Syria under Bashir Assad (closed end 2014)

[AmericanPride]

We naively assume that the great experiment we have implemented in America can be implemented in any country despite entrenched cultures that are not receptive to pluralistic governance.

I didn't state anything of the sort - I said it would be a "good case study". Given the challenges to U.S. stability, what are some of the lessons that can be learned from American experiences (both the failures and the accomplishments)? Some may be translatable to other contexts - others not. And it's huge intellectual leap from saying U.S. experiences may be useful for understanding governance to the conclusion that we ought to impose the American form of government on other countries by force of arms.

Also - what makes a culture "not receptive to pluralistic governance"? I'm curious about the historiography of U.S. military thought on governance and where this obession with culture emerged. Why is the relationship between governance and culture the sole or most important determinant of the outcome?

Pluralistic governance seems like a great idea, but I still question its feasibility as a solution in many countries.

That depends on how you define the problem in those countries. If the problem is governance, then I think a strong case could be made for pluralistic reform. If the problem is something else (like the impact on U.S. security) - well, that requires a different answer.

Then it begs the question do we care more about the form of government or human rights?

That's a good question. Officially, yes, the U.S. government does care about the form of government and human rights. That does not always work out well in practice. The underlying question is should we? That's a far more difficult question to answer. From the earliest days of its history, the U.S. has had an ideological (and religous) component to its foreign policy. I think the answer to this question depends upon where you start and where you want to end up.

Can a more oppressive government effectively suppress ethnic hatred within its society, leading to an uncomfortable peace?

Yes - but what does "effectively" mean in practice, for how long, and at what cost? And is it useful to frame the problem as "ethnic hatred"? What if we framed the problem as the distribution of power? The problem with the cultural reading of conflict is that it's essentialist - you have to accept that at some fundamental level different cultures are inherently incompatible. This makes it easier to dimiss practical solutions. But the problem is that no one can ever define exactly where and how ethnicity or culture are inherently conflictual. But how cultures and ethnicities are shaped and relate to one another through systems (i.e. the political process or the state) creates contradictions, and therefore conflict. And those problems can be fixed.

Let's take a look at U.S. race relations, specifically between blacks and whites. Is there anything inherent and blacks and whites in America that make conflict likely between them? Or has been a history of specific political and economic relations (i.e. slavery, disenfranchisement) that have shaped the conflicts between the two groups? If we consider the process of emancipation and political reform in the U.S. (Reconstruction, Civil Rights Movement, etc), there has been a long and mostly deliberate process in dismantling the system of conflict and creating peaceable relations between the two groups in an integrated society. Part of the problem in ethnic conflicts is that the underlying political structure defines the relationship between groups as conflictual but this is often written off as a cultural conflict, not a structural one. When one group occupies resource rich land and the other does not - that's a structural problem, not a cultural one. When one group has education or wealth not accessible by the other group - that's a structural problem. There's a long list. So we need to be careful in how we frame problems of ethnic conflict.

Or is it better to remove these governments and push for ballots instead of reason? The results in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya indicate we need to rethink this.

I don't think it's a question of 'reason' versus non-reason. The people that pushed for the policies in Afghanitsan, Iraq, and Libya had very specific narratives for how the world functions and this colored their perception and decisions. This inherently becomes an onotological problem in figuring out what is the 'ground truth' and how to act on it. It's not only in defining "effective" government - but effective for whom? And how to implement it. And why "we", the U.S., should be the ones doing it. Can those questions ever be answered in a way that satisfies everyone? Probably not - so it's important to build a political process that is capable of managing that kind of diversity and ambiguity.

EDIT: FYI - by pluralistic governance I do not mean "U.S. republicanism". I mean government that makes stakeholders out of the maximum range of participants available and gives each equal access to the mechanisms of power. How that is structured in any specific context depends on the context.