Counterinsurgency and "legitimate government"

[error]

One of the things I've been spending a lot of time on is researching what the likely responses of government are to a "nonviolent revolution."

It's been suggested by some that at some point in the future, the military may be called in to New Hampshire to "restore order," (a meaningless phrase since there would be no real disorder to remove) and start rounding up or just shooting people such as ourselves.

So I've been looking into what the military might do in such circumstances. I got hold of a final draft of an Army field manual due to be finalized next year on counterinsurgency, which seems to be the closest thing that might apply.

When I read this, one-tenth of the way in, I stopped reading and came here to write this post. There are a LOT of insights packed into these short paragraphs. I suspect some parts of this may be rewritten before it's finalized.

Legitimacy is the Main Objective

1-90. The primary objective of any counterinsurgent is to foster the development of effective governance by a legitimate government. All governments rule through a combination of consent and coercion. Governments described as "legitimate" rule primarily with the consent of the governed, while those described as "illegitimate" tend to rely mainly or entirely on coercion. Their citizens obey the state for fear of the consequences of doing otherwise, rather than because they voluntarily accept its rule. A government that derives its powers from the governed tends to be accepted by its citizens as legitimate. It still uses coercion--for example, against criminals--but the bulk of the population voluntarily accepts its governance.

Consent of the governed determines legitimacy under this very common school of thought. Withdrawing consent is sufficient to remove its legitimacy. But the problem, as we all should know by now, is not just that this government is recognized as legitimate. The problem is that government as a concept is recognized as legitimate.

1-91. In Western, liberal tradition, a government that derives its just powers from the people and responds to their desires while looking out for their welfare is accepted as legitimate. In theocratic societies, political and religious authorities are fused, and political figures are accepted as legitimate because the populace views them as implementing the will of God. Medieval monarchies claimed "the divine right of kings" and imperial China governed with "the mandate of heaven." Since the 1979 revolution, Iran has operated on the theocratic "rule of the jurists." In other societies, "might makes right" and security is the prime determinants of legitimacy.

Of course, what's recognized as legitimate varies over time and space. This is to the advantage of those who would change the popular ideas of what is legitimate government.

1-92. Legitimacy makes it easier for the state to carry out its key functions, which include the capability to regulate social relationships, extract resources and appropriate or use resources in determined ways. A legitimate government can develop these capabilities more easily, allowing it to competently manage, coordinate, and sustain collective security as well as political, economic, and social development. Conversely, illegitimate states typically fail to regulate society, or can only do so by the application of overwhelming coercion ("police states"). Legitimate governance is inherently stable because it engenders societal support to adequately manage the internal problems, change, and conflict that invariably affect individual and collective well-being. Conversely, governance that is not legitimate is inherently unstable because as soon as the state's coercive power is disrupted the population ceases to obey it. Thus legitimate governments tend to be resilient and exercise better governance, while illegitimate states tend to be fragile and poorly administered.

By this measure, the United States is losing legitimacy by the day.

1-93. Five indicators of legitimacy that can be used to analyze threats to stability include--

• Frequent selection of leaders in a manner considered just and fair by a substantial majority of the population.
• A high level of popular participation in or support for the political process.
• A low level of corruption.
• A culturally acceptable level or rate of political, economic, and social development.
• A high level of regime acceptance by major social institutions.

As indicators of legitimacy, these are good ones. But even an illegitimate government can be stable, and a complete lack of government can be stable (and without outside coercion, is stable).

1-94. Governments that score high in these categories probably have the support of an adequate majority of the population. Every culture, however, has varying concepts of acceptable levels of development, corruption, and participation. The first two indicators above reflect Western concepts. For some societies, it may be enough for a government to only provide security and some basic services. However, that concept of security could be very broad, and different groups could have widely divergent expectations.

Even in the U.S., what people expect of the government varies widely. Educating the people on what liberty means remains of paramount importance.

1-95. During mission analysis for a COIN effort, commanders and staffs determine what the host population defines as effective and legitimate governance, since this influences all ensuing operations. Additionally, planners may also consider perceptions of legitimacy held by outside supporters of the host government or the insurgents. The differences between American, local, and international visions of legitimacy will further complicate operations. But the most important attitude remains that of the indigenous population, who in the end will decide the ultimate victor of the conflict. (Emphasis added)

Government will not go away until enough people simply don't want it anymore.

1-96. The rule of law is a major factor in assuring voluntary acceptance of a government's authority and, therefore, its legitimacy. Because power may be exercised illegitimately by individuals who use the instruments of a state for personal ends, a government's respect for pre-existing and impersonal legal rules can provide the key to gaining it widespread and enduring societal support. Such governmental respect for rules--ideally ones recorded in a constitution and in laws adopted through a credible and democratic process--is the essence of rule of law. As such, it is a powerful potential force in counterinsurgency.

The perceived supremacy of the "rule of law" as a way to order a society must also be challenged. It is no better than the "divine right of kings" and in many ways, it's worse: It can be rule by committee or rule by the rich or both. Consider that in the U.S., where rule of law is venerated, those with sufficient amounts of money can simply buy the laws they want. In one egregious case this year, Congress passed a law intended to put a single person out of business by requiring him to pay his competitors to stay in business. His competitors, of course, were the ones who bought and paid for the law.

1-97. Military action can address the symptoms of a loss of legitimacy. However, restoring legitimacy can only be accomplished using all instruments of national power. Without the host-nation government achieving legitimacy, COIN cannot succeed.

Don't expect the tanks to roll across the state line anytime soon. The government will first exhaust its legal options, and when those invariably fail, its political and diplomatic options. It has a desperate need to be seen as legitimate, having the consent of the governed, even those who openly dissent, and will go to great lengths to preserve this veneer of legitimacy, no matter how thin it wears.

But no government has ever willingly given up its power without first putting up a fight. Si vis pacem, para bellum. While this may be a nonviolent revolution, we all may expect that the government will make it violent, and know what to expect.

[David]

Your insight is right on.  I have long believed that they will not bring in the tanks unless we hand them a reason(al waco).  But they will use ALL the legal, and some illegal 'tools' to stop us.  A good example is Kat and Russels free speech trial.  Correct me if I'm wrong, but they were arrested, than let go without trial.  That is abuse.  Another example is the imprisonment of Lauren.  Even if she had a trial, if they want to make an 'example' of someone, they can simply press as many charges as they can and then give her the maximum sentense for any charges that stick. 

[error]

Lauren is being kept in jail right now in order to discourage other people from doing what she did.

That's the only reason government has for locking up peaceful protesters.

When it inevitably fails, and the movement continues to grow, they'll have to start doing something else.

[Russell Kanning]

Interesting how the army has veered so far from the concept of a government by/for/of the people .... it acts like it should be there .... and just looks for the best way to stay in control.

[error]

Interesting how the army has veered so far from the concept of a government by/for/of the people .... it acts like it should be there .... and just looks for the best way to stay in control.

The military never looks at why it's there or whether it should be there. It dodges this as a "political" issue.

[David]

What is amazing is how well the manual describes the root of its own power.  It is amazing, even shocking to see it diagnose itself even without realizing it.  It is kinda like intelectually knowing that politicians lie, and then actually catching them. 

[error]

The final version of this field manual has been issued, and you can download it:
http://www.fas.org/irp/doddir/army/fm3-24.pdf

Learning organizations defeat insurgencies; bureaucratic hierarchies do not.

[PowerPenguin]

Good work, Error. Further documentation has been collected at http://tinyurl.com/yz2mcd. It includes some other files you may find interesting, though many here may not "get it", for better or worse. As always, ensure 'net privacy.

[Raineyrocks]

As always, ensure 'net privacy.

How can I do that?  I may have to bring my computer to Best Buy, the cd burner isn't working and we have a warranty but I'm concerned because everything I've ever looked up is stored on my computer even if I erase it, right?

[error]

As always, ensure 'net privacy.

How can I do that?  I may have to bring my computer to Best Buy, the cd burner isn't working and we have a warranty but I'm concerned because everything I've ever looked up is stored on my computer even if I erase it, right?

Oh, there goes the thread.

Sure, somebody at Best Buy could find out you spend all your days on nhfree.com but generally they don't care. They have better things to do, like watch forlornly as young women roam around the store.

[Raineyrocks]

Oh, there goes the thread.

sorry!

Sure, somebody at Best Buy could find out you spend all your days on nhfree.com but generally they don't care. They have better things to do, like watch forlornly as young women roam around the store.

I hope your right but you should see some of the sites I visit!  So net privacy isn't that important?  That's all I'll write on the subject so I don't bog down your post.

[penguins4me]

How can I do that?  I may have to bring my computer to Best Buy, the cd burner isn't working and we have a warranty but I'm concerned because everything I've ever looked up is stored on my computer even if I erase it, right?

If you're that concerned about it, defrag the drive(s), then create a new folder somewhere on your drive, and make multiple copies of the largest benign video (or other large file type) you have in that folder. If that gets too tedious, make that first folder within a folder and make multiple copies of the folder(s)! These few steps will overwrite most (see below) of the old, deleted data on your disk drive, making recovery practically impossible.

One thing you do want to beware of is completely filling your disk drive. Computers don't like have no room to operate in, and can exhibit undesirable behaviour, so do be sure to leave, say, 100 megabytes or so of free space.

Then, delete the folder with all your copies of the same video. :)

-edit
First of all, of course, you'd need to empty your Internet browser's cache. Otherwise, those files wouldn't have been deleted and all that crap I wrote about above won't do a thing to help keep anyone from looking through a list of unlinked/deleted files, should they so choose. :) *merrily steers offtopic. Again. Sorry*

[PowerPenguin]

What OS are you using? The best thing to do is use Firefox and have it set to erase cookies/cache/history/etc after you close the program. Then run something to wipe the free space on the drive every so often, say once a week.

[Raineyrocks]

Thanks for the suggestions, I will definetely try them! 

[error]

On legitimacy of government, I just got another letter from one of my Congresscritters, who blathered on about unimportant crap, but in the middle, made this startling admission:

"It is critical to our democracy that the legislative branch retains legitimacy within the eyes of the American people."

That, indeed, is the only way a government can survive: with the support of the people it enslaves.