Geopolitical duct tape and costly disasters.
September 17, 2014 7:30 AM Subscribe
...the reality of ISIS and what this group seeks is opaque to the public, and to policymakers not clued into the private salons where the details of secrets can be discussed. Even among those policymakers, the compartmentalized national security establishment means that no one really grasps the whole picture. The attempt to get the US into a war in Syria a year ago was similarly opaque. The public cannot make well-informed decisions about national security choices because information critical to such choices is withheld from them. It is withheld from them at the source, through the classification-censorship process, then by obfuscations in the salons and think tanks of DC and New York, and then finally through the bottleneck of the mass media itself.The Solution to ISIS Is the First Amendment by Matt Stoler
Also,
As Kissinger said, the US does not have an ideology, only interests. Our most important geopolitical interest has been and continues to be oil. US corporations simply could not function if they did not have access to cheap oil. Saudi light crude is and remains the largest, most readily accessible pool of the most valuable crude. Oh, and the country with the second biggest proven reserves of light sweet crude is Iraq.
If you want to get a handle on the politics of the Middle East, the linchpin is the US-Saudi relationship. The long-standing deal is simple: Saudi princes keeps oil prices in check in return for US support for being kept in power. The de facto discount against what the Saudis could make if they choked supply back to get better prices is protection money.
However, this relationship currently looks like a dysfunctional marriage where it’s clear there will be no divorce because there is no prenup in place, making the cost and uncertainty of a break-up too high for the partners. The Saudis are upset with the US because we haven’t attacked Iran. In fact, we have done the Saudis a great favor by not going beyond sanctions, since Iran would retaliate rapidly, in force, against Saudi refineries and other oil infrastructure and would close the Strait of Hormuz. The Saudis are also mightily aggrieved that the US has not gone into Syria…yet.
Chelsea Manning: how to make Isis fall on its own sword
posted by cjorgensen at 7:38 AM on September 17, 2014 [5 favorites]
posted by cjorgensen at 7:38 AM on September 17, 2014 [5 favorites]
The public cannot make well-informed decisions about national security choices because information critical to such choices is withheld from them.
Contractors Ready to Cash In On ISIS War [Daily Beast]:
President Obama has asked Congress to authorize $500 million to train a new Syrian opposition out of Saudi Arabia. That money would be part of a $5 billion fund Obama requested this spring from Congress to help train and equip U.S. allies to fight terrorists.
One U.S. military contractor working in Iraq who asked not to be named said, “I can tell you the contractor-expat community is abuzz thinking this will lead to more work. We expect a much larger footprint than he is showing right now.”
The corporate and elite interests representing themselves as US interests thrive on secrecy and lack of scrutiny, like roaches in the walls. The last thing they want is the public capable making well-informed choices.
posted by ryanshepard at 7:41 AM on September 17, 2014 [3 favorites]
Contractors Ready to Cash In On ISIS War [Daily Beast]:
President Obama has asked Congress to authorize $500 million to train a new Syrian opposition out of Saudi Arabia. That money would be part of a $5 billion fund Obama requested this spring from Congress to help train and equip U.S. allies to fight terrorists.
One U.S. military contractor working in Iraq who asked not to be named said, “I can tell you the contractor-expat community is abuzz thinking this will lead to more work. We expect a much larger footprint than he is showing right now.”
The corporate and elite interests representing themselves as US interests thrive on secrecy and lack of scrutiny, like roaches in the walls. The last thing they want is the public capable making well-informed choices.
posted by ryanshepard at 7:41 AM on September 17, 2014 [3 favorites]
How to make Isis fall on its own sword
Issue: The reason ISIS has been so successful is that when they take over an area, they do things like get the power and water running again, police against crime, get the trash hauled, and all those other things a non-failed state does.
The reason they're able to basically walk in is that the state they are walking into has already failed. This is making most of the people, the ones who didn't actively fight against ISIS, much happier.
Insurgencies and revolutions happen when the population is discontent and suffering. When you fix that problem, they will look at you (in this case, the US) and say "When you were here, our world collapsed. When they came, our world started working again. Why would we ever listen to you again.
Personally, to me, the right answer is to stay the hell out, because the last thing we need to do is piss in the pot and make it worse AGAIN.
posted by eriko at 8:08 AM on September 17, 2014 [14 favorites]
Issue: The reason ISIS has been so successful is that when they take over an area, they do things like get the power and water running again, police against crime, get the trash hauled, and all those other things a non-failed state does.
The reason they're able to basically walk in is that the state they are walking into has already failed. This is making most of the people, the ones who didn't actively fight against ISIS, much happier.
Insurgencies and revolutions happen when the population is discontent and suffering. When you fix that problem, they will look at you (in this case, the US) and say "When you were here, our world collapsed. When they came, our world started working again. Why would we ever listen to you again.
Personally, to me, the right answer is to stay the hell out, because the last thing we need to do is piss in the pot and make it worse AGAIN.
posted by eriko at 8:08 AM on September 17, 2014 [14 favorites]
Stoler seems to beg the question a bit by assuming that a well-informed public would act differently than the well-informed elites do. This seems to be a special case of the "wisdom of crowds" theory, which has always seemed like something of a fallacy to me. Ten thousand people aren't necessarily any more likely to render a correct-in-hindsight decision than ten people are, provided with the same information. A more democratically legitimate decision? Sure. But correct, as in likely to be viewed as being "correct" five or ten years down the line? I've seen no evidence that's really the case.
posted by Kadin2048 at 8:16 AM on September 17, 2014 [5 favorites]
posted by Kadin2048 at 8:16 AM on September 17, 2014 [5 favorites]
I'm ok with targeted drone strikes on ISIS military units in the field of combat, in support of the Kurds in particular, if every dollar spent on such a campaign is matched by five federal dollars spent on renewable energy infrastructure in the US over and above any current investment, with the first billion in added cost coming out of US military aid to Israel and Egypt, in equal measure.
A boy can dream of a rational long term strategy.
posted by spitbull at 8:23 AM on September 17, 2014 [1 favorite]
A boy can dream of a rational long term strategy.
posted by spitbull at 8:23 AM on September 17, 2014 [1 favorite]
Or maybe the solution to ISIS is massive investment in alternative energy. Not that dissolving the secrecy masking our foreign policy is a bad thing; it isn't. But if the Saudis, et al found themselves holding only a resource that nobody really needed that much of, a lot of the toxic stupidity of our foreign policy goes away.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 8:35 AM on September 17, 2014 [9 favorites]
posted by Kirth Gerson at 8:35 AM on September 17, 2014 [9 favorites]
What is supposed to be in the classified 9/11 Report that would somehow change our minds?
Imagine the bizzaro-world where everyone was talking about how our ally Saudi Arabia had backed Al-Qaeda instead of Saddam.
posted by ennui.bz at 8:41 AM on September 17, 2014 [5 favorites]
Imagine the bizzaro-world where everyone was talking about how our ally Saudi Arabia had backed Al-Qaeda instead of Saddam.
posted by ennui.bz at 8:41 AM on September 17, 2014 [5 favorites]
We are being, yet again, stampeded into an open-ended war, a war with no clear strategy, no clearly articulated benchmarks, no exit scenario, no contingency planning, with mission creep and unaccountability being the primary hallmarks of this engagement.
And why are we being stampeded? Because the forces that are pushing for this war do not want any time spent on asking basic questions - it was ever so. We were pushed into the Iraq war with a steady drumbeat of propaganda force fed through a compliant media, and not much has changed in that MO from Libya and Syria through to the ISIS.
Here and there questions are asked, and never answered. The LATimes has had a series of articles wherein the basic question was asked about why exactly it is that we are hell-bent on attacking ISIS, when they are hardly a logical target, and why it is that in this campaign against ISIS we are aligning with Al-Qaeda affiliated forces who would in fact be a logical target, if we employed logic. The local people, including forces on our side, are equally puzzled:
""Iraq is now a stage for intervention from all countries of the world," added Bakhtiar, also a leading figure with the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan, or PUK, one of the two major political parties in Iraq's semiautonomous Kurdish region.
Many here question whether Islamic State poses any kind of direct danger to the United States. Unlike Al Qaeda, which severed ties to the group early this year, Islamic State has not proclaimed a global militant agenda, focusing instead on consolidating its self-proclaimed caliphate in the heart of the Middle East."
ISIS is without a doubt a vicious and ruthless force, but its ambitions are purely local. Their primary support is from Sunnis who feel aggrieved in the new Iraq, and they wish to establish a caliphate in the region and redraw old colonial borders and maps - it is a civil war in the Middle East. We have no business intervening in a civil war that is not ours, not anymore than old colonial powers should have intervened in our own Civil War. The values that ISIS represents are not our values and we abhor them. But it is the right of the ME societies to decide their own fate. As long as ISIS is not attacking us, why are we intervening there?
It is as if we don't have enough enemies, and we need more in the Middle East. Of course if we take on ISIS, they may turn from their local concerns to addressing this intervention by old colonial powers and make it their business to attack us. But perhaps that is our purpose all along - whack the hornets nest and when the hornets attack we can use that as an excuse to escalate this war: "see, they attacked us!".
Meanwhile, we are aligning with Al-Qaeda affiliated forces, the very AQ whose entire existence is dedicated to fighting the West on its own soil through terrorist attacks. On what planet does this make sense? Haven't we already learned our lesson in the very creation of AQ whom we supported and co-created together with Saudi Arabia when we were fighting the Soviets by proxy in Afghanistan? And then experienced the horrific blowback? A lesson we just re-learned in Syria, where "our" rebels turned out to be scoundrels who were indistinguishable from the actual AQ brigades fighting Assad?
We are preparing for years and years of a war a case for which has not been made or examined in any detail, a war that will bleed us of resources desperately needed at home, a war that will accomplish nothing but make us more unsafe, a war that will be bloody both for us and for many innocent bystanders in the ME:
"How far the Obama administration is prepared to go in Syria remains murky. It may take several years to defeat Islamic State in Iraq and "several more years than that" to defeat the group in Syria, Dempsey said. If the U.S. launches airstrikes in Syria, he said, it will be "to put pressure on" Islamic State militants until the U.S. and Saudi Arabia can train moderate rebels who can fight them on the ground."
The same failed tactics will be employed, the same tactics that have proven actually counterproductive and resulting in massive blowbacks - droning, bombing and arming dark uncontrollable forces. Meanwhile we are leaving room for more mission creep and even our ground troops in this conflict:
"Militants in Iraq are seeking to blunt the effectiveness of U.S. airstrikes by dispersing their forces into urban areas and increasingly adopting terror tactics such as suicide attacks and bombings, says a senior American military officer."
"Dempsey said the dispersal of militants into urban areas will make it “a little tougher” for U.S. warplanes to target them."
"As hundreds of additional U.S. troops move in to advise and train Iraqi forces, the Pentagon is planning to widen the types of targets it hits from the air, focusing on Islamic State leaders, he said.
“I think you’ll see the aperture open a little bit … whether it's fixed facilities, whether it's high-value individuals. That is the next step,” Dempsey said"
US ground forces could be deployed against Islamic State (IS) militants if the current US-led strategy fails, top US General Martin Dempsey has said.
"If the current US-led strategy fails" - and since its failure is an already foregone conclusion, being as it is the exact failed strategy that's been such a dismal spectacle in Afghanistan and now Syria, I guess we can look forward to deploying U.S. ground troops in this civil war.
In view of a failure this abysmal, is it surprising that they are not interested in examining anything about the premises or conduct of this war, and instead substitute a relentless escalation of the conflict as a fait accompli in the never ending wars all over the world, where the only short term winners is the industrial-national security complex?
We have no business intervening militarily in Middle Eastern civil wars, and should back out altogether and desist from interference. Since no good case can be made for military intervention, it's best not to examine anything, just bomb ahead. And that's why we continue to escalate and no questions are asked about any of this.
posted by VikingSword at 9:11 AM on September 17, 2014 [14 favorites]
And why are we being stampeded? Because the forces that are pushing for this war do not want any time spent on asking basic questions - it was ever so. We were pushed into the Iraq war with a steady drumbeat of propaganda force fed through a compliant media, and not much has changed in that MO from Libya and Syria through to the ISIS.
Here and there questions are asked, and never answered. The LATimes has had a series of articles wherein the basic question was asked about why exactly it is that we are hell-bent on attacking ISIS, when they are hardly a logical target, and why it is that in this campaign against ISIS we are aligning with Al-Qaeda affiliated forces who would in fact be a logical target, if we employed logic. The local people, including forces on our side, are equally puzzled:
""Iraq is now a stage for intervention from all countries of the world," added Bakhtiar, also a leading figure with the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan, or PUK, one of the two major political parties in Iraq's semiautonomous Kurdish region.
Many here question whether Islamic State poses any kind of direct danger to the United States. Unlike Al Qaeda, which severed ties to the group early this year, Islamic State has not proclaimed a global militant agenda, focusing instead on consolidating its self-proclaimed caliphate in the heart of the Middle East."
ISIS is without a doubt a vicious and ruthless force, but its ambitions are purely local. Their primary support is from Sunnis who feel aggrieved in the new Iraq, and they wish to establish a caliphate in the region and redraw old colonial borders and maps - it is a civil war in the Middle East. We have no business intervening in a civil war that is not ours, not anymore than old colonial powers should have intervened in our own Civil War. The values that ISIS represents are not our values and we abhor them. But it is the right of the ME societies to decide their own fate. As long as ISIS is not attacking us, why are we intervening there?
It is as if we don't have enough enemies, and we need more in the Middle East. Of course if we take on ISIS, they may turn from their local concerns to addressing this intervention by old colonial powers and make it their business to attack us. But perhaps that is our purpose all along - whack the hornets nest and when the hornets attack we can use that as an excuse to escalate this war: "see, they attacked us!".
Meanwhile, we are aligning with Al-Qaeda affiliated forces, the very AQ whose entire existence is dedicated to fighting the West on its own soil through terrorist attacks. On what planet does this make sense? Haven't we already learned our lesson in the very creation of AQ whom we supported and co-created together with Saudi Arabia when we were fighting the Soviets by proxy in Afghanistan? And then experienced the horrific blowback? A lesson we just re-learned in Syria, where "our" rebels turned out to be scoundrels who were indistinguishable from the actual AQ brigades fighting Assad?
We are preparing for years and years of a war a case for which has not been made or examined in any detail, a war that will bleed us of resources desperately needed at home, a war that will accomplish nothing but make us more unsafe, a war that will be bloody both for us and for many innocent bystanders in the ME:
"How far the Obama administration is prepared to go in Syria remains murky. It may take several years to defeat Islamic State in Iraq and "several more years than that" to defeat the group in Syria, Dempsey said. If the U.S. launches airstrikes in Syria, he said, it will be "to put pressure on" Islamic State militants until the U.S. and Saudi Arabia can train moderate rebels who can fight them on the ground."
The same failed tactics will be employed, the same tactics that have proven actually counterproductive and resulting in massive blowbacks - droning, bombing and arming dark uncontrollable forces. Meanwhile we are leaving room for more mission creep and even our ground troops in this conflict:
"Militants in Iraq are seeking to blunt the effectiveness of U.S. airstrikes by dispersing their forces into urban areas and increasingly adopting terror tactics such as suicide attacks and bombings, says a senior American military officer."
"Dempsey said the dispersal of militants into urban areas will make it “a little tougher” for U.S. warplanes to target them."
"As hundreds of additional U.S. troops move in to advise and train Iraqi forces, the Pentagon is planning to widen the types of targets it hits from the air, focusing on Islamic State leaders, he said.
“I think you’ll see the aperture open a little bit … whether it's fixed facilities, whether it's high-value individuals. That is the next step,” Dempsey said"
US ground forces could be deployed against Islamic State (IS) militants if the current US-led strategy fails, top US General Martin Dempsey has said.
"If the current US-led strategy fails" - and since its failure is an already foregone conclusion, being as it is the exact failed strategy that's been such a dismal spectacle in Afghanistan and now Syria, I guess we can look forward to deploying U.S. ground troops in this civil war.
In view of a failure this abysmal, is it surprising that they are not interested in examining anything about the premises or conduct of this war, and instead substitute a relentless escalation of the conflict as a fait accompli in the never ending wars all over the world, where the only short term winners is the industrial-national security complex?
We have no business intervening militarily in Middle Eastern civil wars, and should back out altogether and desist from interference. Since no good case can be made for military intervention, it's best not to examine anything, just bomb ahead. And that's why we continue to escalate and no questions are asked about any of this.
posted by VikingSword at 9:11 AM on September 17, 2014 [14 favorites]
Even among those policymakers, the compartmentalized national security establishment means that no one really grasps the whole picture.
I commented on the situation last summer, when the US was contemplating military action in Syria. I apologize for repeating myself, but I think that what I originally wrote is just as relevant today:
One excuse: Legislators would occasionally reveal intelligence methods. This would hobble our intelligence agencies. There's truth to this excuse — a lot of truth — but it is still an excuse. The alternative choice is the status quo, where we have hobbled the basic exercise of democracy.
posted by compartment at 9:17 AM on September 17, 2014 [7 favorites]
I commented on the situation last summer, when the US was contemplating military action in Syria. I apologize for repeating myself, but I think that what I originally wrote is just as relevant today:
Right now members of Congress are debating whether we should launch cruise missiles at Syria. If they like, they can go into a special room and look at a secret 12-page report saying why the executive believes what he does.Why should legislators be denied access to records created by agencies they have voted into existence, and whose job it is to oversee?
This secret 12-page report is based on maybe 300 individual intelligence reports. These reports include communications intercepts that have allegedly been misinterpreted. There are allegations that the Syrian government expressed surprise at the use of chemical weapons.
Your elected representatives are, by default, forbidden from looking at these 300 classified documents. They are being asked to vote for an act of war without being privileged to know why.
Your elected representatives are trusted to make life-or-death decisions, but they are not trusted with the information necessary to make an informed decision. We, as a society, have the right to exercise informed consent to the methods used to police and protect us. We have deprived an entire branch of government from exercising this right on our behalf.
One excuse: Legislators would occasionally reveal intelligence methods. This would hobble our intelligence agencies. There's truth to this excuse — a lot of truth — but it is still an excuse. The alternative choice is the status quo, where we have hobbled the basic exercise of democracy.
posted by compartment at 9:17 AM on September 17, 2014 [7 favorites]
Stoler seems to beg the question a bit by assuming that a well-informed public would act differently than the well-informed elites do
You are presuming that the "elites" are well-informed. When I hear people like Lindsay Graham or James Inhofe open their mouth, I get no sense whatsoever that they are well-informed, or even worthy of their positions in government given some of the ridiculous statements that have been made. They are either a) dangerously unschooled in the facts or b) yet again cravenly pushing their agenda.
Neither of those choices gives me a good feeling at all.
posted by CosmicRayCharles at 9:28 AM on September 17, 2014
You are presuming that the "elites" are well-informed. When I hear people like Lindsay Graham or James Inhofe open their mouth, I get no sense whatsoever that they are well-informed, or even worthy of their positions in government given some of the ridiculous statements that have been made. They are either a) dangerously unschooled in the facts or b) yet again cravenly pushing their agenda.
Neither of those choices gives me a good feeling at all.
posted by CosmicRayCharles at 9:28 AM on September 17, 2014
Meanwhile, we are aligning with Al-Qaeda affiliated forces, the very AQ whose entire existence is dedicated to fighting the West on its own soil through terrorist attacks. On what planet does this make sense?
One plausible analysis is that we want a civil war in the Middle East, not a revolution. If one side seems to get too close to winning, then it has to be broken up.
As long as would-be terrorists are killing each other in the desert, they're not doing anything more deleterious to US interests -- like harrying Israel or the Saudis. (In fact, the ongoing conflict provides a convenient place for the Saudis to export any locals who get a little too much revolutionary fire in their belly.)
Consider what we'd be doing differently if AQ were in a position to consolidate their gains and create a nascent fundamentalist state: we'd be warming up the same drones and precision-attack munitions. The rules are: you can fight all you want, but you can't win.
posted by Kadin2048 at 9:44 AM on September 17, 2014
One plausible analysis is that we want a civil war in the Middle East, not a revolution. If one side seems to get too close to winning, then it has to be broken up.
As long as would-be terrorists are killing each other in the desert, they're not doing anything more deleterious to US interests -- like harrying Israel or the Saudis. (In fact, the ongoing conflict provides a convenient place for the Saudis to export any locals who get a little too much revolutionary fire in their belly.)
Consider what we'd be doing differently if AQ were in a position to consolidate their gains and create a nascent fundamentalist state: we'd be warming up the same drones and precision-attack munitions. The rules are: you can fight all you want, but you can't win.
posted by Kadin2048 at 9:44 AM on September 17, 2014
the 9/11 report deleted some 15 pages.Those pages, I have read, detail the close connection between the Saudi princes and President Bush. Recall that when 9/11 happened all planes were grounded and yet one allowed to fly out. It had Saudi officials on it.
The post suggests that a lot of money via Saudis and Qatar. But also from oil taken by I
SIS and sold via our ally Turkey, the nation also allowing Jihadists into join with ISIS.
posted by Postroad at 9:51 AM on September 17, 2014
The post suggests that a lot of money via Saudis and Qatar. But also from oil taken by I
SIS and sold via our ally Turkey, the nation also allowing Jihadists into join with ISIS.
posted by Postroad at 9:51 AM on September 17, 2014
Recall that when 9/11 happened all planes were grounded and yet one allowed to fly out. It had Saudi officials on it.
Widely debunked
posted by kiltedtaco at 10:13 AM on September 17, 2014 [6 favorites]
Widely debunked
posted by kiltedtaco at 10:13 AM on September 17, 2014 [6 favorites]
One plausible analysis is that we want a civil war in the Middle East, not a revolution. If one side seems to get too close to winning, then it has to be broken up.
As long as would-be terrorists are killing each other in the desert, they're not doing anything more deleterious to US interests -- like harrying Israel or the Saudis.
Doesn't this claim assume that any given belligerent, just by virtue of living in the Middle East, is somehow uniquely disposed to becoming an international terrorist? Is that really plausible?
posted by clockzero at 10:16 AM on September 17, 2014
As long as would-be terrorists are killing each other in the desert, they're not doing anything more deleterious to US interests -- like harrying Israel or the Saudis.
Doesn't this claim assume that any given belligerent, just by virtue of living in the Middle East, is somehow uniquely disposed to becoming an international terrorist? Is that really plausible?
posted by clockzero at 10:16 AM on September 17, 2014
Pretty sure that to beat the IS we'd need hundreds of thousands troops on the ground both to sweep the IS held regions from West to East in a old-school war campaign, to police the areas swept, to rebuild or build de novo infrastructure needed for a modern functioning state, and to police everyone involved so as to prevent waste, abuse, fraud, and war crimes.
But that would require a draft, years of casualty reports, and the goal of making the area less susceptible to take over by groups like the IS. So instead we're going to bleed the pool of unemployed again while shuffling money out of the treasury.
posted by Slackermagee at 10:18 AM on September 17, 2014
But that would require a draft, years of casualty reports, and the goal of making the area less susceptible to take over by groups like the IS. So instead we're going to bleed the pool of unemployed again while shuffling money out of the treasury.
posted by Slackermagee at 10:18 AM on September 17, 2014
One plausible analysis is that we want a civil war in the Middle East, not a revolution. If one side seems to get too close to winning, then it has to be broken up.
As long as would-be terrorists are killing each other in the desert, they're not doing anything more deleterious to US interests -- like harrying Israel or the Saudis. (In fact, the ongoing conflict provides a convenient place for the Saudis to export any locals who get a little too much revolutionary fire in their belly.)
Perhaps there is an element of that insofar as I doubt anyone in the Pentagon sheds any tears when "terrorists" kill each other.
But, it is clearly not a coherent overarching strategy - and we know this for a fact because of indisputable counter cases: Syria, and earlier, Libya and Iraq.
The smallest number of 'terrorists' and terrorist organizations existed while Saddam Hussein was in power. AQ and other terrorist organizations had zero presence in Iraq under Hussein. He had it bottled up, but good. So what did we do? We blew it up, and unleashed forces that multiplied the ranks of radicals and terrorists in the region by mathematically exponential numbers. That is not in the long or short term interest of the U.S., in fact it is the worst thing that could have happened as far as "deleterious to US interests". And we did it. This is directly contradictory to the thesis.
Worse. You'd have thought that we'd have learned our lesson as far as letting sleeping dogs lie, and not decided to take it upon ourselves to overthrow regional dictators, allowing instead the societies in question to determine their own fate. Iraq was a giant object lesson in blowback and unintended consequences and counterproductive outcomes. We failed to learn that lesson - and unleashed Libya - with the dictatorship gone, terrorists have moved in and US interests most certainly have suffered, and tragically even our diplomats have felt the consequences. Today Libya is a terrorist playground quickly spinning out of control. How have our interests been anything but been hurt by these actions? Very counterproductive from the point of view of "deleterious to US interests."
And now Syria. Assad is a nasty dictator. But how are we better off having unleashed forces that are now destabilizing the entire region in a By-The-Iraq-Moron-Book scenario of undermining a controlling dictator in favor of unleashing deadly forces that are deeply inimical to our interests? Talk about counterproductive.
No. Clearly, the only overarching reality is the utter incompetence of our policy makers, the venality of petty interests taking advantage of our stupidity and flailing and foreign powers using us for their own purposes.
Speaking of Saudi Arabia, it is basically fighting a proxy war against Iran in Syria. Turkey has their own quarrel with Assad and their own interests in oil transport. The Iraq war, was by the way, a disaster for Saudi Arabia insofar as the removal of Saddam merely strengthened Iran and the Shiite population of Iraq - another counterproductive outcome of our intervention, when we are nominally strong opponents of Iran. The only country with a direct interest in removing Saddam was Israel, and we of course being eternal chumps when it comes to Israel, eagerly pulled those chestnuts out of the fire for them. There is no overarching "brain trust" in the U.S. with a clear and coherent strategy in the ME - there is only hopeless flailing driven by a cancerous national security industry.
posted by VikingSword at 10:24 AM on September 17, 2014 [7 favorites]
As long as would-be terrorists are killing each other in the desert, they're not doing anything more deleterious to US interests -- like harrying Israel or the Saudis. (In fact, the ongoing conflict provides a convenient place for the Saudis to export any locals who get a little too much revolutionary fire in their belly.)
Perhaps there is an element of that insofar as I doubt anyone in the Pentagon sheds any tears when "terrorists" kill each other.
But, it is clearly not a coherent overarching strategy - and we know this for a fact because of indisputable counter cases: Syria, and earlier, Libya and Iraq.
The smallest number of 'terrorists' and terrorist organizations existed while Saddam Hussein was in power. AQ and other terrorist organizations had zero presence in Iraq under Hussein. He had it bottled up, but good. So what did we do? We blew it up, and unleashed forces that multiplied the ranks of radicals and terrorists in the region by mathematically exponential numbers. That is not in the long or short term interest of the U.S., in fact it is the worst thing that could have happened as far as "deleterious to US interests". And we did it. This is directly contradictory to the thesis.
Worse. You'd have thought that we'd have learned our lesson as far as letting sleeping dogs lie, and not decided to take it upon ourselves to overthrow regional dictators, allowing instead the societies in question to determine their own fate. Iraq was a giant object lesson in blowback and unintended consequences and counterproductive outcomes. We failed to learn that lesson - and unleashed Libya - with the dictatorship gone, terrorists have moved in and US interests most certainly have suffered, and tragically even our diplomats have felt the consequences. Today Libya is a terrorist playground quickly spinning out of control. How have our interests been anything but been hurt by these actions? Very counterproductive from the point of view of "deleterious to US interests."
And now Syria. Assad is a nasty dictator. But how are we better off having unleashed forces that are now destabilizing the entire region in a By-The-Iraq-Moron-Book scenario of undermining a controlling dictator in favor of unleashing deadly forces that are deeply inimical to our interests? Talk about counterproductive.
No. Clearly, the only overarching reality is the utter incompetence of our policy makers, the venality of petty interests taking advantage of our stupidity and flailing and foreign powers using us for their own purposes.
Speaking of Saudi Arabia, it is basically fighting a proxy war against Iran in Syria. Turkey has their own quarrel with Assad and their own interests in oil transport. The Iraq war, was by the way, a disaster for Saudi Arabia insofar as the removal of Saddam merely strengthened Iran and the Shiite population of Iraq - another counterproductive outcome of our intervention, when we are nominally strong opponents of Iran. The only country with a direct interest in removing Saddam was Israel, and we of course being eternal chumps when it comes to Israel, eagerly pulled those chestnuts out of the fire for them. There is no overarching "brain trust" in the U.S. with a clear and coherent strategy in the ME - there is only hopeless flailing driven by a cancerous national security industry.
posted by VikingSword at 10:24 AM on September 17, 2014 [7 favorites]
Imagine the bizzaro-world where everyone was talking about how our ally Saudi Arabia had backed Al-Qaeda instead of Saddam.
This seems to be well-known already (I certainly believed it prior to this link, and I'm not a scholar of the region or a military professional.) So what would access to the classified part of the report do that the existence of this common knowledge has not?
I think Kadin2048 puts it better: very little classified information is much different than the commonly held beliefs of non-clearance-holding elites. So why should we think that we'll do things differently when the information is released?
For instance: has it been your sense that massive leaks of diplomatic cables by Chelsea Manning have changed our foreign policy? Or that Snowden's targeted leaks regarding intelligence gathering techniques have changed our spying?
posted by anotherpanacea at 10:26 AM on September 17, 2014 [1 favorite]
This seems to be well-known already (I certainly believed it prior to this link, and I'm not a scholar of the region or a military professional.) So what would access to the classified part of the report do that the existence of this common knowledge has not?
I think Kadin2048 puts it better: very little classified information is much different than the commonly held beliefs of non-clearance-holding elites. So why should we think that we'll do things differently when the information is released?
For instance: has it been your sense that massive leaks of diplomatic cables by Chelsea Manning have changed our foreign policy? Or that Snowden's targeted leaks regarding intelligence gathering techniques have changed our spying?
posted by anotherpanacea at 10:26 AM on September 17, 2014 [1 favorite]
Ten thousand people aren't necessarily any more likely to render a correct-in-hindsight decision than ten people are, provided with the same information. A more democratically legitimate decision? Sure. But correct, as in likely to be viewed as being "correct" five or ten years down the line? I've seen no evidence that's really the case.
I suppose that depends on what you think a "correct" decision would or would not look like. I think the point of his argument is not really whether or not the broader populace would get it "right." I'm not sure that even means anything in this context.
The point as I see it is more that ten thousand people would (at least potentially) make a decision based on broader and more inclusive interests than the narrowly defined interests of the elites. Which pretty much boil down to oil money and power and have little to do with the actual impact these decisions ultimately have on the rest of the American people.
posted by Naberius at 10:28 AM on September 17, 2014
I suppose that depends on what you think a "correct" decision would or would not look like. I think the point of his argument is not really whether or not the broader populace would get it "right." I'm not sure that even means anything in this context.
The point as I see it is more that ten thousand people would (at least potentially) make a decision based on broader and more inclusive interests than the narrowly defined interests of the elites. Which pretty much boil down to oil money and power and have little to do with the actual impact these decisions ultimately have on the rest of the American people.
posted by Naberius at 10:28 AM on September 17, 2014
WW3 has already started.
posted by whimsicalnymph at 10:41 AM on September 17, 2014 [1 favorite]
posted by whimsicalnymph at 10:41 AM on September 17, 2014 [1 favorite]
What leads to stuff like the Iraq War is not just "Oil Interests", but also military hubris (as much by civilian leaders as by military leaders). Iraq has a larger territory than Vietnam, and is a bit less populated than Vietnam was in 1970 (36 million people vs. 40 million people). Syria has about half the area and half the population. They are still both too large for a "small war" like the ones the Marines waged in South and Central America in the early 20th century.
With all its technology and firepower, the US can destroy almost any conventional force in a stand-up fight with very little losses. But once that's done, its soldiers do not have the training or the numbers to win a counterinsurgency war. That should have been clear from the Vietnam War: if an insurgency developed in Iraq, US forces were screwed, because they would be outnumbered among a foreign people.
And yet they went in, did not take appropriate steps to prevent the emergence of an insurgent force, and lost.
posted by Monday, stony Monday at 10:46 AM on September 17, 2014
With all its technology and firepower, the US can destroy almost any conventional force in a stand-up fight with very little losses. But once that's done, its soldiers do not have the training or the numbers to win a counterinsurgency war. That should have been clear from the Vietnam War: if an insurgency developed in Iraq, US forces were screwed, because they would be outnumbered among a foreign people.
And yet they went in, did not take appropriate steps to prevent the emergence of an insurgent force, and lost.
posted by Monday, stony Monday at 10:46 AM on September 17, 2014
I dunno, Naberius. We have a hard time voting our interests, even when they are manifestly clear:
LINDSTROM, Minn. — Ki Gulbranson owns a logo apparel shop, deals in jewelry on the side and referees youth soccer games. He makes about $39,000 a year and wants you to know that he does not need any help from the federal government.posted by notyou at 10:47 AM on September 17, 2014 [3 favorites]
He says that too many Americans lean on taxpayers rather than living within their means. He supports politicians who promise to cut government spending. In 2010, he printed T-shirts for the Tea Party campaign of a neighbor, Chip Cravaack, who ousted this region’s long-serving Democratic congressman.
Yet this year, as in each of the past three years, Mr. Gulbranson, 57, is counting on a payment of several thousand dollars from the federal government, a subsidy for working families called the earned-income tax credit. He has signed up his three school-age children to eat free breakfast and lunch at federal expense. And Medicare paid for his mother, 88, to have hip surgery twice.
WW3 has already started.
WW3 has been over for more than twenty years. It was better known as the Third World War, the one that was fought by proxy in what's commonly known as the "Third World". The two key opposing forces were the USA and the USSR (with China coyly playing the edges).
The Third World War ended in 1989 with the tearing down of the Berlin Wall.
WW4 has been going on since at least 2001.
posted by philip-random at 11:05 AM on September 17, 2014 [6 favorites]
WW3 has been over for more than twenty years. It was better known as the Third World War, the one that was fought by proxy in what's commonly known as the "Third World". The two key opposing forces were the USA and the USSR (with China coyly playing the edges).
The Third World War ended in 1989 with the tearing down of the Berlin Wall.
WW4 has been going on since at least 2001.
posted by philip-random at 11:05 AM on September 17, 2014 [6 favorites]
The point as I see it is more that ten thousand people would (at least potentially) make a decision based on broader and more inclusive interests than the narrowly defined interests of the elites.
That might be true -- and I acknowledged as much earlier, in the sense that I said it would be a more democratically legitimate decision -- but I'm really unconvinced that the outcome wouldn't be the same. At the end of the day you are making a series of binary yes/no decisions. Bomb ISIS? Yes or no. Depose Saddam? Yes or no. Send SEAL Team 6 in after Bin Laden? Yes or no.
In each case, we tend to see the decision made as being either "correct" or "incorrect" in hindsight. Very few people see the decision to grab Bin Laden as "wrong", because it worked out well. The invasion of Iraq, by contrast, is rarely viewed as a strong moment in geopolitical decisionmaking.
But at the time that either decision was being made, with the best information available at the time, I am doubtful that if you had gone and picked 10 (or 1,000, or 10,000) citizens at random, sat them down with the Joint Chiefs and given them a Presidential-level briefing, and let them cast their vote for a yes/no verdict, that the outcome would have been different. Or, more broadly, that if you used a system like that each and every time you had a significant decision to be made, that the number of times you'd get "correct" decisions as viewed historically would be greater than the number of "incorrect" ones.
The decision would be "broader and more inclusive", and I suppose philosophically that might be an end goal in itself and a win for democracy, but if the end result is the same in terms of the yes/no decision being made and the number of times it turns out in hindsight to have been a good or bad move, it seems a scant improvement.
posted by Kadin2048 at 11:49 AM on September 17, 2014
That might be true -- and I acknowledged as much earlier, in the sense that I said it would be a more democratically legitimate decision -- but I'm really unconvinced that the outcome wouldn't be the same. At the end of the day you are making a series of binary yes/no decisions. Bomb ISIS? Yes or no. Depose Saddam? Yes or no. Send SEAL Team 6 in after Bin Laden? Yes or no.
In each case, we tend to see the decision made as being either "correct" or "incorrect" in hindsight. Very few people see the decision to grab Bin Laden as "wrong", because it worked out well. The invasion of Iraq, by contrast, is rarely viewed as a strong moment in geopolitical decisionmaking.
But at the time that either decision was being made, with the best information available at the time, I am doubtful that if you had gone and picked 10 (or 1,000, or 10,000) citizens at random, sat them down with the Joint Chiefs and given them a Presidential-level briefing, and let them cast their vote for a yes/no verdict, that the outcome would have been different. Or, more broadly, that if you used a system like that each and every time you had a significant decision to be made, that the number of times you'd get "correct" decisions as viewed historically would be greater than the number of "incorrect" ones.
The decision would be "broader and more inclusive", and I suppose philosophically that might be an end goal in itself and a win for democracy, but if the end result is the same in terms of the yes/no decision being made and the number of times it turns out in hindsight to have been a good or bad move, it seems a scant improvement.
posted by Kadin2048 at 11:49 AM on September 17, 2014
Just because something is secret doesn't mean it's true.
posted by IndigoJones at 12:02 PM on September 17, 2014 [3 favorites]
posted by IndigoJones at 12:02 PM on September 17, 2014 [3 favorites]
I think Kadin2048 puts it better: very little classified information is much different than the commonly held beliefs of non-clearance-holding elites. So why should we think that we'll do things differently when the information is released?
I don't actually think the point of this counter-factual was to actually try to imagine an alternate reality, but to illustrate the absurdity of the current situation and outline why this absurd situation is the reality we are living in i.e.
Personally, it seems to me that the US is actually preparing to use ISIS as a cover for intervening more directly in the civil war in Syria. Remember that the immediate response of the US to the ISIS take-over in Iraq was to put huge amounts of pressure on the Maliki government in Iraq. That's not what you would do if you were actually concerned about ISIS building a new caliphate.
But, you can't even being to talk about the politics of US foreign policy publically because very few people are informed. Try talking to your local pro-Palestinian activist about Saudi Arabia. Large swathes of the left believe Israel/Palestine is the nexus of US imperialism in the Middle East and rapidly lose interest outside of those issues. And then you have Sarah Palin observing Russia from her backyard.
A little sunlight on foreign affairs might actually have more of an effect than it seems...
posted by ennui.bz at 12:02 PM on September 17, 2014
I don't actually think the point of this counter-factual was to actually try to imagine an alternate reality, but to illustrate the absurdity of the current situation and outline why this absurd situation is the reality we are living in i.e.
In other words, Qatar denied funding ISIS by saying it funds Al-Qaeda. It’s a sort of ‘we fund the bad guys who want to kill Americans but not the really bad guys who behead them on social media...’You can't get rid of the classification system without also destroying the cold war national security bureaucracy that it is designed to control.... so it really is imagining almost a different US government entirely.
Personally, it seems to me that the US is actually preparing to use ISIS as a cover for intervening more directly in the civil war in Syria. Remember that the immediate response of the US to the ISIS take-over in Iraq was to put huge amounts of pressure on the Maliki government in Iraq. That's not what you would do if you were actually concerned about ISIS building a new caliphate.
But, you can't even being to talk about the politics of US foreign policy publically because very few people are informed. Try talking to your local pro-Palestinian activist about Saudi Arabia. Large swathes of the left believe Israel/Palestine is the nexus of US imperialism in the Middle East and rapidly lose interest outside of those issues. And then you have Sarah Palin observing Russia from her backyard.
A little sunlight on foreign affairs might actually have more of an effect than it seems...
posted by ennui.bz at 12:02 PM on September 17, 2014
The Code Pink people haven't thought through their protests during Kerry's testimony. It's the generic "war and invasion will not protect the homeland!". Which may be true but is missing the mark.
They should be throwing Kerry's own words back at him. "How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?" and so on. That would hit home much harder. I suppose being right about opposition to a war doesn't magically confer imagination or writing ability.
posted by Justinian at 12:03 PM on September 17, 2014 [2 favorites]
They should be throwing Kerry's own words back at him. "How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?" and so on. That would hit home much harder. I suppose being right about opposition to a war doesn't magically confer imagination or writing ability.
posted by Justinian at 12:03 PM on September 17, 2014 [2 favorites]
In each case, we tend to see the decision made as being either "correct" or "incorrect" in hindsight. Very few people see the decision to grab Bin Laden as "wrong", because it worked out well.
But the thing is that you believe that a decision was made to "grab" bin Laden, whereas I believe that the decision that was made was to kill him. Either of us might be right or wrong but there is no way to determine what the binary decision actually was.
As Cheney and Rumsfeld know, controlling the decision making process of a bureaucracy as large as the US national security complex is not about controlling 'votes' on binary decisions, but controlling what questions are asked and where information travels. Once every other possibility is eliminated, the decision you want is all that is left and it is a coin flip: either you get what you want, or you get to try again.
posted by ennui.bz at 12:10 PM on September 17, 2014 [1 favorite]
But the thing is that you believe that a decision was made to "grab" bin Laden, whereas I believe that the decision that was made was to kill him. Either of us might be right or wrong but there is no way to determine what the binary decision actually was.
As Cheney and Rumsfeld know, controlling the decision making process of a bureaucracy as large as the US national security complex is not about controlling 'votes' on binary decisions, but controlling what questions are asked and where information travels. Once every other possibility is eliminated, the decision you want is all that is left and it is a coin flip: either you get what you want, or you get to try again.
posted by ennui.bz at 12:10 PM on September 17, 2014 [1 favorite]
Just because something is secret doesn't mean it's true.
Or untrue. That's the whole point.
posted by carping demon at 12:33 PM on September 17, 2014
Or untrue. That's the whole point.
posted by carping demon at 12:33 PM on September 17, 2014
Imagine the bizzaro-world where everyone was talking about how our ally Saudi Arabia had backed Al-Qaeda instead of Saddam
No one with the slightest interest in discovering that Saddam had nothing to do with Al Qaeda was ignorant of it even before the US invaded Iraq . It was widely published in all the major US media outlets (see, e.g., this piece in the NYT from 2002). And even the administration admitted before the invasion that it couldn't tie Saddam to 9/11--all they could do was talk about dubious intelligence reports of possible meetings between people with links to Al Qaeda and people with links to Saddam. They certainly did everything they could to link Saddam and Al Qaeda in the public mind as two faces of the same brand of evil--but that kind of guilt-by-association technique really doesn't need much in the way of objective fact to support it, nor is it vulnerable to fact-based criticism.
posted by yoink at 12:41 PM on September 17, 2014
No one with the slightest interest in discovering that Saddam had nothing to do with Al Qaeda was ignorant of it even before the US invaded Iraq . It was widely published in all the major US media outlets (see, e.g., this piece in the NYT from 2002). And even the administration admitted before the invasion that it couldn't tie Saddam to 9/11--all they could do was talk about dubious intelligence reports of possible meetings between people with links to Al Qaeda and people with links to Saddam. They certainly did everything they could to link Saddam and Al Qaeda in the public mind as two faces of the same brand of evil--but that kind of guilt-by-association technique really doesn't need much in the way of objective fact to support it, nor is it vulnerable to fact-based criticism.
posted by yoink at 12:41 PM on September 17, 2014
Personally, it seems to me that the US is actually preparing to use ISIS as a cover for intervening more directly in the civil war in Syria.
The Syrian civil war has been going on for about three years now. Obama has been facing a steady drumbeat of criticism for refusing to intervene militarily from the beginning of the war. Many people on Metafilter have, from the beginning of that war, insisted that every action he's taken in response to the civil war--no matter how minor--is proof that he is seeking a pretext of some kind for a more sweeping intervention.
If he's so desperate to seek a pretext to intervene militarily in Syria--why hasn't he seized on any of the large handful of previous ones?
posted by yoink at 12:49 PM on September 17, 2014 [1 favorite]
The Syrian civil war has been going on for about three years now. Obama has been facing a steady drumbeat of criticism for refusing to intervene militarily from the beginning of the war. Many people on Metafilter have, from the beginning of that war, insisted that every action he's taken in response to the civil war--no matter how minor--is proof that he is seeking a pretext of some kind for a more sweeping intervention.
If he's so desperate to seek a pretext to intervene militarily in Syria--why hasn't he seized on any of the large handful of previous ones?
posted by yoink at 12:49 PM on September 17, 2014 [1 favorite]
Personally, it seems to me that the US is actually preparing to use ISIS as a cover for intervening more directly in the civil war in Syria.
How does that theory make sense? We are against the Assad regime. So is ISIS. How does us bombing ISIS square with the theory that we want to intervene in Syria against Assad?
posted by Justinian at 2:04 PM on September 17, 2014
How does that theory make sense? We are against the Assad regime. So is ISIS. How does us bombing ISIS square with the theory that we want to intervene in Syria against Assad?
posted by Justinian at 2:04 PM on September 17, 2014
So the vote went through and, as expected, passed. It seems like it would be faster just to give the weapons directly to ISIS. Cut out the middleman, you know?
posted by Justinian at 2:13 PM on September 17, 2014
posted by Justinian at 2:13 PM on September 17, 2014
I see an ISIS caliphate, built on genocide and refugees, as a place to harbor and train terrorists; where scientist can work on biological weapons to use against the West. There are still a few moderate forces in Syria--though because we didn't help them, most were overrun, killed, and forced or lured by the money to join ISIS.
Maybe if we had done more 2-3 years ago, we might not have ISIS now--but Congress voted against it and this is how that worked out. But since I see them as a genocidal group committing crimes against humanity, I'm all for doing most anything to stop them: arming the Kurds (and helping them them gain independence from Iraq), drone attacks, special operation missions, etc.
I recognize that finding and arming "moderates" in Syria is a risky endeavor. That's definitely the toughest part of the current "plan". I suppose we could get the Saudis and Qatari to hire Xe and other contractors to fight ISIS in SA with the moderates...it's not like we'll put observers/trainers IN Syria.
posted by whatgorilla at 5:34 PM on September 17, 2014
Maybe if we had done more 2-3 years ago, we might not have ISIS now--but Congress voted against it and this is how that worked out. But since I see them as a genocidal group committing crimes against humanity, I'm all for doing most anything to stop them: arming the Kurds (and helping them them gain independence from Iraq), drone attacks, special operation missions, etc.
I recognize that finding and arming "moderates" in Syria is a risky endeavor. That's definitely the toughest part of the current "plan". I suppose we could get the Saudis and Qatari to hire Xe and other contractors to fight ISIS in SA with the moderates...it's not like we'll put observers/trainers IN Syria.
posted by whatgorilla at 5:34 PM on September 17, 2014
I see an ISIS caliphate, built on genocide and refugees, as a place to harbor and train terrorists... Maybe if we had done more 2-3 years ago, we might not have ISIS now... I see them as a genocidal group committing crimes against humanity...
Ok. Have you also seen the history of the area, where after a century or two of subjugation and exploitation, we left the area arbitrarily parceled into 'nations' that ignores the actual ethnicities and borders of the subjects?
Did you also notice that til now, relative calm was maintained only through the dictatorial rule of strong-men and despots, supported by the west, in return for access to that sweet, sweet oil?
The 'Arab spring' led to a 'summer' of uprisings. Did it surprise you that those rebelling against the ruling tyrants also harboured anger at the west for having set up and supported the dictators for so long?
Have you observed that 'terrorist' organizations like Hamas, and now ISIS have better met the legitimate aspirations and real needs of the people than the well-meaning Westerners?
Finally, did you miss the inescapable fact that every heavy-handed Western intervention to date ultimately went pear-shaped and has only made things worse? And that we've killed well over 100,000 innocents and displaced millions? (Who are the terrorists here, really?)
The west has a right to be secure from attack, terror- or otherwise, but beyond that we have absolutely no business invading and attempting to impose yet another bad solution to problems we caused. They need to find their own way.
posted by Artful Codger at 5:28 AM on September 18, 2014 [2 favorites]
Ok. Have you also seen the history of the area, where after a century or two of subjugation and exploitation, we left the area arbitrarily parceled into 'nations' that ignores the actual ethnicities and borders of the subjects?
Did you also notice that til now, relative calm was maintained only through the dictatorial rule of strong-men and despots, supported by the west, in return for access to that sweet, sweet oil?
The 'Arab spring' led to a 'summer' of uprisings. Did it surprise you that those rebelling against the ruling tyrants also harboured anger at the west for having set up and supported the dictators for so long?
Have you observed that 'terrorist' organizations like Hamas, and now ISIS have better met the legitimate aspirations and real needs of the people than the well-meaning Westerners?
Finally, did you miss the inescapable fact that every heavy-handed Western intervention to date ultimately went pear-shaped and has only made things worse? And that we've killed well over 100,000 innocents and displaced millions? (Who are the terrorists here, really?)
The west has a right to be secure from attack, terror- or otherwise, but beyond that we have absolutely no business invading and attempting to impose yet another bad solution to problems we caused. They need to find their own way.
posted by Artful Codger at 5:28 AM on September 18, 2014 [2 favorites]
Have you observed that 'terrorist' organizations like Hamas, and now ISIS have better met the legitimate aspirations and real needs of the people than the well-meaning Westerners?
This overstates the case to an appalling extent, I think. ISIS only meets the "legitimate aspirations" of particularly extreme Sunnis- Shi'ites, Yazidis, and any other religious minorities under their rule are exterminated. They are a genuinely genocidal organization- the fact that they target religious groups rather than ethnic groups does not change that. (The UN Genocide Convention explicitly defines genocide in a way that includes the targeting of religious groups.) To attempt to justify their existence on the grounds that they provide services like power and water and policing is like defending Mussolini on the grounds that he made the trains run on time (which he actually didn't, for the record, but even if he had it hardly would have meant much to the Ethiopian victims of his imperialist adventures), and to argue that they represent any sort of righteous response to Western imperialism is like defending Imperial Japan in the 30s and 40s on the same grounds- Western colonialism in Asia was indeed a very bad thing that needed to be overthrown, but Imperial Japan (which also claimed to represent the true needs and aspirations of the people of Asia) was a cure worse than the disease, and I think it's pretty clear that it is the same with ISIS.
I am not in favor of the currently proposed US intervention- I think as it's been currently conceived, it is indeed most likely to make matters worse and ultimately strengthen the ideology behind ISIS, for many of the reasons stated in this thread. (For all that and for all that I'm no fan of the role the US has often played on the world stage, I do think it was ultimately a positive thing that the US helped break the ISIS siege of Mt. Sinjar, but I don't think we should go beyond doing things like that- direct prevention of genocide, basically. Personally, I can't say I'd have any problem with arming the YPG, either, but the US apparently isn't going to be doing that anyway.) Nevertheless, ISIS is indeed a malevolent, genocidal organization that the world would be far better off without, and I find some of what has been said about them in this thread to minimize that to an appalling degree. This is an incredibly difficult and fraught problem- non-intervention may be the best answer in the end, but the outcome of it will be truly tragic. The most that can be said for it is that the consequences of intervention are likely to prove even more tragic in the long run- that's pretty much where I am with it, but I don't think we should try to minimize the degree of human suffering ISIS has caused and will cause in order to defend that point of view.
posted by a louis wain cat at 5:19 PM on September 18, 2014 [1 favorite]
This overstates the case to an appalling extent, I think. ISIS only meets the "legitimate aspirations" of particularly extreme Sunnis- Shi'ites, Yazidis, and any other religious minorities under their rule are exterminated. They are a genuinely genocidal organization- the fact that they target religious groups rather than ethnic groups does not change that. (The UN Genocide Convention explicitly defines genocide in a way that includes the targeting of religious groups.) To attempt to justify their existence on the grounds that they provide services like power and water and policing is like defending Mussolini on the grounds that he made the trains run on time (which he actually didn't, for the record, but even if he had it hardly would have meant much to the Ethiopian victims of his imperialist adventures), and to argue that they represent any sort of righteous response to Western imperialism is like defending Imperial Japan in the 30s and 40s on the same grounds- Western colonialism in Asia was indeed a very bad thing that needed to be overthrown, but Imperial Japan (which also claimed to represent the true needs and aspirations of the people of Asia) was a cure worse than the disease, and I think it's pretty clear that it is the same with ISIS.
I am not in favor of the currently proposed US intervention- I think as it's been currently conceived, it is indeed most likely to make matters worse and ultimately strengthen the ideology behind ISIS, for many of the reasons stated in this thread. (For all that and for all that I'm no fan of the role the US has often played on the world stage, I do think it was ultimately a positive thing that the US helped break the ISIS siege of Mt. Sinjar, but I don't think we should go beyond doing things like that- direct prevention of genocide, basically. Personally, I can't say I'd have any problem with arming the YPG, either, but the US apparently isn't going to be doing that anyway.) Nevertheless, ISIS is indeed a malevolent, genocidal organization that the world would be far better off without, and I find some of what has been said about them in this thread to minimize that to an appalling degree. This is an incredibly difficult and fraught problem- non-intervention may be the best answer in the end, but the outcome of it will be truly tragic. The most that can be said for it is that the consequences of intervention are likely to prove even more tragic in the long run- that's pretty much where I am with it, but I don't think we should try to minimize the degree of human suffering ISIS has caused and will cause in order to defend that point of view.
posted by a louis wain cat at 5:19 PM on September 18, 2014 [1 favorite]
This overstates the case to an appalling extent, I think. ISIS only meets the "legitimate aspirations" of particularly extreme Sunnis
I don't disagree at all that ISIS are clearly an extreme, genocidal and dangerous group. But can YOU explain why they currently have the support that they do? I think that my point, however hyperbolic, is still valid: ISIS is getting more traction with more of the locals than the western-imposed 'democratic' government.
Our meddling made ISIS possible. We haven't been able to put the pieces of Iraq back together, and we have also managed to help stifle the evolution and growth of moderate Islamic leadership. The fact that so horrible a faction as ISIS is filling this vacuum is further testament to either our ineptitude and lack of understanding, or our barely concealed need for resources and economic advantage.
to argue that they represent any sort of righteous response to Western imperialism
I didn't say that; I only meant to convey that our invasions have increased anti-western sentiment, which is oxygen to groups like ISIS.
I'll bet a dollar that ISIS won't manage to kill as many civilians as we did. So our record is still intact there.
posted by Artful Codger at 6:51 PM on September 18, 2014
I don't disagree at all that ISIS are clearly an extreme, genocidal and dangerous group. But can YOU explain why they currently have the support that they do? I think that my point, however hyperbolic, is still valid: ISIS is getting more traction with more of the locals than the western-imposed 'democratic' government.
Our meddling made ISIS possible. We haven't been able to put the pieces of Iraq back together, and we have also managed to help stifle the evolution and growth of moderate Islamic leadership. The fact that so horrible a faction as ISIS is filling this vacuum is further testament to either our ineptitude and lack of understanding, or our barely concealed need for resources and economic advantage.
to argue that they represent any sort of righteous response to Western imperialism
I didn't say that; I only meant to convey that our invasions have increased anti-western sentiment, which is oxygen to groups like ISIS.
I'll bet a dollar that ISIS won't manage to kill as many civilians as we did. So our record is still intact there.
posted by Artful Codger at 6:51 PM on September 18, 2014
Can't for the life of me find the quote about when you join the White House, eventually you tell people who aren't briefed as fully as you what you want them to know so they'll believe what you want them to. Were I to have it handy it would seem highly apropos & garner many favorites. So when somebody else dredges it up you should pretend it was me who found it & put it here and give me all the favorites instead of them.
posted by scalefree at 12:31 PM on September 19, 2014
posted by scalefree at 12:31 PM on September 19, 2014
« Older this world is an illusion | We believe objectivity to be antithetical to good... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
I mean, what's the supposition? Is that the part of the report that says that Saudis helped finance bin Laden? (Duh.) Or something more sinister?
posted by anotherpanacea at 7:36 AM on September 17, 2014