Tunisia: catch all

[jmm99]

from BW
What is going on across North Africa today is a good thing.

when it (what is going on) has just started.

Your arguments have remarkable prescient and crystalball powers - Mandrake the Magician, so to speak.



Regards

Mike

[carl]

Counselor Jones:

I am just speaking as a member of the jury and telling you what seems to work on me.

You said "it was about the pursuit of liberty" and ideology didn't matter. I said liberty didn't have much do with communism and ideology did matter and it was competing with other ideologies. Then you tell me below

I am no fan of communism, but name for me please a single country that employed a communist ideology to overthrow, or attempt to overthrow their government that had a government in place that drew its legitimacy from the govern populace and was responsive to their reasonable demands. Just one. And if you find that one, I will find five to match on the other side.

Now after hearing that I am a befuddled juror. You were talking about liberty and ideology and now you are talking about governments that were overthrown. Where did liberty go? Communism and liberty didn't mix. That is well known by all but somehow it had something to do with liberty. If us jurors can't follow your train of thought you arguments will be weakened.

Now we have another problem with this statement.

Is Communism a "benign" ideology? Yes. Did it reshape Western Colonial control of Asia? Equally yes.

As a juror my first reaction to this statement is "Huh?" Communism benign? Yes it did reshape things but at the cost of how many tens of millions of dead? These types of statements just cause head shaking in the jury room.

The real ideology in all of those places, times and example was the ideology of liberty and self-determination.

No, I think not. That may have been the aspiration, but ideology was a tool to get there. If they chose communism, boy did they get had.

[Bob's World]

Carl,

You are a victim of effective propaganda. Think about it. When a populace is ripe for change it will take whatever bus pulls up to the stop. But once the dust settles, the ideology is typically moot. Look at all of the primarily Protestant countries today. Not all that radical, just a bunch of largely democratic capitalists. Look at all of the primarily communist countries today. Similarly, these too are morphing into a bunch of captitalists. They have a way to go on human rights, but these things take time.

Same with the Islamists. They are not the enemy, they are merely driving the bus. All we have to do is provide those same popualaces with an alternative to the Islamist bus. Tunisia is leaning away from the Islamists, and I suspect Egypt will as well. No one wants to sign up for a bad deal, but they will to get out of a worse deal.

[Bob's World]

when it (what is going on) has just started.

Your arguments have remarkable prescient and crystalball powers - Mandrake the Magician, so to speak.



Regards

Mike

But then, this has been going on for centuries. We are merely watching the most recent installment. Anytime dictators shake in fear I think it is a good thing. But that's just me. Many people worry about it simply because they are "our dictators."

We are America. We shouldn't have dictators. I stand by that, and I stand by my assessment that this is a "good thing."

[carl]

Carl,

You are a victim of effective propaganda. Think about it. When a populace is ripe for change it will take whatever bus pulls up to the stop. But once the dust settles, the ideology is typically moot. Look at all of the primarily Protestant countries today. Not all that radical, just a bunch of largely democratic capitalists. Look at all of the primarily communist countries today. Similarly, these too are morphing into a bunch of captitalists. They have a way to go on human rights, but these things take time.

Same with the Islamists. They are not the enemy, they are merely driving the bus. All we have to do is provide those same popualaces with an alternative to the Islamist bus. Tunisia is leaning away from the Islamists, and I suspect Egypt will as well. No one wants to sign up for a bad deal, but they will to get out of a worse deal.

Counselor Jones:

It is unhelpful when trying to sway a juror to tell them that they have been duped. It may or may not be true but it pre-disposes the juror to disregard everything else you have to say and vote against you.

Your dismissal of the importance of ideology because "we all end up in the same place anyway" has always bugged me. I've heard that argument or a variation of it since college and it always struck me as fatuous wisdom pronounced from an ivory tower way high up in the clouds and a long way away. Yes it is true that communism may be morphing into capitalism and that morphing does take time; but that argument breezily dismisses the millions and millions and millions of dead, the oceans of hard soul destroying suffering, the starvation and horror that that portion of humanity living under the communists had to take while the ideology that inflicted it was getting around to transforming.

A particular ideology did that to those people. It does matter.

[Bob's World]

Did they die because the oppressors fought to keep them in chains, or because of the ideology they adopted to break free?

Fact is that self-serving and evil men prey on vulnerable governments and populaces. Often a populace ends up in worse hands than what they had before. That is far more a function of the nature of man than a function of the nature of ideology.

[slapout9]

Similarly, these too are morphing into a bunch of captitalists.

Thats the Big Con Job. There is very little difference between to the two. BOTH end up with a non-elected, non-accountable elite few in control of the vital system of production. The only real difference was one would have power primarily concentrated in Labor Unions the other in Communist Corporations...so far the Corporations are winning.

[carl]

Did they die because the oppressors fought to keep them in chains, or because of the ideology they adopted to break free?

Counselor, there you go befuddling this juror again. The Russians in their millions and the Chinese in their millions died at the hands of communists who decided that they should. At the time, those communists were quite vocal about saying that everything they did was in the name of and to further communism, their ideology. That is what I know.

Fact is that self-serving and evil men prey on vulnerable governments and populaces. Often a populace ends up in worse hands than what they had before. That is far more a function of the nature of man than a function of the nature of ideology.

This juror is longing to look at the guy seated next to him to exchange a look but won't because it is contrary to the decorum of the court.

Yes, it is in the nature of man to do bad things. And it is in nature that some men do more bad things than other men. And some ideologies make it easier for men to do bad things. Bad men tend to gravitate to those ideologies. Mao probably couldn't have done the things he did if he was a Quaker so he didn't long to be a Friend. Communism made it much easier for him. It was an ideology that facilitated evil to a greater extent than Quakerism.

Ideologies matter.

[Dayuhan]

We need to recognize and prioritize the opportunity currently provided by the people of the region. We need to lend stability to these inevitable transitions, to empower and facilitate evolution of government in order to prevent revolution of government. This means a mix of both assuring allies and cautioning/threatening them to be careful in how they respond to their populaces. Similarly to be supportive and cautioning/threatening to these populaces as well in regards to how we support peaceful evolution, self-determination and the principles we proclaim so loudly in our own founding documents; but that we will not stand idly by to outrages on the part of either side.

I know this is said with the best of intentions, but have you any idea how patronizing and paternalistic it sounds? It also sets up a quintessentially American situation: we come riding over the hill pronouncing loudly "fear not, America is here to lend stability, to empower and facilitate, to guide and enlighten"... then we get all wounded and resentful when the populace tells us to piss off and die.

Don't think the populaces of these countries are going to welcome us with open arms and gratitude just because our intentions are noble. They won't. They don't trust us. They assume, not without reason, that we are interfering to advance our own interests. Nobody in the Middle East is going to believe that America is intervening to support the common people. Not too many in America would believe it. I'm not sure I'd believe it.

One of the great cognitive dissonances that dominates this debate is the assumption that because dictator X or despot Y is "a US ally", they must therefore be a US dependent or a US puppet, and that therefore the US can make them stop being naughty if we only try. This is a load of bollocks. An ally is simply a nation with which we share a common interest at any given point, not a nation that we control. We have a whole lot less influence over these nations than some people like to think, and they are not going to change simply because we tell them to. We can caution and threaten all we want: we will generally be ignored. Governments around the world, even our allies, don't do what we tell them to do. I'd have thought that obvious.

I also do not think for a moment that AQ is an expression of a desire for freedom and liberty. I don't think AQ has anything to do with freedom and liberty, nor does anyone in the Middle East think they do. They draw support as long as they fight foreign invasion of Muslim lands: that's the narrative that works for them, that's why they so badly needed the US to come into Afghanistan.

It is true that AQ has tried to raise populaces against Arab leaders. It's important to note, though, that these attempts have failed miserably. They had their best shot in Saudi Arabia in the 90s. That should have been fertile ground for them: an unpopular and unrepresentative government, US troops all over the place, a severe recession driven by an oil glut widely perceived to be forced by the US. They still failed. They drew support from a small fringe, but the populace never joined in, they never came close to critical mass, and the effort fell flat. That's not because the populace loved the royals, they just didn't see AQ as a viable alternative. They are willing to send support to AQ, cheer for AQ, send fighters to help the cause... as long as the jihad is somewhere else. When it comes home, it's a different story.

It would be a huge mistake to think that everyone who supports AQ wants AQ to take power in their own country. There are plenty in the Gulf who will willingly wallow in wanton western ways 6 days a week and salve their conscience by writing a check to Jihad Inc on the 7th. They aren't that different from the Christers in that respect, and that does not mean they want Osama in charge of their lives. They just like the idea of him fighting the good fight against the infidel... somewhere else.

We have an opportunity for "Malaya in the Desert," but that will only happen if we can break our Cold War paradigms and find the right balance between stability and change, between governments and populaces, between influence and control.

We can't have a "Malaya in the desert", because our position in the desert is in no way analogous to the British position in Malaya. Malaya was under British control. We cannot adjust government/populace relations in the Middle East, because we aren't the government. We cannot exercise or relinquish control in the Middle East, because we haven't any control to exercise or relinquish.

[jmm99]

from BW
We are America. We shouldn't have dictators.

No, we Americans shouldn't have dictators.

But, by what right have you or any other American to extend that "shouldn't have" to the rest of the World ?

I expect you were happy with the President's speech, which was pure Wilsonialism. Woodrow would have been proud.

But then, I'm but an old dinosaur - nigh onto ready to share space with Henry Cabot Lodge:

The United States is the world's best hope, but if you fetter her in the interests and quarrels of other nations, if you tangle her in the intrigues of Europe, you will destroy her powerful good, and endanger her very existence. Leave her to march freely through the centuries to come, as in the years that have gone. Strong, generous, and confident, she has nobly served mankind. Beware how you trifle with your marvelous inheritance; this great land of ordered liberty. For if we stumble and fall, freedom and civilization everywhere will go down in ruin.

Substitute the "intrigues of the Arab World" for the "intrigues of Europe".

Regards

Mike

[Ken White]

Russia vs the Romanovs?
Maoist China vs the pro-west Nationalists?
French dominated, then US dominated Vietnam?
Batista's Cuba?
British dominated Malaya?
US dominated Philippines?

The simple fact is that in post WWI and post WWII upheavals, communism was an ideology of change that spoke to populaces seeking change.

That is true -- why do you not at least note the fact that it failed in its promise in all of those nations, that it killed more people than the regimes it replaced? Your concern for the oppressed is noteworthy. It is also IMO excessive in that your concern insists that they behave as you propose and not as they might wish. You need to remove the blinders.

Further evidence of that:

Is Protestantism a "benign" ideology? Yes. Did it take down an empire? Equally yes.

Is Communism a "benign" ideology? Yes. Did it reshape Western Colonial control of Asia? Equally yes.

Is Islamism a "benign" ideology? Yes. Will it reshape Western influence over North Africa and the Middle East. Most likely.

The real ideology in all of those places, times and example was the ideology of liberty and self-determination.

The Protestantism that took down an empire was far from benign, it was ferociously militant and violent -- even cruel. It may be benign now but it was not at all benign back in the day.

Communism as perverted by the USSR and China is responsible for more deaths than the World Wars. And you call that benign? Hmmph.

Islamism is not benign. Islam is, the -ism is not. None of the -isms are particularly benign and that includes 'Americanism.'

I'm sorry if that hurts the feelings of some, but the historic facts can be argued, but they are what they are.

That's not going to hurt the feelings of anyone. Though it could to call your logic into question...

OTOH, this:

Carl,

You are a victim of effective propaganda.

is borderline insulting. One who disagrees with you is the victim of propaganda? The implication there is that you have found the Holy Grail and the path of true righteousness and anyone who disagrees is deluded. Heh. Here's a possible delusion:

...Did they die because the oppressors fought to keep them in chains, or because of the ideology they adopted to break free?

Fact is that self-serving and evil men prey on vulnerable governments and populaces. Often a populace ends up in worse hands than what they had before. That is far more a function of the nature of man than a function of the nature of ideology.

While I can agree that mankind is most at fault -- As I have said many times (and with particular reference to the US, another factor you tend to ignore) -- that does not give the ideology that they co-opted a pass. Your reference to ideology "driving the bus" is somewhat apt and if that bus is deliberately running down pedestrians and smashing cars, the driver is at fault. You cannot give him a pass, Mister Prosecutor...

Here are two quotes, the first from Dayuhan, the second from jmm99. I commend both to you for thought.

""have you any idea how patronizing and paternalistic it sounds? It also sets up a quintessentially American situation: we come riding over the hill pronouncing loudly "fear not, America is here to lend stability, to empower and facilitate, to guide and enlighten"... then we get all wounded and resentful when the populace tells us to piss off and die.""

""But, by what right have you or any other American to extend that "shouldn't have" to the rest of the World ?""

[Cliff]

Carl,

You are a victim of effective propaganda. Think about it. When a populace is ripe for change it will take whatever bus pulls up to the stop. But once the dust settles, the ideology is typically moot. Look at all of the primarily Protestant countries today. Not all that radical, just a bunch of largely democratic capitalists. Look at all of the primarily communist countries today. Similarly, these too are morphing into a bunch of captitalists. They have a way to go on human rights, but these things take time.

Bob, are you actually arguing that the path these countries took is for the best? Can you really say that ideology is moot? You do realize that for a long time no one had a clue about the horrors that were being perpetrated by Stalin and Lenin, and actually fell for the Soviet propaganda about how successful and happy the USSR was. The UK, Germany, France, Italy - all were considering adopting socialism/communism. At the same time, Stalin was killing millions of his own folks. This was not because the folks got on whatever bus pulled up to the stop- it was because Lenin intentionally undermined the Russian government.

Same with the Islamists. They are not the enemy, they are merely driving the bus. All we have to do is provide those same populaces with an alternative to the Islamist bus. Tunisia is leaning away from the Islamists, and I suspect Egypt will as well. No one wants to sign up for a bad deal, but they will to get out of a worse deal.

I don't think the Islamists are driving the bus. They are attempting to fulfill their interests... by shaping the narrative and seizing power. They haven't been effective anywhere where they haven't had massive external support. That isn't the same thing as being in charge.

I agree with Dayuhan and the other folks - we cannot "provide an alternative" in some deux ex machina way. We can encourage, support, help... and I agree with you that we should strive to always set the example. But we can't stop working with every government in the world that doesn't conform to our notions of democracy... we would end up isolating ourselves and would actually be less effective at supporting democracy worldwide. The best thing we can do to help is be ourselves, keep talking to the folks in these countries, and try and build as many economic, social, and military ties with them so that if things do change we have some personal relationships and a basic level of trust to start from. As you say, it must be the people's choice- and if you look at history they are far more likely to choose freedom and democracy if they have a basic level of economic well-being first.

Finally, I agree with Dayuhan about the arrogance element... it took us (the United States) over 200 years to fully reach the basic level of freedom that you are arguing we should "provide" to the people in the Arab world... In the meantime we severely repressed multiple ethnic groups, most of which conducted what most folks on this esteemed board would term insurgencies. Oh yeah, and one of those insurgencies resulted in a full-up civil war that cost the nation 700,000 casualties. All in the name of ideology...

If we applied the same patience to our dealings with other countries, we would be a lot better off and avoid a lot of the interventions Dayuhan warns against. Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it after all...

V/R,

Cliff

[Bob's World]

Yes, Ideology is moot.

As ken points out people in such periods of popular revolt and turmoil are just as ruthless under Methodist ideology as they are under Communist ideology as they are under Islamist ideology.

It is not, and never has been, about ideology. Every insurgency must employ one to be successful, but it is only the grease that keeps things moving and the glue that binds things together. The energy behind such movements is always the nature of the relationship between those who govern and those who are governed.

Mike: I totally agree that it is not our call to shape governments for others. My comment is only that the tried and true foreign policy TTP of nurturing and supporting foreign despots is obsolete and also the primary reason that nationalist insurgents sign up for the AQ road team to bring violence to America. This was becoming apparent in the information age of Steam and teletypes when the British Empire rolled up in the face of popular pressure. It is far more true today. Now, if a populace WANTs a dictator, the US should not interfere with that either. To pick such a leader, if done openly, is a form or self-determination and democracy. Not our call to judge.

Ciff: I feel where you are coming from, but you are operating off of some bad data (and our "no blame on the US" version of history and our flawed COIN doctrine and analysis of GWOT don't help). The US Civil war, for example, was by no logical definition an "insurgency." It was legal politics at work. The duly elected representatives of several states exercised principles of democracy to join together and suceed from the Union. The Unions government disagreed with their right to do so, and acted to overcome that political action with military force to bring them back into the Union. Not an insurgency. A new nation was formed and then the two nations waged war against each other to determine if that action would stand.

Insurgency is illegal politics, and exercised outside of the formal governmental process.

[Surferbeetle]

Bob,

Too many hours in air conditioned staff-land can result in the attitude that flippantly sprinkling some PowerPoint prose on a problem will result in it's immediate resolution by the little people.

Meanwhile, out in the hot sunshine of operations-land, the dirty boots folks (aka the little people) continue to sweat and sometimes die as they do their best to implement that PowerPoint prose.

Answering Dayuhan and Ken's last few posts point by point will require moving away from the intellectual a/c and engaging in some sweating on your part. Think of it as the equivalent of battlefield circulation with all of the benefits of perspective that that effort brings...

Steve

[Ken White]

Yes, Ideology is moot.

It cannot be moot if it is "the driver of the bus, the grease that keeps things moving and the glue that binds things together." If those are true allegories, I suggest that killing the driver can lead to a runaway bus, a little sand in the grease can destroy the gears and a bit of citric acid or a solvent will often turn a glue problem intro an unholy mess.

In any case, ideologies will cause changes and those frequently will not be benign. They will or may also call for some type of action on the part of involved or interested parties -- thus they are far from being moot.

As ken points out people in such periods of popular revolt and turmoil are just as ruthless under Methodist ideology as they are under Communist ideology as they are under Islamist ideology.

That's not exactly what I said or meant but thank you for making the point that people may be and usually are the problem -- however it is the ideology that skews their actions in a particular direction that may be inimical to good order...

The energy behind such movements is always the nature of the relationship between those who govern and those who are governed.

We can disagree on that, vehemently if necessary. You accord government / governance entirely too much sway and ideology -- or evil and a quest for money or power -- not enough...

On this:

Ciff: I feel where you are coming from, but you are operating off of some bad data (and our "no blame on the US" version of history and our flawed COIN doctrine and analysis of GWOT don't help).

Let me suggest once again that you're being borderline insulting. Stating flatly that another is operating off "bad data" and other deficient in your view factors is arrogant (which is okay by me, I indulge), an assumption on your part (which I try to and we all should avoid) and / or a sly way to lessen the impact of points or argument made by another (which most here try to avoid). In such a forum as this, it can be construed as unduly dismissive of the views of another by a process of implying evil intent or stupidity at worst, ignorance or inanity at best. Hopefully and probably, that's not your intent but the implication that what the other person said was ludicrous so thus can and should be dismissed isn't conducive to discussion.

[Bob's World]

Ideology gets a lot of attention. But it does not cause insurgency. Nor does ideology cause men to abuse power to kill other men without just cause.

Neither Christianity nor Islam have clean hands in that regard, with neither being distinguishably better or worse than the other in terms their historic records in that regard.

Similarly with political ideologies.

We can pick a nation, such as Vietnam and say "look at how many have suffered there under communism," and not be wrong in that assessment. It is a historic fact.

It is also a historic fact that Vietnam wanted to be free from Colonial rule, and that after assisting the West in defeating the Japanese with the promise/expectation that their liberation would be their reward, they were instead handed back to the French and expected to submit once again to colonial rule. It was only at that point that they embraced Mao's proven model and ideology to motivate the populace to stand up and seek liberty.

All of that could have been avoided if the US would have simply honored its commitment to Ho Chi Minh following WWII. If the U.S. would have simply recognized their universal right to liberty and self-determination.

To blame what followed on Communist ideology is a corruption of history and mis-understands the role of ideology in such movements.

A current vogue is "counter-radicalization" to un-brainwash those who buy into Islamist ideologies as the path to nationalist liberty in places that are currently in the news or bracing for their eventual move to the front page as popular revolt continues to spread.

I ask simply, is it the ideology of those promising liberty that "radicalizes" a populace, or is it the actions of a government that denies liberty that "radicalizes" a populace??

All things being equal, clearly some ideologies are more acceptable than others; but they are not the cause of radicalization, they are merely the vehicle that those radicalized by their own governments ride upon to liberty.

[Ken White]

Ideology gets a lot of attention. But it does not cause insurgency. Nor does ideology cause men to abuse power to kill other men without just cause.

The first clause is possibly true, the second is at a minimum arguable. That third assertion certainly does not merit the finality with which you state it, is an opinion and what is or is not a just cause is subjective. Many people are dead to due ideologies trumping reason. You have cited a few that fall in that 'incitement to homicide' state that was likely not justifiable by much of anyone other than the perpetrators at the time -- not least militant protestantism.

All of that could have been avoided if the US would have simply honored its commitment to Ho Chi Minh following WWII. If the U.S. would have simply recognized their universal right to liberty and self-determination.

More than arguable. Whether France would have acceded to such US 'recognition' cannot be known.

To blame what followed on Communist ideology is a corruption of history and mis-understands the role of ideology in such movements.

I did not see anyone make such a claim. Cannot speak for others but I referred to the deaths caused by that ideology and my reference was to those within and by the Soviet Union and China that directly resulted from autocrats perverting communism per se into an aberrant ideology. An ideology that was directly responsible for emplacement of those persons who caused those tens of millions of deaths within those two nations. What that ideology caused elsewhere is arguable but it, worldwide, emphatically was not benign or moot.

I ask simply, is it the ideology of those promising liberty that "radicalizes" a populace, or is it the actions of a government that denies liberty that "radicalizes" a populace??

You do not ask, you assert constantly that is the case. It is an opinion to which you are entitled but one which several of us with broadly equal experience do not agree. That type of radicalization frequently occurs. What also occurs is that ill intentioned people hijack an ideology for their own purposes, convince gullible persons to support them in the name of an ideology and set off in search of money or power and their concern for the populace is later revealed to be so much blather and the poor fools who bought into that ideology find they were duped and -- as in Iran -- are worse off than they were before they were 'helped.'

It would really be nice if things were simple, pity they aren't.

[Bob's World]

No it is indeed a question. Yes I believe based upon the totality of my training and experience for it to be true, but to the SWC it is indeed a question for them to ponder.

Certainly no less substantiated than so much the the theory that man creates to help to understand human conflict. Be it "war is war", or "sanctuary is ungoverned spaces" or CvC's trinity, etc, etc, etc. There are no absolutes, but some concepts are more helpful than others.

I believe that the majority position on ideology is biased by the natural tendency to avoid responsibility on the part of a government for rebellions within their own populaces ,or the populaces they seek to subjugate through colonization or some similar control and influence. I also believe it is a position that blinds governments to effective prevention and leads to greater human suffering than if they took a more responsible approach to governance. But I recognize I am out in front on this, and also that I may be out in front because I am headed in the wrong direction. But I don't think I am.

[slapout9]

What also occurs is that ill intentioned people hijack an ideology for their own purposes, convince gullible persons to support them in the name of an ideology and set off in search of money or power and their concern for the populace is later revealed to be so much blather and the poor fools who bought into that ideology find they were duped and -- as in Iran -- are worse off than they were before they were 'helped.'

Now that is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth!

[Ken White]

...to the SWC it is indeed a question for them to ponder.

Not just SWC, I think...

There are no absolutes, but some concepts are more helpful than others.

True. However, concepts that blind one to other possibilities are rarely helpful.

But I recognize I am out in front on this, and also that I may be out in front because I am headed in the wrong direction. But I don't think I am.

Of course you don't or you wouldn't beat it to death so regularly. I don't think you're headed in the wrong direction though it does often appear you have latched onto an overly specific azimuth of theory rather than a direction of travel -- and that to the exclusion of all others. "No deviants" amounts to an ideology...

That is of course your prerogative. I'd also suggest you are not out in front because what you posit is neither radical or innovative, you just are an exceptionally strong proponent for a theory espoused by others; Sachs, Nye, James Earl Carter et.al. currently, Aristotle way back when...

It's a theory. Like most it is often correct but sometimes wrong. As is always true, determining that a given theory is gospel (witness US Cold War theory...) can delude one into occasionally following a wrong path. As you say, there are no absolutes and it behooves one to not let a concept become concrete booties...