Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 80

Thread: Why democracies don't lose insurgencies

  1. #1
    Council Member Cavguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Honolulu, Hawaii
    Posts
    1,127

    Default Why democracies don't lose insurgencies

    Need to know if anyone can cite a post-1945 insurgency against a democracy that won, as defined by achieving all goals. (separation or overthrow) Political settlements are a different set.

    I'm considering my grad thesis on Democracies and Insurgencies. Specifically, in the RAND insurgency dataset of 89 insurgencies 1945-2006, I found no examples of a democracy (defined by government enduring the insurgency, not the government of external supporters) losing an insurgency, as defined by the insurgents attaining all of their objectives (overthrow or secession). Of 20 democratic insurgencies in the database, 10 beat the insurgent, 5 are ongoing, and 5 reached some sort of political accord between sides.

    I have some subjective coding questions, but the results hold true even when I "play" with the inclusion of certain cases not in the RAND set. (i.e. Russia 1999 (Chechnya II) is not considered a democracy, but in 1994 is)

    Other casual observations include:

    * last longer on average (AVG 17 yrs vs. 11)
    * less likely to settle politically than the mean for all governments in the dataset
    * results seem to hold true regardless of GDP, external support (either side), external sanctuary, political freedom, and even military competence
    * Average insurgency size is less than half the mean of all insurgencies
    * Nearly all post-cold war democratic insurgencies are separatist in nature, not aiming for regime change.

    My overall research will involve why democracies are more resistant to insurgencies. Sort of a "Democratic Insurgency" theory.

    Possible hypothesis include:

    For reference, the 1945-2006 Democratic insurgencies, by outcome: (note, "Lose" means insurgent loss, included is start date of insurgency, and length of insurgency)

    Philippines (MNLF) Lose 1971 25
    Argentina Lose 1968 11
    Peru Lose 1981 11
    Philippines HUK Lose 1946 9
    Uruguay Lose 1963 10
    Lebanon Lose 1958 1
    Uganda (ADF) Lose 1986 14
    Northern Ireland Lose 1969 30
    Philippines (MILF) Lose 1977 29
    Turkey (PKK) Lose 1984 15
    Philippines (NPA) Ongoing 1969 37
    India Northeast Ongoing 1975 31
    Nigeria (Niger Delta) Ongoing 1991 15
    Sri Lanka Ongoing 1976 30
    South Thailand Ongoing 2004 2
    Senegal Political 1980 22
    Chechnya I Political 1994 2
    East Timor Political 1975 25
    Georgia/Abkhazia Political 1992 2
    Papua New Guinea Political 1988 10

    Input appreciated about the viability of this topic or holes in the thesis before I go to far. Also any literature pertaining to this topic appreciated.
    "A Sherman can give you a very nice... edge."- Oddball, Kelly's Heroes
    Who is Cavguy?

  2. #2
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    1,444

    Default

    Fishel's post from another thread came to mind...
    Quote Originally Posted by John T. Fishel View Post
    the theoretical position he noted was stated by Ted Robert Gurr in his 1970 classic, Why Men Rebel. It may be summarized as follows:
    1. The absolutely deprived/oppressed do not rebel.
    2. Neither do those who are doing well.
    3. Rebellion happens after a period of social/political/economic improvement is followed by a sudden and relatively steep downturn causing the government to lose its legitimacy.
    Gurr calls this "perceived relative deprivation."
    It's still the best theoretical explanation for insurgency out there.
    With that in mind, I would guess (and this is a pure guess - not even an "eduated" one) that most democracies tend to experience less drastic social upheavals than other forms of government. Using the theory above, less drastic upheaval means less intense insurgency (if any). The weaker insurgency gets defeated.

    Another uneducated guess: in a democracy, change is less likely to take the form of armed upheaval because a democracy, in theory, gives everyone at least some voice or the perception that they have a voice and they are less likely to lash out. Hitler comes to mind. He didn't wage an insurgency. He got elected.

    Third thought: an insurgency can gain legitimacy by demonizing a king or oligarchy. Who does it demonize in a democracy? The people? That doesn't sound like much of a rallying cry. "We suck - let's overthrow ourselves!"

  3. #3
    Council Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    4,021

    Default Where does RAND ...

    put Algeria ? Part of France - not part of French Union colonial structure - which was a democracy. Easy enough to explain it away since the democratic standards applied to Paris did not apply to Algiers, etc., etc. But, the result was secession.

    PS: the topic seems OK - and, in the examples, the term "quasi-democracy" would fit many (IMO); thus, slanting the playing field in favor of insurgency "winning". Maybe there are two questions:

    1. Why are there insurgencies in democracies ? E.g., Why the War of Northern Agression ?

    2. Why are those insurgencies unsuccessful, etc. ?
    Last edited by jmm99; 01-29-2009 at 05:09 AM.

  4. #4
    Council Member Starbuck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Sackets Harbor NY
    Posts
    59

    Default

    Does the money play a role? I was reading something from Fareed Zakaria the other day regarding liberal democracies, and he stated that they tend to occur (and become stable) when the per capita income exceeds a certain point. If that's the cases, then people feel less likely to wage war against the government if they have money, property and thus, something to lose.

    A democracy also gives the violent minority a voice in the government, a chance to elect people to advance their agenda, whereas non-democratic nations do not. Exceptions should be made in cases like Israel, where a minority group is not represented in the government, and experiences a very low standard of living, and thus, we might not call it a "true" democracy.

    Furthermore, I would expect that most democracies would be more likely to reach a political settlement in the face of a protracted conflict, as democracies tend to not settle for protracted wars. Or am I just looking at this from a Western American point of view (Phillipines, Eastern Europe, etc).
    Last edited by Starbuck; 01-29-2009 at 06:04 AM. Reason: ..

  5. #5
    Council Member Cavguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Honolulu, Hawaii
    Posts
    1,127

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jmm99 View Post
    put Algeria ? Part of France - not part of French Union colonial structure - which was a democracy. Easy enough to explain it away since the democratic standards applied to Paris did not apply to Algiers, etc., etc. But, the result was secession.

    PS: the topic seems OK - and, in the examples, the term "quasi-democracy" would fit many (IMO); thus, slanting the playing field in favor of insurgency "winning". Maybe there are two questions:

    1. Why are there insurgencies in democracies ? E.g., Why the War of Northern Agression ?

    2. Why are those insurgencies unsuccessful, etc. ?
    Algeria was considered an Anocracy by RAND- rule by minority, since the (democratic) French denied suffrage to the Algerian population.

    I replied to a PM on the civil war question - as I have read various definitions I have concluded that not all civil wars are insurgencies - mainly because the pol-sci definition of civil war requires "organized military units" among other things, which not all insurgencies (even some successful ones) have.
    "A Sherman can give you a very nice... edge."- Oddball, Kelly's Heroes
    Who is Cavguy?

  6. #6
    Council Member Cavguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Honolulu, Hawaii
    Posts
    1,127

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Schmedlap View Post
    Fishel's post from another thread came to mind...


    With that in mind, I would guess (and this is a pure guess - not even an "eduated" one) that most democracies tend to experience less drastic social upheavals than other forms of government. Using the theory above, less drastic upheaval means less intense insurgency (if any). The weaker insurgency gets defeated.
    Interesting, must think on this.

    Another uneducated guess: in a democracy, change is less likely to take the form of armed upheaval because a democracy, in theory, gives everyone at least some voice or the perception that they have a voice and they are less likely to lash out. Hitler comes to mind. He didn't wage an insurgency. He got elected.
    I think this explains why democratic insurgencies seldom hit "tipping points" where they gain mass support - most of the electorate feels they have a means to resolve political grievance. Those who are "democratic insurgents" are mostly irreconcilable to the existence or shape of the government in some form and thus see no hope in the democratic process. Ethno-sectarian secession comes to mind.

    Third thought: an insurgency can gain legitimacy by demonizing a king or oligarchy. Who does it demonize in a democracy? The people? That doesn't sound like much of a rallying cry. "We suck - let's overthrow ourselves!"
    Agreed.
    Last edited by Cavguy; 01-29-2009 at 06:22 AM.
    "A Sherman can give you a very nice... edge."- Oddball, Kelly's Heroes
    Who is Cavguy?

  7. #7
    Council Member Cavguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Honolulu, Hawaii
    Posts
    1,127

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Starbuck View Post
    Does the money play a role? I was reading something from Fareed Zakaria the other day regarding liberal democracies, and he stated that they tend to occur (and become stable) when the per capita income exceeds a certain point. If that's the cases, then people feel less likely to wage war against the government if they have money, property and thus, something to lose.
    Starbuck - welcome to the board. Please introduce yourself here. Like the BSG handle.

    My first thought was that it involved money, but the "democratic insurgencies" span the gamut from extremely poor to rich on a relatively even bell curve - take the UK/Northern Ireland example. For example Uruguay and Senegal are on there, hardly economic powerhouses then or now.


    A democracy also gives the violent minority a voice in the government, a chance to elect people to advance their agenda, whereas non-democratic nations do not. Exceptions should be made in cases like Israel, where a minority group is not represented in the government, and experiences a very low standard of living, and thus, we might not call it a "true" democracy.
    The RAND set calls this an anocracy, which accounts for Israel, South Africa, and the French (Algeria) case. Rule by minority or small majority (often democratic), but without universal suffrage for a significant portion of the electorate.

    Furthermore, I would expect that most democracies would be more likely to reach a political settlement in the face of a protracted conflict, as democracies tend to not settle for protracted wars. Or am I just looking at this from a Western American point of view (Phillipines, Eastern Europe, etc).
    I would have thought so too, but when compared to the mean of political settlements across all insurgencies, democracies actually settle LESS! I think democratic insurgencies involve issues or ideologies less willing to compromise.

    There are some dataset coding issues, but none of my quibbles has changed the overall observation significantly.
    Last edited by Cavguy; 01-29-2009 at 06:27 AM.
    "A Sherman can give you a very nice... edge."- Oddball, Kelly's Heroes
    Who is Cavguy?

  8. #8
    Council Member William F. Owen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    The State of Partachia, at the eastern end of the Mediterranean
    Posts
    3,947

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Schmedlap View Post
    Third thought: an insurgency can gain legitimacy by demonizing a king or oligarchy. Who does it demonize in a democracy? The people? That doesn't sound like much of a rallying cry. "We suck - let's overthrow ourselves!"
    You may want to look at the Insurgency in southern Thailand, were to my mind the "Insurgents" - and it is by no means clear who they are - never say anything against the Thai King - because should they, things would get very brutal, very quickly.
    Infinity Journal "I don't care if this works in practice. I want to see it work in theory!"

    - The job of the British Army out here is to kill or capture Communist Terrorists in Malaya.
    - If we can double the ratio of kills per contact, we will soon put an end to the shooting in Malaya.
    Sir Gerald Templer, foreword to the "Conduct of Anti-Terrorist Operations in Malaya," 1958 Edition

  9. #9
    Council Member William F. Owen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    The State of Partachia, at the eastern end of the Mediterranean
    Posts
    3,947

    Default

    Cav,

    Merely some suggestions, but I would also suggest you look at the role physical land and territory in your thesis.

    The IRA was aiming at a unified Ireland.
    The PFLP and PLO wanted land and territory - still do.
    The South Thailand Insurgency wants the states with a Muslim majority to be part of Malaysia, or secede from Thailand, in some form.

    Insurgencies are generally about the control of terrain. I might add that pure terrorist groups on the other hand, generally aims at a change of policy, rather than terrain, but that needs to be held to rigour.
    Infinity Journal "I don't care if this works in practice. I want to see it work in theory!"

    - The job of the British Army out here is to kill or capture Communist Terrorists in Malaya.
    - If we can double the ratio of kills per contact, we will soon put an end to the shooting in Malaya.
    Sir Gerald Templer, foreword to the "Conduct of Anti-Terrorist Operations in Malaya," 1958 Edition

  10. #10
    Council Member Cavguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Honolulu, Hawaii
    Posts
    1,127

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by William F. Owen View Post
    Cav,

    Merely some suggestions, but I would also suggest you look at the role physical land and territory in your thesis.

    The IRA was aiming at a unified Ireland.
    The PFLP and PLO wanted land and territory - still do.
    The South Thailand Insurgency wants the states with a Muslim majority to be part of Malaysia, or secede from Thailand, in some form.

    Insurgencies are generally about the control of terrain. I might add that pure terrorist groups on the other hand, generally aims at a change of policy, rather than terrain, but that needs to be held to rigour.
    I have found the same so far - most post-cold war "insurgencies" seek separatism of some form - not regime change or overthrow.

    The definitions are imprecise and have overlap between political terror, civil war, and insurgency, which makes the inclusion/exclusion of certain cases somewhat subjective - my key is not to introduce bias by excluding a case which potentially undercuts the theory and can reasonably be called and insurgency.

    I have other quibble issues across the dataset, but the inclusion of my quibbles doesn't change the empirical observation. (For example, including Chechnya II, Iraq, or Afghanistan as an insurgency against a democracy doesn't change that democracies don't outright lose (yet))
    "A Sherman can give you a very nice... edge."- Oddball, Kelly's Heroes
    Who is Cavguy?

  11. #11
    Council Member William F. Owen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    The State of Partachia, at the eastern end of the Mediterranean
    Posts
    3,947

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cavguy View Post

    The definitions are imprecise and have overlap between political terror, civil war, and insurgency, which makes the inclusion/exclusion of certain cases somewhat subjective - my key is not to introduce bias by excluding a case which potentially undercuts the theory and can reasonably be called and insurgency.
    May I offer,"Pedants will be able to cite exceptions, and thus undermine useful (insightful) theory. Their depredations must be firmly resisted by one simple test: does the theory generally aid understanding of useful military problems? If so, then exceptions are permissible."
    Infinity Journal "I don't care if this works in practice. I want to see it work in theory!"

    - The job of the British Army out here is to kill or capture Communist Terrorists in Malaya.
    - If we can double the ratio of kills per contact, we will soon put an end to the shooting in Malaya.
    Sir Gerald Templer, foreword to the "Conduct of Anti-Terrorist Operations in Malaya," 1958 Edition

  12. #12
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Rancho La Espada, Blanchard, OK
    Posts
    1,065

    Default Cavguy

    While not only democracies are legitimate (departing from Weber: traditional and charismatic legitimacy) democracies do have what I would call "face legitimacy." Look at our SWORD Model article in the Journal - especially at the Host Government Legitimacy variable in Table 3. The first varible in the table specifically relates to democracy (electoral). Corruption is a classic driver of insurgency or, simply, electoral turnover. As long as you can throw the rascals out by election there is no need for armed rebellion. Same with "motivation of the people" which here refers to the ability of the government to deliver the basic "goods & serices" such as security demanded by the people. The last of the most important variables really asks if there are alternatives to political violence such as free, competetive elections. If all these are present one is dealing with a democracy and that democracy is perceived as legitimate by its population. Given that legitimacy is the single strongest internal dimension explaining the outcome of an insurgency, then it seems clear that deocracies will generally defeat insurgencies directed against them. The correlation should range from very high when using a rigourous definition (criteria) for democracy to high for a less rigorous formulation.

    Cheers

    JohnT

  13. #13
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Maryland
    Posts
    223

    Default Great topic

    As I look over your database (and I am by no means an expert on many of these insurgencies) it occurs to me that insurgencies in a democracy results when a particular group feels that it is vulnerable to the tyranny of the majority. In other words, there is no overt mechanism (such as our bill of rights and judicial review) that protects minority political/cultural/economic rights that they consider vital to their security or to their identity - usually both.

    I also note that in most of the cases the democracy in question is not one with a long democratic tradition. Therefore minorities are less trusting that, in the long term, the democratic values of the majority will serve to resolve their grievances.

    Finally, in most of the cases, the insurgents occupy a geographically distinct part of the country - that is, they have a coherent (usually defensible) base from which to operate, as opposed to being a faction 'immersed' in the majority.

    All this means that an insurgency within a democracy will normally be able to force the government to a political settlement acceptable to both sides more easily than one fighting against a totalitarian state. In the former case, achieving overt safeguards against the tyranny of the majority (autonomy, voting rights, guaranteed representation, etc) will be acceptable substitutes for "total victory" in the eyes of the insurgents, and will be seen by the government as acceptable concessions within the framework of a democratic state. Especially when the alternative is continuing a debilitating, costly insurgency. In the latter case - insurgencies against totalitarian states - the stakes are far higher and the capacity for compromise far lower, making it easier to sustain the will of both sides to continue the fight.

    Thus I would question whether I would characterize a political settlement as a loss for the insurgents - it merely allows them to continue the struggle through other means.

  14. #14
    Moderator Steve Blair's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Montana
    Posts
    3,195

    Default

    "How Democracies Lose Small Wars" might provide you with some interesting information as well. Granted the author's focus is more on the involvement of democracies in external small wars as opposed to internal insurgencies, but he does have some good observations about the ability of democracies to conduct wars that might be unpopular with a segment of their own electorate.

    Eden makes a good point regarding a political settlement. In some cases it might actually be a victory of sorts for both sides. Sounds like an interesting topic, although you may need to be mindful of the Cold War political impacts within some of the earlier insurgencies mentioned. By that I mean the actual motivations and driving forces behind some of those movements, which might have made them more vulnerable to political settlements by the government (i.e., grant concessions to some of the local insurgent demands [land reform, minority representation, etc.], thereby undercutting the political leverage of some elements of the insurgency.
    Last edited by Steve Blair; 01-29-2009 at 03:23 PM.
    "On the plains and mountains of the American West, the United States Army had once learned everything there was to learn about hit-and-run tactics and guerrilla warfare."
    T.R. Fehrenbach This Kind of War

  15. #15
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Hungary
    Posts
    69

    Default Also researching insurgencies

    I found the below study.

    Lyall, John, ’Do Democracies Make Inferior Counterinsurgents?’, 2007, Available at: http://www.princeton.edu/~jlyall/DemoWar.pdf

    I would appreciate your opinion about it.

    THX in advance.
    Nihil sub sole novum.

  16. #16
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    567

    Default

    To somewhat echo Wilf's coments, I'm not sure that it will produce a lot of valuable insight, though I guess part of the process is that you never know what kind of insight you'll find until you go looking.

    I think you also need to consider situations where the insurgents didn't win, but the democracy came to an end. In other words, one reason democracies don't lose is because if the weak kneed liberal Democratic politicians start to lose, the military stages a coup. Pakistan comes to mind. There may be some examples in Central and South America.

    Also - I meant to mention this a couple of times - it seems to me the French defined victory as maintaining their colonies and the British defined victory as giving their colonies independence. Since what most of the insurgents wanted was independence from the British, it seems to me that democracies have a lot more ability to spin the definition of "victory." For that matter, changing the definition of "democracy" invalidates your thesis:

    There is debate about how closely the South Vietnamese government was linked to the United States, which was a strong supporter of South Vietnam. The country is alleged by many historians to have been nothing more than an American-backed puppet government, but many others claim that it was genuine democracy (or, at the least, a patriotic movement with genuine concern for the Vietnamese people). An individual's views on the matter generally correspond closely to their views on the Vietnam War in general - supporters of the war often believe that South Vietnam was a democracy, and thus worthy of defence, while opponents of the war often believe that South Vietnamese democracy was a sham.
    Quote Originally Posted by SteveMetz View Post
    Sometimes it takes someone without deep experience to think creatively.

  17. #17
    Council Member William F. Owen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    The State of Partachia, at the eastern end of the Mediterranean
    Posts
    3,947

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rank amateur View Post
    To somewhat echo Wilf's coments, I'm not sure that it will produce a lot of valuable insight, though I guess part of the process is that you never know what kind of insight you'll find until you go looking.
    I think it may well produce some insights.

    I kind of hope they may support the bones of my basic thesis that Insurgencies are merely a style of warfare and subscribe to all the Clausewitian doctrines.
    Infinity Journal "I don't care if this works in practice. I want to see it work in theory!"

    - The job of the British Army out here is to kill or capture Communist Terrorists in Malaya.
    - If we can double the ratio of kills per contact, we will soon put an end to the shooting in Malaya.
    Sir Gerald Templer, foreword to the "Conduct of Anti-Terrorist Operations in Malaya," 1958 Edition

  18. #18
    Council Member Bob's World's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    2,706

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jmm99 View Post
    put Algeria ? Part of France - not part of French Union colonial structure - which was a democracy. Easy enough to explain it away since the democratic standards applied to Paris did not apply to Algiers, etc., etc. But, the result was secession.

    PS: the topic seems OK - and, in the examples, the term "quasi-democracy" would fit many (IMO); thus, slanting the playing field in favor of insurgency "winning". Maybe there are two questions:

    1. Why are there insurgencies in democracies ? E.g., Why the War of Northern Agression ?

    2. Why are those insurgencies unsuccessful, etc. ?

    I see insurgency as the course of last resort of a populace to effect change of governance. In a country with no or few legitimate means to effect change, the popualce as a whole both loses hope sooner that change will not occur in due course, and gets to "last resort" sooner as a result.

    So why do you still get situations like the American Civil War? Two factors are important. All legal means had been exhausted and we were at a stalemate; two, the issued divided the populace in clear geographic sides. If the issue would have been more like gun control or abortion, that is difused accross the populace in no neat, geographic segments, it is unlikely to result in insurgency. Just suck it up and keep voting.

    Look at Tailand. Not a US brand democracy, but there is an ongoing islamic insurgency even though Muslims are less than 5% of the populace. Geographically though, that 5% is a compressed majority down on the Malaysian border. Similar in the Philippines.

    2. Why are they not successful? As far back as Sun Tzu military leaders have know that an enemy with no recourse but to fight will fight harder and longer than one who knows that they can either escape, or if forced to surrender, will face a fate better than death. Same concept probably applies here. If a democratic populace is finally pushed to fight, like the South, once that fight appears hopeless they are probably much more inclined to accept a compromise than a popualce that knows that once committed to the fight they must either prevail or die. It was a matter of honor that drove them to fight, and given the option of an honorable surrender, they were willing to take it.

    To me this all seems like common-sense, but as that isn't as common as one might hope, this may make a worthwhile paper. My only real reservation is that I am really against all of the "Democracy" rhetoric that has permeated the U.S. message, strategy, and activities of late. I far prefer self-determination and popular sovereignty.

    To me, Democracy is a lot like sex. Its great if everyone involved wants it, but if forced upon you it is rape. To carry that analogy probably one step too far: If the Uncle Sam would improve his message and delivery, he'd probably find a lot more willing takers...
    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)

  19. #19
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    567

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by William F. Owen View Post
    I think it may well produce some insights.

    I kind of hope they may support the bones of my basic thesis that Insurgencies are merely a style of warfare and subscribe to all the Clausewitian doctrines.

    OK, then to completely disagree with Wilf, my concern would be that if everything depends on how you define things, it might be hard to gain a lot of insight.


    Quote Originally Posted by Bob's World View Post
    To me, Democracy is a lot like sex. Its great if everyone involved wants it, but if forced upon you it is rape. To carry that analogy probably one step too far: If the Uncle Sam would improve his message and delivery, he'd probably find a lot more willing takers...
    To carry it further, if you're carrying an assault rifle, no matter what happens, some people will never believe it was voluntary.
    Last edited by Rank amateur; 01-29-2009 at 05:00 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by SteveMetz View Post
    Sometimes it takes someone without deep experience to think creatively.

  20. #20
    Council Member Cavguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Honolulu, Hawaii
    Posts
    1,127

    Default

    Good input all, these are the kinds of holes/skepticism I want to hear before I head too far down my research path.

    RA, understand your point about democracy change, but the dataset allows for regime change during the insurgency (Indonesia is a key case - autocracy to democracy)

    To Bob's World, I would definitely opine that the focus of my paper would not be to justify forceable democratic change, but to determine why, out of 89 insurgencies (as classified by RAND) observed since 1945, there are 25 insurgent "wins" against autocracies, anocracies, monarchial, and colonial governments, but none against democracies.

    Like the "democratic peace" question - I am curious as to the reason - is it a facet of democracy that prevents insurgent victory, or some other reason?

    Again, my initial findings indicate that not only are democracies resistant to insurgent victory, they actually directly politcially settle LESS than other forms of goverment.
    "A Sherman can give you a very nice... edge."- Oddball, Kelly's Heroes
    Who is Cavguy?

Similar Threads

  1. Latest Small Wars & Insurgencies Journal
    By Steve Blair in forum Catch-All, Military Art & Science
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 08-31-2009, 11:14 AM
  2. Insurgencies Like Iraq's Usually Last 10 Years But Fail, Study Says
    By SWJED in forum Who is Fighting Whom? How and Why?
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 05-18-2007, 09:18 AM
  3. How to Win in Iraq and How to Lose
    By SWJED in forum US Policy, Interest, and Endgame
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 03-30-2007, 03:35 PM
  4. How We Lose
    By SWJED in forum Global Issues & Threats
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 01-25-2007, 04:44 PM
  5. Marines Probing New Ways to Fight Future Insurgencies
    By DDilegge in forum The Whole News
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 10-11-2005, 12:46 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •