"Occupation by Policy" - How Victors Inadvertantly Provoke Resistance Insurgency

[OUTLAW 09]

Robert---the press comments from today indicated that the national decision makers attempted to talk to notice I mentioned talk to-- not talk with the Islamic Front.

But as usual---did not understand a thing of what is going on in Syria---deciding to send a third ranking individual instead of signaling a true intent by sending a high level rep---seems the DoS was against it.

It also signals to me they do not understand the players, their reasons and the Sunni/Shai fundamentalists on the ground. Sometimes "dancing with the devil" is actually a sign of respect within the fighting groups---it really is all about perceptions. But how can we gain creditability in the eyes of the Sunni fundamentalist fighting groups when we are dealing now with Iran and supplying weapons/drones to a Shia Iraq?

Sometimes just supplying weapons to the "bad side" is in effect supporting our long term goals---but supplying them without any constraints or conditions and then sometimes it takes a lot of courage to sit back and see where the dust settles---but at least from the support one does have a voice in the afterwards however small that voice is. It does though take a leap of faith---that we seem to not have.

“Alienating the Islamic Front puts the U.S. at risk of losing any leverage or influence within the armed opposition,” he said. “It’s not about whether they are good guys or bad guys. The Islamic Front is the only counterbalance to extremists in Syria. The U.S. must recognize that.”

What is with this current decision making group in DC---has 12 years of war dulled the thinking capability to see the "trees" from the forest?

[OUTLAW 09]

Robert---you and I have often repeated here that the Sunni/Shia divide is one of Shia containment by the Saudi's---and I say it is in fact a natural Saudi fundamentalist drive that the US has not recognized or is unwilling to recognize just how deep this goes in the Saudi psyche.

If one does not think the Saudi's have not now made an inherent decision to make a stand against Iran/Shaiism---fails to see history looking them directly in the face. Just how it is that we get it so wrong-repeatedly?

Taken from a news release today and coupled with our inherent inability to talk with the Islamic Front also reported today --we are in the future just going to react to events.

"Saudi Arabia Pledges $3 Billion to Lebanon's Army
Saudi Arabia pledged $3 billion to bolster Lebanon's armed forces, in a challenge to the Iranian-allied Hezbollah militia's decades long status as Lebanon's main power broker and security force."

Hold on tight--- this development will take a lot of courage from our side to ride through--as we have elected for some reason to just be spectators.

[AmericanPride]

Let us be clear, I said that bad policy made conflict inevitable due to the impact those polices had upon the people they affected.

I think that claim is too broad because the next obvious question is: did the "bad policy" determine the scope or intensity of the "inevitable conflict"? Why would WW2 be preordained and not a smaller, local conflict or a political conflict? And, relatedly, if the disarmanent and "occupation by policy" of Versailles made "conflict inevitable", why wasn't there a similar or more intense German reaction to the peace of WW2, which divided Germany in half, expelled millions of Germans from their homes, annexed historically German territory, disarmed the offensive capabilities of the country, and more or less ended Germany's independence as a great power? That peace was far more destructive to German power than the Versailles Treaty.

So, conflict in a broad, abstract sense is "inevitable" if there's no definitive time frame; but I think the real substance of the question is whether there's a relationship to the scope and intensity of conflict and the imposed policies.

[Bob's World]

I think that claim is too broad because the next obvious question is: did the "bad policy" determine the scope or intensity of the "inevitable conflict"? Why would WW2 be preordained and not a smaller, local conflict or a political conflict? And, relatedly, if the disarmanent and "occupation by policy" of Versailles made "conflict inevitable", why wasn't there a similar or more intense German reaction to the peace of WW2, which divided Germany in half, expelled millions of Germans from their homes, annexed historically German territory, disarmed the offensive capabilities of the country, and more or less ended Germany's independence as a great power? That peace was far more destructive to German power than the Versailles Treaty.

So, conflict in a broad, abstract sense is "inevitable" if there's no definitive time frame; but I think the real substance of the question is whether there's a relationship to the scope and intensity of conflict and the imposed policies.

Strategy by nature is broad. Strategy does not tell you who will lead the next war, what ideology they will employ, or what their ultimate battle plans or goals will be. But strategy can tell you when you are creating conditions that make future conflict inevitable. Human Nature is very predictable. Human Behavior is a wild card.

As to WWI and WWII the answer is simple and widely accepted. The German people perceived themselves to have been betrayed by their own government in WWI, and certainly not defeated by the Allies. In WWII the German people knew they were defeated. Also, because the West were so clearly the lesser of two evils, West Germans readily submitted to occupation by the West as it was so clearly the better alternative to submission to occupation by the Soviets.

We think people like us for who we are; more aptly they tolerate us for who we are not. We need to stop deluding ourselves to that reality.

We're like the little kid buying his mom some jewelry in a commercial running this holiday season. He dumps a handful of change on the counter, while behind him his dad shows the clerk his credit card. We think it is all about the coins we drop on the counter, and don't appreciate their are other forces at work that shape people's decisions.

[AmericanPride]

As to WWI and WWII the answer is simple and widely accepted. The German people perceived themselves to have been betrayed by their own government in WWI, and certainly not defeated by the Allies. In WWII the German people knew they were defeated. Also, because the West were so clearly the lesser of two evils, West Germans readily submitted to occupation by the West as it was so clearly the better alternative to submission to occupation by the Soviets.

So then it appears the answer to your question is that the Versailles Treaty did not make conflict inevitable because, in your words, the "German people perceived themselves to have been betrayed by their own government and certainly not defeated by the Allies." What made conflict inevitable was this German perception.

In their defense, the Allies were aware of this problem, which is one reason why they pushed for the disarmanent of Germany after the war. So it seems that the perceived inevitably of conflict, at least in the European experience, is what created the Versailles Treaty, not the other way around.

[Bob's World]

So then it appears the answer to your question is that the Versailles Treaty did not make conflict inevitable because, in your words, the "German people perceived themselves to have been betrayed by their own government and certainly not defeated by the Allies." What made conflict inevitable was this German perception.

In their defense, the Allies were aware of this problem, which is one reason why they pushed for the disarmanent of Germany after the war. So it seems that the perceived inevitably of conflict, at least in the European experience, is what created the Versailles Treaty, not the other way around.

You're like my dog playing tug of way with a knotted rope on this...

Why did the Germans feel betrayed? Because of the bait and switch that occurred between the armistice agreed to on 11/11/18 and the terms of the actual treaty that came several months later. Wilson's points were tossed aside and Britain, and primarily France, wanted revenge. The terms of the actual treaty were so onerous as to crush the German economy long before the Great Depression, and the German people did indeed feel betrayed by their national leaders who conceded to such terms.

If the ruling voice for crafting the treaty had been the US rather than France I suspect a far less provocative document would have emerged. For France, what went forward was perceived as reasonable, for Germany it was perceived as intollerable. The US had the lead following WWII, with very different approach with very different results based on our lessons learned from WWI

The military fights wars, but it is politicians and policy that both end and starts wars. Too often the policies designed to end one conflict become the seeds of the next.


But back to the purpose of this thread to explore the "resistance effect" within a population that is occupied, and to consider that one need not physically occupy to spark this effect, but that policy alone can be enough if those policies are perceived as excessively inappropriate and illegitimate in nature and execution.

[AmericanPride]

But back to the purpose of this thread to explore the "resistance effect" within a population that is occupied, and to consider that one need not physically occupy to spark this effect, but that policy alone can be enough if those policies are perceived as excessively inappropriate and illegitimate in nature and execution.

My problem isn't with your claim in principle, it's with the abstractness of your claim; and so it's worth exploring the specific horizons of how bad policy (defined as "excessively inappropriate and illegimate") sparks "resistance insurgency" leading to "inevitable conflict". I think the World Wars are too complex to use to support your argument. I'm sure you could find plenty of examples in the history of imperialism in Africa that more effectively isolate the casual relationship you are claiming exists.

In your initial post, you asked: "Did the victors of WWI provoke an inevitable WWII by their occupation by policy of Germany through the harsh terms of the Treaty of Versailles?"

Here's the problem: "inevitable" is too deterministic. "WWII" is very specific in scope and intensity. Your question asks if the policy of Versailles directly caused the Second World War notwithstanding what occurred between 1918 and 1939. You could credibly argue that the Treaty contributed to a new conflict, but I don't think you can make the specific claim that it led to World War II as it occurred in scope and intensity (you did so at least once: "Just as the Treaty of Versailles made a future war with Germany inevitable").

In another post, when you address the differences in German resistance at the end of both World Wars, you make it clear that the Germans overcame their "natural human response" for resistance through a deliberate decision to focus on a greater enemy; in this case, the Soviet Union ("because the West were so clearly the lesser of two evils"). How do you reconcile the contradiction between a "natural human response" and the deliberate decision to ignore that natural human response? It would seem that policy makers have options other than abandoning the policy - they could create a new enemy, for example.

That said, back to the substance of your position: "policy alone can be enough [to spark the "resistance effect"] if those policies are perceived as excessively inappropriate and illegitimate in nature and execution."

You also claim that "resistance insurgency is a natural human response". If "resistance" is a "natural human response" (implying its inevitability), then to what extent should policy makers modify their policies to accomodate it? Resistance to a thing is not a sufficient indicator of the invalidty of that thing. Or is it?

So to really excavate your idea from the surrounding intellectual fodder, I think it can be more accurately described in this way:

"Policies perceived to be illegitimate may fuel armed resistance if the policies are sufficiently inappropriate. It is not necessary for direct military occupation to incite armed resistance."

[davidbfpo]

I have read the posts to date and wondered about the reverse effect of a 'no occupation policy' in the context of Western Europe, in particular the Iberian pleninsula - where in 1945 Franco ruled Spain, had been an Axis ally and next door Portugal had the Salazar dictatorship, which had eventually allied itself with the Allies.

Yes in the Cold War context both were seen as allies, providing bases notably, but politically until 1974 kept at a distance politically. Both successfully became and remain democracies - without major bloodshed.

It is a curious fact that the USSR shared occupation in Austria till 1954 IIRC; withdrew from northern Norway promptly and negoitated a semi-submissive realtionship with Finland. "Finlandisation" was a theme during the 'Cold War' about what could happen if the USSR was successful.
Yugoslavia partly freed itself, but the USSR withdrew swiftly.

Not to overlook all the countries of Eastern Europe it did occupy, each evolved a communist regime that the USSR could normally accept.

Anyway just a thought.

[OUTLAW 09]

Robert---went back over your comments and these items stand out--can it be so simple?

Have we at the national decision making level actually failed to see or maybe not wanted to see and understand the ME population even in the face of the points below? Answer is yes.

Have we at the national level in effect focused all our attention on AQ and not on the population? Answer is yes.

Yes the conversation has to be refocused as it is getting worse in the ME, AQ has grown well in the ME, Saudi is striking out on it's own and surprisingly is in synch with the Israeli view of Iran, Lebanon is set to explode again, Egypt will have MB problems for the coming years, Syria is the final fight for the Shia/Sunni fundamentalists, and the Arab Spring has shown us that the population is looking intently for their path forward-whatever that path will be.

The over 9K KIA and over 100K WIA in two wars demand that we find answers that explain what is happening as this area will be with us for a long while---virtually every current AQ battleground outside of the ME is religious in nature and is tied to the "isms".

1. "Did the victors of the Cold War provoke an inevitable War on Terrorism and associated Arab Spring by their decision to largely leave in place in the Middle East the policies, practices and relationships nurtured during and in support of activities designed to contain the Soviet Union?"

Part of the current problem with the national decision makers is that to refocus demands that one openly admit that we are part of the problem---that will never happen.

To accept the above comment requires one to accept the premise as it is stated-which is hard--it is hard to say we actually created UBL and AQ---it is easier to accuse them of being terrorists or religious nuts.

2. Do men like Osama bin Laden and Adolf Hitler "cause" these types of conflicts, or are they simply opportunists who, like Mao so eloquently said about his role in China, "saw a parade and leapt in front"?

UBL was an astute observer of the ME and American interactions in the ME--his beef with us went back to our be stationed in DS in Saudi Arabia.

3. [B]]Do ideologies - be it Nazism, Communism, Islamism, or any other "ism" radicalize otherwise content populations to rise in illegal conflict, or are these simply effective tunes tailored to help a particular "parade" march in step?[B]B]

The "isms" give the population something they can understand and drive towards especially if everything else has failed in their drive towards self determination---in some aspects that self determination is tied to jobs, ability to raise families, national respect etc and how they fit into their society as a whole.

I believe we need to refocus the debate. We have debated the branches of these types of conflicts to death. The roots, however, we tend to gloss over. After all, it is uncomfortable to confront the very real possibility that these are roots we planted ourselves.

You are right---we have in effect caused our own wars by the roots that we planted in the 1950/60/70s.

Would make a great Doctoral thesis.

[Bob's World]

"Robert---went back over your comments and these items stand out--can it be so simple?" Outlaw

"All great things are simple, and many can be expressed in a single word: freedom, justice, honor, duty, mercy, hope." Winston Churchill

[OUTLAW 09]

Robert---your comments are actually very appropriate if one applies the same comments you made to the current situation in Mexico.

I would argue that actually the current problems seen in Mexico are the direct results of an unfinished revolution that did not include the population.

I would also argue that in fact the roots that caused the revolution to go unfinished were caused by our US Army military intervention which did not end until after we had declared war on the Germans during the 1st World War.

We never seem to see analysis of that particular event ie military intervention and it's impact on the population and the revolution.

[Bob's World]

There are so many powerful forces in DC it is amazing we ever get anything right.

Perhaps the most powerful force is inertia. DC is still full of good Cold Warriors on both sides of the aisle who see our strategies, policies and activities of that era as what "right" looks like. What was a good idea in 1950 is hardly likely to be still a good idea in 2014 without some serious refinement applied.

There is also inertia of CT/"war"-think from the past 12 years.

Look at the budget/service battles in the Pentagon today and one sees these two forces of inertia locked in close battle, while very few speculate as to what type of military we actually need for the world we live in today and the missions, capabilities and capacities necessary to extend our messy peace into the future.

Their has also over the past 70 years been a gradual, but tremendous, shift in the relative balance of power between the Congress and the Presidency. It is no wonder all Congress seems to be able to do is quibble over which party wins the Oval Office next. Sustaining a warfighting military in peace necessay to implementing a containment strategy has enabled so many wars of presidential choice. I believe this more than any other factor has contributed to this shift of power. The Founders warned of this very effect and crafted language in the Constitution to prevent this from happening, but now we tend to think of that language as quaint or even obsolete.

Our post-Cold War National strategies have also contributed to our inability to see other people's "forests" because we have become so lost in our own. The twin pillars of sustaining the status quo under US leadership, coupled with a heavy promotion of US values at a time when virtually everyone else is seeking their own best future and turning inward to their own value systems is not a good match. The world is a come as you are party, and we need to embrace that reality. Certainly self-determination was central to our pre-Cold War strategic model.

But as I stated in the opening post:

"The boss has good instincts, but we have no strategy to provide the framework or narrative necessary to guide and communicate the logic of those actions."

We need to reframe how we think about the problems that vex us, and then we need to develop a new stategy to guide and communicate efforts in line with that understanding. We probably also are at the point where we need a national strategic plan and a HQ and staff under the Executive branch tasked to coordinate and synchronize efforts across government in the execution of that plan. Every Agency for themselves is no longer a degree of chaos we can get away with.