Ending the new Thirty Years War

January 27, 2016 1:16 AM

Ending the new Thirty Years War "Why the real history of the Peace of Westphalia in 17th-century Europe offers a model for bringing stability to the Middle East."
posted by TheophileEscargot (18 comments total)

The analogy is basically sound and the Treaty of Westphalia does provide a model of sorts - but models are not the difficult bit (stop shooting at each other and strike pragmatic compromise deals) - thd difficulty is the motivation to make them work. With the Treaty of Westphalia the motivation came from the utter exhaustion and devastation that followed years of all-out savage war, and the perception that nothing had been achieved; we're not there with the Middle East because lots of people still think they can win.

If I'm allowed a niggle:

Like the original Thirty Years War, which was in fact a series of separate but interconnected struggles, recent conflict in the Middle East has included fighting in Israel, the occupied territories and Lebanon, the long and bloody Iran-Iraq War, the two Gulf wars, and now civil wars in Iraq and Syria.

What a badly edited sentence.
posted by Segundus at 1:57 AM on January 27, 2016 [7 favorites]

So ISIS would be Anabaptists in a modern day Münster Rebellion?
posted by Blasdelb at 2:40 AM on January 27, 2016 [1 favorite]

I'm not sure that Westphalia is a useful paradigm here. The Westphalian negotiations worked because the various princes and rulers were fighting to avenge slights or to achieve a better position personally. They weren't trying to conquer the entire region. A similar set of negotiations wouldn't have worked with Napoleon, because he really did want to conquer the whole of Europe. ISIS is like Napoleon: it wants to conquer (what it believes to be) "Muslim" territory and it doesn't recognise the legitimacy of other states. It would be nice if it did - but then it wouldn't be ISIS. So how are the lessons of the Thirty Years' War going to be useful here?
posted by Joe in Australia at 3:44 AM on January 27, 2016 [2 favorites]

Well, the obvious lesson, if you're planning to follow the analogy faithfully, is to let them fight until devastation and exhaustion set in. Clearly.
posted by I-Write-Essays at 4:34 AM on January 27, 2016 [5 favorites]

@Joe in Australia, from the article:

"It will be necessary first to defeat Da’esh, or Islamic State [...]"

So once the war is finished ... no I can't even sarcasm this.
posted by walrus at 4:47 AM on January 27, 2016

There are contradictions within our - OK, my - conceptions of what ISIS is. On the one hand, an ideologically-driven puritanical absolutist movement intent on the global Caliphate. On the other, a military organisation which owes its potency to large numbers of disenfranchised Iraqi military, police and other quondam secular state forces. The coexistence of these two is most analogous to Saudi Arabia, which does (albeit unpleasantly and one suspects unsustainably) fit into the Westphalian model of the sovereign nation state. It's not a good model, but it's a working one.

Assuming there are people within the ISIS hierarchy who can see opportunities for themselves in curbing the expansionism and offering some sort of peace to the surrounding region in exchange for some form of recognition, and who know the fantasy caliphate is consummate bollocks that will get them killed, then the idea isn't so off-planet as it may seem.

It's all extremely gruesome, but try thinking of something better to aim for.
posted by Devonian at 5:53 AM on January 27, 2016 [2 favorites]

(I thought the WEF Davos crowd had figured out how to bring stability to the region. I mean, they even made image macros about it (from 36 best quotes from Davos 2016))
posted by effbot at 6:06 AM on January 27, 2016 [1 favorite]

Well, the obvious lesson, if you're planning to follow the analogy faithfully, is to let them fight until devastation and exhaustion set in.

The controllers of the proxies never get tired or devastated.
posted by srboisvert at 6:54 AM on January 27, 2016 [1 favorite]

So ISIS would be Anabaptists in a modern day Münster Rebellion?


Would be amusing if we could tame ISIS down into Mennonites..
posted by ocschwar at 8:26 AM on January 27, 2016 [1 favorite]

Assuming there are people within the ISIS hierarchy who can see opportunities for themselves in curbing the expansionism and offering some sort of peace to the surrounding region in exchange for some form of recognition, and who know the fantasy caliphate is consummate bollocks that will get them killed, then the idea isn't so off-planet as it may seem.

So maybe the best model isn't Westphalia but the early Communist internal struggles. Maybe we need an "ISIS in One Country" faction to arise and beat back the "global permanent caliphate struggle" faction.
posted by Sangermaine at 8:34 AM on January 27, 2016

Austria and Spain were huge continental powers at the start of the 30 years war and they haven't been any where near as powerful any time since so although this might be an analagous situation I doubt many are interested in hearing about it.

Who is the new Richelieu?
posted by bukvich at 8:53 AM on January 27, 2016

Would be amusing if we could tame ISIS down into Mennonites..

Or ISIS Amish, even. They could have shoppes just off of the highway selling ISIS-made cheese and home furnishings. And you can bet that ISIS Rumspringa would be OFF. THE. HOOK.
posted by Strange Interlude at 8:56 AM on January 27, 2016 [1 favorite]

Is anyone else struggling with the Treaty of Westphalia urge?

Just me, then?
posted by leotrotsky at 9:06 AM on January 27, 2016 [3 favorites]

I've been waiting for it since this post went up.
posted by Shmuel510 at 10:12 AM on January 27, 2016 [1 favorite]

> Who is the new Richelieu?

Putin?
posted by I-Write-Essays at 10:34 AM on January 27, 2016 [3 favorites]

"Well, the obvious lesson, if you're planning to follow the analogy faithfully, is to let them fight until devastation and exhaustion set in. Clearly."

That would be Plan A. This way we can continue to sell munitions abroad and fund contractors at home. Everybody wins, right? I dunno about a Plan B. So far we've come up only with variations of Plan A.

I like the Vietnam model. It's so much better when you can blame the media, hippies, lily-livered legislators and nattering nabobs, instead of having make an analysis. For example if you watch the History Channel you can see that our Air Force clearly won that war. I don't know what all that other stuff was all about. Left wing whining, I think, and anyhow that model leaves us free to pursue Plan A: more and better bombs, bombers, and when the hawks win the elections, a few boots on the ground. We can start with some advisors, and then send in the assets we must use the other, more generously organized regiments to protect. That always has worked in the past. Well not Korea. Our machine wasn't functioning properly then and the Vets from WWII were kind of burnt out. Personally, I think the 40 or 50 million dead persons from WWII had drained the pool of eligible draftees to the extent that we needed a decade or so to let some new blood (so to speak) get into the picture. No, wait, about Korea; we had to call it a draw when a couple million screaming Chinese came swooping down the peninsula. We were lucky to have Rhee to take up the slack. Well, him and Peanut, that other guy, whatzis name? Oh I remember, Chiang, the real head of the real China. As Phil Ochs (and the CIA) used to say, "Thank God For Coincidence." It's a good thing we no longer support murderous strong men.

None of this shit is our fault. Look, around the end of WWII--the good war--another event destabilized the Middle East. I can't think what it was but it pissed off a whole bunch of people, yet they were willing to do the right thing until the newcomers started getting disrespectful. I thinks that's how that went. (Palestine?--can't remember, were they really a legitimate country, or merely squatters on land reserved by God for someone else?). Never mind. That's water under the bridge, spilled milk and anyway they don't have an air force or a navy so fuck'em, what difference could that make in the long run?

Wait, Westphalia?--that's the name of a waltz we in the Old Time Fiddlers play at assisted living centers here, in my little valley. You mean it really has some significance other than being an intricate fiddle tune with a gonzo guitar accompaniment?

Holy Crap. The way I carry on. You'd think I believe in chains of effect or something.
posted by mule98J at 10:46 AM on January 27, 2016 [3 favorites]

Assisted Fiddling Center would be a good name for your bearded Americana band
posted by thelonius at 11:26 AM on January 27, 2016 [2 favorites]

A similar set of negotiations wouldn't have worked with Napoleon, because he really did want to conquer the whole of Europe.

He really didn't, actually. If it was up to him, those wars would have ended in 1797.
posted by snottydick at 8:06 AM on January 28, 2016