Guest Post: Protest as Insurgency

By a Barefoot Economist

General Petraeus Interrupted
Uploaded by hotairpundit. - News videos hot off the press.

 

On Thursday, January 21, at an update from United States Central Command at Georgetown University, a handful of individuals held over 500 people, a general and an entire institution hostage to their opinions. They took advantage of the very rules they were violating, forcing extensive due-process before their activities could be curtailed. Their actions polarized opinion, inciting forceful reprisals and cynicism. Their disregard for procedure discredited the moderates who held similar opinions but chose to play by the rules, and these were marginalized for their trouble. No doubt their success will cause future military speakers to hesitate before coming back. It happened here, in Washington DC, at one of our prestigious academic institutions, yet it eerily mirrors what happens every day on the streets of Kabul and Bagdad.

At around 4:15 pm, General Petraeus' speech to the student and faculty of Georgetown University was interrupted by a student, reading the names of Iraqi dead. After a moment of stunned silence, as his voice echoed through the chamber, a loudspeaker began blaring a warning.

The female voice reiterated the warning twice before university security guards moved in. Since the insurgent had strategically placed himself in the middle of a row, half-a-dozen people had to empty the aisle before the guards could reach him and lead him away. All the while, he continued reading out names out the dead.

Yet only a few minutes after, a student on the hard-to-reach balcony picked up where her colleague left off. One after the other, 6-7 students managed to shorten a highly anticipated hour long speech to little more than a 20 minute Q & A. They had won.

Dispersed in the audience like Mao's fish in water, the insurgents multiplied their impact tenfold. Their approach evoke the offensive tactic known as swarming. According to a RAND report, "Swarming occurs when several units conduct a convergent attack on a target from multiple axes." The author of the report identifies five primary variables most important to successful swarming, all of which were succesfully employed by the Gaston insurgents:

(1) superior situational awareness: they knew the event’s format, the layout of Gaston Hall and the rules in the event of interruption, using all three to their advantage

(2) elusiveness: sitting in the middle of rows surrounded by people made each insurgent hard to reach.

(3) standoff capability: Using the hall’s acoustics and Petraeus’ unwillingness to outshout them, they repeatedly checked the event’s progress.

(4) encirclement: Dispersed across the floor and balcony, they effectively ‘surrounded’ a far larger group, forcing the audience’s eye and attention away from the podium

(5) simultaneity: They performed a coordinated sequential attack, allowing up to five minutes between interruptions to maximize impact.

Unconstrained by the rules everyone else obeyed, they made a mockery of them. We saw the impact clearly, as each subsequent student was given less warning and ever more promptly disposed of. But this increase in efficiency led itself to dangerous excesses, as vigilantes brought it upon themselves to rip papers away, insult and otherwise forcefully silence the insurgents. The mood was swinging towards hostility and near violence, causing behavior that can be used in future editorials, letters, and campaigns to support the protesters.

Worse, the interruption discredited any notion of debate. Responses included mockery and an attempt to drown out the insurgent's message with a louder one, U-S-A. When the time finally came for Q & A, those with forceful questions for Petraeus were met with icy-silence or booed. One particular individual, while attempting to re-credit his dissenting opinion, was told to shut up and sit down. Instead of a conversation, we got soundbites interspersed with catcalls. Big as it was, Gaston held no more room for debate or compromise.

In this charged atmosphere, Petraeus demonstrated his counter-insurgency experience. He acknowledged the protesters' opinions, followed the rules even when they broke them, and responded to more moderate dissenters who were willing to listen as well as talk.

Disappointingly, Georgetown students did not demonstrate similar restraint.

Comments

[Andrew]

What really "discredited any notion of debate"? Was it the offensive disruption of the speech? Or was it the fact that a serving general left the barracks to proselytize at a university about wars and imperial misadventures ripe with controversy since before their consecration?

Did you actually expect "debate" to be evoked by the general? If so, you're a dreamer. These speaking events never offer the public anything but the same platitudes and falsehoods that Petraeus and the ruling establishment have peddled relentlessly for years. The "insurgents" preempted the repeat of the farce. They represent true patriots' and peace lovers' frustration with and rejection of sterilized "news from the front" and other propaganda.

And, oh, how they shudder at the word "propaganda"; "Another liberal diatribe!" the intellectually lazy immediately rebut. But what has the mighty general to offer but another ra-ra for the mission so stained with innocent blood and contempt for human rights? His uniform does all the talking. Exit "debate".

[Pat Flynn]

I think that this spectacle was very disrespectful of, and damaging to, the open and safe environment for discourse we mean to promote and guarantee on the Hilltop -- both amongst ourselves and for guests who we proudly provide a forum.

Does that mean that I respect the war? Or put General Patraeus or any other speaker on a pedestal? Absolutely not on both counts. And it doesn't necessarily mean that I agree with anything that the he/she might have to say. But, I do respect the right of all guests -- regardless of who they are or what they have to say -- to be given the chance to speak freely when they come to our campus. Civil, free discourse is paramount to me and I think that the students who interrupted our guest made Georgetown look like a second-rate host in the eyes of the world.

I'm also no hypocrite because I do respect the students' rights (as hosts and citizens if nothing else) to say whatever they like, and to that end I even condemn the motion to "remove" the "offenders" in this case. But, if rudely screaming is their preferred method of message broadcasting, I do wish that they had chosen a more appropriate forum or medium to engage General Patraeus, his views, and what he represents. In fact, as Georgetown students I really wish that they would have chosen another method entirely. They could have responded to his remarks in an editorial or saved their outbursts for a protest outside Gaston Hall or elsewhere at the various physical representations of government that can be found around the capitol in every direction, they could have even sponsored a debate on campus or written and enacted a play. In short, they could have done any number of other things to freely counter Patraeus' presence in a way that did not involve this embarrassing stunt.

Calling someone out or fact-checking an opponent is exactly what our education is supposed to train us and encourage us to do, but the proper forum for that is in peaceful discourse, both in classroom discussion and writing, as well as in effective action in post-graduate life, not hostile and inconsiderate outbursts which disgrace our school's fine name. We are Georgetown. What happens and how people express themselves outside the gates is their own business and ought to remain so. But inside, (and hopefully again when we go out into the world) we rise to the occasion and engage people and ideas that we do not agree with on superior planes. To that end we may even be muckrakers -- but we do our muckraking by outsmarting, outplaying, and outworking our foes. We are not attention-starved, disrespectful, immature stunt artists.

[Sheepdog]

"Andrew,"

First of all, who the %$#$*($ do you think you are?

Do yourself and us a favor. Put down your Chai-Latte (no offense to Chai-Latte's) and put yourself where your mouth is.

If you aren't such a low-life (even the term intellectual wouldn't qualify for you) coward then go ahead and join the ranks of your beloved innocents whose blood is supposedly being shed. You must be sitting on a really high perch (academia?) to say such high-minded trash - if we are shedding innocent blood and violating human rights why don't you do anything about it?

That's if the real insurgents would even accept you - as we've seen recently in the news, douchebags like you, like the 5 currently held in Pakistan, aren't even considered worth training for martyrdom. Yeah, that's pretty bad.

So come out of your ivory tower and meet us face to face instead of trying to destroy our great country from the inside.

You choose to exercise your freedom of speech and hatred of the United States under the very protection of the American uniform you so despise. If it wasn't for citizen patriots like GEN Petraeus, those before him, and those who will come after him you wouldn't have a head on your shoulders right now. Then again it doesn't seem to be of much use to you anyway.

Your not-so-peaceful comments and your fellow "insurgents'" not-so-peaceful behavior belies your true nature and intentions. You're only peaceful as long as your radical agenda is enforced and any dissenting opinion silenced. Your totalitarianism is no different than all the "isms" we've seen in the past which rear their ugly heads now and again. Neither you nor the Georgetown "insurgents" apprear to have one iota of substance (read facts) to engage GEN Petraeus or what you call the "establishment" with.

It's ironic that your disgusting drivel comes on the very same day that one of Iraq's most heinous human rights violator's and shedder's of innocent blood meets justice (Chemical Ali) - and that's thanks to America (the previous administration, the military, and the citizens) and her Allies who took enormous risk, effort, and courage to do so when no one else did for so many years. As for you and you're "insurgents" cute tactic of reading off names of innocents we supposedly killed, God forbid you would be bothered to actually do any research to confirm (or just simply open your eyes and empirically see) that your so-called "freedom-fighters" are actually responsible for slaughtering an overwhelming amount of the people they claim to be fighting for. http://www.longwarjournal.org/threat-matrix/archives/2009/12/muslims_account_for_85_percent.php

Anyway, feel free to not come back here until you have a cool picture (like these: http://ansarnet.info/showthread.php?t=813&page=27) of yourself ready to defend the blood of innocents (if you even make it that far) and please include an 8 digit grid coordinate of your location so we can verify your claim.

Pat,

I generally agree with you, but I've got to point this out - why would someone (like Andrew and the "insurgents") intellectually engage anyone with any amount of respect when they lack a very basic respect for our country, those who defend it, and the principles for which we stand? People who are already that far out, I think, are lost causes...There's no appeasing totalitarianism and base intolerance.

[Alex @ I-Con]

Andrew and like-minded readers-

Don't make assumptions about the author's politics. These are observations on the tactics used by the protesters, which offer some interesting insight on the effectiveness of the protest in at least disrupting the presentation of one of the most notable military figures in the world, and their results.

And yes, debate was discredited. Andrew, you seem to suggest that because of Gen Petraeus' position and views, any debate would be impossible. This is absurd. If he agreed with the protesters, what would there be to debate about? And yes, it was mostly a Q & A, not a structured debate, but despite the speakers rank and influence, he specifically welcomed difficult questions. If he answered only with "propaganda" and not meaningful arguments, he would lose, wouldn't he?

Unlike thought-provoking questions that would have guaranteed a response from the general, the protests were disruptions, not arguments. And, as a result, the crowd was in no mood for a serious discussion. That's the real loss.

Real insurgent tactics tend to do the same thing. Blowing up a market place does not make a coherent political argument. The goal, then, is to draw attention and disrupt those in power.

[mjc]

Sheep: First of all, I know Andrew personally. He does not drink chai lattes, and he is one of the most upright, virtuous people I know. Your ad hominem attacks do more damage to yourself than anyone else. In fact, you prove his point about the non-debate for him. Would you be willing to listen and carefully consider an alternative point of view? Or would you rather mouth off on a blog, pretending you are the victor valiant when, in actuality, you sound more like a disgruntled vet with post-traumatic stress? Also, I think you misunderstand irony. It's not ironic that Chemical Ali should be sentenced on the same day others protest the killing of innocents. At least, it is pure coincidence, and at most, it is fitting (irony would be the opposite of fitting, such as an
American general receiving a warm reception at a liberal university). Your arrogant display of disrespect for the opinions and beliefs others is precisely the kind of behavior that caused 9/11 in the first place. It is not anti-american to repudiate the war and the killing of innocents; rather, it is a position that transcends nationality and calls for us to question what truly matters in life. Ipods, SUVs, and plasma TVs? Or running water, schools, and life? We have destroyed the lives of the Iraqi people on the most basic levels. It is rather easy to understand why people are so upset about it, although I don't actually share the view that we should not seek and destroy those who wish to do the same to the USA. Lastly, it is disgraceful to use the term "insurgents" to describe the protesters; their peaceful demonstration - interruption of a speech is not a violent act - does not compare to the killing that occurs every day in countries currently subject to American occupation. That's akin to saying that the fighting in Iraq is really just a debate about who should control the oil. Please. There is no debate there, and there is no debate in this country. Our government does whatever it and its special interest daddies want to do.

[Sheepdog]

"mjc" - Amazing - you sound very similar to your friend "Andrew". No wonder you are such close friends or maybe you're just the same person.

Since you appear to be such an expert on ad hominem attacks perhaps you can talk to "Andrew" given that his original comment was nothing but ad hominem attacks against GEN Petraeus specifically and the U.S. military in general and just as well against anyone who might not agree with your radical views. You're asking if I/we would be willing to listen and carefully cocnsider alternative points of view at the same time as you encourage, support (and maybe even directly participate) in muzzling others (like GEN Petraeus)?! Seriously?

"Disgruntled vet with post-traumatic stress"? "Arrogant display...for opinions and beliefs"? "what truly matters in life...Ipods SUVs, and plasma TVs? Or running water, schools, and life"? "peaceful demonstration"? "who should control the oil"? "there is no debate in this country"? There it is - the fusion of radical leftist thought with radical third world thought (and these days with a Middle Eastern twist).

Once again, if you're going to hate on the United States as much as "Andrew", disparage what we stand for, disparage those who defend our (and your) way of life, find common cause with our enemies, etc. then GO. Go to where there is debate. Go to where there is what truly matters in life. Go to where there's supposed tolerance. If America doesn't deserve your support than you certainly don't deserve America's freedoms. So why are you still here - as a parasite enjoying the freedoms and bounties guaranteed to you by those you despise and at the same time all too ready and willing to take the entire system apart?

[Andrew]

To Sheepdog, my delightful detractor:

I will start by addressing points you raise that are relevant to the Petraeus issue, then I will address your personal attacks.

1. The type of protest that occurred at gtown is uncommon, and rightfully so. 9 times out of 10, such behavior is not called for and, indeed, is not encountered. Sometimes, however, when the traditional forums of "debate" fail to produce any meaningful impact on the policy process, a display of civil disobedience occurs, as did last week. It is still a perfectly valid (and peaceful) form of debate, especially after other avenues produce little to no result.

2. If you intend to state that no innocents have died in the wars we are now fighting, you stand alone in that assertion. Even the most hawkish openly acknowledge that "collateral damage" is an inevitable part of war. And I'm afraid there is no "empirical" evidence that corroborates your theory that the names read at the event were militants or terrorists. In fact, many of the names read were names of fallen US servicemen.

3. If you intend to challenge whether there have been human rights abuses in these wars, I encourage you to research the concepts of "proportionality" and "discrimination" in International Humanitarian Law. Then we can have an informed discussion.

4. If you admire rightfully what brave soldiers and officers have fought for, you would have some qualms with the unquestioned influence a serving military leader has over the civilian decision making process in this country.

And now to address your personal attacks:

1. I'm not sure how you got the impression that the only way to protest US policy is to become a militant (although it would be a safe assumption that you generally think violence is the only viable means of confrontation). And if you imply that blogging is ineffective, then you, too, do not escape your own indictment.

Incidentally, I live in Washington, D.C.and work for a respected organization that daily engages and informs key policy makers in the US government and in the military community on matters such as war and counterterrorism. What are you up to these days?

Further, I think we would all prefer that positive reform of our policies comes from within so I'm not sure why you have a problem with that.

2. I do not understand your jibe at "academia". Is it a sin to be literate?

3. I, and my compatriots, have always been peaceful, despite having very little influence over the foreign policy decisions in this country. To upend your argument of "peaceful as long as we win", I'd point out that your views have always been mainstream and yet you are vitriolic and vigilant as can be.

4. Finally, your use of the word "coward" rings false under your alias "sheepdog" (please accept my apologies if that is the name your redneck mother actually put on your birth certificate). You know my name, coward.

Judging by your previous posts, I don't expect any sober, substantive response so I'll go ahead and call this game, set, and match.