Tunisia and Egypt play dominoes?

[Meshugger]

"But before operation Iraqi freedom, things were pretty calm."

 

Just not true unless your defintion of 'calm' is different than what the word actually means.

 

"Calm" as no riotpolice doing their daily killing along 100 000 - 1 000 000 demonstrators on Bagdad main square.

[Rostere]

1. I can't believe anyone is so naive that they really believe there will be free and fair elections on schedule in Tunisia and Egypt at this stage.

 

I don't believe there will be fair elections in Tunisia or Egypt any more than I believe there will be fair elections in Afghanistan or Iraq. Do you understand what I mean? Even though there are some jumps and discontinuities, the road to democracy is a lengthy process and nothing will ever change in an instant.

 

2. Being British I know that Ghandi himself asserted that nonviolent revolution in India was predicated on the fact that while colonialism was corrupt and violent, the British people fundamentally weren't, and would eventually respond to nonviolent protest without simply slaughtering everyone. Which is quite pleasing, even if it was intended to support his efforts by flattering us.

 

So you are saying that the Arabs, contrary to the British, are fundamentally corrupt and violent? I have plenty of friends from Arabic countries who are just as corrupt and violent as you and I, I'd like you to say that to their faces.

 

3. The communist dictatorships always based their legitimacy both on physical force, economic prosperity for all, and on intellectual philosophy in the form of marxism. The latter two supports collapsed when (with the notable exception of our esteemed colleague) everyone actually living under it realised everything they owned was crappy, and the intellectual justification was bollocks. Whereas a state predicated solely on macchiavellian use of ultraviolence, such as Burma or Sudan, sails confidently on.

 

If we can have a civilian uprising in Libya, obviously civilian uprisings are not hindered by "machiavellian use of ultraviolence"...

 

I'm utterly baffled by your assertion that violent regime change doesn't work, since nonviolent regime change is a new phenomenon in human history. Which begs the question of how regimes changed prior to this. Perhaps in a game of pazaak?

 

I have never said that violent regime change is not effective (in general, and in reaching the goal of toppling the current government), only that the more violence you use, the more likely a backlash will be. Persons of violent ideals will always be the most violent rulers as well. Violence is a double-edged sword. If you prop up revolutionaries with weapons and tell them to go from house to house to kill regime supporters, then sure, you will have a revolution, however it's eventual result might not be what you wanted. In the end, whoever is able to massacre the most of the opposition will win. You will have to be careful in these matters. Chances are, that in an authoritarian country victim to a violent revolt you will only end up with a different kind of tyrant. Just look at South America through the 20th century, or even their current leaders, products of earlier decades of political oppression and corruption due to the Cold War, US and USSR involvement.

 

Did you also know that democracy is a relatively new phenomenon in human history? What has worked in the past is of course irrelevant when I'm suggesting a different, better way of doing things. Humanity also used to dig with our bare hands in the mud and bash each other's heads with rocks, something which has "worked" (in your sense of the word) for thousands of years, but that doesn't make it more sensible today.

 

I'm utterly baffled by your assertion that paternal autocracy doesn't work, since democracy is a new phenomenon in human history. Which begs the question of how governments were made up prior to this. Perhaps in a game of pazaak?

 

I didn't realize Britain was tyranical, but whatever. Come to think of it, none of those were tyrannies.

Wait, what? Are you serious here? I'm getting LoF vibes... For the sake of the argument, could you please write down which countries are democratical according to your opinion (because I assume you seek to counter my argument by saying that countries in which non-violent protests have taken place were in fact "nice" democracies? Colonial Britain, Apartheid South Africa and..?

[Walsingham]

Ros, just picking your first point, as I'm quite tired.

 

1. Iraq had internationally observed free elections. A fact which kinda went unsung because it contradicted all the people who said it couldn't happen. But it took a massive effort - not least of all by the people who went out and voted despite being told they'd be murdered if they did.

 

2. Afghan has yet to have free elections. It has had elections, but even official sources say that Karzai basically funted them.

 

Neither of which has very much bearing on the assessment that Tunisia and Egypt are going through the same process. I'm no expert on Tunisia and Egypt but I've read enough about them to know they aren't even remotely similar to Iraq of Afghanistan. Unless you're suggesting some sort of brotherhood of being brown.

[Volourn]

"I have never said that violent regime change is not effective (in general, and in reaching the goal of toppling the current government), only that the more violence you use, the more likely a backlash will be. Persons of violent ideals will always be the most violent rulers as well."

 

Japan. Germany. United States. 'Nough said.

Edited February 26, 2011 by Volourn

[Walsingham]

"But before operation Iraqi freedom, things were pretty calm."

 

Just not true unless your defintion of 'calm' is different than what the word actually means.

 

"Calm" as no riotpolice doing their daily killing along 100 000 - 1 000 000 demonstrators on Bagdad main square.

 

Indeed. I can see the calming element in the Iraqi police's genial service whereby they would spare the demonstrator the tiresome necessity of assembling before killing them.

 

I'd like to ask, because I'm genuinely fascinated: how the hell have you absorbed the notion that what has been happening for the last couple of weeks is more violent than the Ba'ath party's every day behaviour of its last twenty years?

 

Saddam Hussein followed a largely Stalinist model of control, predicated on ongoing random acts of violence intended to induce a psychologically numbed and supine country. If, and indeed when, the people gathered as they have tried in other regimes, they would simply have been slaughtered entirely. Not the odd handful here and there. ENTIRELY. So if there was a degree of calm it was the calm of the hostage.

 

I feel entitled to a little rage on this point. By failing to grasp this you are disrespecting the memory of an entirely people being murdered in their many hundreds of thousands. And that, sir, is ****ing angry-making. You ought to be ashamed.

Edited February 26, 2011 by Walsingham

[213374U]

Did you also know that democracy is a relatively new phenomenon in human history?

You mean, of course, universal suffrage. They aren't one and the same. Largely irrelevant, at any rate, as universal suffrage as it's currently implemented in Western countries is a system -or rather, a sham- built to guarantee stability with the rise to power of the middle class. We aren't really that much smarter, more refined, better looking than people two thousand years ago, that's for sure. If anything, we have better marketing and PR, but that's it.

 

 

Humanity also used to dig with our bare hands in the mud and bash each other's heads with rocks, something which has "worked" (in your sense of the word) for thousands of years, but that doesn't make it more sensible today.

I'm just taking random potshots here, because I haven't slept today so forgive me if I'm a bit all over the place.

 

You are right, we don't bash each other's heads with stones. We invented an industrial process to bash the heads of other people en masse, and from a distance. And, lo and behold, two world wars in less than a quarter century, followed by a "cold war" whose strategic foundation is deeply rooted in the doctrine of mutually assured destruction. The resolution of that game has brought us to a period of fierce economic warfare and constant, low-intensity regional conflicts influenced by global forces. Frankly, I'm not convinced that our way is more "sensible" at all, unless by sensible you actually mean sophisticated. It's the same old, same old kill your neighbor, take his stuff. We just keep raising the stakes, is all.

[bigcrazewolf]

Obviously, I choked on my kedgeree the other morning when I heard the BBC Radio 4 crew, the people who died in a ditch opposing the Iraq war, quizzing politicos about why "nothing was being done" about the Mad Dog of Tripoli. So let me get this straight, OK? Toppling sadistic dictators in totalitarian, oil-rich Arab regimes is OK as long as George W Bush didn't order it. OK, just so as long as we're clear on that one.

 

For the record, it was a left-of-centre British government that got into bed with Gaddaffi and released the Lockerbie bomber. The current lot have FUBAR'd our defence budget even more than the last lot. And our liberal media are now, suddenly, sabre-rattling.

 

Sheesh.

What's up with you and the excessive BS lately?

 

Iraq was NOT in a state of revolution! Saddam, as evil as he was, was NOT ordering his attack helicopters to open fire on demonstrators! The war on Iraq was based on lies, and everyone knows it. Except you, apparently. There's a pretty big difference between starting a war for oil and helping a suffering people. Apparently not to you.

 

And just stop it with this tiresome leftists did this and that BS. You're full of it and it's getting old.

 

Trust me that war started by GWB wasn't for oil it was because he wanted to upstage daddy whom didn't go for the end result in the first Middle East war in the 90's it's in his small minded nature, cause as for oil we pay more than ever since W's war of stupidity.

 

I will say I bet the people of Libya are wishing now Ronald Reagan would of got Gaddafi back in the 80's when he tried to.

[Rostere]

Neither of which has very much bearing on the assessment that Tunisia and Egypt are going through the same process. I'm no expert on Tunisia and Egypt but I've read enough about them to know they aren't even remotely similar to Iraq of Afghanistan. Unless you're suggesting some sort of brotherhood of being brown.

 

They have in common a past of authoritarian regimes, which is in this context a very important detail. However, you are perfectly correct in that those countries have different cultures and different demographics, two other important details. My point was that Afghanistan (if you consider Iraq fully democratic we can discuss only Afghanistan. I would like to point out that there's a huge difference between being democratic in theory and in practice, though) still has not had fair elections, although the previous regime was ousted many years ago. Yet Afghanistan is slowly, slowly on it's road to democracy. Changes don't happen instantaneously, but Tunisia, Libya and Egypt have taken a big step in the right direction.

 

Japan. Germany. United States. 'Nough said.

 

If you think genocide is a fair way of ensuring stability, then sure. Besides, both of the two first countries were recently (relatively, in this context) democratic.

 

The governments of Japan and Germany were undermined by wars which decimated their population, and because of that the probablitity of a pro-war regime being elected was very low. However, the stability of those countries was greatly increased by the Marshall plan. If you compare the "peace" at the end of WW1 which only served to humiliate and destabilize Germany, actions made by the Western Allies after 1947 were a great success, perhaps the greatest achievements of diplomacy in the 20th century. That kind of things is what you should be pouring money into if you want to ensure the spread of democracy.

 

The United States is an entirely different thing, though. I assume you are referring to the American Revolutionary War? Since it was an armed uprising against a foreign power, and not primarily a civil war, the downside would have been increased nationalism and aggression towards natives and other neigboring countries. However, since I don't know American history well enough, I can't say whether this was the case or not. Maybe you can fill me in?

 

Also, I'd like to add that what might have been the case for the US here, and also Japan, is not impossible. It's just that it's not the most likely outcome. I maintain that the more violence you use in a revolution, and the more authoritarian the culture of the country was before, the more likely a negative outcome is.

[pmp10]

I'm not sure I understand the case you are making.

Is it that violent changes in government never last without outside financial backing?

 

And I'd like to add that after WW1 allies had no interest in destabilizing Germany and many colonists fought for the British during American Revolution.

[Meshugger]

"But before operation Iraqi freedom, things were pretty calm."

 

Just not true unless your defintion of 'calm' is different than what the word actually means.

 

"Calm" as no riotpolice doing their daily killing along 100 000 - 1 000 000 demonstrators on Bagdad main square.

 

Indeed. I can see the calming element in the Iraqi police's genial service whereby they would spare the demonstrator the tiresome necessity of assembling before killing them.

 

I'd like to ask, because I'm genuinely fascinated: how the hell have you absorbed the notion that what has been happening for the last couple of weeks is more violent than the Ba'ath party's every day behaviour of its last twenty years?

 

Saddam Hussein followed a largely Stalinist model of control, predicated on ongoing random acts of violence intended to induce a psychologically numbed and supine country. If, and indeed when, the people gathered as they have tried in other regimes, they would simply have been slaughtered entirely. Not the odd handful here and there. ENTIRELY. So if there was a degree of calm it was the calm of the hostage.

 

I feel entitled to a little rage on this point. By failing to grasp this you are disrespecting the memory of an entirely people being murdered in their many hundreds of thousands. And that, sir, is ****ing angry-making. You ought to be ashamed.

 

Personal and emotional involvement to the lives of the citizens has nothing to do with discussing the stability of a state. The institutions worked, infrastructure and logistics were in place and the authorities upheld public order. Which is not happening in Libya. Civil war is more like it.

 

Should the rest of world react and liberate the libyans? Not really, unless you want see another game of realpolitik unfold again. Humanitarian effort and acceptance of refugees, sure.

 

Finally, I excuse you for your temporary influx of rage, since it makes people say things in very exaggerated manner.

[Meshugger]

"I have never said that violent regime change is not effective (in general, and in reaching the goal of toppling the current government), only that the more violence you use, the more likely a backlash will be. Persons of violent ideals will always be the most violent rulers as well."

 

Japan. Germany. United States. 'Nough said.

 

There are more factors in play there and you know it. Or maybe the allies didn't use enough force against germany in WWI?

[Hildegard]

So the sixth fleet is redeploying its ships in the Mediterranean. I guess the west is awfully concerned about the welfare of the Libyan people to the point of undertaking military action in order to ensure security and joys of democracy for all Libyans.

 

ha ha ha

[pmp10]

Any source for this?

Aside from Hugo Chavez I mean.

I know that China is already en route but AFAIK no official word on US humanitarian effort has been given.

[Wrath of Dagon]

It's true, military forces are being moved and there's talk of a no-fly zone: http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20110301/wl_nm/...3dhcm5zb2ZsaWI-

[Humodour]

AFAIK the US unfortunately dismissed the Libyan rebel requested no-fly zone at which point Britain ditched the idea too. The US also has made no intimations it will use the fleet except in the event that Gaddafi starts using chemical warfare on Libyans (he has an illegal stockpile of mustard gas).

 

Come the heck down eh Hildegard. Maybe you'd be better off rooting for the Libyans rebels rather than trying to spin this into an anti-US conspiracy.

[Humodour]

Hmm, wait, looks like Britain may go ahead with a no-fly zone without UN Security Council support. Good. Because let's face it, Russia and China shouldn't have a veto power on that council in the first place. They do not speak for the international community, and they certainly don't speak for Libya. The UN Security Council is a relic of long-dead wars which is barely fit for modern international relations.

 

http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/Politics/...hout_UN_Support

[Walsingham]

Hmm, wait, looks like Britain may go ahead with a no-fly zone without UN Security Council support. Good. Because let's face it, Russia and China shouldn't have a veto power on that council in the first place. They do not speak for the international community, and they certainly don't speak for Libya. The UN Security Council is a relic of long-dead wars which is barely fit for modern international relations.

 

Um... Krez, mate. They have a veto power so they don't have to express their physical power by shooting. Morals have **** all to do with it. Ignore that power, and your drive towards high mindedness will be blown away like cobweb.

[Volourn]

"Hmm, wait, looks like Britain may go ahead with a no-fly zone without UN Security Council support. Good. Because let's face it, Russia and China shouldn't have a veto power on that council in the first place. They do not speak for the international community, and they certainly don't speak for Libya. The UN Security Council is a relic of long-dead wars which is barely fit for modern international relations.

"

 

yet, when the US does something the Unm vetoes - even if Europe agrees - Europeans cry about how the 'US is acting like the world' police. Very hypocritical.

[Wrath of Dagon]

I really don't see Britain acting without the US, and our military has been pouring cold water on the idea.

[Walsingham]

Word I hear is that we have quite simply no capability to act. It's utterly moot.

[Gfted1]

Why not? I dont believe the UK has too many assets tied up in Afghanistan but I could be wrong.

[Monte Carlo]

Why not? I dont believe the UK has too many assets tied up in Afghanistan but I could be wrong.

 

LOL almost everything we've got is in the 'Stan. The defence review has FUBAR'd everything else.

[Walsingham]

Why not? I dont believe the UK has too many assets tied up in Afghanistan but I could be wrong.

 

It's interesting that you have that perception. As Monte says , Afghan is our entire focus, at least for the next couple of years.

[Gfted1]

Why not? I dont believe the UK has too many assets tied up in Afghanistan but I could be wrong.

 

LOL almost everything we've got is in the 'Stan. The defence review has FUBAR'd everything else.

 

 

It's interesting that you have that perception. As Monte says , Afghan is our entire focus, at least for the next couple of years.

 

I wasnt aware of that. I figured you guys only had a few divisions and whatnot over there. So would it be accurate to say, at this time, the UK could only prosecute a one front war?

[Monte Carlo]

Since the end of the Cold War a lot of UK defence planning has been predicated on expeditionary warfare, i.e. one air assault brigade and one commando brigade plus the rest of the army in it's conventional role with tanks, arty etc. The three tend to rotate around the scariest op commitments to train / rest / deploy in 6 month tours.

 

Recent commitments have made the UK military adapt to fighting counter-insurgency and our piss-poor defence procurement has left us with a load of stuff that wasn't fit for purpose or will never arrive (FRES for example). Our Eurofighters were designed to fight MiGs, they won't have ground attack capability until 2018 FFS. Apache is in Afghanistan and was designed as a tank hunter, now they drop 100,000 grand of ordnance on three guys in a pickup. Our armour is being moth-balled in favour of vehicles suitable for COIN with greater IED survivability.

 

So basically either our kit is designed for a war we are unlikely to ever fight or too focussed on the one we are in Afghanistan. There's no give.

 

Our forces are very can-do. They'll do whatever is asked of them, whenever they're asked. The are quite literally awesome, they'd happily storm Tripoli running off of Ferries. But there's precious little capacity and resilience left.

 

Our current government isn't covering itself in glory, rattling it's plastic sabre, but the real villains of the piece are the last lot.