Study explores how nonviolence is more effective than violence 18MAI10 & Obama's New Security Goals Prize Nonmilitary Moves 26MAI10

This is a fascinating article and it's publication was followed by the Obama administration's emphasis on nonmilitary methods to achieve our security goals. We can only hope and pray this is just a start of the dismantling of the military-industrial complex. Won't happen overnight,, but it is a start.

A fascinating paper has been published by Maria J. Stephan and Erica Chenoweth (HT to Rose Marie Berger writing for Sojourners in the US) on how nonviolence seems more successful than violent strategies in challenging regimes.
We have long suggested that we need greater investment in, and exploration of, these kinds of strategies. Prior to the invasion of Iraq in 2002 suggested on Radio 4 and elsewhere that such possibilities were worth considering.
The findings of the new study challenge the conventional wisdom that violent resistance against conventionally superior adversaries is the most effective way for resistance groups to achieve policy goals.
The authors assert that nonviolent resistance is a forceful alternative to political violence that can pose effective challenges to democratic and nondemocratic opponents, and at times can do so more effectively than violent resistance.
They point out that from 2000 to 2006, organised civilian populations successfully employed nonviolent methods including boycotts, strikes, protests, and organised noncooperation to challenge entrenched power and exact political concessions in Serbia (2000), Madagascar (2002), Georgia (2003) and Ukraine (2004–05), Lebanon (2005), and Nepal (2006).
This is what the authors say:
"Our findings show that major nonviolent campaigns have achieved success 53 per cent of the time, compared with 26 per cent for violent resistance campaigns.
"There are two reasons for this success. First, a campaign’s commitment to nonviolent methods enhances its domestic and international legitimacy and encourages more broad-based participation in the resistance, which translates into increased pressure being brought to bear on the target. Recognition of the challenge group’s grievances can translate into greater internal and external support for that group and alienation of the target regime, undermining the regime’s main sources of political, economic, and even military power.
"Second, whereas governments easily justify violent counterattacks against armed insurgents, regime violence against nonviolent movements is more likely to backfire against the regime. Potentially sympathetic publics perceive violent militants as having maximalist or extremist goals beyond accommodation, but they perceive nonviolent resistance groups as less extreme, thereby enhancing their appeal and facilitating the extraction of concessions through bargaining."

The full paper: 'Why civil resistance works' can be found here: http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/isec.2008.33.1.7

Obama's New Security Goals Prize Nonmilitary Moves

26MAI10

The Obama administration's new outline of national security goals says the U.S. must galvanize support abroad to tackle global troubles, a contrast to former President George W. Bush's emphasis on going it alone and striking preemptively if necessary.
A summary of the national security document, obtained by The Associated Press, says the United States should maintain its military advantage over the rest of the world while prizing other kinds of power.
The National Security Strategy will be the first produced under President Barack Obama, laying out his goals. The document, like those from other presidents, is purposely vague.
The AP obtained the summary ahead of document's planned release by the White House this week.
The strategy was expected to walk away from a position held by Bush that the United States could or should undertake pre-emptive wars. Bush's 2002 National Security Strategy posited that doctrine, and the 2003 U.S.-led invasion of Iraq made good on it.
The document says the highest priority for national security is the safety of Americans, and that strategies for a more peaceful world begin at home.
The strategy points to diplomacy, development and other methods of influence, while making clear the United States intends to maintain its military strength. The U.S. has the world's most powerful military, with unsurpassed reach and resources currently stretched by two wars and other challenges.
The new security document describes goals of national renewal and global leadership. U.S. security goals should reflect universal values held by the United States since its founding, the document says.
The Obama document reflects his views that U.S. influence should be used in partnership with allies and others, a repudiation of what was often described as Bush's go-it-alone philosophy.
Obama touched on that theme during a commencement address Saturday that was a partial preview of the security document.
The U.S. must shape a world order as reliant on the force of diplomacy as on the might of its military to lead, Obama said then.
Addressing nearly 1,000 graduating cadets at the U.S. Military Academy, many of whom will likely head to war in Iraq and Afghanistan under his command, Obama said all hands are required to solve the world's newest threats: terrorism, the spread of nuclear weapons, climate change and feeding and caring for a growing population.
Obama said the men and women who wear America's uniform cannot bear that responsibility by themselves. "The rest of us must do our part," he said.
"The burdens of this century cannot fall on our soldiers alone. It also cannot fall on American shoulders alone."