Bourbon,
The report aside, why would a UK-based global TV channel, owned by Rupert Murdoch's News International, with IIRC extensive interests in China, commission such a report? On a quick scan the report has no clues.
Bourbon,
The report aside, why would a UK-based global TV channel, owned by Rupert Murdoch's News International, with IIRC extensive interests in China, commission such a report? On a quick scan the report has no clues.
davidbfpo
These guys are just one of many nationalist insurgent movements among Muslim populaces that AQ engages with as they conduct Unconventional Warfare to leverage the populaces of others to assist them in their own agenda/goals as an organization.
If the West continues with a historic approach, we will help China conduct counterterrorism against this nationalist insurgent movement and to exert controls over the Chinese Muslim populace they represent.
Or, we can perhaps draw a clearer perspective when looking at an insurgent movement against a government we have issues with than we can when looking at the insurgent movements against governments we tend to think of as "friends."
My recommendation is that we out-compete AQ for influence with this populace. They need an advocate to help them in their very real issues with the Chinese government. The US falls much more closely in line with the historic principles upon which our nation was founded, and also with the overly positive self-image we have of ourselves in the global environment, by taking such a role. Not working to help the insurgent overthrow the government or break away, and not helping the government to suppress their populace. Instead providing a strong third party to help mediate the grievances.
Everyone has come to recognize that good COIN "protects the populace" from the insurgent. What I don't see, however, is the recognition that good FID works to protect the populace from the insurgent and the government. In America we have a great constitution that has proven to be an effective guard of the populace against government abuse. (Recent efforts to nick away at those guards under the guise of current challenges must be resisted by the people!) In other places there are no such guards against government abuse.
Who guards the people of Afghanistan from the abuses of the Afghan government?? Not the US, we actually enable the Afghan government (against our feeble protests) to act in abusive ways that feed the insurgency.
Who guards the people of Saudi Arabia or Yemen or Egypt from the abuses of their governments? Again, not the US, who enables those governments to act with impunity as well.
So, the question is, will we merely ignore this "Chinese problem" (In the current global environment, nothing is localized like that, and these guys are a significant source of foreign fighters to Pakistan) and let the Chinese handle it as they see fit? Do we assist the Chinese with capacity building and CT support to suppress this segment of their populace more effectively (and thereby add ourselves to the insurgent target list)? Or do we break the model that we have been following in Africa and the Middle East and take a neutral role more in line with our national principles?
Just asking. I know what I recommend. These are not problems that can be contained, nor can they effectively be suppressed without increased chance of terrorist acts back home. They must be addressed, as they will not go away until they are.
Last edited by Bob's World; 12-03-2010 at 01:12 PM.
Robert C. Jones
Intellectus Supra Scientia
(Understanding is more important than Knowledge)
"The modern COIN mindset is when one arrogantly goes to some foreign land and attempts to make those who live there a lesser version of one's self. The FID mindset is when one humbly goes to some foreign land and seeks first to understand, and then to help in some small way for those who live there to be the best version of their own self." Colonel Robert C. Jones, US Army Special Forces (Retired)
The Chinese will not need, want, or request our help.
My recommendation is that we leave it alone. It's not our business, it's not our problem, and it's very unlikely that any side of the story wants us involved in any way. We are not the solution to every problem, and there's no need for us to get involved in every problem. Let it be. We've enough issues elsewhere.
The degree to which we "enable" anything is highly debatable. In Saudi Arabia our "enabling" role is absolutely nonexistent: the US could withdraw completely from all engagement with the Saudis with no effect whatsoever on the Saudi relationship with its populace. They don't need our help to contain their populace and they don't care what we think... we'd lose a fair bit of intel (and a whole lot of defence contracts) but that's about it
In Egypt our "enabling" role is minimal: they like the aid but it's not enough to give us enough leverage to force them to change anything, and they don't step on their populace because we enable it. They'd do it in any event. Once upon a time they were dependents, not now. They could survive without the aid, and it's likely that others would replace it if we withdrew.
In Yemen, arguably, we enable a bad government to survive... but I've seen few good options proposed. Important to note that Yemen doesn't face "an insurgency" with "an insurgent leadership" that we can deal with if the government is unsuitable. Yemen faces a crawling chaos of ethnic, sectarian, and tribal conflict; the threat is not an insurgent victory but a descent into Somali-style anarchy.
The whole notion of "enabling" is something you seem to asume but do not demonstrate; I think you vastly overrate what we can or do actually "enable". Certainly in China, no matter what policy we adopt, we will not be "enabling" anything.
Agreed 150%
Again, agreed with your accurate assesment.In Yemen, arguably, we enable a bad government to survive... but I've seen few good options proposed. Important to note that Yemen doesn't face "an insurgency" with "an insurgent leadership" that we can deal with if the government is unsuitable. Yemen faces a crawling chaos of ethnic, sectarian, and tribal conflict; the threat is not an insurgent victory but a descent into Somali-style anarchy.
Exactly, it didn't/hasn't/doesn't work with Tibet I don't see how or why it should with ETIM or the Uighur people. Non-intervention not more intervention should be the norm at least if we still believe in the notion of state soveriengty. Ultimately, whatever problems a people has with its government are its problem unless the issues should be so severe as to threaten regional and international security in which case its a regional problem (essentially the Edmund Burke doctrine from the French revolution) and only in the last instance is it an international one....unless you subscribe to the idea of universal peace/government (which demands intervention) which is a dream and not even a nice one. Indeed, in a number of cases (if not the majority) local dis/malcontents tactitly if not overtly assume and rely upon the internationalisation of their greivance. Turning a local issue into a global one which not only complicates its resolution but also involves parties who have no business being invlved in the first place and seek simply to gain in some way. Remove that and you, IMO only, dampen the flames that lead to escalation.The whole notion of "enabling" is something you seem to asume but do not demonstrate; I think you vastly overrate what we can or do actually "enable". Certainly in China, no matter what policy we adopt, we will not be "enabling" anything.
Last edited by Tukhachevskii; 12-04-2010 at 04:58 AM.
Bookmarks