Ho Hum;Another Stupid War Of Choice

[Dayuhan]

That no "populace" is some homogeneous entity is implied; that all effective COIN is difficult is a certainty. Both of these facts are incorporated in my comments, and neither detracts from their value.

It seems to me that references to "the populace" or "a populace" explicitly deny and overlook the enormous rifts within these countries and the inclination of the involved populaces to fight each other.

To "the populace" (yes, ever dynamic and with varying issues and concerns within and between nations) it must be one that the US is consistent with our principles and that we will not act overtly to deny for others what we demand for ourselves; but neither will we dash about the world to carry such causes on our back.

Very well, but others may not be seeking what we demand for ourselves. Others may be - and in many cases are - seeking the ability to seize power for themselves and stomp the stuffing out of the people who used to have it and anyone else they dislike. We can't assume that anyone fighting against a bad government is fighting for liberty and good governance, or that liberty and good governance naturally follow the fall of bad governance.

To the governments of the region it is that the support of the U.S. does not come without condition. While history proves us to be far more respective of local legitimacy than those who have been similarly situated before us, our commitment to such largess has limits. We will not tolerate attacks on our own people by the people of others due to the bad acts those governments comment with impunity while emboldened and enabled by the nature of our intergovernmental relationships.

Our ability to impose conditions is proportional to the degree to which these governments seek and require our support. That degree is in many cases quite limited. The suggested degree to which many of these governments are "emboldened and enabled" by us remains undemonstrated and very debatable.

We will not allow without consequence the government of any of these nations employ inappropriate violence to suppress their people. What those consequences should most appropriately be is what the Obama administration is attempting to sort out. It will vary by situation, but should be clearly consistent as well.

We should never talk about what we will allow or tolerate unless we have the will and ability to back those remarks up with specific actions. If we have no such actions available, or if their likely consequences of those actions are worse for us than the consequences of not undertaking them, we're generally well advised to keep our mouths shut.

In Libya we engage to protect the people against the government.

We engage to protect some of the people against the government. The people supporting the government are people too. If rebels gain the upper hand and start killing loyalists, no we intervene on the other side? If the fight devolves into a protracted civil war with neither side able to gain the upper hand, do we take sides? Major can of worms there, an excellent reason to hand the intervention to the Europeans and back out.

In Saudi Arabia we look away and publicly support the fiction that the Saudis are fighting "terrorists" when they subdue their populace through harsh ways and means.

Are we supposed to say we won't allow or tolerate that? Backed up by what specific actions if what we say we won't allow or tolerate continues? What carrots or sticks have we to support any such position? What, specifically, would you have us do about it?

In Afghanistan we vigorously act in support of the government in its efforts to violently suppress the insurgent elements of their populace.

In Afghanistan we made the mistake of trying to install a government and dictate the form of another nation's government. Shock and horror, they governed like Afghans. Any government we replace them with will govern like Afghans. The lesson there is not that we need to install better governments, but that we need to stop trying to install governments.

We are conflicted. We really need to tighten our shot group on this.

True, but that starts with realistically assessing ends and means and making sure the two are proportional. Certainly bringing liberty and good governance to Libya, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Afghanistan and all the rest is a lovely and desirable end, but if we haven't the means to achieve that end we'd better not try.