Stratfor, the private intelligence company, ran an article
on July 5, 2012 “Protest Movements as Political Strategy” (see: http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/protest-movements-political-strategy?utm_source=freelist-f&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=20120705&utm_term=sweekly&utm_content=readmore&elq=831ac3ef37d1408ab596cbe7fc67a553)
The article positions protests below insurgencies on the
scale of insurgencies largely because protests are viewed as non-violent
activities whereas insurgencies are made up of violent acts. The article also
points out that protests can “spur insurgencies” and cites Syria as a case in
point.
Protests are considered an asymmetric tool because the
protestors are assumed to have far less resources than the ruling entity they
are protesting against.
In many cases protests have shown themselves to be cost
effective means to affect people’s behavior.
If that is the case, should one of the
functions of MISO to provide protest coaching to those favorable to our
messages and causes? Should MISO try to influence governments by helping the
citizens of that government be more effective in their protests?
Protestors are also attempting to make their effort look
larger and more consequential than it really is. In my posts on “Occupy” I
pointed out to the meager presence the protestors had in San Jose, the 10th
largest city in the US, but how pictures of the protestors could be positioned
in such a way as to make the few people look more like a crowd than they really
were.
While I’m all in favor of new and original angles and
tactics for MISO, and while protests do seem to have made quite a difference,
especially in the Middle East, I don’t think MISO should be a force in the
process.
MISO might work with friendly minded parties to help them
understand the nuances of the communication process and to support those who
support us, I believe that MISO needs to stay squarely in the military lane and
avoid mixing in to what should be civilian or diplomatic efforts.
Reader thoughts always welcome.
Photo of 2009 protest outside the G20 Meeting in London: http://www.zimbio.com/pictures/zUZy_T7xFkd/Protesters+Outside+G20+Summit+London/iH7U0YB9ZWK
3 comments:
Tough line to draw.
In spite of Clausewitz's "war is not merely a political act, but also a real political instrument, a continuation of political commerce", IMHO, this sounds more "political" than the military should be doing. Far better fit for diplomats, even intelligence agencies. How much more effective they would be under such regimes is a separate question :)
This type of activity is a valid MISO mission, but falls under the purview of the CIA as a "covert" action.
According to Robert Gate's memoir, the first CIA support to the mujahedin in Afghanistan was "...insurgent propaganda and other psychological operations..." This was six months prior to the Soviet invasion and may have played a role in triggering the decision to invade. Since the risk of Soviet escalation was briefed at the time, this may have been a desired outcome of the support.
Concur with the others that any support would need to be covert, an overt support role leaves the protestors open to a number of new nationalism arguments from the regime, i.e., the protestors are actually proxies and agents of the US.
This should be viewed as a subset of UW. Furtermore, IMHO it is a legitimate MISO function, whether a specific mission would fall under Title 10 or Title 50 depends on the lawyers and the authorities in the EXORD for that mission.
Post a Comment