Quote Originally Posted by Bob's World View Post
On my model I have a space for those populaces where there are high conditions of insurgency, but no actual insurgency exists. Either the populace is effectively suppressed from action out by the state, or they have opted to employ non-violent tactics. (In such a situation our doctrine only recognizes the situation as insurgency once the populace decides both to act out AND to do so violently.)
One thing to watch out for here is the tendency to define "conditions of insurgency" in Western terms that emphasize democracy and liberty. In much of the world populaces are willing to trade off liberty for security and prosperity, and a government that provides security and prosperity is able to get away with conditions that might easily spark revolt where poverty is higher.

The absence of violent resistance to Government in places like China and Saudi Arabia is not simply a function of suppression: that's a facile explanation that fits the model, but it's not adequate or accurate. The Saudis are no more free than they were during the oil glut and attendant economic crisis, but they are a lot more prosperous, and popular dissent has declined accordingly. China's economic boom has done a great deal to mute dissent. In both cases, despite political conditions that would drive an American to revolt, large-scale populace resistance to government is not likely to happen unless a significant economic upheaval arrives.

Fear is a powerful motivator. When people are financially secure they have something to lose. If they fear that the collapse of the established order is likely to produce conflict and insecurity and to threaten what they have, they may opt to support the established order despite its drawbacks. In much of the Arabian Gulf common citizens support their governments not because they love them, but because they fear chaos more than they fear tyranny.

Not the only factors in play, of course, but factors that have to be considered.

Rigidity of doctrine is always a mistake, and any time we fit circumstances into doctrine rather than adjusting doctrine to fit circumstances we are doing ourselves harm. The old rigid doctrine deserves to be challenged, but replacing it with equally rigid and equally absolutist ideas would be a mistake, IMO.

Quote Originally Posted by jcustis View Post
We may split hairs over tools and framework, but wow, a lot of the current boing-on would have never registered with me as likely to happen.

Libya with reports of 40-50 shot dead by security forces.
Bahrain with reports of several killed dead in clashes with security forces, and the key terrain of the traffic circle seized again by the protesters.
Egypt at a low, slow simmer that has everyone watching...

What's next, and what the US does to try to steer the situation to an outcome that favors, will be terribly important, but I wonder just how important the five years after 2011 are in the minds of the people trying to forge a plan...and policy. The old ways of looking at things just a year ago seem to be changing at the rate of the microchip.
I wouldn't have called any of it "unlikely"... all of these (with the possible exception of Bahrain) were clearly unstable situations with high potential for rapid change. The timing of course is never predictable, and the rapid sequence of near-simultaneous outbursts does come across as a surprise. If any one of these countries saw a popular uprising it would not come as any special surprise, I think... they all had it coming.

Steering the situation to an outcome that favors requires a good assessment of interest. I hope we take a long-term view and try to foster real independence, even if it means dealing with people we're uncomfortable with and dealing with governments that perceive their interests as diverging from ours. I think, for example, that it would be a very bad idea for us to push openly or covertly for exclusion of the Muslim Brotherhood from governance in Egypt.

I suspect that the next 5 years will be very difficult ones in Tunisia and Egypt. It would be lovely to see a clean transition to democracy and prosperity, but it's not likely to be so easy.