Today I went to see Ken Loach's Land and Freedom, a fictional account of an English communist's experience fighting in the Spanish civil war. In my opinion, there is no question that the wrong side won out in that conflict. Franco and fascism were bad for Spain... the Republicans could and should have prevailed. However, there is little point in bemoaning yet another historical misstep in hindsight. What interested me was the recruitment of international volunteer fighters by the Republican forces.

Leftists from all over Europe and beyond converged for a fight they knew was important to their common cause. The fact that they lost mostly due to political infighting, ideological pettiness, and disorganization is not so important to me... though I must point out that these same flaws still very much plague the left today. What I found more interesting about the event is that it was the last time such an international brigade was assembled and utilized in a decentralized fashion. Sure, there are UN peace keepers constantly deployed around the world, but they fight first for their nation-state, not for any larger ideal. For me, this is only slightly better than the proxyism of the Cold War.

So, I wonder why our supposedly advanced information sources and networking tools haven't produced a Spanish Civil War for my generation? I'll buy the idea that the "enemy" isn't as easy to pick out these days. It isn't that young people don't believe today's "terrorists" aren't as frightful as yesterdays fascists, but that aren't so easy to from a united front against. The politics are so complicated that even in the heat of the historical moment in late 2001, we barely had a national consensus for concern. Seven years later, we are much more confused about how to address the issue.in the United States. Granted, we've relearned the lesson that deploying regular troop formations to fight irregular forces doesn't work very well. Still, with whom other than our army can we join in the fight?

For better or worse, many idealistic young Arabs have answered this question by joining the Iraqi insurgency and other anti-western forces. I do not mean to laud their efforts, but to use them as an important example in historical context. America should be held responsible for its provocation and poor planning, but this truly international force plays a huge role in fueling that increasingly indiscriminate bloodbath. The Spanish Civil War was also costly to civilian populations, but not to the same degree! How can this mayhem be stopped? Even if the US does pull out of Iraq in the next few years, it seems there is a strong likelihood that a civil war will continue on the basis of sectarian and ideological (though still heavily religious) disputes. Even if the UN were to deploy peace keepers and even if they werepartly drawn from Arab nations, they will likely still be seen as an occupying force and targeted as such.

I think I am not the only one whose desire to put my life on the line to stop the senseless killing of others is conflicted by their reluctance to fight for their nation state. If I don't want to limit myself to unarmed conflicts, I currently really only have a few choices in the world: fight for the United States, Israel, a mercenary outfit, or perhaps the French foreign legion. For a variety of reasons, none of these options seem sufficiently attractive. I have serious reservations about their ethical shortcomings, excessive levels of commitment, and a fundamental lack of autonomy. Theoretically, I would be much happier serving as a UN peace keeper, but again, one still must first be an active soldier in their national army to do so. Moreover, I find that the UN and other armed international bodies (especially NATO) have historically shown themselves to be particularly bureaucratic, ineffective, and easily co-optable in multiple engagements.

I would prefer something closer to being a nonaligned militiaman or a “mercenary for good.” That's closer to how those pro-Republican fighters in the Spanish civil war saw themselves. If someone other than my government would to pay to send me to some conflict zone for reasons I could really get behind, I would jump at the opportunity go. Shoot, I would even pay for part of the expenses myself. I would love to deploy to protect lives in places like Darfur. Many people have spent a lot of time and effort trying to draw public attention to the genocide happening there. Darfur has Nick Kristof and friends pretty much involved on a full time basis trying to secure attention and help for vulnerable local populations. Still, true public outcry is limited and both national and international bodies remain either unable or unwilling to intervene.

Darfur is located in a region where where national borders are so incredibly porous that anyone with resources can basically go and come as they please and bring whatever materials they need. Also, the situation there serves as an ideal type of scenario because protecting human lives there does not mean openly fighting against a sovereign foreign army. This is a case of an unfinished civil war being waged by racist paramilitary forces. If internationals converged on a endangered village, set up defenses, and provided humanitarian assistance, I think they would be widely lauded. All their activities could be video recorded for media exposure and legal security.

There are plenty of Leftist international sympathizers doing similar work in a similar situation in Chiapas - making sure the Mexican military and/or their local paramilitary wingnuts can't commit wanton atrocities while no one is looking. However, this doesn't quite fulfill my vision for a more effective organizational initiative. I want to see an armed but nonaligned peacekeeping detachment protecting human rights, providing immediate humanitarian aid, and also getting locals given access to resources that will help ensure their long term security. This is what the US should be providing to Darfur right now, but it isn't designed, equipped, or destined to do. If you believe Thomas Barnett, it certainly could be though. Until that day, I have to look elsewhere for such opportunities. The Peace Corps and/or todays leading NGOs don't cut it yet either.

There are more decentralized ways to organize such initiatives and do so effectively. Since the kind of operations I'm talking about are at best only quasi legal, limiting the bureaucracy would be both advised and self serving. The individuals participating would be substantially responsible for getting themselves in and out of a particular theater, with the help of a group of like minded others. Coordinating potentially far flung participants' activities will require deft use of information technology, but the necessary web technologies exist already... though perhaps in isolation from one another. This is not primarily a "distance" project... it's primary activities must by definition be tackled on the ground. However, the virtue of casting a wide "virtual"net is the potential to assemble complementary skill sets and commitments - a sort of "special forces development team".

This is still a very open ended idea. I would like to keep thinking it through in regards to actual design proposals. What are the major gaps in my thought processes? How would requests for assistance be received and evaluated? Who will scout the conditions and lead the coordination efforts? What organizational accountability structures would encourage the most productive activity? Could a single website accommodate the planning, execution, and publicizing of multiple missions? Etc...