The Arab Spring (a partial collection)

[slapout9]

Marx believed all real change was based upon economics, part of his idea of of Creative Destruction which was a great deal different than Schumpeter's. It is also part of the reason he believed so much in focusing on Economic Targets as opposed to others, which seems to have been lost when he is talked about in the modern senses.

Now for the question. The model appears to be a way to analyze a country before you invade or commit to military action was that your intention? Proper understanding of the country/problem you are dealing with before jumping to a solution?

[TheCurmudgeon]

Marx believed all real change was based upon economics, part of his idea of of Creative Destruction which was a great deal different than Schumpeter's. It is also part of the reason he believed so much in focusing on Economic Targets as opposed to others, which seems to have been lost when he is talked about in the modern senses.

The sociological theory that supports this madness I have termed Ideological Materialism. It is a variation of Marvin Harris' Cultural Materialism, which is a variation of Marx's Historical Materialism. Marx was right about one thing, when you are hungry you can give a crap about freedom, you just want food. That, of course, is nothing more than Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs operationalized. He was on to something, but he had an agenda (or so it seems to me). Plus he lacked any real understanding of cultural Anthropology - the first book on the subject was only published a few years before his death.

Now for the question. The model appears to be a way to analyze a country before you invade or commit to military action was that your intention? Proper understanding of the country/problem you are dealing with before jumping to a solution?

No, that is not what it was intended to do. It was intended to support our current COIN doctrine. Unfortunately, that is not what it does. It can be used as a planning tool and to explain to overzealous politicians why forceably democratizing country "X" may not be as easy as he thinks. Beyond that, I can't say. I am still working out the kinks.

[slapout9]

No, that is not what it was intended to do. It was intended to support our current COIN doctrine. Unfortunately, that is not what it does. It can be used as a planning tool and to explain to overzealous politicians why forceably democratizing country "X" may not be as easy as he thinks. Beyond that, I can't say. I am still working out the kinks.

OK, can you demonstrate how you would like it to be used by applying it to a country of concern to the USA today. Such as Libya,Syria,etc.?

[TheCurmudgeon]

OK, can you demonstrate how you would like it to be used by applying it to a country of concern to the USA today. Such as Libya,Syria,etc.?

OK - I really need two basic objective datapoints. The two I have been playing with are the Human Development Index (hdr.undp.org/en/) and a combination of Inglehart and Welzel's Traditional/Secular-rational and Survival/Self-Expression values (worldvaluessurvey.org). Unfortunately, I don't have the value survey data. I do have HDI numbers. Libya (.760) and Syria (.632) are way below a line I have drawn at about .8 to successfully garner the values needed to transition to democracy. Therefore, my advise would be to provide assistance where it is possible. I liked the way we handled Libya. Syria is even tougher. Provide humanitarian aid and contain the situation. Other than that, stay out of it.

Of course that is just a basic look. Each country has its own special circumstances. Plus there are secondary effects of any collapse, like the loss of control over weapons systems, conventional or otherwise. What I would not advise in either situation is an occupation (unless you can show genocide - that has continuing implications for generations to come).

That is a one minute assessment based on a single variable inserted into the model. Not very helpful, but I think it is defensible.

Again, at this point the model can only estimate the likelihood of a successful transition to democracy. I can say with some confidence that democracy is an unliky outcome in either case.

[davidbfpo]

Admittedly this is a link to South Africa, but I think it provides some insight into a country riven with problems, a high level of personal violence through crime, occasionally civil disorder and a political establishment seen by many as remote, corrupt and ineffective. Ah, not to overlook the role of the police service.

For this lady, Nelson Mandela's wife, Gracia Machel, to say this is not a good sign:

South Africa is an angry nation..We are on the precipice of something very dangerous with the potential of not being able to stop the fall. The level of anger and aggression is rising. This is an expression of deeper trouble from the past that has not been addressed. We have to be more cautious about how we deal with a society that is bleeding and breathing pain.

Link:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...elas-wife.html

[Bill Moore]

OK - I really need two basic objective datapoints. The two I have been playing with are the Human Development Index (hdr.undp.org/en/) and a combination of Inglehart and Welzel's Traditional/Secular-rational and Survival/Self-Expression values (worldvaluessurvey.org). Unfortunately, I don't have the value survey data. I do have HDI numbers. Libya (.760) and Syria (.632) are way below a line I have drawn at about .8 to successfully garner the values needed to transition to democracy. Therefore, my advise would be to provide assistance where it is possible. I liked the way we handled Libya. Syria is even tougher. Provide humanitarian aid and contain the situation. Other than that, stay out of it.

Of course that is just a basic look. Each country has its own special circumstances. Plus there are secondary effects of any collapse, like the loss of control over weapons systems, conventional or otherwise. What I would not advise in either situation is an occupation (unless you can show genocide - that has continuing implications for generations to come).

That is a one minute assessment based on a single variable inserted into the model. Not very helpful, but I think it is defensible.

Again, at this point the model can only estimate the likelihood of a successful transition to democracy. I can say with some confidence that democracy is an unliky outcome in either case.

I agree with you on the way we handled Libya. I have to wonder if the critics are serious about how our failure to put boots on the ground resulted in the proliferation of weapons throughout the region. No doubt that happened, but it also happened in Iraq and Afghanistan where we put boots on the ground.

When you're doing your research working out the kinks it would be interesting to see how your hypothesis supports our relative success in our occupation and transformation (although both had capitalist cultures) efforts. More interestingly comparing the results of Western occupation in West Germany compared to USSR occupation in East Germany. Does the model tell us anything?

[TheCurmudgeon]

This is still a pretty crude tool. Plus I don't have any data to work off pre-1980, so post-WWII stuff is beyond me. There is a large grey area that supports either democracy or something less. What kicks a country one way or another is where culture, history, and any number of other factors come into play.

I am working on writing something up on it now. I don't have it where I want it, but it probably is not going to get any better by me staring at it.

What are your thoughts on successful transitions to democracy? Based on your experience what factors need to be considered?

[slapout9]

Curmudgy, does this help? I think you could get access to some this guys Data.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GN5P5cmBFJA