Bahrain's Unrest

[Bob's World]

Really? The US effectively excluded 70% of the population (the poor, women, non-whites) and from effective political participation until 1920 or so. While you did have that nasty civil war over slavery, I'm not sure that the history of the United States between 1776 and 1920 could be described as a "disaster."

China has effectively excluded 95% of the population from political participation since 1949, and has been stunningly successful over the past 20 years.

I'm being provocative, of course--we academics get paid to be argumentative. I certainly think democracy is, in the long run, a good thing. I'm also with you on the overall merits of a stronger US stance in favor of political reform in the Arab world.

However, I am suggesting that the relationship between political exclusion, revolt, and national "success" is far murkier than we might wish.

Rex,

Come now, the American example you give list segments of the populace with no historic expectation of inclusion in politics directly. As our society continued to evolve under this new model of governance it created such expectations over time and had to adjust to bring these new stakeholders into the fold.

It is a far different matter to exclude, or discount the inclusion of some segment of the populace that has such a historic expectation of inclusion or degree of influence. For the influence of landed gentry such as the American founding fathers to be discounted by half merely because they lived in the colonies rather than in England. Or in Afghanistan, to strip influence and participation from one segment of society and vest it all in another every time the tide of war shifts the balance of power under the hand of some external power or another.

How many of that 95% of the Chinese populace has a historic expectation of inclusion? This is not a game of simple math, but one which requires taking into account (as my Contracts professor used to say) "all the surrounding facts and circumstances," and not just what is written within the four corners of the contract document itself.

The issue in the Middle East today, and I suspect in China tomorrow, is a change in expectation fueled by the modern information age. Just and changes in American society created an expectation in Women that had to be addressed; just as WWII created changes in expectations of the African American society that had to be addressed.

The world is changing, expectations are changing. Governments, however, have been held static. Many don't want to change. It's good to be King. Many we don't want to change. It's good to have a King monitor ones financial and security interests. But Kings who cling too long to too much in eras of such social change end up with their heads in a bucket or their necks in a noose. Sponsors of such kings who cling too long in the face of such change find themselves beset by "Anarchists" or "Terrorists"; or mired in "COIN" campaigns dedicated to preserving the status quo.

I stand by my argument, but you have made me have to flesh it out a bit with your challenge, and for that I thank you.

Bob

[Dayuhan]

Sponsors of such kings who cling too long in the face of such change find themselves beset by "Anarchists" or "Terrorists"; or mired in "COIN" campaigns dedicated to preserving the status quo.

Who is sponsoring kings? I don't see the US sponsoring any.

We're mired in COIN campaigns in places where we expelled and replaced regimes, not where we tried to preserve them.

[Bob's World]

Who is sponsoring kings? I don't see the US sponsoring any.

We're mired in COIN campaigns in places where we expelled and replaced regimes, not where we tried to preserve them.

Dead Wrong.

First, We really aren't conducting "COIN Campaigns" anywhere;

Second, neither Irarq nor Afghanistan are truly central to the issues driving the spate of international terrorism over the past 15 years or so being executed by Sunni Arabs affiliated with radical Islamist organizations such as Al Qaeda;

Third, the bulk of the direct and indirect support to said movements has generated from the very populaces that are at this very movement either celebrating their liberty from some generational despot, or are plotting or implementing the same.

4th. The US acted early in the Cold War to shape a controlling influence over this same region, denying Soviet and European influence alike; and has then dedicated a large portion of our diplomatic and military energy over the past 60 years to the shaping and sustaining of a status quo that we felt best served our national interests in the region.

5th. During that same time national leaders now secure from external threats were free to design and implant internal security measures and limitations on civil liberties that could only be described as "despotic" and that have left this region largely frozen in time as they watch through new technologies the world moving rapidly around them

6th. At the core of each of these distinct nationalist movements is a private, personal insurgency that is not some component of a "global insurgency" but rather is independent and distinct. AQ has worked to connect itself to as many of these movements as possible, like a virtual flea attached to the backs of a pack of dogs. Yes the flea is an irritant and motivates the dogs to bark and scratch; but it is their respective masters that have locked them in small kennels and treated them so poorly that drives their quest for liberty (My apologies to my Muslim brothers for this analogy, I in no way call you dogs, but rather attempt to communicate why so many are so motivated to be free).

Lastly, and if you take away only one thing, FACTS are immaterial in insurgency, and PERCEPTION is everything. No one cares about our facts, they only care about their perception, and it is their perception that brings terrorism to our shores, and it is there perception that is driving the to the streets to face national security forces that have held them in check for generations.

So, we can argue over what their perceptions are, but don't argue your facts, because they don't matter. Many the colonial power argued the facts all the way up to the point they were driven from their respective acquisitions. They still argue those facts. They are probably right, just has Harry Summer was right when he told the Vietnamese officer that we had never lost a battle. All of your arguments may be technically and factually correct. However:

"That may be so," he replied, "but it is also irrelevant."