Thread title amended after the "Revolution"
After the rapid change of government I have amended the thread title and moved it to a different area i.e. geographical. The title was: ANONYMOUS vs. the Tunisian Government in the Media arena.
Exit Ben Ali - but can Tunisia change?
An academic expert adds:
Quote:
Zine al-Abidine Ben Ali came to power in 1987 through a constitutional coup and he appears to have been removed from power through a constitutional coup. The key here on both occasions was not the constitution but the army.
Link:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12197343
Could other Arab countries follow Tunisia's example?
An expert comment on this aspect:
Quote:
In a string of Arab countries, succession issues loom as ageing autocrats confront the unmet aspirations of their youthful and rapidly growing populations. Mohamed Bouazizi's life and death sum up the condition of the Arab world today.
Link:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12198039
Note the side reference to riots in Algeria, which I've seen no reporting on; not that the UK media watch the region closely and Tunisia only as it was relatively open and a winter holiday destination.
Thoughts and finally humour
I too am sceptical about the impact of modern media on this street campaign and am less certain about its impact on the governing elite / army. Someone I am sure can attest to the penetration of new media in Tunisia; how many people have mobile phones, use the web, use Twitter etc?
Link to BBC comment on media:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12180954
Nor should we overlook the original catalyst, the student trader who burnt himself and that the President visited his bedside before he died. When he did that all Tunisians knew what the student had done. Was the visit a mistake I do not know.
Newsreel in crisis situations is a snapshot and as I posted before it was the age groups involved that indicated to me a mass movement had appeared. Yesterday I noted pictures of women and not one wearing a head scarf.
What will be the impact of Tunisia? An Arab writes:http://www.opendemocracy.net/opensec...s-from-tunisia
Under 'Why the Jasmine Revolution won't bloom' a press comment, with a superb joke, after the link:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...ont-bloom.html
Quote:
Some joked that Mr Ben Ali, whose plane into exile was refused permission to land in a repentant France before heading east to Saudi Arabia, dropped in first on Mr Mubarak’s seaside home in Sharm el Sheikh. “Come to stay?” Mr Mubarak asks. “No, come to pick you up,” replies Mr Ben Ali.
Effects of the Tunisian crisis felt elsewhere in region
The effects of the Tunisian crisis are being felt elsewhere in the region in the form of speculation mainly as these articles point out. And like mentioned above by other posters.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...011503141.html
http://www.al-bab.com/blog/2011/blog...ouble_in_libya
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110116/...ideast_tunisia
Ah. "It dependes on the situation."
I knew that...:D
Always a good answer though -- and it does indeed. Which is why I keep suggesting to you not to try to oversimplify things. That's just as bad as or possibly worse than overcomplicating them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Bob's World
A.
It is a mix of message and presence. Sit down and work this out, Negotiate. If you can't negotiate, then the US or someone will come in and mediate. If you can't mediate, then the US or the UN or someone will come in and Arbitrate. Currently we tend to dictate...
Still sounds to me as though some dictation is involved. "The US or someone WILL...
Quote:
There is a wide range of "acceptable" solutions; our problem is that we tend to neck it down to a narrow range of what is acceptable to us.
Exactly -- and that last, to whom it is acceptable -- is where your problem lies and the reason I keep tossing cautionary Grenades...
Not least because
Quote:
...the spokes people for the populace movement or the interim government in Tunisia could be requesting a neutral stand off security presence and a mediation team to come in and help move the process forward in a fashion that builds trust and helps avoid excess violence.
The appearance of an afloat MAGTF offshore is likely to cause more ripples of discontent than of relief. Regardless of the announced reason, the event will be spun adversely by those not friendly to the US (and they will be in the nation of interest, in the US itself and in the world at large). I'm not saying we cannot or should not do it, merely that it will likely provide mixed results and the those results will not depend solely on the US and /or its actions; others will impact it and often, there'll be some nations and events that were unexpected. So, yes, it does indeed depend on the situation -- and most of those will not be cut and dried. Thus my frequent comment that your aim is laudable however, those folks in defilade will just try to wait you out. Indirect fire can help; that requires aiming stakes and offsets. :wry:
Those nations mentioned above will be those not friendly to the US, BTW, and as you know, a majority of the Nations in the world are in that category at times. Contrary to the assertions of many, that is not solely due to our sometimes blundering foreign presences and missteps. It is due mostly to the simple fact that we are large and wealthy; our bobbles only exacerbate that slightly. The size and wealth make us an object of envy; our assistance to others has made them somewhat nominally beholden to us -- and no one likes to in that position; they'll dislike you simply because you had to help them.
In order to remove the stigma of size and wealth, you're asking the US to forego many things to which it has become accustomed. While I can applaud the intent, sympathize with the goal and appreciate what you're trying to do, I may be unduly cynical but I suspect your chance of success is not good. Regardless, I wish you well and will continue to provide harassing fire on occasion. ;)
Quote:
Sometimes its a bit glacier, but things are moving.
They are indeed and have been for many years. I started calling it the 'Momization' syndrome back in the early 60s. It has many good points. It also poses some dangers as it inclines many to believe that all people are basically alike -- they are not -- and that most will behave rationally -- few do though many will try to appears if the are so behaving (most of the time...). Momization applauds good governance and good behavior generally; unfortunately, a very few kids are just flat evil and will rebel with little or no cause no matter how good the governance is seen to be. Momism does not cope well with that -- it's irrational.
The Glacier is a good simile. Avoid the crevasses and watch for slippery ice... :cool:
Where is the tipping point?
I am not a student of revolution / violent changes of government and so rely on some history and observing recent events - say back to the fall of the Shah in 1979.
In Tunisia the catalyst appears to have been the student trader's arrest and self-immolation. After several days of nationwide disorder, none of which affected key institutions, there is reporting that the Army commander declined to order troops to use live rounds to quell the disorder. Today the BBC has reported police and para-military police have joined demonstrations.
When does state coercive power, including Information Warfare, cease to have an impact and why? Capability, non-lethal and lethal; lack of will, confidence etc. I do recall the fall of East Germany, the GDR, was attributed to a clear Soviet stance and so without the Soviet "muscle" the GDR was unable to use coercion.
I am uncertain that faraway observers, like me, can discern the tipping point beforehand; leaving aside how often the tipping point occurs and is avoided. Nor that extensive intelligence-gathering and awareness can help.
It puzzles me, how can ruthless states apparently cease to function. Not to overlook that such states can falter and then crush opposition - Tienanmen Square for example.
Talking to Muslims and reading the often cited tipping point into radicalisation, not violence, is a human rights violation that has impact.
Where are the Islamists- one opinion
Quote:
Originally Posted by
davidbfpo
David-
One opinion from a Professor Roy of the EU Institute in Florence was on the NY Times website today.
I suspect the truth is somewhere in between Prof Roy's position and that of the article you posted.
V/R,
Cliff
The False premise and promise of GWOT Strategy
Regardless of what we call the surge of politically motivated, Islamist- Ideologically fused rise of act of terrorism against Western targets, the premise for the Western response possesses some major flaws. These flaws are of such a nature that they could actually make the problems for the West worse rather than better.
1. Promote sustainment of the status quo of political rule in all "allied" states.
This is foundational to the colonial intervention approach to foreign policy. Establishing and sustaining in power governments that are supportive of one's own national interests. Much of US COIN doctrine is built upon this foundation of colonial intervention, so has this problematic fault line of exercising control over (through subtle to overt means) the political processes of others.
2. To quick to promote overthrow of rule in non-allied states, or even those that disagree with us, and replacement with a regime that will support our national interests in the region.
3. Overly quick to brand non-state organizations that are emerging to positions of influence as "terrorist" organizations. This enables greater freedom to wage CT activities against these groups, but also effectively closes the door to other more productive forms of engagement. The State Department does not worry about establishing diplomatic relations with an organization, regardless of how influential it may be, once it goes on such a list. At that point it is just a "target" or a "threat" to be attacked or defeated.
4. Over reliance on CT tactics to target individuals and organizations that emerge to challenge the status quo through illegal means.
5. Over reliance on building the CT capacity of allied nation security forces to more effectively engage or suppress such nationalist organizations that emerge from their own populace to illegally challenge the status quo government.
6. Being so desperate for "friends" that we begin to hang out with some very shady characters, or just as bad, ignore the growing unacceptable nature of the behavior of our old friends.
EX:
Quote:
The Norwegian newspaper Aftenposten released a series of US diplomatic cables from 2006 on massive and pervasive corruption and nepotism in Tunisia and its effect on economic development and social problems. The cables show that the United States government was fully aware of the dangerous and debilitating level of corruption in Tunisia, and its anti-democratic implications. But they raise the question of whether Washington was wise to make Zine el-Abidine Ben Ali, despite his clear foibles, the pillar of its North Africa policy because of his role, as a secular strongman, in repressing Muslim movements (as William MacLean of Reuters argues).
The US embassy in Tunis noted the contradictions of what was once called "the Tunisian miracle" - relative stability and security and 5 per cent growth a year, but with mafia style corruption on the part of ruling cliques that was discouraging foreign investment and contributing to failing banks and high unemployment.
http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth...299907176.html
7. The coming shift of lead from Defense to State (good); and from combat to development (ok...) without a corresponding shift of Strategy.
We are merely changing the Ways and Means without updating our Ends or our understanding of the problem. Massive development in support of illegitimate and failing regimes is no more able to prop them up against a growing Tsunami of popular opposition than massive military support is. In fact, if suppression of symptoms is the goal, history is on the side of ruthless application of force as the most effective technique.
My point on this Tunisian thread is that here is an event that pokes big holes in the "expert" positions that have shaped our GWOT strategy and engagement over the past several years. Here is an opportunity to take a hard look into that hole, and gain a clearer perspective of what is going on and why. Here is an opportunity to make a substantive change in how we see and address such problems; and in how we promote and preserve our interests. The world is changing, the US and the West must evolve as well.