Yesterday I speculated on the need for unifying figures in revolutions. The issues in Iraq and Afghanistan are modern day examples of how revolutions can not work without a single unifying leader that many citizens can back in any attempt to overthrow and form a new government. In Iraq there was loosely organized resistance against the ruling government. When the Americans invaded to help the resistance there was no person to pull the people to in forming the new government. The resistance ended up with compromise candidates that have only minority support. In Afghanistan there was a promising figure in Ahmad Shah Massoud but he was assassinated before the invasion. The resistance again had to settle for a compromise candidate that was weak in ineffectual. What is happening now in these countries? Confusion and splintering. Without the help of the American government supporting them the leadership of both countries would fall.
Archive for December, 2007
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.
Check out this link to go to a cool picture Neatorama. I would post the pricture here linked back to Neatorama but I still can’t figure out why I can’t upload pictures to my posts.Okay I figured something out but I am not sure what.
My friend Jerm and I had a wonderful conversation last night. We discussed politics and society, all kinds of things. One subject I wanted to discuss was faithfulness of the candidates. One of the issues I have with candidates, like Giuliani, is their infidelity with their wives. Many people will say this is a personal issue, but, in my opinion, it highlights a problem with a candidate. My question is, if they can not be faithful to the promises they made to the people they professed to be the closest to them, the ones they loved and made a major promise to when they married, how can I be sure they will be faithful to the promises they make me as a voter? So the candidates that have had multiple marriages or have had many affairs are not the people I want to support.
11/25/07 Thud by Terry Pratchett. This is the last one he has done in what I call the Vimes series. It has a neat little companion book called Where’s My Cow?.