Rex, this is very similar, but with a key difference
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Rex Brynen
This is force majeure (or realism, or deterrence, or pragmatism), however--it isn't legitimacy.
To draw a parallel, my very first teaching job was on a First Nations reservation. All of my students would have regarded the Canadian government as an unshakeable reality. Very few (if any) of them would have regarded it as "legitimate." (None of them would have regarded Canada as having a "right to exist," to draw another parallel and use the formula often cited in the Israel-Palestine context.)
If those same students believed that they could prevail over the Canadian government and its security forces, but for the support of the U.S. acting as a stooge of Canada and committed to protecting them; you would have a very different situation on your hands. Probably an insurgency (and they would then make a choice as to employ violent or non-violent means to illegally challenge that government).
But in fact, I suspect they believe that while they do not like the fact that they were defeated and now a new power reigns the land of their ancestors, they know they lost and that the new victor has a legitimacy borne of his power to win to begin with and to suppress any challenger of his own capabilities.
Israel may very well be able to ward off all challengers on her own as well; but it is the perception in the minds of many Arabs that she could not that fuels the conflict. I know from my own experience with the Egyptian Army in the first Gulf War that none of the officers I spoke to had ever been defeated by the IDF. I found this to be an interesting perception then, but I am only coming to appreciate the importance of that perception now.
Case of beer for that one
Dayuhan,
Fully concur with your last post, and even agree with many of COL Jone's ideas, but I do have a rub. There are discussions on policy that should be identified as such to avoid confusion (and unintended insult). Too often the posts sound like the poster is accusing the military for policy decisions, and imply if the military would only implement this policy everybody could live in perfect harmony.
Recommendations for policy makers and recommendations for Soldiers asked to achieve the policy objectives are two separate discussions, and while I agree both should be discussed here by all who desire, even those of us in uniform, we need to better clarify when are discussing TTPs for achieving the given policy, and when we're discussing policy itself. Many of COL Jone's inputs are directed at the policy, not the military units involved in achieving the policy objectives, yet they read like the military developed the policy and the military needs to change it. He obviously knows that isn't the case, he is an experienced strategic planner, but his posts often read like the Bde or Bn Commander needs to change their political policies.
Just a simple change in writing style would alleviate much of the confusion.
If you mean non-violent resistance
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Bob's World
What is Civil Resistance?
Poles, ‘70s-’80s
Czechs/Slovaks, ‘80s
East Germans, ‘89
Serbs, ‘00
Georgians, ‘03
Ukrainians, ’04
Could you be more specific? While in Poland there was a non-violent resistance organisation called Solidarnosc, the same cannot be said of Czechoslovakia, or East Germany. If you say there was NV resistance against communist rule it is generally true for all eastern european countries like Hungary, Bulgaria or Romania too.
OTOH serb, georgian and ukrainian movements in th 21st century were much rather political than classical resistance to oppressive systems. Same can said of the african american movement in the USA. In that sense you can add the Tea Party or Greenpeace to the above NV movemenent list.
The selected and oversimplifying knowledge and usage of history is seriously limiting the NATO's capability.