Popular rebellion, state response and our failure to date: a debate

[Dayuhan]

My point was rather on the fact that in Lybia, according to the media, Western powers are asking to the population to get organised, basically to have a "State like" structre we can deal with.

Are we "asking them to organize" (assuming that we are; media reports aren't always accurate) because we can't deal with them unless they have a state-like structure? Or are we asking them to organize because they can't possibly win - or govern if they do win - if they don't organize?

Rebellions may start as disorganized mass movements, but if they want to succeed they sooner or later have to organize. If the government opposing them is strong enough to resists they will have to organize to defeat the government. If the government falls while the movement is still disorganized, there still has to be an organization process if the rebels are to take advantage.

[Fuchs]

Mao made this point, too. He wrote that uprisings rebel, then organise (plan). Political (ideological) movements plan (organise), then rebel.

[M-A Lagrange]

Mao made this point, too. He wrote that uprisings rebel, then organise (plan). Political (ideological) movements plan (organise), then rebel.

This is exactly my point. Mao is a figure of the post WW2 and Cold War. What about a rebellion that is not politically organised (many parties, civilian will...) not planed (population get fed up or react to a desperate act as in Tunisia or to repression).
Cause this is what West has been encouraging (non organised popular movement) and now may have to face/support. In the case of Lybia, the first move was to say: you are not organised that means we do not trust you cause you might be a easy catch for AQ.

[Fuchs]

The AQ fixation in Western politics (debates) is a domestic sickness. It's not even about foreign policy, but about a psychological condition.



I was likely too subtle on my main point:
There's no need for being able to deal with rebels in distant countries.
It's a nice-to-have for foreign policy and a feel-good bonus for the news cycle, but utterly irrelevant as a need for defence policy.


Good security policy is isolationist in the framework of a defensive alliance, everything that goes beyond is petty foreign policy gaming. IMO.

[Ken White]

The AQ fixation in Western politics (debates) is a domestic sickness. It's not even about foreign policy, but about a psychological condition.

I think that's very true -- and I have great difficulty understanding the 'why.'

I was likely too subtle on my main point:
There's no need for being able to deal with rebels in distant countries.
It's a nice-to-have for foreign policy and a feel-good bonus for the news cycle, but utterly irrelevant as a need for defence policy.

I'm not even sure it's really all that "nice to have" -- perhaps in a few cases. In most, I think it delusional.

Good security policy is isolationist in the framework of a defensive alliance, everything that goes beyond is petty foreign policy gaming. IMO.

True and that gaming is most often expensive and counterproductive, doing more harm than good. It also is distracting from truly necessary defense and foreign policy issues as well as to the domestic polity.

Which is probably why the practice exists in spite of its obvious flaws...

[Fuchs]

I need a new signature and it's all your fault!

[Ken White]

LINK.