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".

[Ken White]

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.

Not that, that's totally correct even if many seem to have difficulty grasping the point -- OTOH this:

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".

is too hard for too many; better in their view to have a straitjacket to put on problems so they all look alike and to have a one size fits all hat for a 'problem solver' ..

[Ken White]

Seriously, what's wrong there? How can warmongering, on other occasions also executions and the like, be cheered for? Isn't it about time to reign in here and stop this insanity? There gotta be some levers for civil society to reign in against such inhuman extremism.

Nope, we're Americans, evil to the core...

In my book, the U.S. should immediately forget (what little it knows) about the rest of the world...

You're right about the little but we can agree on the forgetting a lot of that...

and clean up the domestic mess ASAP. It really needs a dozens of Baceviches as national pundits RIGHT NOW.

While I agree on the domestic clean up, for the rest, sheesh, what a thought. Scary, that. Haven't you noticed that part of our problem is that we have way, way too many pundits, people who have no responsibilities but a lot of abstruse opinions...

Fortunately, we're diverse enough that while there's probably someone that listens to each of them, we tend to collectively ignore most of them. As we should because, in the end, they express merely a generally ill informed opinion, nothing more...

To paraphrase the old saying, Europe is Europe and America is America and never the twain shall meet...

Speaking of pundits and twains, old 'uneducated' Mark Twain was a better pundit than most of today's, smarter than most including Doctor Colonel Professor Bacevich...

[Dayuhan]

In my book, the U.S. should immediately forget (what little it knows) about the rest of the world and clean up the domestic mess ASAP.

That's a piece of advice that might be given to Europe as well.

[AmericanPride]

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.

That's why it's called predictive analysis...

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.

That's part of it, but that's mostly driven by Brazil, China, India, etc. But none of them are no more committed to maintaining the Western capitalist system any more than the US was committed to maintaining the European colonial system. How that transfer of power will proceed remains to be seen, if it ever comes to pass.

Islamism may have revolutionary aspirations, but there's no current evidence to suggest that it can transform those aspirations into significant political action.

Rewording what I said and using it as a reply is not productive communication.

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.

And those "specific local governance conditions" exist within a larger and specific international context of global capitalism. The Middle East is not experiencing any pan-Arab nationalist revolution as was seen in the final decades of European imperialism or a religious revolution like in Iran or Afghanistan. The revolutions are attributable to exposed elites vulnerable to the political, economic, and cultural forces of globalism. This does not imply that some magical hand is flying around the world tipping over tin-pot dictatorships -- the people are harnessing the ideas, technologies, and material powers to enact revolution. This is a direct consequence of the global regime in place.

[Dayuhan]

That's why it's called predictive analysis...

Another word for speculation.

That's part of it, but that's mostly driven by Brazil, China, India, etc. But none of them are no more committed to maintaining the Western capitalist system any more than the US was committed to maintaining the European colonial system. How that transfer of power will proceed remains to be seen, if it ever comes to pass.

They're committed to joining and profiting from the global economy. Many others in the developing world are doing the same with equal or greater success, though being smaller they get less attention. I see nothing revolutionary about that... evolution perhaps, but not revolution.

The revolutions are attributable to exposed elites vulnerable to the political, economic, and cultural forces of globalism. This does not imply that some magical hand is flying around the world tipping over tin-pot dictatorships -- the people are harnessing the ideas, technologies, and material powers to enact revolution. This is a direct consequence of the global regime in place.

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. 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. That's nothing unusual: dictatorships tend to lose their mojo over time, and eventually the rot goes terminal and the people take to the streets. Not all that different from Paris in 1789 when you get right down to it. The hypothetical connection to "global capitalism" seems strained well beyond the breaking point.

[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.

[Steve Blair]

that's a piece of advice that might be given to europe as well.

+1

[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".