Bob,
When you write,
I think you're off base, especially when you go on to state that religion is what defines the teams! In war you have teams, and the identity the teams form around matters a lot. Without that identity there wouldn't be teams, and possibly no war. Are there other factors, of course, and you aren't the only one looking beyond local context. Clausewitz's trilogy and Thucydides' fear, honor, and interest are concepts about war that still endure. The government is part of the trilogy and it plays a role when it is an actor, but in some conflicts, conflicts between non-state actors the government is not the most relevant actor. In the current fight, whatever we call it, revolution, jihad, terrorism, etc. if you take religion out of the equation AQ, AQism, Jihad, etc. will no longer exist. If people still feel compelled to rise up against the state, and each other, they'll have to find another issue to identify with.It has never been about religion, that is just what defines the teams of revolution, just as it has defined the teams of the governance and populations leading up to revolution.
You wrote the following, and while true to some degree, they're also of limited relevance to AQ.
AQism motivated extremists are not going to impose "better" governance that fix any of these shortfalls you addressed, and they have excessively discriminating tastes. Talk about a high maintenance date, one that I doubt the majority of people are eagerly seeking to go out with, but governments that can't protect them leave little option. That is one part of good governance you seem to avoid. If AQism linked groups ever lose their ability to impose their will through coercion I suspect they'll rapidly be rolled back by a frustrated population.But, since there are no governance problems in the places where AQ has been most effective, I will stand down.
Since the governments of those regions do not discriminate against the population groups that AQ has been leveraging, I will stand down.
Since the governments of the region allow open debate of governance and provide effective mechanisms within the context of their respective cultures to allow legal and peaceful evolution of governance I will stand down.
While the good governance argument certainly has merit, the U.S. is not capable of fixing dysfunctional governments in foreign states, so it doesn't provide with viable strategic options. This isn't necessarily a problem that has a solution, but one that needs to be managed to keep the threat our national interests at a reasonable level.
In some cases yes, in others the government is irrelevant, such as in the sectarian violence. Also foreign fighters rallying to join the jihad in Syria isn't about them acting out against their host governments, instead they are rallying to support their identity group, which by the way is based on religion. They're not identifying with freedom fighters, communism, anarchists, or any other secular group. Is religion relevant? It is not only relevant it is crucial in this fight.But this isn't about how people feel about how religion is affecting their lives, it is about how they feel about how governance is affecting their lives.
Yes, sometimes revolutions are hijacked and other times their joined. This isn't about a freedom movement being hijacked by extremists in Iraq, in Syria maybe it was. The nature of revolution has little to do with good governance once it starts, the winner is whatever side can more skillfully employ coercive power at the end of the day. Not in a decisive way, but in a long drawn out way to wear out the other side's will to resist. Then again, since in some cases like Syria where is no apparent compromise since Assad and Alawites are fighting for their lives, and Iran is fighting for its national interests, there is zero hope "good governance" can be established at this point by any side. The country's false borders need to redrawn, not by us, but by the people.My last point is that revolution is rarely, if ever, to bring better governance. Revolution is to challenge governance widely perceived as intolerable with no legal means of redress. For this reason revolutionary energy is often hi-jacked by locals with self-serving purposes; and equally by foreigners with self-serving purposes. This is the nature of revolution.
.The problem is that one of the most important systems of governance fueling this is our own.
Most of the other systems of governance fueling this are our allies or partners
There is some truth to this, again without specifics on what governments can realistically do to reform in a way that would be meaningful it means little.
So when Saudi and Jordan start to experience increasing levels of violence as the movement spreads should we promote change by supporting the extremists, or help the less than perfect governments stay in power? What are the other options that are realistic?so we do what governments faced with revolution typically do - we set out to put down those who dare to challenge the status quo and hope to get back to business as usual. The people are tired of business as usual, and AQ gets that very well and is tapping into that energy to advance their own agenda.
What reasonable change is being proposed? Both sides are beyond reasonable, and it is beyond the point where you can put the conflict in reverse and get back to the opportunity for reasonable change. The pleas now are for protection. We don't have good options, we have options that are less bad than others. Sitting back and telling governments to reform won't work, we have been trying that for decades. Allowing AQ linked groups to be victorious is not in our interest.And I have never said this is about good or evil, or about effective or ineffective. It is about how people feel, and who they blame. And many are not putting up with it any more and they are blaming their governments at home and those who enable those governments to ignore their pleas for reasonable change. When governments are unreasonable, then ultimately the people will become unreasonable as well.
I think your arguments are most relevant to the left of bang, but become less relevant after the situation implodes.
Bookmarks