SWJ Small Wars Survey 2012

[AmericanPride]

Another word for speculation.

Yep. And there's entire professions dedicated to it so your condescension towards speculation is very much irrelevant to this discussion.

They're committed to joining and profiting from the global economy.

So long as they are powerless to change the conditions to better suit their interests. The world looks different when you're on top of it.

The revolutions are attributable to to exposed elites hung on their own corruption, ineptness, and ossified social structures, and to increasingly frustrated populaces who want more.

That's what I said... "exposed elites...," "the people harnessing the ideas, et.al...," So what "more" do the people want and from where do they draw their enablers, motivations, and ideals? What ideological language are they speaking? Are they speaking the language of nationalism or Islamism? No, they are speaking the language of liberalism, democracy, and human rights. These things were not suddenly invented in Egypt, Tunisia, and Libya.

The Tunisian, Egyptian, and Libyan elites didn't inspire revolt because they were exposed to the forces of "global capitalism", they inspired revolt because they sucked at governing.

I did not say exposure to global capitalism "inspired" revolution in Libya, Egypt, and Tunisia. I stated that the elites were vulnerable to the "political, economic, and cultural forces" of global capitalism. The elites did not necessarily "suck" at governing -- they did what governments are designed to do: maintained the privileges of those in control of it. But that position is not tenable in the international context of democracy, liberalization, modernization, and human rights. So a Tunisian lit himself on fire because he was tired of being beat up by the police -- what was the system in place that compelled him into that situation, and what alternatives exist? Did the Tunisian mob invent democracy? Liberalism?

[wm]

I think American Pride's understanding of the cause of revolution can be expressed quite succinctly: "The Man is keeping me down." "The Man" in this case is the 1% who are the leaders of Western Capitalism (whatever that is). While this may be true, it is rather unenlightening because of its generality.

A few days back this post by Bill Moore appeared on the Musa Qala thread. I think that the first quoted line, replacing the place name (Helmand) with just about any other place name where reaction to the status quo is occurring or has occurred, captures American Pride's desired causal nexus much better than some appeal to a global movement against the current forces of Western Capitalism.

The Tip O'Neil quote that is the subject of this post says about as much on the causes of revolts and other popular upraising and outcries as the historical evidence of such events seems to support.

[Dayuhan]

Yep. And there's entire professions dedicated to it so your condescension towards speculation is very much irrelevant to this discussion.

Yes, fortune-tellers abound. Whether or not there's much point in listening to those who claim the ability to predict the future is another story, unless there's some concrete reason to believe that they actually can. Speculation may be entertaining but it makes a poor basis for policy, and I don't see a great deal that's analytical about it... especially when, as is so often the case, it derives primarily from ideologically driven preconceptions.

That's what I said... "exposed elites...," "the people harnessing the ideas, et.al...," So what "more" do the people want and from where do they draw their enablers, motivations, and ideals? What ideological language are they speaking? Are they speaking the language of nationalism or Islamism? No, they are speaking the language of liberalism, democracy, and human rights. These things were not suddenly invented in Egypt, Tunisia, and Libya.

They're tired of being kicked around and they perceive vulnerability on the part of those doing the kicking. I see no connection to "the forces of global capitalism". These are local events driven by local issues.

The elites did not necessarily "suck" at governing -- they did what governments are designed to do: maintained the privileges of those in control of it.

They did it badly and they failed at it, ergo they sucked at it.

But that position is not tenable in the international context of democracy, liberalization, modernization, and human rights. So a Tunisian lit himself on fire because he was tired of being beat up by the police -- what was the system in place that compelled him into that situation, and what alternatives exist? Did the Tunisian mob invent democracy? Liberalism?

Revolts against aging, vulnerable despots have occurred ever since aging, vulnerable despots appeared as a feature of human social organization. I see no special connection to these "forces of global capitalism".