See, this is the problem with overly focusing on the insurgent
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Ken White
That's true. Conversely, the arguments of others also have the same validity and merit the consideration you desire for your arguments. You rarely give that consideration and thus perhaps do your arguments no favors. Bulldozing may be overkill when only a Bobcat is needed. Said another way, shouting is a two way street.. :wry:
Can you provide me a list of those "thousand insurgencies?" Does that list also include those where the governance was an issue only in the sense the insurgents wanted to replace the existing governance with their own brand -- which they KNEW would be less tolerable. Iran comes to mind. The Cuban, US and USSR (among others) fomentations around the world during the 60s are prime examples of 'our' form of governance versus anyone's status quo and with little to no regard for the quality of said quo. :eek:
A response to that is that if poor governance did not exist, such efforts would draw no followers. That is almost certainly an erroneous assumption. There are a lot of malcontents in every society. IIRC, Bertrand Russell put the figure at nearly half, providing a lo
w threshold for violence with the proper incentives. My personal observation says Bert overstated it, I'd say in most societies it runs around 20 to 30 percent. However, that is enough to provide a cadre of folks who see only slight difference between grumbling and fighting versus the big difference their more complacent neighbors see. Which it will be often lies in subtle manipulation... ;)
I'm not at all sure too many get upset about the illegality of insurgency. In fact, my belief is that most are far more concerned about the potential threat to their perceived well-being than they are about legality. Nor am I sure that insurgency is a drastic approach in many cases. Again, Iran comes to mind -- as do several of the various Mexican Revolutions.
Then we also have various worldwide military coups as insurgencies...:D
Such a focus leads to overly agonizing over what the challenger offers or what his motivations are; rather than what the problems of the current governance are and what the causation among the affected populace is that allowed this challenger to come in and make headway.
So, ok, lets pick one off of your list and look at. Cuba sounds interesting. To put everyone on a common footprint to begin with I'll look at this reference
The Casebook on Insurgency,
http://www.usgcoin.org/library/USGDo...s/AD416553.pdf
or
http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/...ook+insurgency
I've not looked much at this particular insurgency, nor this reference version of facts. It is in Section II Latin America; #5 Cuba 1953-1959.
I'll look at it with an eye to how the populace percieved their government and why it is that Castro could emerge to take down a standing government supported by a powerful backer only a few miles away.
Uh uh -- Such a focus leads to
missing the point...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Bob's World
Such a focus leads to overly agonizing over what the challenger offers or what his motivations are; rather than what the problems of the current governance are and what the causation among the affected populace is that allowed this challenger to come in and make headway.
I do not agree agonizing is involved for most people nor do I think most fail to look at causation. Most do look for it. Many will see poor governance (as it often is), many will see other factors (also often the case). It is possible to over-focus on things besides the protagonists.
The really sharp will divine the truth which is likely somewhere between the two. Well, as much truth as any conflict offers -- to wit: not much...:D
Quote:
So, ok, lets pick one off of your list and look at. Cuba sounds interesting. To put everyone on a common footprint to begin with I'll look at this reference
The Casebook on Insurgency...
Umm, Bob -- we're off on the wrong foot. You missed the point or tried to divert the argument. Don't waste your time on the why of the Cuban revolution. Note I did not give a list, nor did I cite Cuba as an insurgency -- what I did write was:
""The Cuban, US and USSR (among others) fomentations around the world during the 60s are prime examples of 'our' form of governance versus anyone's status quo and with little to no regard for the quality of said quo."" (emphasis added / kw)
Note I said the 60s and the fomentations of the Cubans plus the US plus the USSR (among others). So I'll give you Cuba as a case of bad governance leading to the Castro insurgency of 1956-59.
My reference was to the attempts of Cuba to export 'revolution' to Africa and South America and to those of us, the USSR and others to change the governance in other nations (which may or may not have been bad) for 'own' governance (which may or may not have been one bit better * )
Quote:
I'll look at it with an eye to how the populace percieved their government and why it is that Castro could emerge to take down a standing government supported by a powerful backer only a few miles away.
Good try, but leaners only count in Horseshoes. Batista was a creep and had a bad government. Castro is not the issue, Ol' Che and exporting insurgency is... :wry:
As for why he prevailed, I can tell you that -- because many in the US government of the day totally supported Castro, hated Batista for being a minor despot and their librul instincts allowed them to voice and provide support to Fidel, thus over riding those who warned that Fidel was not what he seemed...
Same thing happened in 1976-9 in Iran. The well intentioned and poorly informed would not listen then, either. They rarely do because they are so-o-o-o righteous... :mad:
Bad trait, that...
Note in both those cases (and in Kosovo for another...), the librul intelligentsia fostered insurgencies which effectively replaced poor governments with a far worse government. Fidel, Che and Khomeini all killed more people in their first two years than the previous regimes had in a decade or so. Big help we were...
* That includes the 'governance' fostered by the US which in many cases was not really a bit better for most of the populace than were the ideas of the former regime. Though a good lawyer could probably twist that. ;)
You should be a General...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Bob's World
Cuba was clearly an agent of the Soviets, little different than the relationship of Israel with the U.S. Both needed a big daddy and were willing to do "dirty deeds, done dirt cheap." Both big daddies had plenty of dirty work that needed doing.
I missed all that dirty work the Israelis did for us. Could you point that out for me?
How's that list of a thousand insurgencies coming? :D
Quote:
But all of that misses the point. My point is that if you look at any of those states where the Soviets or the U.S. or any of their surrogates, showed up to conduct UW, it only had significant effect when conditions of insurgency already existed in the target populace.
See, GO material! Omar Bradley said, in late '49, I believe, that there would never be another significant amphibious landing on the scale of Sicily or Normandy. Not too long after that, 1 MarDiv and 7th ID landed at Inchon, allowing the Marines to chortle at Omar (who, six years earlier had to be told by Ike that he, Omar, was not going to pull off that beach head...). Causing Omar to in defense of his statement point out that he used the word 'significant.' Define "is"...
Was Angola significant? Was Bolivia?
No problem, Bob. I long ago gave up trying to point out to you that things other than poor governance can create insurgencies and have done so for a long time -- likely will again.
Quote:
You can't pin Angola, for example, on Cuba. Cuba did not place an illegitimate colonial governments over Angola, Portugal did.
I'm not trying to pin anything on Cuba. I merely pointed out that your "pawn warfare" was often responsible for fomenting an insurrection to replace poor governance (I also gave up long ago pointing out to that poor governance is the norm, not the exception -- and the US, for one, is afflicted with it). Added that the replacement was quite often worse than the replaced crowd. I note you had / have no comment on that aspect; perhaps because it isn't germane to your theory of poor governance. Or is it?
As an aside, not only Angola. Check the number of 'insurgencies' in all those places where the British and French (and others...) drew lines on maps and then just left. The Comintern went to work on those fault lines in the 1920s and I can visualize a bunch of old, fat NKVD / MVD / KGB retirees sitting around a TV in Yekaterinburg today just chuckling over the Vodka and admiring the success of their handiwork over the past 90 years or so.
However, your option to select Angola, the recent Colony among several other places Che boy visited is noted -- and unsurprising. :wry:
Quote:
...the US worked through South Africa...it was the Cold War.
You might want to research that a bit more...
Quote:
And still, I do not see conditions of Good Governance being successfully exploited by anyone, internal or external.
That's because there is no really 'good governance' but only acceptable governance and less acceptable. Even Scandinavia, probably the best governed Region or Singapore, one of the best governed States in the world have their dissidents. They have populations that are not terribly volatile (that matters...) and are willing to be patient and give the Government of the day a break.
However, for examples of decent -- not good -- governance that drew insurgencies, look at Riel, L.D.; Chin, P. for just a couple and then there's this statement by Alexis de Tocqueville, who remarked in his Recollections of the period that "society was cut in two: those who had nothing united in common envy, and those who had anything united in common terror." [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolutions_of_1848[(LINK)[/url]. sometimes just plain old greed raises its ugly head. Like the Revolution in Brazil in 1889 where the Guvmint were the good guys and the bad guys were the wealthy landowners. :D
Quote:
...But where poor governance exists, and there are interests (power, money, key terrain, etc) to be served, the exploiters will gather.
Yes, that's what I said, backward but the same thing. Low hanging fruit and all that and, y'know what? Sometimes said exploiters work long and diligently to create conditions of poor governance in an effort to foment hate and discontent (see U.S.A. ...). ;)