Is Globalization the Answer or Culprit?

[Cliff]

John,

You just described the United States. But though we have all of these "classic symptoms" there is no real danger of insurgency. I would offer that Gurr's position is sound, but that if he would have dug a little deeper he would have gotten closer to the true roots of causation.

As we discussed, you bundle the four primary causal factors that I look to under the single umbrella of "Legitimacy." That is one of those words that carries far too many meanings, I think it is critical to break it down into four more focused bundles when assessing insurgency:

Legitimacy: The populace must recognize the right of the government to govern.

Justice: The populace must perceive that the rule of law as applied to them is just.

Respect: No significant segment of the society can perceive that they are excluded from participation in governance and opportunity as a matter of status.

Hope: The populace must perceive that they have a trusted, effective and legal means of changing governance, when they believe such change to be necessary.

When these conditions exist and hope is absent, conditions of insurgency will grow. Certainly economic hardship adds fuel to this mix, but it is a mix rooted in domestic policies and politics assesssed through the eyes of "the populace" (which is never a monolith). At point all it takes is a spark. Some internal or external leader armed with an effective ideology; or some event (as in Tunisia). Whether it then goes violent or non-violent is a choice of tactics, with little bearing on the nature of the problem.

Hope is codified and preserved in our Constitution. This is the role of a Constitution. Any constitution that creates such hope in a populace is the kind of effective COIN tool our founding fathers intended and designed our own constitution to be.

Cheers!

Bob

Bob-

I think you could make an arguement that the Tea Party represents an insurgency, and I think economics are the prime driver of this movement. Comparing the US economic "woes" to those in some of these other countries is comparing apples and oranges, however- we're not that bad off (not that that's good, mind you!). We simply have a robust system that can process insurgencies - IE, the elections!

As for the other posts (sorry I am behind so mass replying) - I am closer to JohnT's opinion I think.

I agree that war is politics by other means, and insurgency is warfare by and for politics more so than most other types of war.

That said, I think you ignore economic causes at your peril. Certainly they are expressed politically, but economics have been at the root of numerous revolutions/insurgencies - like our own (taxes due to the British debt) or the French Revolution (debt from numerous wars against the Brits). In many cases where this doesn't hold true I would argue that a few self-interested folks hijacked the populace's economic dissatisfaction (Lenin, Mao)...

I am not arguing that all insurgencies/revolutions are caused by economics. But I am arguing that these will become more common than ever before. Globalization means that our economic interests are more integrated than ever before. While globalization has occured before, the integration of supply chains across nations has never occured to the level we see today. Likewise, the competition in almost every area of the economy has never been as widespread as it is now. This round of globalization is different as a result- it's not trade in raw materials or finished products but technology enabled flat supply chains operating on just-in-time principles.

Due to the system of liberalized international trade and finance set up by the victors of World War II, states tend to compete in the economic realm rather than in the military one, and we haven't seen a great power war since World War II. Let's be honest - as long as your average middle class person has a job and can take care of their family and improve their life, they don't have as much to be dissatisfied about. That's why China hasn't seen massive countrywide protests- as long as the CCP can deliver reasonable growth, the folks will stay reasonably happy. In places where this is not the case, you see upheaval.

Again, I am not saying that politics or legitimacy do not matter. They most certainly do. But I am saying that economic issues will become even more important than ever before. As countries develop this will tend to be more the case, while in lesser developed countries it will be less so. Is the development the cause? It seems that you could make an arguement that people at the low end (very poor, little economic activity) tend to dislike their government, and people at the high end of development (more economic activity, developed economy) also tend to get there. South Korea is a good example - not much democracy until their economy took off - then massive protests and upheaval.

In summary, I think that economic causes are a major part of many insurgencies. Getting bogged down on semantics or trying to separate economic and political causes (It's only about the legitimacy - in four parts!) disregards important aspects of the problem. I think part of the reason for this tendency is the centrality of the military to dealing with insurgencies in the West - which is exactly why Dr. Barnett and others argue for a "department of everything else" or Goldwater Nichols for the interagency - to give the USG non-military tools to deal with these issues.

V/R,

Cliff

PS - good to see you Prof Fishel! Hoping I can be a poster and not just a lurker, at least for a few more months!

[Bob's World]

Cliff,

The Tea Party absolutely is not an insurgency for the simple reason that it is within the rule of law. The Tea party is legal politics.

However, in many, perhaps most countries around the world the Tea Party absolutely would be an insurgency because it would be illegal politics.

This is why I add "Hope" and describe it as the great off ramp from insurgency. Imagine a U.S. where the populace lost their faith and confidence in the Constitution? An America where there was no trusted, certain, and legal means to address conditions of poor governance?

Take that away from the segment of America that comprises or supports the Tea Party and option would they have besides insurgency? This is the situation the African American populace found themselves in; as they were excluded as a matter of status from inclusion in the good governance of the United States. Lyndon Johnson threw his own political future under the bus, a far more significant bus than the one "Ms Parks was on. He had the moral courage to pass three landmark laws that brought the African American populace within the circle of "good governance" and also with the voters rights act insured they had Hope.

Many Americans today are in denial over the civil rights situation that exploded post WWII in much the same way many Germans are about the Holocaust. Somethings are so horrible, so hard to imagine in the context of modern times that they are discounted as to how bad they were.

So, in Afghanistan, building equity and justice will take time, though we could get started on the laws and infrastructure required for both. Hope can come much more quickly; but begins with a new constitution. The current constitution robs virtually the entire populace of Afghanistan of hope; and discriminates against half as a matter of status. Does anyone think the Northern Alliance would stand for the current Constitution if Mullah Omar was sitting in the presidency with the power to pick a 1/3 of the senate, a new Supreme Court, every District and Provincial Governor and Police Chief; plus many more??

As to economics, I don't ignore them, they are a critical part of the equation. But people will tolerate crushing poverty if they believe that it is fair. But even the wealthy rise up in rebellion when the conditions of insurgency reach a certain point.

[Cliff]

I don't ignore them, they are a critical part of the equation. But people will tolerate crushing poverty if they believe that it is fair. But even the wealthy rise up in rebellion when the conditions of insurgency reach a certain point.

Bob-

You make my point for me.

Globalization means that people everywhere know more about other people. So the folks who are in dire economic straights KNOW that they are there... and once most people know that they don't think it's fair anymore, because they see that the Jones (or the next tribe, next country, other ethnic group, etc.) have more than they do.

This is why economic issues will become increasingly important- like you said, it is hope! As long as you have "hope" in the form of increased wealth through your life and better position for your kids, you can be placated because you see yourself as moving up the ladder. You can picture yourself in the fat cat's place, if only you work harder. If you suddenly lose that opportunity... well then we have a problem.

Once you've given people a taste of this, you can't really take it away... especially if their neighbors have opportunity!!

V/R,

Cliff

[Bob's World]

Bob-

You make my point for me.

Globalization means that people everywhere know more about other people. So the folks who are in dire economic straights KNOW that they are there... and once most people know that they don't think it's fair anymore, because they see that the Jones (or the next tribe, next country, other ethnic group, etc.) have more than they do.

This is why economic issues will become increasingly important- like you said, it is hope! As long as you have "hope" in the form of increased wealth through your life and better position for your kids, you can be placated because you see yourself as moving up the ladder. You can picture yourself in the fat cat's place, if only you work harder. If you suddenly lose that opportunity... well then we have a problem.

Once you've given people a taste of this, you can't really take it away... especially if their neighbors have opportunity!!

V/R,

Cliff

Cliff,

You may (or may not) be surprised to learn that those who live in abject poverty in so many places around the globe cannot empathize with the wealth of America any more than Americans can empathise with their poverty. Somethings are beyond comprehension.

I got my first dose of this as a young Captain standing in the Saudi desert attempting to describe my home in SW Oregon to the Egyptian soldiers and officers I worked with. Even when I finally got a tourist brochure and showed them pictures of the coast, the forests, the farms, Crater Lake, etc their eyes went wide with wonder, but they still could not truly comprehend something so far from the only reality they had ever known.

Fast forward to today. The size of bounties placed on HVTs in the Southern Philippines was (and likely is) a big problem. The amounts were too large. Tell someone you will pay them $6 Million for a guy and they don't get it. Tell them you'll pay them $6,000 and suddenly you have their attention. Like an inverse scene from Austin Powers. The first amount is too large to comprehend, the second is wealth beyond belief, but within understanding. Heck, we'd probably have rounded up all the AQ senior leaders world wide long ago if we had reduced the largest reward to about $25,000 for bin Ladin. It's not like we are attempting to lure western bounty hunters to go after them.

But that too points out how we have hindered our own efforts by not being able to epathize with the affected populaces where the base of support for such movements exists. Much smaller rewards and DA raids on senior leaders in Pakistan would have likely been seen as quite reasonable by the Pashtun populace that harbored them.

Instead we created this elaborate and intrusive construct that takes us farther from the prize every day. Crazy.