Muslim Brotherhood

[AmericanPride]

Rex,

That is why I consider the MB, in general, as a shade of gray of insurgency. Yes -- the Egyptian faction (as well as the Jordanian, Somalian and Tunisian factions) have more or less abdicated violence. But because of the organization's revisionist agenda that aims to redraw the region's political order driven in large part by a (largely accurate) perception of Western interference and a general failure of the Arab states to reach modernity, I think its activities amount to subversion disguised in democracy. I think 'radicalism' is not of particular concern -- most groups of whatever origin or agenda resort to violence or coercion. I think the larger concern is of revisionism and revolution, which we of course oppose in the region, as do the entrenched elites of the conservative/traditionalist/reactionary regimes. Radicalism IMO is partly a product of alienated revisionism and as you correctly point out, it's a serious dilemma (i.e. Hamas). (On a side note, this makes me wonder whether Saddam's Iraq could/should have been 'rehabilitated' into the international community following 9/11 and partly why I think Syria should be; but we'll see how the democratic process plays out in Iraq). "Nothing is settled that is not settled right." The question is not if (again) there will be another Arab 'revolt' against the powers that be -- but when and how. The monarchists of the early 20th century failed. The nationalists and the socialists failed. Are the religionists faring any better? And who will replace them should they also fail? Is there anything more dangerous than the integration of political action and religious belief?

[Rex Brynen]

Rex,

That is why I consider the MB, in general, as a shade of gray of insurgency. Yes -- the Egyptian faction (as well as the Jordanian, Somalian and Tunisian factions) have more or less abdicated violence. But because of the organization's revisionist agenda that aims to redraw the region's political order driven in large part by a (largely accurate) perception of Western interference and a general failure of the Arab states to reach modernity, I think its activities amount to subversion disguised in democracy.

I think this may hinge on one's definition of insurgency. The DoD definition is "an organized movement aimed at the overthrow of a constituted government through use of subversion and armed conflict" (JP 1-02, and FM 3-24) or possibly "An insurgency is an organized, armed political struggle whose goal may be the seizure of power through revolutionary takeover and replacement of the existing government." (FM 100-20). In both definitions, the notion of armed violence is a necessary condition. While that applies to Hamas, it doesn't apply to the contemporary Jordanian and Egyptian MB.

I'm extremely wary about expanding "insurgency" to embrace non-violent movements for political change—which I prefer to call, well, "politics". There's nothing to be gained, in my view, in trying to shoe-horn it into a COINdinista frame of reference.

[AmericanPride]

Rex,

It's not so much that the MB is ostenibly pursuing peaceful political change in Egypt, but that its agenda is revisionist in nature insofar it desires to completely reshape the current political order according to its own definition of politics and justice. Its moderation in Egypt can probably be attributed to the general moderation of Mubarak's regime. And since conflict is political in origin, and the ojectives to change the political character of the target regimes have not fundamentally changed, I question the use of violence as a "necessary condition" for insurgency. The definition IMO would better read as 'subversion or armed struggle'. Note that the second definition you provided identifies "revolutionary takeover and replacement of the existing government" as the final political aim. In a democratic country, this is theoretically possible by largely legal means (i.e. Weimar Germany).

[Ken White]

...I'm extremely wary about expanding "insurgency" to embrace non-violent movements for political change—which I prefer to call, well, "politics". There's nothing to be gained, in my view, in trying to shoe-horn it into a COINdinista frame of reference.

the old 'Ugly American' bit -- albeit in many cases simply unthinkingly instead of maliciously, it is IMO far better to err on the side of caution in public utterances and writing. What's done in other and professional venues is another matter but a little public discretion goes a long way.

We've suffered slings and arrows from all over the world due to the failures of our media for years and they've not improved. Now we also get the unthinking things said in the blogosphere. This in some cases from folks who tend to complain that we're 'losing the information war...'