Be careful which reeds you lean upon...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Bob's World
This is an important read (and think) piece.
It's a think piece alright. Written by a known "America is evil and the problem" guy with a checkered history. Like many articles, it contains some fact, some opinions and some questionable items...
Quote:
This cuts to the heart of what Muslim support to AQ has been all about. For the fear mongers in the US,... They are, and have been, wrong.
Perhaps a bit. Both fanatics and the fearful often do get things wrong.
Quote:
This has NEVER been about ideology, it has been about oppressed people and the pursuit of liberty. Ideologies are just the tools employed to get there.
In many cases that's true, however, if that's the tool being used, does it not at least mean the ideology is part of the problem? It certainly means that if the ideology is not the issue then it is being used as a catalyst to manipulate people to achieve certain ends which may or may not comport with that ideology.
One can make a valid case the Shah of Iran was a despot. However, his subjects were not so much oppressed as dirt poor and he truly tried a bit to improve their lot. Khomeini and Co. used 'ideology' to depose the Shah -- and replace him with a regime that was and is far more despotic, that killed more people in its first two years of existence than the Shah had in the previous 25. So it's not all about oppression, the ideology is not benign and the change wrought may not be an improvement. :rolleyes:
I suspect the truth lies between Falk-like fear mongers on one side and the "Islam wants to kill us all" fear mongers on the other. Fanatics of any stripe and type are best ignored but watched. They tend to take a speck of truth, amplify it beyond all reality to suit their needs and create a lot of confusion. Most do not merit circulation or promotion. Manipulators are similar. Fanatical manipulators are just dangerous. Manipulators of fanatacism doubly so. Why, they can even induce fear in otherwise rational people. Hmmm. That raises a question, do such manipulators merely implant, enhance or abet fear mongering or are they themselves fear mongers? ;)
Or is it about the economy?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Ken White
It's a think piece alright. Written by a known "America is evil and the problem" guy with a checkered history. Like many articles, it contains some fact, some opinions and some questionable items...Perhaps a bit. Both fanatics and the fearful often do get things wrong.In many cases that's true, however, if that's the tool being used, does it not at least mean the ideology is part of the problem? It certainly means that if the ideology is not the issue then it is being used as a catalyst to manipulate people to achieve certain ends which may or may not comport with that ideology.
It may also be about the economy - see here for another opinion on the source of anger. Politics has a role, but the economic side is also a big factor.
Quote:
I suspect the truth lies between Falk-like fear mongers on one side and the "Islam wants to kill us all" fear mongers on the other. Fanatics of any stripe and type are best ignored but watched. They tend to take a speck of truth, amplify it beyond all reality to suit their needs and create a lot of confusion. Most do not merit circulation or promotion. Manipulators are similar. Fanatical manipulators are just dangerous. Manipulators of fanatacism doubly so. Why, they can even induce fear in otherwise rational people. Hmmm. That raises a question, do such manipulators merely implant, enhance or abet fear mongering or are they themselves fear mongers? ;)
I just made the same point over on the Globalization thread... :) A lot of the hatred is spurred by folks using what is esentially propaganda to gain control. They would invent stuff to be angry about if it didn't really exist... because it gives them power.
V/R,
Cliff
Your ability to avoid a point is awesome...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Bob's World
..certainly the perceptions of the governed regarding how one rose to power and how one is sustained in power is nearly as important as is how they feel about how one governs while in power.
True -- but little to no bearing on my points that "it's not all about oppression, the ideology is not benign and the change wrought may not be an improvement." :confused:
Quote:
But now it is 2011. The Cold War is long over, though the majority of our governmental and diplomatic framework for waging it remains rusted in place.
I agree but, again, that has little to do with the facts that ideology is not benign and all 'popular' change is not necessarily for the better...
Quote:
But the U.S. need not, and should not abandon these governments... Play this right and we turn down the flame beneath the boiling pot of popular discontent that we call "The War on Terrorism"...We need to lend stability to these inevitable transitions, to empower and facilitate evolution of government in order to prevent revolution of government. This means a mix of both assuring allies and cautioning/threatening them to be careful in how they respond to their populaces. Similarly to be supportive and cautioning/threatening to these populaces as well in regards to how we support peaceful evolution, self-determination and the principles we proclaim so loudly in our own founding documents; but that we will not stand idly by to outrages on the part of either side.
IOW, we can interfere in the affairs of others and should do so...
Quote:
This is where the real lesson from Malaya comes to play. If we enable the right governmental reforms, then when the dust settles and the Islamists come in from the cold looking for support, they will find that the populace no longer needs what they are selling and is moving on without them.
"What is this 'we' stuff, White Man" quoth Tonto to the Lone Stranger? :D
Yet again you say we must support, encourage, threaten, enable or otherwise stick our oar in -- yet you say 'they' must determine for themselves...
Yet again I say -- you cannot have it both ways.
Either we interfere or we do not. If we do, the results for many reasons will be uncertain and there is no guarantee that the result will be satisfactory in anyone's view. More on this below.
Quote:
We have an opportunity for "Malaya in the Desert," but that will only happen if we can break our Cold War paradigms and find the right balance between stability and change, between governments and populaces, between influence and control.
I respectfully suggest that there is no corollary to Malaya (also again... :rolleyes:) and that while I totally agree the Cold War paradigms must go (long overdue, that...) and finding that balance is desirable, so far all you've done is indicate the two poles:
They determine. But...
We
Quote:
...need to lend stability to these inevitable transitions, to empower and facilitate evolution of government...cautioning/threatening them to be careful in how they respond to their populaces...supportive and cautioning/threatening to these populaces as well in regards to how we support peaceful evolution, self-determination and the principles we proclaim so loudly in our own founding documents; but that we will not stand idly by to outrages on the part of either side.(emphasis added / kw)
Where is this balance of which you speak?
I submit you haven't outlined it because you cannot -- each nation, each upset situation will be different, will require a different blend of reactions and those cannot be predicted due to the vagaries of the nation involved, its people, our political process and the rotation of policy makers in that process. Thus ideologies -- ours and theirs -- have an important bearing on what occurs. It may not be 'about' ideology but you cannot discount the effect of that or them.
Thus, if we enter into the issue in any measure -- and will have to do that for various reasons on occasion -- then we are interfering and we will almost of necessity attempt to influence the outcome and the results are not, can never be, certain. What occurs is that the policy makers of the day have to react to the information available, the circumstances as far as are known and make a decision. It will often, in hindsight, be wrong -- as was emplacing the Shah. Rectification can be messy -- as it was. That rectification may produce a worse situation -- as it did.
You desire to preclude this minor chaos and to codify our responses. Admirable but unlikely. You suggest, in essence a policy, you do not provide strategies.
I agree with your desired policy (as I have always done since you came up on this Board) and I suggest you can provide no strategy due to that varied situation factor and the US political system (as I have always done since you came up on this board).
Thus while I agree with your western enlightenment ideal of what should be done in the somewhat different east I'm forced yet again to suggest that your goal is not totally realistic and that we have never been prone to strictly adhere to "the principles we proclaim so loudly in our own founding document." Nor have we been able to do so for a variety of reasons, some valid, some specious -- all real...
That paragraph should be worth at least two bonus points. :D
How can you assert this ...
Quote:
from BW
What is going on across North Africa today is a good thing.
when it (what is going on) has just started.
Your arguments have remarkable prescient and crystalball powers - Mandrake the Magician, so to speak.
http://www.schwimmerlegal.com/images/mandrake.jpg
Regards
Mike
I have to disagree with you Bob...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Bob's World
Carl,
You are a victim of effective propaganda. Think about it. When a populace is ripe for change it will take whatever bus pulls up to the stop. But once the dust settles, the ideology is typically moot. Look at all of the primarily Protestant countries today. Not all that radical, just a bunch of largely democratic capitalists. Look at all of the primarily communist countries today. Similarly, these too are morphing into a bunch of captitalists. They have a way to go on human rights, but these things take time.
Bob, are you actually arguing that the path these countries took is for the best? Can you really say that ideology is moot? You do realize that for a long time no one had a clue about the horrors that were being perpetrated by Stalin and Lenin, and actually fell for the Soviet propaganda about how successful and happy the USSR was. The UK, Germany, France, Italy - all were considering adopting socialism/communism. At the same time, Stalin was killing millions of his own folks. This was not because the folks got on whatever bus pulled up to the stop- it was because Lenin intentionally undermined the Russian government.
Quote:
Same with the Islamists. They are not the enemy, they are merely driving the bus. All we have to do is provide those same populaces with an alternative to the Islamist bus. Tunisia is leaning away from the Islamists, and I suspect Egypt will as well. No one wants to sign up for a bad deal, but they will to get out of a worse deal.
I don't think the Islamists are driving the bus. They are attempting to fulfill their interests... by shaping the narrative and seizing power. They haven't been effective anywhere where they haven't had massive external support. That isn't the same thing as being in charge.
I agree with Dayuhan and the other folks - we cannot "provide an alternative" in some deux ex machina way. We can encourage, support, help... and I agree with you that we should strive to always set the example. But we can't stop working with every government in the world that doesn't conform to our notions of democracy... we would end up isolating ourselves and would actually be less effective at supporting democracy worldwide. The best thing we can do to help is be ourselves, keep talking to the folks in these countries, and try and build as many economic, social, and military ties with them so that if things do change we have some personal relationships and a basic level of trust to start from. As you say, it must be the people's choice- and if you look at history they are far more likely to choose freedom and democracy if they have a basic level of economic well-being first.
Finally, I agree with Dayuhan about the arrogance element... it took us (the United States) over 200 years to fully reach the basic level of freedom that you are arguing we should "provide" to the people in the Arab world... In the meantime we severely repressed multiple ethnic groups, most of which conducted what most folks on this esteemed board would term insurgencies. Oh yeah, and one of those insurgencies resulted in a full-up civil war that cost the nation 700,000 casualties. All in the name of ideology...
If we applied the same patience to our dealings with other countries, we would be a lot better off and avoid a lot of the interventions Dayuhan warns against. Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it after all...
V/R,
Cliff
A map recon is not enough...
Bob,
Too many hours in air conditioned staff-land can result in the attitude that flippantly sprinkling some PowerPoint prose on a problem will result in it's immediate resolution by the little people.
Meanwhile, out in the hot sunshine of operations-land, the dirty boots folks (aka the little people) continue to sweat and sometimes die as they do their best to implement that PowerPoint prose.
Answering Dayuhan and Ken's last few posts point by point will require moving away from the intellectual a/c and engaging in some sweating on your part. Think of it as the equivalent of battlefield circulation with all of the benefits of perspective that that effort brings...
Steve
Ideology can lead to socially undesirable behavior...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Bob's World
Yes, Ideology is moot.
It cannot be moot if it is "the driver of the bus, the grease that keeps things moving and the glue that binds things together." If those are true allegories, I suggest that killing the driver can lead to a runaway bus, a little sand in the grease can destroy the gears and a bit of citric acid or a solvent will often turn a glue problem intro an unholy mess.
In any case, ideologies will cause changes and those frequently will not be benign. They will or may also call for some type of action on the part of involved or interested parties -- thus they are far from being moot.
Quote:
As ken points out people in such periods of popular revolt and turmoil are just as ruthless under Methodist ideology as they are under Communist ideology as they are under Islamist ideology.
That's not exactly what I said or meant but thank you for making the point that people may be and usually are the problem -- however it is the ideology that skews their actions in a particular direction that may be inimical to good order...
Quote:
The energy behind such movements is always the nature of the relationship between those who govern and those who are governed.
We can disagree on that, vehemently if necessary. You accord government / governance entirely too much sway and ideology -- or evil and a quest for money or power -- not enough...;)
On this:
Quote:
Ciff: I feel where you are coming from, but you are operating off of some bad data (and our "no blame on the US" version of history and our flawed COIN doctrine and analysis of GWOT don't help).
Let me suggest once again that you're being borderline insulting. Stating flatly that another is operating off "bad data" and other deficient in your view factors is arrogant (which is okay by me, I indulge), an assumption on your part (which I try to and we all should avoid) and / or a sly way to lessen the impact of points or argument made by another (which most here try to avoid). In such a forum as this, it can be construed as unduly dismissive of the views of another by a process of implying evil intent or stupidity at worst, ignorance or inanity at best. Hopefully and probably, that's not your intent but the implication that what the other person said was ludicrous so thus can and should be dismissed isn't conducive to discussion. ;) ;)
Be careful what you get, you may not wish for it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Bob's World
Ideology gets a lot of attention. But it does not cause insurgency. Nor does ideology cause men to abuse power to kill other men without just cause.
The first clause is possibly true, the second is at a minimum arguable. That third assertion certainly does not merit the finality with which you state it, is an opinion and what is or is not a just cause is subjective. Many people are dead to due ideologies trumping reason. You have cited a few that fall in that 'incitement to homicide' state that was likely not justifiable by much of anyone other than the perpetrators at the time -- not least militant protestantism. :wry:
Quote:
All of that could have been avoided if the US would have simply honored its commitment to Ho Chi Minh following WWII. If the U.S. would have simply recognized their universal right to liberty and self-determination.
More than arguable. Whether France would have acceded to such US 'recognition' cannot be known.
Quote:
To blame what followed on Communist ideology is a corruption of history and mis-understands the role of ideology in such movements.
I did not see anyone make such a claim. Cannot speak for others but I referred to the deaths caused by that ideology and my reference was to those within and by the Soviet Union and China that directly resulted from autocrats perverting communism per se into an aberrant ideology. An ideology that was directly responsible for emplacement of those persons who caused those tens of millions of deaths within those two nations. What that ideology caused elsewhere is arguable but it, worldwide, emphatically was not benign or moot.
Quote:
I ask simply, is it the ideology of those promising liberty that "radicalizes" a populace, or is it the actions of a government that denies liberty that "radicalizes" a populace??
You do not ask, you assert constantly that is the case. It is an opinion to which you are entitled but one which several of us with broadly equal experience do not agree. That type of radicalization frequently occurs. What also occurs is that ill intentioned people hijack an ideology for their own purposes, convince gullible persons to support them in the name of an ideology and set off in search of money or power and their concern for the populace is later revealed to be so much blather and the poor fools who bought into that ideology find they were duped and -- as in Iran -- are worse off than they were before they were 'helped.'
It would really be nice if things were simple, pity they aren't.
Be careful what you're for, you may not get it...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Bob's World
...to the SWC it is indeed a question for them to ponder.
Not just SWC, I think...
Quote:
There are no absolutes, but some concepts are more helpful than others.
True. However, concepts that blind one to other possibilities are rarely helpful.
Quote:
But I recognize I am out in front on this, and also that I may be out in front because I am headed in the wrong direction. But I don't think I am.
Of course you don't or you wouldn't beat it to death so regularly. I don't think you're headed in the wrong direction though it does often appear you have latched onto an overly specific azimuth of theory rather than a direction of travel -- and that to the exclusion of all others. "No deviants" amounts to an ideology...
That is of course your prerogative. I'd also suggest you are not out in front because what you posit is neither radical or innovative, you just are an exceptionally strong proponent for a theory espoused by others; Sachs, Nye, James Earl Carter et.al. currently, Aristotle way back when...
It's a theory. Like most it is often correct but sometimes wrong. As is always true, determining that a given theory is gospel (witness US Cold War theory...) can delude one into occasionally following a wrong path. As you say, there are no absolutes and it behooves one to not let a concept become concrete booties...
It's all the government's fault??
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Bob's World
I believe that the majority position on ideology is biased by the natural tendency to avoid responsibility on the part of a government for rebellions within their own populaces ,or the populaces they seek to subjugate through colonization or some similar control and influence. I also believe it is a position that blinds governments to effective prevention and leads to greater human suffering than if they took a more responsible approach to governance. But I recognize I am out in front on this, and also that I may be out in front because I am headed in the wrong direction. But I don't think I am.
Bob-
Do you really think that Al Qaeda would change it's stripes if we withdrew from the Middle East and every dictator was thrown out? It has nothing to do with governance - it has to do with the fact that they believe in a global caliphate run on the principles of Islamic law - and they believe that this is a religious duty. I don't care how good of a democracy you have, these folks won't change their tune.
You have to admit that there are people out there leading many of these groups who have vested interests in finding grievances with their governments - it gives them their power, which is all many of these folks really want.
I don't think anyone here is arguing that good governance doesn't help prevent/combat insurgencies. But the idea that it is governance will solve everything, or that governments are THE cause of insurgencies, ignores the many sources of discontent, not all of which are in the government's control. The truth, as usual, is probably somewhere in the middle, not at any extreme.
The one aspect of this that may be true is the people's perceptions. Folks have a very Hollywood view of democracy, the US, and the West. When we roll in to assist or "democracy" takes over, people expect that things will instantly get better- ignoring our own 200+ year struggle to get it right. So in some sense those perceptions may affect the outcome.
Finally, I am a little tired of having my arguments dismissed on the basis of "bad data". If you think I am wrong, then cite some sources to back up your argument. I have cited numerous articles in my discussions. Your dismissal of other people's arguments based on your "being out front" smacks of the exact hubris that you are accusing the majority of the west of having - the sense that you are right and know better than everyone else. I know it's probably not intentional but it makes it a loss less fun to have these discussions with you.
V/R,
Cliff
No theory. Just Dreamers all...
Surferbeetle;114843
In order:
"The natural community according to Aristotle was the city (polis) which functions as a political "community" or "partnership" (koinōnia). The aim of the city is not just to avoid injustice or for economic stability, but rather to allow at least some citizens the possibility to live a good life, and to perform beautiful acts: "The political partnership must be regarded, therefore, as being for the sake of noble actions, not for the sake of living together."(emphasis added /kw)
"One of Carter's most bitterly controversial decisions was his boycott of the 1980 Summer Olympics in Moscow in response to the 1979 Soviet invasion of Afghanistan." "Carter's personal attention to detail, seeming indecisiveness, and weakness with people."
Wrong Nye. LINK. "He is widely recognized as one of the foremost liberal thinkers on foreign policy." "Nye coined the term soft power in the late 1980s and it first came into widespread usage following a piece he wrote in Foreign Policy in the early 1990s."
"In his 2005 work, The End of Poverty, Sachs wrote "Africa's governance is poor because Africa is poor." According to Sachs, with the right policies and key interventions, extreme poverty — defined as living on less than $1 a day — can be eradicated within 20 years."
All are believers in the good of governance (properly done as they see it, of course...) -- that being their similarity to the Bob's World philosophy.
Quote:
I don't see the connection...
The connection is the disconnect between those theorists and their 'good governance' -- and reality. They espouse governance on a higher plane and well over 70% of the world does not enjoy such luxury. Do the math, as they say...;)
Quote:
Focusing upon Tunisia...I wonder about where that crack team of native or neutral international advisors... are training as they wait for a political figure to rise from the Darwinian struggle currently wracking that nation.
As traders in the City of London and on Wall Street? :eek:
Quote:
...why is it that we are still instinctively reaching out for a military solution (duct tape and gerber tools)....instead of looking to a non-military (differential diagnosis) and response focused upon discrete benchmarks?
Good question. I agree that, with Nations "...an understanding of context, monitoring and evaluation, and professional standards of ethics.[1] Clinical economics requires a methodic analysis and "differential diagnosis" of a country's economic problems, followed by a specifically tailored prescription."(emphasis added / kw)
Sach's most important statement in that quote is the item I placed in bold; every war is different, every nation is different, every situation is different. You cannot put mankind in a box, quantify things and state you've found the grail, holy or otherwise. However, lest you think I'm changing positions, I am not a Sachs fan and I'm quite dubious about 'clinical economics.' I do believe that with ANY determinations regarding nations, a thorough analysis is required and the knowledge that parameters can and will change rapidly must be superimposed on all analyses. Nations are made up of people and people are volatile and notoriously unpredictable. Undependable creatures for the most part...:rolleyes:
All four I cited really got and get very little traction -- but all believed that good governance would stop problems before they began. So apparently does Bob' World. I agree. The difference between those five and I is that, based on observation, I'm extremely doubtful that people will cooperate. :(
More questions and a few opinions...
Ken,
I too find that people are interesting and worth watching. Not only do I understand why folks of a certain age enjoy sitting in public places and watching the parade of humanity go by, I find that I am starting to devote some of my time to this sport :eek:
Like you, I believe, I am a fan of using concepts such as ASCOPE, Area Assessments, Political Assessments, Value Chain Analysis, Industry Surveys, Business Ratios, etc in order to get a general sense of what is going on in the arenas which capture my interest...interestingly, all of these methods use fundamental principles from systems analysis which itself borrows from ecology. Yet, I agree, none of these techniques and disciplines fully capture/describe the complexity we see.
Stochastic behaviour and duality...the simultaneous existence of wave and particle (echo's of yin/yang), are two concepts that come to mind when I think about how to try and describe people/mankind quantitatively. Things are actually more complex, I believe, than what Steven E. Shreve covers in his books Stochastic Calculus for Finance I and II, more complex than what Bernt Oksendal covers in his book Stochastic Differential Equations, and more complex than what Paul Glasserman covers in his book Monte Carlo Methods in Financial Engineering. I am not a mathematician, nonetheless, I am slooowly making my way through their works and recommend the journey to others. If I make it to my actuarially predicted endpoint, I won't be too surprised if computer power and analytical techniques will have evolved to the point where we are able to provide quantifiable predictions, based upon underlying principles yet to be described, which exceed those provided by the USG sponsored Political Instability Task Force (George Mason University).
I consistently enjoy Dr. Sachs' analytical rigor, my copy of The End of Poverty is marked up/tabbed/highlighted, however I am still thinking about the actual deliverables resulting from his efforts, those of George Soros (influenced by Karl Popper), those of select Austrian Banks, those of GE Capital, and the Treuhandanstalt in Eastern Europe during and after the fall of the Berlin Wall. It's important to qualify that their efforts are but part of the story and some of my experiences in the ME (and banking for that matter) have revealed to me some of the darker aspects of people which they do not appear to account for in their analysis and calculations.
Are some of the events in Tunisia, Egypt, Yemen, and Iraq directly comparable to those of Eastern Europe during and after the fall of the Berlin Wall? Perhaps, however my understanding is limited, and it’s still very early in the timeline to try and start making predictions. I'd be interested in your thoughts regarding the benchmarks I am using versus your experiences and observations.
Steve
Human nature is the core common factor
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Pete
A lot of the inspiration for terrorism is a sense of existential blues and trying to find someone or something to blame for them. As long as the U.S. is one of the most powerful countries in the world people will continue to blame us no matter what we do. If we as the U.S. fail to take action against unjust governments we're to blame; if we take action against them we're intervening in another nation's affairs.
In addition to that is a loud-mouth intellegensia around the world which for the most part has never had the albatross of having had to be responsible for accomplishing anything. Put in another way, they're the college professors and New York intellectuals who don't have the leadership to make a squad of troops clean up a latrine. However, their lack of experience has never stopped them from having opinions or saying that this or that should have been done.
Blame shifting is indeed a core human trait. I saw this in dealing with drug users in court. This is also a smart, powerful aspect of AQ's UW campaign, in essence "you cannot achieve the type of governance you deserve here at home until you break the moral/political influence of the West/US over your 'apostate' government". This strikes a powerful human cord, "yes our government has become apostate, but it is because they have been corrupted by the morality and wealth of the West" (so it is the West's fault, go attack the west, or contribute funds to those who promise to end this influence, etc). Some hear this, and think that ending Western influence is enough, others think that their corrupted government must go as well. There is a dozen ways to process this message and rationalize the need to act out illegally. (Plus, there are no effective legal venues for acting out so the populaces only choices are "endure" or "revolt.")
So a HIGH VALUE TARGET for the US is the widely held perception that our culture has a morally corrupting influence on the people and governments of the Middle East, and that our government manipulates/corrupts the governments with wealth, power and inappropriate meddling. Some places there is more reality to that then others, but it is the perception that matters. The U.S. has a golden opportunity during this current unrest to Engage THAT HIGH VALUE TARGET. I think the President's speech a couple nights ago re. Egypt was on target. We need to do more in that regard, but it is more symbolic and messaging, and backroom carrot and sticks discussions than anything else.
We cannot target and destroy "Islamist Ideology,"
We cannot target and destroy "corruption."
We cannot target and destroy "poverty."
But we can target and engage the perception that these things are our fault. This requires us to makes changes in ourselves rather than in others, and to admit a degree of liability for the political unrest in the region. Such admissions are the first part of a 12-step program for a reason. Healing cannot begin until acceptance of responsibility for ones actions occurs.
Heh. The Carter prescriptions and their aftermath
show that idealism can have unpredictable costs...:rolleyes:
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fuchs
Mature citizens decide for themselves.
So do immature citizens. Both decide pretty much what they wish to decide and then look for evidence to support their position -- frequently ignoring dissenting voices.
Nothing new in that...
Quote:
What the U.S. could do:
Support the opposition instead of dictatorships or at least drop the support for dictators.
A noble ideal. While I agree we can do that, getting the ponderous US government to shift gears is far more problematic than it seems to appear to many. :eek:
Supporting "the opposition" internally is a feature and a factor of the operation of the US government. Getting agreement on what course to follow is always messy, generally a lackluster compromise and will almost never satisfy most people. Thus we are condemned to a foreign policy that is, at best, strange. A big part of that has been that we for almost two centuries had so much wealth and relative power and so many built in strategic advantages that we could safely let US domestic politics rule our foreign (and economic) policy. Those days are gone but due to the excessive size of our government and its peculiar design, we are very slow at shifting focus. As I've said before, that's a feature, not a bug.
Whether that feature will work adequately well in the future is to be determined. I certainly do not know the answer but I can say that over many years, I've seen a lot of premature predictions of our fall or demise.
Quote:
Do not supply arms. The point here is not so much that this will deprive them off arms (others will sell them), but it'll make the army less happy and thus more inclined to not support the dictator in a critical moment.
Idealistic statement and idea. Two problems with it. First, the arms are ancillary to dictatorships; their primary control is through intimidation of persons and / or the delivery of economic sufficiency.
Secondly, we've done that several time over the last Century, most notably and pointedly during the Carter years. What we discovered was that our the clients or customers would just turn to someone else and that the UK, France and Germany on one side and the USSR and China on the other were more than willing to fill the gap (and that remains true) -- thus, our industries lost production and sales and the net flow of arms was not changed in any significant degree. There is also the fact that in providing arms (and training) the US Armed Forces obtain some moderating influence on the local armed forces -- witness both Tunisia and Egypt today.
Quote:
Yesterday, several well-known Republican faces have overtly supported Mubarak and disparaged the popular uprising as a 1979-style revolution that needs to fail. Meanwhile, the U.S. governments is not doing much of substance overtly.
Were they Republican faces or TV / Media pundit talking heads that lean Republican or right? I missed any politicians of any significance doing what you say -- though I did note that the Vice President, a Democrat, said Mubarak needed to stay. :wry:
The talking heads can be effectively ignored, the VP not so much.:D
Bob's World:
Quote:
Now, when these "allies" are challenged by populaces who are acting very much in accordance with our express national principles we find ourselves in a massive conflict of interests.
True dat. Been that way since 1836 or thereabouts. Note that the conflicts almost always get worked out in a way that satisfies few but that is ordained by US domestic politics...
Quote:
("We care about the people of Israel, not the people of Egypt") Why can't we care about both???
Affinity, I suspect...
Quote:
We failed to reach out to the people of Iran and we did not work to establish a relationship with the new government.
As one who had served in Iran, had friends there and from there and was therefor paying attention at the time, that is a not totally true statement. We did reach out as best we were able given our ponderous nature and the reach was rejected -- not due to the oft stated 'Mossadegh affair' but simply due to ideology using the business of 1953 as an excuse. Check Bowden's "Guests of the Ayatollah" for just one of many sources.
Quote:
Much of the current strain between the US and Iran is on the shoulders of the US and our policies toward Iran. In fact, the US can use how it changes its approaches to such situations with this Egyptian opportunity. Then leverage that to reach out and form a healthier relationship with Iran as well.
I very much agree with that. However the limitations of US domestic political intrusion and the correct and proper fear of the unknown results plus ideology that will reject US overtures will quite possibly not produce the results you seem to expect. Thus while it is quite easy for us -- You, Fuchs, myself and some others -- with no responsibility to say "we can do better..." it is far more difficult a decision and problematic effort for those that have the responsibility.
Quote:
We have a chance to clear up this tremendous hypocrisy of conflicted US principles and policies in the Middle East, and I think we should make the most of it.
Again I agree. Again, having the responsibility to do that or not and the actual doing of it are not nearly as easy as writing about it...
Whoops, Missed this earlier. Sorry...
Glad to see you back on the board...;)
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Surferbeetle
I find that I am starting to devote some of my time to this sport :eek:
My wife's favorite sport. I tend to take a good book... :o
Quote:
Yet, I agree, none of these techniques and disciplines fully capture/describe the complexity we see.
True and that even slight degree of uncertainty drives many decision makers to dither -- generally the worst reaction but one which seem thoroughly embedded in the human psyche. I fear we'll just have to live with that. :wry:
Quote:
I am not a mathematician...I won't be too surprised if computer power and analytical techniques will have evolved to the point where we are able to provide quantifiable predictions...which exceed those provided by the USG sponsored Political Instability Task Force (George Mason University).
I suspect you're mostly correct. While there are benefits to be derived, I fear there may also be some downsides in that removal of uncertainty, strongly desired by many , will not be the panacea they expect.
Quote:
It's important to qualify that their efforts are but part of the story and some of my experiences in the ME (and banking for that matter) have revealed to me some of the darker aspects of people which they do not appear to account for in their analysis and calculations.
People can cause what Burns said: "the best laid schemes of mice and men gang aft agley..." Quantification has great merit, properly applied and that is correct even if there is massive human involvement. However, the larger the human quotient, the more latitude for error in quantitative analysis. Qualitative analysis can fill some gaps but even applying both types rigorously will not lead to certainty; people are simply too emotional and the probability of developing an algorithm to track that is slim...
Quote:
Are some of the events in Tunisia, Egypt, Yemen, and Iraq directly comparable to those of Eastern Europe during and after the fall of the Berlin Wall? Perhaps, however my understanding is limited, and it’s still very early in the timeline to try and start making predictions.
My guess -- and it is no more than that -- is that most of the Eastern European experience wil not be transferable to North Africa or the ME. Just as Malaysian and Indonesian Muslims differ and both those are quite different than the Arabs of the ME, geography and demographics shape destinies and attitudes.
For assessments of potential and / or predictions of possibilities and probabilities, great familiarity -- let me emphasize that 'great' -- with a region and its people will enable a reasonably astute prediction when coupled with quantitative and qualitative data whereas the date sets alone will not suffice. Passing familiarity (my two years in the ME or four in Korea for example) do not equip one to make competent judgments. It takes long experience with actually living in a culture to do that -- and all peoples separate into cultures...
That's the difficulty with even phenomenal brainpower as in Sachs and Shreve applied to people problems, they miss the nuances -- and cannot stand the quirks...
Limelight seekers are fascinating...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fuchs
I explicitly pointed out that it's not about refusing them the weapons needed to suppress the people.
Yep, read that, just reconfirmed it and went on to note the fact that we experienced the switch off in supplies had two down sides; they bought elsewhere -- and, the important point, we lost military to military leverage. It's been my observation that very few in the world realize how many things the US Armed Forces have done to get other forces worldwide to be a little less 'harsh' in their treatment of others...
Quote:
The military is unhappy if it's being neglected, and being able to only buy 1960's crap from China is a form of neglect.
True on the first part, on the second, not so much. China will sell that if they can (as will the USSR and most others, including the US) but for he who insists on better stuff, both China and the USSR have made significant improvements in quality control, appearance, finish and functionality in the past few years -- and they've always done fairly well with reliability which, to the knowing, is more important than pretty...
Quote:
Bolton, GOP conference chair Thaddeus...and I don't recall that from Biden, although it wouldn't be too uncommon.
Bolton is a right wing screwball, he has never represented mainstream Republican views. He did serve in the Reagan Bush administrations (both) but this is a guy whose attitude was as "...He wrote in his Yale 25th reunion book "I confess I had no desire to die in a Southeast Asian rice paddy. I considered the war in Vietnam already lost." He was never confirmed as UN Ambassador and he needs to be ignored -- which is what most in the US do...
Thank you for introducing me to someone I'd never heard of. After reading some of Thaddeus' statements and a bit about him (LINK) , I can see why. I suspect he, too, can be safely ignored. :rolleyes:
Still, you were right, they count as Republicans. I guess I ought to pay more attention to political chatter; I ignore much of it as it's pretty pointless... :wry:
Take our V.P. for example (who's really not all that bad but does tend to talk too much and say strange things...). :D
NK is indeed a unique case.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
carl
How about North Korea?
North Korea is a tough read. My "never been there, don't know much about their culture" assessment is that the conditions of insurgency should be fairly high, and in turn, highly suppressed by the government.
NK is unique, however, in how isolated that populace is information-wise from the rest of the world. They may actually perceive their situation to be "normal", and therefore have relatively low conditions of insurgency. Perceptions are relative, and with the advent of ever increasing speed, volume and access to information the standards expected of governments increase. In NK, however, things still move at stone-age speeds.
My prediction on NK is that as the populace gains greater access to information the pressure on the government to evolve will increase. Of course their entire model of governance may collapse before that ever happens.
Info technology and its advances are critical to the understanding of insurgency, particularly for foreign powers that subject the populaces of others and their governments to external controls. The later Romans, once their network of roads were built, could not get away with what the earlier romans could. The Holy Roman Empire found it's systems of controls under increased pressure once the Printing press was invented. The British came under greater pressures from their holdings once they connected their empire with telegraph cables. The Soviets lost control of Eastern Europe as those populaces gained greater access to info; and today the systems of controls the US established as part of its containment strategy and to ensure global commerce is under growing pressure as cellular and satellite comms and social networking sites continue to improve.
The world is changing, and the expectations of governments are changing along with it. Power once "monopolized" by states is becoming more democratized instead. Sovereignty means less than it used to, and non-state actors from corporations to AQ are acting more independently from such sovereign controls and with greater power that states are ill-equipped (currently) to counter or deter.
We live in dynamic and fascinating times. Facing these times armed with a COIN doctrine derived from centuries old colonial intervention strategies as our primary tool for managing them is probably not the best idea.