Terrorism and Insurgency [Archive] - Professional Soldiers ®

D9 (RIP)

01-26-2004, 10:53

Originally posted by Jimbo
A significant amount of the terrorism that occured in the 60s through the mid 90s was not part of an insurgency. N17 in Greece, M19 in Colombia, Baader-Minehoff in Germany, ETA in Spain, IRA in Ireland, etc... Those are just off the top of my head. I don't think any of those groups made an effort to control territory beyond a few city-blocks at a time.

Terrorism, as a strategy (i.e. an end in itself), is called nihilism. The Aun Shinrikyo comes to mind. So do numerous 19th century Russian revolutionaries, such as Chernychevsky and his cronies.

But some of the groups you mention above do have some end-state other than total destruction, they just vary as to the means of achieving them. Recall that Marxism advocated spreading by "spontaneous uprisings." Although Lenin, pulling from others, eventually took a more organized approach to revolution, pure Marxism essentially said that there was a great tension in the working class, and there would be some event that would eventually catalyze the tension into spontaneous revolution. Much of the terrorism of the 60's was this kind of Marxist groping - attacks meant to put a spark to the tinder of working class tension (that didn't turn out to be there). As long as the group has a coherent ideological objective, whether or not holding ground is their goal seems to me a relative inessential for the purposes of classification - at least at the macro level.

IMO, the appropriate classification is by the end-state the group wants to bring about. If it is destruction for its own sake, then I think "nihilistic terrorist organization" is the appropriate category. If it is the recapture of land and elimination of a physical enemy (e.g. - the IRA), then I think some political description is appropriate. If it is to bring the world into Dar al Islam at the edge of the sword, forcing all to submit to Allah's will (as interpreted through the gang of priests that want to see all of this brought about), then I think "militant Islamic terrorism" is the right category. The end state a group is seeking is the best key to understanding their motives, what tactics they are likely to employ and against which targets. The ideology is the key to understanding the end state.

The Reaper

01-26-2004, 10:58

D9, excellent post.

We may be able to make a Special Forces soldier out of you yet.

TR

Jimbo

01-26-2004, 15:49

Originally posted by D9
Terrorism, as a strategy (i.e. an end in itself), is called nihilism. The Aun Shinrikyo comes to mind. So do numerous 19th century Russian revolutionaries, such as Chernychevsky and his cronies.

But some of the groups you mention above do have some end-state other than total destruction, they just vary as to the means of achieving them. Recall that Marxism advocated spreading by "spontaneous uprisings." Although Lenin, pulling from others, eventually took a more organized approach to revolution, pure Marxism essentially said that there was a great tension in the working class, and there would be some event that would eventually catalyze the tension into spontaneous revolution. Much of the terrorism of the 60's was this kind of Marxist groping - attacks meant to put a spark to the tinder of working class tension (that didn't turn out to be there). As long as the group has a coherent ideological objective, whether or not holding ground is their goal seems to me a relative inessential for the purposes of classification - at least at the macro level.

IMO, the appropriate classification is by the end-state the group wants to bring about. If it is destruction for its own sake, then I think "nihilistic terrorist organization" is the appropriate category. If it is the recapture of land and elimination of a physical enemy (e.g. - the IRA), then I think some political description is appropriate. If it is to bring the world into Dar al Islam at the edge of the sword, forcing all to submit to Allah's will (as interpreted through the gang of priests that want to see all of this brought about), then I think "militant Islamic terrorism" is the right category. The end state a group is seeking is the best key to understanding their motives, what tactics they are likely to employ and against which targets. The ideology is the key to understanding the end state.

I disagree completely. While it is important to know a group's stated goal and the philosophy behind that goal, one might argue that what the groups actually DO is much more important in combating them.

Yes, the IRA said they wanted England out of Ireland and that they had an 'army' to help them accomplish that goal. However, tactically, they never progressed beyond terrorist attacks. With the exception of a few blocks on occasion, they never held any territory. I can not think of one single insurgency that achieved any degree of success without controlling some amount of land.

Originally posted by D9
Terrorism, as a strategy (i.e. an end in itself), is called nihilism.
This is also wrong. In the business, groups that you describe as nihilistic are more commonly referred to as "apocalyptic"; Aum Shinryko, followers of Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh, Turner Diary adherents. These are groups whose goal is to bring about the end of the world. (Many of these groups reference the Book of Revelations without conscious effort)

The Marxist groups that you note were, as far as I can tell, using terrorism (coupled with some propaganda) as a strategy to being about the spark in the proletariat.

NousDefionsDoc

01-26-2004, 16:09

Nice post Jimbo.

I disagree about ETA though.

D9 - Terrorism as a strategy doesn't equate to "i.e. an end to itself."

D9 (RIP)

01-26-2004, 17:08

Regarding "terrorism as a strategy," perhaps I misunderstood Jimbo's original meaning. I took that to mean that terror was the overarching goal, the purpose, rather than a means to an end. So let me restrict my original statement about strategy, and just say terrorism for its own sake is nihilistic.

I don't see the conflict with Aun Shinrikyo. If the intent of the terror is to satisfy some other-worldly goal - i.e. there is nothing the groups are pursuing on earth but destruction - then for all practical purposes it is nihilistic. In fact, I would say that nihilism is the broader category to which the mystical apocalyptic types belong.

I am not advocating that one look at what a group's stated goals are (their "nominal" ideology, if you will) to the exclusion of what they actually do. A group may explicitly state some populist or class-warfare manifesto but in their actions betray a different, more petty and criminal motive (FARC comes to mind, but I am no expert). I am saying, to the contrary, that you should be able to categorize a group by inducing their motive as identified through their actions. You misunderstand me if you think I mean that we should just trust whatever BS propaganda motivation the terrorists claim to have in their speeches.

An example are the sundry Palestinian terror groups, who endlessly bemoan various small grievances against Israel (the latest settlement, incursion, whatever) as the motive for their suicide bombings, but whom you can be reasonably sure have the expulsion of non-Islamic influence from the entire region as the overarching goal.

If I am a terrorist leader, what I am going to do next has to depend on my long-term goals. Long terms goals are set in relation to values - explicitly or implicitly held. The value in this context, being the state of the world I hope to bring about through my terror campaign. What I am saying is that it is this end state that we have to try to identify, and by which we should classify terrorist groups. The way I think you identify it is by discovering the set of "ideas" that the terrorist defines as his ideal. This is what he will pursue. You identify his goals through his actions - of course - but a person's actions will tell you a lot about what their ideas are (i.e. his "actual" ideology). It is the terrorist's ideas that are most relevant to classifying him, as opposed to whether or not holding land is a primary goal. This is because the whole purpose of classification, as I can see it in this context, is to formulate a course of action to deal with them. I can think of no more relevant criteria in formulating this course than what the terrorist's ultimate goals are.

I am not saying that whether or not they want to gain and hold land is unimportant - and certainly it is in the context of an insurgency. But the fact is that there are terrorist groups who are perfectly content not to (Al-Qaeda et al) and who we must deal with nonetheless.

Jimbo

01-26-2004, 18:56

Originally posted by D9
If I am a terrorist leader, what I am going to do next has to depend on my long-term goals. Long terms goals are set in relation to values - explicitly or implicitly held.

Ah ha! I think I have found the disconnect. D9, you are mirror-imaging. As we all know, you are a highly principled person and you loathe pragmatism. However, not all terrorist leaders are as principled as you. Some are, and those tend to be the ones with whom negotiation is futile (thats when you break out 'Getting To Yes'), very many are pragmatic. Depending on what their actual personal goal is (staying in power, not getting prosecuted, not getting cornholed in an Afghan prison) they may sacrifice their group's stated goals or principles in favor of a newer, more pragmatic course of action depending on the new situation in which they find themselves. Now you get into evaluating their situational awareness, but I think I've taken up enough room already.

NousDefionsDoc

01-26-2004, 19:39

Carlos Castano and his dealings with drug lords comes to mind.

Jimbo

01-26-2004, 19:56

Yup. And even now, he seems to be pursuing a goal of his own over the (now) modified goal of the AUC. Decommissioning? Redemption is a powerful motivator for Catholics and those with no family left.

D9 (RIP)

01-26-2004, 20:16

I think we're really haggling over semantics, and a different idea of what an ideology is. Pragmatism is an ideology also - specifically, it is the ideology articulated and named by William James, John Dewey, Schiller, and others. It is in our vocabulary today, whether or not those who utter it realize it, because at the turn of the twentieth-century it was an explicit philosophy popular among the literati and intellectual "elite." Pragmatism is not an alternative to an ideology, it is an old and important one itself.

It is important, I agree, to know whether your opponent - in the sense of a group - is a band of pragmatic criminals. You would deal with someone like this very differently than a Aun Shinrikyo, or an Ayman Al-Zawahiri, which is my entire point. But enough on this, we probably disagree less in essence than in terminology.

Jimbo

01-26-2004, 20:36

Originally posted by D9
It is important, I agree, to know whether your opponent - in the sense of a group - is a band of pragmatic criminals.
But there are no groups. Just collections of individuals. Each with thier own biases, hopes, agendas, principles and faults. How each person acts affects teh dynamics of the whole. Dynamic, often chaotic; it goes beyond classifications and ideologies.

NousDefionsDoc

01-26-2004, 20:44

Disagree Jimbo. In the beginning there are no groups, only individuals. If the leaders do their jobs, later there are no individuals, only the group. How rapidly we forget the lessons on the psychology of group dynamics and the human need to belong. The military is a perfect example. Try being the only non-HALO qualified guy on a HALO Team, or the only guy on an NG Team that hasn't been to the Q. I'd rather take a whipping with the buckle end of the belt.

Jimbo

01-26-2004, 20:51

Originally posted by NousDefionsDoc
If the leaders do their jobs, later there are no individuals, only the group. ... The military is a perfect example. Try being the only non-HALO qualified guy on a HALO Team, or the only guy on an NG Team that hasn't been to the Q. I'd rather take a whipping with the buckle end of the belt.
Everyone has their limits and the vast majority of people who are attracted to the groups we are discussing are not nearly as professional as you and your brothers. Their group dynamics are the same to a point, but very divergent after that point. Some call the human need to belong "need for affiliation" and in some individuals that is stronger than the need for power. Thus, leaders and followers are born. Everyone posseses these traits, just in vaying amounts.

NousDefionsDoc

01-26-2004, 20:58

Well I KNOW that! That's what I just said. The fact that they are not professionals, IMO, means they need it even more. Given this, how can you say there are no groups per your previous post?

lrd

01-26-2004, 20:59

From the definitions thread:—The term “terrorism” means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience.
Are the effects of "terrorism" vs. "terrorists acts carried out as part of an insurgency" different to the intended audience?

NousDefionsDoc

01-26-2004, 21:04

Good question.

Welcome!

lrd

01-26-2004, 21:12

Originally posted by NousDefionsDoc
Good question.

Welcome! Thank you. Glad to be here and ready to learn. :)

Jimbo

01-26-2004, 21:17

Originally posted by NousDefionsDoc
Well I KNOW that! That's what I just said. The fact that they are not professionals, IMO, means they need it even more. Given this, how can you say there are no groups per your previous post?
Need what even more? Affiliation? Some do, some don't. I'll write more on it tomorrow.

Jimbo

01-26-2004, 21:20

Originally posted by lrd
From the definitions thread:
Are the effects of "terrorism" vs. "terrorists acts carried out as part of an insurgency" different to the intended audience?

For the most part. Depends on the symbolism of the target.

NousDefionsDoc

01-26-2004, 21:27

Originally posted by Jimbo
Need what even more? Affiliation? Some do, some don't. I'll write more on it tomorrow.

I'll be anxiously awaiting your return so that I may crush you - I've been studying group dynamics all day.

D9 (RIP)

01-26-2004, 22:32

Originally posted by Jimbo
But there are no groups. Just collections of individuals. Each with thier own biases, hopes, agendas, principles and faults. How each person acts affects teh dynamics of the whole. Dynamic, often chaotic; it goes beyond classifications and ideologies.

A group is a collection of individuals. Al Qaeda is not an individual. Is it helpful to dissolve the concept of them as a group? How would one even begin to formulate any kind of strategy this way. I guess you could have said the same thing about the Nazis in WWII. It's a good thing the leadership then realized it was a group - otherwise we'd probably be speaking German. Pretty bizzare IMO.

Jimbo

01-27-2004, 08:15

Originally posted by D9
A group is a collection of individuals. Al Qaeda is not an individual. Is it helpful to dissolve the concept of them as a group? How would one even begin to formulate any kind of strategy this way.
With the exception of targeting specific facilities, which in the GWOT has not proven to be terrible effective, it is exceedingly difficult to target a group of people as a whole. For the most part, the best you can do is fight a perception battle with them. The option you are left with is to target individuals.

Originally posted by D9
I guess you could have said the same thing about the Nazis in WWII. It's a good thing the leadership then realized it was a group - otherwise we'd probably be speaking German. Pretty bizzare IMO.
I do not understand what you are saying here.

lrd

01-27-2004, 08:51

Originally posted by Jimbo
With the exception of targeting specific facilities, which in the GWOT has not proven to be terrible effective, it is exceedingly difficult to target a group of people as a whole. For the most part, the best you can do is fight a perception battle with them. The option you are left with is to target individuals.
Whose perception are you referring to: local perception of the group, group's perception of the local population, group's perception of the target, target's perception of the group, outsider's perception of the group, outsider's perception of the target, outsider's perception of the group's supporters, all of the above, none of the above? I mentioned to you before, re: semantics, perception and ideas, that one of the main defenses for a US terrorist seems to be to convince the jury that the person was not really a terrorist. I'm wondering about the importance of propaganda in all of this and what affect it has on the victim (and the choice of the victim) of the act of terror.

Jimbo

01-27-2004, 11:30

Originally posted by NousDefionsDoc
I'll be anxiously awaiting your return so that I may crush you - I've been studying group dynamics all day.

Read this, but start on page 5 the beginning is irrelevent. Group dynamics as a dicipline is way overrated. Go to the unit level and work your way out, I say.

Jimbo

01-27-2004, 11:34

Originally posted by lrd
Whose perception are you referring to
Everyone's.

NousDefionsDoc

01-27-2004, 11:43

Originally posted by Jimbo
http://www.socialscienceautomation.com/Lta.pdf

Read this, but start on page 5 the beginning is irrelevent. Group dynamics as a dicipline is way overrated. Go to the unit level and work your way out, I say.

LOL - it may be overrated in Cambridge, but here on the ground, its alive and well. Thanks for the link (nice buying of time), I'll be back.

That paper is about the leaders, not group dynamics. Interesting stuff though.

In context, with regards to terrorism, I think we have to remove the leaders. Its the group that I'm not sure can be eliminated and therefore requires the deeper analysis.

NousDefionsDoc

01-31-2004, 19:53

Thought I forgot about you didn't you? Here we go:

The motivation for joining an underground movement is typically complex. Usually, persons join because of a combination of interrelated factors, most frequently personal and situational in nature. Ideological or political reasons seem to have inspired only a small percentage, and propaganda promises appear to have had little effect. Although coercion alone is only a small factor, coercion coupled with other positive incentives is a significant factor. Government persecution, real or imagined, also leads people to join the insurgents.

An insurgent’s motives for remaining in the underground seem often to be quite different from his motives for joining. He develops loyalties towards friends and comrades, or may be influenced by the indoctrination and other propaganda. Close surveillance and threats of retaliation often make it difficult to withdraw from the movement or to defect to the government forces. Simple inertia may keep him in the movement.

NousDefionsDoc

01-31-2004, 19:54

Group membership Serves to satisfy several types of individual needs: patriotism, the sense of “belonging,” recognition, and enhancement of self-esteem. Strong organizational ties protect an individual from external threats and offer him an opportunity to achieve economic or political goals not otherwise attainable. Group membership does a great deal to condition and mold an individual’s behavior. For example, group membership in an underground provides a set of standards, so that an individual always knows implicitly what is right or wrong, what can or cannot be done. Underground membership structures and narrows an individual’s exposure to perception of his environment. Because his view of life, of events, and of news is colored by his feelings and behavior, group organization also conditions attitudes and perceptions.

A variety of factors affect the degree of influence underground membership exercises over individuals. Small cells or working groups exercise more effective control than larger ones. Frequency of meetings and length of membership affect the development of intimate relationships. The more highly structured the underground and the more clearly defined the relationships and duties, the greater the influence exerted.
Underground movements have been described as “normative-coercive” organizations, employing both persuasive group pressures and overt coercion. They are normative in that institutional norms and mores secure behavioral conformity to certain rules and group membership satisfies certain individual needs and desires. However, coercive power is applied through the threat or application of physical sanctions, or through the deprivation of certain satisfactions.

Jimbo

02-01-2004, 10:51

Originally posted by NousDefionsDoc
The motivation for joining an underground movement is typically complex. Usually, persons join because of a combination of interrelated factors, most frequently personal and situational in nature. Ideological or political reasons seem to have inspired only a small percentage, and propaganda promises appear to have had little effect. Although coercion alone is only a small factor, coercion coupled with other positive incentives is a significant factor. Government persecution, real or imagined, also leads people to join the insurgents.

An insurgent’s motives for remaining in the underground seem often to be quite different from his motives for joining. He develops loyalties towards friends and comrades, or may be influenced by the indoctrination and other propaganda. Close surveillance and threats of retaliation often make it difficult to withdraw from the movement or to defect to the government forces. Simple inertia may keep him in the movement.

I have a paper that deals with this, too. But I only have it in hardcopy. It was the subject of the last Insurgency Board meeting. The paper was quite controversial.

As to your contention that the last paper I put up was about the leaders and not group dynamics, I respond thusly:
1) Leaders are often the catalyst in group dynamics. When it is not the leader himself it is the leadership position that often acts as a catalyst and by that I mean someone more motivated by power seeks the position.
2)While that paper only discusses leaders, you can apply the principles to anyone. By doing a full-on analysis of the leader, those in his information environment and some of those in his out groups, you pretty much come up with a map for group dynamics.

NousDefionsDoc

02-01-2004, 11:05

1) Agreed, but that doesn't tell us why they follow. A shepherd without a flock is just a campesino with a stick.

2) I think you are saying that the group takes on characteristics of the leader, and I agree to a point. I also agree that for this reason, analizing the leader is useful.

I'll give you an exception, the FARC general membership has very little in common with Marulanda. Their recruiting base for middle management comes from the national universities.

Another exception - Che was an Argentine doctor from a middle class family. How many of the Cuban mass fits that description?

Jimbo

02-01-2004, 11:21

Originally posted by NousDefionsDoc
I'll give you an exception, the FARC general membership has very little in common with Marulanda. Their recruiting base for middle management comes from the national universities.

Another exception - Che was an Argentine doctor from a middle class family. How many of the Cuban mass fits that description?
sounds like you're profiling there, Doc. This is precisely why I am not a fan of profiling. This is why, even though it takes a crap load of work, you have to look at each case as closely as possible.

NousDefionsDoc

02-01-2004, 11:35

LOL - of course I'm profiling. I do look at each case individually. That's why I've been working on basically two groups for the past 10 years. All LATAM groups have some things in common, I think because of the Cuban influence. And the commonalities are both on the government and guerrilla side in many cases. So I check to make sure they fit the base assumptions, then look at the anomolies, understand them, then accept the exceptions.

Problem is, the deeper I dig, the deeper I have to dig.

I would like to have Marulanda for about a week. I have some "What were you thinking...?" questions. Like the US missionaries in Arauca, the Nogal bombing, etc.

OMG, I'm turning into an intel wienie, I don't like it when they don't follow my roadmap!

NousDefionsDoc

02-01-2004, 11:39

I'm going to try to apply your leader paper to some personalities down here. Info can be hard to come by and I really don't want to have a PM interview with any of them on their terms. I'll send you the results.

Jimbo

02-01-2004, 12:03

Please do.

Roguish Lawyer

02-01-2004, 12:29

Does this mean you're not going to post the stuff? Geez, you guys could just talk by e-mail . . . :rolleyes: LOL

NousDefionsDoc

02-01-2004, 12:35

Too long to post, I'm sure.

Jimbo

02-01-2004, 12:44

Originally posted by Roguish Lawyer
Does this mean you're not going to post the stuff? Geez, you guys could just talk by e-mail . . . :rolleyes: LOL
How about you get the sand out of your cl...Councilor, I'd love to hear your perspective on these issues. You got a question? Ask.

Roguish Lawyer

02-01-2004, 12:49

Originally posted by Jimbo
How about you get the sand out of your cl...Councilor, I'd love to hear your perspective on these issues. You got a question? Ask.

The point is that I'd like to read it too. You know very well that this is not my area of expertise, but I do like to learn from you and NDD. I do post when I have something to say.

I'm just joking around anyway. Jeez, lighten up. :rolleyes: If the stuff is too long to post, it's too long to post. Nothing wrong with me asking to be included, is there? Easy to say no.

NousDefionsDoc

02-01-2004, 12:56

I'll see what it looks like when I finish and if its not too long, I'll post it. Or I could just do one on you two.:D

Jimbo

02-01-2004, 12:57

Originally posted by Roguish Lawyer
The point is that I'd like to read it too. You know very well that this is not my area of expertise, but I do like to learn from you and NDD. I do post when I have something to say.

I'm just joking around anyway. Jeez, lighten up. :rolleyes: If the stuff is too long to post, it's too long to post. Nothing wrong with me asking to be included, is there? Easy to say no.
I'm not saying no. As I understand it, this board is at least partially here for learining. Can't learn something better than answering questions about it. Can't get beyond what someone tells you without asking questions. Eveyone wins.

Roguish Lawyer

02-01-2004, 13:04

Originally posted by Jimbo
I'm not saying no. As I understand it, this board is at least partially here for learining. Can't learn something better than answering questions about it. Can't get beyond what someone tells you without asking questions. Eveyone wins.

OK. I won't hesitate to ask questions. I haven't in the past. But I do try to limit my questions to intelligent ones -- I won't ask just to take up space. Quite often, there is sufficient content for me to learn without asking anything. And for that I am grateful.

NousDefionsDoc

02-03-2004, 12:27

I'm starting it today. Should be an interesting exercise.

What about when the leader takes on the characteristics of the group?

Jimbo, I think you underestimate the herd instinct in humans.

I need a copy of "Why Men Rebel". Seems to me, a lot of studies now days are shallow, not like back in the 60s/70s. Focus seems to be on winning the race to B&N.

Should have been an academic... Need a grant...

Jimbo

02-03-2004, 15:50

Originally posted by NousDefionsDoc
What about when the leader takes on the characteristics of the group?

Jimbo, I think you underestimate the herd instinct in humans.

Ok.

Pyschobabble aside, some people just want to feel accepted by a group. So a group forms (even if the person seeking acceptance finds it in only one person, they are then a group e.g. Columbine shooters). So you have, in effect, a contract between the two people who in exchange for this acceptance, pledge mutual support. After the establishment of this bond either one of the individuals may find themselves participating in activities that they would not have prior to the 'contract' (in some individuals the motivation for continuing with the activity might be a manifestation of thrill seeking, but I digress) out of fear that should they not participate it will been seen as withdrawl of mutual support which could result in subsequent dismissal or withdrawl from the group. As this behavior progresses, there is an increase in instances of groupthink, cognative dissonace and immature forms of bureaucratic inertia. A likely result is that a leader will emerge that is able to manipulate these particularities of the group to the advantage of their agenda, whatever that may be.

NousDefionsDoc

02-03-2004, 16:00

some people just want to feel accepted by a group

Therein lies my estimation of your underestimation. The ones that don't are the Unabomber. Even the very individualistic people on this board want acceptance by the other members. Some won't admit it, but they want it.

The case of the leader being changed by the group is Castano to me. He didn't want to traffic drugs, but there were so many that insisted on it, he agreed. Also, he needed the money to keep the group happy. His acceptance of the group will led to the ruination of the group and him.

lrd

02-03-2004, 16:11

Originally posted by NousDefionsDoc
In context, with regards to terrorism, I think we have to remove the leaders. Its the group that I'm not sure can be eliminated and therefore requires the deeper analysis. Isn't this what the terrorists are trying to do to us? Eliminate the group?

And don't we defend ourselves by becoming a pack?

NousDefionsDoc

02-03-2004, 16:59

Originally posted by lrd
Isn't this what the terrorists are trying to do to us? Eliminate the group?

And don't we defend ourselves by becoming a pack?

I don't think so. There are of course fanatics, but I don't think they want to wipe us off the face of the earth. Some do want Israel gone, but I doubt they would complain if the Israelis just left instead of having to kill them all.

We are forming packs - only they call them coalitions now.

lrd

02-03-2004, 18:50

Originally posted by NousDefionsDoc
I don't think so. There are of course fanatics, but I don't think they want to wipe us off the face of the earth. Some do want Israel gone, but I doubt they would complain if the Israelis just left instead of having to kill them all.

We are forming packs - only they call them coalitions now. I was thinking in smaller terms:

1. A.Q. attacking American civilians on 9/11, and civilians fighting back;

2. the DC sniper attacking random civilians, and a civilian spotting the vehicle and calling it in.

Your earlier comments reminded me of an article I read back in '02: A Pack, Not a Herd (http://techcentralstation.com/103002A.html), by Glenn Reynolds.

Roguish Lawyer

02-05-2004, 09:07

The Reaper

02-05-2004, 14:18

Originally posted by Jimbo
Ok.

Pyschobabble aside, some people just want to feel accepted by a group. So a group forms (even if the person seeking acceptance finds it in only one person, they are then a group e.g. Columbine shooters). So you have, in effect, a contract between the two people who in exchange for this acceptance, pledge mutual support. After the establishment of this bond either one of the individuals may find themselves participating in activities that they would not have prior to the 'contract' (in some individuals the motivation for continuing with the activity might be a manifestation of thrill seeking, but I digress) out of fear that should they not participate it will been seen as withdrawl of mutual support which could result in subsequent dismissal or withdrawl from the group. As this behavior progresses, there is an increase in instances of groupthink, cognative dissonace and immature forms of bureaucratic inertia. A likely result is that a leader will emerge that is able to manipulate these particularities of the group to the advantage of their agenda, whatever that may be.

I thought I was married, and all of this time, I have been a member of a two person terrorist cell!

TR

D9 (RIP)

02-05-2004, 14:37

Originally posted by Roguish Lawyer
They bought into Che's premise that a small group can jump-start a revolution.

That's a premise older than Che. That's what made Lenin a "special" Marxist.

Valhal

02-05-2004, 22:32

Didn't a 19th century Russian invent the terrorist cell concept? I can't remember the guys name. I'll try to find it tomarrow.

Also, can anyone recommend 3 books on this threads subject?

Regards,
Mark

NousDefionsDoc

02-05-2004, 22:34

Originally posted by Valhal
Didn't a 19th century Russian invent the terrorist cell concept? I can't remember the guys name. I'll try to find it tomarrow.

Also, can anyone recommend 3 books on this threads subject?

Regards,
Mark

Are you thinking of Bakunin?

CRad

02-06-2004, 00:47

Originally posted by Roguish Lawyer
There was a program on the Discovery-Times channel yesterday about terrorism. They interviewed a Baader-Meinhoff (Red Army Faction) guy, and it seemed clear to me that they were insurgents (albeit unsuccessful ones). They bought into Che's premise that a small group can jump-start a revolution.

Are you talking about the series on Discovery Times channel called Age of Terror? The program that had the Baader-Meinhoff guy was the first show. There's been 3 more since. Good program.

With Che it seems to be a cult of personality. Same with Abimael Guzman. Without them the movement doesn't work. The same can probably be said of Castro.

Terrorism as a means pf controlling people to get your own way is completely different than insurgents using acts of terrorism as part of their arsenal.

CRad

02-06-2004, 01:04

Originally posted by Valhal

Also, can anyone recommend 3 books on this threads subject?

Regards,
Mark

http://www.ou.edu/cas/psc/booksloan.htm

I kind of like Dr Stephen Sloan.

D9 (RIP)

02-06-2004, 01:50

Originally posted by NousDefionsDoc
Are you thinking of Bakunin?

N. Chernyshevsky was most influential. It is rumored that after seeing his brother hanged in the town square for revolutionary activities, V Lenin looked up and the spine of the first book that caught his eye was one by Chernyshevsky. That was the moment, according to Lenin's own recollection, that crystallized his revolutionary spirit.

If you want to understand the onset of communism, 50% of it is understanding Marx - the other 50% is understanding the 19th c. Russian revolutionaries, Chernyshevsky foremost among them.

Valhal

02-06-2004, 09:46

Originally posted by NousDefionsDoc
Are you thinking of Bakunin?

Sergei Nechayev was who I was thinking of, though Bakunin was co- author on Catechism of the Revolutionist . Here is a link I found on a google search that pretty much lays out the cell concept.

http://spectrum332034.tripod.com/Texte/1.htm

D9 said
'If you want to understand the onset of communism, 50% of it is understanding Marx - the other 50% is understanding the 19th c. Russian revolutionaries, Chernyshevsky foremost among them.'

I don't think I agree with that exactly, but I understand where you are coming from. I find it interesting that of the many revolutions that occured in Eurpoe during that era, communism took hold in Russia. It is a fascinating place. When I studied there after the Yeltsin Coup, a taxi driver was telling me how he wished Stalin would come back and make things right.

BTW what do you think about Musharraf granting a full pardon to Abdul Qadeer Khan selling nuclear secrets to the bad guys?

Valhal

02-06-2004, 09:48

Originally posted by CRad
http://www.ou.edu/cas/psc/booksloan.htm

I kind of like Dr Stephen Sloan.

Thanks for the info. Of these which would be the best starter?

Regards,
Mark

CRad

02-06-2004, 15:06

Originally posted by Valhal
Thanks for the info. Of these which would be the best starter?

Regards,
Mark

Beating International Terrorism is short, sweet and to the point. It's a little dated, but he addresses that in the epilogue. The bibliography has a list of articles, books, speeches, documents that will give you more than enough info to keep you busy for years.

Valhal

02-07-2004, 10:16

I read in the New York Times today that the educated and professional class in Iraq are being assassinated. The following is an excerpt from the article.

"They are going after our brains," said Lt. Col. Jabbar Abu Natiha, head of the organized crime unit of the Baghdad police. "It is a big operation. Maybe even a movement."

These white-collar killings, American and Iraqi officials say, are separate from — and in some ways more insidious than — the settling of scores with former Baath Party officials, or the singling-out of police officers and others thought to be collaborating with the occupation. Hundreds of them have been attacked as well in an effort to sow insecurity and chaos.

But by silencing urban professionals, said Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt, a spokesman for the occupation forces, the guerrillas are waging war on Iraq's fledgling institutions and progress itself. The dead include doctors, lawyers and judges.....

The American authorities say foreign terrorists may be behind the attacks. "There is a huge incentive for foreign terrorists to create chaos here," General Kimmitt said.

Question:
Is Iraq both an insurrection and a terrorist movement? and
Is this situation unique, I know you can draw parallels to other movements, maybe it is better to ask what is unique about Iraq in a historical context?

Regards,
Mark

NousDefionsDoc

02-07-2004, 10:19

Why do you think they are assassinating the intellectuals?

Valhal

02-07-2004, 10:28

To promote instability. If a moderate infrastructure can take hold, half the battle to Iraqi democracy is won.

But I do not understand why the Islamic fundamentalists are fighting against stability. Then again maybe they are not behind this.

NousDefionsDoc

02-07-2004, 10:46

Might want to spell check democracy. I make a lot of typos and can't hardly spell my self, but that's one I try to get right.

How about the Islamists want to promote instability because before they can found an Islamic State, they have to destroy the present form of government. Afghanistan's Taliban rule for exampe came out of the aftermath of the Soviet occupation and the defeat of the Marxist puppet government in the country.

Easier to offer a radical solution in the midst of chaos. People will accept almost any form of order over anarchy when things are bad enough.

Valhal

02-07-2004, 11:05

Do you think there might be more than one faction at play here?

NousDefionsDoc

02-07-2004, 11:07

Usually is

lrd

02-08-2004, 16:06

Originally posted by Valhal
Do you think there might be more than one faction at play here? From an Army officer in Iraq:
IRAQ NOW ...... Media Analysis with a Sense of Insurgency
http://iraqnow.blogspot.com/2004_02_01_iraqnow_archive.html#107592717209239509
The Danger of "Gotcha" Journalism

Here's an example of a reporter jumping on a chance to be 'snarky' but without quite understanding his beat.

The Associated Press notes that US soldiers are still getting killed with alarming regularity in Iraq, despite the recent capture of Saddam.

He then inserts two 'gotcha' quotes from two division commanders:

Maj. Gen. Charles H. Swannack Jr., commander of the 82nd Airborne Division, told reporters on Jan. 6 that ``we've turned the corner'' in the counterinsurgency effort in his area of responsibility, the western part of Iraq, which includes a part of the so-called Sunni Triangle west of Baghdad.

The number of attacks on his forces had declined by almost 60 percent in the past month, he said then.

Two weeks later, Maj. Gen. Raymond Odierno, commander of the 4th Infantry Division, said, ``The former regime elements we've been combating have been brought to their knees.'' His troops operate in an area north of Baghdad that includes Tikrit, a focus of anti-U.S. violence.

But in fact, many of the fatal attacks against U.S. forces in January were in Swannack's and Odierno's areas.

What the reporter is missing is that both Generals can still be quite correct, and yet attacks on Americans can still continue to increase.

The answer lies in understanding that there is not just one insurgency, but several.

MG Odierno is right--the pro-Baathist, former regime loyalist guerrilla apparatus has been defeated. It's been crushed. When Saddam was captured, all those losers started singing like nightingales, and much of what was left of the former regime elements were rolled up within a month.

Those are not the guys giving us the trouble any more.

The real danger to U.S. troops now is from the 'foreign fighters,' the mujahedeen, the Ansar Al Islam types, and the Al Qaeda franchisees.

Running parallel to this, there is a third layer of insurgency--which is not a huge danger to U.S. troops, but a huge danger to the Iraqi people: the internecine warfare between Sunnis and Shias, and between Kurds and Turkomen.

And beneath this, there is a fourth insurgency: the vendettas among the rival clans, even within the larger ethnic groups.

MG Swannack was right. We have turned a corner. We are focusing on an entirely different kind of insurgent, now. The foreign fighter-dominated jihadist terrorist cell is a very different animal from the former regime loyalist. Their tactics may be similar at times, but the channels through which they receive support --hence their set of critical vulnerabilities--are totally different. They are financed differently, they are armed differently, they are motivated differently, they are recruited differently. They pray differently, they communicate differently, and have an entirely different set motivations.

They even talk differently. A native Iraqi can hear a Saudi or Jordanian or Syrian accent the same way Americans can tell a southerner from a New Yorker.

Which means our sources of information must become different. Our public relations focus becomes different. Our intelligence gathering means and methods must change, in order to focus on the emerging threat.

Odierno was right. Swannack was right.

The AP reporter was so focused on setting up the 'gotcha quotes,' and that he missed another, far deeper and more engaging story, right under his nose.

Valhal

02-08-2004, 23:42

Thank you IRD for the great link.
Mark

Airbornelawyer

02-09-2004, 09:23

There is another element which Van Steenwyk does not mention, which is the activities of criminal gangs and syndicates, many of which are Ba'athists/former Ba'athists and many of whom got rich through smuggling and bribery related to the Oil-for-Food Program and other schemes.

Also, the foreign elements are in some cases not a separate group, but form their own alliances. Some are Islamists looking for a jihad to fight and Americans to kill, some are adventurers and Arab nationalists, some are non-Iraqi Ba'athists who came to join their fellow partisans, and some are ethnic/regional factionalists (such as Iranian Arab Shi'ites and Turks). There is obviously some overlap in some of these categories, but what we also see are some foreign fighters who are a distinct group, and some who are allied with the other groups previously identified.

lrd

02-09-2004, 09:56

Valhal -- You're welcome. I wasn't sure if his outline covered everything; AL's post helps to fill it out.

Originally posted by Airbornelawyer
There is another element which Van Steenwyk does not mention, which is the activities of criminal gangs and syndicates, many of which are Ba'athists/former Ba'athists and many of whom got rich through smuggling and bribery related to the Oil-for-Food Program and other schemes.Does this need to be dealt with as a law enforcement issue?

Also, the foreign elements are in some cases not a separate group, but form their own alliances. Some are Islamists looking for a jihad to fight and Americans to kill, some are adventurers and Arab nationalists, some are non-Iraqi Ba'athists who came to join their fellow partisans, and some are ethnic/regional factionalists (such as Iranian Arab Shi'ites and Turks). There is obviously some overlap in some of these categories, but what we also see are some foreign fighters who are a distinct group, and some who are allied with the other groups previously identified. Are they different from foreign fighers involved in past wars?

Sacamuelas

02-12-2004, 22:58

NDD-
Earlier you wrote:

"....the FARC general membership has very little in common with Marulanda. Their recruiting base for middle management comes from the national universities."

I would like to hear why you think the universities serve as such fertile ground for the FARC.

NousDefionsDoc

02-12-2004, 23:13

Young, pissed off, feeling the need to be radically active. Same reason the communists and others recruit in universities all over the world.

Sacamuelas

02-13-2004, 00:05

I agree, but why? I am interested to hear opinions as to why this is the group so ripe for revolutionary ideals.

In my recent reading, a generalized classification was made that most LATAM countries are still fashioned in a modified 16th century two-class social system. Even with a recently emerging economic "middle class", this third group has tended to show little collectiveness as a politically moderate social class and actually tended to be more politically conservative than the aristocrat class. The newly formed economic middle class tends to despise the lower class(just like the upper class) and isolate themselves from them even though they themselves just came from that background. This serves to further perpetuate the distinction and animosity between the two classes (wealthy/peasant). Therefore, even though there has been some economic creation of a middle class, there is no real middle class "society" with its moderation, virtues, political pragmatism, and democratic social and political ideas. It leaves the country in what K. Silvert has called a "conflict society". No safe middle of the road society, just a constant on-again, off-again class warfare primed territory(unstable).

As to why they recruit in the Universities:
Obviously, social mobility/interaction has been very restricted between the classes in a system like this. In the last few decades, new avenues for social advancement have begun to open up. University and technical training both provide the lower class ways for mobility within in the social scale. Therefore, the people already looking for social change/struggling against the current barriers are frequently found in the Universities. These are the people that are already self-motivated and taking personal action to alter the existing "social status quo" for themselves and their loved ones.... IMO, it wouldn't take much to alter their perceptions to that of a revolutionary perspective to end the class struggle once and for all.

That is one of the reasons I think it is fertile ground. Does that make any sense to you? If not, I will retry on more sleep tomorrow. This stuff intriques me, yet I admit I am very ignorant on the issues.

Sacamuelas

02-13-2004, 11:49

Must have confused everyone so much with my jibberish, their so crossed up they can't even tell me I am full of crap. :p

Roguish Lawyer

02-13-2004, 12:13

Originally posted by Sacamuelas
Must have confused everyone so much with my jibberish, their so crossed up they can't even tell me I am full of crap. :p

Yep. LOL

NousDefionsDoc

02-13-2004, 12:22

No, I'll be back. I'm thinking about this still.

NousDefionsDoc

02-13-2004, 14:06

Ok. I disagree with the concept as stated of the middle class. I also disagree that it is newly formed. So here's my .02 pesos.

What you have are the very poor, the very rich, and everybody else. I don't know what the percentages are and they very from country to country. This is not new and I would bet, when looked at objectively, most people fall in the "everybody else" or what could be considered middle class in this place, at this time, with these people.

Now to me, a big problem in LATAM is urbanization. Its one thing to be broke in the rural areas, its another thing entirely to be broke in the urban areas. The very concept of broke is different. To me, being broke is having electricity, water and telephone shut off for failure to pay. And no food. A campesino may not care that much if his one light bulb doesn't work, he gets his water from a well and the phone is at the post office. Plus, he can live for a month on yucca and rice.

With urbanization, the relative lack of wealth is much more noticeable. You see street people begging in front of the mansion. Since its easier to see, it offends people more. It facilitates them protesting about it. It facilitates the studies on the inequalities as a theme for a thesis. The reasons for urbanization are varied - in Colombia, it is mostly displacement to escape the violence. In many others it is economically driven. People know more about what is going on - technology, etc., and they want their share. So they move to town thinking that's the way to get it.

Bogota was designed and has infrastructure, by my eye, for about 2-3 million people. It has a rough population of 8 million. Quito, Caracas, Rio, etc. have the same problem. So you have an overcrowded prison with all the associated conflicts and issues. Plus, they spend everything they have to get there. When it doesn't work, they have no way to leave. In comes the criminal element to pray on them, exacerbating the situation, followed by the political element to recruit them.

In Colombia, there is a big problem with absentee landowners. They can't run the risk of living and working on the farms because of the violence. So they let them go to seed. What benefits they provided to the campesino class are erased, as the campesinos don't have the education level to operate the farms at a level to be competitive in today's world market. So the campesinos hate the landowners who are never there because they can't be. And the Gs are whispering in their ears the whole time.

I do agree that a class tends to shy away from accepting a "lower" class. Human nature - one does not wish to be reminded of where "There but for the Grace of God..." Doesn't the same thing happen in the US? You been hangin' out with donald trump lately? I don't think there is a a society that isn't in conflict. Everybody is always trying to get what the next group has.

Social mobility - given what we have above, where are they going to move to? If they become land owners, they will face the same problems the current land owners do and have to move to the city to survive. In the city, if you have infrastructure for 3MM, doesn't it follow that there will only be opportunities for 3MM? Where do we get jobs for the other 5MM that shouldn't be there in the first place? So mobility in this case is not restricted by lack of training, its restricted by lack of opportunity. They are competing with 5MM others just as qualified for 3MM jobs. And they are not competing nation-wide, because the nation is shrinking due to the violence or urbanization. 99% of the population lives on 1% of the land (I made those numbers up). In all these countries, there are vast areas uninhabited - violence, lack of infrastructure, "Save the Rainforest", etc. And the population is growing by leaps and bounds, not least due to the Catholic stance on birth control.

Its like Ethopia - you can be the best farmer in the world, but if it doesn't rain, its better to go into the UHaul rental business.

I agree to an extent about the recruiting in the universities. What you have are mostly the middle class (its not that hard to go). They see that they will still have a struggle when they graduate, they are offended by the poverty they see (without really knowing why it is that way). They are idealistic, like all young people. They are away from home for the first time. Then they listen to professional academics all day, many of them communists, tell them it is the fault of the US, the puppet government, the IMF, capitalism, whatever. Then add in the romance - Che, will I get to wear a beret, unite! Professional agitators giving them incentive. Plus, most universities are off limits to police and the military except under martial law, so there's no real fear of punishment. Its rather like Jane F in the '60s. She knew, no matter what she did, nobody was going to really screw with her. Her daddy was an icon, the movement had some popular support, especially among academics, judges, lawyers, etc. She was a young, famous, pretty actress. Where's the risk? Old, poor, ugly campesinos go to jail, not people like her.

At the end of the day, most of them don't even know why things are the way they are. And I don't think they really care. They rebel becuase they are at a rebellious age, and others take advantage of that to steer them in a given direction.

There are poor people! Get your beret and AK and take to the hills!

Its really fun to talk to them when they can't get away. I have a niece, young, pretty. Boys like this used to come around like hounds. So I would sit them down and make them voice the whys and wherefores of their political philosophies. Make them tell me who the guy on the T Shirt was. Yes, some of them had Che T Shirts. LOL. They would do really well, regurgitating the standard doctrine, until we got past the part they had memorized. Very disconcerting to have a gringo tell you more about your country's history than you know.

My wife studied psychology. She used to bring her study group home. They once picked terrorism as a topic for a dissertation and invited me to participate. LOL. Great days those were.

NousDefionsDoc

02-13-2004, 14:07

Now you need to get Jimbo to tell you about liberation theology. LOL

Sacamuelas

02-13-2004, 17:02

I'm collecting my thoughts (aka researching my___ off on Colombia's specifics:D ). As the governator sais... " I'll be back"

NousDefionsDoc

02-13-2004, 17:18

Colombia is fairly easy to figure out. The violence dispaces the campesino, who overloads the system. Get rid of the violence and put the campesino back in the campo and a lot of it goes away. Of course you may have to force the campesinos back to the campo at gunpoint, especially the young ones. Which would cause another round.

Sacamuelas

02-13-2004, 18:14

That is where I disagree. I've had company all afternoon and can't get to my computer/study long enough to write it out. I will post later tonight why I disagree with that solving the problems.

NousDefionsDoc

02-13-2004, 19:42

First of all, that is an obvious over simplification.

Second, I'll be waiting, novato.

Sacamuelas

02-13-2004, 22:43

Okay, after reviewing Colombia specifically, I see that it does not fit my classic LATAM generalizations nearly as well as some of the other countries. It happens to have a fairly strong history of two party politics (liberal + conservative) and of course the interesting side bar years of the National Front.

After closer evaluation, it still shows the remnants of a society that has strong underlying bias towards the two class society I talked about earlier. Your comments about absentee landowners and the compesinos losing their faith in the landowners shows just how structured and biased their culture has remained towards the old spanish authoritarian ideals.

This landowner to worker dynamic you describe was the typical expectation that formed the ideology during the 1800's hacienda structured period. The self contained (social,economic, political, and religious) units based on a feudal type, two level hierarchy of the wealthy landowner and the worker class(slave/indian peasants). Even in that system, there was still an economic middle class of soldier/clergy/skilled that aligned with and supported the wealthy. However, to gain this higher position of standing, the middle class never blossomed into a separate and politically independent force. It was either assimilate or be repressed by the powers that be. Therefore, the rich and middle class supported each other exclusively and exploited the large mass of workers as a single entity. The poor compesinos eaked out a living (accepted it as if it was God's intention-which was told to them by the clergy) and in return expected to be minimally "provided for" by the elites/wealthy. Isn’t this the very attitude you described when you talked about the compesinos not really caring if they would have just been looked after by the absentee landowners?

That type of exploitive system is what leads to the revolutionary ideas from the educated and young disillusioned populace. I don't think the future for Colombia is to return the compesinos back to the large farms and out of the cities. What would help to begin to solve the problem?

Of course, it is far more complex than this one small issue. I realize that. Just trying to focus in small portions or the topics get to broad to discuss efficiently.

NousDefionsDoc

02-13-2004, 23:18

But see, that's the thing, there aren't the really huge farms like there were before. And in Colombia at least, the landowners aren't absent by choice, as a group. Yet the campesinos, who don't have it any better, refuse to see that the very people claiming to fight for them are the ones causing the problem.

Everybody says Agrarian reform! Give the land to those that work it! My question is what the hell will they do with it? Giving a farmer 5, 10 even 500 hectares of land isn't going to solve his problems. He's not going to lay railroad tracks, import machinery, bring in chemicals, buy ships, open new markets overseas. It takes corporations are at least rich dudes to do that. What good does 1,000 hectares of bananas do me without United Fruit? I can't eat bananas 3 meals a day, my kids can't read bananas.

You're right, the clergy and soldiers aren't middle class, they're more slaves than the campesinos.

Most LATAM countries have two parties, those in power and those about to be in power.

That type of exploitive system is what leads to the revolutionary ideas from the educated and young disillusioned populace. I don't think the future for Colombia is to return the compesinos back to the large farms and out of the cities.

What hope is there for them in the cities? They only chance they have is to go on welfare. Why do you think they keep electing populist Presidents? They promise them hand outs. The cities in most of these places are like NYC, they can only expand so far because of geography. Most of the capitals were chosen in the mountains to be defensible. And most of them don't really produce anything. Hell, Quito isn't even the largest city in Ecuador.

This will sound bad, but most Latino governments and in my experience individuals, don't think ahead too well. Maybe its ingrained because there's no use it in it when the President may be gone tomorrow morning. But planning for the long term is almost unknown. They don't foresee problems very well.

They need foreign investment and foreign markets, but they don't want the foreigners.

Sacamuelas

02-13-2004, 23:47

Speaking of the growing middle class... I came across this in my reading.

Many people writing about LATAM used to assume that there was a kind of progressive spirit inherent in the individual members of the middle class and that this spirit could be defined in terms of a desire for economic development and political democracy. This assumption was based on an idealized version of what the middle class had done in the United States and Western Europe. The evidence now suggests that in some cases, certainly not all, the growth of the middle class movements in LATAM might retard economic development and impede liberal democracy, encouraging military rule instead.

Until recently it could be safely concluded that the growth of the middle sectors did not necessarily lead to democracy. Jose Nun, writing in the 60's, pointed out the middle sectors fear of "premature democratization", that is, a democratic procedure that the middle sectors could not control. In some cases,- certainly in Argentina, Brazil, Chile, and Uruguay- this fear led the civilian middle sector members to call on the military for a coup to keep the lower income sectors out of power. But by the late 1980's the military rulers had been replaced by civilian governments, in part because of the growth and frustration of the middle sectors. Only time will tell if the middle sectors will act differently because of the years of bureaucratic authoritarianism: whether the middle sectors will serve as a new invigorated social base for democracy or whether they will continue to ape and imitate the upper class and thus perpetuate an essentially two-class and polarized social structure.

This was one of the many passages that got me thinking on this issue. I see this as a drastic difference in their beliefs and what we base our fundamental understandings of the causes of radical behavior.

To Americans, its is almost instinctive to think of the middle class as being the pragmatic/controlled/majority voting power section of society. In the LATAM culture, the middle class actually serves as the minority/potentially radical instigator due to its delicate lack of social stability caused by being pulled towards supporting the aristocrats in power verses maintaining control/appeasement over the majority of the population in the worker/labor class. Agree/disagree/or inconsequential to the politics of Colombia?