Speaking of religion and religious based insuregency or violence,
Quote:
Originally Posted by
marct
Hmmm, I don't think that is has to be, although it may be in some cases. Do you think if Britain had granted the US colonies representatives in the House of Commons that would have been a "defeat"?
Not in the eyes of Anglicans, Catholics or possibly even many Methodists, the majority of whom would've welcomed such representation to avoid a fight and achieve comity. In the eyes of the larger crowd of Baptists around at the time (or today :D), only slightly possibly if that. In the eyes of the Scotch Irish Presbyterians -- who really fomented the Revolution part of the discontent -- absolutely not. It would have been a defeat and one they almost certainly would not have accepted... ;)
Thus, I believe we have an example of a relatively small group of 'hard core' insurgents, a minority group, not necessarily dragging an entire nation or nation-to-be behind them to a destructive war but almost certainly, once that war had started, refusing to surrender and return to an earlier state. Sound familiar? :wry:
Quote:
I think where the real problem comes in is with a set of popular perceptions as to which group, the "loyalists" or the "rebels" has the greater likelihood of solving a root problem. One (obvious) measure is whether or not the rebels win or loose militarily, but there is also another one in in general belief in problem solving ability, capacity and willingness....The ideological side of a COIN fight is crucial to establishing the legitimacy of the differing sides proposed "solutions" and, in some cases, their individual definitions of what are the "root problems".
I somewhat agree but would point out that (a) the ideal 'solution' to the problem may take quite different guises dependent upon ones views and biases. (b) Re: the insurgents, their ideas and what they say OR you or we think their ideas are may be quite different things, thus 'legitimacy' may be quite difficult to establish (not to mention that 'legitimacy' can, again, be different things to different observers, much less the participants). (c) The 'root problem' also may be perceived quite differently by various observers. i.e. I may want no or quite limited government or governance; another person may aspire to strong, honest, open and pervasive government.
I think that both items put us smack at the difference between people... ;)
Thanks for the reponse. Good points all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
marct
...because I suspect most Americans don't really have an easy time of intuitively thinking as if they were the insurgents.
I'm quite sure you're correct in that. I, OTOH, having been a rabble rouser for over 70 years -- and particularly so while in uniform -- am quite conversant with the thinking process, it's instinctive... ;)
Quote:
So, by way of extension, what do the Afghans (in general) perceive the "root problem" to be? The Taliban are selling a problem-solution set that is quite old (it's technically called a Revitalization Movement and it's been used thousands of times). What is the government selling? What does the population want? Split out by which segments? At the same time, are those wants acceptable to US, NATO and Afghan politicians?
Truly excellent question -- but, no derogation intended -- one couched in western terms. I believe the Afghan perception of root problems is extremely transitory and imminently fungible, that it will vary not only from week to week but also from district to district. More importantly, from tribe or clan to clan or tribe and is based on perceived need at the time. There are some exceptions, obviously -- security of a sort (not the western norm but a lesser variant the west is loth to accept, a separate problem within itself... :rolleyes: That's really sort of important...) being one that's fairly obvious and certain -- but broadly it's a dynamic. That it is a dynamic is a factor that makes Afghanistan a tremendously complicated conundrum for the west.
I suggest that your excellent and pertinent question appeals to logic and western norms and deserves an answer but that most Afghans would not fully understand it, would answer with what they thought you wished to hear -- or with what they wanted to occur (and that could / would vary frequently) and that this dichotomy is large part of the problem with achieving understanding in the west for things occurring in the east... :( Thus I think you asked a fair question that we cannot answer and that no one is likely to answer accurately and honestly in the western sense of those terms.
Note the foregoing applies to Afghanistan. Iraq was and is very different. The Philippines are even more different. An African nation, as a further but theoretical example, would be again quite different from either of those three. My belief is that the bulk of western perceptions on what should happen in any of those nations would roughly coincide. Not possible, I think...
My personal belief is that the norm of all western desires or goals for Afghanistan will not be achieved to the satisfaction of most; those for Iraq will be partly achieved to the satisfaction of most; the Philippines will be achieved to the satisfaction of almost all but that will take much longer than Iraq; and that the African nation, as a theoretical is not predictable at this point. Those difference are due to environmental (in small part and to include external -- i.e. western -- impingements) and local human factors (mostly) variations.
Quote:
Sorry, my head is in theoretical clouds at the moment...
Me too, as always...:D
Agreed and good example. Yesterday, my Wife walked in the room,
said "You're all alike" and walked out. Been married too long to fall into that trap so I waited until this morning and said, "Oh, BTW..."
Turns out she'd been watching a program filmed recently in Pakistan in the NWF area. Female reporter, a Muslim and a Pakistani, pointed out to a crowd of male village leaders that she had read the Koran and it nowhere called for the hijab or any other head covering. The Elders', plural, response was emphatic, loud and instant: "It's in there, you missed it." They then resumed eating and thus closed that issue. Men can be intransigent I think was the message. I thought it best not to pursue that... :o
Pertinence here is "Do not bother me with facts" seems to be feature, not a bug... :wry:
As does "MOTH-ER, I'd rather do it myself..."