Mao Zedong, Guerrilla Warfare, Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda




 Osama Bin Laden, former head
of terrorist network Al Qaeda

There seems to be a link that nobody is making - well, at least not until a lecturer of International Politics at Aberystwyth University, mentioned it in one of my recent lectures after I had already started this blog.                  

The idea, at least to me, seems very obvious indeed. Since the end of the Cold War, interstate relationships have improved markedly. Since 1990 we have moved from an era of duopolistic military power to having a hegomonic international system with one state, the United States of America having more control over the Westphalian state-system than any other, and trying to shape the world in its image of free-market liberal capitalism. It has become the status-quo, at least for the time being and the immediate future. No other state in the system can yet question America's military pre-dominance.

However, in much the same way as there were military rules of the game during the Cold War era, so there are a new - or a reinstatement of the old, depending on how you see it -set of rules under the new circumstances. States and non-governmental actors have realised that they cannot realistically compete with the United States through military means: in a conventional war, any ideological terrorist group, like Al Qaeda, that formed an army or state would be - metaphorically - flattened.  

Hence, terrorist groups like Al Qaeda have adopted a new method - guerrilla warfare. It is the only way that any NGO terrorist organisations can take on the United States's "force de frappe". Al Qaeda are using the same techniques against the United States in Afghanistan and Iraq as Mao Zedong used against the Japanese and nationalist government after the Second World War. What is even more embarrasing is that 

Mao Zedong, leader of the
Communist Revolutionaries
against Japan and the nationalist
government 


we were the ones who inadvertantly enlightened them as to how to fight this kind of war. During the Soviet Union's occupation of Afghanistan in the 1980's, Western powers spearheaded by the United States aided the Muhajadeen in agitating for a Soviet withdrawal. They achieved their aim but at a price for the West. Osama Bin Laden, the leader of Al Qaeda at the time of the attacks on the World Trade Centres of the Twin Towers in September 2001, must have been overjoyed when then President George W. Bush steped into the trap of declaring a War on Terror'. Declaring war on an a concept rather than a physical object, a nation state or even a single enemy. 


Mao-Zedong commented that his political goal was 'the complete emancipation of the Chinese people'. The concept of emancipation strikes an accord with the expressed aims of Bin Laden's organisation: they wish to remove Westerners, who they accuse of cooperating with 'zionist forces', from lands in the Middle and near East. They wish to create a Islamic calaphite under sharia law in the region. The organisation has become a franchise, a bit like a terrorist Macdonalds, or split into 'units' as Mao termed them, of guerrilla fighters.

An example of an Al Qaeda training camp
in the lawless tribal border lands of Afghanistan
Pakistan 

Al Qaeda in the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan and Mao in 1930s China are both in countries which are , in the words of Mao, 'politically, militarily and economically [deficient]  ' They are both following the principle of 'dispersion, concentration, constant change of position' in order to outwit their foreign adversary - the United States and NATO or the Japanese.   

The way to combat this kind of guerrilla warfare (or terrorism, if you prefer) will require an embellishment of current military tactics, a revolution in military affairs, which is woefully lacking at present. Mikhail Gorbachev, the former leader of the Soviet Union, has been fantastically enlightening in pointing out that America is experiencing a déjà vu of their adventure in Vietnam and the Soviet misadventure into Afghanistan in the 1980s. By killing one terrorist you create a thousand new recruits. Osama Bin Laden used textbook Mao,  of dispersing 'in order to promote mass movements over a wide area' and using the principle of 'the people are the water, our armies are the fish'. The west has not and obviously ugently  needs to find a cure for this type of warfare.
    

Legalise currently illegal narcotics and prostitution



Is there any logic behind keeping drugs illegal?

This article will look at the issue of illegal narcotics and prostitution in the United Kingdom and ask the question: is it really beneficial to maintain the ban on these two aspects of society? Does keeping drugs and prostitution illegal make us safer as citizens in the United Kingdom or create more problems than it solves?

There is an immense cost to the taxpayer in trying to police and punish those who carry drugs. This uses up valuable resources, especially in a time of economic hardship and fiscal retrenchment, which could be better used funding other more constructive projects in society, such as more funding for schooling and higher education or schemes to get unemployed people skilled and back into the workplace.

The battle against illegal drugs is one that simply cannot be won. It drains a lot of money and time with no perceivable benefit. By criminalising possession of drugs you make otherwise law-abiding citizens into criminals. Instead of dealing with the harmful effects that drugs have on communities, you are dealing with the consequences.                                                                                                                                      

Many who take drugs are forced into crime, which transcribes into a social cost for everyone, and makes neighbourhoods more dangerous. This acts as a vicious cycle. It can destroy already less advantaged areas of the UK, areas such as Hackney in London, Motherwell, Govan, in Glasgow, Small Heath and Sparkbrook in Birmingham and the Guernos, near Merthyr Tydfil. These areas do not need higher crime rates. From an economics perspective, restricting supply (adding an element of risk to the supply of drugs), puts the black market price for drugs above the natural market clearing price and increases the difference between the price of supply and the price that can be demanded. Consequently, this means that the drugs cartels can harbour artificially high profits, which then go into committing crime and adding an even larger social cost. .

Legalising drugs would allow the government to have more control over the industry. The government could regulate the sector through taxation: the social cost would become more socialised. It would put drug barons out of business: buy safe legal drugs from a high street shop or some dodgy stuff off a street corner at an exuberant cost?                 

Also, by legalising the sector, it can help those who find themselves wanting to give up but prevented from doing so for fear of being labelled a criminal, or facing a penal sentence. The government would be able to offer support to people that would be more compelled to come forward for help and advice. If the government legalised currently illegal drugs, it could ensure that minimum standards are complied with, making it safer for those who are addicted.

The argument that by legalising drugs more people would be attracting to drugs seems 'non-sensical'. Just because a product becomes legal does not mean the populace will suddenly start buying it?



Above: The Red Light district of Amsterdam,
the Netherlands

The second consideration is whether prostitution should be completely legalised in the United Kingdom (referring to English and Cymraeg/Welsh law, and not Scots law). In much the same vein as the previous argument, it seems that the government cannot help those who find themselves trapped in this profession without knowing who they are.

In completely legalising the profession, the government could do more for the women and men who are compelled into prostitution as a form of income. Instead of pushing the problem into the dark alleyways and background of society and forgetting it exists - effectively turning a blind eye - it would be more constructive to do much the opposite. By completely legalising the practise, the government could encourage these people to seek advice on retraining for a profession which offers more dignity and workers rights for the employee.

By making the profession illegal, it forces the abuse of rights, without the possibility of the vulnerable seeking help. Even for those who willingly partake in the profession, the illegal nature of the profession makes it dangerous, with a plethora of harmful consequences on wider society. Legalisation would allow government intervention to divert people from the industry.

This article, as I mentioned at the beginning, has been attempting to answer the question as to whether keeping drugs and prostitution illegal has any benefits for the nation. As I hope this article shows, it would appear evident that keeping these two aspects of society illegal has few benefits for either the citizenry at large or those directly involved.