Why democracies don't lose insurgencies

[reed11b]

Your prerogative. Couldn't you say so without being confrontational?

Yes, I'll blame low blood sugar and apologize.

There are several places where that isn't entirely true; the mob rule aspect, I mean. As for the other, did you mean where the minority is in violent opposition to the majority?

It may not be always true, but without protections for the minority built into the body of law, it is a very real possibility. Iraq in 2005 could be considered an example of this, as for the other, either way it still is true, right?

Can you validate that with examples? I can't think of any right off hand but since you mention it, I'm sure you can provide a couple of examples.

I'll get back to you on this one, but would not most insurgencies be led, at least initially by a minority population?

Is that fact or your opinion?

Opinion, but it is based on the opinion that underestimating your opponent is dumb, likely a shared opinion with many would be my guess.

I did not see or assume that. Why do you think so?

Did not say you did, it is a response to the many "global community" theorists I have read and seem mentioned in this council, I disagree with them, but I can't put my thumb on a good enough example to communicate it very effectively yet.

Why do you say that? I do not see such a linkage in the postulation.

More on this later, while I figure out how to communicate it well.

That's all very well for a COIN Master Plan -- but the man said he was doing it for his Graduate School Thesis -- a very different thing. Thus, I'm not at all sure why you're objecting to it...

Can I go with low blood sugar again?
Reed
P.S. Please do not respond to my posts line by line anymore. It is a pet peeve of mine and it is almost impossible to respond without sounding defensive. I always appreciate your feedback, but please do it the conventional manner

[Ken White]

...It may not be always true, but without protections for the minority built into the body of law, it is a very real possibility. Iraq in 2005 could be considered an example of this, as for the other, either way it still is true, right?

True -- but a lot of nations have that protection and obey their laws -- just as some do not. Point was that was sort of a sweeping statement. On the 'either way' -- if you mean that the majority is oppressing the minority forcefully causing them to rebel, then it's possible.

I'll get back to you on this one, but would not most insurgencies be led, at least initially by a minority population?

Or by a neighbor who stirs up that minority and leads them or by an outsider like Guevara in Bolivia a who tries and fails. Such outside 'leadership' or incitement is not at all unusual and was very prevalent during the Cold War...

Opinion, but it is based on the opinion that underestimating your opponent is dumb, likely a shared opinion with many would be my guess.

To assume much of anything when discussing warfare can be foolish. Size does not always win, usually, yeah but not always. See the Confrontation in Malaysia for an example -- or Mao in China.

Did not say you did, it is a response to the many "global community" theorists I have read and seem mentioned in this council, I disagree with them, but I can't put my thumb on a good enough example to communicate it very effectively yet.

I didn't see any global theorists positions mentioned in the thread, either. My question was why you mentioned it in view of that, no more.

More on this later, while I figure out how to communicate it well.

No terrorism stipulation in the thread; you can of course pop it in a as a new thread but I don't see that it's germane to this one.

P.S. Please do not respond to my posts line by line anymore. It is a pet peeve of mine and it is almost impossible to respond without sounding defensive. I always appreciate your feedback, but please do it the conventional manner

Sorry, to me it's logical way to respond; someone makes a specific statement; I respond to that with a specific comment or question. I'm not sure I see it as an attack or necessitating a defensive answer but I will suggest that if one makes a statement, one should be prepared to defend it or otherwise address the issue head on. As for conventional, to me that is the conventional way to respond, it seems better to me than a big paragraph that touches on five or more topics which makes it hard to pull the thoughts to address. We're all unique and do things differently and that should be generally okay, particularly on a public board where a lot of varied people are going to do things their way.

It is okay with me...