Carl, you are in good company. But then, so were all of the passengers of the Titanic.
As I said, Dr. Hoffman is clearly an expert on the facts. I have studied his professional work and he is also an expert on the perspectives of historical experts who have studied and written on this topic. I have discussed these things with him personally. You can draw comfort from the fact that he believes I am wrong every bit as much as you do.
But this is 2014, and we now must consider old case studies and perspective in the context of the strategic environment of the day. Some do not think that is an important distinction. I do. I also recognize that there is a tremendous bias written into the works of agents of colonial or containment powers as they discussed how they worked to suppress local, violent challenges to the policies and actions of those powers, and also to the local national governments created or adopted by those powers to advance the interests of the great powers and those local leaders OVER the interests of the people who actually lived in those places. This is my own bias, but I believe it is validated by the facts.
So, Carl, noted, I fully recognize that Dr. Hoffman's article is factually correct and well written. I fully note that you think I am wrong.
Now, (God bless American and our freedoms to debate openly and to hold diverse opinions), let me be clear. I believe that Dr. Hoffman's conclusions are far off the mark as to how he assesses those facts as to why they occur and what they mean.
Our CT efforts have only sniped at the symptoms of the organizations that have emerged to draw upon the energy long resident in the populations they operate among. In most cases, actions that have suppressed symptoms have been done in a manner that actually put MORE energy into they system, rather that working to resolve the problem.
So I stand by my statements without reservation. This is about populations who perceive their situation to be unfair and intolerable under the systems of governance that affect their lives. This is equally about systems of governance that are unable or unwilling to make the small, reasonable changes necessary to bleed the negative energy from the system.
When these conditions exist, leaders will emerge to organize individuals (who join for a host of reasons) for action. Smart leaders pick an ideology and narrative that resonates with their target audience.
Lenin targeted urban populations and used workers reform to topple the Tsars.
Mao, Ho and other in agricultural Asia used land reform to topple the colonial powers and the large land owners.
Neither of those approaches work in the arid, nomadic lands occupied by the Muslim populations of the Middle East. Communism was tried in Saudi Arabia and flopped. But religion works. This is why religion is used to advance challenges to governance. Because it works. Religion defines their lives. It defines who is in power and who is out of power; who does well under a system of governance and who suffers. Therefore it defines the teams when political challenge occurs - both legal and formal; or illegal and informal.
This is the way these types of conflicts have always been. It is human nature. But now human nature plays out in the modern information connected and empowered environment of the modern age. Governance is much harder in general. Imposing highly biased and divisive governance, or governance perceived as lacking legitimacy in the eyes of segments of the population it affects is becoming nearly impossible.
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks