What do all revolutions need? A person that the majority of revolutionaries are willing to follow. If you look at all the revolutions in the past, those that succeeded and those that failed, you will see the need for a leader. In Cuba there was Castro, in Russia there was Lenin, in China there was Ze Dong, in England there was Cromwell, in France there was Napoleon, in America there was Washington, in Rome there was Caesar, in South America there was Bolivar. The theme continues through the ages, strong, unifying leaders help bring about revolution. Many of these revolutions started with a ground swell of support from the people, led by their charismatic leader against a government they viewed as being against their interests. It didn’t hurt that many of the people were able to get support for their fight from an outside source that opposed some aspect of the government the revolutionaries were fighting.
Failed revolutions are marked by little or weak unification. The American Civil War is an example of a weak unification, little cooperation happened between the seceding states. This lead to an inability to coordinate an offensive or defense to drive the Northerners to surrender. The French revolution against Louis XVI had too many competing groups with no unified vision of the future to last. The revolution that occurred in Cuba, with the help of the Americans at the Bay of Pigs, failed because there was no figure that could ralley the support of the common people against Castro. If a revolution has no strong leader, then it is doomed to failure.
Tomorrow, what this has to do with Iraq and Afghanistan.
Oh boy … sounds like another excerpt from our rabbit-chasing conversation Saturday night.
You are correct, though … outside of strong leadership that captures the hearts of the people, any revolution will ultimately fail. Good point.