I promised specifics, what we can do to hasten or halt a decline, what specifically is threatening America today. But my first attempt was still too broad, and I have to narrow this down to something reasonable. (I don't want to get stuck postulating and philosophizing on a grand scale, not right now.)
So I'll think I'll start with terrorism, actually. One of my classes asked a question I still sometimes think over - what's the difference between terrorism and an insurgency? This isn't the age old "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter" type of statement, though I do believe there's a difference between the two. (Terrorism is, in some ways, a tactic. They deliberately target civilians in an attempt to create terror). This question is less about the tactical differences and more about what the difference is between the two, when both can involve violent attempts to overthrow a government.
Every society has it's tensions. Every. Single. One. That's part of why it's such a miscalculation to assume the 'enemy other' is somehow monolithic and perfect. (Communist China and Communist Russia had cleavage points. China itself is hardly monolithic, though I'm sort of ashamed to admit it took a while before I realized that. It's not just the Uighurs to the west, either.)
How a society resolves those tensions has a lot to do with whether it's a success or failure. When we talked about what creates an insurgency (as opposed to a terrorist), there were a couple of elements required. There had to be grievances felt by the population, those grievances were not being addressed through accepted channels, and there had to be leadership for the insurgency. Kind of reminds me of the fire triangle, actually. Grievances are the fuel. The inability to address those grievances through accepted channels is the oxidizing agent...and leadership adds the heat (obviously, different leaders can take the insurgency in different directions...away from violence and towards civil rights, for example. Or away from terrorist tactics and more towards military and government targets).
So the difference between a terrorist and an insurgent may have something to do with the success (or failure) of their efforts. A terrorist is basically operating from weakness. There aren't really enough of them to act in a conventional way...so they do these dramatic acts in order to gain attention to their cause, provoke a counter-reaction, and recruit more people. Sometimes the government forces add more oxygen to the fight, like France in Algeria. Rounding up the innocent in an attempt to get a small portion of the guilty led to the radicalization of people who were previously neutral, and created more support for Algerian independence.
When a group reaches the limit of their support, they're faced with a choice - accept that they don't have the support they need? Accept, basically, that they've lost? Or decide that their goal is too important to give up on now, and to push on. This is when a proto-insurgency may move more towards terrorism. Let's say they don't have enough support, refuse to give up, and thus resort to dramatic and violent attacks. (And so the dividing line between one and the other is fluid, and throughout history an organization may change from one to the other and back again.)
The founding basis for our democracy is that we had a system that allowed grievances to be addressed through accepted channels. Don't like what you see? Vote. Feel like your needs aren't being addressed? Vote. Have a grievance? Vote.
Your ability to make a difference is not guaranteed. Not everyone will agree with you, and you may lose an election or ballot proposition. But there's always next election, next year. And if you're tapping into a real cause, more and more people will be persuaded. (Without disruptive and painful things like insurgencies and terrorists.)
So I'll think I'll start with terrorism, actually. One of my classes asked a question I still sometimes think over - what's the difference between terrorism and an insurgency? This isn't the age old "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter" type of statement, though I do believe there's a difference between the two. (Terrorism is, in some ways, a tactic. They deliberately target civilians in an attempt to create terror). This question is less about the tactical differences and more about what the difference is between the two, when both can involve violent attempts to overthrow a government.
Every society has it's tensions. Every. Single. One. That's part of why it's such a miscalculation to assume the 'enemy other' is somehow monolithic and perfect. (Communist China and Communist Russia had cleavage points. China itself is hardly monolithic, though I'm sort of ashamed to admit it took a while before I realized that. It's not just the Uighurs to the west, either.)
How a society resolves those tensions has a lot to do with whether it's a success or failure. When we talked about what creates an insurgency (as opposed to a terrorist), there were a couple of elements required. There had to be grievances felt by the population, those grievances were not being addressed through accepted channels, and there had to be leadership for the insurgency. Kind of reminds me of the fire triangle, actually. Grievances are the fuel. The inability to address those grievances through accepted channels is the oxidizing agent...and leadership adds the heat (obviously, different leaders can take the insurgency in different directions...away from violence and towards civil rights, for example. Or away from terrorist tactics and more towards military and government targets).
So the difference between a terrorist and an insurgent may have something to do with the success (or failure) of their efforts. A terrorist is basically operating from weakness. There aren't really enough of them to act in a conventional way...so they do these dramatic acts in order to gain attention to their cause, provoke a counter-reaction, and recruit more people. Sometimes the government forces add more oxygen to the fight, like France in Algeria. Rounding up the innocent in an attempt to get a small portion of the guilty led to the radicalization of people who were previously neutral, and created more support for Algerian independence.
When a group reaches the limit of their support, they're faced with a choice - accept that they don't have the support they need? Accept, basically, that they've lost? Or decide that their goal is too important to give up on now, and to push on. This is when a proto-insurgency may move more towards terrorism. Let's say they don't have enough support, refuse to give up, and thus resort to dramatic and violent attacks. (And so the dividing line between one and the other is fluid, and throughout history an organization may change from one to the other and back again.)
The founding basis for our democracy is that we had a system that allowed grievances to be addressed through accepted channels. Don't like what you see? Vote. Feel like your needs aren't being addressed? Vote. Have a grievance? Vote.
Your ability to make a difference is not guaranteed. Not everyone will agree with you, and you may lose an election or ballot proposition. But there's always next election, next year. And if you're tapping into a real cause, more and more people will be persuaded. (Without disruptive and painful things like insurgencies and terrorists.)
No comments:
Post a Comment