Tunisia: catch all

[Bob's World]

Ken,

"Despotism" has many components, and certainly the perceptions of the governed regarding how one rose to power and how one is sustained in power is nearly as important as is how they feel about how one governs while in power.

The coup we ran in 1953 to take out the democratically selected leader of Iran because he dared to stand up to the British and their rape (robbery?) of the Iranian oil resources is not our finest chapter. The Shah was many things, but he was never legitimate and he was always a "Made in the USA" leader. In hindsight we should have told the Brits to get over it and worked out a relationship with Mosaddegh.

It was a Cold War though, we had a new president, we were deep into a Korean conflict that could have easily became a war with a "newly" enemy China; The French were getting defeated by communists in Vietnam, the Philippines and Malaya were struggling with Communists as well, newly nuclear Russia was flirting with Mosaddegh, and Ken White had just retired for the third time from DoD. It was a bad year, and it seemed like the right thing at the time.

But now it is 2011. The Cold War is long over, though the majority of our governmental and diplomatic framework for waging it remains rusted in place. No longer containing Soviet threats, or even communist ideology threats, it now serves primarily to sustain a family of wealthy despots who don't cut us many special favors (no discount oil for US coming out of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait or Iraq...), and most have become enabled by such relationships to become even more removed from the concerns of their own citizens.

As the Saudis like to brag, the people have no taxation, so they get no representation. I suspect someday when they are sitting in exile, scraping by on their last Billion once their assets are nationalized, they won't think that is as clever as they do currently.

But the U.S. need not, and should not abandon these governments. Nor should the U.S. use the history of our relationships with these governments ; or the rise of AQ and Islamist ideologies to rationalize not supporting the reasonable demands of these many populaces for moderate reformation of Government. Play this right and we turn down the flame beneath the boiling pot of popular discontent that we call "The War on Terrorism." Play this wrong and we raise it to a whole new level. The allegations of our sins will become cold, hard, current facts, and this could all boil over into a regional/global disaster.

We need to recognize and prioritize the opportunity currently provided by the people of the region. We need to lend stability to these inevitable transitions, to empower and facilitate evolution of government in order to prevent revolution of government. This means a mix of both assuring allies and cautioning/threatening them to be careful in how they respond to their populaces. Similarly to be supportive and cautioning/threatening to these populaces as well in regards to how we support peaceful evolution, self-determination and the principles we proclaim so loudly in our own founding documents; but that we will not stand idly by to outrages on the part of either side.

We also need to be on our guard that AQ will seek to leverage this as well; to attempt to tilt outcomes toward their agenda. I suspect when the music stops that it will be the Islamist terrorist/UW guys who don't have a chair. But that is not a guarantee, and they will seek to prevent that from happening.

This is where the real lesson from Malaya comes to play. If we enable the right governmental reforms, then when the dust settles and the Islamists come in from the cold looking for support, they will find that the populace no longer needs what they are selling and is moving on without them.

We have an opportunity for "Malaya in the Desert," but that will only happen if we can break our Cold War paradigms and find the right balance between stability and change, between governments and populaces, between influence and control.

Given how much play this topic was given in the State of the Union though, I have my concerns...

[davidbfpo]

FP Blog has a good article on the impact of mass media in Tunisia, using the material from Wikileaks:http://www.foreignpolicy.com/article...g_at_autocrats

This paragraph struck me as having possibly appeared on SWC of late:

History is made when the weather suddenly changes -- by deviations from the normal course of events. The challenge for American diplomacy is not to wait for shifts in favor of human rights and democracy before scrambling to appear to support them. It is not to wait until a dictator is half-way out the door before you condemn his abuses, freeze his assets, and demand free elections. It is to promote change in repressive states before it appears inevitable. If you think there is only a 10 percent chance that Egypt's post-Mubarak transition will usher in a government that answers to its people, or that in the next few years the Burmese military junta might compromise with the democratic opposition, or that a popular movement might successfully challenge political repression in Iran, then why not do what you can to help raise the odds to 20 or 30 percent? In foreign policy, as in baseball, .300 is a Hall of Fame average.

[Graycap]

The more I think about Tunisia and the more I'm convinced that the real role could be for the EU.

How about this slogan: Let's make Tunisia for EU what Israel is for the USA!

If you think that Gheddafi is asking EU for 5 billion Euros/ year to limit illegal immigration, my reasoning is about to indirectly threaten this deapotic regime with a new political model at his border. Let's not fear the Brotherhood.
Tunisia is not at the center of any geopolitical problem and the reality of government responsability (without the cash of energy reserves) could help in moderating. Sooner or later it has to happen. Better in a little country with strong intercoonections with western europe.

[Ken White]

..certainly the perceptions of the governed regarding how one rose to power and how one is sustained in power is nearly as important as is how they feel about how one governs while in power.

True -- but little to no bearing on my points that "it's not all about oppression, the ideology is not benign and the change wrought may not be an improvement."

But now it is 2011. The Cold War is long over, though the majority of our governmental and diplomatic framework for waging it remains rusted in place.

I agree but, again, that has little to do with the facts that ideology is not benign and all 'popular' change is not necessarily for the better...

But the U.S. need not, and should not abandon these governments... Play this right and we turn down the flame beneath the boiling pot of popular discontent that we call "The War on Terrorism"...We need to lend stability to these inevitable transitions, to empower and facilitate evolution of government in order to prevent revolution of government. This means a mix of both assuring allies and cautioning/threatening them to be careful in how they respond to their populaces. Similarly to be supportive and cautioning/threatening to these populaces as well in regards to how we support peaceful evolution, self-determination and the principles we proclaim so loudly in our own founding documents; but that we will not stand idly by to outrages on the part of either side.

IOW, we can interfere in the affairs of others and should do so...

This is where the real lesson from Malaya comes to play. If we enable the right governmental reforms, then when the dust settles and the Islamists come in from the cold looking for support, they will find that the populace no longer needs what they are selling and is moving on without them.

"What is this 'we' stuff, White Man" quoth Tonto to the Lone Stranger?

Yet again you say we must support, encourage, threaten, enable or otherwise stick our oar in -- yet you say 'they' must determine for themselves...

Yet again I say -- you cannot have it both ways.

Either we interfere or we do not. If we do, the results for many reasons will be uncertain and there is no guarantee that the result will be satisfactory in anyone's view. More on this below.

We have an opportunity for "Malaya in the Desert," but that will only happen if we can break our Cold War paradigms and find the right balance between stability and change, between governments and populaces, between influence and control.

I respectfully suggest that there is no corollary to Malaya (also again... ) and that while I totally agree the Cold War paradigms must go (long overdue, that...) and finding that balance is desirable, so far all you've done is indicate the two poles:

They determine. But...

We

...need to lend stability to these inevitable transitions, to empower and facilitate evolution of government...cautioning/threatening them to be careful in how they respond to their populaces...supportive and cautioning/threatening to these populaces as well in regards to how we support peaceful evolution, self-determination and the principles we proclaim so loudly in our own founding documents; but that we will not stand idly by to outrages on the part of either side.(emphasis added / kw)

Where is this balance of which you speak?

I submit you haven't outlined it because you cannot -- each nation, each upset situation will be different, will require a different blend of reactions and those cannot be predicted due to the vagaries of the nation involved, its people, our political process and the rotation of policy makers in that process. Thus ideologies -- ours and theirs -- have an important bearing on what occurs. It may not be 'about' ideology but you cannot discount the effect of that or them.

Thus, if we enter into the issue in any measure -- and will have to do that for various reasons on occasion -- then we are interfering and we will almost of necessity attempt to influence the outcome and the results are not, can never be, certain. What occurs is that the policy makers of the day have to react to the information available, the circumstances as far as are known and make a decision. It will often, in hindsight, be wrong -- as was emplacing the Shah. Rectification can be messy -- as it was. That rectification may produce a worse situation -- as it did.

You desire to preclude this minor chaos and to codify our responses. Admirable but unlikely. You suggest, in essence a policy, you do not provide strategies.

I agree with your desired policy (as I have always done since you came up on this Board) and I suggest you can provide no strategy due to that varied situation factor and the US political system (as I have always done since you came up on this board).

Thus while I agree with your western enlightenment ideal of what should be done in the somewhat different east I'm forced yet again to suggest that your goal is not totally realistic and that we have never been prone to strictly adhere to "the principles we proclaim so loudly in our own founding document." Nor have we been able to do so for a variety of reasons, some valid, some specious -- all real...

That paragraph should be worth at least two bonus points.

[Dayuhan]

We need to recognize and prioritize the opportunity currently provided by the people of the region. We need to lend stability to these inevitable transitions, to empower and facilitate evolution of government in order to prevent revolution of government. This means a mix of both assuring allies and cautioning/threatening them to be careful in how they respond to their populaces. Similarly to be supportive and cautioning/threatening to these populaces as well in regards to how we support peaceful evolution, self-determination and the principles we proclaim so loudly in our own founding documents; but that we will not stand idly by to outrages on the part of either side.

I know this is said with the best of intentions, but have you any idea how patronizing and paternalistic it sounds? It also sets up a quintessentially American situation: we come riding over the hill pronouncing loudly "fear not, America is here to lend stability, to empower and facilitate, to guide and enlighten"... then we get all wounded and resentful when the populace tells us to piss off and die.

Don't think the populaces of these countries are going to welcome us with open arms and gratitude just because our intentions are noble. They won't. They don't trust us. They assume, not without reason, that we are interfering to advance our own interests. Nobody in the Middle East is going to believe that America is intervening to support the common people. Not too many in America would believe it. I'm not sure I'd believe it.

One of the great cognitive dissonances that dominates this debate is the assumption that because dictator X or despot Y is "a US ally", they must therefore be a US dependent or a US puppet, and that therefore the US can make them stop being naughty if we only try. This is a load of bollocks. An ally is simply a nation with which we share a common interest at any given point, not a nation that we control. We have a whole lot less influence over these nations than some people like to think, and they are not going to change simply because we tell them to. We can caution and threaten all we want: we will generally be ignored. Governments around the world, even our allies, don't do what we tell them to do. I'd have thought that obvious.

I also do not think for a moment that AQ is an expression of a desire for freedom and liberty. I don't think AQ has anything to do with freedom and liberty, nor does anyone in the Middle East think they do. They draw support as long as they fight foreign invasion of Muslim lands: that's the narrative that works for them, that's why they so badly needed the US to come into Afghanistan.

It is true that AQ has tried to raise populaces against Arab leaders. It's important to note, though, that these attempts have failed miserably. They had their best shot in Saudi Arabia in the 90s. That should have been fertile ground for them: an unpopular and unrepresentative government, US troops all over the place, a severe recession driven by an oil glut widely perceived to be forced by the US. They still failed. They drew support from a small fringe, but the populace never joined in, they never came close to critical mass, and the effort fell flat. That's not because the populace loved the royals, they just didn't see AQ as a viable alternative. They are willing to send support to AQ, cheer for AQ, send fighters to help the cause... as long as the jihad is somewhere else. When it comes home, it's a different story.

It would be a huge mistake to think that everyone who supports AQ wants AQ to take power in their own country. There are plenty in the Gulf who will willingly wallow in wanton western ways 6 days a week and salve their conscience by writing a check to Jihad Inc on the 7th. They aren't that different from the Christers in that respect, and that does not mean they want Osama in charge of their lives. They just like the idea of him fighting the good fight against the infidel... somewhere else.

We have an opportunity for "Malaya in the Desert," but that will only happen if we can break our Cold War paradigms and find the right balance between stability and change, between governments and populaces, between influence and control.

We can't have a "Malaya in the desert", because our position in the desert is in no way analogous to the British position in Malaya. Malaya was under British control. We cannot adjust government/populace relations in the Middle East, because we aren't the government. We cannot exercise or relinquish control in the Middle East, because we haven't any control to exercise or relinquish.

[jmm99]

from BW
We are America. We shouldn't have dictators.

No, we Americans shouldn't have dictators.

But, by what right have you or any other American to extend that "shouldn't have" to the rest of the World ?

I expect you were happy with the President's speech, which was pure Wilsonialism. Woodrow would have been proud.

But then, I'm but an old dinosaur - nigh onto ready to share space with Henry Cabot Lodge:

The United States is the world's best hope, but if you fetter her in the interests and quarrels of other nations, if you tangle her in the intrigues of Europe, you will destroy her powerful good, and endanger her very existence. Leave her to march freely through the centuries to come, as in the years that have gone. Strong, generous, and confident, she has nobly served mankind. Beware how you trifle with your marvelous inheritance; this great land of ordered liberty. For if we stumble and fall, freedom and civilization everywhere will go down in ruin.

Substitute the "intrigues of the Arab World" for the "intrigues of Europe".

Regards

Mike

[Ken White]

Russia vs the Romanovs?
Maoist China vs the pro-west Nationalists?
French dominated, then US dominated Vietnam?
Batista's Cuba?
British dominated Malaya?
US dominated Philippines?

The simple fact is that in post WWI and post WWII upheavals, communism was an ideology of change that spoke to populaces seeking change.

That is true -- why do you not at least note the fact that it failed in its promise in all of those nations, that it killed more people than the regimes it replaced? Your concern for the oppressed is noteworthy. It is also IMO excessive in that your concern insists that they behave as you propose and not as they might wish. You need to remove the blinders.

Further evidence of that:

Is Protestantism a "benign" ideology? Yes. Did it take down an empire? Equally yes.

Is Communism a "benign" ideology? Yes. Did it reshape Western Colonial control of Asia? Equally yes.

Is Islamism a "benign" ideology? Yes. Will it reshape Western influence over North Africa and the Middle East. Most likely.

The real ideology in all of those places, times and example was the ideology of liberty and self-determination.

The Protestantism that took down an empire was far from benign, it was ferociously militant and violent -- even cruel. It may be benign now but it was not at all benign back in the day.

Communism as perverted by the USSR and China is responsible for more deaths than the World Wars. And you call that benign? Hmmph.

Islamism is not benign. Islam is, the -ism is not. None of the -isms are particularly benign and that includes 'Americanism.'

I'm sorry if that hurts the feelings of some, but the historic facts can be argued, but they are what they are.

That's not going to hurt the feelings of anyone. Though it could to call your logic into question...

OTOH, this:

Carl,

You are a victim of effective propaganda.

is borderline insulting. One who disagrees with you is the victim of propaganda? The implication there is that you have found the Holy Grail and the path of true righteousness and anyone who disagrees is deluded. Heh. Here's a possible delusion:

...Did they die because the oppressors fought to keep them in chains, or because of the ideology they adopted to break free?

Fact is that self-serving and evil men prey on vulnerable governments and populaces. Often a populace ends up in worse hands than what they had before. That is far more a function of the nature of man than a function of the nature of ideology.

While I can agree that mankind is most at fault -- As I have said many times (and with particular reference to the US, another factor you tend to ignore) -- that does not give the ideology that they co-opted a pass. Your reference to ideology "driving the bus" is somewhat apt and if that bus is deliberately running down pedestrians and smashing cars, the driver is at fault. You cannot give him a pass, Mister Prosecutor...

Here are two quotes, the first from Dayuhan, the second from jmm99. I commend both to you for thought.

""have you any idea how patronizing and paternalistic it sounds? It also sets up a quintessentially American situation: we come riding over the hill pronouncing loudly "fear not, America is here to lend stability, to empower and facilitate, to guide and enlighten"... then we get all wounded and resentful when the populace tells us to piss off and die.""

""But, by what right have you or any other American to extend that "shouldn't have" to the rest of the World ?""