Hi Bob,

I'm inverting the order of your comments because I think it is necessary for reasons that will become apparent.

Quote Originally Posted by Bob's World View Post
We can refurbish our reputation here. For 150 years we didn't have colonial "rights" to mandate policy or take what we wanted; so we negotiated from positions as equals and paid cash. We were told our missionaries could not preach Christianity; so they built universities and hospitals instead. They suffered under the colonial boot; and we were the example of the little guy who grabbed the boot and threw the colonial master out. Our ideology still supports this type of engagement. The problem is that the idealist youth has grown up and become his father. But as a nation, we are old before our time, it is not too late to recapture the ideals of our youth and merge them with the wisdom of our experiences and move on.
That is a very nice myth, but it has little to do with the historical record. The US successfully colonized large parts of North America, and certainly played the part of colonial master in Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico and other places. The main difference between your colonial history and that of, say, Britain, was that you used a French Metropolitan model, i.e. your colonial conquests became part of the "nation" per se.

Second point, on your missionaries, that was a British tactic that you picked up on, and was part of the indirect control system that the London Missionary Society developed during the 1860's. You also used your corporations as tools of colonial influence, especially from about 1890 - 1939 or so (another move copied from the Brits).

I'm not raising these points to be a sierra disturber, although that is a side benefit (), I'm raising them to point out the dangers of relying on the application of your own creation mythology to other groups, which is exactly what you are doing. First off, it isn't an "ideology" it is a "mythology" (and a creation myth to boot). Second, while your mythology may support this type of engagement, your historical actions don't in the perceptions of those who you are trying to apply them to (they have long and selective memories). Third, your politicians don't apply this mythology, which basically means that outsiders will look at any invocation of it as being produced by a bunch of fanatics who are brainwashed.

I'm using highly charged words for this final point for one simple reason: that is exactly the sort of rhetoric that your enemies will use. How will you counter it? All some group like the AQ propaganda wing has to do is talk about your national health care debate to point to current, ongoing examples of how this myth is a farce in reality.

Quote Originally Posted by Bob's World View Post
To simply pursue "defeat" of certain named threats, while potentially possible on those threats, has negative effects across the spectrum of actors and may well be producing a net strategic loss in the pursuit of tactical gains. So, how do we look much more holistically across the spectrum of actors and interests, and design more balanced approaches of engagement, both to "Encourage" favorable behavior and "Discourage" destructive behavior?
Okay, having just given a whole slew of reasons why your invocation of a creation myth won't work, now let's look at how you could make it work (hey, I'm an academic - I like arguing both sides of a problem ).

1. Action and words must be in line with each other. Let me just take the example of state forms here. If "self determination" is a principle that you hold to, and it really is the core of your creation myth, then you have to support it by both words and deeds even if it disagrees with your own mythic solution - with the caveat that it is not opposed to your national interest in a negative, overt way. For an historic precedent, consider how Britain reacted to both sides in your civil war - the "national interest" at an economic level was all in favour of the South, while at an ideological level was more in line with the North. For a modern example, consider how the US is reacting to Karzai's attempts to negotiate with some of the Taliban.

2. Take the long view. The US population is conditioned to think in very short term time stretches. We see this in current operations and in a whole slew of other areas. When you are applying whole of government operations to change another society, however, you have to think in generational terms and remain constant in them. For example, you could tie aid / development funds directly to certain indicators of progress along lines you wish to see and/or focus in on specific geographic areas (Canada is now doing both of these).

3. Figure out exactly what behaviour patterns your ideology / mythology reflects rather than the external forms. A classic example of this is the imposition of republican forms of government on populaces that do not have the traditions to support them. The actual behaviour pattern that you should be supporting is political discussion that a) doesn't go kinetic, b) doesn't destabilize a society and c) will eventually lead to greater individual freedoms. Sometimes, this can be met with a republican form of government; other times a monarchy would be better and still other times a tyranny in the old Greek sense of the term. You can't let the form blind you to the function which should be your goal.

4. Look for allies not proxies. The difference, at least as I'm using it here, is that allies will point out problems that you have with your assumptions, while proxies will be too afraid that they will loose your support to speak up. You don't have to act on what your allies tell you, but you have to listen and be willing to act if the commentary is persuasive.

I think I'm going to stop here .

Cheers,

Marc