TE Lawrence: a merged thread

[Bill Moore]

Lawrence of Arabia was one of the most amazing men that the West has ever produced. However, like Clausewitz, not all of his ideas are applicable to every situation in the world. The author notes that the Iraqi Insurgents have neglected Lawrence's political ideas, and he assumes that since the insurgents are targeting civilians indiscriminately that they'll fail. Yet the facts on the ground tend to counter this argument. While the attacks do turn some segments of the population against the insurgents, for the most part (with a few exceptions) they still have freedom of movement throughout Iraq, and still control several areas within Iraq. If the acts are explicable to the Iraqi people, then they will continue to achieve effects. We can't blindly apply what I call Western logic to other cultures.

Admittedly the Iraqi insurgents appear to be their own worst enemy when we view them through our eyes and doctrine, and they have even apparently been counseled by AQ leadership on their indiscriminate mayhem, but none the less they're still effective. Why? This is the question we really need to answer.

Also, there are several insurgent groups in Iraq, and each one has a different agenda. In some cases indiscriminate targeting of population helps them achieve their goals. They don’t want a peaceful Iraq in the near term, but rather Civil War. Others like the AQI, want to use Iraq to destabilize the Middle East to help achieve their objectives, so Lawrence’s arguments in this case may not apply.

[Stratiotes]

I have to agree with you on the targetting of non-combatants and the effect in Iraq. I think we could alter our understanding of the concept and say not so much that targetting civilians turns the public against the attacker - I think it more often just turns the public against whoever is seen as the party in charge.

Instead of thinking of insurgents, think instead of a natural disaster - like Katrine for instance. When destruction comes to the people they blame not the weather but the administration in Washington, DC. The destruction is obviously not their fault but the people are understandibly angry and want to lash out so they lash out at the most convenient target - and one they feel is responsible for their well-being.

It is not necessarily the one who does the attacking that loses credibility - it is the one you think is responsible for your well being who gets the blame. That may not be right but that's the way it is.

We talked in another thread a while back about legitimacy - who is the legitimate power? Insurgents have an advantage in that they do not have to prove they are the legitimate authority - they only have to challenge the legimitacy of the current authority. That's why they can target non-combatants and still gain while the authorities cannot. In both cases, it weakens the legitimacy of the current authority. It is much easier to challenge the status quo than it is to offer an actual alternative.

[Bill Moore]

Stratiotes,

Your comments were interesting and well put. Do you know if there is a name for the theory or hypothesis you articulated about who gets the blame? This is definitely worthy of further discussion and hopefully we can find some way to mitigate the impact of this syndrome. Perhaps not, but we have to at least calculate the impact of it before we go in.