Quote Originally Posted by jmm99 View Post
I recognize the difference in your approach from the what I would call the "reformist" (population-centric) approach - no word-coining on my part; I ripped off Eqbal Ahmad.

So, the question is: What do you do, given the needs of the populace (and including in the rights to self-determination and to good governance), where the incumbant government cannot or will not meet those needs ?[*]

This question posits that the existing insurgency against the incumbant government is also unacceptable. Historically, we could pick any number of Latin-American countries in the past century - with a number of US interventions. That is, oligarchs ruling over very poor and exploited populations, with insurgencies too radical for our taste as well.

Do you simply pack up your bags and leave; or do you engineer a "third way" movement - perhaps, not that far from the radical insurgents, but expressing the needs of the populace ?

Further posit that the NCAs have given COL Jones complete freedom of action to do what he thinks is right.

----------------------------
[*] Also posited is that the incumbant government has no ears to hear the excellent briefings of COL Jones, who is therefore in the same shoes as Paul of Acts.

PS: Upon reflection, you can answer this in two parts, using two roles: (1) COL Jones, USASF - not indigenous (so, not "his fight"); and (2) COL Jones, indigenous military, who has the appropriate group of "misfits", military and civilian, to engineer a "third way" (so, it is "his fight").
At some point, when it becomes clear that the government will not or cannot do its job, and the insurgent is an evil band that will be no better for my country, then it would be my duty to take down the government myself in a military coup, create what alliances I must to get the government working again and to suppress the insurgent; and (this is where the wheels usually fall off) then set up fair elections put the government back into the hands of the populace.

As the US we should be prepared to support such an option and not simply call it an illegal act because we had a good deal going with the guys who got ousted. By doing so we can make the ultimate elections part of the deal for assisting in getting things under control.

Easier said than done, both answers. But if doing the right thing were easy, more people would be doing it.