Tunisia: catch all

[Bob's World]

Come on Carl.

I am no fan of communism, but name for me please a single country that employed a communist ideology to overthrow, or attempt to overthrow their government that had a government in place that drew its legitimacy from the govern populace and was responsive to their reasonable demands. Just one. And if you find that one, I will find five to match on the other side.

Russia vs the Romanovs?
Maoist China vs the pro-west Nationalists?
French dominated, then US dominated Vietnam?
Batista's Cuba?
British dominated Malaya?
US dominated Philippines?

The simple fact is that in post WWI and post WWII upheavals, communism was an ideology of change that spoke to populaces seeking change.

Fast forward to today, and the post Cold War upheaval. The primary area of the globe where Western colonial and post-colonial interference and influence continues to disrupt local systems of legitimacy is the Sunni dominated region of North Africa and the Middle East. The populaces of these nations have been seeking change for generations and have never been able to achieve they synergy for true change. Communism never really spoke to these populaces (a communist movement was attempted in Saudi Arabia but fell flat in the 60s) but Muslim based ideology works. Much like a Christian based ideology worked in Western Europe to rally the people to throw off the Holy roman empire centuries ago.

Is Protestantism a "benign" ideology? Yes. Did it take down an empire? Equally yes.

Is Communism a "benign" ideology? Yes. Did it reshape Western Colonial control of Asia? Equally yes.

Is Islamism a "benign" ideology? Yes. Will it reshape Western influence over North Africa and the Middle East. Most likely.

The real ideology in all of those places, times and example was the ideology of liberty and self-determination.

I'm sorry if that hurts the feelings of some, but the historic facts can be argued, but they are what they are. The Pied Piper is a fairy tale. A satisfied populace is immune to the most bewitching of ideologies. But a populace with no legal options, trapped in poor governance that often is not of their choosing will often follow even a questionable leader with a shady ideology to achieve liberty.

I put out a piece on Ideology a few years ago:
http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/jou...p/46-jones.pdf

From that article:

V. U.S. ideology holds that when government fails insurgency is both the right and the duty of the populace.

The American Declaration of Independence is an amazing document. It is the cornerstone of American government, and forms the core of American Ideology. Many students of insurgency take the position that during the post-WWII insurgencies of the 50’s and 60’s that the U.S. Ideology was one of capitalism versus the ideology of communism used to unite the populaces of those poorly governed nations that rose up to throw off western colonialism.ii During the post Cold War insurgencies of this generation the conflict is characterized as one of democracy versus the fundamentalist Islamism that speaks to the populaces of those poorly governed nations that are currently rising up to throw off the less direct form of western exploitation that replaced colonialism. The fact is, that neither capitalism nor democracy are mentioned directly in either the American Declaration of Independence, or the U.S Constitution.

What makes the Declaration of Independence so amazing is that in such a concise and complete manner, it conveys a message that is universal and timeless. This is a powerful beacon of hope to populaces everywhere, and generations of every time. In this globalized age of shrinking state power, and growing popular power, this message is more than ever not just a relic of America’s noble past, but provides the road map to an even greater future. Consider these tenets contained within this codification of American Ideology:

- Certain rights, to include, but not limited to, “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” are inalienable (This means that they come from God, not man, and that no government can infringe upon them. This, by the way, is a point that no Islamic fundamentalist can well counter).

- That every populace has both the right and the duty to rise up in insurgency when their government fails, i.e., becomes “despotic” (rights and duties are two of the most powerful concepts in law. A right is an authorization to act that cannot be infringed, and a duty is an order to act that cannot be ignored. The populace not only can revolt, they must).

- That governance is “of, by, and for” the people, and that all populaces are unique in their needs, and will chose the form of government which suits them best (this means that government is subordinate to the populace, and that no power external to that populace has the right to dictate what form that governance will take).

America is uniquely positioned to assume a leadership role on a global scale that is focused not on the governments of the world, but on their populaces. America has the strength of resources and the proper ideology to not control the world, but rather to shape its development. By empowering populaces everywhere with the ideology contained in our Declaration of Independence, and by using our strength and wealth to facilitate good governance on their terms, we stand an excellent chance of becoming not the heavy handed nation that others see us as, but rather as that noble nation we see in ourselves.

What is going on across North Africa today is a good thing. Whether or not it is a good thing for the US will depend upon how we react. If we react IAW our own ideology and principles as a nation, it will be a good thing for us as well

[jmm99]

from BW
What is going on across North Africa today is a good thing.

when it (what is going on) has just started.

Your arguments have remarkable prescient and crystalball powers - Mandrake the Magician, so to speak.



Regards

Mike

[Bob's World]

when it (what is going on) has just started.

Your arguments have remarkable prescient and crystalball powers - Mandrake the Magician, so to speak.



Regards

Mike

But then, this has been going on for centuries. We are merely watching the most recent installment. Anytime dictators shake in fear I think it is a good thing. But that's just me. Many people worry about it simply because they are "our dictators."

We are America. We shouldn't have dictators. I stand by that, and I stand by my assessment that this is a "good thing."

[carl]

Counselor Jones:

I am just speaking as a member of the jury and telling you what seems to work on me.

You said "it was about the pursuit of liberty" and ideology didn't matter. I said liberty didn't have much do with communism and ideology did matter and it was competing with other ideologies. Then you tell me below

I am no fan of communism, but name for me please a single country that employed a communist ideology to overthrow, or attempt to overthrow their government that had a government in place that drew its legitimacy from the govern populace and was responsive to their reasonable demands. Just one. And if you find that one, I will find five to match on the other side.

Now after hearing that I am a befuddled juror. You were talking about liberty and ideology and now you are talking about governments that were overthrown. Where did liberty go? Communism and liberty didn't mix. That is well known by all but somehow it had something to do with liberty. If us jurors can't follow your train of thought you arguments will be weakened.

Now we have another problem with this statement.

Is Communism a "benign" ideology? Yes. Did it reshape Western Colonial control of Asia? Equally yes.

As a juror my first reaction to this statement is "Huh?" Communism benign? Yes it did reshape things but at the cost of how many tens of millions of dead? These types of statements just cause head shaking in the jury room.

The real ideology in all of those places, times and example was the ideology of liberty and self-determination.

No, I think not. That may have been the aspiration, but ideology was a tool to get there. If they chose communism, boy did they get had.

[Bob's World]

Carl,

You are a victim of effective propaganda. Think about it. When a populace is ripe for change it will take whatever bus pulls up to the stop. But once the dust settles, the ideology is typically moot. Look at all of the primarily Protestant countries today. Not all that radical, just a bunch of largely democratic capitalists. Look at all of the primarily communist countries today. Similarly, these too are morphing into a bunch of captitalists. They have a way to go on human rights, but these things take time.

Same with the Islamists. They are not the enemy, they are merely driving the bus. All we have to do is provide those same popualaces with an alternative to the Islamist bus. Tunisia is leaning away from the Islamists, and I suspect Egypt will as well. No one wants to sign up for a bad deal, but they will to get out of a worse deal.

[carl]

Carl,

You are a victim of effective propaganda. Think about it. When a populace is ripe for change it will take whatever bus pulls up to the stop. But once the dust settles, the ideology is typically moot. Look at all of the primarily Protestant countries today. Not all that radical, just a bunch of largely democratic capitalists. Look at all of the primarily communist countries today. Similarly, these too are morphing into a bunch of captitalists. They have a way to go on human rights, but these things take time.

Same with the Islamists. They are not the enemy, they are merely driving the bus. All we have to do is provide those same popualaces with an alternative to the Islamist bus. Tunisia is leaning away from the Islamists, and I suspect Egypt will as well. No one wants to sign up for a bad deal, but they will to get out of a worse deal.

Counselor Jones:

It is unhelpful when trying to sway a juror to tell them that they have been duped. It may or may not be true but it pre-disposes the juror to disregard everything else you have to say and vote against you.

Your dismissal of the importance of ideology because "we all end up in the same place anyway" has always bugged me. I've heard that argument or a variation of it since college and it always struck me as fatuous wisdom pronounced from an ivory tower way high up in the clouds and a long way away. Yes it is true that communism may be morphing into capitalism and that morphing does take time; but that argument breezily dismisses the millions and millions and millions of dead, the oceans of hard soul destroying suffering, the starvation and horror that that portion of humanity living under the communists had to take while the ideology that inflicted it was getting around to transforming.

A particular ideology did that to those people. It does matter.

[Bob's World]

Did they die because the oppressors fought to keep them in chains, or because of the ideology they adopted to break free?

Fact is that self-serving and evil men prey on vulnerable governments and populaces. Often a populace ends up in worse hands than what they had before. That is far more a function of the nature of man than a function of the nature of ideology.

[carl]

Did they die because the oppressors fought to keep them in chains, or because of the ideology they adopted to break free?

Counselor, there you go befuddling this juror again. The Russians in their millions and the Chinese in their millions died at the hands of communists who decided that they should. At the time, those communists were quite vocal about saying that everything they did was in the name of and to further communism, their ideology. That is what I know.

Fact is that self-serving and evil men prey on vulnerable governments and populaces. Often a populace ends up in worse hands than what they had before. That is far more a function of the nature of man than a function of the nature of ideology.

This juror is longing to look at the guy seated next to him to exchange a look but won't because it is contrary to the decorum of the court.

Yes, it is in the nature of man to do bad things. And it is in nature that some men do more bad things than other men. And some ideologies make it easier for men to do bad things. Bad men tend to gravitate to those ideologies. Mao probably couldn't have done the things he did if he was a Quaker so he didn't long to be a Friend. Communism made it much easier for him. It was an ideology that facilitated evil to a greater extent than Quakerism.

Ideologies matter.

[slapout9]

Similarly, these too are morphing into a bunch of captitalists.

Thats the Big Con Job. There is very little difference between to the two. BOTH end up with a non-elected, non-accountable elite few in control of the vital system of production. The only real difference was one would have power primarily concentrated in Labor Unions the other in Communist Corporations...so far the Corporations are winning.

[Cliff]

Carl,

You are a victim of effective propaganda. Think about it. When a populace is ripe for change it will take whatever bus pulls up to the stop. But once the dust settles, the ideology is typically moot. Look at all of the primarily Protestant countries today. Not all that radical, just a bunch of largely democratic capitalists. Look at all of the primarily communist countries today. Similarly, these too are morphing into a bunch of captitalists. They have a way to go on human rights, but these things take time.

Bob, are you actually arguing that the path these countries took is for the best? Can you really say that ideology is moot? You do realize that for a long time no one had a clue about the horrors that were being perpetrated by Stalin and Lenin, and actually fell for the Soviet propaganda about how successful and happy the USSR was. The UK, Germany, France, Italy - all were considering adopting socialism/communism. At the same time, Stalin was killing millions of his own folks. This was not because the folks got on whatever bus pulled up to the stop- it was because Lenin intentionally undermined the Russian government.

Same with the Islamists. They are not the enemy, they are merely driving the bus. All we have to do is provide those same populaces with an alternative to the Islamist bus. Tunisia is leaning away from the Islamists, and I suspect Egypt will as well. No one wants to sign up for a bad deal, but they will to get out of a worse deal.

I don't think the Islamists are driving the bus. They are attempting to fulfill their interests... by shaping the narrative and seizing power. They haven't been effective anywhere where they haven't had massive external support. That isn't the same thing as being in charge.

I agree with Dayuhan and the other folks - we cannot "provide an alternative" in some deux ex machina way. We can encourage, support, help... and I agree with you that we should strive to always set the example. But we can't stop working with every government in the world that doesn't conform to our notions of democracy... we would end up isolating ourselves and would actually be less effective at supporting democracy worldwide. The best thing we can do to help is be ourselves, keep talking to the folks in these countries, and try and build as many economic, social, and military ties with them so that if things do change we have some personal relationships and a basic level of trust to start from. As you say, it must be the people's choice- and if you look at history they are far more likely to choose freedom and democracy if they have a basic level of economic well-being first.

Finally, I agree with Dayuhan about the arrogance element... it took us (the United States) over 200 years to fully reach the basic level of freedom that you are arguing we should "provide" to the people in the Arab world... In the meantime we severely repressed multiple ethnic groups, most of which conducted what most folks on this esteemed board would term insurgencies. Oh yeah, and one of those insurgencies resulted in a full-up civil war that cost the nation 700,000 casualties. All in the name of ideology...

If we applied the same patience to our dealings with other countries, we would be a lot better off and avoid a lot of the interventions Dayuhan warns against. Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it after all...

V/R,

Cliff

[Bob's World]

Yes, Ideology is moot.

As ken points out people in such periods of popular revolt and turmoil are just as ruthless under Methodist ideology as they are under Communist ideology as they are under Islamist ideology.

It is not, and never has been, about ideology. Every insurgency must employ one to be successful, but it is only the grease that keeps things moving and the glue that binds things together. The energy behind such movements is always the nature of the relationship between those who govern and those who are governed.

Mike: I totally agree that it is not our call to shape governments for others. My comment is only that the tried and true foreign policy TTP of nurturing and supporting foreign despots is obsolete and also the primary reason that nationalist insurgents sign up for the AQ road team to bring violence to America. This was becoming apparent in the information age of Steam and teletypes when the British Empire rolled up in the face of popular pressure. It is far more true today. Now, if a populace WANTs a dictator, the US should not interfere with that either. To pick such a leader, if done openly, is a form or self-determination and democracy. Not our call to judge.

Ciff: I feel where you are coming from, but you are operating off of some bad data (and our "no blame on the US" version of history and our flawed COIN doctrine and analysis of GWOT don't help). The US Civil war, for example, was by no logical definition an "insurgency." It was legal politics at work. The duly elected representatives of several states exercised principles of democracy to join together and suceed from the Union. The Unions government disagreed with their right to do so, and acted to overcome that political action with military force to bring them back into the Union. Not an insurgency. A new nation was formed and then the two nations waged war against each other to determine if that action would stand.

Insurgency is illegal politics, and exercised outside of the formal governmental process.

[Surferbeetle]

Bob,

Too many hours in air conditioned staff-land can result in the attitude that flippantly sprinkling some PowerPoint prose on a problem will result in it's immediate resolution by the little people.

Meanwhile, out in the hot sunshine of operations-land, the dirty boots folks (aka the little people) continue to sweat and sometimes die as they do their best to implement that PowerPoint prose.

Answering Dayuhan and Ken's last few posts point by point will require moving away from the intellectual a/c and engaging in some sweating on your part. Think of it as the equivalent of battlefield circulation with all of the benefits of perspective that that effort brings...

Steve

[Ken White]

Yes, Ideology is moot.

It cannot be moot if it is "the driver of the bus, the grease that keeps things moving and the glue that binds things together." If those are true allegories, I suggest that killing the driver can lead to a runaway bus, a little sand in the grease can destroy the gears and a bit of citric acid or a solvent will often turn a glue problem intro an unholy mess.

In any case, ideologies will cause changes and those frequently will not be benign. They will or may also call for some type of action on the part of involved or interested parties -- thus they are far from being moot.

As ken points out people in such periods of popular revolt and turmoil are just as ruthless under Methodist ideology as they are under Communist ideology as they are under Islamist ideology.

That's not exactly what I said or meant but thank you for making the point that people may be and usually are the problem -- however it is the ideology that skews their actions in a particular direction that may be inimical to good order...

The energy behind such movements is always the nature of the relationship between those who govern and those who are governed.

We can disagree on that, vehemently if necessary. You accord government / governance entirely too much sway and ideology -- or evil and a quest for money or power -- not enough...

On this:

Ciff: I feel where you are coming from, but you are operating off of some bad data (and our "no blame on the US" version of history and our flawed COIN doctrine and analysis of GWOT don't help).

Let me suggest once again that you're being borderline insulting. Stating flatly that another is operating off "bad data" and other deficient in your view factors is arrogant (which is okay by me, I indulge), an assumption on your part (which I try to and we all should avoid) and / or a sly way to lessen the impact of points or argument made by another (which most here try to avoid). In such a forum as this, it can be construed as unduly dismissive of the views of another by a process of implying evil intent or stupidity at worst, ignorance or inanity at best. Hopefully and probably, that's not your intent but the implication that what the other person said was ludicrous so thus can and should be dismissed isn't conducive to discussion.

[Bob's World]

Ideology gets a lot of attention. But it does not cause insurgency. Nor does ideology cause men to abuse power to kill other men without just cause.

Neither Christianity nor Islam have clean hands in that regard, with neither being distinguishably better or worse than the other in terms their historic records in that regard.

Similarly with political ideologies.

We can pick a nation, such as Vietnam and say "look at how many have suffered there under communism," and not be wrong in that assessment. It is a historic fact.

It is also a historic fact that Vietnam wanted to be free from Colonial rule, and that after assisting the West in defeating the Japanese with the promise/expectation that their liberation would be their reward, they were instead handed back to the French and expected to submit once again to colonial rule. It was only at that point that they embraced Mao's proven model and ideology to motivate the populace to stand up and seek liberty.

All of that could have been avoided if the US would have simply honored its commitment to Ho Chi Minh following WWII. If the U.S. would have simply recognized their universal right to liberty and self-determination.

To blame what followed on Communist ideology is a corruption of history and mis-understands the role of ideology in such movements.

A current vogue is "counter-radicalization" to un-brainwash those who buy into Islamist ideologies as the path to nationalist liberty in places that are currently in the news or bracing for their eventual move to the front page as popular revolt continues to spread.

I ask simply, is it the ideology of those promising liberty that "radicalizes" a populace, or is it the actions of a government that denies liberty that "radicalizes" a populace??

All things being equal, clearly some ideologies are more acceptable than others; but they are not the cause of radicalization, they are merely the vehicle that those radicalized by their own governments ride upon to liberty.