Getting away from Sri Lanka and into theory, but...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Bob's World
Evil or selfish men will step up to lead insurgencies when the conditions exist and the same goes for governments and now, non-state actors like AQ, who will swoop in to conduct UW for their own purposes as well.
Poor governance opens the door for change...what that change will be depends upon who steps up to the plate.
This is true, but we must be very wary of any impulse to direct change by trying to step up to the plate on someone else's behalf... no designated hitter rule in place here. Evil and selfish aren't the only dangers: it's wise to remember the old adage about the pavement on the road to hell.
Takes us right back to the problem
Quote:
This is still new and the group struggled with the concept. One study was based on a broad base of data from Iraq and lauded as "evidence." It was good work with good insights, but to my thinking it was still based on a sample of one insurgency and as such was still 'analogy' until the finding could be cross-referenced and challenged by running them against a history of hundreds of other insurgencies to see if they stand up
.
This paragraph indicates you have fallen into the same trap most of us fall into. You're looking for evidence to prove a theory instead of using evidence to discover the truth. I'm sure I can cherry pick evidence from hundreds of insurgencies to support my theory compared to yours and vice versa (RAND does it all the time). Fortunately or unfortunately we have military minds (unconventional or not), and we tend to want to develop simple answers (doctrinal approaches) based on common truths (whether they exist or not).
After thinking about your arguments a little more, I also think your approach is too absolute. You are proposing that every problem is due to poor government, and the center of gravity (pardon the military term) is always the government. I suspect people can find supporting evidence (depending on how you interpret it) for that in many insurgencies, just as they can find examples of where an enemy centric approach worked, but the reality in both cases i suspect will be different, and as Mike stated the outcome was due to several variables, perhaps hundreds of them. Until we all learn to back off our pet theories and preconceived ideas the evidence based approach is doomed to fail just as badly as the correlation approach. For an evidence based approach to work it would require using evidence with no bias, and it is very hard for humans to do that.
I have to echo Bill. Though I believe he and I both have said this several times..
This entire paragraph:
Quote:
After thinking about your arguments a little more...it is very hard for humans to do that.
Summarizes what I've been saying about Bob's World view from the first. There are other causes (which Bob dismisses as minor inconveniences :D) and the human factor (specifically his US specific remedies) will ALWAYS intrude. We're not as nice or as smart as he wishes. I kept saying that but have sort of backed off recently not because I've come to see the correctness of his views but solely because I don't want to belabor the point -- even if Ol' Bob does. :wry:
I know Bob's a smart guy and that he knows all that -- but he also is trying to sell a product, one that has merit but is vulnerable to a counter pitch on those two factors. Either that or he's looking for that long river in Africa...;)
And Mike, as usual, makes excellent points...