Page 5 of 7 FirstFirst ... 34567 LastLast
Results 81 to 100 of 130

Thread: Tunisia: catch all

  1. #81
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    The Midwest
    Posts
    180

    Default It's all the government's fault??

    Quote Originally Posted by Bob's World View Post
    I believe that the majority position on ideology is biased by the natural tendency to avoid responsibility on the part of a government for rebellions within their own populaces ,or the populaces they seek to subjugate through colonization or some similar control and influence. I also believe it is a position that blinds governments to effective prevention and leads to greater human suffering than if they took a more responsible approach to governance. But I recognize I am out in front on this, and also that I may be out in front because I am headed in the wrong direction. But I don't think I am.
    Bob-

    Do you really think that Al Qaeda would change it's stripes if we withdrew from the Middle East and every dictator was thrown out? It has nothing to do with governance - it has to do with the fact that they believe in a global caliphate run on the principles of Islamic law - and they believe that this is a religious duty. I don't care how good of a democracy you have, these folks won't change their tune.

    You have to admit that there are people out there leading many of these groups who have vested interests in finding grievances with their governments - it gives them their power, which is all many of these folks really want.

    I don't think anyone here is arguing that good governance doesn't help prevent/combat insurgencies. But the idea that it is governance will solve everything, or that governments are THE cause of insurgencies, ignores the many sources of discontent, not all of which are in the government's control. The truth, as usual, is probably somewhere in the middle, not at any extreme.

    The one aspect of this that may be true is the people's perceptions. Folks have a very Hollywood view of democracy, the US, and the West. When we roll in to assist or "democracy" takes over, people expect that things will instantly get better- ignoring our own 200+ year struggle to get it right. So in some sense those perceptions may affect the outcome.

    Finally, I am a little tired of having my arguments dismissed on the basis of "bad data". If you think I am wrong, then cite some sources to back up your argument. I have cited numerous articles in my discussions. Your dismissal of other people's arguments based on your "being out front" smacks of the exact hubris that you are accusing the majority of the west of having - the sense that you are right and know better than everyone else. I know it's probably not intentional but it makes it a loss less fun to have these discussions with you.

    V/R,

    Cliff

  2. #82
    Council Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    4,021

    Default Bob, you drive me nuts

    From post #73 in this thread:

    Mike: I totally agree that it is not our call to shape governments for others. My comment is only that the tried and true foreign policy TTP of nurturing and supporting foreign despots is obsolete and also the primary reason that nationalist insurgents sign up for the AQ road team to bring violence to America. This was becoming apparent in the information age of Steam and teletypes when the British Empire rolled up in the face of popular pressure. It is far more true today. Now, if a populace WANTs a dictator, the US should not interfere with that either. To pick such a leader, if done openly, is a form or self-determination and democracy. Not our call to judge.
    I'd read this as a general statement of non-interventionism.

    But then this from post #23 in the Egypt thread:

    Legal, trusted, and certain means of influencing government are far superior to illegal means. But when Illegal means are the only option, they are far superior to oppression and despotism. But this could go bad in a 100 different ways to be sure.

    The only thing worse than acting out illegally in the pursuit of liberty is to do nothing.
    I'd read this as a general statement of interventionism (Wilsonialism[*]) - perhaps, even an "on steroids" version if the last sentence is taken literally.

    That being said, your posts (and Wilf's also) have had one virtue. That virtue has been to solidify in my mind my own general positions and the exceptions to those general positions. "Never Again, But...." does have that "But" in it.

    Regards

    Mike

    --------------------------------
    [*] "Wilsonialism" (not an extensively used term) was defined here, Trine Flockhart, The Europeanization of Europe: The transfer of norms to Europe, in Europe and from Europe (DIIS Working Paper no 2008/7) (p.31 pdf):

    The new ideas, which were now diffused into Europe came from the United States and were based on the American creed [20] and on an American notion of world order based on anti-imperialism and pro-nationalism, most famously expressed in the Wilsonian agenda of the Versailles Peace Treaty. Arguably the ideas were based on an American, and much more liberal, interpretation of the ideas of the Enlightenment, and as such do have a European origin, albeit in a different interpretation. The ideas expressed in Wilsonialism are basically part of an American belief in its own exceptionalism on the one hand, and in the universalism of its ideas on the other.

    With the changed balance of power in the post WW1 period and the discrediting of the European idea set, initially in the slaughter of the First World War and later in the atrocities of Fascism, Nazism and Stalinism, and on the latest occasion, in the violent nationalisms during the break-up of Yugoslavia, the setting was in place for a moralistic and ideological foreign policy involving a conscious transfer of the American idea set into Europe.

    The ideational content of Wilsonialism has been refined and further specified throughout the 20th century, but its essence has remained the three core notions of democracy, open economic markets and international institutions.

    20 The text of the American's Creed is: ‘I believe in the United States of America as a Government of the People, by the People, for the People; whose just powers are derived from the consent of the governed; A democracy in a republic, a sovereign Nation of many Sovereign States; a perfect Union, one and inseparable; established upon those principles of Freedom, Equality, Justice, and Humanity for which American Patriots sacrificed their Lives and Fortunes’. Page 1917. Of course the ideas contained in the American Creed and in Wilsonialism are based on mainly European enlightenment ideas, but their emphasis is on the liberal interpretation of the Enlightenment rather than the rational interpretation.
    Wilsonialism can be rather easily viewed as a form of neo-colonialism, albeit overtly expressed in very benign terms. Note that a "Creed" is a belief - one cannot argue with a belief. So, to a non-American (not raised on that "Creed"), Wilsonialism may well appear to be based on arrogance and hubris.

  3. #83
    Council Member Surferbeetle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    1,111

    Default What's the theory?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ken White View Post
    ...a theory espoused by others; Sachs, Nye, James Earl Carter et.al. currently, Aristotle way back when...
    Interesting amalgam Ken...educational as always...let's see if I got them right:

    Aristotle, Polymath Greek Philosopher concerned with logic, ethics, and politics

    James Earl Carter, US President, Naval Officer, Human Rights Advocate, Democrat

    Gerald Nye, US Senator, former Journalist, no friend of the munitions industry or the intersection of oil interests and politics, Republican

    Dr. Jeffrey Sachs, Economist, Poverty Fighter, Development Expert

    All humanists, all committed students of politics, all of whom who have demonstrated an acknowledgement and appreciation for the complexities of life, and three of which who have a marked quantitative streak (Aristotle, Carter, and Sachs)

    I don't see the connection...

    Focusing upon Tunisia, the former breadbasket of Rome and most competitive economy in Africa - 41 Billion USD GDP, I wonder about where that crack team of native or neutral international advisors (of Dr. Sachs caliber or of the caliber touted in the Jan 11 edition of the Atlantic - The Rise of the New Ruling Class) are training as they wait for a political figure to rise from the Darwinian struggle currently wracking that nation.

    With the availability and power of new media and of social networks, not to mention our recent experiences, why is it that we are still instinctively reaching out for a military solution (duct tape and gerber tools)....instead of looking to a non-military differential diagnosis and response focused upon discrete benchmarks?
    Sapere Aude

  4. #84
    Council Member Ken White's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    8,060

    Default No theory. Just Dreamers all...

    Surferbeetle;114843

    In order:

    "The natural community according to Aristotle was the city (polis) which functions as a political "community" or "partnership" (koinōnia). The aim of the city is not just to avoid injustice or for economic stability, but rather to allow at least some citizens the possibility to live a good life, and to perform beautiful acts: "The political partnership must be regarded, therefore, as being for the sake of noble actions, not for the sake of living together."(emphasis added /kw)

    "One of Carter's most bitterly controversial decisions was his boycott of the 1980 Summer Olympics in Moscow in response to the 1979 Soviet invasion of Afghanistan." "Carter's personal attention to detail, seeming indecisiveness, and weakness with people."

    Wrong Nye. LINK. "He is widely recognized as one of the foremost liberal thinkers on foreign policy." "Nye coined the term soft power in the late 1980s and it first came into widespread usage following a piece he wrote in Foreign Policy in the early 1990s."

    "In his 2005 work, The End of Poverty, Sachs wrote "Africa's governance is poor because Africa is poor." According to Sachs, with the right policies and key interventions, extreme poverty — defined as living on less than $1 a day — can be eradicated within 20 years."

    All are believers in the good of governance (properly done as they see it, of course...) -- that being their similarity to the Bob's World philosophy.
    I don't see the connection...
    The connection is the disconnect between those theorists and their 'good governance' -- and reality. They espouse governance on a higher plane and well over 70% of the world does not enjoy such luxury. Do the math, as they say...
    Focusing upon Tunisia...I wonder about where that crack team of native or neutral international advisors... are training as they wait for a political figure to rise from the Darwinian struggle currently wracking that nation.
    As traders in the City of London and on Wall Street?
    ...why is it that we are still instinctively reaching out for a military solution (duct tape and gerber tools)....instead of looking to a non-military (differential diagnosis) and response focused upon discrete benchmarks?
    Good question. I agree that, with Nations "...an understanding of context, monitoring and evaluation, and professional standards of ethics.[1] Clinical economics requires a methodic analysis and "differential diagnosis" of a country's economic problems, followed by a specifically tailored prescription."(emphasis added / kw)

    Sach's most important statement in that quote is the item I placed in bold; every war is different, every nation is different, every situation is different. You cannot put mankind in a box, quantify things and state you've found the grail, holy or otherwise. However, lest you think I'm changing positions, I am not a Sachs fan and I'm quite dubious about 'clinical economics.' I do believe that with ANY determinations regarding nations, a thorough analysis is required and the knowledge that parameters can and will change rapidly must be superimposed on all analyses. Nations are made up of people and people are volatile and notoriously unpredictable. Undependable creatures for the most part...

    All four I cited really got and get very little traction -- but all believed that good governance would stop problems before they began. So apparently does Bob' World. I agree. The difference between those five and I is that, based on observation, I'm extremely doubtful that people will cooperate.

  5. #85
    Council Member Bob's World's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    2,706

    Default

    Mike,

    You took a statement I made regarding our own actions on the first part, and then compared it to a statement I made regarding the actions of the affected populace on the second part. I might not have been clear, no intent to drive you nuts.

    Cliff,

    When have I ever said the US should withdraw from the Middle East? Never. Ever. We are over engaged and have been since the end of WWII, shaping governance in ways that have helped disempower populaces from the process of governance and in ways that have enabled so many of these governments to act with growing impunity toward those same populaces. We need to change the nature of our engagement to one that is less controlling. To withdraw would leave a vacuum that would be a disaster that I would never advocate.

    I will be the first to admit that I shine a harsh light on government. I do so for a range of reasons. Certainly I believe that government is the greatest source of causation for insurgency. I stand by that and will listen calmly to any who can point out situations where that is not the case. So, point one out and lets discuss it. But ideology is everywhere. In the US right now we are surrounded by the protestant ideologies that changed the West, by the communist ideologies that changed the East, and by the Islamist ideologies that are changing the Middle East. Yet where is the insurgency? We have economic hardships, we have a large segment of the populace that is extremely dissatisfied with the current government, yet again, no insurgency? To understand insurgency one cannot merely study where it is, but one must also study where it is not. So ideology is not enough, poor economics are not enough, and a disdain for the current government are not enough. In some countries any one of those three might be enough on its own. What makes the difference?

    But in America we are blessed with a uniquely reliable "hope" in the confidence that the vast majority of Americans have that the system will work. That voting is reasonably trustworthy and that a government will not override the system and ignore the popular will to stay in power through co-opting of the elements of state power. States without such hope are vulnerable, and insurgencies almost always happen in states where the legal means either nevery have existed or have been turned off by the government.

    States where the populace does not recognize the right of the government to govern are similarly vulnerable to ideological attack. It is this aspect of "legitmacy" that is so important to stability, and it is not the same as "official". Also States where some segment of the populace is excluded from fair participation in economic and political opportunity. Or where the rule of law is perceived as unjust in its application. All of these factors of governance make a state vulnerable to ideological attack. States where those factors do not exist are remarkably stable, even when poverty and other problems are rampant. These are all things that are within the power of government to do well or poorly as they choose, and typically it is a conscious choice of government when they do not exist.

    Now, governments don't like to hear that. They like to hear that they are the victim of malign actors or radical ideology. They like to believe that it is the poor economy that is causing unrest or anything else that is outside their power to control. History just does not bear that out.

    My advice to Mubarak would be not to step down immediately but to declare that he will absolutely do so and not run in the fall. To also announce that he is dedicating the next several months to broadly attended hearings, counsels, etc to get all of the grievances on the table and then to have panels of senior, credible leaders from many walks of life work out solutions to those problems. To also pledge to personally stay out of those processes and to focus his final months to ensuring that a secure and stable environment exists for such sessions to take place within. To grant freedom of speech and assembly and having CSPAN like coverage of as many of these sessions as possible.

    I would recommend to other Arab heads of state to consider similar changes to avoid the problems that have hit Tunisia and Egypt. I will not grant governments victim status. I will not shift the blame to the people, nor will I buy into positions that claim the people are brainwashed or coerced to act out. Certainly that happens, but it is the exception rather than the rule. These are things within the power of government to address. Currently these governments don't think they have to. I think they are wrong.
    Robert C. Jones
    Intellectus Supra Scientia
    (Understanding is more important than Knowledge)

    "The modern COIN mindset is when one arrogantly goes to some foreign land and attempts to make those who live there a lesser version of one's self. The FID mindset is when one humbly goes to some foreign land and seeks first to understand, and then to help in some small way for those who live there to be the best version of their own self." Colonel Robert C. Jones, US Army Special Forces (Retired)

  6. #86
    Council Member Pete's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    North Mountain, West Virginia
    Posts
    990

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bob's World View Post
    Certainly I believe that government is the greatest source of causation for insurgency.
    A lot of the inspiration for terrorism is a sense of existential blues and trying to find someone or something to blame for them. As long as the U.S. is one of the most powerful countries in the world people will continue to blame us no matter what we do. If we as the U.S. fail to take action against unjust governments we're to blame; if we take action against them we're intervening in another nation's affairs.

    In addition to that is a loud-mouth intellegensia around the world which for the most part has never had the albatross of having had to be responsible for accomplishing anything. Put in another way, they're the college professors and New York intellectuals who don't have the leadership to make a squad of troops clean up a latrine. However, their lack of experience has never stopped them from having opinions or saying that this or that should have been done.

  7. #87
    Council Member Surferbeetle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    1,111

    Default More questions and a few opinions...

    Ken,

    I too find that people are interesting and worth watching. Not only do I understand why folks of a certain age enjoy sitting in public places and watching the parade of humanity go by, I find that I am starting to devote some of my time to this sport

    Like you, I believe, I am a fan of using concepts such as ASCOPE, Area Assessments, Political Assessments, Value Chain Analysis, Industry Surveys, Business Ratios, etc in order to get a general sense of what is going on in the arenas which capture my interest...interestingly, all of these methods use fundamental principles from systems analysis which itself borrows from ecology. Yet, I agree, none of these techniques and disciplines fully capture/describe the complexity we see.

    Stochastic behaviour and duality...the simultaneous existence of wave and particle (echo's of yin/yang), are two concepts that come to mind when I think about how to try and describe people/mankind quantitatively. Things are actually more complex, I believe, than what Steven E. Shreve covers in his books Stochastic Calculus for Finance I and II, more complex than what Bernt Oksendal covers in his book Stochastic Differential Equations, and more complex than what Paul Glasserman covers in his book Monte Carlo Methods in Financial Engineering. I am not a mathematician, nonetheless, I am slooowly making my way through their works and recommend the journey to others. If I make it to my actuarially predicted endpoint, I won't be too surprised if computer power and analytical techniques will have evolved to the point where we are able to provide quantifiable predictions, based upon underlying principles yet to be described, which exceed those provided by the USG sponsored Political Instability Task Force (George Mason University).

    I consistently enjoy Dr. Sachs' analytical rigor, my copy of The End of Poverty is marked up/tabbed/highlighted, however I am still thinking about the actual deliverables resulting from his efforts, those of George Soros (influenced by Karl Popper), those of select Austrian Banks, those of GE Capital, and the Treuhandanstalt in Eastern Europe during and after the fall of the Berlin Wall. It's important to qualify that their efforts are but part of the story and some of my experiences in the ME (and banking for that matter) have revealed to me some of the darker aspects of people which they do not appear to account for in their analysis and calculations.

    Are some of the events in Tunisia, Egypt, Yemen, and Iraq directly comparable to those of Eastern Europe during and after the fall of the Berlin Wall? Perhaps, however my understanding is limited, and it’s still very early in the timeline to try and start making predictions. I'd be interested in your thoughts regarding the benchmarks I am using versus your experiences and observations.

    Steve
    Sapere Aude

  8. #88
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    The Midwest
    Posts
    180

    Default Examples?

    Quote Originally Posted by Bob's World View Post
    When have I ever said the US should withdraw from the Middle East? Never. Ever. We are over engaged and have been since the end of WWII, shaping governance in ways that have helped disempower populaces from the process of governance and in ways that have enabled so many of these governments to act with growing impunity toward those same populaces. We need to change the nature of our engagement to one that is less controlling. To withdraw would leave a vacuum that would be a disaster that I would never advocate.
    How have we negatively shaped governance in the past 10 years? What SPECIFIC methods could we use to influence these countries to change absent the expressed will of the people? Who will decide? Your viewpoint is almost that of Lenin - the US is the cadre that will lead the people to freedom by showing them the way... democracy works a lot better when people are actually willing to fight for it...

    I will be the first to admit that I shine a harsh light on government. I do so for a range of reasons. Certainly I believe that government is the greatest source of causation for insurgency. I stand by that and will listen calmly to any who can point out situations where that is not the case. So, point one out and lets discuss it. But ideology is everywhere. In the US right now we are surrounded by the protestant ideologies that changed the West, by the communist ideologies that changed the East, and by the Islamist ideologies that are changing the Middle East. Yet where is the insurgency? We have economic hardships, we have a large segment of the populace that is extremely dissatisfied with the current governmeant, yet again, no insurgency? To understand insurgency one cannot merely study where it is, but one must also study where it is not. So ideology is not enough, poor economics are not enough, and a disdain for the current government are not enough. In some countries any one of those three might be enough on its own. What makes the difference?
    How are we surrounded by communist and Islamist ideologies in the US? Or are you talking in the international environment?

    But in America we are blessed with a uniquely reliable "hope" in the confidence that the vast majority of Americans have that the system will work. That voting is reasonably trustworthy and that a government will not override the system and ignore the popular will to stay in power through co-opting of the elements of state power. States without such hope are vulnerable, and insurgencies almost always happen in states where the legal means either never have existed or have been turned off by the government.
    If this is true why did we not see insurgencies in the 19th century when voting was heavily rigged by political machines?

    States where the populace does not recognize the right of the government to govern are similarly vulnerable to ideological attack. It is this aspect of "legitimacy" that is so important to stability, and it is not the same as "official". Also States where some segment of the populace is excluded from fair participation in economic and political opportunity. Or where the rule of law is perceived as unjust in its application. All of these factors of governance make a state vulnerable to ideological attack. States where those factors do not exist are remarkably stable, even when poverty and other problems are rampant. These are all things that are within the power of government to do well or poorly as they choose, and typically it is a conscious choice of government when they do not exist.
    Can you please name me a few examples of democratic well governed countries with abject poverty where the population is happy/satisfied with their status?

    How about China? Massive unfairness, numerous groups marginalized - why no insurgency there? They have a big lack of governance... how do you explain this? You seem to be disregarding culture and mirror-imaging...

    Now, governments don't like to hear that. They like to hear that they are the victim of malign actors or radical ideology. They like to believe that it is the poor economy that is causing unrest or anything else that is outside their power to control. History just does not bear that out.
    US Revolutionary War, French Revolution, Bolshevik Revolution- all caused in part by the collapse of said country's economies. Yes bad governance helped - but the primary cause was economic woes, often in the form of government debts. I would say history bears out that economic problems are often a big factor in sparking insurgency...

    I would recommend to other Arab heads of state to consider similar changes to avoid the problems that have hit Tunisia and Egypt. I will not grant governments victim status. I will not shift the blame to the people, nor will I buy into positions that claim the people are brainwashed or coerced to act out. Certainly that happens, but it is the exception rather than the rule. These are things within the power of government to address. Currently these governments don't think they have to. I think they are wrong.
    Bob, I'm not saying the people are brainwashed. The fact that they are part of a police state is obviously a huge factor.

    But maybe, just maybe, could you admit that perhaps the fact that these countries have a lot of relatively well educated folks who don't have jobs, and their economies are stagnant when compared to even those of Africa, that this could be a factor in their discontent? Why do you think there are so many photos of Egyptians holding up bread at the protests?

    Please provide concrete evidence to support your arguments if you disagree.

    V/R,

    Cliff

  9. #89
    Council Member Fuchs's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    3,189

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cliff View Post
    How have we negatively shaped governance in the past 10 years? What SPECIFIC methods could we use to influence these countries to change absent the expressed will of the people? Who will decide?
    The specific methods were for example delivery of arms (Saudi-Arabia's army is not hesitant at all to proclaim that its primary purpose is to keep the royal family in power), money aid and political backing.

    20 years ago the U.S. reinstated a 100% obvious dictatorship in Kuwait after "liberating" it.


    Mature citizens decide for themselves.


    What the U.S. could do:
    Support the opposition instead of dictatorships or at least drop the support for dictators.
    Do not supply arms. The point here is not so much that this will deprive them off arms (others will sell them), but it'll make the army less happy and thus more inclined to not support the dictator in a critical moment.


    Yesterday, several well-known Republican faces have overtly supported Mubarak and disparaged the popular uprising as a 1979-style revolution that needs to fail. Meanwhile, the U.S. governments is not doing much of substance overtly.

  10. #90
    Council Member Bob's World's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    2,706

    Default Human nature is the core common factor

    Quote Originally Posted by Pete View Post
    A lot of the inspiration for terrorism is a sense of existential blues and trying to find someone or something to blame for them. As long as the U.S. is one of the most powerful countries in the world people will continue to blame us no matter what we do. If we as the U.S. fail to take action against unjust governments we're to blame; if we take action against them we're intervening in another nation's affairs.

    In addition to that is a loud-mouth intellegensia around the world which for the most part has never had the albatross of having had to be responsible for accomplishing anything. Put in another way, they're the college professors and New York intellectuals who don't have the leadership to make a squad of troops clean up a latrine. However, their lack of experience has never stopped them from having opinions or saying that this or that should have been done.
    Blame shifting is indeed a core human trait. I saw this in dealing with drug users in court. This is also a smart, powerful aspect of AQ's UW campaign, in essence "you cannot achieve the type of governance you deserve here at home until you break the moral/political influence of the West/US over your 'apostate' government". This strikes a powerful human cord, "yes our government has become apostate, but it is because they have been corrupted by the morality and wealth of the West" (so it is the West's fault, go attack the west, or contribute funds to those who promise to end this influence, etc). Some hear this, and think that ending Western influence is enough, others think that their corrupted government must go as well. There is a dozen ways to process this message and rationalize the need to act out illegally. (Plus, there are no effective legal venues for acting out so the populaces only choices are "endure" or "revolt.")

    So a HIGH VALUE TARGET for the US is the widely held perception that our culture has a morally corrupting influence on the people and governments of the Middle East, and that our government manipulates/corrupts the governments with wealth, power and inappropriate meddling. Some places there is more reality to that then others, but it is the perception that matters. The U.S. has a golden opportunity during this current unrest to Engage THAT HIGH VALUE TARGET. I think the President's speech a couple nights ago re. Egypt was on target. We need to do more in that regard, but it is more symbolic and messaging, and backroom carrot and sticks discussions than anything else.

    We cannot target and destroy "Islamist Ideology,"
    We cannot target and destroy "corruption."
    We cannot target and destroy "poverty."

    But we can target and engage the perception that these things are our fault. This requires us to makes changes in ourselves rather than in others, and to admit a degree of liability for the political unrest in the region. Such admissions are the first part of a 12-step program for a reason. Healing cannot begin until acceptance of responsibility for ones actions occurs.
    Robert C. Jones
    Intellectus Supra Scientia
    (Understanding is more important than Knowledge)

    "The modern COIN mindset is when one arrogantly goes to some foreign land and attempts to make those who live there a lesser version of one's self. The FID mindset is when one humbly goes to some foreign land and seeks first to understand, and then to help in some small way for those who live there to be the best version of their own self." Colonel Robert C. Jones, US Army Special Forces (Retired)

  11. #91
    Council Member Bob's World's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    2,706

    Default

    Cliff,

    Ok, you came up with one example: China.

    "Suppressed Insurgency" is not the same as "no insurgency." The Uyghurs in the west, the situation in Tibet, the growing divide between the cities and the countryside, the haves and the have nots. China is a ticking bomb. Long before China is apt to become a power that can truly challenge the US it will likely implode due to their own suppressed internal problems. The conditions of insurgency are very high there, but reaction to them are suppressed. The same is true in Saudi Arabia and many of the Arab states that are currently in the news, or getting ready to come into the news. So China really is not a good example. Any others?

    As to ideology you miss my point. You have full access to all forms of insurgent ideology, past and present, every day. This is what comes with freedom of speech and freedom of the press. And yet it has no impact on yourself or the vast majority of Americans to act out in the form of illegal politics. Even the Tea Party opts to take legal actions to speak out, to assemble, to put candidates on the ballot and get them legally elected into to office. Ideology is always there. But Ideology does not cause insurgency. So logically it must be something else.
    Robert C. Jones
    Intellectus Supra Scientia
    (Understanding is more important than Knowledge)

    "The modern COIN mindset is when one arrogantly goes to some foreign land and attempts to make those who live there a lesser version of one's self. The FID mindset is when one humbly goes to some foreign land and seeks first to understand, and then to help in some small way for those who live there to be the best version of their own self." Colonel Robert C. Jones, US Army Special Forces (Retired)

  12. #92
    Council Member Bob's World's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    2,706

    Default Exactly

    Quote Originally Posted by Fuchs View Post
    The specific methods were for example delivery of arms (Saudi-Arabia's army is not hesitant at all to proclaim that its primary purpose is to keep the royal family in power), money aid and political backing.

    20 years ago the U.S. reinstated a 100% obvious dictatorship in Kuwait after "liberating" it.


    Mature citizens decide for themselves.


    What the U.S. could do:
    Support the opposition instead of dictatorships or at least drop the support for dictators.
    Do not supply arms. The point here is not so much that this will deprive them off arms (others will sell them), but it'll make the army less happy and thus more inclined to not support the dictator in a critical moment.


    Yesterday, several well-known Republican faces have overtly supported Mubarak and disparaged the popular uprising as a 1979-style revolution that needs to fail. Meanwhile, the U.S. governments is not doing much of substance overtly.

    We have put ourselves in a difficult situation. We have long known how these governments stand for principles that are virtually 180 degrees out from our own, yet we have supported and sustained them for a complex array of national interest driven reasons.

    Now, when these "allies" are challenged by populaces who are acting very much in accordance with our express national principles we find ourselves in a massive conflict of interests.

    Fox news keeps wheeling out a map that shows how Israel is a very small state and that it is "now" surrounded by "enemies" in the form of Arab states. Israel is quite aware that it is, and always will be surrounded by Arab states, that is a fact. But this information is pulled out now and placed in a bad context and sends a negative strategic communication out to the populaces of this region and the world. ("We care about the people of Israel, not the people of Egypt") Why can't we care about both???

    The "experts" on terrorism and Islamism are having a field day as well. Comparing Egypt 2011 to Iran 1979. Well, there is one similarity, in each case a leader carefully sustained in power by the U.S is getting his walking (or perhaps running) papers. To assume that Sunni/Christian/ Mediterranean Egypt is going to somehow turn into what Shia/Persian Iran became is a bit of a stretch. We failed to reach out to the people of Iran and we did not work to establish a relationship with the new government.

    Much of the current strain between the US and Iran is on the shoulders of the US and our policies toward Iran. In fact, the US can use how it changes its approaches to such situations with this Egyptian opportunity. Then leverage that to reach out and form a healthier relationship with Iran as well.

    Currently it is a battle in the media between those who are looking for threats and problems and those who are looking for opportunities. Certainly both are there, but I fall in the camp that says keep a clear eye on the potential problems, but reach out and embrace the opportunities. We have a chance to clear up this tremendous hypocrisy of conflicted US principles and policies in the Middle East, and I think we should make the most of it.
    Robert C. Jones
    Intellectus Supra Scientia
    (Understanding is more important than Knowledge)

    "The modern COIN mindset is when one arrogantly goes to some foreign land and attempts to make those who live there a lesser version of one's self. The FID mindset is when one humbly goes to some foreign land and seeks first to understand, and then to help in some small way for those who live there to be the best version of their own self." Colonel Robert C. Jones, US Army Special Forces (Retired)

  13. #93
    Council Member Ken White's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    8,060

    Default Heh. The Carter prescriptions and their aftermath

    show that idealism can have unpredictable costs...

    Quote Originally Posted by Fuchs View Post
    Mature citizens decide for themselves.
    So do immature citizens. Both decide pretty much what they wish to decide and then look for evidence to support their position -- frequently ignoring dissenting voices.

    Nothing new in that...
    What the U.S. could do:
    Support the opposition instead of dictatorships or at least drop the support for dictators.
    A noble ideal. While I agree we can do that, getting the ponderous US government to shift gears is far more problematic than it seems to appear to many.

    Supporting "the opposition" internally is a feature and a factor of the operation of the US government. Getting agreement on what course to follow is always messy, generally a lackluster compromise and will almost never satisfy most people. Thus we are condemned to a foreign policy that is, at best, strange. A big part of that has been that we for almost two centuries had so much wealth and relative power and so many built in strategic advantages that we could safely let US domestic politics rule our foreign (and economic) policy. Those days are gone but due to the excessive size of our government and its peculiar design, we are very slow at shifting focus. As I've said before, that's a feature, not a bug.

    Whether that feature will work adequately well in the future is to be determined. I certainly do not know the answer but I can say that over many years, I've seen a lot of premature predictions of our fall or demise.
    Do not supply arms. The point here is not so much that this will deprive them off arms (others will sell them), but it'll make the army less happy and thus more inclined to not support the dictator in a critical moment.
    Idealistic statement and idea. Two problems with it. First, the arms are ancillary to dictatorships; their primary control is through intimidation of persons and / or the delivery of economic sufficiency.

    Secondly, we've done that several time over the last Century, most notably and pointedly during the Carter years. What we discovered was that our the clients or customers would just turn to someone else and that the UK, France and Germany on one side and the USSR and China on the other were more than willing to fill the gap (and that remains true) -- thus, our industries lost production and sales and the net flow of arms was not changed in any significant degree. There is also the fact that in providing arms (and training) the US Armed Forces obtain some moderating influence on the local armed forces -- witness both Tunisia and Egypt today.
    Yesterday, several well-known Republican faces have overtly supported Mubarak and disparaged the popular uprising as a 1979-style revolution that needs to fail. Meanwhile, the U.S. governments is not doing much of substance overtly.
    Were they Republican faces or TV / Media pundit talking heads that lean Republican or right? I missed any politicians of any significance doing what you say -- though I did note that the Vice President, a Democrat, said Mubarak needed to stay.

    The talking heads can be effectively ignored, the VP not so much.

    Bob's World:
    Now, when these "allies" are challenged by populaces who are acting very much in accordance with our express national principles we find ourselves in a massive conflict of interests.
    True dat. Been that way since 1836 or thereabouts. Note that the conflicts almost always get worked out in a way that satisfies few but that is ordained by US domestic politics...
    ("We care about the people of Israel, not the people of Egypt") Why can't we care about both???
    Affinity, I suspect...
    We failed to reach out to the people of Iran and we did not work to establish a relationship with the new government.
    As one who had served in Iran, had friends there and from there and was therefor paying attention at the time, that is a not totally true statement. We did reach out as best we were able given our ponderous nature and the reach was rejected -- not due to the oft stated 'Mossadegh affair' but simply due to ideology using the business of 1953 as an excuse. Check Bowden's "Guests of the Ayatollah" for just one of many sources.
    Much of the current strain between the US and Iran is on the shoulders of the US and our policies toward Iran. In fact, the US can use how it changes its approaches to such situations with this Egyptian opportunity. Then leverage that to reach out and form a healthier relationship with Iran as well.
    I very much agree with that. However the limitations of US domestic political intrusion and the correct and proper fear of the unknown results plus ideology that will reject US overtures will quite possibly not produce the results you seem to expect. Thus while it is quite easy for us -- You, Fuchs, myself and some others -- with no responsibility to say "we can do better..." it is far more difficult a decision and problematic effort for those that have the responsibility.
    We have a chance to clear up this tremendous hypocrisy of conflicted US principles and policies in the Middle East, and I think we should make the most of it.
    Again I agree. Again, having the responsibility to do that or not and the actual doing of it are not nearly as easy as writing about it...

  14. #94
    Council Member Ken White's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    8,060

    Default Whoops, Missed this earlier. Sorry...

    Glad to see you back on the board...

    Quote Originally Posted by Surferbeetle View Post
    I find that I am starting to devote some of my time to this sport
    My wife's favorite sport. I tend to take a good book...
    Yet, I agree, none of these techniques and disciplines fully capture/describe the complexity we see.
    True and that even slight degree of uncertainty drives many decision makers to dither -- generally the worst reaction but one which seem thoroughly embedded in the human psyche. I fear we'll just have to live with that.
    I am not a mathematician...I won't be too surprised if computer power and analytical techniques will have evolved to the point where we are able to provide quantifiable predictions...which exceed those provided by the USG sponsored Political Instability Task Force (George Mason University).
    I suspect you're mostly correct. While there are benefits to be derived, I fear there may also be some downsides in that removal of uncertainty, strongly desired by many , will not be the panacea they expect.
    It's important to qualify that their efforts are but part of the story and some of my experiences in the ME (and banking for that matter) have revealed to me some of the darker aspects of people which they do not appear to account for in their analysis and calculations.
    People can cause what Burns said: "the best laid schemes of mice and men gang aft agley..." Quantification has great merit, properly applied and that is correct even if there is massive human involvement. However, the larger the human quotient, the more latitude for error in quantitative analysis. Qualitative analysis can fill some gaps but even applying both types rigorously will not lead to certainty; people are simply too emotional and the probability of developing an algorithm to track that is slim...
    Are some of the events in Tunisia, Egypt, Yemen, and Iraq directly comparable to those of Eastern Europe during and after the fall of the Berlin Wall? Perhaps, however my understanding is limited, and it’s still very early in the timeline to try and start making predictions.
    My guess -- and it is no more than that -- is that most of the Eastern European experience wil not be transferable to North Africa or the ME. Just as Malaysian and Indonesian Muslims differ and both those are quite different than the Arabs of the ME, geography and demographics shape destinies and attitudes.

    For assessments of potential and / or predictions of possibilities and probabilities, great familiarity -- let me emphasize that 'great' -- with a region and its people will enable a reasonably astute prediction when coupled with quantitative and qualitative data whereas the date sets alone will not suffice. Passing familiarity (my two years in the ME or four in Korea for example) do not equip one to make competent judgments. It takes long experience with actually living in a culture to do that -- and all peoples separate into cultures...

    That's the difficulty with even phenomenal brainpower as in Sachs and Shreve applied to people problems, they miss the nuances -- and cannot stand the quirks...

  15. #95
    Council Member carl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Denver on occasion
    Posts
    2,460

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bob's World View Post
    Cliff,

    Ok, you came up with one example: China.
    How about North Korea?
    "We fight, get beat, rise, and fight again." Gen. Nathanael Greene

  16. #96
    Council Member Fuchs's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    3,189

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ken White View Post
    Two problems with it. First, the arms are ancillary to dictatorships; their primary control is through intimidation of persons and / or the delivery of economic sufficiency.
    I explicitly pointed out that it's not about refusing them the weapons needed to suppress the people. It's about making the military unhappy.
    There's a reason why dictators go shopping for unnecessary modern weapons. The military is unhappy if it's being neglected, and being able to only buy 1960's crap from China is a form of neglect.

    Were they Republican faces or TV / Media pundit talking heads that lean Republican or right? I missed any politicians of any significance doing what you say -- though I did note that the Vice President, a Democrat, said Mubarak needed to stay.
    Bolton, GOP conference chair Thaddeus...and I don't recall that from Biden, although it wouldn't be too uncommon.

  17. #97
    Council Member Ken White's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    8,060

    Default Limelight seekers are fascinating...

    Quote Originally Posted by Fuchs View Post
    I explicitly pointed out that it's not about refusing them the weapons needed to suppress the people.
    Yep, read that, just reconfirmed it and went on to note the fact that we experienced the switch off in supplies had two down sides; they bought elsewhere -- and, the important point, we lost military to military leverage. It's been my observation that very few in the world realize how many things the US Armed Forces have done to get other forces worldwide to be a little less 'harsh' in their treatment of others...
    The military is unhappy if it's being neglected, and being able to only buy 1960's crap from China is a form of neglect.
    True on the first part, on the second, not so much. China will sell that if they can (as will the USSR and most others, including the US) but for he who insists on better stuff, both China and the USSR have made significant improvements in quality control, appearance, finish and functionality in the past few years -- and they've always done fairly well with reliability which, to the knowing, is more important than pretty...
    Bolton, GOP conference chair Thaddeus...and I don't recall that from Biden, although it wouldn't be too uncommon.
    Bolton is a right wing screwball, he has never represented mainstream Republican views. He did serve in the Reagan Bush administrations (both) but this is a guy whose attitude was as "...He wrote in his Yale 25th reunion book "I confess I had no desire to die in a Southeast Asian rice paddy. I considered the war in Vietnam already lost." He was never confirmed as UN Ambassador and he needs to be ignored -- which is what most in the US do...

    Thank you for introducing me to someone I'd never heard of. After reading some of Thaddeus' statements and a bit about him (LINK) , I can see why. I suspect he, too, can be safely ignored.

    Still, you were right, they count as Republicans. I guess I ought to pay more attention to political chatter; I ignore much of it as it's pretty pointless...

    Take our V.P. for example (who's really not all that bad but does tend to talk too much and say strange things...).

  18. #98
    Council Member Bob's World's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    2,706

    Default NK is indeed a unique case.

    Quote Originally Posted by carl View Post
    How about North Korea?
    North Korea is a tough read. My "never been there, don't know much about their culture" assessment is that the conditions of insurgency should be fairly high, and in turn, highly suppressed by the government.

    NK is unique, however, in how isolated that populace is information-wise from the rest of the world. They may actually perceive their situation to be "normal", and therefore have relatively low conditions of insurgency. Perceptions are relative, and with the advent of ever increasing speed, volume and access to information the standards expected of governments increase. In NK, however, things still move at stone-age speeds.

    My prediction on NK is that as the populace gains greater access to information the pressure on the government to evolve will increase. Of course their entire model of governance may collapse before that ever happens.

    Info technology and its advances are critical to the understanding of insurgency, particularly for foreign powers that subject the populaces of others and their governments to external controls. The later Romans, once their network of roads were built, could not get away with what the earlier romans could. The Holy Roman Empire found it's systems of controls under increased pressure once the Printing press was invented. The British came under greater pressures from their holdings once they connected their empire with telegraph cables. The Soviets lost control of Eastern Europe as those populaces gained greater access to info; and today the systems of controls the US established as part of its containment strategy and to ensure global commerce is under growing pressure as cellular and satellite comms and social networking sites continue to improve.

    The world is changing, and the expectations of governments are changing along with it. Power once "monopolized" by states is becoming more democratized instead. Sovereignty means less than it used to, and non-state actors from corporations to AQ are acting more independently from such sovereign controls and with greater power that states are ill-equipped (currently) to counter or deter.

    We live in dynamic and fascinating times. Facing these times armed with a COIN doctrine derived from centuries old colonial intervention strategies as our primary tool for managing them is probably not the best idea.
    Robert C. Jones
    Intellectus Supra Scientia
    (Understanding is more important than Knowledge)

    "The modern COIN mindset is when one arrogantly goes to some foreign land and attempts to make those who live there a lesser version of one's self. The FID mindset is when one humbly goes to some foreign land and seeks first to understand, and then to help in some small way for those who live there to be the best version of their own self." Colonel Robert C. Jones, US Army Special Forces (Retired)

  19. #99
    Council Member Surferbeetle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    1,111

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ken White View Post
    Glad to see you back on the board...
    Thanks, like what you have done with the place, Prost/Cheers…another Johnny Walker Black Label all around

    Quote Originally Posted by Ken White View Post
    My guess -- and it is no more than that -- is that most of the Eastern European experience wil not be transferable to North Africa or the ME. Just as Malaysian and Indonesian Muslims differ and both those are quite different than the Arabs of the ME, geography and demographics shape destinies and attitudes.
    As you rightly note, paying attention to the nuances of market segmentation often results in benefits for those who do. In pursuit of a key informant from the financial world who can provide us with some more insights regarding Tunisia I cruised on over to the website of the Financial Times in order to see if Dr. Gillian Tett or Mr. Gideon Rachman had posted anything regarding the goings on. Their particular focus during this reporting cycle was on the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland. Dr. Tett provides an interesting and quick read regarding the practice of social anthropology while gathering insights into the networking practices of Davos Man. Her article is entitled A Social Network, and is dated 28 Jan 2011. (Site registration provides one access to ten free FT articles per month if memory serves). Mr. Rachman provides an interesting article, dated 28 Jan 11, entitled What’s on the Mind of Davos Man? Unfortunately Davos Man wasn’t speaking on record for these two articles regarding Tunisia. Instead, Egypt seems to be a greater concern as discussed in the 28 Jan 11 article entitled Geopolitical Worries Move up the Agenda.

    Both the FT and the BBC have a report regarding the return to Tunisia of Rachid Ghannouchi, of the Nahda (Renaissance) movement from his ~19 year exile in London. The BBC also does an excellent job, as usual, with it’s breakout of key Tunisian politicians and parties (Constitutional Democratic Rally (RCD) party, Nahda, Congress for the Republic, Movement of Socialist Democrats, Party of People's Unity, Unionist Democratic Union, Renewal Movement (Ettajdid), Democratic Initiative Movement, Social Liberal Party and the Green Party for Progress ) as well as some background regarding the Tunisian Army’s Chief of Staff, Gen Rachid Ammar.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ken White View Post
    For assessments of potential and/or predictions of possibilities and probabilities, great familiarity -- let me emphasize that 'great' -- with a region and its people will enable a reasonably astute prediction when coupled with quantitative and qualitative data whereas the date sets alone will not suffice. Passing familiarity (my two years in the ME or four in Korea for example) do not equip one to make competent judgments. It takes long experience with actually living in a culture to do that -- and all peoples separate into cultures...
    With only two years in the ME, and over a decade spent in Europe, I agree with your analysis. I would add that taking the plunge and learning the language(s), (DLI, SOLT, FSI, University, Instituto Cervantes, Goethe Institute – they even have one in Tehran, etc.), is key. Language abilities provide for a day versus night level of understanding. I know that I am preaching to a DLI grad on this point…but I’ll still throw it out there for anyone else who will listen.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ken White View Post
    That's the difficulty with even phenomenal brainpower as in Sachs and Shreve applied to people problems, they miss the nuances -- and cannot stand the quirks...
    Managing/empowering high priced talent is not easy. When being in a position to choose…runners seem to know how to turn things off…but that’s not a hard and fast rule…more of an opinion on my part.
    Last edited by Surferbeetle; 01-31-2011 at 03:41 AM. Reason: Fixed link
    Sapere Aude

  20. #100
    Council Member Bob's World's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    2,706

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ken White View Post
    ...My guess -- and it is no more than that -- is that most of the Eastern European experience wil not be transferable to North Africa or the ME. Just as Malaysian and Indonesian Muslims differ and both those are quite different than the Arabs of the ME, geography and demographics shape destinies and attitudes.

    For assessments of potential and / or predictions of possibilities and probabilities, great familiarity -- let me emphasize that 'great' -- with a region and its people will enable a reasonably astute prediction when coupled with quantitative and qualitative data whereas the date sets alone will not suffice. Passing familiarity (my two years in the ME or four in Korea for example) do not equip one to make competent judgments. It takes long experience with actually living in a culture to do that -- and all peoples separate into cultures...

    That's the difficulty with even phenomenal brainpower as in Sachs and Shreve applied to people problems, they miss the nuances -- and cannot stand the quirks...
    Ken, completely agree, and you have far more experience than most. Its pretty crazy how much sway a handful COIN experts have based on 1-2 tours to Iraq coupled with a little PhD work on the topic of western colonial COIN experience.

    My only caveat to this is that most experts on cultures know very little about insurgency, which leads to equally flawed assessments of how things might play out. Now, I don't know how Arab cultures will respond to a very similar window of information empowered opportunity on a populace subjected to years of outside influenced controls, but I can contribute keen insights on the general dynamics of insurgency at the human nature level.

    Too much of our current flawed approach to the war on terrorism is that we have relied too much on "cultural experts" who have made it far too much about religion; and on CT and COIN experts who have made far too much about a couple different families of tactics for addressing particular aspects of a problem, but not very good at addressing the larger drivers of the real problem. In fact, the main goal of my work is to provide a more effective theoretical framework for all of those experts to lend their expertise against.

    It is not a pursuit for "the answer" is the pursuit for a more effective context. Counter culture, counter terror, and colonial intervention models dressed up as COIN just are not working. What amazes me is how many assume that they should.

    (Oh, and to clear up a comment I made a couple days ago regarding a "Malaya in the Desert," what I meant was an opportunity to bring previously excluded members of the populace into full participation, coupled with the removal of overt and perceived external controls over that same political process. As I have stated elsewhere, I believe these are the factors that contributed most to the enduring stability of that nation and are what are missing in so many Middle Eastern nations that are flaring up today.)
    Robert C. Jones
    Intellectus Supra Scientia
    (Understanding is more important than Knowledge)

    "The modern COIN mindset is when one arrogantly goes to some foreign land and attempts to make those who live there a lesser version of one's self. The FID mindset is when one humbly goes to some foreign land and seeks first to understand, and then to help in some small way for those who live there to be the best version of their own self." Colonel Robert C. Jones, US Army Special Forces (Retired)

Similar Threads

  1. The US response to China (catch all)
    By SWJ Blog in forum Asia-Pacific
    Replies: 75
    Last Post: 03-29-2019, 02:02 AM
  2. Venezuela (2006-2018)
    By Stratiotes in forum Americas
    Replies: 91
    Last Post: 01-03-2019, 07:47 PM
  3. Sierra Leone (catch all)
    By Tom Odom in forum Africa
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 08-01-2017, 12:19 PM
  4. Don't Send a Lion to Catch a Mouse
    By SWJED in forum Futurists & Theorists
    Replies: 23
    Last Post: 03-15-2007, 11:46 AM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •