Some of Hezbollah’s social institutions are functionally better than similar US institutions, and they function better because of science and our information age’s role in enhancing social, economic, and political domains on our Earth.
Thomas Rid and Marc Hecker’s recently published War 2.0: Irregular Warfare in the Information Age. Their book argues how the information age initially benefits insurgencies first, before counterinsurgencies. Amidst proving how information benefits Hezbollah, the authors talk about three main ideas which have made tremendous, institutional impact on Lebanese society: al-Shahid (the martyr), al- Jarih (the injured), and Jihad al-Binaa (reconstruction effort). These organizations are examples of successful parts in Hezbollah functional practice in the Lebanese parochial society.
Hezbollah’s social institutions make a real difference and actually improve the living conditions in the region south of Beirut, in southern Lebanon and the Beqaa Valley, where it fills a niche left open by failed policies of the Lebanese State. Even the government in Beirut acknowledged the constructive role played by Hezbollah’s social institutions: the charitable organization al-Imdad (the resource) was created by the Party of God in 1987 and was officially recognized with charitable status in 1994.
These social institutions according to Rid and Hecker have risen from the context of civil war, and they reflect the movement’s origin.
Al-Shahid (the martyr) “provided financial and material support to the families of combatants killed in guerilla operations as well as to the victims of political violence.” This is not so different from the US military which provides financial and material support for families of fallen soldiers. This is one institution that matches up with the US military. In this regard, Hezbollah is not institutionally better than the US.
Al-Jarih (the injured) “cared for the wounded and promoted their reintegration into society and the labor market.” This is unlike the US, known for providing inadequate care to the wounded and ineffectively promoting injured soldiers by reintegrating them into society and the labor market. The US has VA hospitals commonly known as the military health institution which in many cases provides inadequate health care to veterans.
Jihad al-Binaa (reconstruction effort) “helps individuals rebuild their houses”; in addition “repaired and maintained public infrastructure, such as sewers… [also] generators and water tanks that [are] refilled several times a day by tanker trucks. The US does something similar with FEMA. However, socially this is controversial because often the response to disasters is viewed as racist and\or classist. One example is New Orleans relief and how the world dissented to federal efforts in response to hurricane Katrina. Also US volunteer efforts in reconstruction are not without controversy. The reason is that information has now surfaced on a federal connection to some volunteer efforts. The New York Times published an article on one co-founder of a volunteer organization in post-Katrina New Orleans. The co-founder was detained at the 2008 Republican National Convention in St. Paul, Minnesota for participating in a destructive pro-Obama, anti-McCain leaning riot and told interrogators that he was an FBI informant. His detainment may not prove a federal connection to New Orleans reconstruction efforts but it certainly makes it considerable. It means that the Army Corps of Engineers in conjunction with FEMA, during post-Katrina initial clean-up efforts in New Orleans, faced a possible dilemma that was created by the FBI. The dilemma pertained to waste management removal procedure. Common Ground Relief, co-founded by FBI informant, after the gutting of houses in the 9th Ward and surrounding areas, made piles of debris that the Army Corps would eventually have to remove. The removal posed as a procedural problem that slowed the reconstruction efforts in post-Katrina New Orleans.... The above exemplifies more recent controversy in US rebuilding efforts, and less so regarding Hezbollah. In a sense, Hezbollah’s Jihad al-Binaa functions better because of the parochial elements that make public approval more easily obtainable in Lebanon. In other words, reconstruction in Lebanon is socially better than US reconstruction efforts.
One topic is a swing issue to many in the US public: Israel. The U.S. has historically ever since Nixon supported Zionist Jews in Israel. A lot of people think that this link between the US and Israel is irrelevant and many believe it to be unacceptable. Hannah Arendt explored in Eichmann in Jerusalem: a Report on the Banality of Evil that Nazis provided immunity and peaceful deportation for most Zionist Jews to Israel and only executed Zionists that were of enemies of the Nazi state. It is fair to ask why the US still supports a people that were protected by the Nazi party. Oppositely, it is also fair to ask why Hezbollah, in their fight against Israel receives funding from Iran. The questions illuminates connections between Israel and the US, and Hezbollah and Iran. They show dimensions at work in the competition for hegemonic world order. In other words, the social indifference in the US on this idea of supporting Israel is one place where Hezbollah and Lebanese parochial society might be better at. It seems that the social institutions in Hezbollah are better because they unify public opinion within Lebanon.
In Rid and Hecker’s book, they describes a major Hezbollah's act of communication which was published in the Lebanese newspaper As-Safir, and later published by France's Cahiers de l'Orient and Israel's The Jerusalem Quarterly letter:
The United States and France are described as enemies of Lebanon that must be expelled, and even the UN gets its portion of spite. But it is the “Zionist entity” that must necessarily be destroyed and eliminated (“our struggle will end only when this entity is obliterated.”).
This shows one unifying Hezbollah ideal. People in the US and Lebanon may disagree with this, but some unfortunately agree– which leads me to believe that there is a new world hegemonic balance occurring, or rather has been occurring for an extended time and exists trans-nationally. And now it is better known with books like War 2.0. Thomas Rid and Marc Hecker, among many other things, believe that our information age initially benefits insurgences before COINs. Not only does our information age benefit insurgency initially before COINs, but I believe similarly that it benefits a hegemonic balance of social, economic and political power for insurgencies and COINs. As the US is challenged with solving some multifaceted dilemmas that arise from social disorder and indifference, insurgencies like Hezbollah are gaining momentum and public approval.
Hezbollah is an insurgency, but if I was born a Lebanese civilian, I might think of Israel or America as the insurgent. I might be morally inclined to believe that. There are good characteristics of Hezbollah and good characteristics of the US, Israel, Iran, France, and Lebanon. There's bad too, but that's all relative. I do not agree that violence is the means to an end. So I do not agree with violence supported by Hezbollah. But I do believe, like Rid and Hecker that information benefits insurgencies before COINs and that some social institutions of Hezbollah are comparatively better than similar US institutions.
