PDA

View Full Version : The Arab Spring (a partial collection)



SWJ Blog
07-15-2011, 12:31 PM
Non-Proliferation, the Arab Spring, and Bin Laden: Why Nuclear Weapons may be a Good Idea for Dictators (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/2011/07/nonproliferation-the-arab-spri/)

Entry Excerpt:

Non-Proliferation, the Arab Spring, and Bin Laden: Why Nuclear Weapons may be a Good Idea for Dictators
by Mark Munson

The events of 2011, including the rapid spread of democratic social movements in the Middle East and the dramatic death of Osama bin Laden in a US special operations raid, provide insight into the state of global non-proliferation efforts and why possessing the nuclear option may seem even more rational today for the world’s dictators than in the past. The continued security relevance of nuclear weapons to states has been identified by figures as varied as AQ Khan, the “father” of Pakistan’s nuclear program, and Bing West, former Reagan administration Defense Department official and author, who both recently argued that there would have been no military intervention against a nuclear-armed Libya (Khan presented his views in a May Newsweek column, West at a Center for New American Security conference in June).

Lieutenant Commander Mark Munson currently serves as the Intelligence Officer for Naval Special Warfare Group FOUR. He has previously served onboard USS ESSEX (LHD 2) and at the Office of Naval Intelligence.



--------
Read the full post (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/2011/07/nonproliferation-the-arab-spri/) and make any comments at the SWJ Blog (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog).
This forum is a feed only and is closed to user comments.

SWJ Blog
07-19-2011, 11:10 AM
The Arab Upheavals (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/2011/07/the-arab-upheavals/)

Entry Excerpt:

The Arab Upheavals and the Future of the U.S. Military Policies and Presence in the Middle East and the Gulf (http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/index.cfm/articles/Arab-Upheavals-and-the-Future-of-the-US-Military-Policies-and-Presence-in-the-Middle-East-and-the-Gulf/2011/6/27) by Dr. W. Andrew Terrill, US Army War College Strategic Studies Institute. Summary excerpt follows:


The political and social upheaval in the Arab World known as the Arab Spring is one of the most significant set of events to unfold in the Middle East since the fall of the Ottoman Empire following World War I. The United States seeks a democratic outcome to all of these conflicts and is also concerned about the human rights of demonstrators in countries where they are treated with brutality. Additionally, traditional U.S. concerns for the region discussed by President Obama in a May 19, 2011, address include: (1) fighting terrorism, (2) opposing nuclear proliferation, (3) supporting freedom of commerce, including commerce in oil, and, (4) supporting Israel and the Middle East peace effort. Currently, the Arab Spring has had only a limited impact on these U.S. interests. The Arab monarchies, which are allied with the United States, appear to be the least vulnerable to regional unrest (except for Bahrain) and are moving rapidly to increase the stake of individual citizens within their political systems so as to prevent serious unrest. Bahrain, by contrast, is simmering with sectarian anger after the brutal suppression of its mostly Shi’ite demonstrators. Despite this situation, the United States can probably be more helpful to Shi’ites in that country by remaining engaged with the Bahraini government which has already shown itself responsive to some U.S. concerns about building an inclusive society.The Arab Upheavals and the Future of the U.S. Military Policies and Presence in the Middle East and the Gulf (http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/index.cfm/articles/Arab-Upheavals-and-the-Future-of-the-US-Military-Policies-and-Presence-in-the-Middle-East-and-the-Gulf/2011/6/27).



--------
Read the full post (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/2011/07/the-arab-upheavals/) and make any comments at the SWJ Blog (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog).
This forum is a feed only and is closed to user comments.

SWJ Blog
10-01-2011, 01:52 PM
The Arab Spring: Notes on Nation-Building (http://smallwarsjournal.com/jrnl/art/the-arab-spring-notes-on-nation-building)

Entry Excerpt:



--------
Read the full post (http://smallwarsjournal.com/jrnl/art/the-arab-spring-notes-on-nation-building) and make any comments at the SWJ Blog (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog).
This forum is a feed only and is closed to user comments.

SWJ Blog
11-29-2011, 11:41 AM
Books to Read on the 2011 Arab Spring (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/books-to-read-on-the-2011-arab-spring)

Entry Excerpt:



--------
Read the full post (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/books-to-read-on-the-2011-arab-spring) and make any comments at the SWJ Blog (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog).
This forum is a feed only and is closed to user comments.

SWJ Blog
04-06-2012, 12:00 PM
Wrapping Your Mind Around the Arab Spring: Recommended Reads (http://smallwarsjournal.com/jrnl/art/wrapping-your-mind-around-the-arab-spring-recommended-reads)

Entry Excerpt:



--------
Read the full post (http://smallwarsjournal.com/jrnl/art/wrapping-your-mind-around-the-arab-spring-recommended-reads) and make any comments at the SWJ Blog (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog).
This forum is a feed only and is closed to user comments.

SWJ Blog
04-23-2012, 09:53 AM
Five Questions for America to Answer about Afghanistan, the Arab Spring, and Nation Building at Home (http://smallwarsjournal.com/jrnl/art/five-questions-for-america-to-answer-about-afghanistan-the-arab-spring-and-nation-building-)

Entry Excerpt:



--------
Read the full post (http://smallwarsjournal.com/jrnl/art/five-questions-for-america-to-answer-about-afghanistan-the-arab-spring-and-nation-building-) and make any comments at the SWJ Blog (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog).
This forum is a feed only and is closed to user comments.

SWJ Blog
10-03-2012, 11:03 AM
The Iranian View of Stage Two of the Arab Spring (http://smallwarsjournal.com/jrnl/art/the-iranian-view-of-stage-two-of-the-arab-spring)

Entry Excerpt:



--------
Read the full post (http://smallwarsjournal.com/jrnl/art/the-iranian-view-of-stage-two-of-the-arab-spring) and make any comments at the SWJ Blog (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog).
This forum is a feed only and is closed to user comments.

Bill Moore
03-03-2013, 03:07 AM
http://www.newrepublic.com/article/112490/islamists-lose-control-arab-spring-will-obama-notice#

Welcome to Phase Three of the Arab Spring


It appears to be the case that, in one zone after another, the vast regional revolution that used to be known as the Arab Spring (except that springtime has lasted two years now, and not everyone is Arab, and Mali testifies to the fact that revolutions do spread) has entered its Phase Three. The liberal origins back in 2011—the beautiful cries, “Peaceful! Peaceful!”, the days of Facebook glory—amounted to Phase One, the utopian heyday. Then came the Islamist triumphs, which marked Phase Two. Phase Two had a look of permanence, or so we were told, if only because, in the estimation of a certain school of Western thinking, Islamism, which may not be to our taste, is nonetheless authentic, which signifies: inevitable.


The Arab Spring’s Phase Three has nonetheless arrived. Phase Three adds up to a series of mass protests and revolts and even wars against Islamists of every stripe—against the mainstream Islamists in Egypt, against the moderates in Tunisia, and against the radicals in Mali. The people want to topple the Islamists!—a significant number of people, anyway. Events have by-passed the experts. Islamism, even in its mainstream and moderate versions, turns out to be less democratic than advertised; and the demos, less Islamist.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/commentary/the-harlem-shake-and-a-simmering-arab-sexual-revolution/article9234600/?

The Harlem Shake and a simmering Arab sexual revolution


There was something enthralling in the sight, on Thursday night, of young Egyptians, some clad in underwear, making rhythmic pelvic thrusts in front of the Cairo headquarters of the Muslim Brotherhood. The Harlem Shake is an unlikely medium of revolution, but the dance craze this week became the latest front in the showdown between Islamic politics and the drive toward individualism and independence.


Beneath the surface, something more complex appears to be taking place – perhaps not a whole country embracing the libertine abandon of those dancers, but an Arab world that is making the break, however slowly and awkwardly, from the restrictions of traditional family life.

I found the last paragraph particularly interested, because it may indicate a major philosophical shift in their society, which is the real revolution. I believe most historians now treat the American Revolution as the underlying philosophical change (the guiding principles that shaped the society and government) that took place before the armed conflict, and the conflict was just a phase in the overall the revolution. I'm about half way through "The Radicalism of the American Revolution" by Gordon Wood. In the run up to actual war he focuses on how American's philosophical views on government, family, social norms, etc. broke from England's, and one of the key changes that facilitated the revolution was the change in the traditional family.

We tend to focus our studies on the fighting, and come up with doctrines to defeat revolutionaries militarily and by enabling good governance, but we often fail because we don't understand the shifts in society, family, and political values. If we understood this we may find that stepping to the side and letting evolution take its place is the best answer. Our interventions in Central America, Vietnam, and elsewhere only made the evolution more deadly, but ultimately the far left assumed office in many locations. Let them assume office sooner naturally, and allow their methods to fail, and then gradually shift to the middle. It seems many of our interventions, even if successful in the short term, then to fail over the long term, and perhaps this what we're missing. I don't think our current approach to so called human domain will capture this.

http://www.playboy.com/playground/view/the-cold-arab-spring

The Cold Arab Spring


Observers of the first turbulent days of the Arab awakening could have been forgiven for predicting the triumph of Western values of liberty. Scenes of girls fearlessly marching on the palaces of the anciens régimes evoked the French Revolution. Women led rallies heralding Tripoli’s liberation from 42 years of Colonel Muammar el-Qaddafi’s dictatorship and earned their place at the tables of Cairo’s coffeehouses, long a bastion of Egyptian males. The angry reaction to soldiers in Cairo who chased female protesters and subjected them to virginity tests showed just how much the public mood had changed.

But two years on, the promise of individual as well as national liberation still hangs in the balance. The secular youths who braved the batons and bullets seem mere stalking horses for the Islamist cavalry bent on regulating according to God’s word not only the public life of Arabs but their private predilections as well. Among the first victims were Alexandria’s statues of bare-breasted mermaids, which for more than a century had borne a hunky Zeus on a marble platter. During the French Revolution, women bared their breasts; during Egypt’s, iconoclasts covered them up.

I don't think the interview with Bruce Hoffman that David posted elsewhere is wrong, actually I think he is correct. Al-Qaedaism is replacing Al-Qaeda, and there are always those who fear and oppose change and change does seem to be taking place in the Arab world. We had the KKK form after our Civil War because they opposed the changes taking place. I'm sure there are numerous other examples.

http://www.middleeast-armscontrol.com/2013/02/19/interview-with-bruce-hoffman-on-todays-global-terrorism-threat/


It is dynamic. What we have seen is the decline of Core al Qaeda, but the rise of al Qaeda-ism. In other words, even while Core al Qaeda has suffered since bin Laden’s killing, its ideology and brand have clearly prospered. Today, al Qaeda’s affiliates and associates are present in more places than al Qaeda was ten years ago.


Yes, we are witnessing a resurgence of the al Qaeda ideology and brand across the Middle East and North Africa. It is of course limited to a small number of fanatics but that in essence is the appeal of terrorism: you don’t need divisions or brigades to have an impact or arguably even to change the course of history. Rather, a handful of persons can fundamentally do so if they are sufficiently disciplined and able to perpetrate even only one or two dramatic, significant, jarring acts of violence. That is the age-old conceit of terrorists and their driving motivation.

Perhaps we have an overall positive trend, but this trend threatens the reactionaries and in turn they become more dangerous. We all know if it bleeds it leads in the media, so the extremists will unfortunately in many ways control the narrative and create the perception that the Arab world is becoming more fundamental.

slapout9
03-03-2013, 06:45 PM
Good subject Bill.....hope it keeps going!

TheCurmudgeon
03-03-2013, 08:30 PM
Bob,

Don't disagree with the general pattern. I would say that you could compare it to the revolutions of 1848 in Europe. Even though things were changing they had not reached a tipping point toward republican rule. There were still powerful forces trying to hang onto the dynastic monarchies. Likewise, there are forces trying to maintain the power of religion in the Arab world. This may seem like BS to some (or most) but it seems pretty obvious to me.

In any case, the question isn't who is going to win, the question is, "why is it happening now?" I would argue that it has to do with a growing middle class ala Schumpeter (Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy (http://www.amazon.com/Capitalism-Socialism-Democracy-Joseph-Schumpeter/dp/0061561614/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1362341219&sr=1-1&keywords=schumpeter)). What that would mean is that force has little direct roll in the transition. It has to happen on its own.

Bill Moore
03-03-2013, 11:51 PM
Bob,

Don't disagree with the general pattern. I would say that you could compare it to the revolutions of 1848 in Europe. Even though things were changing they had not reached a tipping point toward republican rule. There were still powerful forces trying to hang onto the dynastic monarchies. Likewise, there are forces trying to maintain the power of religion in the Arab world. This may seem like BS to some (or most) but it seems pretty obvious to me.

In any case, the question isn't who is going to win, the question is, "why is it happening now?" I would argue that it has to do with a growing middle class ala Schumpeter (Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy (http://www.amazon.com/Capitalism-Socialism-Democracy-Joseph-Schumpeter/dp/0061561614/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1362341219&sr=1-1&keywords=schumpeter)). What that would mean is that force has little direct roll in the transition. It has to happen on its own.

Force probably won't determine the ultimate outcome, but it does have a way of delaying the progress of a trend. If we would understood the trend, and it didn't scare us, maybe we would be less inclined to stick our nose into the midst of these evolutions (revolutions) with the goal of solving a problem that doesn't really exist. On the other hand if we really understood the trend and believed it was moving in a direction that was favorable to our interests we may be able to assert just a little energy/support in the right areas to help it alone. I think we did this with the Soladarity movement.

TheCurmudgeon
03-04-2013, 03:33 AM
I think we have reasons to be afraid. Not of the Islamists but of the general pattern. If we follow the idea that what you see in the Arab Spring is akin to the revolutions of 1848 then what follows next is a period of instability ultimately culminating in a period of fierce nationalism. At the risk of sounding crazy I am going to advise you to watch for a wave of abstract or impressionist art sweeping across the Arab world. Allong with those radical shifts in the art world will come changes in the political philosophy's. The ethnic/tribal bonds will lose grip replaced by nationalism. Then expext old rivalries to be revived.:eek:

davidbfpo
03-04-2013, 01:30 PM
Maybe the comparisons with 1848 resonate as those events were across Europe and the strength of the conservative state(s) response (I did study the period a very long time ago and recall only a little now). Solidarity in Poland is a far better comparison, partly as this trade union-led movement worked in combination with the Catholic church.

Common to these revolutions is the attempt to empower those excluded from political power - which is what we saw and see in the 'Arab Spring'.

What I do find curious with the 'Arab Spring' is that the middle classes who had been suborned - economically - by their rulers; Syria is a good example with so many dependent on state benefits, effectively decided change was necessary. I don't know the details, but suspect the middle classes were not in the lead, they responded to those socially beneath them - usually to now unacceptable state responses to dissent and protest.

Reading today I came across this comment by the UK's UN Ambassador in June 2011:
There will be an Arab Summer....It will be chaotic and it will be uneven, and it may take a generation to get from Spring to Summer, but it will happen right across the region.

In January 2012 the UK Foreign Secretary in a letter to 'The Times' wrote:
To say that Arab Spring has turned into cold winter is wrong...The
Arab Spring was always going to be a long process, not an instant fix. It was bound to take different forms in each country. The staging of genuine elections in countries that have been denied them for decades is significant. But it is what happens after elections that will determine success or failure.

Link for the quotes see citations 124 & 126 on pgs.54-55:https://www.fpri.org/docs/201303.west_and_the_muslim_brotherhood_after_the_a rab_spring.pdf

TheCurmudgeon
03-04-2013, 02:24 PM
Why I see the revolutions of 1848 as a better comparison has to do with the social and economic changes that were occurring across Europe and the frustration of the population at the lack of change in the governments. I am going to lay out my argument without citation, so I apologize for that at the start.

There had been Republics across Europe pretty much ever since the fall of the Roman Empire but, despite being a dictator, Napoleon spread a republican ideals in the countries he occupied. The ones with less of a democratic history. In addition, countries like Barvaria restructured their social systems to create the ability to conduct mass mobilizations. This led to a population whose lives were changing in a liberal way but whose governmental systems were still autocratic. Using the Davies "J-curve" (yeah, I know, you don't like it) you end up with people with rising expectation that hit a wall. The result is revolution. And not just one, but a series of cascading revolutions across several countries. Pent up anger released. In many cases the result was massive repression, but the mold had been cast. With the constant rise in economic wealth which eventually trickled down to the general population things were going to change.

(A parallel to this is an increase in abstract thinking. I am not going to explain this idea in depth, but it led to the rise of nationalism - a somewhat abstract idea for non-island nations. The reason for my other comment.)

In any case, the parallel between the two situation is the rise in an economic middle class and the increase in the idea of liberalism. Eventually the people demand more and when they don't get it through normal means the result is revolution. Now, only a portion of the population actually are pushing for revolution based on liberalism. Others are along for the ride. If the liberals do not have the majority and if they push for modern democracy too quickly, bypassing republicanism, you end up with countries that elect non-democratic governments.

This is my working hypotenuse:)

One other thing. As you noted it is now unacceptable to use certain tactics. In 1848 there were very few democracies who were assisting the revolutionaries, or at least looking to punish government's who chose to use repressive tactics. The result was a longer transition to democracy. Today, there are many countries aiding the revolutionaries and expecting Utopian results. But the society has not truly transitioned to liberalism. Democracy comes too quickly. Social change takes time even when pushed. Expect instability for many years to come as each of these societies work things out for themselves.

slapout9
03-05-2013, 05:08 AM
Bob,

Don't disagree with the general pattern. I would say that you could compare it to the revolutions of 1848 in Europe. Even though things were changing they had not reached a tipping point toward republican rule. There were still powerful forces trying to hang onto the dynastic monarchies. Likewise, there are forces trying to maintain the power of religion in the Arab world. This may seem like BS to some (or most) but it seems pretty obvious to me.

In any case, the question isn't who is going to win, the question is, "why is it happening now?" I would argue that it has to do with a growing middle class ala Schumpeter (Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy (http://www.amazon.com/Capitalism-Socialism-Democracy-Joseph-Schumpeter/dp/0061561614/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1362341219&sr=1-1&keywords=schumpeter)). What that would mean is that force has little direct roll in the transition. It has to happen on its own.

Do you think Schumpeter's "Creative Destruction Theory" has any impact on the situation?

AdamG
03-05-2013, 07:45 AM
The weapons that helped Libyan rebels oust dictator Muammar Qaddafi are turning up for sale at clandestine auctions in Egypt’s lawless Sinai Desert, where shadowy buyers purchase firearms for Al Qaeda and Hamas operatives, sources told FoxNews.com.

The illicit sales take place in the barren Sinai peninsula, where Moses is believed to have wandered with the children of Israel for 40 years. Auctions announced through the grapevine bring caravans of foreigners, all with huge sums of money at their disposal and all with the same mission, Israel Defense Force sources told FoxNews.com.


The hosts of these auctions aren’t just doing it for the money, the source said. Al Qaeda-linked jihadists are becoming more and more influential in the region, and playing a large role in who shows up for the auctions and who leaves with the bombs, anti-tank missiles, rocket-propelled grenades and automatic weapons that are peddled there.


http://www.foxnews.com/world/2013/02/26/arms-that-freed-libya-turning-up-at-desert-auctions-and-in-hands-terrorist/?intcmp=obinsite#ixzz2MeDgTC5A

TheCurmudgeon
03-05-2013, 01:02 PM
Do you think Schumpeter's "Creative Destruction Theory" has any impact on the situation?

Some Yes, but mostly no. Creative Destruction (as I understand it) is a socioeconomic theory basically says that as a free-market economy develops it changes over time to keep up with the demands of the buyers. Some products flourish while others fall from favor. This means that for any advancement in product design or utility there is often some form of decline. The result is that those workers and investors in the declining industry are left in the dust. Something must be destroyed if other things are to grow. It accurately justifies a number of the ills normally associated with free market economies like unemployment and inequality.

You could make a parallel argument that this is what is happening in the political realm, and that argument would be an accurate description of what is going on if you make the assumption that democracy is actually a "better" form of government, but I think it would oversimplify a more complex problem that exists at the sociopolitical level.

The more interesting question to me is: why do these changes happen at all? What is the connection between a growing economy and a changing value system that embraces both contract capitalism and democracy. Heck, not only embraces it but demands it. Fights and dies for it. This is not just new replacing the old; the better replacing the bad. In my mind there is a drive that is based in the human need for autonomy - a drive that is only activated once certain other needs are met. In places like Afghanistan, where we cannot even succeed in meeting basic needs, you will never activate the need for autonomy on a wholesale level. Survival will be the predominant need and survival needs produce a different set of values - values based in collective survival.

But as with survival needs and collective values, they have a good and a bad and they have a limit. Does autonomy have its limits? How does a society built on autonomy deal with collective needs like government? Does it become every person for herself leading to an inability to find any common ground? The ancient Athenians voted themselves out of democracy by failing to support their military in the face of a Macedonian invasion after a failed military adventure in Sicily. Is this the common fate of all democracies?

Back to the assumption you have to make to use Creative Destruction as a geopolitical model for these revolutions. That assumption is that democracy is a "better" form of government. I would argue that it is only "better" if you have an individualistic value system - one that demands that I have a say in the running of my government. If I have a collective based value system democracy is not a requirement. In fact, it can be an impediment. What I require is for my government to provide the things I need to survive. Democracy slows that process down with endless meetings to gain consensus. An Autocratic system simply delivers - an order is given and things happen. Different values systems prefer different governments. Part of the reason why, when given the opportunity, people with collective values will vote in a person they well know has dictatorial tendencies.

OK, I am done pontificating. I hope I answered your question.:o

davidbfpo
03-05-2013, 04:17 PM
Perhaps part of the problem in understanding the Arab Spring is that we have forgotten other recent occurrences, from a tweet:
Algeria 1988-93, Sudan 1989, Mauritania 2005-2008...

I would add the 'Cedar Revolution' in the Lebanon 2005.

TheCurmudgeon
03-05-2013, 04:45 PM
In places like Afghanistan, where we cannot even succeed in meeting basic needs, you will never activate the need for autonomy on a wholesale level. Survival will be the predominant need and survival needs produce a different set of values - values based in collective survival.

An example of my argument from a non-Arab country. In the current Kenyan elections


NAIROBI, Kenya — Uhuru Kenyatta, a Kenyan politician who has been charged by the International Criminal Court with crimes against humanity, was leading by a wide margin in the Kenya election on Tuesday, with nearly half the votes counted.

Mr. Kenyatta, who comes from one of the richest, most powerful families in Africa and has been accused of bankrolling death squads that killed women and children during the chaos of Kenya’s election five years ago, was leading 54 percent to 42 percent over the second-place candidate, Raila Odinga, Kenya’s prime minister.

He is preferred over candidates that are actually running on issues.


But in the end, the presidential candidates who tried to gain momentum on issues-based campaigns, like Peter Kenneth and Martha Karua, got almost no votes. It seemed that most voters still felt the leader from their ethnic group was the best one to protect them — especially in an edgy environment where many fear a replay of post-election violence. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/06/world/africa/kenya-presidential-election.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&_r=0

In the end, what the people want is security and stuff. It is a patron-client system that does not have the economic stability - Kenyan per capita GDP in 2011 was $808 US according to the World Bank - to activate autonomy needs. They are not interested in knowing what their government does, they just want their government to provide them what they need to survive ... and they think they are more likely to get that if a member of their ethnic group is in charge.

TheCurmudgeon
03-05-2013, 07:03 PM
While the international media loves to focus on secular, liberal protestors, they are not representative of the general population of Egypt: neither their will, their values, nor their interests. Nor were they responsible for the transition in Egypt; in fact, many of the current protestors against Muhammad Mursi were in favor of the Mubarak Regime. The recent protests have been relatively small; the opposition movement is divided and disorganized; there have been constant counter-demonstrations in favor of the President, sometimes larger than those against him.

For years, labor movements and Islamists represented the primary opposition blocs to the Mubarak regime. Accordingly, the narrative that the Islamists "hijacked" the revolution seems problematic.

Egypt is overwhelmingly Sunni Muslim; culturally, the society is very conservative. Consider this: in one of the first scientific polls following the fall of Hosni Mubarak, a plurality of respondents (41.4%) identified Saudi Arabia as their ideal model of government to replace the regime (four times more votes than the runners-up, being the U.S., China, and Turkey, with 10% each). Saudi Arabia, of course, is extremely conservative, religious, and authoritarian; clearly, the will of the Egyptian people seems to diverge drastically from their portrayal on Western media.

These respondents did not get what they wanted, despite electing Islamists to parliament by huge margins – including a number of representatives from ultra-conservative salafist Nour Party (they ranked 2nd, behind the Muslim Brotherhood; these two parties alone garnered nearly 72% of the total vote). In total, 54% of the electorate turned out at the polls.

http://www.yourmiddleeast.com/opinion/musa-algharbi-is-authoritarianism-antidemocratic_13232

My only disagreement is when the author claims that liberals were not responsible for the transition. If they were not, then the Islamists would have succeeded years ago. It was the liberal catalyst that pushed the people over the edge. None-the-less, it is not a united front, and a large number of the people who possibly remained on the fence during the revolution support a more conservative Islamic government.

As long as this level of division exists in the population it is likely that instability will be the order of the day.

slapout9
03-05-2013, 07:07 PM
The more interesting question to me is: why do these changes happen at all? What is the connection between a growing economy and a changing value system that embraces both contract capitalism and democracy. Heck, not only embraces it but demands it. Fights and dies for it. This is not just new replacing the old; the better replacing the bad. In my mind there is a drive that is based in the human need for autonomy - a drive that is only activated once certain other needs are met. In places like Afghanistan, where we cannot even succeed in meeting basic needs, you will never activate the need for autonomy on a wholesale level. Survival will be the predominant need and survival needs produce a different set of values - values based in collective survival.



I think you are on to something there! Please pontificate (big word for me:D) if you want to.

TheCurmudgeon
03-06-2013, 12:22 PM
Slap,

Here is something I have been working on. I apologize for my inneptitude at inserting images.

C:\Documents and Settings\s.wiechnik\My Documents\My Pictures\Governance Chart - Small

The three dimensions are economic capability on the left, nature of the source of legitimacy along the top, and category of value system along the bottom. Sources of legitimacy are based on either a centralized figure, like a king or dictator (essentially a client patron relationship); and decentralized meaning that the source of legitimacy is the population itself, as in a republican government. Along the bottom are the value systems: primarily communal or collective and individualistic or liberal. The result in the middle is the most probable stable government. Of course, where there is not consensus among the population on a value system or form of legitimacy you will have instability.

One of the problems Westerners have created is the modern State - particularly since many state borders were arbitrarily established. Many parts of the world like the Middle East and Africa have borders that don't make sense when compared with the functioning political systems. We perpetuate this mistake in places like Iraq, which probably should be three separate states.

Also we feel the need to replace any system that is not like ours. That is not the only way. South Africa still has many Chiefs. The state pays them but does not attempt to remove them. Many liberal minded people don't like this - yet South Africa is still considered a democracy. I think using traditional systems that still make sense where the economic and political conditions on the ground still support (demand) them is the best way to go. It is the only way to play the game if your goal is stability. We were wrong to try to replace a "warlord" system in Afghanistan with a central government when the economic conditions on the ground could not support it. The common joke is that Karzai is the mayor of Kabul and that is all he is. We would have been better off supporting the traditional loya jirga system that already existed, a form or fledgling republic. But, alas, our political objective is not always stability.

Anyway, enjoy

slapout9
03-06-2013, 07:43 PM
Curmudgy, that looks like a very powerful tool..............trying to print it off in a larger format and do some thinking on it. The organizing principle you use seems excellant!!!!

Bill Moore
03-07-2013, 07:32 AM
Slap,

The three dimensions are economic capability on the left, nature of the source of legitimacy along the top, and category of value system along the bottom. Sources of legitimacy are based on either a centralized figure, like a king or dictator (essentially a client patron relationship); and decentralized meaning that the source of legitimacy is the population itself, as in a republican government. Along the bottom are the value systems: primarily communal or collective and individualistic or liberal. The result in the middle is the most probable stable government. Of course, where there is not consensus among the population on a value system or form of legitimacy you will have instability.

One of the problems Westerners have created is the modern State - particularly since many state borders were arbitrarily established. Many parts of the world like the Middle East and Africa have borders that don't make sense when compared with the functioning political systems. We perpetuate this mistake in places like Iraq, which probably should be three separate states.

Also we feel the need to replace any system that is not like ours. That is not the only way. South Africa still has many Chiefs. The state pays them but does not attempt to remove them. Many liberal minded people don't like this - yet South Africa is still considered a democracy. I think using traditional systems that still make sense where the economic and political conditions on the ground still support (demand) them is the best way to go. It is the only way to play the game if your goal is stability. We were wrong to try to replace a "warlord" system in Afghanistan with a central government when the economic conditions on the ground could not support it. The common joke is that Karzai is the mayor of Kabul and that is all he is. We would have been better off supporting the traditional loya jirga system that already existed, a form or fledgling republic. But, alas, our political objective is not always stability.

Anyway, enjoy

Assuming this model is correct, and while I'm generally critical of social models that claim one size fits all situations regardless of cultural differences, I have to admit that your hypothesis about the underlying economic changes needed to facilitate social (and then political) change tend to ring true based off my observations and studies.

Assuming it is true, then it seems to me that our COIN doctrine is deeply flawed because we fail to recognize this evolution from economic, to social, and then to political change. In fact we attempt to reverse this evolution by first imposing political change (installing a democratic government), then attempting to build the economy, and then hope the social change follows.

That doesn't seem like a recipe for success to me.

If your model is generally correct and my critic of our COIN doctrine is generally correct, then what is the right the end for our military involvement and how do we achieve it?

TheCurmudgeon
03-07-2013, 01:25 PM
Assuming this model is correct, and while I'm generally critical of social models that claim one size fits all situations regardless of cultural differences, I have to admit that your hypothesis about the underlying economic changes needed to facilitate social (and then political) change tend to ring true based off my observations and studies.

Assuming it is true, then it seems to me that our COIN doctrine is deeply flawed because we fail to recognize this evolution from economic, to social, and then to political change. In fact we attempt to reverse this evolution by first imposing political change (installing a democratic government), then attempting to build the economy, and then hope the social change follows.

That doesn't seem like a recipe for success to me.

If your model is generally correct and my critic of our COIN doctrine is generally correct, then what is the right the end for our military involvement and how do we achieve it?

The short answer is, I don't know.

The model was designed to explain why things were not going as I thought they should in Afghanistan. I was a firm believer in the liberal COIN model. After about five years I have come to this.

You are completely accurate in that my model says that economic changes facilitate social changes that result in political changes. This is a general pattern based on human needs and therefore should be applicable despite cultural differences. That is not to say that cultural differences don't matter. When there is a stable agricultural economy with some trading AND there is a communal value system the model predicts that any one of several communal systems can be stable - anything from a theocracy to a monarchy - even communism can work. The model is built on the idea of political legitimacy being associated with societal values. But, on occasion, legitimacy can be built on personality - Weber's Charisma - which throws a wild card into the mix. I can only guess at the probability of stability, I cannot guarantee it.

The model is more helpful in predicting instability based on a mismatch of economic and social factors than it is on saying which side will win out. For example, under that same scenario (stable agriculture with some trading but limited manufacturing and a communal value system) both a monarchy and a communist system could be stable. In a fight between the two the model is generally silent on which one will win out. It cannot predict which one of two monarchs are likely to win under the same conditions if there is an internal power struggle between factions. Likewise, in a separatist situation where both sides have the same economic and social conditions it is just as unhelpful. What it can do is predict that the odds of installing a functional democracy in a society that is barely living above subsistence level with strong collectivist (tribal) values is next to nil.

As for our current doctrine, you are also completely accurate when you say it has things backwards. This is its fatal flaw. Further, the FM 5-34 also only allows for one form of legitimacy, one built on individualistic values. That won't work in a collectivist society. You have to build a network of client/patron relationships. You have to support what westerners see as corruption and human rights violations. A difficult sell politically. Arreguin-Toft's model of strong/weak state and direct/indirect conflict is accurate in that the only way to suppress a weak state counterinsurgency is through barbarism. I would argue that this is not because the state is weak, it is because the weak state tend to have a different value system. The same economic conditions that make them weak predict that they have communal values that respond better to a show of brute strength than a helping hand. That said, I do not believe you have to resort to barbarism to keep order, but I don't know what mix of tactics best supports stability and does not run afoul of Western societal sentiments.

It is really not the economic conditions that matter, although that has been the best proxy I can come up with. It is more quality of life which would include things like security in all its forms (food, peace and stability, the belief in a better future, that my children will live to adulthood, that I will not be killed or have my property taken from me, and a job that pays my bills and then some). That is the catalyst that causes the people to transition from worrying about security to caring about autonomy and ultimately demanding more freedoms. As long as you keep the people scared and hungry (Ala North Korea) they will embrace dictatorship. So, if we are promoting democracy, we need to promote economic security and then wait, perhaps a generation or two, for the society to change. We must also realize that by doing this we are going to create instability. We have to learn to help control that instability and assist the society in it's transition. We can't do it for them.

Back to the question, I really don't know how much help this theory, which I shall dub my theory of conditional values, can be to COIN strategy. :wry:

I would add one comment. It is clear that this is a social, not a military, theory. That does not mean the Army is off the hook. Do to the conditions in regions where there is instability the Army is probably the only element that can function in that environment. We are the Land Forces Combatant Commander - which I translate into the Army being the occupying authority. We don't like that. We prefer big tank fights. But big tank fights are probably not in our future. The world is going to vacillate between communal and individualistic values for some time to come. I believe that we had better figure out how to manage the instability that is part and parcel to those transitions.

slapout9
03-07-2013, 06:47 PM
Marx believed all real change was based upon economics, part of his idea of of Creative Destruction which was a great deal different than Schumpeter's. It is also part of the reason he believed so much in focusing on Economic Targets as opposed to others, which seems to have been lost when he is talked about in the modern senses.

Now for the question. The model appears to be a way to analyze a country before you invade or commit to military action was that your intention? Proper understanding of the country/problem you are dealing with before jumping to a solution?

TheCurmudgeon
03-07-2013, 07:35 PM
Marx believed all real change was based upon economics, part of his idea of of Creative Destruction which was a great deal different than Schumpeter's. It is also part of the reason he believed so much in focusing on Economic Targets as opposed to others, which seems to have been lost when he is talked about in the modern senses.

The sociological theory that supports this madness I have termed Ideological Materialism. It is a variation of Marvin Harris' Cultural Materialism, which is a variation of Marx's Historical Materialism. Marx was right about one thing, when you are hungry you can give a crap about freedom, you just want food. That, of course, is nothing more than Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs operationalized. He was on to something, but he had an agenda (or so it seems to me). Plus he lacked any real understanding of cultural Anthropology - the first book on the subject was only published a few years before his death.


Now for the question. The model appears to be a way to analyze a country before you invade or commit to military action was that your intention? Proper understanding of the country/problem you are dealing with before jumping to a solution?

No, that is not what it was intended to do. It was intended to support our current COIN doctrine. Unfortunately, that is not what it does. It can be used as a planning tool and to explain to overzealous politicians why forceably democratizing country "X" may not be as easy as he thinks. Beyond that, I can't say. I am still working out the kinks.

slapout9
03-07-2013, 08:39 PM
No, that is not what it was intended to do. It was intended to support our current COIN doctrine. Unfortunately, that is not what it does. It can be used as a planning tool and to explain to overzealous politicians why forceably democratizing country "X" may not be as easy as he thinks. Beyond that, I can't say. I am still working out the kinks.


OK, can you demonstrate how you would like it to be used by applying it to a country of concern to the USA today. Such as Libya,Syria,etc.?

TheCurmudgeon
03-07-2013, 09:14 PM
OK, can you demonstrate how you would like it to be used by applying it to a country of concern to the USA today. Such as Libya,Syria,etc.?

OK - I really need two basic objective datapoints. The two I have been playing with are the Human Development Index (hdr.undp.org/en/) and a combination of Inglehart and Welzel's Traditional/Secular-rational and Survival/Self-Expression values (worldvaluessurvey.org). Unfortunately, I don't have the value survey data. I do have HDI numbers. Libya (.760) and Syria (.632) are way below a line I have drawn at about .8 to successfully garner the values needed to transition to democracy. Therefore, my advise would be to provide assistance where it is possible. I liked the way we handled Libya. Syria is even tougher. Provide humanitarian aid and contain the situation. Other than that, stay out of it.

Of course that is just a basic look. Each country has its own special circumstances. Plus there are secondary effects of any collapse, like the loss of control over weapons systems, conventional or otherwise. What I would not advise in either situation is an occupation (unless you can show genocide - that has continuing implications for generations to come).

That is a one minute assessment based on a single variable inserted into the model. Not very helpful, but I think it is defensible.

Again, at this point the model can only estimate the likelihood of a successful transition to democracy. I can say with some confidence that democracy is an unliky outcome in either case.

davidbfpo
03-08-2013, 12:00 AM
Admittedly this is a link to South Africa, but I think it provides some insight into a country riven with problems, a high level of personal violence through crime, occasionally civil disorder and a political establishment seen by many as remote, corrupt and ineffective. Ah, not to overlook the role of the police service.

For this lady, Nelson Mandela's wife, Gracia Machel, to say this is not a good sign:
South Africa is an angry nation..We are on the precipice of something very dangerous with the potential of not being able to stop the fall. The level of anger and aggression is rising. This is an expression of deeper trouble from the past that has not been addressed. We have to be more cautious about how we deal with a society that is bleeding and breathing pain.

Link:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/southafrica/9916310/South-Africa-is-an-angry-nation-on-the-brink-warns-Nelson-Mandelas-wife.html

Bill Moore
03-08-2013, 05:23 AM
OK - I really need two basic objective datapoints. The two I have been playing with are the Human Development Index (hdr.undp.org/en/) and a combination of Inglehart and Welzel's Traditional/Secular-rational and Survival/Self-Expression values (worldvaluessurvey.org). Unfortunately, I don't have the value survey data. I do have HDI numbers. Libya (.760) and Syria (.632) are way below a line I have drawn at about .8 to successfully garner the values needed to transition to democracy. Therefore, my advise would be to provide assistance where it is possible. I liked the way we handled Libya. Syria is even tougher. Provide humanitarian aid and contain the situation. Other than that, stay out of it.

Of course that is just a basic look. Each country has its own special circumstances. Plus there are secondary effects of any collapse, like the loss of control over weapons systems, conventional or otherwise. What I would not advise in either situation is an occupation (unless you can show genocide - that has continuing implications for generations to come).

That is a one minute assessment based on a single variable inserted into the model. Not very helpful, but I think it is defensible.

Again, at this point the model can only estimate the likelihood of a successful transition to democracy. I can say with some confidence that democracy is an unliky outcome in either case.

I agree with you on the way we handled Libya. I have to wonder if the critics are serious about how our failure to put boots on the ground resulted in the proliferation of weapons throughout the region. No doubt that happened, but it also happened in Iraq and Afghanistan where we put boots on the ground.

When you're doing your research working out the kinks it would be interesting to see how your hypothesis supports our relative success in our occupation and transformation (although both had capitalist cultures) efforts. More interestingly comparing the results of Western occupation in West Germany compared to USSR occupation in East Germany. Does the model tell us anything?

TheCurmudgeon
03-08-2013, 08:09 PM
This is still a pretty crude tool. Plus I don't have any data to work off pre-1980, so post-WWII stuff is beyond me. There is a large grey area that supports either democracy or something less. What kicks a country one way or another is where culture, history, and any number of other factors come into play.

I am working on writing something up on it now. I don't have it where I want it, but it probably is not going to get any better by me staring at it.

What are your thoughts on successful transitions to democracy? Based on your experience what factors need to be considered?

slapout9
03-08-2013, 08:59 PM
Curmudgy, does this help? I think you could get access to some this guys Data.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GN5P5cmBFJA

slapout9
03-08-2013, 09:15 PM
Forming A Movement or Green Beret Stuff 2013 style all kinds of edumacated (just invented that word)stuff in this video:)



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zG8qNSQzIOw

Bob's World
03-09-2013, 01:59 PM
I put the beginning of the modern Arab Spring a bit in front of events in Tunisia in 2010.

In fact, over 100 years prior, with the Constitutional Revolutions in Turkey and Iran.

I also believe one gets to a clearer understanding if one applies the mechanical device definition to "spring" rather than the seasonal one.

Each of these complex, diverse populaces are like bundles of compressed srings beneath the weight of systems of governance that many have either never seen as legitimate, or that have come to be perceived as increasingly illegitimate over the years.

The Ottomans, the Europeans and the Americans have all worked to shape the region to their liking, and have served to keep such "springs" compressed. But once one "spring" moves they all being to quiver and become more likely of moving.

The falling away of the greater evil of potential Soviet dominion was, IMO, a major factor in beginning the quest to push back against local and foreign systems of inappropriate and/or illegitimate government. Early efforts were typically quashed, with the real trouble makers "encouraged" to go elsewhere to plot / wage their plots against external manipulators. The Saudis in particular have bought down risk in this manner in a major way. But the chickens are coming home to roost.

The empowering effects of modern information technologies are also a major factor. The more informed and empowered the people are, the more energy a government must apply to keem them in some situation against their will.

If our solution is to simply reinforce the status quo where we think that suits our external interests; or alternatively to help throw off the local system of governance where we think that best suits our interests, we will continue to be frustrated with the results. And we will continue to incite acts of transnational terrorism back onto ourselves as payment for our efforts.

We need to reframe the problem, and then reassess how we best get after securing ourselves and our interests. We will likely find that less is more, mediation is better than arbitration, and evolution is more productive than revolution.

But until this the "springs" will continue to uncoil.

Dayuhan
03-10-2013, 12:15 AM
If our solution is to simply reinforce the status quo where we think that suits our external interests; or alternatively to help throw off the local system of governance where we think that best suits our interests, we will continue to be frustrated with the results. And we will continue to incite acts of transnational terrorism back onto ourselves as payment for our efforts.

We need to reframe the problem, and then reassess how we best get after securing ourselves and our interests. We will likely find that less is more, mediation is better than arbitration, and evolution is more productive than revolution.

In those two paragraphs I see the word "we" 7 times and the word "our" 5 times. When do we stop and reflect that it isn't about us, and that these issues generally require no solution from us. In my opinion you're right, mediation is better than arbitration and evolution is more productive than revolution, but it's not our place to be making those choices on behalf of others.

We need to be very wary of assuming that terrorist events are necessarily a reaction to our actions. Other people out there do not just react o what we do, that can and do proactively pursue their own objectives. Even if those objectives are incompatible to ours or involve hostility toward us, we cannot necessarily conclude that they are reactions to our actions. That's an appealing belief, because if it were true we could control the actions of others simply by adjusting the stimuli we provide, but that appeal does not make the assumption viable.

Bob's World
03-10-2013, 02:00 AM
Well, Dayuhan, most people who we call "terrorists" are not really terrorists at all, but simply are people fed up with the situations of government they are forced to live under.

But not all nationalist movements feel compelled to attack some foreign power. When foreign powers are attacked it is typically because said populace group believes that foreign power is somehow responsible for the situation. Or for sustaining the situation through external provision of CT or BPC support.

But please, tell me where this is not the case. I am fascinated to hear your examples rather than your groundless criticisms of my analysis. This is art, not science, but even art critics need some foundation to stand upon.

Dayuhan
03-10-2013, 02:19 AM
Well, Dayuhan, most people who we call "terrorists" are not really terrorists at all, but simply are people fed up with the situations of government they are forced to live under.

But not all nationalist movements feel compelled to attack some foreign power. When foreign powers are attacked it is typically because said populace group believes that foreign power is somehow responsible for the situation. Or for sustaining the situation through external provision of CT or BPC support.

But please, tell me where this is not the case. I am fascinated to hear your examples rather than your groundless criticisms of my analysis. This is art, not science, but even art critics need some foundation to stand upon.

You've said yourself that AQ is not a populace and does not represent any populace. I don't believe for a minute that AQ is simply reacting to perceived offense. They are proactively pursuing a strategic agenda of their own. Any desire to remove perceived external influence is incidental to a desire to impose their own influence. To me the desire to perceive AQ and allied groups as reactive rather than proactive is a fundamental strategic error that can have rather dangerous consequences.

Bill Moore
03-10-2013, 03:37 AM
Forming A Movement or Green Beret Stuff 2013 style all kinds of edumacated (just invented that word)stuff in this video:)



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zG8qNSQzIOw

This is just politics 201, not Green Beret stuff in my view, though our ranks should understand it. We're generally better off if we don't get involved and let the political evolution unfold. UW has merit in very select cases, but in most cases we're better providing diplomatic, financial and information support to movements we want to see gain steam.

Posted by Bob's World


Well, Dayuhan, most people who we call "terrorists" are not really terrorists at all, but simply are people fed up with the situations of government they are forced to live under.

This is generally true, but it doesn't effectively capture the intent of transnational terrorist groups who have global or regional ambitions that have nothing to with how effective or ineffective the governments are. In Al-Qaeda's case it is the caliphate. When the USSR was promoting communism they exploited bad governance in some cases, but frequently organized resistance in countries that had decent governments. Again it takes less than 15% of the population resisting the government to present an existential threat.

Getting back to your point we have conflated AQ with all acts of terrorism conducted by Muslims. Many are conducted by people feed up with their government or an occupying power and their act has nothing to do with a larger global agenda, but we generally put them in the same category, which demonstrates a dangerous lack of understanding on our part.

slapout9
03-10-2013, 06:23 AM
This is just politics 201, not Green Beret stuff in my view, though our ranks should understand it. We're generally better off if we don't get involved and let the political evolution unfold. UW has merit in very select cases, but in most cases we're better providing diplomatic, financial and information support to movements we want to see gain steam.


Ok let CIA do it. We used to be fairly good at this back in the 50's and early 60's.

Dayuhan
03-10-2013, 10:23 AM
in most cases we're better providing diplomatic, financial and information support to movements we want to see gain steam.

I'd say even that needs to be pursued with great caution and acute awareness of the potential for unintended consequences.


Ok let CIA do it. We used to be fairly good at this back in the 50's and early 60's.

Hell yeah, we got rid of Mossadegh and Lumumba and everything worked out just fine in those places... not to mention a few others.

slapout9
03-10-2013, 06:37 PM
Dayuhan, this is what I amtalking about.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hdA0d6O4bZ0

Dayuhan
03-10-2013, 09:37 PM
My 3rd world internet connection would take all day to load a 44 minute video, and it would almost certainly bog down in the process. Are "opritives" something like "operatives"?

Bill Moore
03-10-2013, 10:12 PM
Ok let CIA do it. We used to be fairly good at this back in the 50's and early 60's.

Slap, that comment assumes we need to do something. One has to wonder if we as a nation that promotes the value of self-determination feels compelled to stick our nose in other nations' business in support of business or perceived (and sometimes real) security interests. The CIA has had some sucesses, but it seems most of their efforts are a bit clown like and normally backfire. Special Forces facilitates expert tactical level guerrilla operations in support of an overall strategy (assuming one exists), but our nation doesn't a single organization that can wage unconventional warfare, it requires a whole of government approach.

I'm really at loss to find more than a handful of examples of where the U.S. was successful in UW if you look the impact over time. We have been successful providing quiet assistance to non-violent uprisings/revolutions in some cases. The problem in our approach is every organization with a tool believes they have the strategic solution (assuming it is our problem to begin with). The Air Force thinks they can bomb their way to success, the Army thinks they can occupy and impose control/stability, Special Operations thinks they can achieve all ends through and with indigenuous partners, the CIA paramilitary thinks they can achieve the end through too often clownish covert operations, and of course our State Department offers little more than imposing sanctions. All are tactics confused with strategy. What do we need to achieve (ends), what are the best way(s) to accomplish it? what are the means? All this must be informed by an understanding of the environment or conflict ecology, which in most cases we have failed to gain.

I agree with Bob's World on this:


If our solution is to simply reinforce the status quo where we think that suits our external interests; or alternatively to help throw off the local system of governance where we think that best suits our interests, we will continue to be frustrated with the results. And we will continue to incite acts of transnational terrorism back onto ourselves as payment for our efforts.

We need to reframe the problem, and then reassess how we best get after securing ourselves and our interests. We will likely find that less is more, mediation is better than arbitration, and evolution is more productive than revolution.

slapout9
03-11-2013, 07:22 PM
Bill, you raise valid points and yes we have several independent agencies that believe they all have the Holy Grail solution but this is why I like Ike, he knew how to make Policy that could control and pull together all those radical independent agencies. Which is what a real leader should do. But sadly our present leadership believes everything can be solved by applying the Hawaiian Social Justice Philosophy. Here is a link to an upcoming PBS series on Eisenhower and Waging Peace Covertly as one portion is called. Ike had a broad and effective Policy before any Strategy was ever developed, something that is sadly laking in our present leadership. It was based on 3 key elements Nuclear deterrence MAD, A Strong Economy at home, and Covert Action when needed.


http://www.eisenhowerlegacy.com/eisenhowers-secret-war

Steve Blair
03-11-2013, 09:56 PM
Eisenhower also saddled us with a military that was unprepared for conventional conflict. He also underestimated Stalin's determination at key points and seems to have totally misread both China and Southeast Asia writ large. Not to mention that his defense policies created that evil ol' military-industrial complex that he later bemoaned. MAD did precious little to deal with the demise of colonial regimes throughout the world, and quite a few of his covert activities were either overreaching or short-sighted.

His best trick was perhaps that domestic prosperity, which made sure that people wouldn't look too closely at some of his foreign policy decisions.

Bill Moore
03-16-2013, 06:17 PM
Not an indepth piece, but none the less it further illustrates that our clear, hold, build doctrine may be more severely flawed than I originally thought when we use it to install democracies. There appears to be an order to economic, social and political evolution that cannot be imposed with military force. For your consideration.

http://ideas.time.com/2013/03/14/10-big-ideas/slide/grow-a-burger/?xid=gonewsedit&google_editors_picks=true#/2013/03/14/10-big-ideas/slide/shrink-your-living-space/?&_suid=136345427799009715529462149245

Write a Constitution
By Fareed Zakaria


This should have been clear to anyone who looked at the history of transitions to democracy. While many former Eastern Bloc countries have become liberal democracies, the 15 former Soviet republics have not fared as well. Nine are dictatorships, and the other three — Georgia, Ukraine and Moldova — are, in the words of Stanford scholar Larry Diamond, “illiberal, even questionably democratic and unstable.”

Why? There is a vigorous academic debate about the conditions that allow democracy to flourish. The most powerful single correlation remains one first made by the social scientist Seymour Martin Lipset, who pointed out in 1959 that “the more well-to-do a nation, the greater the chances that it will sustain democracy.” But there are other intriguing correlations. Countries in Europe, even relatively poor ones, have done better than others. Former British colonies have done better than those of other countries.



Read more: http://ideas.time.com/2013/03/14/10-big-ideas/#ixzz2Nj6NncSD

TheCurmudgeon
03-16-2013, 08:21 PM
There appears to be an order to economic, social and political evolution that cannot be imposed with military force. For your consideration.

I would agree. Below is a graph of the Human Development Index. The Human Development Index is calculated using data like life expectancy at birth, schooling, and Gross National Income (GNI) to produce an index number that ranges from zero to one with one being the best possible rating.

The second data-point is a derived from World Values Survey data. The world values survey is conducted once every five years or so and includes data from over 80 countries. It asks a series of questions to determine the values that are most important to the society. Dr. Ronald Inglehart and Dr. Christian Welzel have used the data from these surveys to produce dimensions that can be used to estimate societal values. Traditional vs. Secular dimension reflects a contrast between societies where religion and tradition is very important versus those where they play less of a role in determining an individual’s personal values. Survival vs. Self-expression dimension reflects a distinction between those societies that emphasize economic and physical security to versus those that find subjective well being to be more important. Combined the two provide a basic yardstick for measuring whether a society has communal/survival values or whether the society has individualistic/liberal values.

The squares are full democracies, the diamonds are partial democracies, and the circles are autocracies (based on Polity IV data). Base on this I would say that first human conditions increase, then the values change, then you get democracy. You might also note that there are almost no countries that are individualistic with a low Human Development Index.

SWJ Blog
05-09-2013, 08:13 AM
Sayyid Qutb’s “Milestones” and Its Impact on the Arab Spring (http://smallwarsjournal.com/jrnl/art/sayyid-qutb%E2%80%99s-%E2%80%9Cmilestones%E2%80%9D-and-its-impact-on-the-arab-spring)

Entry Excerpt:



--------
Read the full post (http://smallwarsjournal.com/jrnl/art/sayyid-qutb%E2%80%99s-%E2%80%9Cmilestones%E2%80%9D-and-its-impact-on-the-arab-spring) and make any comments at the SWJ Blog (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog).
This forum is a feed only and is closed to user comments.

davidbfpo
05-15-2013, 07:47 PM
A strategic assessment of the Middle East's changing landscape by the London-based counter-extremism think tank and advocacy group, the Quilliam Foundation.

Introduction:
At the end of 2010 a series of demonstrations started which shook the Arab world from Iraq to Morocco – a phenomenon commonly known as the “Arab Spring”. Beginning as a series of desperate protests against sudden escalations in food and energy prices, by the beginning of 2011, the uprisings had transformed into shows of frustration against and rejection of the autocratic governments in power over much of the Middle East region. The protesters taking part in the Arab Uprisings called for dignity, respect and democracy in place of the repression and intolerance which had for so long characterised the region in which they lived, often with covert support from the Western world. They succeeded in overthrowing several of the Middle East’s long-time autocrats in the hope for a democratic future. But what the rest of the world did not anticipate was that the efforts of these protesters could result in the rise in power of mainstream Islamist groups across the region.

Two years since the start of the Arab Uprisings, we now face a Middle East where politics have been dramatically transformed. Much to the surprise of the rest of the world, democracy has brought about the transition of mainstream Islamist groups from their historic position of opposition to that of official power. Tunisia and Egypt – the first countries to overthrow their autocratic governments in the Arab Uprisings - are now governed by Hizb al-Nahda and the Muslim Brotherhood respectively, both of which despite being Islamist groups have been elected into power democratically. With such an unforeseeable political shift emerging and the fates of many post “Arab Spring” countries yet to be decided, it is important to ask how this transition in Tunisia and Egypt transpired in the first place and whether it is likely to have negative implications on the rest of the world.

Quilliam’s first strategic assessment, “The Middle East’s Changing Political Landscape”, provides an insight into Hizb al-Nahda and the Muslim Brotherhood so that we can begin to understand how and why they were able to gain public support and come into power democratically and more importantly, what this shift in power implies for the Middle East’s relations with the international community.

Noman Benotman, President of Quilliam (ex-LIFG), says:

'With many other Middle Eastern countries still undergoing their transition to democracy, it is critical that we are able to comprehend the reasons for the increase in popularity of mainstream Islamist groups as legitimate political powers. This strategic assessment provides such understanding of Hizb al-Nahda and the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood and serves as a critical analysis of how both these groups may steer their future relations with the international community.

Link to paper:http://www.quilliamfoundation.org/wp/wp-content/uploads/publications/free/the-middle-easts-changing-political-landscape.pdf

Jedburgh
04-01-2014, 11:26 PM
Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik, March 2014: Divisive Rule - Sectarianism and Power Maintenance in the Arab Spring: Bahrain, Iraq, Lebanon and Syria (http://www.swp-berlin.org/fileadmin/contents/products/research_papers/2014_RP04_wmm.pdf)

….A historical perspective shows that in all four cases, these dispositions and dynamics are grounded in authoritarian, non-democratic, and violent practices of rule, leadership, and power maintenance applied by or on behalf of political rulers and leaders. Whether the narrative features Druze landlords in nineteenth-century Lebanon mobilizing tribal solidarity to com-bat an agrarian uprising, Syrian intelligence officers recruiting Alawi youths into popular militias, Sunni Iraqi politicians generating bargaining power by initi-ating “spontaneous” protest camps, or Bahraini royals encouraging Sunni citizens to take to the streets to prevent a Shiite takeover: the story remains one of en-forced top-down solidarity sustained by and ultimately leading to violence, which compromises all social actors and destroys all options for horizontal solidarity that could generate bottom-up pressure. As the events of 2011 and beyond show, divided societies remain divided and indeed become more so as the result of strategies and practices devised by rulers and leaders defending positions of political power, and for this same end, they will continue to generate exactly the divisions and the violence they pretend to contain…

SWJ Blog
09-25-2014, 01:31 AM
If the Arab Spring Wasn't Dead Already, It is Now (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/if-the-arab-spring-wasnt-dead-already-it-is-now)

Entry Excerpt:



--------
Read the full post (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/if-the-arab-spring-wasnt-dead-already-it-is-now) and make any comments at the SWJ Blog (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog).
This forum is a feed only and is closed to user comments.

davidbfpo
04-26-2016, 09:50 PM
The 'Arab Spring' seems almost light years away and as there is no SWC thread on the secret police / secret intelligence or in Arabic the Mukhabarat, this new article will sit here. The author is Brynjar Lia, professor of Middle East Studies at the Department of Culture Studies and Oriental Languages.

Stability is assured, well the author is adamant - no. From the conclusion:
The idea that Arab dictators may help secure long-term stability in the Middle East after the “failure” of the Arab Spring is a dangerous fallacy. States ruled by dictators are almost by definition loose cannons on deck....The assumption that the rules of the game have somehow changed after the Arab Spring and the rise of ISIS and that Arab autocrats have now become our best choice at a time of uncertainty and crisis ignores the lessons of history.
Link:https://newmeast.wordpress.com/2016/04/26/the-arab-mukhabarat-state-and-its-stability-a-case-of-misplaced-nostalgia/

CrowBat
04-27-2016, 05:18 AM
Well, if taking a look at Egypt, one can't but agree with author.

Sissi is meanwhile faithfuly following Mubarak's pad: he managed to turn most of the country against him, and is filling prisons with thousands of people demonstrating against him. Only immense presence of the army, police and (regime-) 'security' forces - which blocked access to all major squares and sights in Egypt - prevented mass demonstrations for the Sinai Liberation Day (25 April).

Wherever one asks, everybody there is purchasing arms and ammo - and there's no end of flood of these from Libya.

Rumours are flying that the SCAF (top army council) is unhappy with Sisi, and that even his most ardent supporters are finding it hard to back his decisions. If only a part of that is correct, his days are de-facto numbered.

Bottom line, contrary to so many expectations, nobody there thinks his rule is something like a stabilizing factor for Egypt, and even less so that he could keep himself in power in this fashion 'forever'... It's just taking time for steam to build up.

For the rest, well, 'remember Mubarak'.

SWJ Blog
01-17-2017, 09:26 AM
Why No One Remembers the Arab Spring of 2010 (http://smallwarsjournal.com/jrnl/art/why-no-one-remembers-the-arab-spring-of-2010)

Entry Excerpt:



--------
Read the full post (http://smallwarsjournal.com/jrnl/art/why-no-one-remembers-the-arab-spring-of-2010) and make any comments at the SWJ Blog (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog).
This forum is a feed only and is closed to user comments.