Quote Originally Posted by Bob's World View Post
When have I ever said the US should withdraw from the Middle East? Never. Ever. We are over engaged and have been since the end of WWII, shaping governance in ways that have helped disempower populaces from the process of governance and in ways that have enabled so many of these governments to act with growing impunity toward those same populaces. We need to change the nature of our engagement to one that is less controlling. To withdraw would leave a vacuum that would be a disaster that I would never advocate.
How have we negatively shaped governance in the past 10 years? What SPECIFIC methods could we use to influence these countries to change absent the expressed will of the people? Who will decide? Your viewpoint is almost that of Lenin - the US is the cadre that will lead the people to freedom by showing them the way... democracy works a lot better when people are actually willing to fight for it...

I will be the first to admit that I shine a harsh light on government. I do so for a range of reasons. Certainly I believe that government is the greatest source of causation for insurgency. I stand by that and will listen calmly to any who can point out situations where that is not the case. So, point one out and lets discuss it. But ideology is everywhere. In the US right now we are surrounded by the protestant ideologies that changed the West, by the communist ideologies that changed the East, and by the Islamist ideologies that are changing the Middle East. Yet where is the insurgency? We have economic hardships, we have a large segment of the populace that is extremely dissatisfied with the current governmeant, yet again, no insurgency? To understand insurgency one cannot merely study where it is, but one must also study where it is not. So ideology is not enough, poor economics are not enough, and a disdain for the current government are not enough. In some countries any one of those three might be enough on its own. What makes the difference?
How are we surrounded by communist and Islamist ideologies in the US? Or are you talking in the international environment?

But in America we are blessed with a uniquely reliable "hope" in the confidence that the vast majority of Americans have that the system will work. That voting is reasonably trustworthy and that a government will not override the system and ignore the popular will to stay in power through co-opting of the elements of state power. States without such hope are vulnerable, and insurgencies almost always happen in states where the legal means either never have existed or have been turned off by the government.
If this is true why did we not see insurgencies in the 19th century when voting was heavily rigged by political machines?

States where the populace does not recognize the right of the government to govern are similarly vulnerable to ideological attack. It is this aspect of "legitimacy" that is so important to stability, and it is not the same as "official". Also States where some segment of the populace is excluded from fair participation in economic and political opportunity. Or where the rule of law is perceived as unjust in its application. All of these factors of governance make a state vulnerable to ideological attack. States where those factors do not exist are remarkably stable, even when poverty and other problems are rampant. These are all things that are within the power of government to do well or poorly as they choose, and typically it is a conscious choice of government when they do not exist.
Can you please name me a few examples of democratic well governed countries with abject poverty where the population is happy/satisfied with their status?

How about China? Massive unfairness, numerous groups marginalized - why no insurgency there? They have a big lack of governance... how do you explain this? You seem to be disregarding culture and mirror-imaging...

Now, governments don't like to hear that. They like to hear that they are the victim of malign actors or radical ideology. They like to believe that it is the poor economy that is causing unrest or anything else that is outside their power to control. History just does not bear that out.
US Revolutionary War, French Revolution, Bolshevik Revolution- all caused in part by the collapse of said country's economies. Yes bad governance helped - but the primary cause was economic woes, often in the form of government debts. I would say history bears out that economic problems are often a big factor in sparking insurgency...

I would recommend to other Arab heads of state to consider similar changes to avoid the problems that have hit Tunisia and Egypt. I will not grant governments victim status. I will not shift the blame to the people, nor will I buy into positions that claim the people are brainwashed or coerced to act out. Certainly that happens, but it is the exception rather than the rule. These are things within the power of government to address. Currently these governments don't think they have to. I think they are wrong.
Bob, I'm not saying the people are brainwashed. The fact that they are part of a police state is obviously a huge factor.

But maybe, just maybe, could you admit that perhaps the fact that these countries have a lot of relatively well educated folks who don't have jobs, and their economies are stagnant when compared to even those of Africa, that this could be a factor in their discontent? Why do you think there are so many photos of Egyptians holding up bread at the protests?

Please provide concrete evidence to support your arguments if you disagree.

V/R,

Cliff