Quote:
Originally Posted by roachboy
"leadership" is the stuff of management literature.
|
I don't know what to say. The separation in how we see this key point is so wide we could not even begin to have a reasonable discussion. However, if your statement is superfluous to illustrate an ideology, there might be hope.
Quote:
it's not useful as a category for historical or social analysis. it's prescriptive---it's about elaborating norms to guide the captains of industry in their efforts to appear in control.
from any sociological viewpoint, that control is limited to specific registers and says nothing at all about anything that makes any given firm actually operate---"leadership" is theater, not analysis. you won't understand the organization of production by looking at "leadership". you won't understand capital flows by looking at "leadership." you won't understand anything at all about the material operation of a firm by looking at it.
what you will understand is image management. and that's an aspect of the operation of firms---but a limited one. you have to do some editing to conflate that register with the whole.
and it's not even a metonym---a part that can coherently stand in for the whole.
it's just a register of activity.
if it is the case---and it is----that looking to "leadership" in the case of a firm only tells you about normative assumptions that obtain within a particular register of that firm's operations and nothing whatever about 98% (metaphorically speaking) of the material realities and their organization that constitute what a firm actually **is** sociologically....then why on earth would you rely on that framework to talk about something as diffuse and complex as a military action?
|
Just for the record I did read the above.
---------- Post added at 09:33 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:05 PM ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru
Let's discuss these. Let's discuss the ones where interventions from outside were a factor.
|
My gut tells me no matter how I respond, it won't make a difference.
My premise is that outside intervention in a civil war can prolong the civil war causing more death and destruction than what would have occurred without the intervention and that history has examples where that can be proven to be true. I am not sure what your premise is or if it is just that you simply think that mine is wrong.
One of the longest civil wars in history the Eighty Years' War is an example that I believe supports my premise. More information is here:
Eighty Years' War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Also, looking at one of the bloodiest civil wars in world history, the US Civil War - France and England did make a point not to intervene. However, key to the Confederacy strategy was to obtain both British and French intervention. It was this hope that extended the war unnecessarily. Hence, my view that we will do the rebels in Libya more harm than good if we create the perception of the type of support that won't materialize.
Quote:
|
I think ace would argue that either nothing should have been done or Libya should have been handled like Bush handled Iraq.
|
Why do you folks do this, why not ask???
I think the cause of the rebels is doomed to fail, unless we remove Kadafi and his military apparatus from power. Anything short of that will lead to the death of the rebels in mass. I think the rebels initiated their revolt prematurely. We should have advised them to exercise patience before the initiation of protests and their attempts to take control. I believe Kadafi is the most isolated political leader in the ME and that if non-violent means could be employed, no better circumstance exists than the one face by Libya. Prolonged fighting will not be of benefit to anyone in this circumstance. The UN either needed to go in with one clear objective or like I said encourage the rebels to be patient. I do understand that is easier said than done. But, it appears that the Libyan issue came as a surprise to many in the world, that should not have been the case.
Quote:
Though the Iraq mode wasn't used in either Bosnia or Kosovo.
What do you think is the best example from the past to use for comparison?
|
Comparison to what?
---------- Post added at 09:51 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:33 PM ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by roachboy
1. the assumption that "outsiders prolong civil wars" comes from where exactly? it's presented as a matter of fact, but really...i don't think so. in machiavelli, though, there is advice given to the prince to the effect "do not invade a revolution" because you cannot win. the reasons for this are obvious.
|
How would you classify the Vietnam war? Was it a civil war? Was there outside intervention? Who intervened? What was the result of that intervention?
Quote:
|
but outsiders prolong civil wars...interesting. so it would follow that without "outsiders" there's some kind of natural course that civil wars take....
|
When one side has a material advantage the war will go in a predictable manner. If outside intervention eliminates a material advantage what do you think will happen?
Quote:
|
2. and apparently ace thinks that the natural course of this civil war is the extermination of the rebels, who are being"given false hope" and who "cannot defeat kadhafi".....
|
Conventional war strategy is pretty clear on this point - if you initiate an attack or a war when you are at a significant strategic and tactical disadvantage it is a lost cause. The rebels initiated their revolt prior to even having the support of a no fly zone - it was going to be a massacre. Hence their failed strategy required outside intervention to prevent the massacre. The problem has not been resolved with a no fly zone - Kafafi can simply employ a different strategy - how is the UN going to respond??? That is the key question, isn't it? Obama, nor the UN is clear on this point. It is easy to see how the rebels may have been given false hope. Isn't that obvious?