Requiem for the Arab Spring

[Ted King]

rjmacs wrote:
[quote=Ted King]
It's true that many jihadists are not economically disaffected, but I think they do draw a great deal of strength from young men who are. I wonder if anyone has done a study on that.

What does it mean, exactly, to "draw a great deal of strength from young men who are [economically disaffected]"? I would think that the arguments from the jihadists would focus on economic development and opportunity if this were the case, but that hardly touches on their ideology which emphasizes the restoration of Islamic order in an increasingly colonized and corrupted society.
Before you can focus on alternative economic development, you have to take out the ruling power structure first.

[rjmacs]

Ted King wrote:
[quote=rjmacs]
[quote=Ted King]
It's true that many jihadists are not economically disaffected, but I think they do draw a great deal of strength from young men who are. I wonder if anyone has done a study on that.

What does it mean, exactly, to "draw a great deal of strength from young men who are [economically disaffected]"? I would think that the arguments from the jihadists would focus on economic development and opportunity if this were the case, but that hardly touches on their ideology which emphasizes the restoration of Islamic order in an increasingly colonized and corrupted society.
Before you can focus on alternative economic development, you have to take out the ruling power structure first.
Theoretically, but theoretically lots of things could be sources of strength. Is there evidence, or just supposition, behind this notion?

Edit: i ask because there's lots of theorizing about the Arab Spring that draws mostly on Western ideas of what's going on there, based more on our biases and models than on empirical observation. To understand what's happening there requires a great deal of cross-cultural investigation and exploration. The American mind can never understand the Egyptian rationale without abandoning the American ways of making sense of things first.

[Ted King]

rjmacs wrote:
[quote=Ted King]
[quote=rjmacs]
[quote=Ted King]
It's true that many jihadists are not economically disaffected, but I think they do draw a great deal of strength from young men who are. I wonder if anyone has done a study on that.

What does it mean, exactly, to "draw a great deal of strength from young men who are [economically disaffected]"? I would think that the arguments from the jihadists would focus on economic development and opportunity if this were the case, but that hardly touches on their ideology which emphasizes the restoration of Islamic order in an increasingly colonized and corrupted society.
Before you can focus on alternative economic development, you have to take out the ruling power structure first.
Theoretically, but theoretically lots of things could be sources of strength. Is there evidence, or just supposition, behind this notion?

Edit: i ask because there's lots of theorizing about the Arab Spring that draws mostly on Western ideas of what's going on there, based more on our biases and models than on empirical observation. To understand what's happening there requires a great deal of cross-cultural investigation and exploration. The American mind can never understand the Egyptian rationale without abandoning the American ways of making sense of things first.
There's two different things that might be conflated here. One is whether or not lack of economic opportunity strengthens the jihadists. The other has to do with the Arab Spring (which I take to have been an effort to get to a functioning democracy that respects individual rights). In what you were quoting, I was referring to the former and not the latter. I have tried to find empirical evidence for and against the notion that lack of economic opportunity strengthens jihadists, but I didn't find any direct studies. I did find a variety of takes on the issue, though, from experts on jihadists. This may be one of the better takes:

http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/researc...spinar.pdf

Breeding grounds for radicalism and terrorist recruitment emerge not necessarily under conditions of abject poverty and deprivation, but rather when negative social, economic, and political trends converge. In fact, when analyzed in a broader framework of socio-economic and political deprivation, the societal support for terrorism and radicalism gains greater relevance. Dismissing the social and economic causes of
radicalism on the grounds that some terrorists have middle-class backgrounds is simplistic and misleading. Weak, failing, and failed states; ungoverned spaces; and civil wars that create safe havens for terrorism are all in underdeveloped parts of the world, not in the industrialized West. Terrorism is not necessarily caused by socioeconomic problems. But there is certainly a correlation between
deprivation and radicalism.

[RgrF]

It's instructive to notice how the sharing of wealth within Arab states differs; you'll see no real insurgent elements within Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, United Arab Emirates, Qatar (who bought their way to the World Cup) or other states (like Alaska) who have no real need (although they do use oppressive tactics) to deal with disruptive or even different elements of their society.

It should also be noted that these societies are pretty much homogeneous, while most societies are not.

So my posit is:
Had Syria and Libya, given that lack of homogeneity within their populations chosen to follow the system of redistribution of wealth of other Arab oil based economies, have faced an Arab Spring at all?

[Ted King]

RgrF wrote:
It's instructive to notice how the sharing of wealth within Arab states differs; you'll see no real insurgent elements within Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, United Arab Emirates, Qatar (who bought their way to the World Cup) or other states (like Alaska) who have no real need (although they do use oppressive tactics) to deal with disruptive or even different elements of their society.

It should also be noted that these societies are pretty much homogeneous, while most societies are not.

So my posit is:
Had Syria and Libya, given that lack of homogeneity within their populations chosen to follow the system of redistribution of wealth of other Arab oil based economies, have faced an Arab Spring at all?

I'm not sure in what way you mean "Arab Spring" to be taken; e.g., specifically the "efforts at democracy that respects individual rights" sense of the term or the general "Arab revolt" sense of the term. And I'm not sure about the degree to which each of your premises are true, but your question is an interesting one. It seems to be framed in a way that could be addressed with a sufficient/necessary analysis. Is a relative mal-distribution of wealth a condition that is a sufficient condition to ensure the that an Arab society will have an Arab Spring type of uprising? Is a relative mal-distribution of wealth a necessary condition for an Arab Spring type of uprising? If it is a necessary condition, then there would be no Arab Spring uprising in societies that do not have a significant relative mal-distribution of wealth. Any counter-examples would nullify such a wealth disparity as being a necessary condition. If it is a sufficient condition only, then that means you don't necessarily have to have a relative mal-distribution of wealth to have an Arab Spring type of uprising, but the fact an Arab society has such a disparity would be sufficient in itself to lead to such an uprising. That is, there may be other sufficient conditions that lead to such an uprising so such uprisings may not be limited to Arab societies that have a relative mal-distribution of wealth, but if an Arab society has such a condition it is sufficient in itself to lead to such an uprising. Of course, such a relative mal-distribution of wealth condition may be neither necessary nor sufficient.

I say that only to establish some grounds on which to analyze your questions, but until I understand what way you mean "Arab Spring" to be taken, I'm not sure what answers I might be inclined to give in response to your questions.