Defining Insurgency

[Dayuhan]

Originally Posted by Bob's World

Freedom house rankings are based on how the populaces of each country feel. It is not some western team showing up with a western ruler and judging by western perspectives.

A few clips from what Freedom House says, here:

http://www.freedomhouse.org/template...=341&year=2008

The survey operates from the assumption that freedom for all peoples is best achieved in liberal democratic societies.

The survey findings are reached after a multilayered process of analysis and evaluation by a team of regional experts and scholars

The Freedom House rankings are measurements of how close a given state comes to the Western ideal of liberal democracy. They do not and do not claim to measure a populace's perceptions of its government.

You stated that the insurgent populaces of Iraq and Afghanistan are the least of our problems, and I asked which insurgent populaces you believe to be greater problems. You stated that you support empowerment, and I asked whom you propose to empower, and how. These are not efforts to twist or distort, I'm simply seeking clarification of comments you made. Given that these are quite central to the matter under discussion, I think those questions deserve answers.

[Bob's World]

The principles of liberal democracy are different than saying liberal democracy is the type of government everyone should have. In fact, probably the primary tenant would be that of self-determination, and if the populace wants a king, who adheres strictly to Sharia, and they have the mechanisms available to them to ensure the King stays on that track, then one could argue that is liberal democracy at work. It is certainly in sync with the principles the US was founded upon.

#1 insurgency the US needs to worry about: The one in Saudi Arabia.

Now, I realize you say "what insurgency?" Fine, I say there is one, and it is the pulsing heart of what the US calls the GWOT. 9000 Saudis arrested and jailed with no rights to trial or habeas corpus since 2003 on charges of "Terrorism." Now clearly there have not been 9000 acts or attempted acts of terrorism in Saudi Arabia since 2003, so one must presume there are networks of those who are collaborating and plotting to act illegally against the state and their membership is being sniffed out and rolled up.

In a county with 1/10th the population of the U.S. this is equivalent to 90,000 Americans being pulled out of their homes, their college dorm rooms, their place of work in the middle of the night, thrown into a police car and hauled off never to be seen again over that same period of time.

The Saudis are backing off from some of their more harsh tactics (reportedly). but have always employed the major tactic of letting these guys out of jail if the simply promise to take their fight elsewhere, and has thus always been a primary source of foreign fighters, be it to fight with the Muj during the Cold War; or now in this post-Cold War era to provide manpower to efforts such as AQ's to support their larger cause, while at the same time clinging to their nationalist cause at home.

Why is this most important to the US? Saudi Arabia has the most oil, American oil companies developed that oil, and we have a close post-WWII relationship. Much of the failings of the Saudi government are blamed on Western influence and money that have had a corrupting effect. Probably a lot of truth to that. By working to sustain the status quo in Saudi Arabia and attacking the spokes of the problem that come out of that hub, we empower AQ's message. Even if we deal with a spoke in Iraq (though I don't think anything about Iraq had anything to do with AQ or this Saudi factor. We built the spoke to Iraq when we invaded) or the AFPAK region, it merely leads to new spokes developing out to other areas or reinforces current ones into places like Yemen and North Africa and the Horn of Africa.

But we think COIN is war, and we don't want to wage war in Saudi Arabia, and neither do the Saudis want the American's showing up with their big, clumsy COIN machine. But the hard truth is that less is more, but understanding what aspects of governance are them most important, and tailoring them to the very real concerns of both the Saudi populace and the Saudi Government we can turn down the heat in Saudi Arabia in a way that causes these spokes to retract, that makes a huge powerful Stratcom message for the US that cuts to the heart of AQ's message, and that is executed within our value system without asking the Saudis to act outside their value system either.

By usurping AQ's role as the solution to the problem we reduce the perception that the US is the source of the problem. The US had a very positive relationship in much of the Middle East back when we had to tiptoe around careful not to upset the European and Ottoman powers who had staked claim to the region. It was only once those powers retracted and we filled that vacuum that things began to go downhill. The factors of increased petro riches and the politics of Cold War Containment exacerbated these factors, as has the increase in communications technology. Islam is under pressure, and much as little to do with the US, but the US has set itself up to be the easy outside party to blame it on.

How does "Empowerment" work? To be candid, I'm not sure. Currently it is a fuzzy concept woven throughout the administration's foreign and domestic policy output; but there is certainly no clear framework for what exactly it means or how to implement it. There is also the inertia of Containment. The boss is asking for empowerment, but everyone around him is trained, organized, equipped, experienced, etc in containment. So what he says and what his implementors hear and do are two different things. I think one can see this in some of the frustration between the white house and their action arms.

I do think that empowerment means working toward people having legal means to express their concerns and to address their governments that are developed and tailored locally between those respective governments and populaces. I don't think that means we make everyone a mini-me US brand democracy.

I do think that empowerment is the opposite of what we are doing in Afghanistan. That is probably more accurately "Enablement." We enable the Karzai regime to be ineffective and corrupt by our very presence and approach to the problem. We also disempower the populace by enabling the government to disconnect their historic means of shaping government (the use of shuras, Jirgas; and when that fails swords and rifles). So empowerment means changing how we engage governments and populaces both, and relinquishing a lot of control over outcomes. Tricky stuff. It may just fizzle out and never take root. That is what happened to FDR. He to had a bold vision, but his death and the realities of the post-WWII developments combined to put his vision on the shelf. I see a lot of FDR's vision in Empowerment. We'll see. Maybe it's time has come, or maybe it is still a bit too "pie in the sky" for the dirty realities of maintaining one's status at the top of the heap.

[jmm99]

The "slippery slope" argument to my eyes has never been overwhelming in and of itself. We can put the brakes on the "downward slide", or prevent it completely, often via use of ad hoc barriers.

That being said, words like "empowerment", "self-determination" and "good governance" can mean different things to different people. Colbert King brought that out earlier this year in President Obama, Marion Barry: Two takes on 'empowerment' (WP):

By Colbert I. King
Saturday, February 20, 2010

President Obama and D.C. Council member Marion Barry obviously had something different in mind when they each recently referred to the notion of "empowerment."

In his Feb. 1 National African American History Month proclamation, President Obama said he selected the theme "The History of Black Economic Empowerment" to honor African Americans who overcame racial barriers to reach "financial independence and the security of self empowerment that comes with it."

Barry, used it, too, when he defended himself this week against a D.C. Council-authorized independent investigation that found that, among other improper actions, he had benefited from a city contract that he obtained for a former girlfriend. Claiming he is a "different kind of council member," Barry said he sought office to get resources to the people of his ward, and do all he could "to empower them."

Unlike Barry's use of the word, Obama's "empowerment" referred to African American trailblazers who overcame racial prejudice to become skilled workers, professionals and entrepreneurs. Obama praised that generation of African Americans who acquired land and founded banks, educational institutions, newspapers, hospitals and businesses of all kinds. His proclamation honored those who rose above "the injustices of their time" -- black codes, Jim Crow laws -- to take actions that bettered their lives and those of others. ... (much more in the WP article)

The article was spurred by this year's theme for African American History Month, "The History of Black Economic Empowerment" and President Obama's Proclamation for that event. When you go to that link, you might avail yourself of "Search WhiteHouse.gov" and enter - empowerment. 81 items returned as I type this.

You will find in those entries something of a trinity composed of "empowerment, good governance, and economic opportunity" as in the July 21, 2010 Statement on the President's Forum with Young African Leaders.

More practically (how does "empowerment" fit into the foreign policy of the Obama administration), Democracy & Human Rights (based on the President's Cairo Speech) sets the scene.

First generally:

The President said that no system of government can or should be imposed upon one nation by any other, but that America is committed to advancing governments that reflect the will of the people. He committed the U.S. to support human rights everywhere: the ability of people to speak their mind and to have a say in how they are governed; confidence in the rule of law and the equal administration of justice; government that is transparent and doesn’t steal from the people; and the freedom to live as people choose. Governments that protect these rights, the President said, are ultimately more stable, successful and secure.

The U.S. works to advance democracy and human rights by living these values at home, standing up for human rights in public and in multilateral institutions, speaking frankly and consistently about these issues with governments and civil society, and supporting democracy advocates and civic groups working bravely to expand freedom in difficult environments.

and specifically to "empowerment":

Strengthening Civil Society: The U.S. supports local civil society groups working for political, economic, and social empowerment in their home countries through a variety of programs, and local grants now represent more than half of MEPI’s projects across the Middle East and North Africa.

Potentially, "empowerment" could be a very broad construct - once you've covered "political, economic, and social", what's left ? Shades of a new "New Frontier" to a global "Great Society" ? - or will the "empowerment struggle" lead more to localized Marion Barrys (see Colbert King link) ?

In the end, the US COAs will be affected by the elections next month and in 2012 - but those elections will not necessarily determine those COAs (e.g., 1964 when LBJ ran as something of a "peace candidate", as did Nixon in 1968).

Regards

Mike

[Bob's World]

Mike,

Nice pull. I had plucked the word empowerment out of the NSS, and I too put it into the search function on WhiteHouse.Gov while writing my paper. What you've laid out here is very helpful.

A couple of the best examples of what this means for foreign policy are the President's recent speech to the UN on 23 September; from that speech:

“The common thread of progress is the principle that government is accountable to its citizens. And the diversity in this room makes clear -- no one country has all the answers, but all of us must answer to our own people.”

(I would argue that we currently enable many governments to ignore their populaces, and that this more than any factor gets to the roots of GWOT)

And also his clear deliniation between the government of Iran and the people of Iran when he sign the Iran sanctions: http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-...-sanctions-act

[Pete]

Originally Posted by jmm99

That being said, words like "empowerment", "self-determination" and "good governance" can mean different things to different people. Colbert King brought that out earlier this year in President Obama, Marion Barry: Two takes on 'empowerment' (WP) ...

After his career of 30 years as a newspaperman in Washington DC my Dad said Marion Barry is a chameleon -- during the '60s he pretended to be a sharecropper, later he'd dress like a big businessman, and even later he professed to be a black nationalist.

[jmm99]

just so long as you understand that, from a political policy standpoint, I don't want either a new "New Frontier", a global "Great Society" or any other "Wilsonian" schematic (i.e., to make the World safe for democracy).

Some revision seems needed in the "Realist" view(s) of foreign policy; but that is another post.

Regards

Mike

[Bob's World]

FDR had four points, I think they are sound:

FDR’s vision centered famously on his “Four Freedoms;” freedom of religion and speech, and freedom from fear and want. Over the course of his final years, FDR worked to shape his full vision for the world which would emerge from WWII, adding:

• The Four Policemen – Recognizing the U.S. could and should not attempt to maintain stability around the world on her own; he envisioned a team made up of the U.S., Great Britain, Russia, and China. Each would have regional responsibilities, but also keep an eye on each other and work together where necessary to help keep a peace that supported the interests of all. He saw this as a more suitable replacement to a revival of the old League of Nations as promoted by Winston Churchill.

• The End of Colonialism - Enabling these societies to achieve independence through an evolution of governance, rather than revolution against governance; all under the watchful eye of the four policemen.

• The Right of Self-Determination – FDR recognized "the right of all peoples to choose the form of government under which they will live."

Realities are that FDR trusted Stalin more than he should have, and underestimated how much Churchill strongly distrusted the man and equally strongly wanted to re-establish control over lost colonies. Anyway, we slid into Cold War, Containment, let the Euros retain their colonies, and then fell into two generations of post colonial insurgency, now to be followed by a generation or two of post-Cold War insurgency. I think if FDR had lived, the Grand Strategy would have been a happy medium between his idealistic vision and what we ended up with.

(hey, I'm just an observer, you can't make this stuff up!)

[slapout9]

In that great big book that West Point puts out on Strategy in Chapter 16 I believe, you may find what empowerment means as far as what Government is supposed to do. There are basically 2 responsibilities.... to provide Protection and Prosperity. The same reason that people join gangs I might add. The 2 primary means to do this is a Sovereign military and the right to print Sovereign Money!!!!! Sovereign money is money created by the Government that is issued DEBT free, something we seem to forget we have the power to do, but choose not to. It is the reason that China is and will continue to kick our A?? economically anytime they want to. Strange that a communist government would use a Democratic idea to beat usthen again maybe not so strange. They are masters at Economic Insurgency.

[Dayuhan]

Originally Posted by Bob's World

#1 insurgency the US needs to worry about: The one in Saudi Arabia.
Now, I realize you say "what insurgency?" Fine, I say there is one, and it is the pulsing heart of what the US calls the GWOT. 9000 Saudis arrested and jailed with no rights to trial or habeas corpus since 2003 on charges of "Terrorism." Now clearly there have not been 9000 acts or attempted acts of terrorism in Saudi Arabia since 2003, so one must presume there are networks of those who are collaborating and plotting to act illegally against the state and their membership is being sniffed out and rolled up.

Ok, as you define “insurgency” there is one in Saudi Arabia; as the rest of the world defines “insurgency” there isn’t one. This I think highlights two problems with your proposed redefinition of the term.

The first problem is that if we adopt your definition of “insurgency”, we’re going to have to find another term for what everyone else calls “insurgency”, because they are two very different things. This kind of semantic realignment is going to cause a good bit of confusion in the discourse; might it not be better to let “insurgency” keep meaning what it already means and come up with a new term for what you’re proposing as the conditions that generate what we now call insurgency?

As a comparison: lack of clean water and sanitary facilities produce a high risk of a cholera epidemic. They are the conditions from which a cholera epidemic grows, and they must be corrected if the epidemic is to be averted or, once started, if it is to be halted. They are not a cholera epidemic and it would cause all kinds of confusion if we referred to them as such.

The second problem is that while your definition rests on popular sentiment toward government, we often need to apply it in places where we don’t know what that sentiment is. In practice, you seem to base your assessment not on popular sentiment, but on the existence of conditions that you believe should produce popular resentment. You seem to be saying that insurgency exists where governments that you dislike exist. I don’t think this works. Our perceptions of government in other countries are irrelevant, and our observations of popular sentiment in other countries are often highly speculative and heavily impacted by our prejudices. While your definition of insurgency may be valid (if semantically inconvenient for reasons stated above), it is extremely difficult to measure or assess, and thus difficult to base decisions on.

Originally Posted by Bob's World

By working to sustain the status quo in Saudi Arabia and attacking the spokes of the problem that come out of that hub, we empower AQ's message.

Are we working to sustain the status quo in Saudi Arabia? Not really. We protected them from outside aggression, yes, but that was a common interest and I doubt that turning the place over to Saddam would have won us any points with the Saudi populace. We kept troops there after Saddam was defeated because it was useful for us in ongoing operations in Iraq, not because the Saudis needed them to sustain the status quo. The Saudis don’t get or need any help from us in protecting their status quo from internal dissent.

Originally Posted by Bob's World

But the hard truth is that less is more, but understanding what aspects of governance are them most important, and tailoring them to the very real concerns of both the Saudi populace and the Saudi Government we can turn down the heat in Saudi Arabia in a way that causes these spokes to retract, that makes a huge powerful Stratcom message for the US that cuts to the heart of AQ's message, and that is executed within our value system without asking the Saudis to act outside their value system either.

It seems to me that when you bring that little “we” into the picture your argument goes completely off the rails. We can’t “turn down the heat in Saudi Arabia”. We have no influence at all on Saudi internal politics. None. The populace doesn’t want us messing in Saudi internal politics. Nobody wants us messing in Saudi internal politics. If we try the only beneficiary will be AQ.

Originally Posted by Bob's World

By usurping AQ's role as the solution to the problem we reduce the perception that the US is the source of the problem.

AQ isn’t filling that role. They tried, but they couldn’t persuade enough people that they offered a solution to allow them to fill that role in any viable way. Neither can we, and it would be silly for us to try. We are not the solution to Saudi Arabia’s internal political issues, and for us to try to force ourselves uninvited into the relationship between the government and its populace would be hubris to an extent bordering on insanity. It’s not our problem, we have no solution, we have no influence. Let it be.

Originally Posted by Bob's World

How does "Empowerment" work? To be candid, I'm not sure. Currently it is a fuzzy concept woven throughout the administration's foreign and domestic policy output; but there is certainly no clear framework for what exactly it means or how to implement it. There is also the inertia of Containment. The boss is asking for empowerment, but everyone around him is trained, organized, equipped, experienced, etc in containment.

Is the boss asking for empowerment, or is the boss rolling out a buzzword that his audience likes to hear? Politicians do that. I don’t think Mr. Obama is naïve enough to think we have the right, the responsibility, or the capacity to designate ourselves as the empowerer of the world’s populaces.

Originally Posted by Bob's World

I do think that empowerment is the opposite of what we are doing in Afghanistan. That is probably more accurately "Enablement." We enable the Karzai regime to be ineffective and corrupt by our very presence and approach to the problem. We also disempower the populace by enabling the government to disconnect their historic means of shaping government (the use of shuras, Jirgas; and when that fails swords and rifles). So empowerment means changing how we engage governments and populaces both, and relinquishing a lot of control over outcomes.

I don’t fully grasp how you reconcile a desire to relinquish control with proposals that, for example, we should turn down the heat in Saudi Arabia or take it on ourselves to empower others. Interference in the domestic affairs of other countries is not consistent with relinquishing control. It sounds to me like you're not arguing for relinquishing control or reducing interference, but for using control and interference to advance an agenda that we think is best for the populace. That seems to me a dangerous idea.

Originally Posted by Bob's World

(I would argue that we currently enable many governments to ignore their populaces, and that this more than any factor gets to the roots of GWOT)

Which governments do we enable to ignore their populaces? Certainly not the government of Saudi Arabia… but which others? I think you vastly overestimate the influence we have and the degree to which we can enable anyone to do anything… other than in Iraq and Afghanistan, of course; our two post-9/11 aberrations.

I realize that perception can mean more than reality, but our first step in devising a response to perception is to assess whether the perception is accurate. If a negative perception of a US policy is based on an actual policy, we may be able to change that perception by changing the policy. If a negative perception is inaccurate it’s a bit more difficult: we can’t stop doing what we’re not doing in the first place, and we can’t relinquish control that we haven’t got. Certainly there are things we can and should do, like resolving the engagements in Iraq and Afghanistan and making no more attempts to install governments, but they have to be based on what we are actually doing and what we can actually do.