history lesson, part IV
A lesson from History: successful revolutions happen when people have hope. The American Revolution happened when America got military aid from France, and hired on German forces. That gave the colonists hope that they could overcome the British. The French Revolution didn't happen when people were starving. It happened after a good year for crops. The Russian Revolution happened when the Bolsheviks promised them Bread, Land, and Peace, all things they wanted and needed. Lenin gave them hope that the Communist party could deliver that land and peace, and from that land, bread could be made.
So, when we look at Pakistan, what is the hope? What are people fighting for. Likewise in Iraq, what are they fighting for? Not who are they fighting against, not what are their grievances, but what is it that inspires them? If you can provide people with whatever they are looking for, they will fall in line. So, for example, in Pakistan, they want stability, and they want the rule of law, and they want jobs. Right now, they're not certain where that will come from. If we could make Musharraf accountable, then, maybe we could provide that. But, we cannot. So, right now, we have to let Pakistan work it out. However, I really expect that it will be Islamicist radicals who'll persuade the Pakistani people that they can provide them with a stable, orderly Pakistan. So, if we wish to avoid the Taliban, part 2, we should take the lesson, and rather than try, like the Menschaviks, to persuade them that this way chaos lies (in other words threaten them with violence) we should, like the Bolsheviks, convince them we have a better way. As an example, offer a large economic aid package to a coalition of Sharif and Bhutto, but not to Pakistan, in general. Get the idea?
Likewise, in Iraq, things were better when they didn't think the US was there to indefinitely occupy, and they thought the provisional government would bring them peace and prosperity. Rather than build on that hope, we have sought to destroy their heroes. We have gone after people like Sadr who, despite being despotic terrorists were seen by Iraqi Shi'ites as "defenders of the faith". This is one area where I agree with Obama, pretty heavily: we should be talking with people who are our enemies, but are heroes to their people. If we can get them on our side, it's a win-win. We have to drop the rhetoric of 'they hate our freedom' or 'They're unreasonable dictators' or what have you. Of course they don't like us when we're at cross-purposes. How would they feel about us if we had more goals in common?
