SWJ Small Wars Survey 2012

[Dayuhan]

Sure they do. But we're not talking about the liberal/nationalist revolutions of the 19th century or the national wars of liberation in the 20th. We're focused on contemporary revolutionary conflicts for the next, say, 10 - 30 years, and really only those that interest the United States, which narrows the field further.

Unless somebody here has crystal balls, any assessment of what revolutions will be like or which revolutions the US will be concerned with for the next 10-30 years is purely speculative.

Right now there exists a global regime governed by the "laws" of capitalist relations and dominated by the West who are challenged by the leaders of the developing world.

I don't see the capitalist system being challenged by the developing world at all. I see most of the developing world trying to push into the tent and get a piece of the action.

Islamism is one of the few half-way viable alternatives, though its political and economic foundations are weak because it does not have appeal in any of the great or secondary powers. As a political organizing principle, it challenges the Western conception of power directly, rearranging (or destroying) the relationships established by the West. That is the definition of revolution, whatever concrete event triggers it.

Islamism may have revolutionary aspirations, but there's no current evidence to suggest that it can transform those aspirations into significant political action. I wouldn't assume that Islamism will be a dominant cause of revolution or even a dominant US antagonist in the future.

You say such a universal understanding of revolution is "pointless". On the contrary, it provides just the context needed for understanding the security implications of global political economy: revolutionary conflict is inevitable and the US must be prepared to engage in it on one side (i.e. anti-Mubarak forces in Egypt) or the other (preserving the status quo in Saudi Arabia and the Gulf Kingdoms).

I'll correct myself and say that attempting to deduce a "universal understanding of revolution" is not just pointless, it's downright counterproductive. Once we assume a "universal understanding", we try to shove events into that box whether or not they fit there, and that can lead to dangerous misinterpretations. Revolutions aren't universal, they are specific, and each has its own causes. The revolutions in Tunisia, Egypt, and Libya, and the current struggle in Syria, had and have nothing to do with global capitalism; they were and are reactions to specific local governance conditions. Future revolutions are likely - though in no way certain - to be the same.

The fewer preconceived notions we have when approaching and attempting to understand a revolution or revolutionary aspirations, the better. Understand it for what it is, based on local knowledge, don't try to cram it into some preconceived box of "universal understanding".