"Occupation by Policy" - How Victors Inadvertantly Provoke Resistance Insurgency

[carl]

This does not mean don't have treaties, but they must be living documents. This does not mean don't have partners, but partnerships must be flexible, both in their terms, and also in what we apply them to.

That is a formula for chaos and chaos gets violent. You want to renegotiate treaties often, fine. But to have a treaty, a contract sort of, that is 'flexible' in terms and what we apply them to, to have a 'living document' is to have nothing at all. What you say ain't what you mean...except sometimes. That is international relations by what I feel like at the time, no predictability, anything may happen at any time. Good luck maintaining the peace that way.

[Bob's World]

That is a formula for chaos and chaos gets violent. You want to renegotiate treaties often, fine. But to have a treaty, a contract sort of, that is 'flexible' in terms and what we apply them to, to have a 'living document' is to have nothing at all. What you say ain't what you mean...except sometimes. That is international relations by what I feel like at the time, no predictability, anything may happen at any time. Good luck maintaining the peace that way.

Inflexible treaties turned an assassination of a single national leader into the senseless horror of WWI.

Today we are similarly poised where bad treaties could lead to senseless war. When war is necessary wage it to win, but when war is unnecessary avoid it like the plague that it is.

Relationships become dysfunctional over time. We must ensure that in an era of rapid change we are not caught like the powers of Europe were not so long ago into events they did not want, but could not see their way clear to escape.

Our current defense strategy calls for "permanent allies" and "building partner capacity" as a major LOO for advancing our interests into the future. I respectfully disagree.

We have no permanent allies,
we have no permanent enemies,
we only have permanent interests.

–attributed to Henry John Temple Viscount Lord Palmerston 1784-1865, Foreign Secretary and two-time Prime Minister under Queen Victoria.

What he actually said was [concerning apparent British apathy regarding Polish struggles against Russian hegemony, which Palmerston did not
believe that it met the threshold of justifiable war] “He concluded with the famous peroration that Britain had no eternal allies and no perpetual enemies, only interest that were eternal and perpetual . . .”--quoted in David Brown, Palmerston and the Politics of Foreign Policy,
1846-1855 (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2002), pp. 82-83.

https://politicalscience.byu.edu/Syl...on_170_F08.pdf

[carl]

Inflexible treaties turned an assassination of a single national leader into the senseless horror of WWI.

Today we are similarly poised where bad treaties could lead to senseless war. When war is necessary wage it to win, but when war is unnecessary avoid it like the plague that it is.

Relationships become dysfunctional over time. We must ensure that in an era of rapid change we are not caught like the powers of Europe were not so long ago into events they did not want, but could not see their way clear to escape.

Our current defense strategy calls for "permanent allies" and "building partner capacity" as a major LOO for advancing our interests into the future. I respectfully disagree.



What he actually said was [concerning apparent British apathy regarding Polish struggles against Russian hegemony, which Palmerston did not
believe that it met the threshold of justifiable war] “He concluded with the famous peroration that Britain had no eternal allies and no perpetual enemies, only interest that were eternal and perpetual . . .”--quoted in David Brown, Palmerston and the Politics of Foreign Policy,
1846-1855 (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2002), pp. 82-83.

https://politicalscience.byu.edu/Syl...on_170_F08.pdf

Maybe those treaties started WWI. Maybe it was German high commanders allowing the importuning of staff logistical officers to override good judgment.

In any event, how many wars have been prevented by people being certain that countries will fulfill their formal treaty obligations? It's hard to prove a negative but probably a lot I'll wager. Countries keep making them so they have been judged for thousands of years to have much utility.

Again, that does not mean don't renegotiate treaties frequently or even renounce them. Fine, but be up front about it. Give the other guy something to plan around. A treaty that is a 'living document' isn't a treaty at all and leaves everybody guessing. That leads to trouble.

What does LOO mean? I know what it means in England but I don't know what it means here.

I suppose it is true that there are no permanent allies in the long run, hundreds of years, but in the short run, scores of years, I am not so sure. This is especially true if you include the influence of popular opinion, populations as you say, upon government policy. Our support of Israel is a case in point. I suppose in the realpolitik sense we should have tossed those guys long ago, but that ain't gonna happen. And it ain't gonna happen because popular American opinion won't let it. Same thing with the other English speaking countries. Let's say the Red Chinese called up and said we want Australia or there will be war. Our response would be 'Ok, if its war you want, its war you will have.' I can't see the Americans cutting the Aussies loose. That is a good reason perhaps to make a sort of permanent ally treaty with the Aussies. The Red Chinese can avoid trying to colonize Australia and thereby avoid trouble. Good for everybody.

[slapout9]

LOO=Line of Operation

[Bill Moore]

Bob, I understand your response to my comments. Fair enough.

Posted by Outlaw 09

Will give you an example on Iran---in the 60s through the late 70s the Shah sent a number of Iranian students to study in Berlin at the cost of the Iranian government---the students who were initially shy became in a short time "radicalized" by the German student movement which was by the way in 67/68 taking on the dictatorship of the Shah went most US students had never even heard of the Shah or his SAVAK. The first German student shot by the Berlin Riot Police in 67 was demoing against the Shah during his visit to Berlin

Besides being incredibly interesting, I think this comment points to the importance of ideology and transference of ideas. It is ideology, religion, and other ideas that shake the world more than anything else, so we can't dismis them. I also think we have the best intentions when we try to establish democratic governments in the midst of chaos, but with few exceptions (e.g. the country has an educated population and history of democracy) it will fail for reasons that seem obvious in hindsight, and possibly in foresight. Why were the communists and jihadists able to establish functional (good enough) government structures rather quickly? Say what you want about Kilkullen, but a point I think he got right in his new book is that people desire order, they want to know what the rules are so they can establish a new norm that is somewhat predictable. Sharia law and communism provides that structure in my opinion (I'm not talking legitimacy) fairly quickly because the laws/expectations are pretty clear. What do we do? We attempt to impose democracy in a chaotic situation where people are seeking order more than a voice, so we throw more disorder on top of disorder.

While not politically correct, occupation powers (not arguing the morality of being an occupying power) should establish fairly strict population control measures, and facilitate a strong government that can continue to impose this order. Then over time after order is established gradually encourage and assist that government transition to something that more effectively addresses the demands of its people.

We can't fix our policy makers, I wish we could, but we can execute in ways that are more effective at the operational and strategic level.

[slapout9]

I agree with carl about living documents.....that is nothing but a drug deal about to go very bad.

[Bob's World]

Let's look at a specific and current example.

I have long contended that the Center of Gravity for the War on Terrorism (or whatever we call it this week) has been, and remains, the nature of the relationship between the Government of Saudi Arabia and the Government of the United States.

There are many clues pointing to this as the COG:
1. The vast majority of AQ's Core and the 9/11 attackers are Saudi.
2. The primary target of AQ being taking down the Saudi family's rule of Arabia.
3. The Saudi-US relationship dating back to 1944 when FDR committed to Ibn Saud that the US would be the protector of the Saudi Kingdom and retain his family in power.
4. The role of the Saudi Kingdom as the protector of Islam and the holy mosques at Mecca and Medina.
5. My understanding of Insurgency. Revolutionary Insurgency conditions between Saudi members of AQ and the KSA; and Resistance Insurgency conditions between Saudi Members of AQ (and their many sympathizers) and the US due to the widely held belief that the Saudi family has been far less willing to listen to the reasonable grievances of the people due to their commitment of protection from the US than they would be if there were no such external source of protection.

Now fast forward to today. What relationship is evolving faster than any other relationship the US has in the ME? Not out of design; not out of us sitting down face to face and discussing new terms; but rather out of reaction to decisions the US is making elsewhere in the ME. Our relationship with Saudi Arabia. The Saudis clearly no longer trust the certainty of this 1944 promise of protection and are increasingly taking matters into their own hands to secure their future. Ironically, even to the extent of working with their sworn enemy, AQ, in Syria.

What have we done that has soured this Cold War relationship?
1. We invaded Iraq and took out Saddam, thereby destroying that strong buffer between Shia Iran and Sunni Arabia. Net result, we delivered Iraq into the Iranian Sphere of Influence and allowed them to flank the Arabian Pen. on the north.
2. We turned our back on Mubarak. Who might we turn on next? The Saudi's and the Gulf State leaders reasonably believe it could be them, as they know they are willing to be even more ruthless than Mubarak toward their own people if need be to stay in power.
3. We waffled on Syria. Saudis and the Gulf States launched their own UW campaigns to support the revolution, working hand in glove with AQ who was already there.

So, while we may well be defusing the COG a bit by accident, that is no way to wage policy. We essentially "occupied by policy" the KSA, not by controlling the Saudi family, but rather by protecting them and enabling them to ignore their people's evolving needs and concerns. We created conditions of resistance insurgency that have been a powerful recruiting tool for AQ and others to enlist members willing to conduct acts of transnational terrorism, to include, of course, the 9/11 attackers.

My recommendation is that we sit down with the Saudis, President to King, and let them know what the new terms are in no uncertain way. Letting them guess is leading to them guessing the worst. That isn't good.

[carl]

Bob:

I am in full agreement that the relationship between the US and Saudi gov has made for a world of trouble and may continue to do so. Some of the things you cite and conclusions you make I disagree with. I still think the whole 'resistance insurgency' and 'occupation by policy' bits are too strained and tenuous to be useful but you're right about Saudi Arabia being trouble as things stand as they are. We should rejigger the whole thing.

What should we tell them the new terms are?