Seems to me that if you're going to put a proposal on the table you should be willing to defend it against reasonable criticism. Repetition is not defense.
I gave them a while back, I will try to resuscitate them. Not sure if it was on this thread, there are many on the same or similar subjects. Wasn't that long ago.
(edit: general outline here: http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/...20&postcount=2)
It's difficult to address causes that are rooted in history; we haven't got a time machine. There's always the temptation to look at the legacy of past meddling, decide that meddling was a mistake, and try to correct it with more meddling. That won't work: the cure for bad meddling isn't good meddling, it's less meddling. We cannot address causes by forcing our way unwanted and uninvited into the government/populace dynamic in other countries: all that's going to do is get all sides pissed off at us. Sometimes there's a place for multilateral mediation, if it's requested by all parties to the dispute being mediated, or intervention, in rare and extreme cases where it's requested by someone with a credible claim to speak for the populace or a substantial part thereof. Trying to push into these matters unilaterally and on our own initiation seems to me a very dangerous idea.
We can only work with governments where they choose to work with us, and we generally can't force them to do that.
Agreed. Not can you simply command reform or force a change in the relationship between government and populace, especially in nations where your influence is very limited.
You can refer to high levels of domestic dissent, or tension between government and populace or portions thereof, or a pre-insurgency condition, or conditions conducive to insurgency. Tension between nations precedes war and can cause war, but it isn't war. The conditions that precede and cause insurgency are closely linked to insurgency, but they are not insurgency. Better to come up with a new word for it than to use a standard word with a non-standard definition that just creates confusion.
Unfortunately your prescription requires us to compel or persuade other governments to own their own role in causation. That means interference in the internal affairs of other countries, and foreign interference in Muslim countries is what AQ thrives on.
If we try to counter what we consider to be "poor governance" in another country, we will inevitably end up using our own metrics to determine what "poor governance" and "good governance" are, which you yourself say is a bad idea. What other metrics do we have, though? Easy to say "those of the people", but we often don't know what those are, and different segments of the people often have very different metrics, often thoroughly incompatible ones. Messing in some other nation's governance is a business we don't need to be in and generally shouldn't be in, IMO.
Where exactly do we "make it a major goal to actively protect and preserve the problem as is"? Did we "protect and preserve" the status quo in any of the Arab Spring rebellions? If not there, then where? An allegation like that needs to be specific.
Bookmarks