Is Globalization the Answer or Culprit?

[slapout9]

Gents-

Perhaps it might be useful to delineate our terminology a bit.

An armed group who seeks purely economical ends is a criminal gang, cartel, mafia, or something similar. They are not insurgents, nor are they rebels.

Insurgency is always political, as Mr. Owen states. If it is not political, it is not warfare and must be something else. War always has political ends.

The insurgent or rebel always seek a political objective. These objectives fall into two broad categories: Those who wish to overthrow a government and replace it with another (usually the insurgent/rebel leadership), or, those who wish to force a government to change a policy/policies, but do not wish to overthrow that government.

I'm not an expert, but my sense of it is that the definitions of these terms depends on who you ask - therefore arguing semantics probably isn't useful. However, my general sense is that insurgency is a sub-category of rebellion in which the insurgent group seeks the overthrow of a government. Rebellions may or may not be insurgencies. Rebels may simply demand a change in policy, or perhaps, secession from a nation-state, without being an insurgency.

M.L. separating the two is a western idea that is generally not shared by the rest of the world which is why Marx said "You can't separate Politics from Economics." IMO this is the source of every problem we have inside America and Outside America.

[Bob's World]

Or, when one wants to shut down an opponent without offering any real substance to do so, they can go to a range of "shut-down phrases", such as:

1. "That's tactical, I'm talking strategic here..."

2. "That's a Western perspective..."

3. " That can't be true because Dave Kilcullen said..."

4. "Well, according to Clausewitz..."

5. "When I was in Iraq..."

6. "That is an idealist position..."

7. (or conversely) "When one takes a pragmatic, realist approach..."

8. And most conclusively: "Don't make me bring Ken White in on this!"

(Bonus points for combining two or more in a single sentence!)

[William F. Owen]

2. "That's a Western perspective..."

That is very often a huge problem. Democracy and legitimacy for example.

3. " That can't be true because Dave Kilcullen said..."

Well when I next meet Dave, I'm going to point out to him that his two book and numerous articles have done far more harm than good, in my opinion.

4. "Well, according to Clausewitz..."

If he said it, it was probably right and no one better has come along.

"Don't make me bring Ken White in on this!"

I think of Ken as a Intellectual Reserve. Thus have simple ideas, that Ken White agrees with....

[Ken White]

2. "That's a Western perspective..."

6. "That is an idealist position..."

8. And most conclusively: "Don't make me bring Ken White in on this!"

(Bonus points for combining two or more in a single sentence!)

He is here...

Bonus claiming sentence:

The western perspectives on globalization, economic matters in general (but in particular as it relates to Taarof, Hong Bao and their relatives) and even on most aspects of warfare are essentially idealistic and are thus often incorrect and perceived as arrogance and / or ignorance in the eyes of many in the East.

Followed by:

As Samuel Huntington said: "...Asian societies and Muslim societies are increasingly resentful of our efforts to induce them to adopt our values.” Anyone who fails to comprehend that reality is doomed to state that it is but a strawman, to be ignored -- and they will. They'll ultimately pay for it, too...

You know this, Bob. Witness:

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.

Yep, you know it -- you just like to ignore it in some of your posts as it complicates your argument...

I generally agree with Selil. However, this from him:

The adage that the military went to war and American went to the mall is a truism. Fed in part by the disconnection of the Military and political process from the populace and the rapidly escalation of a growing divide caused by globalization.

Merits a quibble. Except that he adroitly corrects or at least adjusts it later:

... Consider the civil/military relationship and then consider the globalization relationships. Would we expect a government or military that doesn't understand the former to have any clue about the latter?

Good question. I'd only add that the lack of understanding of the civil/military relationship is a two way street, that both sides tacitly encourage that lack and that -- as Selil knows -- misundertanding or misperceptions on that relationship and both parties to it in the Academic world exacerbate the problem. That, BTW is not an attack, merely an observation. It is also an observation that agendas drive understanding or an apparent lack thereof and that even pure intentions can legitimately diverge among communities.

Which is what makes globalization complex. And drives western and eastern mutual failures to comprehend...

[Bob's World]

Ken,

Its not that my arguments are complicated, but the world, people, and the US's perceived role vs it's necessary role certainly is.

We have interests, we have requirements, and we are (by a considerable margin) the big dog on the block. We also have a tremendous (though short) evolving history as a nation. Most fascinating parts being the formation of the nation and then the emergence post WWII to lead the Western portion of the Cold War.

With all of that in the rearview mirror we have come to realize in recent years that we have no entitlement to such a role, and that if we are careless in our approaches to that role it can likely speed our come uppence.

So while we do still need to manage our interests around the globe, I recommend that we recognize our Cold War experience for the anomaly that it was and get a little bit closer to the perspectives that we originally built this nation upon. Part of that perspective is recognizing the power of the populace and the liability of governance when such relationships go bad. We're older and far more like our parents these days than we were back in our idealistic youth, but that's ok. We do still enjoy a good windmill to tilt at every now and then though.

So while there may appear to be some inconsistencies between what we should do and what we probably must do, I'm ok with that. Besides, no one has the answer, I'm just trying to break through the good old boys group think to add a fresh perspective.

[Dayuhan]

So while we do still need to manage our interests around the globe, I recommend that we recognize our Cold War experience for the anomaly that it was and get a little bit closer to the perspectives that we originally built this nation upon. Part of that perspective is recognizing the power of the populace and the liability of governance when such relationships go bad.

I agree. I also think we have to recognize the constraints on our ability to restructure governance/populace and populace/populace relations in other countries, and the enormous potential for unintended consequences associated with such attempts. We can't "fix" other countries, and we're likely to step in something nasty if we try.

That's not saying we should be trying to preserve an unsustainable status quo, but trying to initiate or direct changes to that status quo is as bad. We are not anyone's saviour or champion and we cannot appoint ourselves to those roles.

[Bob's World]

Sometimes it is merely the perception that we are behind sustaining some very unsustainable status quos that is enough to give organizations such as AQ rich fodder for their propaganda machine for waging UW against us through nationalist insurgent organizations and disgruntled individuals.

We need to create some new perceptions.

[Dayuhan]

Sometimes it is merely the perception that we are behind sustaining some very unsustainable status quos that is enough to give organizations such as AQ rich fodder for their propaganda machine for waging UW against us through nationalist insurgent organizations and disgruntled individuals.

We need to create some new perceptions.

Certainly perceptions are important, but challenging a perceived situation is very different from challenging an actual situation, and we have to recognize from the start which we are doing. Perceptions get complicated, because they are in no way universal: what we are dealing with in many cases is not, for example, the actual perceptions that different components of the Saudi populace have of our role in their governance, but our perception of that perception. That's pretty messy and pretty uncertain. Certainly AQ tries to peddle a certain perception, but that doesn't mean that perception is universally or even widely accepted.

Wrapping ourselves around a dizzying galaxy of varying perceptions and trying to change them all is a good way to trip over our own feet. Over time, a straightforward, sensible foreign policy that does not involve messing around in the internal affairs of others - either to advance our own interests or to advance our perception of their interests - will drive its own set of perceptions.

We have meddled all to often on the wrong side of the political spectrum in other countries, ultimately advancing the interests of nobody but some governing elites. We cannot correct that by trying to meddle on the "right" side, because there's no universal agreement on wrong and right in these cases, and because the populaces involved don't trust us and don't want us in their business even on the sides they support. We can correct our previous mistakes, over time (trust is more easily broken than built) not by counter-meddling, but by a whole lot less meddling.

[M.L.]

M.L. separating the two is a western idea that is generally not shared by the rest of the world which is why Marx said "You can't separate Politics from Economics." IMO this is the source of every problem we have inside America and Outside America.

I wasn't separating the two. I was simply stating that any armed group that has economic ends without political ends that operates outside the law is a criminal, not insurgent group.

This does not mean that economics is not part of insurgency, rebellion, etc...