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.
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.
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.
Bookmarks