Mediaboss Marketing

At what point can the United States and other countries no longer afford the massive transfer of weapons to the Ukrainians, lest they jeopardize the readiness of their own militaries? When does the arsenal of democracy shift to the arsenal for self? These are questions that are starting to be raised as the demand for weapons becomes clear in what is now a protracted war in Ukraine.

The contributions by the U.S. and Ukraines other supporters have been immense. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Mark Milley said that as of mid-April approximately60,000 antitank weapons and 25,000 anti-aircraft weaponswent to Ukraine.

Javelins, Switchblades, and Stingers have been deployed regularly by Ukraine in its struggle against Russian invaders. Images ofburning tanks, often with their turrets blown off, are a testament to the effectiveness of these weapons.

There is more on the way. Already, Ukrainessupportershave begun sending in artillery, armored personnel carriers, anti-aircraft systems, and other heavier weapons that allow the Ukrainians to successfully push back against a Russian invasion.

Calls to limit Western largesse are being voiced, because, asHal Brandswrites inThe Washington Post, This is presenting Western countries with a stark choice between pouring more supplies into Ukraine or husbanding finite capabilities they may need for their own defense.

This is not unlike the pushback to President Franklin Roosevelts March 1941 Lend Lease policy that rushed U.S. materiel support to Great Britain and the Soviet Union, including aircraft and warships. Arguably, this assistance kept the besieged British in the war.

In the euphoria of the Allied victory in 1945, the contentiousness of the debate in the United States about providing this support when the United States was not in the warislargely forgotten to history.This division is perhaps best seen in two close votes in Congress. Conscription to begin preparing the U.S. Armed Forces for the warwas extendedby only 1 vote in the House; the vote in the same body onLend Leasewas not as close262 for to 16o againstbut still reflected concerns about a widening American role in the European War. The victors justice imposed by the Allies on Germany after the Great War, particularly their dividing up the spoils to add to their own colonial empires, still angered many.

The wartimeoutputof Americas arsenal of democracy was astounding: 197,760 combat aircraft, 88,410 tanks and self-propelled artillery, 257,390 towed artillery, 2,382,311 military trucks, 137 large and small (jeep) aircraft carriers, 349 destroyers, 203 submarines, and 2,710 Liberty cargo ships.

Roosevelt, however, facedoppositionto Lend Lease from an unexpected quarter: his own military. The generals and admirals were concerned that the President was giving away the very weapons and materiel they needed to equip Americas own mobilizing military. The demands were significant. When General George Marshall became Army Chief of Staff in September 1939, theArmy had only 200,000 officers and enlisted in its ranks; in 1945 its ranks numbered nearly 8,300,000. At the most basic level, each soldier had to be provided boots, uniforms, and a weapon that were not in existing stocks.

American industry, particularly in the days before Pearl Harbor, was struggling to equip U.S. forces. To the alarm of the generals, the President was giving away what they believed they so desperately needed.

What FDR realized is that any weapon used against Nazis was well given. Similarly, every Russian tank killed by a Javelin or Switchblade and every aircraft downed by a Stinger supports Secretary of Defense LloydAustinsApril statement that: We want to see Russia weakened to the degree that it cant do the kinds of things that it has done in invading Ukraine.These weapons are, after all, built to destroy enemy weapons. When they do it, and by whom they are fired, is irrelevant. The United States may have to restock its inventories, but the Russians will have to rebuild their Army.

One of the central lessons of the Russo-Ukrainian War could be that the prevailing view that future wars will be short and decisive needs rethinking. If this conflict is any harbinger, the United States and its allies and partners may need to be prepared for protracted wars that have insatiable appetites for materiel, munitions, and, tragically, people. If that is true, then the American arsenal of democracy, as well as those of its allies and partners, may have to be rejuvenated.

Furthermore, the challenge may not be only the demand shown by confronting Russian aggression. The National Security Strategy identifies China as the principal long-term U.S. challenge. If the United States is indeed serious about preparing for competition and potential conflict with China as well as Russia in the future, the demands could be significant given Chinas enormous capabilities.

Consequently, the ongoing war in Ukraine could lead to a rethinking of what a 21stcentury American arsenal of democracy will have to be to meet the challenges of the future.

DavidJohnsonis a retiredArmy colonel. He is a principal researcher at the nonprofit, nonpartisan RAND Corporation and an adjunct scholar at the Modern War Institute at West Point. He is the author ofFast Tanks and Heavy Bombers: Innovation in the U.S. Army, 1917-1945. From 2012-2014 he founded and directed the Chief of Staff of the Army Strategic Studies Group for General Raymond T. Odierno.

Follow this link:
What Better Way to Use the Arsenal of Democracy? - RealClearDefense

Dr. James W. Thomasson

So, patient readers, where to begin: how about this land is my land or no one here is from here? It is always difficult for educators to know how to broach this subject, unless current regional culture dictates it. Just today, for example, I received a national survey in the mail, wanting my opinion on a left leaning that threatens an honest and balanced (read right-leaning) account of American history. Well, I have always challenged my students to an honest and balanced account, that is an open-minded, objective critical inquiry.

If a little humor can be allowed, I would like to tell you a story about a former colleague and honored scientist, Dr. David Robinson. After an initial period teaching biology as George-town University, he made his way to the National Institutes of Health, and in his latter years was Director of the Human Genome Project, yes, where we all came from. David knew origin was a difficult issue to address with persons with little scientific training and much religion-formed versions. Me he liked to tease with this version: Great grandma to the 2,008th power came off the Serengety looking more like Opray Winfrey than Erik the Red, then slowly moved north through Italy and Greece through eastern Europe, picking up red hair from the Fressian soldiers, then on up to Scandinavia, along the way spreading east, northeast, southeast across that continent to Asia and southeast Asia, then eventually here. This story, of course, avoided an discussion of how those 3.6 million years ago Neanderthals gave us that Great Grandma!

Let me start with scientific and historical objectivity: no one here is from here. Here, of course, means this Continent. Well, unless I missed some scientific discovery that a version of homo sapiens originated on this continent, the first human beings here came from southeast Asia across the Bering Strait some 13 thousand years ago. Of course, they were the come heres, but their immediate offspring are from here, as are any subsequent new born. That is why histor-ical literature calls them native Americans (though that latter word got attached centuries later). Now history gets very complex, because so many more came here after that from else-where through explorations and trading ventures from Alaska, Europe, far northwest Canada, Mexico, etc.

Ironically, as we explore the history of the tribes and their territorial possession of the land, we have to also note that white explorers and traders, mostly from Spain, France, Portugal, England, and northeastern Scandinavia, were present on the Continent (for familiar references: new Mexico, California, Florida, Newfoundland) as early as the 1420s. You can find the lost extensive and trustworthy account of this early history in a thoroughly objective history by a unilaterally informed Native American, Angie Debo, A History of the Indians of the United States, University of Oklahoma Press.

Not surprisingly, once the white man arrived, all the relevant categories of classifi-cation changed: (1) who lives on this land?; (2) who owns this land?; (3) who governs this land? On his first visit, passing down the coast from Newfoundland on his way back to Spain, Colum-bus discovered this native inhabited land. (1490) On his second visit, landing on Hispaniola in 1492, Columbus launched a trafficking of gold from there back to Spain, therewith, as Debo des-cribes, beginning the Spaniards century of exploitation. By 1513 Juan Ponce de Leon, a mem-ber of Columbus first Hispaniola colony, returned back from Puerto Rico, carrying in hand a royal patent to settle new lands and distribute the natives among the colonists. Time moved quickly! Those who lived on the land (that royal patent was a land grant), like the land itself, were now owned and in servitude to the Spanish. This harsh punishment of braves, assault on women, and seizure of wealth continued until 1605, when the French expanded their reach. As Debo denotes, the French learned their languages, mar ried their women, adopted their ways, and converted them (referring to religion) without subjecting them to alien rule.

Oddly, in 1607, the johnny come lately British arrived and things began to change rapidly. The English, given their sustained aggression in various parts of the globe, looked to the developing colonies from New England to Virginia and the Carolinas, south to Florida, and west to the Ohio Valley, and far west in Arizona and California as footholds of a new nation under British authority. The wars between native tribes, as they sought to preserve their lands by opening a new friendship with French, Spanish, and slowly developing colonies of mixed national origin along the eastern coast to the Ohio Valley, were slowly part of a developing new nation. As the colonies worked to free themselves from British authority by forming states and seeking united actions, they also looked to ways to shrink the land mass held by native tribes. The temporary culmination of that effort is captured in President Andrew Jacksons seventh annual address to Congress on December 7, 1835. Noting that all the tribes on the east side of the Mississippi, stretching from Michigan to Florida had been engaged for transplantation, he notes: The plan for their removal and reestablishment is founded upon the knowledge we have gained of their character and habits and has been dictated by a spirit of enlarged liberality. Indeed, as Jackson notes: A territory exceeding in extent that relinquished has been granted to each tribe.

Our third question, who owns this land, is also the answer to the second question. The natives land is replaced by new land assigned. The action is carried forth by the ones who have authority and practical ownership over all the land by Constitutional decree! Though we started with no one here is from here, we have arrived at everyone here is under the authority of those who govern all the land here. Now we must move on to that other question: In what sense is this land my land?

View post:
Thomasson Series on Education and American Democracy 'Go West, Young Man' Reconsidered: No One Here is from Here' Crookston Times - Crookston Daily...

Teaching citizenship values can help promote active participation among Europeans, but it still often relies on the initiative and motivation of individual teachers. Meanwhile, education remains fragmented across the EU, with each member state implementing their own policies.

Changes to competence in this field remain unlikely for the time being, despite citizens and decision-makers increasingly calling for a more harmonised European approach and more EU support for citizenship educators.

Meanwhile, recent crises have pushed schools to quickly adapt to new learning environments. The influx of Ukrainian refugees in EU countries has shown the need for a cross-border approach to face educational challenges, while the COVID-19 pandemic has definitively pushed teachers and classrooms toward the digital sphere.

In this special report, we look at the role of teachers and educators in making young Europeans active citizens, the challenges they currently face in their work and the role the EU could play in supporting them.

See original here:
Citizens of tomorrow: education's role in strengthening EU democracy - EURACTIV

The American people understand that their democracy and their society are in deep trouble.But they do not agree on who or what is the cause of the problem, and do not share a common understanding of basic facts. To make matters worse there is a kind of sinister synergy between America's democracy crisis and other serious problems facing the country, which risks creating a state of collective paralysis.

During his prepared comments before the House Jan. 6 committee last Thursday, retired judgeJ. Michael Luttig, a lifelong conservative Republican who advised former Vice President Mike Pence before and during Donald Trump's coup attempt, issued this dire warning:

A stake was driven through the heart of American democracy on Jan. 6, 2021, and our democracy today is on a knife's edge.

America was at war on that fateful day, but not against a foreign power. She was at war against herself. We Americans were at war with each other over our democracy.

Jan. 6 was but the next, foreseeable battle in a war that had been raging in America for years, though that day was the most consequential battle of that war even to date. In fact, Jan. 6 was a separate war unto itself, a war for America's democracy, a war irresponsibly instigated and prosecuted by the former president, his political party allies, and his supporters. Both wars are raging to this day. America is now the stake in these unholy wars. America is adrift. We pray that it is only for this fleeting moment that she has lost her way, until we Americans can once again come to our senses.

In response to a question from committee chairman Bennie Thompson about the danger to the republic still represented by Trump and his supporters, Luttig elaborated further:

Almost two years after that fateful day Donald Trumpand his allies and supporters are a clear and present danger to American democracy.

That's not because of what happened on Jan. 6. It is because, to this very day, the former president and his allies and supporters pledge that in the presidential election of 2024, if the former president or his anointed successor as the Republican party presidential candidate were to lose that election, they would attempt to overturn that 2024 election in the same way that they attempted to overturn the 2020 election, but succeed in 2024 where they failed in 2020.

If there are any reasonable and intelligent Americans who continue to doubt that this country is in the midst of an existential crisis, facing the dangers of Trumpism and a growing white supremacist authoritarian movement, Luttig's words should shock them back into reality.

A new Yahoo News/YouGov poll adds even more weight to Luttig's warnings about American democracy as it teeters on the precipice of irrecoverable disaster. The lead finding is that more than half of those surveyed, across the political spectrum 55% of Democrats and 53% of Republicans believe it is "likely" that the United States will "cease to be a democracy in the future."

RELATED:Global forecaster on "another bad year for democracy": Is the world near a dire tipping point?

Further findings in that poll are arguably even more troubling given the events of Jan. 6 and the Republican-fascist movement's increasing embrace of violence and terrorism:

This new poll also demonstrates that negative partisanship and other forms of extreme political polarization now appear to be permanent features of American political life.Andrew Romano summarizes this at Yahoo News:

When asked to choose the phrase that best "describes most people on the other side of the political aisle from you," a majority of Republicans pick extreme negatives such as "out of touch with reality" (30%), a "threat to America" (25%), "immoral" (8%) and a "threat to me personally" (4%). A tiny fraction select more sympathetic phrases such as "well-meaning" (4%) or "not that different from me" (6%).

The results among Democrats are nearly identical, with negatives such as "out of touch with reality" (27%), a "threat to America" (23%), "immoral" (7%) and a "threat to me personally" (4%) vastly outnumbering positives such as "well-meaning" (7%) or "not that different from me" (5%).

These findings offer further evidence that the U.S. in the Age of Trump and beyond is what political scientists call an "anocracy," a system that combines features of dictatorship and democracy. The coup against democracy and the rule of law did not end when Trump's insurrectionists left the Capitol on Jan. 6. The Republican-fascists and the larger white right continue to advance a strategy whose ultimate goal is a Christian fascist plutocracy, one modeled on a system of competitive authoritarianism in which political parties still exist and elections occur, but where outcomes are manipulated as in Russia, Hungary or Turkey.

Want a daily wrap-up of all the news and commentary Salon has to offer? Subscribe to our morning newsletter, Crash Course.

This dystopia made real will be a combination of such books and films as "The Handmaid's Tale," "Atlas Shrugged," "Brazil," "Idiocracy," "Robocop," "CSA: The Confederate States of America" and "1984."

Donald Trump and his acolytes continue to threaten political violence against their "enemies," meaning liberals and progressives, nonwhite people, Muslims, immigrants, LGBTQ people and any other groups or individuals they deem insufficiently "American" and not part of the MAGA faithful.

The Republican Party, its propaganda machine and other opinion leaders continue to amplify Trump's Big Lie and its inherent conclusion that further violence may be necessary to return Trump (or a successor) to the White House and, more generally, to prevent Democrats from winning or holding power by any means necessary.

The core tenets of the "great replacement" conspiracy theory which a white supremacist terrorist recently claimed as the motive for murdering 10 Black people last month at a Buffalo supermarket have been embraced by a majority of Republicans, and an even larger majority of Trump followers.

National security experts on terrorism and armed conflict have continued to warn that Trump's coup attempt and the Capitol attack are further evidence that the U.S. may face a period of sustained right-wing violent insurgency. Robert Pape, director of the University of Chicago Project on Security and Threats, has estimated that more than 20 million Americansbelieve that using political violence to return Trump to power is justified.

In a widely read December 2021 essay in the Globe and Mail, Canadian political scientist Thomas Homer-Dixon offered a memorably grim prognosis of America's future. He predicted that "American democracy could collapse" by 2025 that is, following the next presidential election and that by 2030, the U.S. "could be governed by a right-wing dictatorship":

We mustn't dismiss these possibilities just because they seem ludicrous or too horrible to imagine. In 2014, the suggestion that Donald Trump would become president would also have struck nearly everyone as absurd. But today we live in a world where the absurd regularly becomes real and the horrible commonplace.

Mr. Trump's electoral loss has energized the Republican base and further radicalized young party members. Even without their concerted efforts to torque the machinery of the electoral system, Republicans will probably take control of both the House of Representatives and Senate this coming November, because the incumbent party generally fares poorly in mid-term elections. Republicans could easily score a massive victory, with voters ground down by the pandemic, angry about inflation, and tired of President Joe Biden bumbling from one crisis to another. Voters who identify as Independents are already migrating toward Republican candidates.

Once Republicans control Congress, Democrats will lose control of the national political agenda, giving Mr. Trump a clear shot at recapturing the presidency in 2024. And once in office, he will have only two objectives: vindication and vengeance.

Homer-Dixon then drew the this parallel between the current state of the U.S. and the collapse of the Weimar Republic in the early 1930s:

The situation in Germany in the 1920s and early 1930s was of course sui generis; in particular, the country had experienced staggering traumas defeat in war, internal revolution and hyperinflation while the country's commitment to liberal democracy was weakly rooted in its culture. But as I read a history of the doomed republic this past summer, I tallied no fewer than five unnerving parallels with the current U.S. situation.

America's future stability is so much in doubt that even global rivals or enemies are concerned about the destructive forces unleashed by the Age of Trump. In a series of phone calls before and after the 2020 election, Gen. Mark Milley, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, sought to reassure his Chinese counterpart, saying, "The American government is stable and everything is going to be OK. ... Everything's fine. But democracy can be sloppy sometimes."

An ambush is always disorienting, and intentionally so, but the best option is always to fight back. That's where we are right now.

This situation is undeniably bewildering, and deliberately so. But for pro-democracy Americans, inaction is not an option. That will inevitably lead to defeat. In military terms, a successful ambush is almost always disorienting, but the best option is always to fight back, not hunker down. The Republican-fascists and their allies want the American people to feel so confused and overwhelmed by their unending attack on democracy, the rule of law, the common good and basic human decency that they essentially turn away, close their eyes and surrender.In essence, the Republican-fascist movement is using their own version of a political "shock and awe" strategy here at home against the American people.

The Lincoln Project recently offered this evaluation of America's democracy crisis:

After three [Jan. 6 committee] hearings we know for certain the nation is at one of the most dangerous moments in its history. These revelations will not change the true MAGA believers mind but will cause them to double and triple down on the "Big Lie" making them more dangerous and perhaps more violent. Every single American needs to decide if they are the side of the seditionists who tried to tear down a free and fair election, or do they support our Republic and its democratic principles?

In short, the American people must act with deliberate purpose and speed if they hope to save their democracy and society. Voting is of course necessary, but by itself is insufficient. "Hashtag activism," with its "likes" and "shares" and memes, is for the most part symbolic or performative politics that accomplishes little or nothing in the long run, and may actually be counterproductive if people mistake it for real action. In the long-term struggle, substantive movement-building and organizing will be required to defeat fascism in America and around the world.

Voting is necessary, but not sufficient. "Hashtag activism" accomplishes little or nothing, and may even be counterproductive. What we need is movement-building.

Supporters of democracy must engage in grassroots organizing. They need to join, establish, and grow a range of civil society organizations. They must raise and donate money in effective ways, not by giving it to doomed Democratic candidates in hopeless races. Ultimately, they must be willing to engage in corporeal politics, including general strikes, street protests, civil disobedience and other forms of direct action where they can confront the Republican-fascists and their allies with overwhelming numbers.

Right now, almost all the momentum is with the Republican-fascists and their broad-spectrum attack on American democracy and society. They are in revolutionary mode, and they are are winning. They will press onward to total victory, unless and until they are stopped. This will require people of conscience to take a personal inventory and ask themselves, "How much am I willing to sacrifice to save my country, my family and future generations from this nightmare?" The future of American democracy and society largely hinges on how many of us can answer that question honorably and rise to the challenge.

Read more on America's crisis of democracy:

See the original post here:
Is American democracy already lost? Half of us think so but the future remains unwritten - Salon

Myanmars rocky democratic transition ended abruptly in a military coup on February 1, 2021. Yet, the generals have kicked a hornets nest. The countrys Bamar majority has long dominated Myanmar, but an assortment of over 20 ethnic armed organizations have contested this situation for decades, and some have taken up arms once more to oppose the coup. Most crucially, faced with junta gunfire, the largely Bamar-dominated pro-democracy movement also made the grim decision to arm itself and fight the military.

The story of post-coup Myanmar is now one of a dedicated popular democratic resistance gaining momentum against a powerful military machine armed with Chinese and Russian equipment. This resistance is largely led by the predominantly Bamar National Unity Government in a loose coalition with some ethnic armed groups, ousted parliamentarians, and activists. They have shaken the junta to its core, successfully seized rural areas across the country, and enjoined several of the countrys ethnic armed groups to directly support them in the fight.

Yet, the odds against them remain steep. The National Unity Government lacks significant Western support most notably in the form of arms and still struggles to bring distrustful ethnic armed groups into a consolidated resistance movement. Currently operating as a diffuse and underequipped insurgency fighting what amounts to at least seven discrete conflicts, anti-junta forces lack strategic-level unity as well. While remarkably effective in numerous tactical skirmishes, the poorly equipped National Unity Governments long-term prospects are, therefore, less than ideal. The juntas military, known as the Sit-Tat, is suffering from overstretch and low morale, but still holds key cities and strategic locations with its superior airpower, armor, and artillery.

Nonetheless, the revolution can achieve victory. Resolving the fundamental distrust between the National Unity Government and ethnic armed organizations may be enough to overcome political and military roadblocks. This will require developing a shared political objective and an effective coalitional military strategy. It will also require persuading non-aligned ethnic armies as well as the Chinese government to increase the flow of arms, so anti-junta forces can launch coordinated offensives to take and hold territory. These steps could prompt the Sit-Tats collapse, or at least compel the junta to allow a return to democratic rule.

The Current Situation

Over the past few months, the National Unity Governments military momentum has slowed as the junta deployed its air power and heavy weapons, locking down cities and preventing the rebels from consolidating their gains. In places like Mindat, Chin State, and Lay Kay Kaw, Karen State, the juntas troops ousted poorly equipped Peoples Defense Forces. In classic authoritarian counterinsurgency fashion, the junta continues to use unanswered firepower to displace lightly equipped units with little concern for escalating civilian casualties.

Peoples Defense Forces and newly founded autonomous defense forces were successful in recruiting roughly 100,000 personnel, but only about 40 percent of them have any small arms whatsoever. Many of these weapons are rudimentary, either locally produced, cast off by the junta, or obtained on the black market from China and Thailand. Stealing weapons is not viable at scale. And while Chinese-supported ethnic armed groups have weapons like FN-6 man-portable air-defense systems that could dent the juntas air and armor, they are reluctant to share them.

Politically, the incredibly diverse ethnic landscape in Myanmar has provided the National Unity Government with a number of potential armed allies, but it has also hampered anti-junta unity. Many ethnic groups have historical grievances and legitimate concerns with a Bamar-dominated pro-democracy movement, which results in limited cooperation beyond the tactical and operational levels. Some groups, such as the powerful United Wa State Army, seek to preserve their own interests regardless of the wider movements fate especially if the National Unity Governments odds of victory remain low.

Yet despite its problems, the National Unity Government and the wider pro-democracy movement cannot easily be crushed and show little intention of surrender. The junta has failed to cow the populace into submission, retake rural areas, or persuade the ethnic armies to join its side. While Myanmar has experienced numerous unsuccessful anti-government conflicts, and the Sit-Tat is often described as a formidable force, this time is different. As shown most recently during its 2019-20 fighting with the Arakan Army, the junta has struggled to defeat popular insurgencies. In the current round of conflict, the Sit-Tat has not only failed to prevail, in several places it cannot venture out into rural areas without suffering serious losses due to small-unit tactical failures. Moreover, the Bamar majority is now actively challenging the junta in a manner unseen since the 1980s, and fighting has spread throughout the country.

This leaves the Sit-Tat overstretched, overburdened, and short on morale. A total military victory for the pro-democracy forces led by the National Unity Government will still be difficult to achieve, but it is likelier now than it has been in decades. To date, the junta has made clear that it will not negotiate with the National Unity Government. Thus, while military victory is a long shot, the pro-democracy movement has no other option but to ramp up military pressure to either overthrow the junta or compel it to hand power to a civilian government.

The Need for Unity

Despite conducting a series of negotiations, the Bamar-dominated National Unity Government is struggling to find common ground with the ethnic armed organizations to build a mutually acceptable democratic federal state. Some dominant pro-democracy political entities still hold the dismissive views of ethnic actors that marked the National League for Democracys rule after 2015. Meanwhile, many ethnic armed groups pursue their own parochial interests. In addition to a few smaller outfits, the most powerful ethnic armed organizations on the National Unity Governments side are the Kachin Independence Army in the north and the Karen National Union to the east. Both have supported the resistance movement since its inception and frequently launch offensives within their own territories, but they are hesitant to invest scarce resources in battlefields beyond their control.

Beyond the ethnic armed groups, only about 60 percent of the Peoples Defense Forces and smaller Local Defense Forces are actually under the National Unity Governments direct operational command. Moreover, the long hoped-for federal army capable of uniting the disparate ethnic armies and the Peoples Defense Forces remains out of reach. While many of the ethnic armed groups reject peace talks with the military, they appear reluctant to wholeheartedly back the pro-democracy forces and some are open to junta outreach. This essentially splits the conflict into seven separate theaters with little overlap. It also allows the junta to divide and conquer and concentrate mass against isolated resistance pockets, as they have successfully done throughout their history.

The National Unity Governments Peoples Defense Forces have rapidly and effectively established themselves in the form of a cellular, horizontally networked guerilla force. Now the groups aiming to overthrow the junta need to undergo a sequential transition from a loosely organized movement to a more structured and centralized force. Martin C. Libicki and Ben Connable claim that networked armed movements have lost significantly more often than they have won, while hierarchically organized insurgencies have a better record. As Rgis Debray, an associate of Che Guevara, claimed: The lack of a single command puts the revolutionary forces in the situation of an artillery gunner who has not been told in which direction to fire. Centralized command and control is necessary to field a force capable of taking urban settlements and strategic hard points.

Thus, the National Unity Government needs to consolidate its own chain of command and convince the fiercely independent ethnic armed organizations to accept a shared military strategy. It has attempted to do so through the establishment of a Central Command and Coordination Committee, but the ethnic armed groups have been loath to subordinate themselves to National Unity Government control. To overcome this, the National Unity Government will need to form a coalition around mutual goals in order to reach a consensus on an overarching strategy. This means forging a shared political objective before effective strategic military cooperation can occur.

Currently, the National Unity Governments goal is to seize the central state apparatus, while the ethnic armed groups largely aim to consolidate their own autonomy. Persuading the ethnic armed organizations that it is in their interest to overthrow the Sit-Tat will require real inclusion and commitments to giving up some central authority in a federal democratic future. It would also be a real departure from Aung San Suu Kyis practices and likely would require moving beyond her legacy to build a more inclusive one. Any political arrangement must be conducive to genuine cooperation between the pro-democratic political forces and the ethnic armed groups. Most importantly, the National Unity Government must make the case to the ethnic armed organizations that the autonomy they seek can only happen under a democratic federal structure.

To be sure, the pro-democracy resistance movement has taken the right steps to advance this unity. It has created a National Unity Consultative Council, which could be a genuine political platform bringing together the countrys diverse stakeholders. Likewise, the Central Command and Coordinating Committee could create a military command structure that would improve collaboration. If the National Unity Government can demonstrate its practical cooperation with the ethnic armed groups, and the National Unity Consultative Council forges a strong alliance around a federal democratic future, they would be a strong magnet for uncommitted ethnic armies. This would also undermine the juntas own efforts to co-opt ethnic armed groups. Just recently, the National Unity Government met with the currently uncommitted Arakan Army of Rakhine State in a move that is sure to turn heads in Naypyidaw.

If and once the National Unity Government persuades the ethnic armies to buy into a shared political objective, it can formulate a more effective military strategy and launch operations to take further territory. Based on her study of recent U.S. coalitions, Patricia A. Weitsman argues that even in the absence of a unified chain of command, effective staff integration is possible. Considering the reluctance of ethnic armed groups to embrace a federal army or fully cooperate with the National Unity Government, pro-democracy forces should at least work on shoring up the Central Command and Coordinating Committee and integrating high-level officers from its constituent coalition members within both itself and aligned ethnic armed organizations to formulate strategy and conduct operations across all seven theaters in Myanmar. This does not necessarily require subordination, but rather compromises and a shared understanding of national-level strategy. Without this, the movement will remain susceptible to the juntas efforts to divide and conquer it.

Tackling the Military Problem

The other problem facing the National Unity Government is its ongoing lack of arms and equipment. The problem is particularly acute for Peoples Defense Forces located outside territory held by ethnic armed organizations, or in regions such as Sagaing and Magway that are distant from Myanmars porous borders. In the early days of the conflict, homemade rifles and ancestral hunting weapons were enough to drive back the juntas demoralized troops. But now, with the Sit-Tats forces supported by air power, modern small arms, light armored vehicles, and artillery, the sheer firepower brought to bear on the Peoples Defense Forces is causing them to scatter to avoid direct confrontations. Thus, while they have no lack of enthusiastic recruits, they have been unable to move beyond rural guerilla tactics. The ethnic armies, with their better equipment and more reliable access to arms have performed somewhat better against junta offensives. For example, the Kachin Independence Army took the strategic Alaw Bum hill soon after widespread fighting broke out in early 2021, and has held the area against ferocious efforts to retake it with air power and artillery.

Once greater political unity is established, the Peoples Defense Forces lack of equipment can be mitigated somewhat through cooperation with ethnic armed groups. Many of the ethnic armies, especially those along the Chinese border or aligned with the United Wa State Army, receive Chinese weapons and equipment, including anti-air systems. Other ethnic armies take advantage of longstanding ties to smugglers in Thailand and China to obtain black market weapons or have significant arms-making industrial capacity of their own. However, persuading the China-backed ethnic armies to sell more weapons directly to the pro-democracy resistance likely means getting Beijing on board as well. Given Chinas growing support of the junta, this is no easy task. Yet, China is not the completely unitary actor that it is sometimes assumed to be, and Beijing also has a history of hedging in Myanmar. If the National Unity Government can win over the ethnic armed groups, demonstrate its capacity to govern territory, and, crucially, avoid angering China, then a pragmatic Beijing or local officials in Chinas bordering Yunnan Province could acquiesce to a livelier arms trade. Given Western reticence towards arming the Peoples Defense Forces, this may be their only option.

The End of the War?

The pro-democracy movements political and military problems may be pressing, but they are not insurmountable. The National Unity Government can rest assured of its main strengths: public support, strong commitment from allied ethnic armies, and quiet cooperation from the unaligned ethnic armed organizations. From this base, it should first unite the collective efforts of all anti-junta forces in pursuit of a genuine federal democracy, then craft a joint military strategy. In newly liberated regions, the National Unity Government and ethnic armed organizations should collaborate to establish effective parallel governance mechanisms to raise funds, ensure humanitarian aid and deliver stability. This will demonstrate to the international community that the pro-democracy movement is the peoples government that it claims to be. From there, military victory or the return of civilian rule may be possible.

Ye Myo Hein is the executive director of the Tagaung Institute of Political Studies and a public policy fellow with the Wilson Center. His research interests include civil-military relations in Myanmar, the countrys armed conflict, and its politics. The views expressed are the authors alone, and do not represent the views of the U.S. Government or the Wilson Center.

Lucas Myers is a program coordinator and associate for Southeast Asia at the Wilson Center. His work focuses on Southeast Asian geopolitics, Chinese foreign policy, and Indo-Pacific security issues. The views expressed are the authors alone, and do not represent the views of the U.S. Government or the Wilson Center.

Image: Karen National Union

Original post:
A More United, Better-Armed Opposition Can Bring Democracy to Myanmar - War on the Rocks