As Gomer Pyle Would Say.......
Thank you...Thank you....Thank you. I have said many times that there is No difference between Communism and Radical Islamism as far as a methodology for conducting Special Warfare. They are the same... but we cannot or we will not see that...so we get beat up alot!
PS. I Highlighted certain critical parts of Outlaw 09 comments below.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
OUTLAW 09
We have had our internal politics so colored by the Cold War "fight" against Communism that we forgot and or cannot now discuss in a honest fashion just what the role of the various ME Communist parties was in the development of the ME---virtually every modern Sunni/Shia thinker of the 60/70s who was fighting for self determination ie nationalism ended up in prison where they met sometimes for the first time Arab communists---and during their prison exchanges learned things like organization, living underground and population messaging at the same time learning of the similarities between the "religion of Islam" and the "ideology" of Communism/Marxism. In fact a number of ME leading communists were being jailed/killed for their political activities long before Sunnis/Shia got into the self determination fight.
Even some of Khomeini's early writings and speeches reflected communist thinking wrapped in Shiaism.
Why is it that still today we in the US have an extremely hard time discussing Communism in an open dialogue without people taking sides and threatening each other with bodily harm politically speaking of course.
To understand the ME is to understand the role of Communism in the development of Sunni/Shia fundamentalism.
A no occupation policy - helps to reduce resistance
I have read the posts to date and wondered about the reverse effect of a 'no occupation policy' in the context of Western Europe, in particular the Iberian pleninsula - where in 1945 Franco ruled Spain, had been an Axis ally and next door Portugal had the Salazar dictatorship, which had eventually allied itself with the Allies.
Yes in the Cold War context both were seen as allies, providing bases notably, but politically until 1974 kept at a distance politically. Both successfully became and remain democracies - without major bloodshed.
It is a curious fact that the USSR shared occupation in Austria till 1954 IIRC; withdrew from northern Norway promptly and negoitated a semi-submissive realtionship with Finland. "Finlandisation" was a theme during the 'Cold War' about what could happen if the USSR was successful.
Yugoslavia partly freed itself, but the USSR withdrew swiftly.
Not to overlook all the countries of Eastern Europe it did occupy, each evolved a communist regime that the USSR could normally accept.
Anyway just a thought.
Mexico: no occupation policy in practice
Quote:
Originally Posted by
OUTLAW 09
Robert---your comments are actually very appropriate if one applies the same comments you made to the current situation in Mexico.
I would argue that actually the current problems seen in Mexico are the direct results of an unfinished revolution that did not include the population.
I would also argue that in fact the roots that caused the revolution to go unfinished were caused by our US Army military intervention which did not end until after we had declared war on the Germans during the 1st World War.
We never seem to see analysis of that particular event ie military intervention and it's impact on the population and the revolution.
A better case for the 'no occupation policy' thank you.