Warlords and Regime Change

1432 Words3 Pages

In the book, Warlords: Strong-Arm Brokers in Weak States, the author, Kimberly Marten, analytically and theoretically examines past and present cases of warlords; looking at their rise to power, their effect on states, their relationship with internal and external state political leaders, and the common themes that stem from each case of warlordism. Throughout this book, Marten studies the impact of warlords through four different case studies, each pertaining to different time periods and regions: Pakistan’s Federally Administrated Tribal Areas (FATA), Georgia’s Upper Kodori and Ajara regions, Russia’s province of Chechnya, and the United States’ support of Sunni warlords in Iraq.
According to Marten, warlords are “individuals who control small pieces of territory using a combination of force and patronage” and that they “rule in defiance of genuine state sovereignty but through the complicity of state leaders” (Marten 3). After a brief overview, she then examines the case of warlords in the Pakistani region of FATA, an area that divides the rest of Pakistan from Afghanistan (Marten 32). This region is prominent for its hostile tribal groups and instability because of its division between Afghanistan and Pakistan (both weak states on a global scale) (Marten 36). These tribal leaders were given their power to be warlords by the Pakistani state, to govern and maintain stability in an otherwise “ungovernable” region (Marten 16-17). The idea behind this case is the trade-off between a false sense of short-term stability and long-term development of this region. State officials gave these warlords protection and leeway in return for security along the vulnerable border. Although stability is evident in this region by allowing warlords...

... middle of paper ...

...s shown and as Downes argues, regime changes can bring states back to their initial phase and potentially lead to worse circumstances and more vulnerability for that state. Thus, I have to concur with Downes and conclude that regime changes, even if it means maintaining warlord power, is far too risky of a task for a state to take on. In conclusion, a state cannot allow for a warlord to gain power no matter how dire of a situation a state is in, otherwise they face a future of political instability in those regions.

Works Cited

Art, Robert J., and Robert Jervis. "To the Shores of Tripoli? Regime Change and Its Consequences." International Politics: Enduring Concepts and Contemporary Issues. Eleventh ed. New York, NY: HarperCollins, 1992. 429-436. Print.

Marten, Kimberly. Warlords: Strong-Arm Brokers in Weak States. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2012. Print.

More about Warlords and Regime Change

Open Document