The Arab Spring (a partial collection)

[Bill Moore]

Forming A Movement or Green Beret Stuff 2013 style all kinds of edumacated (just invented that word)stuff in this video



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zG8qNSQzIOw

This is just politics 201, not Green Beret stuff in my view, though our ranks should understand it. We're generally better off if we don't get involved and let the political evolution unfold. UW has merit in very select cases, but in most cases we're better providing diplomatic, financial and information support to movements we want to see gain steam.

Posted by Bob's World

Well, Dayuhan, most people who we call "terrorists" are not really terrorists at all, but simply are people fed up with the situations of government they are forced to live under.

This is generally true, but it doesn't effectively capture the intent of transnational terrorist groups who have global or regional ambitions that have nothing to with how effective or ineffective the governments are. In Al-Qaeda's case it is the caliphate. When the USSR was promoting communism they exploited bad governance in some cases, but frequently organized resistance in countries that had decent governments. Again it takes less than 15% of the population resisting the government to present an existential threat.

Getting back to your point we have conflated AQ with all acts of terrorism conducted by Muslims. Many are conducted by people feed up with their government or an occupying power and their act has nothing to do with a larger global agenda, but we generally put them in the same category, which demonstrates a dangerous lack of understanding on our part.

[slapout9]

This is just politics 201, not Green Beret stuff in my view, though our ranks should understand it. We're generally better off if we don't get involved and let the political evolution unfold. UW has merit in very select cases, but in most cases we're better providing diplomatic, financial and information support to movements we want to see gain steam.

Ok let CIA do it. We used to be fairly good at this back in the 50's and early 60's.

[Bill Moore]

Ok let CIA do it. We used to be fairly good at this back in the 50's and early 60's.

Slap, that comment assumes we need to do something. One has to wonder if we as a nation that promotes the value of self-determination feels compelled to stick our nose in other nations' business in support of business or perceived (and sometimes real) security interests. The CIA has had some sucesses, but it seems most of their efforts are a bit clown like and normally backfire. Special Forces facilitates expert tactical level guerrilla operations in support of an overall strategy (assuming one exists), but our nation doesn't a single organization that can wage unconventional warfare, it requires a whole of government approach.

I'm really at loss to find more than a handful of examples of where the U.S. was successful in UW if you look the impact over time. We have been successful providing quiet assistance to non-violent uprisings/revolutions in some cases. The problem in our approach is every organization with a tool believes they have the strategic solution (assuming it is our problem to begin with). The Air Force thinks they can bomb their way to success, the Army thinks they can occupy and impose control/stability, Special Operations thinks they can achieve all ends through and with indigenuous partners, the CIA paramilitary thinks they can achieve the end through too often clownish covert operations, and of course our State Department offers little more than imposing sanctions. All are tactics confused with strategy. What do we need to achieve (ends), what are the best way(s) to accomplish it? what are the means? All this must be informed by an understanding of the environment or conflict ecology, which in most cases we have failed to gain.

I agree with Bob's World on this:

If our solution is to simply reinforce the status quo where we think that suits our external interests; or alternatively to help throw off the local system of governance where we think that best suits our interests, we will continue to be frustrated with the results. And we will continue to incite acts of transnational terrorism back onto ourselves as payment for our efforts.

We need to reframe the problem, and then reassess how we best get after securing ourselves and our interests. We will likely find that less is more, mediation is better than arbitration, and evolution is more productive than revolution.

[slapout9]

Bill, you raise valid points and yes we have several independent agencies that believe they all have the Holy Grail solution but this is why I like Ike, he knew how to make Policy that could control and pull together all those radical independent agencies. Which is what a real leader should do. But sadly our present leadership believes everything can be solved by applying the Hawaiian Social Justice Philosophy. Here is a link to an upcoming PBS series on Eisenhower and Waging Peace Covertly as one portion is called. Ike had a broad and effective Policy before any Strategy was ever developed, something that is sadly laking in our present leadership. It was based on 3 key elements Nuclear deterrence MAD, A Strong Economy at home, and Covert Action when needed.


http://www.eisenhowerlegacy.com/eisenhowers-secret-war

[Steve Blair]

Eisenhower also saddled us with a military that was unprepared for conventional conflict. He also underestimated Stalin's determination at key points and seems to have totally misread both China and Southeast Asia writ large. Not to mention that his defense policies created that evil ol' military-industrial complex that he later bemoaned. MAD did precious little to deal with the demise of colonial regimes throughout the world, and quite a few of his covert activities were either overreaching or short-sighted.

His best trick was perhaps that domestic prosperity, which made sure that people wouldn't look too closely at some of his foreign policy decisions.

[Bill Moore]

Not an indepth piece, but none the less it further illustrates that our clear, hold, build doctrine may be more severely flawed than I originally thought when we use it to install democracies. There appears to be an order to economic, social and political evolution that cannot be imposed with military force. For your consideration.

http://ideas.time.com/2013/03/14/10-...15529462149245

Write a Constitution
By Fareed Zakaria

This should have been clear to anyone who looked at the history of transitions to democracy. While many former Eastern Bloc countries have become liberal democracies, the 15 former Soviet republics have not fared as well. Nine are dictatorships, and the other three — Georgia, Ukraine and Moldova — are, in the words of Stanford scholar Larry Diamond, “illiberal, even questionably democratic and unstable.”

Why? There is a vigorous academic debate about the conditions that allow democracy to flourish. The most powerful single correlation remains one first made by the social scientist Seymour Martin Lipset, who pointed out in 1959 that “the more well-to-do a nation, the greater the chances that it will sustain democracy.” But there are other intriguing correlations. Countries in Europe, even relatively poor ones, have done better than others. Former British colonies have done better than those of other countries.

Read more: http://ideas.time.com/2013/03/14/10-...#ixzz2Nj6NncSD

[TheCurmudgeon]

There appears to be an order to economic, social and political evolution that cannot be imposed with military force. For your consideration.

I would agree. Below is a graph of the Human Development Index. The Human Development Index is calculated using data like life expectancy at birth, schooling, and Gross National Income (GNI) to produce an index number that ranges from zero to one with one being the best possible rating.

The second data-point is a derived from World Values Survey data. The world values survey is conducted once every five years or so and includes data from over 80 countries. It asks a series of questions to determine the values that are most important to the society. Dr. Ronald Inglehart and Dr. Christian Welzel have used the data from these surveys to produce dimensions that can be used to estimate societal values. Traditional vs. Secular dimension reflects a contrast between societies where religion and tradition is very important versus those where they play less of a role in determining an individual’s personal values. Survival vs. Self-expression dimension reflects a distinction between those societies that emphasize economic and physical security to versus those that find subjective well being to be more important. Combined the two provide a basic yardstick for measuring whether a society has communal/survival values or whether the society has individualistic/liberal values.

The squares are full democracies, the diamonds are partial democracies, and the circles are autocracies (based on Polity IV data). Base on this I would say that first human conditions increase, then the values change, then you get democracy. You might also note that there are almost no countries that are individualistic with a low Human Development Index.

[Dayuhan]

in most cases we're better providing diplomatic, financial and information support to movements we want to see gain steam.

I'd say even that needs to be pursued with great caution and acute awareness of the potential for unintended consequences.

Ok let CIA do it. We used to be fairly good at this back in the 50's and early 60's.

Hell yeah, we got rid of Mossadegh and Lumumba and everything worked out just fine in those places... not to mention a few others.

[slapout9]

Dayuhan, this is what I amtalking about.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hdA0d6O4bZ0

[Dayuhan]

My 3rd world internet connection would take all day to load a 44 minute video, and it would almost certainly bog down in the process. Are "opritives" something like "operatives"?