When the opposing armed force IS the populace, how do you leave them out of it at the same time you are merrily militarily crushing them?
I had an opportune discussion with Dr. Maria Stephan this morning, who's work is on nonviolent conflict. She has a book out on the topic, and handed me a short paper:
"Why Civil Resistance Works - The Strategic Logic of Nonviolent Conflict" International Security, Vol. 33, No. 1 (Summer 2008) pp.7-44.
We need to hope that AQ does not read her work. Her research shows how nonviolent campaigns achieve success 53% of the time, whereas violent movements only prevail26% of the time.
Key is that she recoginzes that violent tactics are a choice, and one that often harms the ability of the challenger to achieve legitimacy themselves, and that allows the despotic counterinsurgent to presume the moral highground and justify their violent crushing of their own populace.
When the resistance selects nonviolent means the roles reverse, and the despotic leadership loses credibility in responding with violence, and it is much more likely for governmental officals to go over to the other side.
I have often stated god help us if we merely crush AQ without also addressing the underlying causation for their movement; because if the organizaiton that comes behind them, and there will be one as sure as day follows night, and they adopt such nonviolent tactics such as Maria promotes; they will likely achieve all of their goals in short order.
At that point we will have to ask ourselves the wisdom of siding with the Despots over siding with the populaces of those same countries.
The Jones Model applies to both types of movements; and as Maria points out, those that chose the non-violent path are far more apt to prevail.
Jury is out as to what happens when the state choses the more non-violent path in the face of a resistance that has chosen violence.
Bookmarks