Tunisia: catch all

[Dayuhan]

For whatever reason you feel compelled to attack whatever I say. That's cool. But it does not create in me any compulsion or duty to argue with your opinions. They are your opinions, I see little to support them, so I let them stand on their own merit.

Why is very simple: I think the course of action you promote would be counterproductive and extremely dangerous: with the best of intentions I don't doubt, but good intentions don't always lead to good places. I also think your case is based on some very questionable assumptions, most notably the continuing and unsupported claim that autocratic states in the ME - particularly Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States - are somehow enabled and empowered by the US, and that the US therefore has some sort of influence that it could use to change their behavior. I might also cite your repeated and equally unsupported claim that the end of the Cold War increased instability in the developing world by removing some sort of benign equilibrium that existed between the US and the Soviet Union.

When these and other points are challenged, often with arguments that are by no means irrelevant, there is seldom any direct attempt to clarify or develop the points being made: they are simply repeated, as revealed truth. I admit that I find that frustrating, and that frustration produces the occasional intemperate post: temperance is perhaps not among my virtues (my wife assures me that have a few).

I cannot help but believe that the proposed intrusion of the US into the internal affairs of other nations as self-appointed "champion" of populaces that have never asked for our help, do not trust us, and whose issues and concerns are largely unfamiliar to us is not going to advance our interests in any way. I do not think that an unreasonable concern.

Omar advised, in an excellent post on another thread, that you stop looking at Afghanistan as the 51st state of the US. I agree, and I'd add Tunisia, Saudi Arabia, and a few others to the list.

I believe that intervention in the internal affairs of others is like punishment for guilt: to be undertaken only when it is necessary beyond reasonable doubt. The reasonable doubts do need to be addressed if intervention is to be contemplated or even threatened.

On a few individual points...

1. Promote sustainment of the status quo of political rule in all "allied" states.

Are we actually promoting the status quo? Where? There's a huge difference between promoting a status quo and dealing with a status quo that is not within our power to change. Attempting to initiate changes in the internal status quo of an allied nation (or any nation) is every bit as dangerous as trying to promote the status quo, possibly worse: it's simply not something we have the right to do. It is meddling of the worst sort and there will be a negative backlash no matter how good our intentions are.

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.

Agree completely: I've always thought regime change a very dangerous idea. One might point out, though, that other than the rather irrational post-9/11 lashing out, this is not something we've done a great deal of since the end of the Cold War.

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.

Groups that pursue terrorist tactics are terrorists, and responding to terrorism with attempts to engage productively simply sends a message that terrorism works. We might be better advised to try to engage with groups that disagree with us but have not embraced terrorism. In the case of AQ, there was going to be a confrontation no matter what we did: AQ needed it and was going to pursue it in any event. It takes two to talk and only one to fight. They needed a fight and they were going to push until they got one.

4. Over reliance on CT tactics to target individuals and organizations that emerge to challenge the status quo through illegal means.

Agreed... though just as we should not be too quick to assume that every insurgent is a terrorist, we must also not be too quick to brand every terrorist an insurgent. Blowing something up doesn't automatically make you a noble fighter for freedom: there are people out there trying to use violence to proactively impose an agenda that has nothing at all to do with freedom, and they are not necessarily wounded respondents to American provocation.

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.

The extent to which this occurs is quite exaggerated. Most of these nations do not need our help to suppress opposition, whether nationalist or otherwise. They do it very effectively on their own. They have lots of practice.

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.

Agreed, to a point. "Friends", though, doesn't mean much in politics and diplomacy. There are shady characters that we have to deal with: they exist and we haven't the power to remove them. There are real limits to the extent to which the US can brand the behavior of other nations as "unacceptable". We are not the global morality police.

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.

I don't see any reason to view political change as a problem. It happens when it's ready to happen. We should work with it as it happens, but if we try to initiate it or direct it we're only going to make a mess.

I quite agree that we should not be defending despots from their own populaces. Taking the opposite approach and trying to overthrow despots, or trying to impose ourselves as uninvited champion of the populace, is stepping way beyond any kind of appropriate role.

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.

I don't see this is a problem, in any way. A crumbling regime fell, that's been expected for some time. It's not exactly a surprise. Political change is underway. There's no need for us to try and control or direct it: to the greatest possible extent this is something the Tunisians need to resolve on their own. If they ask for our help we should give it. If they don't - and they almost certainly won't - our role is to observe and to participate in whatever multilateral actions are deemed necessary.

Of course we should observe, learn, reconsider our positions. We should always be doing that. Bringing Marines into the picture is a matter of last resort and we're nowhere near that.

Too often in the past we've intervened on the wrong side of these situations. The antidote to that is not to try to intervene on the "right" side. The antidote is to stop intervening, unless it's requested and/or absolutely - beyond all reasonable doubt - necessary.

Argh. That was way too long...

[Bob's World]

This is an important read (and think) piece. This cuts to the heart of what Muslim support to AQ has been all about. For the fear mongers in the US, it is noteworthy how little support or mention of Islamist positions are where liberty is actually being achieved. Arab despots, those who support arab despots, and those who simply are clueless about insurgency have been playing up the Islamist threat for a decade. They are, and have been, wrong.

This has NEVER been about ideology, it has been about oppressed people and the pursuit of liberty. Ideologies are just the tools employed to get there. This was true with communism in Africa and Asia post WWII; and it is true with Islamism in the Arab world post Cold War. This is not to say that we cannot drive these people into the arms of Islamist extremists by coming in on the side of sustaining despots in power over the express will of the people. We can. I pray we do not make that mistake.

De Oppresso Liber.

http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth...530411972.html

[Ken White]

This is an important read (and think) piece.

It's a think piece alright. Written by a known "America is evil and the problem" guy with a checkered history. Like many articles, it contains some fact, some opinions and some questionable items...

This cuts to the heart of what Muslim support to AQ has been all about. For the fear mongers in the US,... They are, and have been, wrong.

Perhaps a bit. Both fanatics and the fearful often do get things wrong.

This has NEVER been about ideology, it has been about oppressed people and the pursuit of liberty. Ideologies are just the tools employed to get there.

In many cases that's true, however, if that's the tool being used, does it not at least mean the ideology is part of the problem? It certainly means that if the ideology is not the issue then it is being used as a catalyst to manipulate people to achieve certain ends which may or may not comport with that ideology.

One can make a valid case the Shah of Iran was a despot. However, his subjects were not so much oppressed as dirt poor and he truly tried a bit to improve their lot. Khomeini and Co. used 'ideology' to depose the Shah -- and replace him with a regime that was and is far more despotic, that killed more people in its first two years of existence than the Shah had in the previous 25. So it's not all about oppression, the ideology is not benign and the change wrought may not be an improvement.

I suspect the truth lies between Falk-like fear mongers on one side and the "Islam wants to kill us all" fear mongers on the other. Fanatics of any stripe and type are best ignored but watched. They tend to take a speck of truth, amplify it beyond all reality to suit their needs and create a lot of confusion. Most do not merit circulation or promotion. Manipulators are similar. Fanatical manipulators are just dangerous. Manipulators of fanatacism doubly so. Why, they can even induce fear in otherwise rational people. Hmmm. That raises a question, do such manipulators merely implant, enhance or abet fear mongering or are they themselves fear mongers?

[Cliff]

It's a think piece alright. Written by a known "America is evil and the problem" guy with a checkered history. Like many articles, it contains some fact, some opinions and some questionable items...Perhaps a bit. Both fanatics and the fearful often do get things wrong.In many cases that's true, however, if that's the tool being used, does it not at least mean the ideology is part of the problem? It certainly means that if the ideology is not the issue then it is being used as a catalyst to manipulate people to achieve certain ends which may or may not comport with that ideology.

It may also be about the economy - see here for another opinion on the source of anger. Politics has a role, but the economic side is also a big factor.

I suspect the truth lies between Falk-like fear mongers on one side and the "Islam wants to kill us all" fear mongers on the other. Fanatics of any stripe and type are best ignored but watched. They tend to take a speck of truth, amplify it beyond all reality to suit their needs and create a lot of confusion. Most do not merit circulation or promotion. Manipulators are similar. Fanatical manipulators are just dangerous. Manipulators of fanatacism doubly so. Why, they can even induce fear in otherwise rational people. Hmmm. That raises a question, do such manipulators merely implant, enhance or abet fear mongering or are they themselves fear mongers?

I just made the same point over on the Globalization thread... A lot of the hatred is spurred by folks using what is esentially propaganda to gain control. They would invent stuff to be angry about if it didn't really exist... because it gives them power.

V/R,

Cliff

[Fuchs]

related: Trajan on the revolts in Tunisia (?)

That was one of my "I bet nobody else made that connection yet!" moments.

[Bob's World]

Ken,

"Despotism" has many components, and certainly the perceptions of the governed regarding how one rose to power and how one is sustained in power is nearly as important as is how they feel about how one governs while in power.

The coup we ran in 1953 to take out the democratically selected leader of Iran because he dared to stand up to the British and their rape (robbery?) of the Iranian oil resources is not our finest chapter. The Shah was many things, but he was never legitimate and he was always a "Made in the USA" leader. In hindsight we should have told the Brits to get over it and worked out a relationship with Mosaddegh.

It was a Cold War though, we had a new president, we were deep into a Korean conflict that could have easily became a war with a "newly" enemy China; The French were getting defeated by communists in Vietnam, the Philippines and Malaya were struggling with Communists as well, newly nuclear Russia was flirting with Mosaddegh, and Ken White had just retired for the third time from DoD. It was a bad year, and it seemed like the right thing at the time.

But now it is 2011. The Cold War is long over, though the majority of our governmental and diplomatic framework for waging it remains rusted in place. No longer containing Soviet threats, or even communist ideology threats, it now serves primarily to sustain a family of wealthy despots who don't cut us many special favors (no discount oil for US coming out of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait or Iraq...), and most have become enabled by such relationships to become even more removed from the concerns of their own citizens.

As the Saudis like to brag, the people have no taxation, so they get no representation. I suspect someday when they are sitting in exile, scraping by on their last Billion once their assets are nationalized, they won't think that is as clever as they do currently.

But the U.S. need not, and should not abandon these governments. Nor should the U.S. use the history of our relationships with these governments ; or the rise of AQ and Islamist ideologies to rationalize not supporting the reasonable demands of these many populaces for moderate reformation of Government. Play this right and we turn down the flame beneath the boiling pot of popular discontent that we call "The War on Terrorism." Play this wrong and we raise it to a whole new level. The allegations of our sins will become cold, hard, current facts, and this could all boil over into a regional/global disaster.

We need to recognize and prioritize the opportunity currently provided by the people of the region. We need to lend stability to these inevitable transitions, to empower and facilitate evolution of government in order to prevent revolution of government. This means a mix of both assuring allies and cautioning/threatening them to be careful in how they respond to their populaces. Similarly to be supportive and cautioning/threatening to these populaces as well in regards to how we support peaceful evolution, self-determination and the principles we proclaim so loudly in our own founding documents; but that we will not stand idly by to outrages on the part of either side.

We also need to be on our guard that AQ will seek to leverage this as well; to attempt to tilt outcomes toward their agenda. I suspect when the music stops that it will be the Islamist terrorist/UW guys who don't have a chair. But that is not a guarantee, and they will seek to prevent that from happening.

This is where the real lesson from Malaya comes to play. If we enable the right governmental reforms, then when the dust settles and the Islamists come in from the cold looking for support, they will find that the populace no longer needs what they are selling and is moving on without them.

We have an opportunity for "Malaya in the Desert," but that will only happen if we can break our Cold War paradigms and find the right balance between stability and change, between governments and populaces, between influence and control.

Given how much play this topic was given in the State of the Union though, I have my concerns...

[davidbfpo]

FP Blog has a good article on the impact of mass media in Tunisia, using the material from Wikileaks:http://www.foreignpolicy.com/article...g_at_autocrats

This paragraph struck me as having possibly appeared on SWC of late:

History is made when the weather suddenly changes -- by deviations from the normal course of events. The challenge for American diplomacy is not to wait for shifts in favor of human rights and democracy before scrambling to appear to support them. It is not to wait until a dictator is half-way out the door before you condemn his abuses, freeze his assets, and demand free elections. It is to promote change in repressive states before it appears inevitable. If you think there is only a 10 percent chance that Egypt's post-Mubarak transition will usher in a government that answers to its people, or that in the next few years the Burmese military junta might compromise with the democratic opposition, or that a popular movement might successfully challenge political repression in Iran, then why not do what you can to help raise the odds to 20 or 30 percent? In foreign policy, as in baseball, .300 is a Hall of Fame average.

[Ken White]

..certainly the perceptions of the governed regarding how one rose to power and how one is sustained in power is nearly as important as is how they feel about how one governs while in power.

True -- but little to no bearing on my points that "it's not all about oppression, the ideology is not benign and the change wrought may not be an improvement."

But now it is 2011. The Cold War is long over, though the majority of our governmental and diplomatic framework for waging it remains rusted in place.

I agree but, again, that has little to do with the facts that ideology is not benign and all 'popular' change is not necessarily for the better...

But the U.S. need not, and should not abandon these governments... Play this right and we turn down the flame beneath the boiling pot of popular discontent that we call "The War on Terrorism"...We need to lend stability to these inevitable transitions, to empower and facilitate evolution of government in order to prevent revolution of government. This means a mix of both assuring allies and cautioning/threatening them to be careful in how they respond to their populaces. Similarly to be supportive and cautioning/threatening to these populaces as well in regards to how we support peaceful evolution, self-determination and the principles we proclaim so loudly in our own founding documents; but that we will not stand idly by to outrages on the part of either side.

IOW, we can interfere in the affairs of others and should do so...

This is where the real lesson from Malaya comes to play. If we enable the right governmental reforms, then when the dust settles and the Islamists come in from the cold looking for support, they will find that the populace no longer needs what they are selling and is moving on without them.

"What is this 'we' stuff, White Man" quoth Tonto to the Lone Stranger?

Yet again you say we must support, encourage, threaten, enable or otherwise stick our oar in -- yet you say 'they' must determine for themselves...

Yet again I say -- you cannot have it both ways.

Either we interfere or we do not. If we do, the results for many reasons will be uncertain and there is no guarantee that the result will be satisfactory in anyone's view. More on this below.

We have an opportunity for "Malaya in the Desert," but that will only happen if we can break our Cold War paradigms and find the right balance between stability and change, between governments and populaces, between influence and control.

I respectfully suggest that there is no corollary to Malaya (also again... ) and that while I totally agree the Cold War paradigms must go (long overdue, that...) and finding that balance is desirable, so far all you've done is indicate the two poles:

They determine. But...

We

...need to lend stability to these inevitable transitions, to empower and facilitate evolution of government...cautioning/threatening them to be careful in how they respond to their populaces...supportive and cautioning/threatening to these populaces as well in regards to how we support peaceful evolution, self-determination and the principles we proclaim so loudly in our own founding documents; but that we will not stand idly by to outrages on the part of either side.(emphasis added / kw)

Where is this balance of which you speak?

I submit you haven't outlined it because you cannot -- each nation, each upset situation will be different, will require a different blend of reactions and those cannot be predicted due to the vagaries of the nation involved, its people, our political process and the rotation of policy makers in that process. Thus ideologies -- ours and theirs -- have an important bearing on what occurs. It may not be 'about' ideology but you cannot discount the effect of that or them.

Thus, if we enter into the issue in any measure -- and will have to do that for various reasons on occasion -- then we are interfering and we will almost of necessity attempt to influence the outcome and the results are not, can never be, certain. What occurs is that the policy makers of the day have to react to the information available, the circumstances as far as are known and make a decision. It will often, in hindsight, be wrong -- as was emplacing the Shah. Rectification can be messy -- as it was. That rectification may produce a worse situation -- as it did.

You desire to preclude this minor chaos and to codify our responses. Admirable but unlikely. You suggest, in essence a policy, you do not provide strategies.

I agree with your desired policy (as I have always done since you came up on this Board) and I suggest you can provide no strategy due to that varied situation factor and the US political system (as I have always done since you came up on this board).

Thus while I agree with your western enlightenment ideal of what should be done in the somewhat different east I'm forced yet again to suggest that your goal is not totally realistic and that we have never been prone to strictly adhere to "the principles we proclaim so loudly in our own founding document." Nor have we been able to do so for a variety of reasons, some valid, some specious -- all real...

That paragraph should be worth at least two bonus points.

[Dayuhan]

We need to recognize and prioritize the opportunity currently provided by the people of the region. We need to lend stability to these inevitable transitions, to empower and facilitate evolution of government in order to prevent revolution of government. This means a mix of both assuring allies and cautioning/threatening them to be careful in how they respond to their populaces. Similarly to be supportive and cautioning/threatening to these populaces as well in regards to how we support peaceful evolution, self-determination and the principles we proclaim so loudly in our own founding documents; but that we will not stand idly by to outrages on the part of either side.

I know this is said with the best of intentions, but have you any idea how patronizing and paternalistic it sounds? It also sets up a quintessentially American situation: we come riding over the hill pronouncing loudly "fear not, America is here to lend stability, to empower and facilitate, to guide and enlighten"... then we get all wounded and resentful when the populace tells us to piss off and die.

Don't think the populaces of these countries are going to welcome us with open arms and gratitude just because our intentions are noble. They won't. They don't trust us. They assume, not without reason, that we are interfering to advance our own interests. Nobody in the Middle East is going to believe that America is intervening to support the common people. Not too many in America would believe it. I'm not sure I'd believe it.

One of the great cognitive dissonances that dominates this debate is the assumption that because dictator X or despot Y is "a US ally", they must therefore be a US dependent or a US puppet, and that therefore the US can make them stop being naughty if we only try. This is a load of bollocks. An ally is simply a nation with which we share a common interest at any given point, not a nation that we control. We have a whole lot less influence over these nations than some people like to think, and they are not going to change simply because we tell them to. We can caution and threaten all we want: we will generally be ignored. Governments around the world, even our allies, don't do what we tell them to do. I'd have thought that obvious.

I also do not think for a moment that AQ is an expression of a desire for freedom and liberty. I don't think AQ has anything to do with freedom and liberty, nor does anyone in the Middle East think they do. They draw support as long as they fight foreign invasion of Muslim lands: that's the narrative that works for them, that's why they so badly needed the US to come into Afghanistan.

It is true that AQ has tried to raise populaces against Arab leaders. It's important to note, though, that these attempts have failed miserably. They had their best shot in Saudi Arabia in the 90s. That should have been fertile ground for them: an unpopular and unrepresentative government, US troops all over the place, a severe recession driven by an oil glut widely perceived to be forced by the US. They still failed. They drew support from a small fringe, but the populace never joined in, they never came close to critical mass, and the effort fell flat. That's not because the populace loved the royals, they just didn't see AQ as a viable alternative. They are willing to send support to AQ, cheer for AQ, send fighters to help the cause... as long as the jihad is somewhere else. When it comes home, it's a different story.

It would be a huge mistake to think that everyone who supports AQ wants AQ to take power in their own country. There are plenty in the Gulf who will willingly wallow in wanton western ways 6 days a week and salve their conscience by writing a check to Jihad Inc on the 7th. They aren't that different from the Christers in that respect, and that does not mean they want Osama in charge of their lives. They just like the idea of him fighting the good fight against the infidel... somewhere else.

We have an opportunity for "Malaya in the Desert," but that will only happen if we can break our Cold War paradigms and find the right balance between stability and change, between governments and populaces, between influence and control.

We can't have a "Malaya in the desert", because our position in the desert is in no way analogous to the British position in Malaya. Malaya was under British control. We cannot adjust government/populace relations in the Middle East, because we aren't the government. We cannot exercise or relinquish control in the Middle East, because we haven't any control to exercise or relinquish.

[carl]

This has NEVER been about ideology, it has been about oppressed people and the pursuit of liberty. Ideologies are just the tools employed to get there. This was true with communism in Africa and Asia post WWII;

Speaking as a member of the jury, when you make a statement like this, it sets off so many "Does not compute! Does not compute!" alarms that everything else you present is lost in the noise.

Communism was a totalitarian ideology that purported to make the human condition better. It wasn't about the pursuit of liberty as everybody who was hanging around at the time could see. It was in competition with other ideologies. In the places where it won, people's lives got really bad, tens of millions maybe over 100 million dead bad. When it wasn't working out so well, the ideological masters didn't rush to change it, they just made the secret police stronger in order to preserve the ideological order. Ideology did matter, a lot.

So counselor, you may want to fine tune your presentation a bit.

[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.

[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