Jim wrote:

Ghandi. Womens Sufferage (US). Jim Crow Laws (US). Vietnam. Civil Rights in the 60's. The point being, there are plenty of historical precidence where this sort of behaviour has led directly to the change desired by the protestors against a much better armed and entrenched foe.

It depends on which sort of behavior you mean--none of these causes believed in violence at all! Back in the day, anarchists used to assasinate people. What came of it? The Sacco and Vanzetti case. Here's an uncomforably familiar bit on that--just fill in new details and it's as contemporary as ever: "The arrest of Sacco and Vanzetti coincided with the period of the most intense political repression in American history, the "Red Scare" 1919-20. The police trap they had fallen into had been set for a comrade of theirs, suspected primarily because he was a foreign-born radical. While neither Sacco nor Vanzetti had any previous criminal record, they were long recognized by the authorities and their communities as anarchist militants who had been extensively involved in labor strikes, political agitation, and antiwar propaganda and who had had several serious confrontations with the law. They were also known to be dedicated supporters of Luigi Galleani's Italian-language journal Cronaca Sovversiva, the most influential anarchist journal in America, feared by the authorities for its militancy and its acceptance of revolutionary violence... During this period the government's acts of repression, often illegal, were met in turn by the anarchists' attempts to incite social revolution, and at times by retaliatory violence; the authorities and Cronaca were pitted against each other in a bitter social struggle just short of open warfare. A former editor of Cronaca was strongly suspected of having blown himself up during an attentat on Attorney General Palmer's home in Washington, D.C. on June 2, 1919, an act that led Congress to vote funds for anti-radical investigations and launch the career of J. Edgar Hoover as the director of the General Intelligence Division in the Department of Justice. The Sacco- Vanzetti case would become one of his first major responsibilities. In 1920, as the Italian anarchist movement was trying to regroup, Andrea Salsedo, a comrade of Sacco and Vanzetti, was detained and, while in custody of the Department of Justice, hurled to his death. On the night of their arrest, authorities found in Sacco's pocket a draft of a handbill for an anarchist meeting that featured Vanzetti as the main speaker. In this treacherous atmosphere, when initial questioning by the police focused on their radical activities and not on the specifics of the Braintree crime, the two men lied in response. These falsehoods created a "consciousness of guilt" in the minds of the authorities, but the implications of that phrase soon became a central issue in the Sacco-Vanzetti case: Did the lies of the two men signify criminal involvement in the Braintree murder and robbery, as the authorities claimed, or did they signify an understandable attempt to conceal their radicalism and protect their friends during a time of national hysteria concerning foreign-born radicals, as their supporters were to claim?" Ouch. There's a real lesson there! Besides, I think a lot of the success of the symbolic protests you mentioned were actually a logical result of what was going on behind the scenes--sure, they protests functioned as a PR-strategic push, but without very intelligent and dedicated people interfacing with the power structure, nothing ever would have happened at all. You remember the people who conceptualized, organized and signed the treaty, not the ones who threw the bombs. Elizabeth Cady Stanton didn't *need* the Pankhursts, if you get my drift.

Highly heirarchial defence mechanisms, such as you tout as invincible, work just fine when faced with that sort of competition. When faced with a more distributed and idealistic confrontation they eventualy fail.

Maybe, but keep in mind asymmetry and idealism don't always go together. Also, define "idealistic". For instance, Mao appealed to the idealism of his followers, but his tactics were as hardcore as they come. And what happens when a repressive state starts to adopt asymmetric strategies to overcome asymmetric threats? That's the way it's moving, slowly but surely...

The question is not one of tactics, but of spirits.

Hm. I still think you need both.

Sun-Tzu should be added to your summer reading list.

Yep, it's certainly worth another look. Meanwhile here's a relevant quote of his I do remember: "The worst policy is to attack cities. Attack cities only when there is no alternative." So there you have it... ;) ~Faustine.