The analysis argues that Iran's long-standing political and military influence in Iraq is rapidly diminishing due to internal shifts and growing Iraqi resentment over foreign interference. Key evidence includes prominent Iranian-backed militias beginning to disarm or integrate with state forces, signaling a loss of independent power and control within the Popular Mobilization Forces (PMF). This shift suggests that Baghdad is prioritizing national sovereignty and centralizing authority, allowing Iraq to potentially pivot its economic and political alignment toward the wider Gulf region. The primary implication is that Iran will lose its ability to use Iraq as a stable staging ground for projecting regional power, significantly weakening its broader 'axis of resistance.'
Mistaking Order for Anarchy: Territory, Mobility, and Security in the Sahel
English Summary
The article argues that Western academic and interventionist efforts often misdiagnose the Sahel's security challenges by mistakenly equating 'order' with rigid, European-style territorial sovereignty. Historically, the imposition of centralized, territorial governance ignored the reality that local security and order have traditionally relied on non-territorial social structures, such as alliances with pastoral nomadic groups. This flawed premise has led to failed peacekeeping missions and reinforced the misperception that the Sahel is inherently 'ungoverned' and requires external intervention. Policymakers must therefore shift focus away from purely territorial control models and instead support local, non-state mechanisms for consolidating social relations and security.
中文摘要
本文論述西方學術界和干預行動經常誤判薩赫勒地區的安全挑戰，其錯誤地將「秩序」等同於僵化的、歐洲式的領土主權。從歷史上看，強制實施的中央集權領土治理模式，忽略了當地安全與秩序傳統上依賴於非領土社會結構的事實，例如與遊牧牧民群體的聯盟。這種有缺陷的前提導致了和平維護任務的失敗，並加深了「薩赫勒地區本質上是『失治』並需要外部干預」的誤解。因此，政策制定者必須將重點從純粹的領土控制模式轉移開來，轉而支持地方的、非國家層面的機制，以鞏固社會關係和安全。
Related Entries
-
1.
-
2.
The article argues that Ukraine's success in modern warfare stems not from specific weapons, but from building a resilient ecosystem—including local software, sensors, and mass production capacity—to deploy cheap, abundant unmanned systems. Taiwan is criticized for missing this critical lesson by prioritizing the purchase of expensive traditional platforms over developing its own indigenous technological architecture. For effective deterrence against China, Taiwan must shift its focus from mere procurement to institutional reform, building a localized command-and-control system (analogous to Ukraine's Delta) and mastering distributed, affordable maritime defenses tailored for an island theater.
-
3.
The article argues that traditional concepts of nuclear deterrence are facing a "strange defeat" due to modern asymmetric warfare capabilities. Key evidence is Ukraine’s deep strike operation into Russia, where operatives used remote-launched drones and infiltration tactics to destroy strategic heavy bombers and damage nuclear command and control assets. This successful attack demonstrates the vulnerability of fixed military infrastructure, signaling that large-scale conventional or nuclear doctrines are increasingly obsolete. Policymakers must adjust strategies to account for low-cost, high-impact unconventional attacks rather than relying solely on traditional deterrence models.
-
4.
The article argues that maintaining strict civil control over the military is paramount to the health of the republic, warning that using armed forces for domestic or political issues constitutes dangerous 'mission creep.' Historically, leaders like Washington established this principle by deferring authority to civilian representatives; however, modern times show a public tendency to rely on the military to solve complex national problems. This reliance risks diverting the force from its primary combat mission and undermining democratic institutions. For policy, the implication is that national strength depends not on military capability alone, but on citizens actively engaging in political life and local communities, thereby strengthening civilian governance.
-
5.
The article posits that the United States must embrace a 'New Americanism,' signaling a fundamental shift in how Washington defines its national identity and global role. It argues that current geopolitical pressures—such as rising multipolarity and shifting alliances—require a re-evaluation of traditional, unilateral foreign policy doctrines. Strategically, this necessitates moving beyond purely transactional diplomacy toward a more integrated approach that balances domestic social cohesion with renewed international partnerships to maintain influence in key theaters.