The Arab Spring (a partial collection)

[slapout9]

Forming A Movement or Green Beret Stuff 2013 style all kinds of edumacated (just invented that word)stuff in this video



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zG8qNSQzIOw

[Bob's World]

I put the beginning of the modern Arab Spring a bit in front of events in Tunisia in 2010.

In fact, over 100 years prior, with the Constitutional Revolutions in Turkey and Iran.

I also believe one gets to a clearer understanding if one applies the mechanical device definition to "spring" rather than the seasonal one.

Each of these complex, diverse populaces are like bundles of compressed srings beneath the weight of systems of governance that many have either never seen as legitimate, or that have come to be perceived as increasingly illegitimate over the years.

The Ottomans, the Europeans and the Americans have all worked to shape the region to their liking, and have served to keep such "springs" compressed. But once one "spring" moves they all being to quiver and become more likely of moving.

The falling away of the greater evil of potential Soviet dominion was, IMO, a major factor in beginning the quest to push back against local and foreign systems of inappropriate and/or illegitimate government. Early efforts were typically quashed, with the real trouble makers "encouraged" to go elsewhere to plot / wage their plots against external manipulators. The Saudis in particular have bought down risk in this manner in a major way. But the chickens are coming home to roost.

The empowering effects of modern information technologies are also a major factor. The more informed and empowered the people are, the more energy a government must apply to keem them in some situation against their will.

If our solution is to simply reinforce the status quo where we think that suits our external interests; or alternatively to help throw off the local system of governance where we think that best suits our interests, we will continue to be frustrated with the results. And we will continue to incite acts of transnational terrorism back onto ourselves as payment for our efforts.

We need to reframe the problem, and then reassess how we best get after securing ourselves and our interests. We will likely find that less is more, mediation is better than arbitration, and evolution is more productive than revolution.

But until this the "springs" will continue to uncoil.

[Dayuhan]

If our solution is to simply reinforce the status quo where we think that suits our external interests; or alternatively to help throw off the local system of governance where we think that best suits our interests, we will continue to be frustrated with the results. And we will continue to incite acts of transnational terrorism back onto ourselves as payment for our efforts.

We need to reframe the problem, and then reassess how we best get after securing ourselves and our interests. We will likely find that less is more, mediation is better than arbitration, and evolution is more productive than revolution.

In those two paragraphs I see the word "we" 7 times and the word "our" 5 times. When do we stop and reflect that it isn't about us, and that these issues generally require no solution from us. In my opinion you're right, mediation is better than arbitration and evolution is more productive than revolution, but it's not our place to be making those choices on behalf of others.

We need to be very wary of assuming that terrorist events are necessarily a reaction to our actions. Other people out there do not just react o what we do, that can and do proactively pursue their own objectives. Even if those objectives are incompatible to ours or involve hostility toward us, we cannot necessarily conclude that they are reactions to our actions. That's an appealing belief, because if it were true we could control the actions of others simply by adjusting the stimuli we provide, but that appeal does not make the assumption viable.

[Bob's World]

Well, Dayuhan, most people who we call "terrorists" are not really terrorists at all, but simply are people fed up with the situations of government they are forced to live under.

But not all nationalist movements feel compelled to attack some foreign power. When foreign powers are attacked it is typically because said populace group believes that foreign power is somehow responsible for the situation. Or for sustaining the situation through external provision of CT or BPC support.

But please, tell me where this is not the case. I am fascinated to hear your examples rather than your groundless criticisms of my analysis. This is art, not science, but even art critics need some foundation to stand upon.

[Dayuhan]

Well, Dayuhan, most people who we call "terrorists" are not really terrorists at all, but simply are people fed up with the situations of government they are forced to live under.

But not all nationalist movements feel compelled to attack some foreign power. When foreign powers are attacked it is typically because said populace group believes that foreign power is somehow responsible for the situation. Or for sustaining the situation through external provision of CT or BPC support.

But please, tell me where this is not the case. I am fascinated to hear your examples rather than your groundless criticisms of my analysis. This is art, not science, but even art critics need some foundation to stand upon.

You've said yourself that AQ is not a populace and does not represent any populace. I don't believe for a minute that AQ is simply reacting to perceived offense. They are proactively pursuing a strategic agenda of their own. Any desire to remove perceived external influence is incidental to a desire to impose their own influence. To me the desire to perceive AQ and allied groups as reactive rather than proactive is a fundamental strategic error that can have rather dangerous consequences.

[Bill Moore]

Forming A Movement or Green Beret Stuff 2013 style all kinds of edumacated (just invented that word)stuff in this video



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zG8qNSQzIOw

This is just politics 201, not Green Beret stuff in my view, though our ranks should understand it. We're generally better off if we don't get involved and let the political evolution unfold. UW has merit in very select cases, but in most cases we're better providing diplomatic, financial and information support to movements we want to see gain steam.

Posted by Bob's World

Well, Dayuhan, most people who we call "terrorists" are not really terrorists at all, but simply are people fed up with the situations of government they are forced to live under.

This is generally true, but it doesn't effectively capture the intent of transnational terrorist groups who have global or regional ambitions that have nothing to with how effective or ineffective the governments are. In Al-Qaeda's case it is the caliphate. When the USSR was promoting communism they exploited bad governance in some cases, but frequently organized resistance in countries that had decent governments. Again it takes less than 15% of the population resisting the government to present an existential threat.

Getting back to your point we have conflated AQ with all acts of terrorism conducted by Muslims. Many are conducted by people feed up with their government or an occupying power and their act has nothing to do with a larger global agenda, but we generally put them in the same category, which demonstrates a dangerous lack of understanding on our part.

[slapout9]

This is just politics 201, not Green Beret stuff in my view, though our ranks should understand it. We're generally better off if we don't get involved and let the political evolution unfold. UW has merit in very select cases, but in most cases we're better providing diplomatic, financial and information support to movements we want to see gain steam.

Ok let CIA do it. We used to be fairly good at this back in the 50's and early 60's.

[Bill Moore]

Ok let CIA do it. We used to be fairly good at this back in the 50's and early 60's.

Slap, that comment assumes we need to do something. One has to wonder if we as a nation that promotes the value of self-determination feels compelled to stick our nose in other nations' business in support of business or perceived (and sometimes real) security interests. The CIA has had some sucesses, but it seems most of their efforts are a bit clown like and normally backfire. Special Forces facilitates expert tactical level guerrilla operations in support of an overall strategy (assuming one exists), but our nation doesn't a single organization that can wage unconventional warfare, it requires a whole of government approach.

I'm really at loss to find more than a handful of examples of where the U.S. was successful in UW if you look the impact over time. We have been successful providing quiet assistance to non-violent uprisings/revolutions in some cases. The problem in our approach is every organization with a tool believes they have the strategic solution (assuming it is our problem to begin with). The Air Force thinks they can bomb their way to success, the Army thinks they can occupy and impose control/stability, Special Operations thinks they can achieve all ends through and with indigenuous partners, the CIA paramilitary thinks they can achieve the end through too often clownish covert operations, and of course our State Department offers little more than imposing sanctions. All are tactics confused with strategy. What do we need to achieve (ends), what are the best way(s) to accomplish it? what are the means? All this must be informed by an understanding of the environment or conflict ecology, which in most cases we have failed to gain.

I agree with Bob's World on this:

If our solution is to simply reinforce the status quo where we think that suits our external interests; or alternatively to help throw off the local system of governance where we think that best suits our interests, we will continue to be frustrated with the results. And we will continue to incite acts of transnational terrorism back onto ourselves as payment for our efforts.

We need to reframe the problem, and then reassess how we best get after securing ourselves and our interests. We will likely find that less is more, mediation is better than arbitration, and evolution is more productive than revolution.

[slapout9]

Bill, you raise valid points and yes we have several independent agencies that believe they all have the Holy Grail solution but this is why I like Ike, he knew how to make Policy that could control and pull together all those radical independent agencies. Which is what a real leader should do. But sadly our present leadership believes everything can be solved by applying the Hawaiian Social Justice Philosophy. Here is a link to an upcoming PBS series on Eisenhower and Waging Peace Covertly as one portion is called. Ike had a broad and effective Policy before any Strategy was ever developed, something that is sadly laking in our present leadership. It was based on 3 key elements Nuclear deterrence MAD, A Strong Economy at home, and Covert Action when needed.


http://www.eisenhowerlegacy.com/eisenhowers-secret-war

[Steve Blair]

Eisenhower also saddled us with a military that was unprepared for conventional conflict. He also underestimated Stalin's determination at key points and seems to have totally misread both China and Southeast Asia writ large. Not to mention that his defense policies created that evil ol' military-industrial complex that he later bemoaned. MAD did precious little to deal with the demise of colonial regimes throughout the world, and quite a few of his covert activities were either overreaching or short-sighted.

His best trick was perhaps that domestic prosperity, which made sure that people wouldn't look too closely at some of his foreign policy decisions.

[Bill Moore]

Not an indepth piece, but none the less it further illustrates that our clear, hold, build doctrine may be more severely flawed than I originally thought when we use it to install democracies. There appears to be an order to economic, social and political evolution that cannot be imposed with military force. For your consideration.

http://ideas.time.com/2013/03/14/10-...15529462149245

Write a Constitution
By Fareed Zakaria

This should have been clear to anyone who looked at the history of transitions to democracy. While many former Eastern Bloc countries have become liberal democracies, the 15 former Soviet republics have not fared as well. Nine are dictatorships, and the other three — Georgia, Ukraine and Moldova — are, in the words of Stanford scholar Larry Diamond, “illiberal, even questionably democratic and unstable.”

Why? There is a vigorous academic debate about the conditions that allow democracy to flourish. The most powerful single correlation remains one first made by the social scientist Seymour Martin Lipset, who pointed out in 1959 that “the more well-to-do a nation, the greater the chances that it will sustain democracy.” But there are other intriguing correlations. Countries in Europe, even relatively poor ones, have done better than others. Former British colonies have done better than those of other countries.

Read more: http://ideas.time.com/2013/03/14/10-...#ixzz2Nj6NncSD

[Dayuhan]

in most cases we're better providing diplomatic, financial and information support to movements we want to see gain steam.

I'd say even that needs to be pursued with great caution and acute awareness of the potential for unintended consequences.

Ok let CIA do it. We used to be fairly good at this back in the 50's and early 60's.

Hell yeah, we got rid of Mossadegh and Lumumba and everything worked out just fine in those places... not to mention a few others.

[slapout9]

Dayuhan, this is what I amtalking about.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hdA0d6O4bZ0

[Dayuhan]

My 3rd world internet connection would take all day to load a 44 minute video, and it would almost certainly bog down in the process. Are "opritives" something like "operatives"?