Skip to main content

View Diary: Military & Labor: Why People's Revolutions Succeed? (24 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I can't help but think that there's (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Larsstephens, enhydra lutris

    a circular argument buried in your diary here, when you discuss military unwillingness to kill large numbers of people "just as it was (ultimately) in eastern Europe in 1989 period".  In other words, the predicative factor is only noted after the dust settles, which makes it not predicative but descriptive.  Clearly they were unwilling in 1989, because they ultimately didn't?

    Even then I'm not sure it's entirely apt.  The Soviet military was hardly unwilling to use force: they certainly showed it when Czechoslovakia became too 'liberal' in the late 60s.  The differences in 1989 were multitude: mass movements in multiple satellite states, internal divisions over the proper response to them, the pandora's box of glasnost', the inability of the run-down post-Afghanistan military to be in multiple places at once, over a decade of economic stagnation and nearly a decade of political turmoil, etc.  Unwillingness to use force was not even a factor.

    Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce

    by pico on Mon Feb 14, 2011 at 11:33:49 AM PST

    •  Soviet military (3+ / 0-)

      ...was an occupying force.  Occupying forces, unless the include large numbers of locals, tend to be very brutal.

      The militaries least likely to fire on protesters in widely supported revolutions are those that are conscripted from a broad-base of society or from the population most likely to be in revolt.

      50 states, 210 media market, 435 Congressional Districts, 3080 counties, 192,480 precincts

      by TarheelDem on Mon Feb 14, 2011 at 12:44:51 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Right, which belies (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Larsstephens

        DrSteveB's use of it as an example in the diary.  Number 2 is relevant to the Central/Eastern European experience, but not 1 and 3.

        I know it's a minor point, but it didn't seem to make sense in the context he's using it.

        Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce

        by pico on Mon Feb 14, 2011 at 01:09:25 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  sorta, but not exactly... (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      pico, Larsstephens, appletree

      Its sorta circular: If the military doesn't get involved, the revolution wins, is only known afterward.

      However, in Egypt (and Tunisia's) case, The Military specifically announced it would NOT get involved.  At that point, the Dictatorship was already doomed, because we know that a non-involved military means a successful revolution.

      In Egypt's case, there was a second tipping point: The attempted looting of the Cairo Museum.  If there is anything all Egyptians agree on and are proud of, its they there were one of the very first Civilizations, with a proud history going back 10,000 years, when the Sahara rain forest became the Sahara desert.  The army moved in to protect the museum and the citizens who surrounded it to prevent the destruction.  The next day, the Military took the biggest step yet and announced it was going to protect the protesters. Which they did, preventing the still-loyal police from breaking up the protests.  At that point its was basically 'when Mubarak leaves' -- not 'if'.

      We have no desire to offend you -- unless you are a twit!

      by ScrewySquirrel on Mon Feb 14, 2011 at 01:34:19 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Oh, no doubt. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Larsstephens

        I'm not questioning some of the main tenets of the diary, just the claim as it applies to Central/Eastern Europe, where military involvement was in fact a contentious issue: protesters knew they were putting their lives on the line and had no way of knowing for sure whether Moscow was going to bring down the hammer.  So the predicative value there doesn't really work.

        But like I said above, it's a minor point.

        Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce

        by pico on Mon Feb 14, 2011 at 02:00:41 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site