Inshallah and Ojalá - The lessons of counterinsurgency and nation-building in Colombia can also apply to the Arab world. By James Stavridis, Foreign Policy.
A 50-year ideological struggle, hundreds of thousands killed, millions displaced, mass graves, murder, rape, torture, a virulent insurgency threatening the overthrow of the entire social order, a rebel enclave carved out of the heart of a big nation. It sounds a lot like the Middle East today, but the grim tale of the tape also applies to the beautiful Andean nation of Colombia over the past half-century.
Today, however, there is enormous progress in Colombia. And it's worth pausing, if not to celebrate these accomplishments quite yet, then at least to consider the lessons we might apply as we grapple with seemingly intractable problems across the Arab world…
Comments
The problem is, much as I have noted above, that the "fundamental values" of the Americans -- much like the "fundamental values" of the populations of other states and societies -- can today:
a. Be seen as being the central problem re: where the global economy wants to go and how it wants to get there and, therefore,
b. Be seen today, worldwide, as being under full assault.
Thus, foreign and domestic policies being enacted worldwide (to include in the United States) designed to eliminate, undermine and/or workaround many of these obstructing fundamental values, attitudes and beliefs, and the obstructing individual and unique ways of life and ways of governance based on same.
Thus, might we -- with the upmost respect to all concerned -- say that:
a. While ADM Stavridis (and his ideas) can best be understood under the modern concept of globalization and the promise of the global economy,
b. You, and other people throughout the world, who cling to and expound upon your time-honored and unique foundational values, ideas and beliefs; you such folks are all now being looked at as being outdated, obstructionist and, therefore, in the way?
Although I have agreed with COL Maxwell's thoughts here in my comment immediately below, now let me take a different tact, to help explain why both the COL -- and I -- may be wrong:
The central problem is viewed as states and societies (to include not only those in the "Arab world" but also those in the western hemisphere) not being optimally organized, ordered and oriented such that they might better provide for and better benefit from the so-called "global economy."
Thus, standing in the way of the global economy's promise and potential are:
a. The established ways of life and ways of governance of the world's states and societies and
b. The established values, attitudes and beliefs upon which these various ways of life and ways of governance are based.
This understanding forming the basis for not only our own nation's, but also other nation's foreign (we must "transform" them) and domestic (we must "transform" ourselves) policies.
It is against this backdrop that ADM Stavridis' suggestion (to wit: a more-common, rather than a more-individual, approach to transforming states and societies) must be viewed and determined to be valid and useful or not.
Samuel P. Huntington, I believe, understood and explained the problem well in this famous 1993 "Clash of Civilizations" when he suggested -- and the then-President of Mexico agreed -- that his (the Mexican President's) task was to:
a. Cause a Latin American country.
b. To become a North American country.
http://www.hks.harvard.edu/fs/pnorris/Acrobat/Huntington_Clash.pdf (scroll down to page 43).
(Herein, the organization, orientation and ordering of North American states and societies being seen as needing the least alteration to best accommodate the wants, needs and desires of the global economy.)
With this understanding of the "common problem" before us (ALL states and societies must be transformed to better accommodate the global economy; the distinction being that some need to be transformed more than others), now what do we think of ADM Stavrdis' more-"common solution" approach -- versus COL Maxwell's "individually-tailored" suggestion?
(Before answering, we must consider, of course, whether ADM Stavrdis -- and COL Maxwell -- have in mind the same goal and objective, to wit: the transformation of outlying states and societies more along, shall we say, "North American" lines.)
Note that the "cure" -- for what ailed Colombia -- was and is seen as having this state and its society become "adjusted" such that it might run more along modern western political, economic, social and justice lines.
Doing this in countries that have closer traditions and ties to the West (Colombia; the Philippines?), this would seem much smarter and much easier than doing this in countries where such traditions and ties are less-present (the Middle East?).
My comment here seeming to be consistent with COL Maxwell's thoughts below; thereby, helping to explain why methods, approaches and techniques used to aid Colombia in becoming a more-modern western state may, in truth, simply add fuel to the fire of resistance and rebellion -- and increase the violence experienced both here at home and there abroad -- if used in states and societies where our way of life, our way of governance, our social norms and our perceptions of justice appear, shall we say, as aberrant, profane and an abomination?
Understanding such distinctions/differences as I have outlined immediately above, and others, being the key to understanding what individual and unique combination of measures -- applied to what individual and unique area of operations -- might best provide that we could achieve our (realistic, in these circumstances) objectives?
One big difference between Colombia and the Arab World is that the USA has a large number, millions in fact, of citizens who speak Spanish and a good number who know the 'human terrain'. Yes there are many Arab-Americans, they are not in the same league.
Without that replicating the "lessons learnt" from Colombia is a waste of time.
The important thing is that we are talking about lessons learned and not applying a "model." Too often the press and pundits will talk about applying the "Colombia Model" or "El Salvador Model." Lessons from these and other conflicts may apply but everything that is applied must be based on a thorough assessment of the situation as well as an understanding of the unique socio-economic-political- religious-cultural conditions as they really exist and not as we would wish them to be so that we can develop an effective strategy (which may of course not necessarily lead to US military action or intervention). The list of lessons in the article are very common sense from a US perspective and the question is do they apply to the situation in the "Arab World" (however that can be defined)?