Joint India Indonesian Army Exercise Garud Shakti Concludes.

[Dayuhan]

Read my post carefully, I said "set conditions" for these revolutions to take place, whether we promote them or not. I would argue most of the time the consequences were unintended. I also said promote, not cause. We have promoted the ideas of freedom and democracy throughout the world, and given hope to the oppressed (intended or not).

Rebellion against tyranny and foreign occupation is as old as tyranny and foreign occupation, which is pretty old. Certainly rebellion against tyranny and foreign occupation dates back to well before the concept of democracy... in fact it dates back to a time when folks in "the West" were still painting themselves bright colors and bashing each other with clubs. Our ideas have likely shaped the rhetoric of rebellion to some degree (the ideas of communism, if not the substance, have also helped shape and inspire many rebellions against tyranny) but I think we're giving ourselves way too much credit if we pretend that there would be no rebellions without our ideas or our promotion of those ideas.

People can act out in anger, but unless they pull off a rapid coup it is unlikely they will be successful unless they receive foreign support. Much like we did during the American Revolution. Never say always, nevery say never, but generally this is the case. Most people won't act unless there is a reasonable degree of hope of being successful. We provide that with information (specified and implied).

Again I think this overlooks a key element in the dynamics of rebellion. Oppressive regimes are typically in a constant state of very low level rebellion. People are constantly pushing the regime. Most of these efforts fail, and most are never even noticed by outsiders, but the populace sees very clearly. They also see when the point comes when the regime fails to push back, when the security forces waver, when the people around the tyrant seem ready to break away. The key element is not foreign support, unless the foreign support comes in the form of direct military intervention. If the regime is strong, foreign support doesn't matter: all the moral support and democratic ideals on earth couldn't make Tiananmen succeed. They won't bring down Assad either.

The key to me is not the foreign support (again barring direct intervention), but rather the moment when the populace perceives that the tyrant has lost his mojo. The aura of invincibility shatters, the barons start looking for a new leader, the armed forces become reluctant to use force lest they be held accountable down the line. Once that perception hits, it snowballs very fast. It's an internal phenomenon and it has little or nothing to do with foreign support.

We should take credit where it is due, and not be overly influenced by our excessively left leaning educational institutions who find wrong in everything our nation does. We are far from perfect, and often not moral, because in the real world nations pursue their self interests, yet quite frequently and more than any other nation we have done a lot of good.

We sometimes take credit where it's not due, and we sometimes assume that all that happens in the world revolves around us and our influence. Recently on another thread I saw a comment that one positive outcome of the Vietnam War is that "we" prevented a communist takeover of Indonesia and Thailand. Didn't say anything, as it wasn't an appropriate venue for dispute, but definitely a bit of the "whoa, say what?" reaction...