Narrative As a Critical Component for Violent Weaker Actor
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
NARRATIVE AS A CRITICAL COMPONENT FOR VIOLENT WEAKER ACTOR SUCCESS A DISSERTATION IN Political Science and History Presented to the Faculty of the University of Missouri-Kansas City in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY by BRIAN L. STEED B.A., Brigham Young University, 1992 M.A., Vermont College of Norwich University, 1999 Kansas City, Missouri 2020 © 2020 BRIAN L. STEED ALL RIGHTS RESERVED NARRATIVE AS A CRITICAL COMPONENT FOR VIOLENT WEAKER ACTOR SUCCESS Brian L. Steed, Candidate for the Doctor of Philosophy Degree University of Missouri-Kansas City, 2020 ABSTRACT Conflicts exist within a narrative about a society, a government, and the people’s place within it that they use to make sense of their world. Since 1945, conventionally weaker military actors have had increasing success against stronger actors by exploiting dissonance in that narrative to incrementally displace existing governing structures and establish control. This strategy takes time as the weaker actor employs a strategy of exhaustion that drains the will and resources of the stronger actor. This dissertation demonstrates this theory through three case studies: Hezbollah against Israel (1982-2000 and 2006), the Taliban against the United States (2001-present), and the Islamic State (ISIS) against Iraq and the United States-led coalition (2014-present). Each case presents a different way a weaker actor accomplished disruption, displacement, and exhaustion. iii APPROVAL PAGE The faculty listed below, appointed by the Dean of the School of Graduate Studies have examined a dissertation titled “Narrative as a Critical Component for Violent Weaker Actor Success,” presented by Brian L. Steed, candidate for the Doctor of Philosophy degree, and certify that in their opinion it is worthy of acceptance. Supervisory Committee Mona Lyne, Ph.D., Committee Chair Department of Political Science John Herron, Ph.D. Department of History Rebecca Best, Ph.D. Department of Political Science Max Skidmore, Ph.D. Department of Political Science Carla Klausner, Ph.D. Department of History iv CONTENTS ABSTRACT ........................................................................................................................... iii LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS ...................................................................................................... vi LIST OF TABLES .................................................................................................................. vii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .................................................................................................... viii Chapter 1. INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1 2. LITERATURE REVIEW .................................................................................................... 14 3. THE ARGUMENT ........................................................................................................... 33 4. CASE STUDY: HEZBOLLAH ............................................................................................ 65 5. CASE STUDY: TALIBAN .................................................................................................. 95 6. CASE STUDY: ISLAMIC STATE IN IRAQ AND AL-SHAM (ISIS) ...................................... 131 7. CONCLUSION .............................................................................................................. 180 APPENDIX: STORY CODING ............................................................................................ 190 REFERENCED BIBLIOGRAPHY ......................................................................................... 201 VITA ................................................................................................................................ 226 v ILLUSTRATIONS Figure Page 4.1: Lebanon ..................................................................................................................... 81 5.1: Afghanistan: Enemy Initiated Attacks in 2019 versus 2018 ..................................... 97 5.2: The Controversial White Dog Running from the Lion Leaflet ................................. 111 5.3: Taliban Story Targets .............................................................................................. 115 6.1: ISIS or The Islamic State at its Height – Two Views ................................................ 134 vi TABLES Table Page 3.1: Database Summary: Number of Conflict Counts ...................................................... 34 6.2: Comparison of Battles of Mosul (2014 and 2016-2017) ......................................... 164 A.1: Length of Conflict (days) by Winner and Story Type .............................................. 195 A.2: Percentage of Average Length by Winner and Story Type ..................................... 196 A.3: Percentage of Strong Actor Wins by Story Type .................................................... 196 A.4: Percentage of Participant Count by Story Type ..................................................... 197 A.5: Story Coding ............................................................................................................ 198 vii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I am deeply grateful to Dr. Mona Lyne who is primarily responsible for my having the opportunity to participate in a program that results in a Doctor of Philosophy. She fought to get a university exception so that I could be admitted as a student in the program with political science as my primary discipline. She has patiently worked with me on chapter after chapter to move me toward coherence in my argument and the supporting case studies. I appreciate her work and support throughout this process. I wish to thank Dr. Carla Klausner, Dr. Max Skidmore, and Dr. Ted Wilson who are each a true master in their area of expertise. It has been a pleasure to have been associated with their intellects and receive guidance and instruction at their feet. I have enjoyed the instruction and insights of numerous other faculty members who have provided critical thoughts and direction including Dr. John Herron and Dr. Rebecca Best. I have had the pleasure of presenting on the topics in this dissertation to dozens of audiences in multiple venues and for a variety of purposes. Each of those opportunities has served to improve my thinking and refine my arguments. I am grateful to the thousands of people who have listened to, questioned, and challenged my ideas. Each person bears some responsibility for the good ideas that follow. Finally, thank you to my wife and intellectual partner, Sheri Steed. She is a crucial sounding board for my thinking and intellectual organization. Nothing I have done would have happened without her. viii CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Iraqi security forces attacked a home outside of Mosul on 4 June 2014. As the gunfire raged around the home, the occupant, Najm al-Bilawi al-Dulaimi, who was the reason for the attack, blew himself and the home up. The next day ISIS launched the campaign, now named after al-Bilawi, that captured Mosul in just six days. From there, they declared the return of the successor of the Prophet Mohamed and the governed territory for all true Muslims, or caliphate. More than two years later, the government of Iraq, supported by a coalition of nearly eighty nations, took 278 days to recapture Mosul. In the first instance, ISIS was outnumbered almost sixty to one, yet they took the city quickly and with little destruction of the infrastructure. In the case of the coalition, ISIS was outnumbered nearly twelve to one, and it required the damage or destruction of more than sixty percent of the city. The Lebanese militant non-state actor, Hezbollah, has thrice defeated the nation of Israel in 1985, 2000, and 2006. This is something no Arab state was able to accomplish in five previous wars with Israel. Finally, the Taliban, a fundamentalist militant Islamic group, has gained governance control over the last decade within Afghanistan. This dissertation examines conflict between conventionally weaker actors and much 1 stronger opponents, defined in terms of manpower, equipment, money, and training.1 The success of militarily weaker non-state actors vis-à-vis more powerful state actors raises the question of whether these are isolated circumstances or reflective of a broader trend in conflict.2 What allows groups so heavily outnumbered or militarily overmatched to be successful when states cannot accomplish similar success? Literature There are four main arguments for why weak actors defeat strong actors in the nuclear era as offered by Andrew Mack, Gil Merom, Ivan Arreguín-Toft, and Itai Brun. Each illuminates the challenges associated with limited warfare in a nuclear era and with a stronger vs. weaker paradigm. Mack makes the argument that weaker actors win because they are more invested in the fighting –asymmetry of interest. Merom asserts that democracies struggle with small wars because the citizens are unwilling to accept the necessary behaviors for combat victory. In contrast, an authoritarian regime or weaker actor opponent doesn’t care about the concerns of citizens – asymmetry of institutional constraint. Arreguín-Toft argues that what matters is the approach to the conduct of the fighting or the strategic interaction – asymmetry of operational approach. Brun discusses the changing view and definition of conflict success as opponents came to realize that 1 Weaker and stronger are relative terms. In general,