similar patterns.  Whenever corruption takes hold, the people look for alternatives.  There have always been religious extremists that are mostly ignored except they often provide a more ethical procedure.  In Nigeria large numbers have found the court system too corrupt for their comfort and have been advocating Sharia court, principally because they see it being more just and fair.

Machiavelli is known by those who have not read him for his advice on how to gain and maintain power.  I had not realized he was against corruption, for the practical reason it compromises real power.  The author quoted other Western philosophers, but also one Persian Nizam al-Mulk who described the faults of corruption.  But it seems those in power soon learn to ignore restrictions.

A favorite ploy of dictators heading a corrupt regime is to claim the only other choice is religious fanatics.  Syria is a good example.  Saudi Arabia has to keep a tight lid on those who feel their rulers are not pious enough.

Sarah explores history.  Educated in Ontario, Canada it was ingrained in me that England was most critical in modern democracy.  Without taking from England the author gives some credit to the Dutch.  They were under the rule of Spain and a monarch who declared that he ruled by the divine right of God and did not have to answer to anybody else.  They fought and what we know as the Netherlands emerged with democracy and more important perhaps a sense that rulers are accountable.
They enjoyed two centuries of prosperity and creativity.  Many Dutch particularly those in the unsuccessful part of their rebellion (now Belgium and parts of France) fled to England where they were given some protection by Queen Elizabeth.

Queen Elizabeth, left no children and the throne fell to another divine right believer.  A generation later, Parliament after being asked to support a war against Scotland rebelled and the English Civil War resulted.  After a period of adjustment the English arrived at a better system of accountability, including a constitutional monarchy.

Protestants seemed to be involved in rebellions and Sarah delved deeper into their foundation.  It turned out Martin Luther had many grievances regarding corruption in the Catholic church and both ordinary people and leaders had sympathy.  Some of their early actions could be described as religious extremism, but many others saw them as a solution to corruption.

Corruption all too often seems to follow the discovery of new natural resources such as oil or minerals when those in power can grab a disproportionate share of the new riches.  Extractive refers not only directly to the new resources, but to the underlings who also try to get a piece of the action.

Americans are seen as poor models by many nations.  Some of the mechanisms that enable corruption include privatizing, minimizing regulations (financial and environmental) and allowing corporate payoffs to politicians.  No one was prosecuted for significant acts that led to the Great Recession starting in 2008.  The author points out there are powerful lobbies that affect government policy in defense, energy and health.  Americans have a decades long history of supporting Arab dictators who they knew were corrupt.

One of the forces that helped break down the Soviet Empire was in Poland where the Pope was a rallying point for many dissatisfied with the government. Not so much religious extremism, but surely religion provided an alternative tool.

Solutions are suggested.  Corrupt despots crave legitimacy in such forms as being seen with legitimate politicians so such opportunities should be minimized.  Intelligence needs to be gathered on corruption with the same priority as terrorism.  Diplomats need to seek direct contact with ordinary citizens without intermediaries (of course that is how a spy network is formed, but the author is referring to people who could give a truer picture of what their government does for them).  We do have some leverage in such areas as student and visitor visas highly desired by despots, transparency in payments to foreign leaders.  Corruption tangles up all our good intentions, but once it is realized it is a root cause of terrorism it can be dealt with as a higher priority.

The Pottery Barn Analogy underlies Mideast problems

In this mid term election process there are knee-jerk "experts" ready to pounce on any statement they can stretch to prove a point.  They are appalled by "no strategy," but really have little constructive to help make better decisions.  Political posturing needs to be minimized, hopefully not using the Bush methods to silence dissenters. 

Colin Powell is said to have given an analogy to George Bush when informed the administration had decided an invasion of Iraq was imminent.  As I understood it when you pick up a piece of pottery in a store and drop it you own it.  Americans despite all their access to modern technology really had a very poor understanding of Iraq.  Even so there was no real excuse to invade as there was no connection to 9-11 or proof of weapons of mass destruction.  If they thought about it, Saddam Hussein had more to fear from Al Qaeda than Americans.  Yes the rhetoric coming from Iraq was belligerent and all evidence points that Saddam was not very nice.  The White House dismissed the UN inspectors and put their reliance on suspect sources and their own (political) guts.

Instead of overwhelming the Iraquis, the administration brushed off suggestions of General Shenseki and failed to contain all the factions.  They then showed their priorities very quickly doing what they could to protect oil interests, but ignoring almost everything else.  As in any major civil disturbance there are criminal elements ready to take advantage, they let citizens fend for themselves.  They decided that since the Baath party had been in control all members should be prohibited from government.  They did not take into account that many members only joined for career survival reasons and that many of these people had vital knowledge and skills to offer a new governance.  As is true in situations where a minority controls the majority there would be vengeance seekers and resentment from those losing power.

Where there had been no Al Qaeda there was now a vacuum filled by jihadists from abroad, but who were able to recruit fighters from amongst dissatisfied members of the minority Sunnis, many of whom had military experience.  In Iraq there were other minorities that played significant roles, mainly the Kurds, but also Turkmen, Christians and others.  The Kurds have used the situation to leverage for more power and seemed to be most aligned to American interests.  Part of their motive is gain their own separate state.  This commendable aspiration is a big concern to neighboring powers such as Turkey, Iran and Syria who feel threatened by it.

The Arab Spring caught a lot of us off guard, but some were quick to credit George Bush with helping to get it going.  It has played out differently in the countries involved, but with some obvious benefits for democracy, but also with some outstanding concerns.  Where it has caused the most confusion seems to be Syria where a civil war has erupted.  Assad is another dictator abusing his country.  He seemed up against the wall, but has fought back and in the process unleashed elements nobody seems to be able to control.

The outcome of most concern seems to be ISIS which consists mainly of the most extreme fanatics who are able to use brutal tactics to conquer territory.  Their brutality is frightening, but there is also a level of sophistication that might be more frightening.  To be effective they had to have access to large amounts of financial support.  At this point they are self financing through kidnappings for ransom and oil.  They have started to "tax"some of their conquered people.

It is possible their brutality will create enemies for them.  I recall that the long ago English Civil War was started by those who frowned upon an arrogant monarchy.  The Puritans that took over, not only executed a monarch but restricted activities such as card playing and dancing that eventually the people rebelled against.  That seems to be happening in Syria and Iraq, but there are still those who think they use these brutal warriors for their own purposes.  Sunnis feeling displaced want power back, religious conservatives want to see religious laws guide government.  Assad, like many dictators likes to use the presence of a terrible alternative to justify his own power.

ISIS has successfully conquered territory in two national states and trying to provide a government bureaucracy to control it all.  They have tapped into a lot of resentment and brutalized their opponents.  It seems they cannot be defeated without an international effort.  The Americans of which Obama is a good example realized a major part of the problem was the Iraqui government controlled by Shiite factions created dissatisfaction amongst other factions weakening everyone.  They have taken steps to correct that situation while trying to respect sovereignity.

The big question seems to be can the Americans bomb ISIS in Syria without seeming to support Assad?  Can they avoid more "boots on the ground"?  Can they get more military support from countries that have a vested interest in the outcome and can that include Muslim nations?  A pretty delicate situation requiring care and attention to details.

A further complication is presented by Russia.  Their agenda apparently includes restoring at least part of their empire starting in Ukraine.  They have been allies of Syria and have tried to ameliorate  some of Syria's excesses, for example regarding chemical weapons.  They could possibly play a similar role, but they have other priorities.  Russians having become a major energy exporter are asserting what they feel is their imperial right to enlargen their sphere of influence while most of their former empire is increasing ties with EU and NATO. It is not reasonable to expect co-operation.

There are no good solutions and it must be acknowledged there are a wide variety of views on how best to handle the situation.  A little bit of honesty should be appreciated as there is "no strategy" that will not cause harm to relatively innocent participants.  A politically obstructive Congress" is a big part of the problem and should voters let themselves be influenced by political posturing with the November election the situation could become even more difficult.

The decisions made by the previous administration will impact the world for at least a generation.  We have opportunities to change direction in a more helpful way, but politics is making the difficult choices more difficult.