Mao made this point, too. He wrote that uprisings rebel, then organise (plan). Political (ideological) movements plan (organise), then rebel.
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.
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.
I think that's very true -- and I have great difficulty understanding the 'why.'I'm not even sure it's really all that "nice to have" -- perhaps in a few cases. In most, I think it delusional.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.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.Good security policy is isolationist in the framework of a defensive alliance, everything that goes beyond is petty foreign policy gaming. IMO.
Which is probably why the practice exists in spite of its obvious flaws...
LINK.
Bookmarks