Non-Violent Insurgency: How Smart Rebels Win small wars

[Dayuhan]

I think once serious study is undertaken on this important topic, we'll discover that non-violent revolution or insurgency is more dependent upon international reaction, duration (if it gets crushed quickly it won't linger in the media long enough to make a difference), the degree of popular support, and the righteousness of the cause (as viewed by the global community and the affected nation).

Another variable that has to be considered is the condition of the government being opposed. In a number of these cases you could argue that non-violent resistance succeeded against colonial regimes that no longer had sufficient political will or profit motive to make holding onto the colony worth the trouble. Some dictatorial regimes (eg Philippines 86) collapse before non violent resistance because they have already decayed to the point where they no longer command the loyalty of their own armed forces. Collapse from within is often as much a factor as pressure from the outside.

Often it is a mix of both approaches that ultimately gets governance to evolve. Currently AQ is encouraging violent approaches; it may be time to suggest that non-violent approaches are more likely to produce the moderate adjustments of governance that the majority of the populace actually, and reasonably, desires.

To whom would we make such a suggestion? AQ is not a populace based movement, and certainly has no interest in moderate change.

I'm not convinced that we should make a policy of meddling in relations between other governments and their populaces; the potential for unintended adverse consequences is to high and I see no reason to believe that either populaces or governments want us messing in their domestic affairs.

[OfTheTroops]

Each of the elements are the same. The primary difference is that coercives/terrorists usually isolate themselves from the population. Non-violence can be snuffed out sooner but their leaders and narrative are more enduring.