Threat or Opportunity: non-violent protest?

[Bob's World]

We'll never know for sure what might have happened. I personally subscribe to civil rights role as being what cost him the most. Clearly the friction at home between growing race-based insurgency and the perspective that Vietnam was yet one more example of African Americans bearing an unfair brunt of the fight there merged in the protests at home. Between the two he was finished, and from what I have seen and read it was the blowback to his work on civil rights that drove his rapid decline after leaving office.

[Ken White]

We'll never know for sure what might have happened.

Obviously. However as one who'd been voting for about 20 years at the time and thus was paying attention, Nixon was distrusted as was Johnson he was the less distrusted until mid 1967 when too many rumors of dumb things related to Viet Nam and his personal pecadilloes were circulating and he became the 'untrust' front runner. He was a sitting President, yet he drew two challengers for his own party's nomination?

McCarthy had the student and academic vote, Kennedy had the working Democrat vote -- both campaigned using war errors as fodder -- and Johnson had less than 20% support among Democrats in the polls. Viet Nam sunk him -- as it should have. It also killed him, a good part of his decision was based on his belief that another term would kill him. He died two days after it would have ended.

I personally subscribe to civil rights role as being what cost him the most...and from what I have seen and read it was the blowback to his work on civil rights that drove his rapid decline after leaving office.

We can disagree on that.

Addendum: Started this, stopped, went to dinner came back an posted without looking. Mike had posted in the interim and I didn't see it until this post had arrived on the Board. Good catches, Mike. All makes sense, and with due respect to Clark Clifford, et.al. (very little, I'm not a Clifford fan -- nor a Vance fan...) Lyndon left due to Viet Nam. James R. Jones not withstanding, I'm not at all sure that Lyndon would've trumped Nixon. The press had long disliked Nixon; they had come to dislike Lyndon even more...

[jmm99]

Minutes of 2 Nov 1967 "Wise Men" meeting - as to which, that group believed that all was going well:

2 Nov 1967 Snip 01.jpg

Mr Dean (Wiki, Korea, Geneva, NYT Obit) suggested that:

2 Nov 1967 Snip 02.jpg

Over the next 4 months, he delved into his own questions. His answer on 25 March 1968 was disengagement.

The problem that the Johnson Admin had is that it had propagated a gospel that we would win - "light at end of tunnel", etc. When that became doubtful, the Admin's competence (in the public's eye and in the Wise Mens' eyes) went through the floor.

Regards

Mike

[Bill Moore]

Disappointing that the advice given to the President on Vietnam in many ways sounds too similiar to the advice given to the President on Afghanistan. Once again we dived in with no clear and achievable end in mind, and love to point out the numerous tactical successes we're having.

I did a lot of reading on this topic, and actually watched it unfold as a kid. I remember witnessing the war protests and racial riots quite vividly during those days and there should be no doubt both these issues were key national issues that touched most of America to some extent. The difference is the President did the right thing concerning the Civil Rights Movement and he mishandled the Vietnam War. Those who knew him best said it was Vietnam that convinced him not to run again, so I'm not sure why we would challenge that assessment.

Posted by Marc,

Let's not glorify non-violence. It relies on the enthusiasm of the people, but is not necessarily democratic. Non-violence is a defeat mechanism in its own right. The Iranian revolution of 1979 was largely non-violent. For many a movement, the art of non-violence is to arouse the masses, start a revolution and take control the day after the revolution.

I think this comment most accurately addresses the question of whether these movements are an opportunity or a threat. We shouldn't automatically equate these movements as being democratic or even necessarily representing a significant percentage of the population. We sure as heck can't automatically confuse them as democracy breaking out (but we can still hope until proven otherwise). In short it is a tactic that be employed for both good and evil ends, and its success demends on a number of variables in each circumstance.

Non violence led by Ghandi didn't work in India, yet it is still a myth perpetuated by those who "want to believe". Non violence didn't work in China and won't work in China in the current environment. Non violent movements in most countries can be violently suppressed "if" the government still maintains control of the security forces and decides to employ harsh methods, so like any tactic it can only be employed in certain situations to attain specific ends (for better or worse).

What I do find interesting is the ability to use social media to facilitate these movements in unique ways. However, as we all know popular movements have been facilitated in the past without this technology.

[davidbfpo]

LBJ and Gandhi aside I do wonder as autocratic states look around the scene what are the lessons learnt?

First and foremost electronic communication is so dangerous. If you are a developing autocratic state, would you want to allow this to develop? I understand it is easy to switch off mobile phone networks, the UK has a preferential system in place for emergencies, so state mobiles work and for example others can only get calls in. Isolating international links, which are via a few nodes, unless you have a sat phone, appears to be easy.

Limited or slow communications would be attractive for an autocrat. In another thread on Burma I have commented that without imagery 24/7 news has a much reduced impact. Large chunks of the world are not on the 24/7 editors list.

Reducing international exposure is possible, although even the PRC has learnt not easy after rioting in Tibet was filmed by tourists and a BBC reporter on a holiday. Plus the ethnic rioting and state response in Urumchi.

Tourists are a mixed blessing, in Egypt the vast majority were miles away from the focal point, the cities, on beaches in Sinai and above all usually have little interaction with the locals. More problematic are the resident expats, especially if widely dispersed like preachers, NGO etc.

[davidbfpo]

From Open Democracy:

An audio interview in which Nabila Ramdani describes the role of the social networks in the Tunisian and Egyptian revolutions – to what extent are Morozov's and Gladwell's arguments proved wrong by events?

Closing sentences:

There will be numerous attempts to re-impose autocracies dominated self-styled leaders of the people. However, the biggest historical change highlighted by revolutions in Egypt and Tunisia is that these people are nowadays hugely well informed, questioning and technologically savvy.

This should be our greatest cause for optimism as we consider the future of the Arab world.

Link:http://www.opendemocracy.net/tony-cu...-02-19%2005:30

[Bob's World]

Did Rome's roads matter in the rise of the Barbarians?

Did the invention of the printing press matter in the rise of the people of Europe against the Holy Roman Empire?

Did Britain's global telegraph network matter in the rise of her colonial populaces?

Did the internet matter in Tunisia and Egypt.

Answer to all: Yes.

When a state relies upon overt controls of a populace to maintain stability, the speed and availability of information is their greatest threat. As information and transportation technology continue to emerge, control-based systems of governance will continue to become less and less viable.

[Fuchs]

LBJ and Gandhi aside I do wonder as autocratic states look around the scene what are the lessons learnt?

First and foremost electronic communication is so dangerous. If you are a developing autocratic state, would you want to allow this to develop?

related:
Trajan on the revolts in Tunisia (?)

It's not the communications, but the organising.

[Bill Moore]

Posted by Fuches,

It's not the communications, but the organising.

The organizers agree with you that organization was critical, but the means they used to form a community (organize) to mobilize was Facebook. Not only did they effectively garner support from within Egypt, they garnered international support, which limited the options for the Gov of Egypt.

IT is important, yes it just a tool, just like strategic bombers, satellite communications, nuclear weapons, submarines, etc., but it is apparent that tools can make things possible that were not previously possible.