Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 84

Thread: Motivation vs. causation

  1. #41
    Council Member Dayuhan's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Latitude 17° 5' 11N, Longitude 120° 54' 24E, altitude 1499m. Right where I want to be.
    Posts
    3,137

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bob's World View Post
    Nice to see more people noticing that "Global Insurgency" is a concept that probably confuses and hinders efforts against AQ far more than it helps.
    I noticed that about 30 seconds after reading the term for the first time. It took that long because I had to read it several times to convince myself that I was seeing what I thought I was seeing. Unfortunately, I was.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bob's World View Post
    But one needs neither a state nor a populace to conduct UW. One only needs the will to incite and support insurgency among the populace of another's state, and the means to do so. The current information age provided AQ the Means to develop a UW network that incites and supports insurgency among Sunni Muslim populaces in a wide range of countries. To include your own, where ever you might currently be.
    I wouldn't say AQ has been terribly successful at this. I think they've been more successful at using pre-existing insurgencies as tools and cover than they have at actually generating or exacerbating those insurgencies. In most cases where AQ is involved in local insurgency it is the local issues, not the AQ agenda, that drive the insurgents to fight.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bob's World View Post
    COIN is typically waged in the countryside of lands far away; but Insurgency is won and lost in one's very own capital cities. Insurgency in the Philippines will fade when the Government in Manila finally decides to provide good governance to all of its populace equitably. Similarly in Kabul and Afghanistan.
    In the Philippines probably true, though I wouldn't be holding my breath: Manila has neither the capacity nor the will to govern Mindanao effectively. in Afghanistan, I suspect we're discussing good governance when the actual problem is non-governance. To have a good government you have to have a government first, and I'm not sure the assemblage in Kabul qualifies. if it can't govern at all it certainly can't govern well, and our calling it a government doesn't make it one.

    If the "government" is perceived as an externally imposed entity that is not likely to outlast external support backed by questionable commitment, it's not likely to attract much support. The key issue is not that governance is good or bad, but of acknowledgment that a legitimate government exists. That's why I suspect that in Afghanistan we're not seeing an insurgency fighting a government but an armed competition to fill a perceived political vacuum.

  2. #42
    Council Member Bob's World's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    2,706

    Default

    concur. What each populace requires of its governance is unique to that populace. As to your last point that goes to heart: Legitimacy. No government perceived as lacking legitimacy in the eyes of its own populace is likely to prevail when faced with a determined insurgency.

    Said another way: If one is going to commit the blood, treasure, and reputation of their nation in the support of the government of another that is facing insurgency, ensure it is perceived as legitimate before the first drop, penny, or promise is spent.

    Or said another way: If one backs an illigitimate government against an insurgency, expect that those same insurgents will target you as well. Particularly if they perceive that what legitimacy that government does have comes more from you than from sources that they recognize.

    Also that "Official" does not necessarily mean the same as "Legitimate." In the eyes of the afgan people they probably recognize that the Karzai government is "official." Few, however, see it as "legitimate."
    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)

  3. #43
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    1,457

    Default

    Dayuhan,

    All great points. I think one could argue that Afghanistan remains in a state of civil war.

  4. #44
    Council Member slapout9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    4,818

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bob's World View Post
    concur. What each populace requires of its governance is unique to that populace. As to your last point that goes to heart: Legitimacy. No government perceived as lacking legitimacy in the eyes of its own populace is likely to prevail when faced with a determined insurgency.

    Said another way: If one is going to commit the blood, treasure, and reputation of their nation in the support of the government of another that is facing insurgency, ensure it is perceived as legitimate before the first drop, penny, or promise is spent.

    Or said another way: If one backs an illigitimate government against an insurgency, expect that those same insurgents will target you as well. Particularly if they perceive that what legitimacy that government does have comes more from you than from sources that they recognize.

    Also that "Official" does not necessarily mean the same as "Legitimate." In the eyes of the afgan people they probably recognize that the Karzai government is "official." Few, however, see it as "legitimate."


    So it all comes down to De Oppresso Liber (to liberate the oppressed). The original purpose that Special Forces were created in the first place.

  5. #45
    Council Member marct's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Ottawa, Canada
    Posts
    3,682

    Default

    Hi Mike,

    Quote Originally Posted by jmm99 View Post
    juries do it everyday in civil cases by allocating causation and fault.

    Yes, that is "inter-subjective communications" based on their perceptions. The problem, of course, is that another jury given the same facts could come up with a different allocation. Thus, a problem in predictability.

    Totally agree. I remember a while back reading about some experiments looking at perception effects in jury decisions where test juries sat on a case or listened to a transcript being read or just read the transcripts. Apparently, since it was an experiment, the accuracy rate of the juries increased along the same line. Sort of similar to the eye witness testimony problem .

    Quote Originally Posted by jmm99 View Post
    So, in my book, "Causation" is something of a voodoo science - a mixture of credo and scio. PS: the only reason I use those terms is that my high school Latin teacher drilled them into my skull.
    LOL - yeah, I tend to agree although the dolls used are just a tich different .

    Quote Originally Posted by jmm99 View Post
    When you put together your model on "Causes" and the "Narrative", please let us know. This sounds interesting, but difficult
    I will, if I can ever get it done . I've been struggling with it for years now and, while it's gotten better, I'm still not happy with it. Oh well, we'll see....

    Cheers,

    Marc
    Sic Bisquitus Disintegrat...
    Marc W.D. Tyrrell, Ph.D.
    Institute of Interdisciplinary Studies,
    Senior Research Fellow,
    The Canadian Centre for Intelligence and Security Studies, NPSIA
    Carleton University
    http://marctyrrell.com/

  6. #46
    Council Member Dayuhan's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Latitude 17° 5' 11N, Longitude 120° 54' 24E, altitude 1499m. Right where I want to be.
    Posts
    3,137

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bob's World View Post
    concur. What each populace requires of its governance is unique to that populace. As to your last point that goes to heart: Legitimacy. No government perceived as lacking legitimacy in the eyes of its own populace is likely to prevail when faced with a determined insurgency.

    Said another way: If one is going to commit the blood, treasure, and reputation of their nation in the support of the government of another that is facing insurgency, ensure it is perceived as legitimate before the first drop, penny, or promise is spent.

    Or said another way: If one backs an illigitimate government against an insurgency, expect that those same insurgents will target you as well. Particularly if they perceive that what legitimacy that government does have comes more from you than from sources that they recognize.

    Also that "Official" does not necessarily mean the same as "Legitimate." In the eyes of the afgan people they probably recognize that the Karzai government is "official." Few, however, see it as "legitimate."
    I agree... but I have to point out, again, that our operations in Iraq and Afghanistan were not initiated in order to support a government, legitimate or otherwise, against insurgency. They were initiated to remove governments we found distasteful. Having succeeded in that, we then faced a situation where there was no government at all. That's a very difficult position to be in: a government installed by an occupying power is going to be perceived as illegitimate and not recognized as a government, but if the occupying power leaves without putting together some kind of government the probable result is a takeover by whatever armed force is left after the intervention. If armed force is distributed the likely outcome is civil war, with intervention by all manner of self-interested actors.

    Compounding the problem is the tendency of the intervening power in these cases to pursue legitimacy in the eyes of its own constituents in its own country, rather than in the eyes of the occupied populaces. In order to justify intervention and make it appear legitimate the US government promised to pursue transitions to an electoral democracy along American lines, which may have been what the American populace wanted to hear but may not have been a very practical approach to the problem at hand. Of course the American people also wanted an intervention of limited duration, ideally with a fast withdrawal, and nobody seemed willing to tell them that these objectives were mutually exclusive.

    If there's any lesson to be learned from all this it is that people who contemplate future regime change efforts need to put a lot more effort into realistic assessments of the challenges implicit in a post regime change environment. It's easy to say we made mistakes, and by any criteria we did, but I'm not convinced that any alternative course of action would have provided a quick magical transition to a functional government that was perceived as legitimate by all of the competing populaces in the picture. The task parameters were just not realistic from the start.

  7. #47
    Council Member Bob's World's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    2,706

    Default You'll get no arguement from me on these points

    Quote Originally Posted by Dayuhan View Post
    I agree... but I have to point out, again, that our operations in Iraq and Afghanistan were not initiated in order to support a government, legitimate or otherwise, against insurgency. They were initiated to remove governments we found distasteful. Having succeeded in that, we then faced a situation where there was no government at all. That's a very difficult position to be in: a government installed by an occupying power is going to be perceived as illegitimate and not recognized as a government, but if the occupying power leaves without putting together some kind of government the probable result is a takeover by whatever armed force is left after the intervention. If armed force is distributed the likely outcome is civil war, with intervention by all manner of self-interested actors.

    Compounding the problem is the tendency of the intervening power in these cases to pursue legitimacy in the eyes of its own constituents in its own country, rather than in the eyes of the occupied populaces. In order to justify intervention and make it appear legitimate the US government promised to pursue transitions to an electoral democracy along American lines, which may have been what the American populace wanted to hear but may not have been a very practical approach to the problem at hand. Of course the American people also wanted an intervention of limited duration, ideally with a fast withdrawal, and nobody seemed willing to tell them that these objectives were mutually exclusive.

    If there's any lesson to be learned from all this it is that people who contemplate future regime change efforts need to put a lot more effort into realistic assessments of the challenges implicit in a post regime change environment. It's easy to say we made mistakes, and by any criteria we did, but I'm not convinced that any alternative course of action would have provided a quick magical transition to a functional government that was perceived as legitimate by all of the competing populaces in the picture. The task parameters were just not realistic from the start.

    I believe that if there was a better understanding of the concept of Causation for insurgency in the U.S.; then we would have taken very different courses from what we instead embarked upon. I won't second guess the guys who made the decisions; but I think if they had been a bit more informed as to the nature of what they were attempting to manipulate through force of arms; they would have made better choices.

    Fact is though, at that time you had Ph.D.'s ranting about Isalmism and the Caliphate; Intel guys looking hard for a state-based threat and pinning the WMD tail on our favorite Donkey Saddam; No one in DC second guessing the validity of our own post-cold war policy and how it might be contributing to the growing violence being directed back at the US; and EVERYONE wanting to exact a healthy dose of American-style revenge on someone; and to return our lives here at home back to normal.

    That was then, this is now. The question is, what do we do now?

    There are still plenty clinging to concepts and policies that have dug us an 8-year deep hole, be it out of loyalty, stubborness, or just what must be very rose colored lens perspectives. I think a clear order has been given to turn the ship around; I just don't know that we've picked a new heading yet.
    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)

  8. #48
    Council Member Ken White's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    8,060

    Default Once again...

    Quote Originally Posted by Dayuhan View Post
    ...In order to justify intervention and make it appear legitimate the US government promised to pursue transitions to an electoral democracy along American lines, which may have been what the American populace wanted to hear (Note 1) but may not have been a very practical approach to the problem at hand (Note 2). Of course the American people also wanted an intervention of limited duration (Note 3), ideally with a fast withdrawal, and nobody seemed willing to tell them that these objectives were mutually exclusive (Note 4).
    Good post. Note 1 - Few did. Note 2 - Inane if not insane. Note 3 - True; as they most always have and will; most of all they want success, preferably quickly. Note 4 - Absolutely and probably the Bush admins greatest failing and certainly the part that spread much egg on the face of everyone in DoD and the Army in particular...
    ...The task parameters were just not realistic from the start.
    True, two valid tasks; retribution for 9/11 (Not necessary for some societies but quite important for the ME / south Asia) and notice to the ME to stop the attacks on US interests around the world. Regrettably, flawed execution blunted both messages. Fortunately, the recipients understood the message in spite of the errors even if most of the European hearth did not. Both operations will most likely (almost certainly, I believe) eventually be successful in achieving those goals but it sure didn't have to be this hard.

    Your principal point is the takeaway:
    If there's any lesson to be learned from all this it is that people who contemplate future regime change efforts need to put a lot more effort into realistic assessments of the challenges implicit in a post regime change environment.
    I'd go a step further and say said assessment should result in a determination to not remove such regimes, ever. Just punish those who harm US interests in various ways. We can do that, have done it in the past and we really do that fairly well.

    OTOH, we do not do the FID / Stability Operation / 'Nation Building' thing at all well -- mostly for the reasons you cited earlier in another post -- and never have, Small Wars and the Marines in the Caribbean and Central America, the Army in the Philippines included. Not least because we simply do not have the patience for it and are not willing to spend the time for that budding nation to grow.

  9. #49
    Council Member Dayuhan's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Latitude 17° 5' 11N, Longitude 120° 54' 24E, altitude 1499m. Right where I want to be.
    Posts
    3,137

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bob's World View Post
    I believe that if there was a better understanding of the concept of Causation for insurgency in the U.S.; then we would have taken very different courses from what we instead embarked upon. I won't second guess the guys who made the decisions; but I think if they had been a bit more informed as to the nature of what they were attempting to manipulate through force of arms; they would have made better choices.
    Possibly so... but at the same time, I can't see how anyone with a half-dozen functioning synapses could have possibly thought that we could remove a government in an environment like Iraq or Afghanistan and simply insert a replacement without releasing a world of trouble in the process. Even without specific awareness of the insurgency causation process, common sense alone should have told us that there would be a whole bunch of people in these places with widely divergent interests and agendas, that there would be substantial competition over the right to fill the governance vacuum that the departure of the previous regime would create, and that the competition would most likely be conducted with armed force.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bob's World View Post
    Fact is though, at that time you had Ph.D.'s ranting about Isalmism and the Caliphate; Intel guys looking hard for a state-based threat and pinning the WMD tail on our favorite Donkey Saddam; No one in DC second guessing the validity of our own post-cold war policy and how it might be contributing to the growing violence being directed back at the US; and EVERYONE wanting to exact a healthy dose of American-style revenge on someone; and to return our lives here at home back to normal.
    Well, yes, but thus it always is: it is the job of decision makers to sort through the mass, discard the drivel, and base policy on realistic assessments. That job wasn't done. Instead the administration fell for a load of absolute drivel purveyed by the clique known as the neocons, for which the nation has paid a heavy price. Remember all the talk of "draining the swamp" in the ME? The claims that once we revealed the new Iraq as a shining example of a democratic ME all the despots would fall and be replaced by little America-clones?

    I recall quite a bit of talk about how AQ was a response to American transgressions and how AQ was somehow "lashing back", responding rather than initiating. Most of it came from the left, and I never thought the argument held up very well to critical examination. In any event the US could hardly have reversed or negated the past, whether its own cold war policies or the overall decline of Islamic civilization.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bob's World View Post
    That was then, this is now. The question is, what do we do now?
    In Iraq, seems to me we've done all we can do and it's time to wind down with all expedient speed. The place is by no means out of the woods, but one way or another the Iraqis are going to have to sort the next steps out themselves. Things could still go downhill, but on balance I have to say Iraq is in a much better state today than I thought it would be: I expected much worse.

    In Afghanistan, I haven't a clue what we do now... never wanted us to be in this position in the first place. How do you jump in a meatgrinder and come out without getting chewed up? Obvious answer is that we shouldn't go jumping into meatgrinders, but it's a bit late for that.

    I'd go a step further and say said assessment should result in a determination to not remove such regimes, ever. Just punish those who harm US interests in various ways. We can do that, have done it in the past and we really do that fairly well.

    OTOH, we do not do the FID / Stability Operation / 'Nation Building' thing at all well -- mostly for the reasons you cited earlier in another post -- and never have, Small Wars and the Marines in the Caribbean and Central America, the Army in the Philippines included. Not least because we simply do not have the patience for it and are not willing to spend the time for that budding nation to grow.
    Not sure I'd say "never", but removing regimes isn't something to be done lightly, especially when (as is usually the case) our capacity to control what happens after the removal is limited.

    I think part of America's problem in managing intervention has been that we possess simultaneously a powerful drive toward lofty altruism and an equally powerful (often more powerful) drive to serve our own self interest. Sometimes we pretend these are compatible when they are not, sometimes we lose sight of which hat we're wearing, sometimes we flip uncontrollably between them; in each case we can easily end up serving neither.

  10. #50
    Council Member Bob's World's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    2,706

    Default

    Of course it has never been about either Iraq or Afghanistan either one. Afghanistan was just a convenient place to go after the symptom of AQ and to bring some well earned revenge down on their heads.

    Iraq was just the retarded kid playing in middle of the street that got run over. A tragic case of being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

    No, what it is about is securing the United States and developing new Ways and Means to promote and preserve our national interests in a manner that is far less controlling (Cold War era), arrogant ( Clinton era) or aggressively violent (Bush era). In a manner that backs down to no one, but at the same time does not excessively press anyone without just cause either. To stand for concepts of liberty and self-determination; to apply the great natural and human resources of this great nation to overcome our current fiscal and security challenges and to emerge stronger, more vibrant, and more of a leader by our very example: and not by the promise of force or the threat of withholding favors.

    This is the nation we see ourselves as, and this is the nation we can once again become. I am confident of that. After all, unlike any other nation in the world, the U.S. has the perfect ideology of popular empowerment to excel in the world emerging around us.
    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)

  11. #51
    Council Member Dayuhan's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Latitude 17° 5' 11N, Longitude 120° 54' 24E, altitude 1499m. Right where I want to be.
    Posts
    3,137

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bob's World View Post
    what it is about is securing the United States and developing new Ways and Means to promote and preserve our national interests in a manner that is far less controlling (Cold War era), arrogant ( Clinton era) or aggressively violent (Bush era). In a manner that backs down to no one, but at the same time does not excessively press anyone without just cause either. To stand for concepts of liberty and self-determination; to apply the great natural and human resources of this great nation to overcome our current fiscal and security challenges and to emerge stronger, more vibrant, and more of a leader by our very example: and not by the promise of force or the threat of withholding favors.

    This is the nation we see ourselves as, and this is the nation we can once again become. I am confident of that. After all, unlike any other nation in the world, the U.S. has the perfect ideology of popular empowerment to excel in the world emerging around us.
    Excellent principles. Of course moving from principles to policy in the complicated and challenging environments presented by Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Yemen, Iran, North Korea, Somalia, Sudan, Mindanao, Colombia, etc is a difficult and uncertain effort, and moving from policy to successful implementation is much harder.

  12. #52
    Council Member Bob's World's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    2,706

    Default Strong Foundation

    Quote Originally Posted by Dayuhan View Post
    Excellent principles. Of course moving from principles to policy in the complicated and challenging environments presented by Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Yemen, Iran, North Korea, Somalia, Sudan, Mindanao, Colombia, etc is a difficult and uncertain effort, and moving from policy to successful implementation is much harder.
    America is an excellent example of what a nation rooted in "excellent principles" can achieve.

    When we were clawing our way up from the obscurity of being a break-away penal colony of Great Britain we held to our principles and did not go about trying to impose them on others. There is great wisdom in the words of Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Lincoln, Roosevelt (1 and 2), and Wilson to name a few that is as relevant today as it was in their respective times.

    Once we emerged from the pack at the end of WWII and we fell into the roll of implementing control-based policies to Contain the Soviets; all that slowly began to change. We first became comfortable with mandating moral and governmental judgments on others, then came to see it as our right. We were growing up and becoming our parents.

    I think those Presidents who served this nation prior to the Cold War would be very surprised at how we've come to see our role in the world today. The good news, though, is that we still possess that strong foundation. We just need to take a hard look at recent interpretations shaped by the Cold War experience and recalibrate them for the world that exists today.
    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)

  13. #53
    Council Member Ken White's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    8,060

    Default Uh, Bob...

    I really hate to tell you this -- or perhaps remind you of things you know but would rather forget -- but both Roosevelts were as imperialistic and meddlesome in the affairs of others as anyone who came after them.

    Teddy and his dispatching Taft to Asia in 1905 arguably created many problems in the Pacific for the US that you tend to ascribe to the Cold War. A lot of them are still with us. That and the Great White Fleet were Empire building at its finest...

    As for FDR, all the illegal crap he did to get the US into WW II and his deliberate actions to bankrupt the United Kingdom and France to get both out of the Colony business so US commerce could get into those former colonies make him a major troublemaker by your lights.

    You often make some good points but your desire to sugar coat US history undercuts your efforts all too often.

  14. #54
    Council Member Dayuhan's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Latitude 17° 5' 11N, Longitude 120° 54' 24E, altitude 1499m. Right where I want to be.
    Posts
    3,137

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bob's World View Post
    When we were clawing our way up from the obscurity of being a break-away penal colony of Great Britain we held to our principles and did not go about trying to impose them on others. There is great wisdom in the words of Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Lincoln, Roosevelt (1 and 2), and Wilson to name a few that is as relevant today as it was in their respective times.
    Native Americans might disagree, as might Filipinos, and a few people in Latin America who saw the Monroe Doctrine from a side US history books don't generally portray. The Japanese might want to mention Commodore Perry sailing into Edo with warships and a few demands. That's off the top of my head, I suppose there are a few other examples around.

    There is nothing wrong with an excellent principle, and one can have no better starting point. It pays, though, to be alert to the ease with which a bit of sophistry can twist the most admirable principles into justification for the most barbaric of acts.

  15. #55
    Council Member Bob's World's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    2,706

    Default

    Ken and Dayuhan,

    No sugar applied. Building empires is what "big countries" did back then, and we wanted to be a big country in a big way.

    We do not have clean hands, and as the doddering Spanish empire dangled before us, we could not resist the temptation of claiming what parts of it we wanted as our own. To control the seas required deep water ports and coaling stations, to find out where these facilities existed then, look for odd places where one often finds US flags to this day. The best deep water ports across the Pacific were Pearl Habor in Hawaii; Apra Harbor in Guam, Manila Bay in the Philippines, and Pago Pago Bay in American Samoa.

    We took a strategy and tactics used to defeat native Americans and applied it to the people of the Philippines. I get it. I have studied my history too.

    Both Wilson and FDR called for an end to colonialism and for the right of self-determination for all. Both were vetoed by their Eurpean counterparts in those initiatives who had far too much to lose to such a radical scheme.

    Somewhere over the past 60 years "self-determination" became replaced by "democratization." Some may find that nuance insignificant.

    Alway driven by commerce, as we grew more powerful we too began to manipulate governance in order to lend certainty and security to critical points of commerce and key terrain for lines of communication.

    When the British held sway in the Middle East, we undercut them on the contract to develop Saudi oil by not making the same moral demands (end slavery) that the Briitish were making, and by also offering them a much fairer price for their product. We said we had no right to make such moral demands of another sovereign.

    Today we not only see making such moral demands as our right, but also as our duty. To bring to rule of law and democracy to others.

    In the law, they call this the "slippery slope." The problem is that we picked up a great deal of speed, and of late are encountering a great deal of friction as well. Yes, we quite willingly started down that slope. But that is no reason to ride it out to the bitter end like those empires who have gone before us. We can learn from their mistakes, and take steps to reduce the friction. Right now we are just slapping at the smoke and flames.

    So yeah, I do think that prior to the end of WWII American leaders saw our rights and duties in the lands of other differently than they do today. Those were different times.
    There was a time to expand the US across the North American continent. There was a time to dabble in colonialism and estabish a global footprint, there was a time to exert controls to contain the Soviets. The burning question is, what time is it now?
    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)

  16. #56
    Council Member Dayuhan's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Latitude 17° 5' 11N, Longitude 120° 54' 24E, altitude 1499m. Right where I want to be.
    Posts
    3,137

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bob's World View Post
    Both Wilson and FDR called for an end to colonialism and for the right of self-determination for all. Both were vetoed by their Eurpean counterparts in those initiatives who had far too much to lose to such a radical scheme.

    Somewhere over the past 60 years "self-determination" became replaced by "democratization." Some may find that nuance insignificant.
    Were we really pushing for self-determination in those days, or was that a noble-sounding way of saying we wanted to break up the colonial system so we could trade into markets that the system locked us out of? Once Latin America was de-colonised we lost much of our interest in self-determination; I've no reason to believe it would have been any different elsewhere.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bob's World View Post
    Alway driven by commerce, as we grew more powerful we too began to manipulate governance in order to lend certainty and security to critical points of commerce and key terrain for lines of communication.
    Did that happen as we grew more powerful, or as the old colonial powers that once performed that function became less powerful and gave it up... or a bit of both?

    Quote Originally Posted by Bob's World View Post
    When the British held sway in the Middle East, we undercut them on the contract to develop Saudi oil by not making the same moral demands (end slavery) that the Briitish were making, and by also offering them a much fairer price for their product. We said we had no right to make such moral demands of another sovereign.
    Again, I think not making moral demands had nothing to do with principle and everything to do with business: we wanted the contract. The Brits manipulated the US a bit as well, most notably in Iran.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bob's World View Post
    In the law, they call this the "slippery slope." The problem is that we picked up a great deal of speed, and of late are encountering a great deal of friction as well. Yes, we quite willingly started down that slope. But that is no reason to ride it out to the bitter end like those empires who have gone before us. We can learn from their mistakes, and take steps to reduce the friction. Right now we are just slapping at the smoke and flames.

    So yeah, I do think that prior to the end of WWII American leaders saw our rights and duties in the lands of other differently than they do today. Those were different times.
    There was a time to expand the US across the North American continent. There was a time to dabble in colonialism and establish a global footprint, there was a time to exert controls to contain the Soviets. The burning question is, what time is it now?
    Post cold war foreign policy management has been a mixed bag. We've not done all that badly in Latin America, where we've scaled back on direct intervention and learned to live with a broad political spectrum without completely losing influence or compromising national interests. We've not done all that badly in East Asia. There's a rough crescent running from Pakistan through the ME and parts of Africa that remains a total mess... but that's not altogether our doing by any means.

  17. #57
    Council Member Ken White's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    8,060

    Default Well, here, it's about 0828S. Or we can use 1428Z...

    Quote Originally Posted by Bob's World View Post
    The burning question is, what time is it now?
    Dayuhan said it better than I could, particularly on Monroe's and Roosevelt's quite commercial versus even mildly altruistic approach -- even though both were shrewd enough to publicly couch it as the latter instead of the former. As for Wilson, a classic case (like Carter) of idealism gone amok. You might want to think about that.

    I'll just reiterate that I believe your vision of what you think we should do seems unduly colored by your version of what you think we did. That version of events before your birth does not square with my recollection in many cases or with actual history in a great many more.

    As I've said before, a good idea predicated on a flawed perception can go awry. You also still seem to ignore the venality of Politicians in your prescriptions...

  18. #58
    Council Member Bob's World's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    2,706

    Default I am an idealist in the real world

    Quote Originally Posted by Ken White View Post
    Dayuhan said it better than I could, particularly on Monroe's and Roosevelt's quite commercial versus even mildly altruistic approach -- even though both were shrewd enough to publicly couch it as the latter instead of the former. As for Wilson, a classic case (like Carter) of idealism gone amok. You might want to think about that.

    I'll just reiterate that I believe your vision of what you think we should do seems unduly colored by your version of what you think we did. That version of events before your birth does not square with my recollection in many cases or with actual history in a great many more.

    As I've said before, a good idea predicated on a flawed perception can go awry. You also still seem to ignore the venality of Politicians in your prescriptions...
    Ken the way I look at it I should not have to tone down what I think needs to be done to move forward simply becuase it suggests actions required of elected officials that they historically prove themselves unlikely to take on. I'll set the bar where it needs to be, not where I think they can clear it.

    It is incumbent upon an informed populace to demand more of its governance when it falls short. Consider this my demand.

    Was Wilson an idealist? certainly. Were his French and British counterparts realists? No, they were bitter, angry, visionless men and by trumping Wilson they forced terms on Germany that made WWII inevitable.

    I'm comfortable with my knowledge and interpretations of history. I'm not a memorizer, so don't ask me to regurgitate dates, names, etc. I am more what I would call an "understander." I think about things and relate them to other things, challenge book solutions, and look for deeper meanings. Sure, I get it wrong at times, and I certainly probably sometimes see things that aren't really there. I'm comfortable with my track record.

    I put these ideas out for others to consider in their own quests for understanding. Party lines and status quo answers are sold elsewhere. I'll be the first one to admit that America has stepped on a lot of toes over the years. Sometimes intentionally, sometimes just being a bit clumsy. I'm simply saying that we might want to step back a few inches and be a bit more tolerant of others a bit less intrusive in the governance and morality of the world.
    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. #59
    Council Member marct's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Ottawa, Canada
    Posts
    3,682

    Thumbs up You really are an idealist, Bob

    Quote Originally Posted by Bob's World View Post
    Ken the way I look at it I should not have to tone down what I think needs to be done to move forward simply becuase it suggests actions required of elected officials that they historically prove themselves unlikely to take on. I'll set the bar where it needs to be, not where I think they can clear it.
    Good for you. I took that line years ago when I was heavily involved in politics; didn't work then and probably won't work now, but I can at least live with myself.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bob's World View Post
    It is incumbent upon an informed populace to demand more of its governance when it falls short. Consider this my demand.
    Sure, it's an axiomatic assumption if a democracy of any form is actually going to work as more than a mobocracy. Unfortunately, most of our (Western) democracies are dominated by political parties rather than any real grass roots type of democratic organizations, and one of the unfortunate truisms about political parties is that they are all focused on either maintaining or getting into power. In addition, there are some very strong institutions operating that do not want the populace to be informed except as that term is used by propagandists.
    Sic Bisquitus Disintegrat...
    Marc W.D. Tyrrell, Ph.D.
    Institute of Interdisciplinary Studies,
    Senior Research Fellow,
    The Canadian Centre for Intelligence and Security Studies, NPSIA
    Carleton University
    http://marctyrrell.com/

  20. #60
    Council Member slapout9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    4,818

    Default Is Bob's World Really Billy Jack?

    Is BW really Billy Jack????

    Scene from Billy Jack goes to Washington.


    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oqBynKxAiiI

Similar Threads

  1. Paper: Rethinking Role of Religious Conflict in Doctrine
    By milnews.ca in forum Social Sciences, Moral, and Religious
    Replies: 46
    Last Post: 01-18-2010, 03:01 AM
  2. FYI--Draft Paper on Insurgent Motivation
    By SteveMetz in forum Adversary / Threat
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 07-17-2009, 10:28 AM
  3. Youth Radicalization or Extremism research
    By Beelzebubalicious in forum RFIs & Members' Projects
    Replies: 25
    Last Post: 03-11-2009, 01:52 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
  •