Internal revolution, illegal politics, to coerce change upon or to force out some existing domestic system of governance, is indeed timeless. The specific approaches developed by Mao in China, and refined and applied in Vietnam by Giap, Ho, and friends, are but two of countless variations on how leaders have cleverly leveraged the energy that resides within a population perceiving itself as oppressed and with no legal ways available to address the intolerable problems in the relationship between those who govern, and those who are governed. It is a product of their times, situations, culture, geography and vision as leaders.
While often non-violent and low-key; these types of conflict can also bring the very worse forms of violence. Very much like domestic disputes within a family, which is a variation of this same type of internal conflict. War theory, as developed so well by theorists such as Clausewitz does not apply directly, but does lend a helpful context. The "American way of war" is very Clausewtzian in nature, and as we classify revolution as war (wrongly, IMO) it leads us to seeking victory over some threat, rather than resolution of the core problems. Our focus on seeking what we believe best for us also blinds our perspective.
Revolution manifests differently in every case, but does have common characteristics rooted in the commonalities of human nature that bind us as a species. In culture one finds the keys to tactical understanding; but it is in nature that one finds the keys to strategic understanding. Both are required for the design and application of effective COIN. The US approach in foreign lands tends to be overly lacking in both - as we are so blinded by our belief that what we bring is good, and that we are helping the people affected by our actions get to a better place, that we cannot see that we are denying them the self-determination that is the essential first step to a legitimate solution.
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks