Reconciliation and COIN in Afghanistan

[TheCurmudgeon]

http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/dat...y.cfm?HHID=263
Contrary to the arguments above, I think an argument can be made that the American Revolution was a true revolution that created something new.

That may have been the result, and it certainly is the popular myth that American's like to believe, but in the throws of the events they were not looking to create a new government. Case in point, Sam Adams' (of brewing fame) comments on the Stamp Act:

For if our Trade may be taxed why not our Lands? Why not the Produce of our Lands & every thing we possess or make use of? This we apprehend annihilates our Charter Right to govern & tax ourselves – It strikes our British Privileges, which as we have never forfeited them, we hold in common with our Fellow Subjects who are Natives of Britain: If Taxes are laid upon us in any shape without our having a legal Representation where they are laid, are we not reduced from the Character of free Subjects to the miserable State of tributary Slaves.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stamp_Act_1765

It is true that in the end we created something new, but it did not start out that way. The ideas of popular sovereignty, equality before the law (as long as you were a free citizen, slaves could make no such claim), and the rule of law, were nothing new.

http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/dat...y.cfm?HHID=263This form of arrogance is a human trait that we'll unlikely overcome, but we should at least beaware of it so we minimize decisions based on our hubris views that convince us that we know the real underlying causes of conflict and worse then assume we have the solution.

Actually, that is kind of my point. We chose to see what we want to see. We cherry pic history to create the myth of a revolution. The United Stated may have started down the road towards a belief in inalienable human rights but it certainly was not built on it. Slavery was still present and women could not vote. For that matter, you pretty much needed to be landed to have rights. Even after the drafting of the Constitution in 1789 we still were not a "free" nation under Freedom House standards.

We reinterpret events to met the narrative that we prefer. Otherwise the colonists were simply a bunch of arrogant stingy tax evaders.

[Surferbeetle]

Good Lord, what are they teaching the kids in history class these days?

Magna Carta, From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magna_Carta

Magna Carta, also called Magna Carta Libertatum or The Great Charter of the Liberties of England, is an English charter, originally issued in Latin in the year 1215, translated into vernacular-French as early as 1219,[1] and reissued later in the 13th century in modified versions. The later versions excluded the most direct challenges to the monarch's authority that had been present in the 1215 charter. The charter first passed into law in 1225; the 1297 version, with the long title (originally in Latin) "The Great Charter of the Liberties of England, and of the Liberties of the Forest," still remains on the statute books of England and Wales.

The 1215 charter required King John of England to proclaim certain liberties and accept that his will was not arbitrary, for example by explicitly accepting that no "freeman" (in the sense of non-serf) could be punished except through the law of the land, a right which is still in existence today.

Magna Carta was the first document forced onto an English King by a group of his subjects, the feudal barons, in an attempt to limit his powers by law and protect their privileges. It was preceded and directly influenced by the Charter of Liberties in 1100, in which King Henry I had specified particular areas wherein his powers would be limited.

[Bill Moore]

Good Lord, what are they teaching the kids in history class these days?

One wonders, especially if you believe the Magna Carta was a revolutionary document or idea. This charter was intended to only resolve the conflict between King John and the Barrons. All it did was compell the King to allow the Barrons (who represented the feudal system, not the people) to provide input to his decisions. The Barrons didn't like the King's taxes, that was the genius of the Magna Carta. Hardly a revolution, simply a document that facilitate the peace between the Barrons and the King. Over time the ideas in Magna Carta came to mean more, but the revolution didn't happen in England.

[Surferbeetle]

One wonders, especially if you believe the Magna Carta was a revolutionary document or idea.

Never did buy into that 'new history' foolishness. Let's chase some secondary and primary sources instead and see for ourselves.

Featured Document: The Magna Carta, National Archives & Records Administration, http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/fea...rta/index.html

"The democratic aspiration is no mere recent phase in human history . . . It was written in Magna Carta."

--Franklin Delano Roosevelt, 1941 Inaugural address

The Fifth Amendment to the Constitution ("no person shall . . . be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.") is a direct descendent of Magna Carta's guarantee of proceedings according to the "law of the land."

Magna Charta and American Law, http://www.magnacharta.com/bomc/magn...-american-law/

What has Magna Carta meant for American law? It is the source of many of our most fundamental concepts of law. Indeed, the very concept of a written constitution stems from Magna Carta. In over one hundred decisions, the United States Supreme Court has traced our dependence on Magna Carta for our understanding of due process of law, trial by jury of one’s peers, the importance of a speedy and unbiased trial, and protection against excessive bail or fines or cruel and unusual punishment.

Magna Carta gave intellectual underpinning to the American Revolution. Americans claimed the right to trial by jury and no taxation without representation because Magna Carta gave them those rights. The Stamp Acts and other legislation had shifted jurisdiction for many offenses to the Admiralty courts, where there is no jury trial, correctly foreseeing that local juries would be loathe to convict their neighbors and enforce “foreign” taxes on our soil. The colonists in 1776 were more English than the English in protecting these rights.

The Bronze Doors of the US Supreme Court, http://www.supremecourt.gov/about/bronzedoors.pdf

Right hand door, panel five (eight panels total)

5. MAGNA CARTA
King John of England is coerced by the Barons to place his seal upon the Magna Carta in 1215.

Document Deep Dive: What Does the Magna Carta Really Say? By Megan Gambino, March 2012, Smithsonian magazine, http://www.smithsonianmag.com/histor...#ixzz223e8Y9Fz

Rubenstein, co-founder of the Carlyle Group, purchased one of four existing originals of the 1297 Magna Carta at auction in 2007 for $21.3 million.

Constitution of the United States, http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/cha...stitution.html

[Bill Moore]

Posted by Bob's World

As to the US, yes, the fight was "the final argument of kings" but still, the revolution was not about the ideas being advanced, it was the intolerable situation being challenged. The new ideas did, however, lead to a growing sense of discontent with a system that had been in place for generations. Kind of a chicken or egg argument. Bottom line is that the populace in the new world evolved to the point where the status quo of British governance was no longer adequate and the British were unwilling to evolve to meet those new requirements. We see the same dynamic across the Middle East today with the Arab Spring movement.

Generally agree, my point is the American Colonies and England evolved in a bifurcated manner socially, economically, and politically. Many if not most Americans were loyal to England until (I believe) certain actions highlighted the difference between them, and they recognized their differences were irresovable I'm arguing that there was quiet revolution happening years before 1776 that created the fertile soil that enabled the revolutionary war.

It shouldn't be forgotten that people generally immigrated to the colonies to pursue social, religious and economic freedoms. The Declaration of Independence was not a collection of new ideas, but ideas that were generally widely held in the colonies.

The paragraphs below generally ring true to me, but I don't recall anyone at the time saying the Declaration of Independence would serve as model for the world?

http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/dat...y.cfm?HHID=268

The struggle for American independence was led by prominent lawyers, merchants, and planters. But the Revolution's success ultimately depended on the willingness of hundreds of thousands of ordinary Americans to risk their lives and economic well-being in the patriot cause. The Revolution represented a conservative effort to preserve liberties that British policies seemed to threaten. But the Revolution was accompanied by social and intellectual transformations that fundamentally altered the nature of American politics and involved ordinary people in politics to an unprecedented degree.

The Revolution was truly multifaceted. There was a rebellion of the colonial gentry against British aristocrats who refused to accept them as equals and who viewed them with condescension. There was also a rebellion by merchants and shippers who chafed at British trade restrictions and royal monopolies. There was a conservative revolution, which sought to defend traditional liberties against British encroachments. There was a radical revolution, inspired by the call for liberty and equality in the Declaration of Independence, which sought to create a society that could serve as a model of freedom for the rest of the world.

There many points that can be debated, the one point I was attempting to highlight without opening a debate over our revolution is that cultural norms among other conditions will either make a people receptive to particular revolutionary ideas or not. Tying it specifically to Afghanistan the point is it is debatable if that fertile soil was in place for what we're attempting to grow.

[Bill Moore]

Never did buy into that 'new history' foolishness. Let's chase some secondary and primary sources instead and see for ourselves.

Your primary sources do nothing but support my assertion that the Magna Carta was not a revolution when it was written. In England it supported the feudal system, only over time did its ideas manifest into a representative government. The idea itself is not the revolution it is the catalyst. It isn't a revolution until it happens, so a hat tip to our revolutionary founders.

I seem to recall ideas of democracy and Republics dating back to Greece and Rome? Utopia is also a radical idea, but it led to a revolution where?

I agree with you the ideas in the Magna Carta were fundamental to our revolution, but the revolution that actualized those ideas did not happen in the 13th Century.

[Surferbeetle]

Your primary sources do nothing but support my assertion that the Magna Carta was not a revolution when it was written.

Walk me through the passages which support your argument if you would...

The idea itself is not the revolution it is the catalyst. It isn't a revolution until it happens, so a hat tip to our revolutionary founders.

I agree with you the ideas in the Magna Carta were fundamental to our revolution, but the revolution that actualized those ideas did not happen in the 13th Century.

The American Revolution did not spontaneously spring from American Soil, fully formed and independent of the history that preceded it.

Recall that the Great Schism, the Protestant Reformation, and the Enlightenment followed the Magna Carta and preceded our Revolution by a few hundred years. The associated revolutionary thinkers (motivators of the foot soldiers who forced the issue and paid many of the associated costs) bypassed the middle man (royalty) and instead challenged who controlled the primary source...divine right. A very big deal if one considers the context of the times...

• John Wycliffe (1328-1384), http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Wycliffe
• Martin Luther (1483-1546), http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Luther
• Ulrich Zwingli (1484-1531), http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huldrych_Zwingli
• John Calvin (1509-1564), http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Calvin
• Charles Montesquieu (1689-1755), http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montesquieu
• Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778), http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean-Jacques_Rousseau

If you run the Scientific Revolution back through the ages one sees a similar track:

• Artistotle, (384 BC – 322 BC), http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristotle
• Ptolemy, (AD 90 – c. AD 168), http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ptolemy
• Nicolaus Copernicus (1473-1573), http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicolaus_Copernicus
• Galileo Galilei, (1564-1642), http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei
• Rene Descartes (1596-1650), http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rene_Descartes
• Issac Newton (1642-1727), http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Issac_newton

'If I can see further it is because I stand upon the shoulders of giants.' Issac Newton

[Bill Moore]

The American Revolution did not spontaneously spring from American Soil,

No one ever said it the ideas that were the basis for the revolution sprung spontaneously from American soil. I specifically pointed out that people migrated to the colonies to pursue certain freedoms, so obviously the "idea" existed before they arrived. A man in Mao's China can dream about being free, but he nor others pursued a revolution to realize their dream, so the idea wasn't a revolution. If enough men in China had the dream and a catalyst drove them to action, then we would see a revolution. The idea created the fertile soil the revolution evolved from.

Your posts on the Magna Carta were about its impact on the American Revolution and its subsequent development as a nation based on the rule of law. However, as I stated when the Magna Carta was written that wasn't the idea, it was simply a document resolve a conflict between the King and the Barrons. It didn't change the feudal system in England. That happened many, many years later. Was it part of the historic thread that contributed to the revolution? Definitely. Was it a revolution when it was written? No.

Recall that the Great Schism, the Protestant Reformation, and the Enlightenment followed the Magna Carta and preceded our Revolution by a few hundred years.

And your point is? Of course world history existed before our revolution and the ideas from the these movements contributed to our revolutionary thought, but in know way does that subtract from the significance of our revolution.

Off topic, but I find it interested you list a series of Protestant Revolutions and then show the Scientific Revolution thread. Putting it in context it is amazing that science eventually flourished in a society where free thinking was oppressed by religious ideology. That to me is the most amazing aspect. Whether revolutions or transitions societies are always undergoing deep change, but often it is not recognized until it is the rear view mirror.

[Ken White]

...For that matter, you pretty much needed to be landed to have rights. Even after the drafting of the Constitution in 1789 we still were not a "free" nation under Freedom House standards.

We reinterpret events to met the narrative that we prefer. Otherwise the colonists were simply a bunch of arrogant stingy tax evaders.

Many of the Colonists were indeed stingy tax evaders. As many or more had other causes. The Southern (and New Hampshire) Scotch Irish just didn't like the British (or the wealthy Virginians and they thought rather haughty New England Colonists -- but they disliked the British more).

Freedom House did not exist in 1775 or 1789. You cannot credibly judge events and mores of over 200 years ago by today's standards.

That is indeed reinterpreting events to meet a narrative one prefers...

[Bob's World]

True that Freedom House did not exist in that era, but I for one endorse the criteria they apply as being as good a set of timeless, universal metric as any.

What specific situation will "trip the trigger" of a populace varies widely from place to place, culture to culture, and from era to era...but the perceptions that spark a populace to rise up are pretty damn constant. Freedom House does not set out to make that case, but the set of factors they apply to measure "freedom" are definitely in the beaten zone.

[Ken White]

True that Freedom House did not exist in that era, but I for one endorse the criteria they apply as being as good a set of timeless, universal metric as any.

Well of course you do. Most folks around today would agree. So would have many from circa 1789. Your agreement with their criteria though might have more credibility had you been an adult back then. Or not -- you may have disagreed on some points.

We'll never know, will we...

We do know you just proved you also can cherry pick, howsomeever...