James Madison - Greatest COIN leader in History

[John Grenier]

Well, his effects were counter-revolutionary, so to say he was a great insurgent thinker is seriously ahistorical. If he was in fact an insurgent like you claim, he then in fact became like most insurgents in history: a failure.

[John Grenier]

The United States did not (in 1783-1787/89) have the same ethno-linguistic divisions that AFG has today. To expect the different AFG tribes and clans to come together and put aside their self interests to form a larger union is just fantasy, IMHO. We cannot impose our model of historical development on them -- it just will not work. To get AFG to agree to something as limited in unifying power as an Arts of Confed would be a miracle. The clans have no interest in the concept of "divided sovereignty" that made the Arts of Confed and the constitution work for Americans. Don't forget, also, that we had to have a civil war to decide whose version of the Constitution would dominate American political, social, economic, and cultural life. This all goes back to your original point about JM, and exactly why he was not an insurgent; everything he did (Constitution, Bill of Rights, VA/KY Resolutions) was to support and uphold the established political order that kept him and his peeps in control.

[Bob's World]

The United States did not (in 1783-1787/89) have the same ethno-linguistic divisions that AFG has today. To expect the different AFG tribes and clans to come together and put aside their self interests to form a larger union is just fantasy, IMHO. We cannot impose our model of historical development on them -- it just will not work. To get AFG to agree to something as limited in unifying power as an Arts of Confed would be a miracle. The clans have no interest in the concept of "divided sovereignty" that made the Arts of Confed and the constitution work for Americans. Don't forget, also, that we had to have a civil war to decide whose version of the Constitution would dominate American political, social, economic, and cultural life. This all goes back to your original point about JM, and exactly why he was not an insurgent; everything he did (Constitution, Bill of Rights, VA/KY Resolutions) was to support and uphold the established political order that kept him and his peeps in control.

Not selling either the Art of Confed, or the US Constitution to AFG; merely noting that just as we dumped a bad form as we entered peace, AFG too could take advantage of a period of transition to dump their equally flawed constitution for one more apt to produce durable stability.

[Bob's World]

Well, his effects were counter-revolutionary, so to say he was a great insurgent thinker is seriously ahistorical. If he was in fact an insurgent like you claim, he then in fact became like most insurgents in history: a failure.

So, the only failure here are your skills of reading comprehension.

All governments are counterinsurgents every day. The best COIN is done by governments in times of peace. It is only failed governments and their inextremis efforts to preserve themself that we typically think of as COIN. A limited perspective in my view.

No, I stand by my claim. Madison is the greatest counterinsurgent, as the main force in developing a family of governance structures uniquely born of insurgency, and therefore designed to prevent the same. ( But, for the record, all of the founding fathers were insurgents first, and they prevailed against the most powerful nation in the world. That's a win in any book)

[MikeF]

No, I stand by my claim. Madison is the greatest counterinsurgent, as the main force in developing a family of governance structures uniquely born of insurgency, and therefore designed to prevent the same. ( But, for the record, all of the founding fathers were insurgents first, and they prevailed against the most powerful nation in the world. That's a win in any book)

I agree with this approach. It may be helpful to define some of the threats that the Founding Fathers faced and label them as insurgencies, subversion, or existential threats. Additionally, we can examine how effective each COIN approach was along with the secondary and tertiary effects. Wow, this is starting to sound like a great dissertation topic.

Plus, we have to keep in mind the level of violence that was acceptable during that time. In 1804, the secretary of state and vice president resolved their differences with a duel. I'd imagine that would be a huge pay per view event these days .

Internal threats

1. Tories. After the Revolutionary War, the Americans had to conduct conflict resolution with the British Loyalist. In the South, many of the Loyalists were wealthy landowners who did not want to upset the status quo. Some were reintegrated into the new United States, some lost their estates, and some fled back to England or the British Isles.

2. Disenfranchised Veterans. After the war, many of the veterans returned home to poverty and frustration. Daniel Shay and Henry Gale's led one of the most famous revolts. These actions combined with others encouraged the need for a stronger central government.

3. Native Americans. After a series of failed/ignored treaties and agreements, Andrew Jackson enacted the "final solution" for the the Native Americans forcing them west out of the colonies. The Army enforced this move known as the Trail of Tears.

4. African Americans. This issue took well into the 20th century to resolve.

External Threats

1. Working with neighbors. The US had to figure out how to contain the British, French, and Spainards surrounding the US borders. Thomas Jefferson bought out the French with the Louisiana Purchase, Britain reattacked in 1812, and Andrew Jackson attacked and claimed Florida in 1821.

2. Piracy. Initially, the founders did not see a need for a standing army; however, the need of the navy was strong to protect commerce and borders. One of the initial tasks of the navy was protecting US ships from piracy.

Mike

[tequila]

No, I stand by my claim. Madison is the greatest counterinsurgent, as the main force in developing a family of governance structures uniquely born of insurgency, and therefore designed to prevent the same.

We Americans do tend to have a rather odd concept of our Constitution as a sort of magical document where Madison and the Founding Fathers somehow glimpsed a template of Good Government in the ether and then brought it back to America for enshrinement in perpetuity. A whole legal ethos in the U.S. - originalism - appears to be based on this concept.

As John Grenier points out, the Constitution is a document of its time, built out of the political compromises necessary to pull many very different interests and entities together. These compromises failed in the long term - the result was a massive civil war that nearly resulted in the breakup of the country. A long period of civil unrest followed that saw many state-level insurgencies where the losers of the civil war managed to reassert political control at the local level through a campaign of bloody violence abetted by corrupted/infiltrated security forces and sectarian militias. Peace was largely restored because these insurgencies achieved victory at that level.

So while the Constitution was not exactly a failure, I would hardly call it an unmitigated success.

[Bob's World]

We Americans do tend to have a rather odd concept of our Constitution as a sort of magical document where Madison and the Founding Fathers somehow glimpsed a template of Good Government in the ether and then brought it back to America for enshrinement in perpetuity. A whole legal ethos in the U.S. - originalism - appears to be based on this concept.

As John Grenier points out, the Constitution is a document of its time, built out of the political compromises necessary to pull many very different interests and entities together. These compromises failed in the long term - the result was a massive civil war that nearly resulted in the breakup of the country. A long period of civil unrest followed that saw many state-level insurgencies where the losers of the civil war managed to reassert political control at the local level through a campaign of bloody violence abetted by corrupted/infiltrated security forces and sectarian militias. Peace was largely restored because these insurgencies achieved victory at that level.

So while the Constitution was not exactly a failure, I would hardly call it an unmitigated success.

So yes, the US was forged from insurgency, and tempered in civil war. We are the oldest enduring republic. It is the unique blend of compormises and protections that make our documents strong. Other countries and populaces have unique issues that divide and concern them. I would never argue that everyone must be like us; only that what we did worked, and that their is value in understanding WHY it worked and to capture those same components in their documents as well.

The Afghan constitution was not designed to preserve rights, it was designed to prevent warlords. As such it created a national ponzi scheme of leadership and patronage that robs the government of local legitimacy and robs the locals of their wealth, while literally Billions of dollars are sent to banks in Dubai by Afghan officials. Maybe it was the right constitition for its time, but now it is arguably the root of the current insurgency.

[slapout9]

As such it created a national ponzi scheme of leadership and patronage that robs the government of local legitimacy and robs the locals of their wealth, while literally Billions of dollars are sent to banks in Dubai by Afghan officials.

Got confused there for a minute, thought you were talking about America and not Afghanistan.

[Dayuhan]

The Afghan constitution was not designed to preserve rights, it was designed to prevent warlords. As such it created a national ponzi scheme of leadership and patronage that robs the government of local legitimacy and robs the locals of their wealth, while literally Billions of dollars are sent to banks in Dubai by Afghan officials. Maybe it was the right constitition for its time, but now it is arguably the root of the current insurgency.

Was the system of patronage and privilege created by the constitution, or did it exist prior to the constitution? I suspect that documents reflect the pre-exisiting values and norms of a society as much as they shape those values and norms. There is no system that cannot be corrupted.

[Rex Brynen]

I'm not at all convinced that the Afghan constitution is at the root of the current insurgency.

Certainly, aspects of it—especially regarding the centralization of power—aren't helpful, but the failing is more one of leadership (at a variety of levels) than the legal structure of power.