A State within a State

So, during the last few days I've finally caught myself up with what's been going on in the Lebannon-Israel war these past month. (I had sort of being ignoring it as much as possible, after the initial onset and digesting the reaction of my students, and then honestly well it's been very depressing...)

I find it very interesting to hear all the commentary on Hizbollah, as a "state within a state." The New York Times reported that within days after the cease-fire during the intial Israeli pull-out, hundreds of Hizbollah members spread around the country to assess the damage, help people get moved back in and begin the process of rebuilding. This is extraordinarily smart in my opinion, as Hizbollah could easily get blamed (and some say it still may happen) for starting this war just as Lebannon was beginning to rebuild after the last one. But it's also interesting, becuase Hizbollah is again proving that it is more efficient and better organized than the Lebanese state itself.

"Hezbollah’s reputation as an efficient grass-roots social service network — as opposed to the Lebanese government, regarded by many here as sleek men in suits doing well — was in evidence everywhere. Young men with walkie-talkies and clipboards were in the battered Shiite neighborhoods on the southern edge of Bint Jbail, taking notes on the extent of the damage." - NY Times.

Thus, it is described as a state-within-a-state. Or even a state within a non-state as one Lebanese professer put it. This seems odd to us in the west I think, where our government for all its' faults is efficient and dependable, the majority of the time. Our every day lives revolve around systems of efficiency and convienience, many of which are made possible by the structure and legislation of our state and federal governments. Even during disasters like Hurricane Katrina, while criticism may be warranted the response was still overwhelming compared to what the Lebanese government must be able to offer. A New York times article today reported that though the Lebanese Army was being deployed, their intial level of activity seems to be slightly disappointing.

It seems like at times we just don't know what to make of groups like Hizbollah, or Hamas. They are militant and carry out terrorist actions. But they also start wars? What happened to wars being between two states? What do we do when the war is between an independent group that has nationalistic ties and a nation-state? US foreign-policy makers are obviously still struggling with this question because it is truly complicated. Especially, when the group is Hizbollah, which offers services their state governments can't offer, is more visible to the state's people...oh and gets an "unlimited reconstruction budget" from friendly state Iran.

What do you with a state-within-a-state like that?