The Arab Spring (a partial collection)

[Bob's World]

I put the beginning of the modern Arab Spring a bit in front of events in Tunisia in 2010.

In fact, over 100 years prior, with the Constitutional Revolutions in Turkey and Iran.

I also believe one gets to a clearer understanding if one applies the mechanical device definition to "spring" rather than the seasonal one.

Each of these complex, diverse populaces are like bundles of compressed srings beneath the weight of systems of governance that many have either never seen as legitimate, or that have come to be perceived as increasingly illegitimate over the years.

The Ottomans, the Europeans and the Americans have all worked to shape the region to their liking, and have served to keep such "springs" compressed. But once one "spring" moves they all being to quiver and become more likely of moving.

The falling away of the greater evil of potential Soviet dominion was, IMO, a major factor in beginning the quest to push back against local and foreign systems of inappropriate and/or illegitimate government. Early efforts were typically quashed, with the real trouble makers "encouraged" to go elsewhere to plot / wage their plots against external manipulators. The Saudis in particular have bought down risk in this manner in a major way. But the chickens are coming home to roost.

The empowering effects of modern information technologies are also a major factor. The more informed and empowered the people are, the more energy a government must apply to keem them in some situation against their will.

If our solution is to simply reinforce the status quo where we think that suits our external interests; or alternatively to help throw off the local system of governance where we think that best suits our interests, we will continue to be frustrated with the results. And we will continue to incite acts of transnational terrorism back onto ourselves as payment for our efforts.

We need to reframe the problem, and then reassess how we best get after securing ourselves and our interests. We will likely find that less is more, mediation is better than arbitration, and evolution is more productive than revolution.

But until this the "springs" will continue to uncoil.

[Dayuhan]

If our solution is to simply reinforce the status quo where we think that suits our external interests; or alternatively to help throw off the local system of governance where we think that best suits our interests, we will continue to be frustrated with the results. And we will continue to incite acts of transnational terrorism back onto ourselves as payment for our efforts.

We need to reframe the problem, and then reassess how we best get after securing ourselves and our interests. We will likely find that less is more, mediation is better than arbitration, and evolution is more productive than revolution.

In those two paragraphs I see the word "we" 7 times and the word "our" 5 times. When do we stop and reflect that it isn't about us, and that these issues generally require no solution from us. In my opinion you're right, mediation is better than arbitration and evolution is more productive than revolution, but it's not our place to be making those choices on behalf of others.

We need to be very wary of assuming that terrorist events are necessarily a reaction to our actions. Other people out there do not just react o what we do, that can and do proactively pursue their own objectives. Even if those objectives are incompatible to ours or involve hostility toward us, we cannot necessarily conclude that they are reactions to our actions. That's an appealing belief, because if it were true we could control the actions of others simply by adjusting the stimuli we provide, but that appeal does not make the assumption viable.

[Bob's World]

Well, Dayuhan, most people who we call "terrorists" are not really terrorists at all, but simply are people fed up with the situations of government they are forced to live under.

But not all nationalist movements feel compelled to attack some foreign power. When foreign powers are attacked it is typically because said populace group believes that foreign power is somehow responsible for the situation. Or for sustaining the situation through external provision of CT or BPC support.

But please, tell me where this is not the case. I am fascinated to hear your examples rather than your groundless criticisms of my analysis. This is art, not science, but even art critics need some foundation to stand upon.

[Dayuhan]

Well, Dayuhan, most people who we call "terrorists" are not really terrorists at all, but simply are people fed up with the situations of government they are forced to live under.

But not all nationalist movements feel compelled to attack some foreign power. When foreign powers are attacked it is typically because said populace group believes that foreign power is somehow responsible for the situation. Or for sustaining the situation through external provision of CT or BPC support.

But please, tell me where this is not the case. I am fascinated to hear your examples rather than your groundless criticisms of my analysis. This is art, not science, but even art critics need some foundation to stand upon.

You've said yourself that AQ is not a populace and does not represent any populace. I don't believe for a minute that AQ is simply reacting to perceived offense. They are proactively pursuing a strategic agenda of their own. Any desire to remove perceived external influence is incidental to a desire to impose their own influence. To me the desire to perceive AQ and allied groups as reactive rather than proactive is a fundamental strategic error that can have rather dangerous consequences.