I think about this a great deal. Frankly, there is very little evidence that "revolutions are caused by economics." For every situation you find a populace in poor or declining economic situations, far more are politically stable than unstable. It's like arguing that poverty causes spousal abuse or alcoholism. Some things are "equal opportunity" for rich and poor alike, and these dynamics that are rooted in human nature and group dynamics fit with in that category.
As Wilf says, insurgency is politics. He's absolutely right on that score. So we'll agree on those first two mile markers as we head down this path. 1. insurgency is not about economics (though certainly once the conditions of insurgency exist, economics come into play); and that insurgency is politics (Note, this means that political upheaval that is created by individuals seeking power or money with their small gang; such as drug cartels in Mexico, range wars between ranchers in the old American West, and perhaps even Diamond gangs in Sierra Leone are not true "insurgencies."
Our trails begin to diverge, and ahead is the fork in the road of "war" vs "civil emergency." Our doctrine tells us it is war, and our doctrines on war tells us war is politics. This is the majority path taken in looking at insurgencies. This is where I diverge. I could make a case for either one, but historically when one looks at situations where insurgency is approached as war and warfare is waged against the insurgent (often by an external power conducting counter guerrilla operations) it tends to ignore the root political causes and focus on re-establishing the status quo while suppressing the challengers. That model has proven to be temporarily effective many times and places. It is the base model captured in US COIN doctrine derived from the European Colonial experience, shaped during our own colonial experience (to which we added TTPS learned in defeating the native American populaces); and then colored again by our post WWII and post Cold War intervention experiences. All approached as war, with the goal of sustaining in power some government that is committed to supporting our interests in a particular region/populace deemed critical to US national interests.
I see insurgency as simply "illegal politics" that sometimes rise to very war-like levels of violence. I also believe that degree of violence is not an effective way to categorize such activities, but that one does a better job when they do it by the nature and relationship of the parties, and the basis of causation for the conflict (be it violent or non-violent).
Now to "Globalization" and does it help or hurt. Short answer is "YES, it does both"
Consider how the development of Roman roads facilitated the rise of Romes ability to subdue and manage an unprecedented empire; and similarly how such roads facilitated the rise of effective challengers from those subdued populaces that ultimately brought Rome down.
Consider how the development of the printing press facilitated the rise of the populaces of Western Europe to break the strangle hold of the Holy Roman Empire and the Catholic Church and their monopoly on education and religion.
Consider how British laid a vast network of telegraph wires and employed a steam powered navy and commercial fleet to expand and control an empire that rivaled Rome; and how populaces within those suppressed and divergent locations employed the same world-shrinking tools to encourage and sustain a ever expanding resistance that ultimately made sustaining such an empire cost-prohibitive, rolling back the overt controls to allow greater self-determination and legitimacy of government locally and a far less controlling role by Britain.
Now consider the American experience. Exerting our own brand of controlling influence across the globe on the backs of our own tremendous naval and commercial fleets; first in the name of "containing" existential threats of Soviet expansion into Europe; then evolving to a much broader and looser containment of the ideology of communism that was being embraced by so many post-colonial countries to facilitate their continued march to independence. Then there is the Middle East, a critical Cold War "battlefield" of resources, sea lanes, and choke points that had to be denied to the Soviets at any costs, and the governmental relationships that were nurtured and then protected against all enemies, foreign and domestic, to secure.
Then the Cold War ends and so does our express rationale for much of this engagement. Control measures are visibly rolled back in the West and Far East; but in the Middle East the Status Quo endured. The governments weren't complaining there (who complains about being insanely rich and powerful?), and the populace there has no voice (conversely poor and powerless), so their cries were muted. But along comes the information tools of "globalization." They lit the fuse that allowed the Eastern European populaces to free themselves from Soviet dominion. They also enabled bin Laden to turn AQ into a UW headquarters that could employ networked operations to extend a global reach without the benefit (or vulnerable burden) of a state to operate from. Like with the British experience before us, formerly isolated and disconnected populace groups rallied off of each others experiences to find courage and encouragement to stand up and resist illegitimate governments at home. It also empowered AQ's ability to recruit across a broad base of supportive populaces to converge energy against the West in an effort to break our support to these governments they were seeking to challenge at home. No more a "global insurgency" than the Cold War was; but rather a set of nationalist insurgencies with a common religion and common opponent that are leveraged by AQ as the UW hub to support their own political agenda as well.
So, yes, globalization is an important aspect of the current upheavals of Sunni Muslim populaces. Just as it was for the suppressed populaces of every previous empire as well.
But if you go down the "warpath" you begin to lose objectivity. If you don't look at history, you lose perspective. If you can't look at your own actions and contributions to the political conditions that are being challenged through illegal politics, you lose your empire...
Bookmarks