No children are born hating
September 24, 2014 7:36 PM Subscribe
"No matter who you are, or where you come from, or what you look like, or what God you pray to, or who you love, there is something fundamental that we all share."
Obama delivers one of the most humanist, powerful, and intellectual speeches to the United Nations.
Obama delivers one of the most humanist, powerful, and intellectual speeches to the United Nations.
And he substituted a latte for Barney and disrespected the entire human race with a semi-salute, too. And Al Gore is fat.
Benghazi!
posted by Chuffy at 7:53 PM on September 24, 2014 [30 favorites]
Benghazi!
posted by Chuffy at 7:53 PM on September 24, 2014 [30 favorites]
Thanks, Obama!
posted by sibboleth at 7:55 PM on September 24, 2014 [2 favorites]
posted by sibboleth at 7:55 PM on September 24, 2014 [2 favorites]
No children are born hating
So why's he killing them?
posted by Sys Rq at 7:56 PM on September 24, 2014 [20 favorites]
So why's he killing them?
posted by Sys Rq at 7:56 PM on September 24, 2014 [20 favorites]
"... humanist, powerful, and intellectual"? It seems only reiteration of everyday American propaganda.
posted by fredludd at 8:00 PM on September 24, 2014 [4 favorites]
posted by fredludd at 8:00 PM on September 24, 2014 [4 favorites]
No matter what god you pray to. If you don't pray to a god, though, yer outta luck.
posted by JHarris at 8:01 PM on September 24, 2014 [14 favorites]
posted by JHarris at 8:01 PM on September 24, 2014 [14 favorites]
Do you prefer sharia takeover in the region? And jihadists returning home to kill? Or should we just be snarky at a keyboard?
posted by Postroad at 8:04 PM on September 24, 2014 [21 favorites]
posted by Postroad at 8:04 PM on September 24, 2014 [21 favorites]
I'm more than slightly confused by this post. The "humanist" link is for a different speech.
posted by koavf at 8:04 PM on September 24, 2014
posted by koavf at 8:04 PM on September 24, 2014
People who have issues with Obama aren't frustrated with his speech, but by his actions and priorities. A wonderful speech thus has limited power to assuage legitimate points of dissent.
posted by clockzero at 8:05 PM on September 24, 2014 [20 favorites]
posted by clockzero at 8:05 PM on September 24, 2014 [20 favorites]
What does "rejecting extremism" even mean here considering the U.S. entrance into so many conflicts? Moderate warfare?
posted by destro at 8:07 PM on September 24, 2014 [2 favorites]
posted by destro at 8:07 PM on September 24, 2014 [2 favorites]
Parts of the speech are, umm, nice, like this:
the failure of our international system to keep pace with an interconnected world.
And parts are weird: America is and will continue to be a Pacific power, promoting peace, stability, and the free flow of commerce among nations.
Is the capital P a typo, or a call to dominate the Pacific Rim? If it's a typo, boy, is it wrong. We're the greatest warmonger on the planet. Which is the problem with much of the rest of his speech.
posted by kozad at 8:11 PM on September 24, 2014 [8 favorites]
the failure of our international system to keep pace with an interconnected world.
And parts are weird: America is and will continue to be a Pacific power, promoting peace, stability, and the free flow of commerce among nations.
Is the capital P a typo, or a call to dominate the Pacific Rim? If it's a typo, boy, is it wrong. We're the greatest warmonger on the planet. Which is the problem with much of the rest of his speech.
posted by kozad at 8:11 PM on September 24, 2014 [8 favorites]
Do you prefer sharia takeover in the region? And jihadists returning home to kill? Or should we just be snarky at a keyboard?
Lacking evidence of this having any actual basis, I propose we grant it precisely as much legitimacy as it deserves, and put this as roughly equivalent to "Do you prefer the literal resurrection of Elvis? And dinosaurs rising from the soil to kill?"
On-topic, I'm not sure where the reconciliation is between more needless bombings and ratcheting up regional violence, and "The ideology of ISIL or al Qaeda or Boko Haram will wilt and die if it is consistently exposed and confronted and refuted in the light of day.".
posted by CrystalDave at 8:11 PM on September 24, 2014 [11 favorites]
Lacking evidence of this having any actual basis, I propose we grant it precisely as much legitimacy as it deserves, and put this as roughly equivalent to "Do you prefer the literal resurrection of Elvis? And dinosaurs rising from the soil to kill?"
On-topic, I'm not sure where the reconciliation is between more needless bombings and ratcheting up regional violence, and "The ideology of ISIL or al Qaeda or Boko Haram will wilt and die if it is consistently exposed and confronted and refuted in the light of day.".
posted by CrystalDave at 8:11 PM on September 24, 2014 [11 favorites]
one of the most humanist, powerful and intellectual speeches compared to what?
posted by bruce at 8:11 PM on September 24, 2014 [2 favorites]
posted by bruce at 8:11 PM on September 24, 2014 [2 favorites]
Yeah, he does give good speeches. But while I'm certainly no expert, if you'd like to understand what's going on with ISIS in Syria, I suggest following @emile_hokayem and reading the links he's been posting, rather than listening to another well-written collection of pleasant, inspirational homilies by the US President.
Smart piece about the many factors that contributed to the fragmentation of the Syrian rebellion, incl US policy http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/monkey-cage/wp/2014/09/22/how-the-u-s-fragmented-syrias-rebels/ ["A hesitant U.S. role was central to the fragmentation and radicalization of the opposition"]
Some perspective: civilians killed by the #Syria govt versus ISIS. [hint: 124,752 to 831]
Very insightful interview w/ former ISIS member, w/ glimpses of its ideology and behavior and why it attracts support http://www.yourmiddleeast.com/culture/exclusive-qa-with-former-islamic-state-member_26696
That last one is particularly informative; it's an interview with a guy who left Kurdistan to fight Assad with the Free Syria Army but was misled into arriving at an ISIS training camp, eventually escaping after witnessing some truly horrifying things.
Another speech by Obama justifying airstrikes in the Middle East? Yeah, I'm sure it was nice. But there are a lot better ways to spend your online time than listening to him, or reading analyses of his platitudes about The Future of the Human Family or whatever.
posted by mediareport at 8:11 PM on September 24, 2014 [34 favorites]
Smart piece about the many factors that contributed to the fragmentation of the Syrian rebellion, incl US policy http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/monkey-cage/wp/2014/09/22/how-the-u-s-fragmented-syrias-rebels/ ["A hesitant U.S. role was central to the fragmentation and radicalization of the opposition"]
Some perspective: civilians killed by the #Syria govt versus ISIS. [hint: 124,752 to 831]
Very insightful interview w/ former ISIS member, w/ glimpses of its ideology and behavior and why it attracts support http://www.yourmiddleeast.com/culture/exclusive-qa-with-former-islamic-state-member_26696
That last one is particularly informative; it's an interview with a guy who left Kurdistan to fight Assad with the Free Syria Army but was misled into arriving at an ISIS training camp, eventually escaping after witnessing some truly horrifying things.
Another speech by Obama justifying airstrikes in the Middle East? Yeah, I'm sure it was nice. But there are a lot better ways to spend your online time than listening to him, or reading analyses of his platitudes about The Future of the Human Family or whatever.
posted by mediareport at 8:11 PM on September 24, 2014 [34 favorites]
Is it cynicism? Delusion? Insanity? Cognitive dissonance? Arrogance? Pomposity? Stupidity?
The guy was playing golf in Martha's Vineyard during Ferguson, for heaven's sake.
posted by Nevin at 8:13 PM on September 24, 2014 [7 favorites]
The guy was playing golf in Martha's Vineyard during Ferguson, for heaven's sake.
posted by Nevin at 8:13 PM on September 24, 2014 [7 favorites]
Listening to that speech, it comes across as very contrived and unfeeling for all its fine words. Obama isn't even a good propagandist any more.
posted by anadem at 8:16 PM on September 24, 2014 [6 favorites]
posted by anadem at 8:16 PM on September 24, 2014 [6 favorites]
That last one is particularly informative; it's an interview with a guy who left Kurdistan to fight Assad with the Free Syria Army but was misled into arriving at an ISIS training camp, eventually escaping after witnessing some truly horrifying things.
That was an interesting interview. I learned all kinds of things, like:
They believe it is permissible to sleep with women prisoners even against their will if they are infidels, non-Muslims and apostate women. This happened to Christian women in Al-Raqqa after their husbands were publically beheaded and I witnessed it. Now it is happening to Kurdish Yezidi women of Sinjar in Iraqi Kurdistan.
ISIS basically seems like your regular old psychopathic, sadomasochistic religious cult headed by serial killers. Sort of the Manson family of the Middle East, but with a far more fertile environment of recruits.
posted by shivohum at 8:19 PM on September 24, 2014 [13 favorites]
That was an interesting interview. I learned all kinds of things, like:
They believe it is permissible to sleep with women prisoners even against their will if they are infidels, non-Muslims and apostate women. This happened to Christian women in Al-Raqqa after their husbands were publically beheaded and I witnessed it. Now it is happening to Kurdish Yezidi women of Sinjar in Iraqi Kurdistan.
ISIS basically seems like your regular old psychopathic, sadomasochistic religious cult headed by serial killers. Sort of the Manson family of the Middle East, but with a far more fertile environment of recruits.
posted by shivohum at 8:19 PM on September 24, 2014 [13 favorites]
And he substituted a latte for Barney and disrespected the entire human race with a semi-salute, too. And Al Gore is fat.
Benghazi!
Yes, nonsensical partisan pretend-outrage is the same as noticing a disconnect between high-minded peaceful words and getting the US involved in yet another Middle Eastern war. Excellent comment, dead-on.
posted by Pope Guilty at 8:23 PM on September 24, 2014 [15 favorites]
Benghazi!
Yes, nonsensical partisan pretend-outrage is the same as noticing a disconnect between high-minded peaceful words and getting the US involved in yet another Middle Eastern war. Excellent comment, dead-on.
posted by Pope Guilty at 8:23 PM on September 24, 2014 [15 favorites]
A wonderful speech when contrasted with the violence he is signing off on makes the speech look really disingenuous. I really wanted to like this guy, but its become so difficult to not snark at these moments when looking at the things that have gone on during his presidency. I foolishly hope that he gets some of that pre-first term magic back following the midterm elections.
posted by lownote at 8:26 PM on September 24, 2014 [5 favorites]
posted by lownote at 8:26 PM on September 24, 2014 [5 favorites]
For someone who gives such good speeches, he sure drones a lot. I wouldn't call this a bomb, but it was kind of hit and missile for me.
posted by Behemoth at 8:36 PM on September 24, 2014 [35 favorites]
posted by Behemoth at 8:36 PM on September 24, 2014 [35 favorites]
Swindlers gonna swindle. Another long con artist raking in his payoff.
posted by Pudhoho at 8:36 PM on September 24, 2014 [1 favorite]
posted by Pudhoho at 8:36 PM on September 24, 2014 [1 favorite]
"No matter who you are, or where you come from, or what you look like, or what God you pray to, or who you love, there is something fundamental that we all share."
...fundamentalism?
posted by Perko at 8:40 PM on September 24, 2014 [5 favorites]
...fundamentalism?
posted by Perko at 8:40 PM on September 24, 2014 [5 favorites]
I don't share anything with this man and his policies. Maybe Obama wasn't born hating, but he's amassed quite a body count -- which includes US citizens assassinated without charges or due process, and the death-by-drone of many women, children and civilians -- during his time in office.
That the UN gives him a platform for his murderous hypocrisy is rather repulsive.
posted by grounded at 8:44 PM on September 24, 2014 [3 favorites]
That the UN gives him a platform for his murderous hypocrisy is rather repulsive.
posted by grounded at 8:44 PM on September 24, 2014 [3 favorites]
The Obama presidency is a mash-up of Burn Notice and The Grifters.
posted by Pudhoho at 8:45 PM on September 24, 2014 [1 favorite]
posted by Pudhoho at 8:45 PM on September 24, 2014 [1 favorite]
From what I remember, I was actually born hating pretty much everyone. Hasn't changed much.
posted by Ickster at 8:52 PM on September 24, 2014 [4 favorites]
posted by Ickster at 8:52 PM on September 24, 2014 [4 favorites]
Do you prefer sharia takeover in the region? And jihadists returning home to kill? Or should we just be snarky at a keyboard?
It is difficult to account for all audiences when giving a speech before the United Nations, yes. But Obama's done this before, in a speech where he reminded the nation that "we worship an awesome God in the Blue States." Well, not all of us.
Yeah I admit, it's a bit kneejerky of me, but this is a country where it's widely considered at the moment that an atheist could never be elected President. It can make one a bit cranky.
posted by JHarris at 8:52 PM on September 24, 2014 [6 favorites]
It is difficult to account for all audiences when giving a speech before the United Nations, yes. But Obama's done this before, in a speech where he reminded the nation that "we worship an awesome God in the Blue States." Well, not all of us.
Yeah I admit, it's a bit kneejerky of me, but this is a country where it's widely considered at the moment that an atheist could never be elected President. It can make one a bit cranky.
posted by JHarris at 8:52 PM on September 24, 2014 [6 favorites]
Do you prefer sharia takeover in the region? And jihadists returning home to kill? Or should we just be snarky at a keyboard?
How about just looking before you shoot? Is that too much to ask?
posted by Sys Rq at 9:06 PM on September 24, 2014 [3 favorites]
How about just looking before you shoot? Is that too much to ask?
posted by Sys Rq at 9:06 PM on September 24, 2014 [3 favorites]
Do you prefer sharia takeover in the region? And jihadists returning home to kill? Or should we just be snarky at a keyboard?
Yes, I do. Because the 'takeovers' won't succeed without popular support. They wither and die without it.
When a populace desires sharia law, or whatever else they choose, it's not our place to meddle.
It's called self determination. All of this 'democracy' crapola is just a beard for imperialism.
posted by Pudhoho at 9:11 PM on September 24, 2014 [10 favorites]
Yes, I do. Because the 'takeovers' won't succeed without popular support. They wither and die without it.
When a populace desires sharia law, or whatever else they choose, it's not our place to meddle.
It's called self determination. All of this 'democracy' crapola is just a beard for imperialism.
posted by Pudhoho at 9:11 PM on September 24, 2014 [10 favorites]
"Axis of evil." - Bush II
"Network of death." - Obama
O villain, villain, smiling, damnèd villain!
My tables—meet it is I set it down
That one may smile, and smile, and be a villain—
At least I am sure it may be so in the United States.
posted by Wallace Shawn at 9:16 PM on September 24, 2014 [5 favorites]
"Network of death." - Obama
O villain, villain, smiling, damnèd villain!
My tables—meet it is I set it down
That one may smile, and smile, and be a villain—
At least I am sure it may be so in the United States.
posted by Wallace Shawn at 9:16 PM on September 24, 2014 [5 favorites]
Hasn't the US learned anything from Rwanda or Bosnia? The way to stop a rampant genocide isn't through more bloodshed, it's through calm, measured diplomacy.
posted by Flashman at 9:26 PM on September 24, 2014 [7 favorites]
posted by Flashman at 9:26 PM on September 24, 2014 [7 favorites]
He could have taken a page from Lt Cable in South Pacific
Some people's beta tests are more explosive than others, I guess.
posted by fifteen schnitzengruben is my limit at 9:27 PM on September 24, 2014 [4 favorites]
You've got to be taught before it's too late,Personally I found it fascinating (and amazingly timed) that these last raids were the first sorties by the boondoggle that is the Joint Strike Fighter. Reminiscent of the first Gulf War when the B-2s took off from the Midwest, flew all the way to Iraq, dropped a handful of munitions, and flew all the way back.
Before you are six or seven or eight,
To hate all the people your relatives hate,
You've got to be carefully taught!
Some people's beta tests are more explosive than others, I guess.
posted by fifteen schnitzengruben is my limit at 9:27 PM on September 24, 2014 [4 favorites]
Talk is cheap.
posted by notyou at 9:30 PM on September 24, 2014 [3 favorites]
posted by notyou at 9:30 PM on September 24, 2014 [3 favorites]
I was surprised on how long that speech lasted. I wonder how long it took Obama to rehearse and memorize it.
posted by Meatafoecure at 9:33 PM on September 24, 2014 [2 favorites]
posted by Meatafoecure at 9:33 PM on September 24, 2014 [2 favorites]
Ah, that old turd Obama. Speaks peace, economic equality - does war, economic injustice and wall street love.
posted by yonation at 9:36 PM on September 24, 2014 [2 favorites]
posted by yonation at 9:36 PM on September 24, 2014 [2 favorites]
This is reminding me of the rants against Emma Watson's speech in that thread.
posted by Apocryphon at 9:40 PM on September 24, 2014 [2 favorites]
posted by Apocryphon at 9:40 PM on September 24, 2014 [2 favorites]
Anyone have a good line on whether or not this "moderate Syrian opposition" even substantially exists? I've seen some claim they are mostly just Islamist terrorists too.
posted by save alive nothing that breatheth at 9:40 PM on September 24, 2014
posted by save alive nothing that breatheth at 9:40 PM on September 24, 2014
No children are born hating. Until they get in front of a keyboard and start snarking about something someone somewhere said on Metafilter.
posted by Effigy2000 at 9:44 PM on September 24, 2014 [3 favorites]
posted by Effigy2000 at 9:44 PM on September 24, 2014 [3 favorites]
i've voted for president in twelve consecutive quadrennial cycles, and obama's performance has fallen so far short of the promise he offered in 2008 that i'm not only considering leaving the democratic party, but not even voting for people anymore. the way he's going, he's gonna take hillary 2016 down with him; her most likely opponent won't have as much negative baggage as mccain and romney did.
posted by bruce at 9:47 PM on September 24, 2014 [1 favorite]
posted by bruce at 9:47 PM on September 24, 2014 [1 favorite]
intellectual
LOL. Seriously, this recent push to be seen as thoughtful rather than just inert by embracing the same old shitty insiders from the perennial cocktail-party circuit is coming to seem like some of this administration's least convincing and most desperate spin in its whole run. Between the dinners with Bono and the strategy sessions with David Brooks and Tom Friedman, forgive me if this late-term version of "brains" does not exactly seem worth a lot of trust.
posted by RogerB at 9:52 PM on September 24, 2014 [3 favorites]
LOL. Seriously, this recent push to be seen as thoughtful rather than just inert by embracing the same old shitty insiders from the perennial cocktail-party circuit is coming to seem like some of this administration's least convincing and most desperate spin in its whole run. Between the dinners with Bono and the strategy sessions with David Brooks and Tom Friedman, forgive me if this late-term version of "brains" does not exactly seem worth a lot of trust.
posted by RogerB at 9:52 PM on September 24, 2014 [3 favorites]
Yeah, you may be right about HRC, there, bruce.
How shitty would that be for her? To have Obummer crush her ambitions... again. And probably finally.
President Romney and a GOP Congress. Well at least we'll be through with Do Nothing Congresses for a while.
posted by notyou at 9:55 PM on September 24, 2014
How shitty would that be for her? To have Obummer crush her ambitions... again. And probably finally.
President Romney and a GOP Congress. Well at least we'll be through with Do Nothing Congresses for a while.
posted by notyou at 9:55 PM on September 24, 2014
Before this commentary thread implodes under a weeping and a moaning and a gnashing of teeth, I would like to descend into the MeFi historical archives and pick out a choice quote to illustrate that we have reached peak political irony...
Source: Who's afraid of Obama?
His middle name is Hussein?
It's as if this country is trapped inside a Greek tragedy.
posted by Pastabagel at 12:01 PM on December 15, 2006 [6 favorites +] [!]
No as if, Pastabagel, no as if indeed.
posted by Apocryphon at 9:57 PM on September 24, 2014 [2 favorites]
Source: Who's afraid of Obama?
His middle name is Hussein?
It's as if this country is trapped inside a Greek tragedy.
posted by Pastabagel at 12:01 PM on December 15, 2006 [6 favorites +] [!]
No as if, Pastabagel, no as if indeed.
posted by Apocryphon at 9:57 PM on September 24, 2014 [2 favorites]
Anyone have a good line on whether or not this "moderate Syrian opposition" even substantially exists? I've seen some claim they are mostly just Islamist terrorists too.
Even the Pentagon has no goddamn idea. The plan is to ask our friends the Kurds who's cool, then just airdrop some M16s and grenade launchers to those guys and hope they use them to shoot at ISIS.
posted by T.D. Strange at 9:58 PM on September 24, 2014 [4 favorites]
Even the Pentagon has no goddamn idea. The plan is to ask our friends the Kurds who's cool, then just airdrop some M16s and grenade launchers to those guys and hope they use them to shoot at ISIS.
posted by T.D. Strange at 9:58 PM on September 24, 2014 [4 favorites]
Hasn't the US learned anything from Rwanda or Bosnia? The way to stop a rampant genocide isn't through more bloodshed, it's through calm, measured diplomacy.
If this is sarcasm, it may be a bit too subtle for the internet.
posted by scaryblackdeath at 9:58 PM on September 24, 2014 [5 favorites]
If this is sarcasm, it may be a bit too subtle for the internet.
posted by scaryblackdeath at 9:58 PM on September 24, 2014 [5 favorites]
You know who's not going to be any better than Obama? Hilary Clinton. Put some of that snark power into making Elizabeth Warren a viable candidate. Or somethin
posted by batfish at 10:01 PM on September 24, 2014 [10 favorites]
posted by batfish at 10:01 PM on September 24, 2014 [10 favorites]
Warren was for the war before she was against it. Is it too early to start calling her Liz "War-On" for the 2016 race?
posted by Apocryphon at 10:03 PM on September 24, 2014 [2 favorites]
posted by Apocryphon at 10:03 PM on September 24, 2014 [2 favorites]
It's like Obama knew what the internet's reaction to his speech calling on people to not be dicks to one another would be when he said;
"I realize that America’s critics will be quick to point out that at times we too have failed to live up to our ideals; that America has plenty of problems within its own borders. This is true. In a summer marked by instability in the Middle East and Eastern Europe, I know the world also took notice of the small American city of Ferguson, Missouri -- where a young man was killed, and a community was divided. So, yes, we have our own racial and ethnic tensions. And like every country, we continually wrestle with how to reconcile the vast changes wrought by globalization and greater diversity with the traditions that we hold dear.
But we welcome the scrutiny of the world -- because what you see in America is a country that has steadily worked to address our problems, to make our union more perfect, to bridge the divides that existed at the founding of this nation. America is not the same as it was 100 years ago, or 50 years ago, or even a decade ago. Because we fight for our ideals, and we are willing to criticize ourselves when we fall short. Because we hold our leaders accountable, and insist on a free press and independent judiciary. Because we address our differences in the open space of democracy -- with respect for the rule of law; with a place for people of every race and every religion; and with an unyielding belief in the ability of individual men and women to change their communities and their circumstances and their countries for the better."
True to form, the internet said "tl;dr the speech hahaha Obama sucks."
Look, the speech is great. It's full of great calls to action. Lot's of good points about the history of Islam and the need for everyone to calm the fuck down and start engaging their brains. Yeah, America is still working in an old paradigm by arming the Syrian opposition, which I guarantee you will be a bad idea a decade or so down the road. There's many better ways to stop the endless cycle of Middle East violence than by arming (most likely temporarily) moderate people to kill the crazies.
But the speech itself, which was the subject of this FPP? Let's give it the props it deserves.
posted by Effigy2000 at 10:10 PM on September 24, 2014 [19 favorites]
"I realize that America’s critics will be quick to point out that at times we too have failed to live up to our ideals; that America has plenty of problems within its own borders. This is true. In a summer marked by instability in the Middle East and Eastern Europe, I know the world also took notice of the small American city of Ferguson, Missouri -- where a young man was killed, and a community was divided. So, yes, we have our own racial and ethnic tensions. And like every country, we continually wrestle with how to reconcile the vast changes wrought by globalization and greater diversity with the traditions that we hold dear.
But we welcome the scrutiny of the world -- because what you see in America is a country that has steadily worked to address our problems, to make our union more perfect, to bridge the divides that existed at the founding of this nation. America is not the same as it was 100 years ago, or 50 years ago, or even a decade ago. Because we fight for our ideals, and we are willing to criticize ourselves when we fall short. Because we hold our leaders accountable, and insist on a free press and independent judiciary. Because we address our differences in the open space of democracy -- with respect for the rule of law; with a place for people of every race and every religion; and with an unyielding belief in the ability of individual men and women to change their communities and their circumstances and their countries for the better."
True to form, the internet said "tl;dr the speech hahaha Obama sucks."
Look, the speech is great. It's full of great calls to action. Lot's of good points about the history of Islam and the need for everyone to calm the fuck down and start engaging their brains. Yeah, America is still working in an old paradigm by arming the Syrian opposition, which I guarantee you will be a bad idea a decade or so down the road. There's many better ways to stop the endless cycle of Middle East violence than by arming (most likely temporarily) moderate people to kill the crazies.
But the speech itself, which was the subject of this FPP? Let's give it the props it deserves.
posted by Effigy2000 at 10:10 PM on September 24, 2014 [19 favorites]
i'm all for hard-headed analysis -- he was on point calling out russia in front of the UN -- so i wouldn't dismiss this speech as empty rhetoric or "platitudes about The Future of the Human Family or whatever..."
posted by kliuless at 10:10 PM on September 24, 2014 [3 favorites]
It is time to acknowledge the destruction wrought by proxy wars and terror campaigns between Sunni and Shia across the Middle East. And it is time that political, civic and religious leaders reject sectarian strife. So let's be clear: This is a fight that no one is winning. A brutal civil war in Syria has already killed nearly 200,000 people, displaced millions. Iraq has come perilously close to plunging back into the abyss. The conflict has created a fertile recruiting ground for terrorists who inevitably export this violence.also btw: "Robert F. Worth reviews Juan Cole's The New Arabs, which offers reasons to be hopeful about the future of the Middle East, focusing on the generation of young activists that 'has already wrought deep social changes, and is likely—eventually—to reshape much of the Middle East in its own image: more democratic, more tolerant, and more secular...' "
The good news is we also see signs that this tide could be reversed. We have a new, inclusive government in Baghdad; a new Iraqi Prime Minister welcomed by his neighbors; Lebanese factions rejecting those who try to provoke war. And these steps must be followed by a broader truce. Nowhere is this more necessary than Syria.
Together with our partners, America is training and equipping the Syrian opposition to be a counterweight to the terrorists of ISIL and the brutality of the Assad regime. But the only lasting solution to Syria's civil war is political -- an inclusive political transition that responds to the legitimate aspirations of all Syrian citizens, regardless of ethnicity, regardless of creed.
Cynics may argue that such an outcome can never come to pass. But there is no other way for this madness to end -- whether one year from now or ten. And it points to the fact that it's time for a broader negotiation in the region in which major powers address their differences directly, honestly, and peacefully across the table from one another, rather than through gun-wielding proxies.
posted by kliuless at 10:10 PM on September 24, 2014 [3 favorites]
I wonder who invented hate. Was it a technology like the plough, where everyone had to dig with blunt sticks and nearly starve for thousands of years before they figured it out and learned how to get fat? At some point they must have realized, too, that it's a lot easier and more profitable to rip people off if you hate them. Hell, you can slaughter them by the millions and take their shit and not even feel bad. And you know you have to pass that on to your kids, to give them a leg up.
Or maybe god invented it. It's in all his books and a lot of his followers seem to be pretty full of it.
Or maybe we are born with it, and have to be taught to be principled, fair and loving. Maybe that's why we fail so often and so badly. Maybe we should stop pretending.
posted by klanawa at 10:18 PM on September 24, 2014 [2 favorites]
Or maybe god invented it. It's in all his books and a lot of his followers seem to be pretty full of it.
Or maybe we are born with it, and have to be taught to be principled, fair and loving. Maybe that's why we fail so often and so badly. Maybe we should stop pretending.
posted by klanawa at 10:18 PM on September 24, 2014 [2 favorites]
It was David in Apt #215. And I'm going to get that bastard for it, too. He's gonna pay.
posted by Auden at 10:21 PM on September 24, 2014 [4 favorites]
posted by Auden at 10:21 PM on September 24, 2014 [4 favorites]
It's baffling that there is not presently a remotely viable third party in the US.
posted by Quilford at 10:43 PM on September 24, 2014 [4 favorites]
posted by Quilford at 10:43 PM on September 24, 2014 [4 favorites]
"ISIS basically seems like your regular old psychopathic, sadomasochistic religious cult headed by serial killers."
Unlike most cults, and quite unlike typical terrorist groups, they have an army, a much more effective army than the current government of Iraq. They have tanks. They occupy territory and seem to be forming a government.
The nearest historical parallel I can think of is the Crusader Kingdom of Jerusalem.
Incidentally, a lot of ISIS's gear is American made, looted from captured Iraqi army bases.
posted by justsomebodythatyouusedtoknow at 10:56 PM on September 24, 2014 [2 favorites]
Unlike most cults, and quite unlike typical terrorist groups, they have an army, a much more effective army than the current government of Iraq. They have tanks. They occupy territory and seem to be forming a government.
The nearest historical parallel I can think of is the Crusader Kingdom of Jerusalem.
Incidentally, a lot of ISIS's gear is American made, looted from captured Iraqi army bases.
posted by justsomebodythatyouusedtoknow at 10:56 PM on September 24, 2014 [2 favorites]
Warren was for the war before she was against it.
Oh wait WHAT? She changed her mind?? Call the thought police! Or something!
Seriously, I have no idea why we shun elected officials whose mentalities evolve, and instead expect them to cling to one point of view until they're useless or dead. It's almost like this habit is where all our fucking problems are coming from or something.
posted by Chutzler at 11:32 PM on September 24, 2014 [14 favorites]
Oh wait WHAT? She changed her mind?? Call the thought police! Or something!
Seriously, I have no idea why we shun elected officials whose mentalities evolve, and instead expect them to cling to one point of view until they're useless or dead. It's almost like this habit is where all our fucking problems are coming from or something.
posted by Chutzler at 11:32 PM on September 24, 2014 [14 favorites]
It's a decent speech.
In 2003, before the Iraq invasion, I spoke up here and elsewhere about my firm opposition to American boots on the ground - suggesting a better policy would instead be a decapitation strike on Saddam and sons (even though I knew it wouldn't happen because of PNAC).
During the Arab Spring, I posted here in support of airstrikes to remove Qaddafi's hardware advantage against the rebels because the alternative was hundreds of thousands of civilian deaths. The resulting government sure as hell may not support American interests. Good. We sure as hell don't deserve one that does. What it *is* doing is successfully starting a cycle of democracy in Libya with the GNC and forthcoming House of Representatives.
When the Syrian Civil War began, I did not post in support of airstrikes because it was obvious that both Israel and Russia would react badly to it, despite wishing we could because it seemed the best way to stop Al Assad's war machine from chewing up hundreds of thousands of civilians. When I expressed support here a year later, I was wrong - though there was no way for me to know it at the time - because by that point the war had dragged on long enough for the desperation and radicalization that seeded ISIL to begin taking root.
There is a consistent thread to all of this: I believe that when soldiers backed by heavy armor are day-to-day rubbing shoulders with civilians they feel isolated from on cultural or religious grounds (or in the case of Libya and Syria are actively being told are legitimate targets by their generals), the result is inevitably massacres and hundreds of thousands of people being tortured and raped to death in underground cells. Blackwater staff machine gunning civilians in blood feud reprisals, news crews being shot with 30mm exploding rounds in helicopter video feeds on Wikileaks, and Abu Ghraib.
Today, here in this thread, I'm in support of airstrikes against ISIL, and I challenge anyone to watch Vice News' 5-part series on ISIL in its entirety and tell me with a straight face that we have no moral obligation to defang this monster that is *wholly* our creation. Congratulations to Bush, Cheney, Rumsfield, Perle, and Wolfowitz - you stupid, sick fucks finally succeeded at creating the monster you'd been claiming to fight all along. What a fantastic example of self-fulfilling prophecy you've created for future historians.
For anyone who has seen the Vice News piece, and is about to tell me that it will inevitably snowball into American boots on the ground - while that is quite possibly true, many people on Metafilter told me the same thing about Libya, and they were wrong. The reports about the logistical prep for large-scale ground invasion always come out months in advance - I've been pretty busy lately, but I haven't heard anything to suggest that's begun.
We spent at least $2 trillion on the War on Terror. For less than a day of that we can lob enough cruise missiles to completely annihilate the air force of any non-nuclear power in the world. There have been, currently are, and in the future will be occasional cases where cruise missiles and airstrikes can drastically reduce the total aggregate carnage in the world by removing heavy armor and air power from political entities actively engaged in butchering of civilians. I've changed a lot in the past decade, but when it comes to intervention on humanitarian grounds without occupation, well, that's something I still believe in.
posted by Ryvar at 11:47 PM on September 24, 2014 [24 favorites]
In 2003, before the Iraq invasion, I spoke up here and elsewhere about my firm opposition to American boots on the ground - suggesting a better policy would instead be a decapitation strike on Saddam and sons (even though I knew it wouldn't happen because of PNAC).
During the Arab Spring, I posted here in support of airstrikes to remove Qaddafi's hardware advantage against the rebels because the alternative was hundreds of thousands of civilian deaths. The resulting government sure as hell may not support American interests. Good. We sure as hell don't deserve one that does. What it *is* doing is successfully starting a cycle of democracy in Libya with the GNC and forthcoming House of Representatives.
When the Syrian Civil War began, I did not post in support of airstrikes because it was obvious that both Israel and Russia would react badly to it, despite wishing we could because it seemed the best way to stop Al Assad's war machine from chewing up hundreds of thousands of civilians. When I expressed support here a year later, I was wrong - though there was no way for me to know it at the time - because by that point the war had dragged on long enough for the desperation and radicalization that seeded ISIL to begin taking root.
There is a consistent thread to all of this: I believe that when soldiers backed by heavy armor are day-to-day rubbing shoulders with civilians they feel isolated from on cultural or religious grounds (or in the case of Libya and Syria are actively being told are legitimate targets by their generals), the result is inevitably massacres and hundreds of thousands of people being tortured and raped to death in underground cells. Blackwater staff machine gunning civilians in blood feud reprisals, news crews being shot with 30mm exploding rounds in helicopter video feeds on Wikileaks, and Abu Ghraib.
Today, here in this thread, I'm in support of airstrikes against ISIL, and I challenge anyone to watch Vice News' 5-part series on ISIL in its entirety and tell me with a straight face that we have no moral obligation to defang this monster that is *wholly* our creation. Congratulations to Bush, Cheney, Rumsfield, Perle, and Wolfowitz - you stupid, sick fucks finally succeeded at creating the monster you'd been claiming to fight all along. What a fantastic example of self-fulfilling prophecy you've created for future historians.
For anyone who has seen the Vice News piece, and is about to tell me that it will inevitably snowball into American boots on the ground - while that is quite possibly true, many people on Metafilter told me the same thing about Libya, and they were wrong. The reports about the logistical prep for large-scale ground invasion always come out months in advance - I've been pretty busy lately, but I haven't heard anything to suggest that's begun.
We spent at least $2 trillion on the War on Terror. For less than a day of that we can lob enough cruise missiles to completely annihilate the air force of any non-nuclear power in the world. There have been, currently are, and in the future will be occasional cases where cruise missiles and airstrikes can drastically reduce the total aggregate carnage in the world by removing heavy armor and air power from political entities actively engaged in butchering of civilians. I've changed a lot in the past decade, but when it comes to intervention on humanitarian grounds without occupation, well, that's something I still believe in.
posted by Ryvar at 11:47 PM on September 24, 2014 [24 favorites]
The resulting government sure as hell may not support American interests. Good. We sure as hell don't deserve one that does. What it *is* doing is successfully starting a cycle of democracy in Libya
You're holding up Libya as a success story?
posted by Justinian at 12:21 AM on September 25, 2014 [6 favorites]
You're holding up Libya as a success story?
posted by Justinian at 12:21 AM on September 25, 2014 [6 favorites]
Is it cynicism? Delusion? Insanity? Cognitive dissonance? Arrogance? Pomposity? Stupidity?
Politics.
Or 'all of the above'
posted by Segundus at 1:03 AM on September 25, 2014
Politics.
Or 'all of the above'
posted by Segundus at 1:03 AM on September 25, 2014
You're holding up Libya as a success story?
Fuck yes, I am. The prior government was a dictatorship by a vehement anti-Semite state sponsor of actual for-fucking-real capital-T Terrorism whose bombing a plane full of Western civilians was the *least* of the atrocities he perpetrated, despite it being the only *we* hear about.
Now? Let me just quote Wikipedia on this: "On 30 March 2014 General National Congress voted to replace itself with new House of Representatives. The new legislature will allocate 30 seats for women, will have 200 seats overall (with individuals able to run as members of political parties) and allows Libyans of foreign nationalities to run for office.[13]"
Do you see why that might be construed as a success story? It's not much in the grand Western tradition of democracies-slowly-fading-into-oligarchies, to be sure, but it's probably the closest cultural analogue we could hope for, and it's theirs. *They* get to decide whether or not our shitty system works for them, on their terms.
Politics of a culture that you and I will both never sufficiently understand to comment on with any actual authority aside, immediately prior to our launching cruise missiles and airstrikes Qadaffi's army was within 48 hours of capturing the last major rebel city - reprisals would've almost certainly involved tens of thousands of men and women from the rebelling cities being systematically rounded up and then tortured and raped to death by secret police, also known as what's been going on in Syria for the past couple of years. We are *directly* responsible for that outcome being avoided.
The cost to us? Less money than a single day of the Iraq occupation, and 4 dead Americans.
In what possible way was our intervention not to the greater good? How is that not a success story, except perhaps in the selfish terms of whether it coincides with US interests?
posted by Ryvar at 1:11 AM on September 25, 2014 [8 favorites]
Fuck yes, I am. The prior government was a dictatorship by a vehement anti-Semite state sponsor of actual for-fucking-real capital-T Terrorism whose bombing a plane full of Western civilians was the *least* of the atrocities he perpetrated, despite it being the only *we* hear about.
Now? Let me just quote Wikipedia on this: "On 30 March 2014 General National Congress voted to replace itself with new House of Representatives. The new legislature will allocate 30 seats for women, will have 200 seats overall (with individuals able to run as members of political parties) and allows Libyans of foreign nationalities to run for office.[13]"
Do you see why that might be construed as a success story? It's not much in the grand Western tradition of democracies-slowly-fading-into-oligarchies, to be sure, but it's probably the closest cultural analogue we could hope for, and it's theirs. *They* get to decide whether or not our shitty system works for them, on their terms.
Politics of a culture that you and I will both never sufficiently understand to comment on with any actual authority aside, immediately prior to our launching cruise missiles and airstrikes Qadaffi's army was within 48 hours of capturing the last major rebel city - reprisals would've almost certainly involved tens of thousands of men and women from the rebelling cities being systematically rounded up and then tortured and raped to death by secret police, also known as what's been going on in Syria for the past couple of years. We are *directly* responsible for that outcome being avoided.
The cost to us? Less money than a single day of the Iraq occupation, and 4 dead Americans.
In what possible way was our intervention not to the greater good? How is that not a success story, except perhaps in the selfish terms of whether it coincides with US interests?
posted by Ryvar at 1:11 AM on September 25, 2014 [8 favorites]
Listen Ryvar, we all know what's going on here. This isn't our first time at the chickenhawk rodeo. I agree with most of what you wrote, but this is how it always starts.
First we do some "humanitarian air strikes" (WTF), then here comes the black ops / SEAL teams, then fuck it, roll in the tanks, then it's the tired old line of hey guys, while we're here, it's time for some nation building. Which is never actual nation building so much as a thinly veiled funnel for corporate welfare.
This particular slope is hella slippery, well-lubricated with blood, oil, broken dreams and the ambitions of defense contractor lobbyists.
If any of the political actors involved in these scenarios actually wanted to alleviate some of the endless suffering in this world, they would throw some of this monopoly money at our many real problems and stop intentionally creating new ones.
posted by hobo gitano de queretaro at 1:43 AM on September 25, 2014 [9 favorites]
First we do some "humanitarian air strikes" (WTF), then here comes the black ops / SEAL teams, then fuck it, roll in the tanks, then it's the tired old line of hey guys, while we're here, it's time for some nation building. Which is never actual nation building so much as a thinly veiled funnel for corporate welfare.
This particular slope is hella slippery, well-lubricated with blood, oil, broken dreams and the ambitions of defense contractor lobbyists.
If any of the political actors involved in these scenarios actually wanted to alleviate some of the endless suffering in this world, they would throw some of this monopoly money at our many real problems and stop intentionally creating new ones.
posted by hobo gitano de queretaro at 1:43 AM on September 25, 2014 [9 favorites]
That's cool.
Oh, but he also decided to keep bombing the crap out of the Middle East.
Nobel Peace Prize FTW.
And also a trillion dollars invested in the American nuclear weapons program. Peace!
As for the Libya, our intervention worked out so well they now have TWO working new governments! That's twice as successful as we expected!
Oh, but he also decided to keep bombing the crap out of the Middle East.
Nobel Peace Prize FTW.
And also a trillion dollars invested in the American nuclear weapons program. Peace!
As for the Libya, our intervention worked out so well they now have TWO working new governments! That's twice as successful as we expected!
Al Jazeera: Libya currently has two competing parliaments and governments.And no, they don't want any more humanitarian freedom bombs.
The government and elected House of Representatives last month relocated to Tobruk after an armed Islamist group from the western city of Misrata seized the capital Tripoli and most government institutions, as well as the eastern city of Benghazi.
The rival previous parliament remains in Tripoli and is backed by Islamist militias.
Mohamed Abdulaziz, Libya foreign minister, offered no specifics on how his government could regain control of Tripoli but said he did not believe a recent series of mysterious air strikes in Libya or future air strikes would shift the balance of power.posted by Drinky Die at 1:52 AM on September 25, 2014 [4 favorites]
"We are convinced that is impossible for us to overcome terrorism only through air strikes," Abdulaziz said in Madrid.
Do you prefer sharia takeover in the region? And jihadists returning home to kill? Or should we just be snarky at a keyboard?
What nonsense, you realise we were arming these guys, like literally the same guys, when Assad was the one 'tearing Syria apart'? And now we are helping Assad, who literally less than twelve months ago was being referred to in the exact same way these guys are? If you want to get into a dick measuring contest about human rights abuses in the Middle East, we're gonna be here all day - and if you think the US does anything there for humanitarian purposes primarily I want some of what you're smoking. IS beheads a couple of dudes, and the world goes nuts - Saudi Arabia beheads people for sorcery, they behead dozens a year, and that's just hunky dory.
What it *is* doing is successfully starting a cycle of democracy in Libya with the GNC
This is so completely at odds with reality in Libya - a reality where there is no government, and virtually every single embassy has pulled out, the airport is closed, and thousands have been murdered by rampaging militias - it's the perfect illustration of why dropping bombs and going home is a terrible strategy.
Honestly, I can't believe anyone is so naive to think that
a) IS represents a new and unique brand of evil, somehow worse than the cavalcade of tyrants and bandits we've been propping up in the region for most of this and last century.
b) that the West can do anything effective in the region. We only just left Iraq after more than a decade and it was indisputably worse than when we went in there - Afghanistan is scarcely better.
But once again, this time we have no choice, this time it's different. Please.
posted by smoke at 3:00 AM on September 25, 2014 [19 favorites]
What nonsense, you realise we were arming these guys, like literally the same guys, when Assad was the one 'tearing Syria apart'? And now we are helping Assad, who literally less than twelve months ago was being referred to in the exact same way these guys are? If you want to get into a dick measuring contest about human rights abuses in the Middle East, we're gonna be here all day - and if you think the US does anything there for humanitarian purposes primarily I want some of what you're smoking. IS beheads a couple of dudes, and the world goes nuts - Saudi Arabia beheads people for sorcery, they behead dozens a year, and that's just hunky dory.
What it *is* doing is successfully starting a cycle of democracy in Libya with the GNC
This is so completely at odds with reality in Libya - a reality where there is no government, and virtually every single embassy has pulled out, the airport is closed, and thousands have been murdered by rampaging militias - it's the perfect illustration of why dropping bombs and going home is a terrible strategy.
Honestly, I can't believe anyone is so naive to think that
a) IS represents a new and unique brand of evil, somehow worse than the cavalcade of tyrants and bandits we've been propping up in the region for most of this and last century.
b) that the West can do anything effective in the region. We only just left Iraq after more than a decade and it was indisputably worse than when we went in there - Afghanistan is scarcely better.
But once again, this time we have no choice, this time it's different. Please.
posted by smoke at 3:00 AM on September 25, 2014 [19 favorites]
The fears expressed here (between the lines) are quite reasonable - that through our actions, past and present, we may have a net harmful effect on the world. The problem is the unconscionable complacency that inaction entails. It ultimately demonstrates a lack of compassion for those suffering - for example, the people being butchered by ISIS as we speak. Does anyone think the US's past missteps in the Mideast really matter to the Shia, Christian or Yazidi wearing the blindfold?
posted by pixelrevolt at 3:23 AM on September 25, 2014 [3 favorites]
posted by pixelrevolt at 3:23 AM on September 25, 2014 [3 favorites]
I think if MeFi put our heads together we come up with a list of thousands of other important issues we are complacent about.
posted by Drinky Die at 3:40 AM on September 25, 2014 [2 favorites]
posted by Drinky Die at 3:40 AM on September 25, 2014 [2 favorites]
Do you prefer sharia takeover in the region?
Sharia simply means "law" or "code," and in usage refers to Islamic laws and moral codes. The Iraqi constitution's article 14 states that no legislation can be passed that conflicts with Islamic law, and names Islam as the state religion. The constitution of Afghanistan says much the same, and courts there -- up to and especially including the Supreme Court -- use Islamic law as the primary basis for judgments. We had a hand in drafting both; shall we overthrow these governments as well, seeing as they're clearly aligned with "sharia takeover?"
The problem is the unconscionable complacency that inaction entails. It ultimately demonstrates a lack of compassion for those suffering - for example, the people being butchered by ISIS as we speak.
I agree that the U.S. has a responsibility to act given our role in destabilizing the region. I would happily support Aggressive humanitarian and nonmilitary foreign aid as well as fast-tracking asylum and refugee cases for immigration to the United States or to other friendly, willing countries would do a lot to help people through this mess too. But Congress would never approve of any of it and the average American would immediately assume that terrorists would flood *our* borders. So by default "action" always means the same thing it does in the phrase "action movie." The rhetoric I see here, let alone in the wilder parts of the web, conforms to that logic: ISIL are bad guys and a threat, and we need to beat them.
Meanwhile, an in-depth investigative report by Al-Jazeera found that pretty much every group in the region -- the Kurds, Sunni tribes, Shia militias -- have used the chaos to quietly begin pushing out any "others" living in the regions they control. We push out ISIL, and then they push out Arabs, Kurds, Shia, or Sunni people to consolidate territory. This is unlikely to produce long-term stability.
And then there's Assad and the various factions opposing him in the Syrian Civil War, which suggests that what we're really looking at is something more like a series of Sunni-ShiA wars-by-proxy backed by any number of regional power players. ISIL is an especially radicalized, ambitious rogue player in that, but eliminating ISIL (if we even can; more likely we'll simply turn it into a smaller, less effective, but less centralized insurgent group) is less likely to stabilize the region than it is to simply shift the balance of power in an ongoing, larger struggle there.
We bombed our way into this mess; we will probably not bomb our way back out.
posted by kewb at 3:42 AM on September 25, 2014 [18 favorites]
Sharia simply means "law" or "code," and in usage refers to Islamic laws and moral codes. The Iraqi constitution's article 14 states that no legislation can be passed that conflicts with Islamic law, and names Islam as the state religion. The constitution of Afghanistan says much the same, and courts there -- up to and especially including the Supreme Court -- use Islamic law as the primary basis for judgments. We had a hand in drafting both; shall we overthrow these governments as well, seeing as they're clearly aligned with "sharia takeover?"
The problem is the unconscionable complacency that inaction entails. It ultimately demonstrates a lack of compassion for those suffering - for example, the people being butchered by ISIS as we speak.
I agree that the U.S. has a responsibility to act given our role in destabilizing the region. I would happily support Aggressive humanitarian and nonmilitary foreign aid as well as fast-tracking asylum and refugee cases for immigration to the United States or to other friendly, willing countries would do a lot to help people through this mess too. But Congress would never approve of any of it and the average American would immediately assume that terrorists would flood *our* borders. So by default "action" always means the same thing it does in the phrase "action movie." The rhetoric I see here, let alone in the wilder parts of the web, conforms to that logic: ISIL are bad guys and a threat, and we need to beat them.
Meanwhile, an in-depth investigative report by Al-Jazeera found that pretty much every group in the region -- the Kurds, Sunni tribes, Shia militias -- have used the chaos to quietly begin pushing out any "others" living in the regions they control. We push out ISIL, and then they push out Arabs, Kurds, Shia, or Sunni people to consolidate territory. This is unlikely to produce long-term stability.
And then there's Assad and the various factions opposing him in the Syrian Civil War, which suggests that what we're really looking at is something more like a series of Sunni-ShiA wars-by-proxy backed by any number of regional power players. ISIL is an especially radicalized, ambitious rogue player in that, but eliminating ISIL (if we even can; more likely we'll simply turn it into a smaller, less effective, but less centralized insurgent group) is less likely to stabilize the region than it is to simply shift the balance of power in an ongoing, larger struggle there.
We bombed our way into this mess; we will probably not bomb our way back out.
posted by kewb at 3:42 AM on September 25, 2014 [18 favorites]
kewb: I certainly couldn't agree more that the US seems to be *terrible* at waging war, and even worse at turning the lights back on after the war. It's also definitely true that tribalism is endemic in the region, and won't simply vanish after killing a few of the worst offenders. However, it's not unreasonable to be MORE concerned about ISIS than the other regional powers you mention, given their genocidal designs on the dar al-harb. And I don't see it as crazy to consider going beyond the humanitarian aid you mention (which I would support) into actively degrading them. Letting them do what they want in the region seems foolhardy, and in any case one would still be forced to abandon many thousands of those minorities I mentioned to their fate in IS controlled territory.
...Do you happen to have a link to the AJ article you mentioned? It sounded interesting. I don't mean to use you as a search engine; but I tried to find it on my own and failed.
posted by pixelrevolt at 4:11 AM on September 25, 2014 [1 favorite]
...Do you happen to have a link to the AJ article you mentioned? It sounded interesting. I don't mean to use you as a search engine; but I tried to find it on my own and failed.
posted by pixelrevolt at 4:11 AM on September 25, 2014 [1 favorite]
This is indeed a great speech by the greatest president I've seen in my lifetime. I don't always agree with him, but he made me proud to be an American again, and I continue to be.
posted by Potomac Avenue at 4:29 AM on September 25, 2014 [1 favorite]
posted by Potomac Avenue at 4:29 AM on September 25, 2014 [1 favorite]
If this speech is intellectual, I'm smarter than I thought I was.
posted by michaelh at 5:31 AM on September 25, 2014 [2 favorites]
posted by michaelh at 5:31 AM on September 25, 2014 [2 favorites]
Personally I found it fascinating (and amazingly timed) that these last raids were the first sorties by the boondoggle that is the Joint Strike Fighter.
F-22. The JSF is the F-35, which is an even more shambolic program than the F-22.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 5:50 AM on September 25, 2014 [4 favorites]
F-22. The JSF is the F-35, which is an even more shambolic program than the F-22.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 5:50 AM on September 25, 2014 [4 favorites]
If dropping bombs on the Middle East solves problems there, shouldn't the place be a Utopia by now?
posted by Legomancer at 6:04 AM on September 25, 2014 [2 favorites]
posted by Legomancer at 6:04 AM on September 25, 2014 [2 favorites]
limited power to assuage legitimate points of dissent.
Yes, though that doesn't seem to be stopping the administration from trying. One of the more troubling aspects of the current debate is the false dilemma promoted by our political leaders: act or do nothing (with "act" limited to a specific set of actions).
There is legitimate dissent that the Administration & their allies aren't engaging (and, hey, that's their prerogative and a useful means of selling one's preferred narrative). But that doesn't absolve them of the injury they do to our democratic discourse when they ignore the substance of their critics' arguments and instead accuse them of wanting them to do nothing or otherwise distorting their positions.
posted by audi alteram partem at 6:10 AM on September 25, 2014 [2 favorites]
Yes, though that doesn't seem to be stopping the administration from trying. One of the more troubling aspects of the current debate is the false dilemma promoted by our political leaders: act or do nothing (with "act" limited to a specific set of actions).
There is legitimate dissent that the Administration & their allies aren't engaging (and, hey, that's their prerogative and a useful means of selling one's preferred narrative). But that doesn't absolve them of the injury they do to our democratic discourse when they ignore the substance of their critics' arguments and instead accuse them of wanting them to do nothing or otherwise distorting their positions.
posted by audi alteram partem at 6:10 AM on September 25, 2014 [2 favorites]
I should say to start with that I'm not in favor of the current US approach to ISIS, but I have to disagree with some of the arguments being made against the US intervention in this thread.
kewb: Sharia simply means "law" or "code," and in usage refers to Islamic laws and moral codes. The Iraqi constitution's article 14 states that no legislation can be passed that conflicts with Islamic law, and names Islam as the state religion. The constitution of Afghanistan says much the same, and courts there -- up to and especially including the Supreme Court -- use Islamic law as the primary basis for judgments. We had a hand in drafting both; shall we overthrow these governments as well, seeing as they're clearly aligned with "sharia takeover?"
I agree it's sloppy to just refer to "sharia" as the main problem by itself- but I assume that's referring to the particular ISIS interpretation and implementation of it, which goes far, far beyond anything proposed in the Iraqi constitution, or indeed any remotely mainstream interpretation of Islamic law. This open letter to Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi from a group of Muslim scholars is very interesting reading for anyone interested in delving further into all of that.
T.D. Strange: The plan is to ask our friends the Kurds who's cool, then just airdrop some M16s and grenade launchers to those guys and hope they use them to shoot at ISIS.
Actually, the US does not seem to be taking what the Kurds want into account at all. They rejected the inclusion of the YPG in their coalition, are not offering them any support, and now seem to be leaving the Syrian Kurds to face likely genocide- I have been following the news from Kobane with dread. The YPG is, as far as I can tell, essentially the only force in Syria that is both truly secular and not monstrously brutal, and the US has left them out of our coalition and now seems to be leaving them and the people they protect to a horrendous fate- if ever there was an ideal target for airstrikes, the ISIS forces outside Kobane are it (prevents genocide, weakens ISIS's military force, very unlikely there would be civilian casualties), yet they have not been hit as far as I know. It's baffling to me and I'm beginning to suspect some nefarious deal was made behind the scenes (if so, probably with the Erdogan government in Turkey), but there's no way of knowing right now.
Pudhoho: Because the 'takeovers' won't succeed without popular support. They wither and die without it.
When a populace desires sharia law, or whatever else they choose, it's not our place to meddle.
It's called self determination. All of this 'democracy' crapola is just a beard for imperialism.
Unfortunately, there are innumerable examples throughout history of conquering forces holding on to power not through popular support, but through a mix of raw power and sheer brutality- and ISIS is both a conquering force and about as brutal as it gets, and better armed and motivated than almost any of the local forces opposed to them. This is not "self determination" in any meaningful sense for anyone but ISIS.
smoke: Honestly, I can't believe anyone is so naive to think that
a) IS represents a new and unique brand of evil, somehow worse than the cavalcade of tyrants and bandits we've been propping up in the region for most of this and last century.
b) that the West can do anything effective in the region. We only just left Iraq after more than a decade and it was indisputably worse than when we went in there - Afghanistan is scarcely better.
Though b) is pretty hard to argue with at this point, I would argue that ISIS actually is something significantly worse and more dangerous than anything we've seen in recent memory, either among the allies or the enemies of the US in the Middle East. They are actively engaged in the process of conquering and holding territory (an area the size of Jordan, last I heard), they have had far more success at it than any past jihadist group has managed, they intend to conquer much more land than they already have, and there is no place for religious minorities in their world at all. ISIS combines aggressive (and successful) expansionism with genocidal tendencies- IMO, no other group in the Middle East is comparable in that regard. (The extensive sexual violence they commit should also be mentioned.)
I don't have any faith in how the US will handle the matter (and I feel they've already made a huge mistake in bombing civilian-inhabited areas like Raqqa rather than hitting ISIS military forces on the frontlines, and, well, see above on Kobane), and I don't believe humanitarian motivations are ever a very high priority when it comes to American foreign policy, but I think in many ways this is a situation more comparable to Rwanda than it is to any of our past Middle East interventions, and raises far more difficult and morally challenging questions than, for example, Bush's invasion of Iraq (which was about as obviously unjustifiable as it gets) did. If there is such a thing as a just war, war against ISIS is it, for all that I have very little confidence that it will be carried out in a just fashion. They certainly are in violation of the UN Genocide Convention, and there's a great deal more world support for attacking them than there ever was for George W. Bush's Iraq War- I think ultimately the best response to ISIS is probably a military one, if not the particular one that's being carried out. I'm not exactly delighted by the contrast between Obama's speech and his actions in the Middle East myself, but I think a lot of the responses to it in this thread and in a lot of the progressive-leaning commentary that I've seen on the ISIS problem are far more dismissive and reductive than the issue warrants.
posted by a louis wain cat at 6:17 AM on September 25, 2014 [15 favorites]
kewb: Sharia simply means "law" or "code," and in usage refers to Islamic laws and moral codes. The Iraqi constitution's article 14 states that no legislation can be passed that conflicts with Islamic law, and names Islam as the state religion. The constitution of Afghanistan says much the same, and courts there -- up to and especially including the Supreme Court -- use Islamic law as the primary basis for judgments. We had a hand in drafting both; shall we overthrow these governments as well, seeing as they're clearly aligned with "sharia takeover?"
I agree it's sloppy to just refer to "sharia" as the main problem by itself- but I assume that's referring to the particular ISIS interpretation and implementation of it, which goes far, far beyond anything proposed in the Iraqi constitution, or indeed any remotely mainstream interpretation of Islamic law. This open letter to Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi from a group of Muslim scholars is very interesting reading for anyone interested in delving further into all of that.
T.D. Strange: The plan is to ask our friends the Kurds who's cool, then just airdrop some M16s and grenade launchers to those guys and hope they use them to shoot at ISIS.
Actually, the US does not seem to be taking what the Kurds want into account at all. They rejected the inclusion of the YPG in their coalition, are not offering them any support, and now seem to be leaving the Syrian Kurds to face likely genocide- I have been following the news from Kobane with dread. The YPG is, as far as I can tell, essentially the only force in Syria that is both truly secular and not monstrously brutal, and the US has left them out of our coalition and now seems to be leaving them and the people they protect to a horrendous fate- if ever there was an ideal target for airstrikes, the ISIS forces outside Kobane are it (prevents genocide, weakens ISIS's military force, very unlikely there would be civilian casualties), yet they have not been hit as far as I know. It's baffling to me and I'm beginning to suspect some nefarious deal was made behind the scenes (if so, probably with the Erdogan government in Turkey), but there's no way of knowing right now.
Pudhoho: Because the 'takeovers' won't succeed without popular support. They wither and die without it.
When a populace desires sharia law, or whatever else they choose, it's not our place to meddle.
It's called self determination. All of this 'democracy' crapola is just a beard for imperialism.
Unfortunately, there are innumerable examples throughout history of conquering forces holding on to power not through popular support, but through a mix of raw power and sheer brutality- and ISIS is both a conquering force and about as brutal as it gets, and better armed and motivated than almost any of the local forces opposed to them. This is not "self determination" in any meaningful sense for anyone but ISIS.
smoke: Honestly, I can't believe anyone is so naive to think that
a) IS represents a new and unique brand of evil, somehow worse than the cavalcade of tyrants and bandits we've been propping up in the region for most of this and last century.
b) that the West can do anything effective in the region. We only just left Iraq after more than a decade and it was indisputably worse than when we went in there - Afghanistan is scarcely better.
Though b) is pretty hard to argue with at this point, I would argue that ISIS actually is something significantly worse and more dangerous than anything we've seen in recent memory, either among the allies or the enemies of the US in the Middle East. They are actively engaged in the process of conquering and holding territory (an area the size of Jordan, last I heard), they have had far more success at it than any past jihadist group has managed, they intend to conquer much more land than they already have, and there is no place for religious minorities in their world at all. ISIS combines aggressive (and successful) expansionism with genocidal tendencies- IMO, no other group in the Middle East is comparable in that regard. (The extensive sexual violence they commit should also be mentioned.)
I don't have any faith in how the US will handle the matter (and I feel they've already made a huge mistake in bombing civilian-inhabited areas like Raqqa rather than hitting ISIS military forces on the frontlines, and, well, see above on Kobane), and I don't believe humanitarian motivations are ever a very high priority when it comes to American foreign policy, but I think in many ways this is a situation more comparable to Rwanda than it is to any of our past Middle East interventions, and raises far more difficult and morally challenging questions than, for example, Bush's invasion of Iraq (which was about as obviously unjustifiable as it gets) did. If there is such a thing as a just war, war against ISIS is it, for all that I have very little confidence that it will be carried out in a just fashion. They certainly are in violation of the UN Genocide Convention, and there's a great deal more world support for attacking them than there ever was for George W. Bush's Iraq War- I think ultimately the best response to ISIS is probably a military one, if not the particular one that's being carried out. I'm not exactly delighted by the contrast between Obama's speech and his actions in the Middle East myself, but I think a lot of the responses to it in this thread and in a lot of the progressive-leaning commentary that I've seen on the ISIS problem are far more dismissive and reductive than the issue warrants.
posted by a louis wain cat at 6:17 AM on September 25, 2014 [15 favorites]
Or maybe we are born with it, and have to be taught to be principled, fair and loving. Maybe that's why we fail so often and so badly. Maybe we should stop pretending.
We should stop pretending simple absolutes offer a useful way to think about reality, sure. There's a lot of science on these questions. And the research definitely suggests we're more to the side of loving and fair-minded in our (purely hypothetical) natural state. We are, however, also very prone to certain social group dynamics that may no longer be optimally adaptive; we like sorting ourselves and others into in-groups and out-groups based on arbitrary cultural markers. With information flow increasing so rapidly, those processes are probably going kind of haywire.
posted by saulgoodman at 6:20 AM on September 25, 2014
We should stop pretending simple absolutes offer a useful way to think about reality, sure. There's a lot of science on these questions. And the research definitely suggests we're more to the side of loving and fair-minded in our (purely hypothetical) natural state. We are, however, also very prone to certain social group dynamics that may no longer be optimally adaptive; we like sorting ourselves and others into in-groups and out-groups based on arbitrary cultural markers. With information flow increasing so rapidly, those processes are probably going kind of haywire.
posted by saulgoodman at 6:20 AM on September 25, 2014
Actually, the US does not seem to be taking what the Kurds want into account at all. They rejected the inclusion of the YPG in their coalition, are not offering them any support, and now seem to be leaving the Syrian Kurds to face likely genocide- I have been following the news from Kobane with dread. ... It's baffling to me and I'm beginning to suspect some nefarious deal was made behind the scenes (if so, probably with the Erdogan government in Turkey)
I hadn't read about this yet (and my earlier comment was admittedly dismissive), if true, it's just more proof that the US cannot intervene to improve the situation. Any intervention is necessarily an imposition by an outside actor, who for all our many, many years in the region, still cannot understand the complex interplay between hundreds or thousands of regional actors that largely all hate each other. Whatever action we take against ISIS will be corrupted by the sectarian ambitions of whatever faction we have to work with operationally, Turkey, the Saudis, our 51st State of Israel, whoever it is will try their hardest to steer US intervention towards their own goals, which are likely only nominally aligned with Obama's hallow, if admittedly soaring, rhetoric.
posted by T.D. Strange at 6:46 AM on September 25, 2014 [1 favorite]
I hadn't read about this yet (and my earlier comment was admittedly dismissive), if true, it's just more proof that the US cannot intervene to improve the situation. Any intervention is necessarily an imposition by an outside actor, who for all our many, many years in the region, still cannot understand the complex interplay between hundreds or thousands of regional actors that largely all hate each other. Whatever action we take against ISIS will be corrupted by the sectarian ambitions of whatever faction we have to work with operationally, Turkey, the Saudis, our 51st State of Israel, whoever it is will try their hardest to steer US intervention towards their own goals, which are likely only nominally aligned with Obama's hallow, if admittedly soaring, rhetoric.
posted by T.D. Strange at 6:46 AM on September 25, 2014 [1 favorite]
to me, we have a bloody butcher's bill that is coming due in the form of ISIS. to me, it is our obligation to deal with the monster we've created. I wonder, if there are those who feel the same, what is the proper course? Isolation results in more dead civilians, killed by the monster we created.
I remember listening to NPR during the Rwanda genocide, and the knowledge that we could have stopped the massacre but were choosing not to was very hard. It wouldn't have been good to go blow up a bunch of Rwandans with bombs, but Jesus Christ, we could have done something
I'm a pacifist. I cast a jaundiced eye towards Cuomo and Christie's joint announcement about enhanced security because of ISIS. I am wary of HRC's move towards hawkishness. I was against the invasion of Afghanistan, even, which was sort of an extreme position at the time.
I wonder, what is a coherent position for a pacifist to hold at this time? And as I wonder that, I feel for Obama. He wanted out of the Middle East. He was our hope after the disaster of Bush. I think the man is scrambling in a situation where there is little hope and many ways things could go even wronger than they have.
So I guess I am an Obama apologist? Maybe. But somebody give me a coherent alternative, and I will jump at it.
posted by angrycat at 7:24 AM on September 25, 2014 [8 favorites]
I remember listening to NPR during the Rwanda genocide, and the knowledge that we could have stopped the massacre but were choosing not to was very hard. It wouldn't have been good to go blow up a bunch of Rwandans with bombs, but Jesus Christ, we could have done something
I'm a pacifist. I cast a jaundiced eye towards Cuomo and Christie's joint announcement about enhanced security because of ISIS. I am wary of HRC's move towards hawkishness. I was against the invasion of Afghanistan, even, which was sort of an extreme position at the time.
I wonder, what is a coherent position for a pacifist to hold at this time? And as I wonder that, I feel for Obama. He wanted out of the Middle East. He was our hope after the disaster of Bush. I think the man is scrambling in a situation where there is little hope and many ways things could go even wronger than they have.
So I guess I am an Obama apologist? Maybe. But somebody give me a coherent alternative, and I will jump at it.
posted by angrycat at 7:24 AM on September 25, 2014 [8 favorites]
I sure am glad I don't have to vote for a US-president.
posted by ipsative at 7:37 AM on September 25, 2014 [2 favorites]
posted by ipsative at 7:37 AM on September 25, 2014 [2 favorites]
No children are born hating
I bloody well was.
posted by Decani at 7:55 AM on September 25, 2014 [2 favorites]
I bloody well was.
posted by Decani at 7:55 AM on September 25, 2014 [2 favorites]
Wow, tough crowd.
I feel like no one (here or elsewhere) is acknowledging the profoundly difficult position that Obama is in. The Middle East is in turmoil because the US decided in 2003 to start an unnecessary war in Iraq, which had the effect toppling a stable (if problematic) Sunni government in the region and thereby disrupt the decades-long balance between Sunni and Shia power in the region. And by doing that, we took resources away from Afghanistan (the only war that was in any way justified) and half-assed that entire campaign. If we'd left Iraq alone, and nipped Al Qaeda in the bud sooner, things might not be sunshine and rainbows in the Middle East, but it wouldn't be like it is now.
tl;dr -- What's happening in the Middle East is our fault. We would look like supreme dicks if we just said "your problem now".
posted by Ben Trismegistus at 7:58 AM on September 25, 2014 [9 favorites]
I feel like no one (here or elsewhere) is acknowledging the profoundly difficult position that Obama is in. The Middle East is in turmoil because the US decided in 2003 to start an unnecessary war in Iraq, which had the effect toppling a stable (if problematic) Sunni government in the region and thereby disrupt the decades-long balance between Sunni and Shia power in the region. And by doing that, we took resources away from Afghanistan (the only war that was in any way justified) and half-assed that entire campaign. If we'd left Iraq alone, and nipped Al Qaeda in the bud sooner, things might not be sunshine and rainbows in the Middle East, but it wouldn't be like it is now.
tl;dr -- What's happening in the Middle East is our fault. We would look like supreme dicks if we just said "your problem now".
posted by Ben Trismegistus at 7:58 AM on September 25, 2014 [9 favorites]
one of the most humanist, powerful and intellectual speeches compared to what?
compared to "too many OB-GYNs aren't able to practice their love with women all across this country."
posted by quonsar II: smock fishpants and the temple of foon at 8:09 AM on September 25, 2014 [4 favorites]
compared to "too many OB-GYNs aren't able to practice their love with women all across this country."
posted by quonsar II: smock fishpants and the temple of foon at 8:09 AM on September 25, 2014 [4 favorites]
No children are born hating
The President has never played Call of Duty with the chat turned on. I've never had to look up so many words.
posted by dances with hamsters at 8:15 AM on September 25, 2014 [1 favorite]
The President has never played Call of Duty with the chat turned on. I've never had to look up so many words.
posted by dances with hamsters at 8:15 AM on September 25, 2014 [1 favorite]
Pudhoho: Yes, I do. Because the 'takeovers' won't succeed without popular support. They wither and die without it.There's some massive reality disconnects in those sentences.
When a populace desires sharia law, or whatever else they choose, it's not our place to meddle.
It's called self determination.
1. What proof do you have that there is popular support for these takeovers? NPR today broadcast an interview with someone who lived in some of the disputed territories, and claimed he and his neighbors were happy when the air strikes began on their city, because he knew it meant someone was fighting back - for them.
2. When a military junta overthrows the popularly elected government, in your world the populace suddenly changes its mind and throws popular support behind the junta? Like the 38-year-long regime of the last Iranian Shah, supported by the CIA?
3. Self-determination is why women are being forbidden from self-determination? Why women get acid thrown on their faces, gang-raped, beheaded, for the "crimes" of walking on the streets or having been raped? Self-determination to capture and behead tourists? To assault and slaughter the military forces of the local, democratically elected government? Well, self-determination of those in power, certainly, but when that's a tiny fraction of the populace, that's a ridiculous description.
4. When a military force invades and occupies new territory with combat and terrifying suppression of the populace, "it's not our place to meddle"? Good god, even the much-ridiculed Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain had a less insular, laissez-faire attitude towards world peace than that.
posted by IAmBroom at 9:11 AM on September 25, 2014 [14 favorites]
I wish I were as certain about what to do as a lot of you folk seem to be. I'm not.
This is just one of many reasons why.
posted by Ray Walston, Luck Dragon at 9:25 AM on September 25, 2014 [1 favorite]
This is just one of many reasons why.
posted by Ray Walston, Luck Dragon at 9:25 AM on September 25, 2014 [1 favorite]
I think a lot of folks are fatigued by war, which is completely understandable. But there is the matter of lumping all conflicts together. The 2003 Invasion of Iraq was pointless, superfluous, and immeasurably costly. But does that mean all future interventions are equally bad? The United States did not want to get entangled in an European conflict after the Great War. Yet unquestionably, our role in WWII proved far more important than simply teaching the Japanese Empire a lesson for attacking Pearl Harbor. If Japan had deigned to attack the U.S., and there was no outwards provocation to bring us in, should we have been happy to keep our neutrality unperturbed, even as the Holocaust unfolded on the Continent?
Certainly the tactics currently being pursued leave a lot to be desired, but instead of attacking the very basis of intervention, why not focus on pushing for a better plan of intervention? If military intervention should not be considered, why not provide an alternate humanitarian-focused plan? This administration has no surplus of plans or ideas, maybe someone should offer them a better strategy than "bomb some groups and give guns to the others and hope it all works out at the end."
Criticizing Obama for being an American president and acting like one is cathartic but useless. Even Carter armed the mujahideen.
posted by Apocryphon at 10:01 AM on September 25, 2014 [5 favorites]
Certainly the tactics currently being pursued leave a lot to be desired, but instead of attacking the very basis of intervention, why not focus on pushing for a better plan of intervention? If military intervention should not be considered, why not provide an alternate humanitarian-focused plan? This administration has no surplus of plans or ideas, maybe someone should offer them a better strategy than "bomb some groups and give guns to the others and hope it all works out at the end."
Criticizing Obama for being an American president and acting like one is cathartic but useless. Even Carter armed the mujahideen.
posted by Apocryphon at 10:01 AM on September 25, 2014 [5 favorites]
Those who keep saying that it is our responsibility to fix the mess we created in the ME are really no different than the interventionists of the past conflicts. If you are advocating military action (some even while claiming to be pacifists - the mind boggles), you are part of the very problem that's been created.
The very premise of the argument is flawed. "We broke it, we must fix it" - but that's pretty much the entire history of U.S. interventions in the ME since we started meddling over there, every time "fixing" the previous mistake. Time to learn the basic lesson: stop interfering. Period. To amend our mistakes, don't drop explosives from the sky, bring humanitarian aid, and think longer term with economic aid and integration into the world economy, and cultural engagement. That's our only shot at "fixing" what we broke - not military intervention.
We should not compound the problem by continuing with the same broken approaches - military action. There is no military solution here - repeat, none. To imagine, that somehow lobbying cruise missiles and dropping bombs is doing our humanitarian duty to fix the consequences of the previous lobbying of cruise missiles and dropping of bombs, is not good strategic thinking. Our only option is massive humanitarian and economic aid. Yes, we broke it. We burned down the house. It is entirely counterproductive, to now advocate that we continue pouring gasoline onto the embers and flinging lit matches "because we burned it down". Pouring gasoline onto the fire is not going to rebuild the house we burned down with gasoline and lit matches. All we can do, is offer humanitarian and economic aid to the displaced residents - pouring gasoline over them is not going to rebuild their house. Bombing and droning - with the inevitable civilian casualties, fuelling the firestorm of conflict by pouring arms and financing murderous, genocidal and utterly uncontrollable forces is not going to rebuild what we broke through those exact means before.
For those who continue to insist on military action - please explain how is military action beneficial, when there is no military solution in sight? If we could not defeat the Taliban, despite a decade plus of direct military action, the number of U.S. troops on the ground that will never be matched with whatever we now do in Syria or Iraq, with NATO troops - boots on the ground - helping us, with the Afghan army we trained, with tribal leaders we helped, armed, financed and bribed, with bucketfuls of money from all over the world building infrastructure. With all that, the Taliban is conducting daily attacks, has never been defeated, and is edging ever closer to taking over as soon as we depart. How are you going to achieve a success in the ME you could not in Afghanistan, while doing it with a tiny fraction of those means? And the situation in the ME is worse by orders of magnitude. We are dealing with many more regional state actors all with their own agendas. We're dealing not with just one Taliban, but with a multitude of militias all fighting and forming shifting alliances, and pretty much ALL of them extremists - yes, including our supposed allies in FSA and Syrian National Council. I argued last year when this madness of intervention in Syria was going on, that any force with credible military power that currently wants to replace Assad, will be much, much, much worse than the already horrendous depredations of Assad. But we - and our allies - went ahead and poured gasoline and flung lit matches and we now have a firestorm of epic proportions. Military action now will provide massive oxygen to this fire, because again, there are no "good" guys we can back here, "good guys" - with any real power, political, military or organizational. NONE. ISIS is bad, but so are all those AQ-affiliated groups, so is Assad, and so is anyone with any serious power.
When no military solution exists, it is irrational to argue for a military solution. Take all that money - every cruise missile is $1.5 million - and use it for humanitarian aid. I guarantee you'll see a better outcome in the ME - it is a much better outcome than that missile murdering more civilians while strengthening - instead of degrading - ISIS as has been happening in the last 48 hours.
And if you can't bring yourself to direct that $1.5 million cost of a single missile into humanitarian aid in the ME, you're still better off spending it at home here, rather than earning us more enemies in the ME. $1.5 million - you could put 6 low-income students through 4 years at Harvard and still have money left over. That's for just one missile. Multiply that by however many - and tell me, why is the world better off by fuelling a vicious war with countless victims for all that money that could be spent so much more productively?
You want to help the people of the ME, don't bomb them, and don't fuel their civil wars with your military.
posted by VikingSword at 10:15 AM on September 25, 2014 [16 favorites]
The very premise of the argument is flawed. "We broke it, we must fix it" - but that's pretty much the entire history of U.S. interventions in the ME since we started meddling over there, every time "fixing" the previous mistake. Time to learn the basic lesson: stop interfering. Period. To amend our mistakes, don't drop explosives from the sky, bring humanitarian aid, and think longer term with economic aid and integration into the world economy, and cultural engagement. That's our only shot at "fixing" what we broke - not military intervention.
We should not compound the problem by continuing with the same broken approaches - military action. There is no military solution here - repeat, none. To imagine, that somehow lobbying cruise missiles and dropping bombs is doing our humanitarian duty to fix the consequences of the previous lobbying of cruise missiles and dropping of bombs, is not good strategic thinking. Our only option is massive humanitarian and economic aid. Yes, we broke it. We burned down the house. It is entirely counterproductive, to now advocate that we continue pouring gasoline onto the embers and flinging lit matches "because we burned it down". Pouring gasoline onto the fire is not going to rebuild the house we burned down with gasoline and lit matches. All we can do, is offer humanitarian and economic aid to the displaced residents - pouring gasoline over them is not going to rebuild their house. Bombing and droning - with the inevitable civilian casualties, fuelling the firestorm of conflict by pouring arms and financing murderous, genocidal and utterly uncontrollable forces is not going to rebuild what we broke through those exact means before.
For those who continue to insist on military action - please explain how is military action beneficial, when there is no military solution in sight? If we could not defeat the Taliban, despite a decade plus of direct military action, the number of U.S. troops on the ground that will never be matched with whatever we now do in Syria or Iraq, with NATO troops - boots on the ground - helping us, with the Afghan army we trained, with tribal leaders we helped, armed, financed and bribed, with bucketfuls of money from all over the world building infrastructure. With all that, the Taliban is conducting daily attacks, has never been defeated, and is edging ever closer to taking over as soon as we depart. How are you going to achieve a success in the ME you could not in Afghanistan, while doing it with a tiny fraction of those means? And the situation in the ME is worse by orders of magnitude. We are dealing with many more regional state actors all with their own agendas. We're dealing not with just one Taliban, but with a multitude of militias all fighting and forming shifting alliances, and pretty much ALL of them extremists - yes, including our supposed allies in FSA and Syrian National Council. I argued last year when this madness of intervention in Syria was going on, that any force with credible military power that currently wants to replace Assad, will be much, much, much worse than the already horrendous depredations of Assad. But we - and our allies - went ahead and poured gasoline and flung lit matches and we now have a firestorm of epic proportions. Military action now will provide massive oxygen to this fire, because again, there are no "good" guys we can back here, "good guys" - with any real power, political, military or organizational. NONE. ISIS is bad, but so are all those AQ-affiliated groups, so is Assad, and so is anyone with any serious power.
When no military solution exists, it is irrational to argue for a military solution. Take all that money - every cruise missile is $1.5 million - and use it for humanitarian aid. I guarantee you'll see a better outcome in the ME - it is a much better outcome than that missile murdering more civilians while strengthening - instead of degrading - ISIS as has been happening in the last 48 hours.
And if you can't bring yourself to direct that $1.5 million cost of a single missile into humanitarian aid in the ME, you're still better off spending it at home here, rather than earning us more enemies in the ME. $1.5 million - you could put 6 low-income students through 4 years at Harvard and still have money left over. That's for just one missile. Multiply that by however many - and tell me, why is the world better off by fuelling a vicious war with countless victims for all that money that could be spent so much more productively?
You want to help the people of the ME, don't bomb them, and don't fuel their civil wars with your military.
posted by VikingSword at 10:15 AM on September 25, 2014 [16 favorites]
Wouldn't you need at least a military component to protect humanitarian aid workers though? Seems like everyone think outright warfare is the only model involving force. What about a return to the '90s model of NATO intervention in the Balkans- airstrikes, followed by a peacekeeping mission under U.N. aegis. Certainly, the former Yugoslavia is a much different place from the Middle East, but no less populated by differing ethnicities, sects, languages, and militias. The problem here is that the military solution being pursued here isn't being paired with an effective diplomatic solution, a willingness to cut deals with the surrounding Arab governments, with Turkey, with Iran, and yes, with Russia. The regional powers are already willing to deal with ISIS themselves, the U.S. should be launching a full-on diplomatic offensive, not merely a military one.
posted by Apocryphon at 10:38 AM on September 25, 2014
posted by Apocryphon at 10:38 AM on September 25, 2014
Every situation needs to be evaluated individually. I spoke about the comparison of Balkans to the ME interventions before, so I'll repeat myself here:
"Remember one key thing - an air campaign is only effective when there is a strictly contained area of combat (like the Balkan campaign of the 90's) - which is why an incredibly intense air campaign might work in Libya (though I think ultimately the country is too big and the borders to the South too porous). When the area of combat is too big and spilling into neighboring countries (Vietnam - Laos - Cambodia) - you will accomplish nothing. Iraq-Syria-Lebanon air campaign will be as successful as Afghanistan-Pakistan was. Meaning not at all."
The Balkans are confined and surrounded on all sides. It's a relatively tiny area. It is in the heart of NATO country, including U.S. NATO bases. Russia couldn't even supply weapons. Serbia produces no oil and has no money, and no money was coming to it from abroad. Completely dissimilar situations.
I am NOT a pacifist. I see military action as just one tool in the toolbox. But it should only be used where appropriate. It is the wrong tool for the situation in the ME.
posted by VikingSword at 10:52 AM on September 25, 2014 [4 favorites]
"Remember one key thing - an air campaign is only effective when there is a strictly contained area of combat (like the Balkan campaign of the 90's) - which is why an incredibly intense air campaign might work in Libya (though I think ultimately the country is too big and the borders to the South too porous). When the area of combat is too big and spilling into neighboring countries (Vietnam - Laos - Cambodia) - you will accomplish nothing. Iraq-Syria-Lebanon air campaign will be as successful as Afghanistan-Pakistan was. Meaning not at all."
The Balkans are confined and surrounded on all sides. It's a relatively tiny area. It is in the heart of NATO country, including U.S. NATO bases. Russia couldn't even supply weapons. Serbia produces no oil and has no money, and no money was coming to it from abroad. Completely dissimilar situations.
I am NOT a pacifist. I see military action as just one tool in the toolbox. But it should only be used where appropriate. It is the wrong tool for the situation in the ME.
posted by VikingSword at 10:52 AM on September 25, 2014 [4 favorites]
Meeting of the U.N. General Assembly: Hassan Rouhani
@dickc: @HassanRouhani Mr. President, enjoying your Tweets from the UN. We would love the Iranian people to enjoy them as well. When will that be?
heh.
U.N. General Assembly: Ukrainian Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk
posted by Golden Eternity at 11:30 AM on September 25, 2014
@dickc: @HassanRouhani Mr. President, enjoying your Tweets from the UN. We would love the Iranian people to enjoy them as well. When will that be?
heh.
U.N. General Assembly: Ukrainian Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk
posted by Golden Eternity at 11:30 AM on September 25, 2014
Actually, VikingSword, your comparison to Vietnam/Laos/Cambodia and the similarly porous nature of the present conflict are by far the closest anybody's come to convincing me I'm wrong about wanting to use air strikes against ISIL.
It doesn't change that there is an actively genocidal power in the region with momentum, and that it is 100% directly the fault of the Bush administration that it exists.
kewb writes:
Meanwhile, an in-depth investigative report by Al-Jazeera found that pretty much every group in the region -- the Kurds, Sunni tribes, Shia militias -- have used the chaos to quietly begin pushing out any "others" living in the regions they control. We push out ISIL, and then they push out Arabs, Kurds, Shia, or Sunni people to consolidate territory. This is unlikely to produce long-term stability.
I actually disagree with this particular point - stable melting pot societies are incredibly difficult things to develop even in a post-scarcity context (ie: Ferguson), and so much of what's wrong in the region right now can be laid at the feet of Sykes-Picot in 1916, and it's failure to reflect the on-the-ground reality of cultural identity. If the regional powers need to abandon cultural integration as a priority for the time being as a step toward breaking the cycle of genocidal impulses...seems like it's inappropriate for us outsiders to sit in condemnation of that.
a lewis wain cat:
That was the single most informative thing I've read, anywhere by anyone, on the entire situation. I completely agree with your suspicion re: US selling out the Kurds to Turkey, given our history of using the latter as both a military staging ground and a willing partner in torture. I'm pretty much left agreeing with your conclusions and Apocryphon's.
I've been in some brutal crunch at work for the past few months, so sincere thanks to everyone for a fantastic and incredibly informative thread thus far.
posted by Ryvar at 11:46 AM on September 25, 2014 [2 favorites]
It doesn't change that there is an actively genocidal power in the region with momentum, and that it is 100% directly the fault of the Bush administration that it exists.
kewb writes:
Meanwhile, an in-depth investigative report by Al-Jazeera found that pretty much every group in the region -- the Kurds, Sunni tribes, Shia militias -- have used the chaos to quietly begin pushing out any "others" living in the regions they control. We push out ISIL, and then they push out Arabs, Kurds, Shia, or Sunni people to consolidate territory. This is unlikely to produce long-term stability.
I actually disagree with this particular point - stable melting pot societies are incredibly difficult things to develop even in a post-scarcity context (ie: Ferguson), and so much of what's wrong in the region right now can be laid at the feet of Sykes-Picot in 1916, and it's failure to reflect the on-the-ground reality of cultural identity. If the regional powers need to abandon cultural integration as a priority for the time being as a step toward breaking the cycle of genocidal impulses...seems like it's inappropriate for us outsiders to sit in condemnation of that.
a lewis wain cat:
That was the single most informative thing I've read, anywhere by anyone, on the entire situation. I completely agree with your suspicion re: US selling out the Kurds to Turkey, given our history of using the latter as both a military staging ground and a willing partner in torture. I'm pretty much left agreeing with your conclusions and Apocryphon's.
I've been in some brutal crunch at work for the past few months, so sincere thanks to everyone for a fantastic and incredibly informative thread thus far.
posted by Ryvar at 11:46 AM on September 25, 2014 [2 favorites]
Just fyi, How to make Isis fall on its own sword by Chelsea Manning looks like more effective policy that's also more in line with "No children are born hating". Obama might largely be remembered as a hypocrite.
posted by jeffburdges at 12:45 PM on September 25, 2014
posted by jeffburdges at 12:45 PM on September 25, 2014
Kobane Residents Remain Defiant as Islamic State Closes in
Every day brings more news of the Islamic State's advance on Kobane. More villages seized, more injured, more dead. The northern Syrian city — also known by its Arabic name Ayn al-Arab — and its predominantly Kurdish population has been surrounded by IS militants for well over a year, but the extremist group launched a major offensive in the area last week, and now, the situation is grave. Local officials and activists told VICE News that IS has pushed forward to less than five miles from Kobane's outskirts and warn that if it falls, its remaining residents could be massacred.posted by Golden Eternity at 1:04 PM on September 25, 2014
...
Reports from other fronts were not positive either. Mohammed Ahmed, 23, a fighter stationed to Kobane's west, said by phone on Wednesday that he was among around 3,000 YPG fighters there, but that IS were still overwhelming the Kurdish forces numerically. "There are too many of them, you kill 200 and 400 take their place," he said.
I love the "responsibility" argument. Because we've repeatedly fucked up the Middle East, it's our responsibility to keep doing it.
( This time it will be different! )
posted by chortly at 1:22 PM on September 25, 2014 [4 favorites]
( This time it will be different! )
posted by chortly at 1:22 PM on September 25, 2014 [4 favorites]
All discussion aside, the interventionists have gotten their way, as they're want to do. Congratulations, I guess?
We're bombing, we're droning, we're arming, we're training and we're financing. Civilians, have already been killed by our missiles, and we're setting up the next "mistake" which will have to be fixed in the future... you guessed it, with more counterproductive war, which will set up the next link in the endless chain. How do we know this?
Just look at this brief history of the conflict in barely the last couple of years. "Assad bad man, we must get rid of him!" - translation, he's a bad guy we can't control, because we're more than happy to support bad guys who do our bidding even if they're as or more bloodthirsty (Saddam a war criminal and monster, prolific gasser of people, on a scale that would take Assad's breath away, was our ally vs Iran, so we supported him, but then he went off the reservation so he immediately became our enemy). "Let's finance and train those nice rebels who will bring democracy to Syria!" - stupid libs, peaceniks and assorted traitors screamed "bad idea", but interventionists of course won the day. What happened? AQ, ISIS and the falling apart of Iraq - oops! Mistake! What to do? Naturally, "we made the mistake, we broke it, we must fix it!" How? Well, of course, by arming, training and financing the next band of scoundrels and opportunists, because we have to fix - I mean set up our next mistake that will need fixing. Throw in some ineffective bombing and droning that only strengthens ISIS and enrages the populace, since we have such winning experience with this in Afghanistan and Pakistan, we already know how it'll be a mistake that we can then fix later - again.
The interventionists won the day, yet again. Can't wait to see when we get to fix this mistake, no doubt soon enough. Let me guess - cruise missiles and "smart" bombs will be involved. Hope and change indeed. But nice speeches!
posted by VikingSword at 1:39 PM on September 25, 2014 [5 favorites]
We're bombing, we're droning, we're arming, we're training and we're financing. Civilians, have already been killed by our missiles, and we're setting up the next "mistake" which will have to be fixed in the future... you guessed it, with more counterproductive war, which will set up the next link in the endless chain. How do we know this?
Just look at this brief history of the conflict in barely the last couple of years. "Assad bad man, we must get rid of him!" - translation, he's a bad guy we can't control, because we're more than happy to support bad guys who do our bidding even if they're as or more bloodthirsty (Saddam a war criminal and monster, prolific gasser of people, on a scale that would take Assad's breath away, was our ally vs Iran, so we supported him, but then he went off the reservation so he immediately became our enemy). "Let's finance and train those nice rebels who will bring democracy to Syria!" - stupid libs, peaceniks and assorted traitors screamed "bad idea", but interventionists of course won the day. What happened? AQ, ISIS and the falling apart of Iraq - oops! Mistake! What to do? Naturally, "we made the mistake, we broke it, we must fix it!" How? Well, of course, by arming, training and financing the next band of scoundrels and opportunists, because we have to fix - I mean set up our next mistake that will need fixing. Throw in some ineffective bombing and droning that only strengthens ISIS and enrages the populace, since we have such winning experience with this in Afghanistan and Pakistan, we already know how it'll be a mistake that we can then fix later - again.
The interventionists won the day, yet again. Can't wait to see when we get to fix this mistake, no doubt soon enough. Let me guess - cruise missiles and "smart" bombs will be involved. Hope and change indeed. But nice speeches!
posted by VikingSword at 1:39 PM on September 25, 2014 [5 favorites]
I wonder how many legislators have munitions companies in their millionaire portfolios.
posted by dejah420 at 2:02 PM on September 25, 2014 [1 favorite]
posted by dejah420 at 2:02 PM on September 25, 2014 [1 favorite]
VikingSword is on point, and credit to ryvar. The only thing this thread lacks is an acknowledgement that, in most arguments so far, the US is presumed to be acting in good faith ("to fix", "humanitarian" etc). Not that I think IS isn't monstrous, just that its likely the US isn't a good faith actor here either.
posted by bigZLiLk at 2:59 PM on September 25, 2014 [2 favorites]
posted by bigZLiLk at 2:59 PM on September 25, 2014 [2 favorites]
In the intervention camp, there are myriads of proposals, none of which are likely to actually being implemented, because the administration's strategy is no Operation Overlord, but rather a cobbled-together ad hoc plan driven by myriads of interest groups, foreign and domestic. It is Obamacare: the Military Campaign, a non-plan that attempts to please all and ends up pleasing none.
Personally, I just wanted to intervene in Iraq, because 1) the legitimate government there is actually pleading the West for aid, 2) there is actual genocide going on against the Yazidis and Assyrian Christians, 3) there are no sticky questions involving Assad, and 4) the responsibility argument of having previously failed the country actually applies. Has Mt. Sinjar been saved yet? As far as Syria is concerned the Brits and French should take ownership there, the U.S. can't be grand architect and prime mover for every single problem and solution in the world.
posted by Apocryphon at 3:27 PM on September 25, 2014 [1 favorite]
Personally, I just wanted to intervene in Iraq, because 1) the legitimate government there is actually pleading the West for aid, 2) there is actual genocide going on against the Yazidis and Assyrian Christians, 3) there are no sticky questions involving Assad, and 4) the responsibility argument of having previously failed the country actually applies. Has Mt. Sinjar been saved yet? As far as Syria is concerned the Brits and French should take ownership there, the U.S. can't be grand architect and prime mover for every single problem and solution in the world.
posted by Apocryphon at 3:27 PM on September 25, 2014 [1 favorite]
Petition to Obama Administration: End the Harassment and Targeting of Reporters
posted by jeffburdges at 3:32 PM on September 25, 2014
posted by jeffburdges at 3:32 PM on September 25, 2014
i don't know where the islamic state (of terror) crossed the statistic/tragedy line for me -- the heads on pikes, the crucifixions, the threats of genocide, the edited-to-go-viral journalist beheadings -- but making girls call their parents so they can listen while they're being raped is so clearly over and beyond it, you just want to jump down the 'responsibility to protect' slide to justify america going all bruce willis with a samurai sword returning to the scene and executing every last one of those motherfuckers.
which all suggests their 'propaganda' if you want to call it that is having its intended effect... to goad the US to war; is that a reason not to? as manning says: "They know how we tick in America and Europe – and they know what pushes us toward intervention and overreach."
furthermore, is the US being manipulated into saudi arabia's proxy (or for the political machinations of turkey or israel) to depose assad?
i guess i'm just wondering at what point should the world (UN?) step in and stage an intervention (obviously we are already trying); i'd like manning's idea of containment to succeed, just as i'd like to see putin stop being such a dick (or ebola to stop spreading) but how does that happen? again, i find it hard to escape the president's conclusion that: "the only lasting solution toSyria's civil war is political -- an inclusive political transition that responds to the legitimate aspirations of all Syrian citizens, regardless of ethnicity, regardless of creed."
posted by kliuless at 3:56 PM on September 25, 2014
which all suggests their 'propaganda' if you want to call it that is having its intended effect... to goad the US to war; is that a reason not to? as manning says: "They know how we tick in America and Europe – and they know what pushes us toward intervention and overreach."
furthermore, is the US being manipulated into saudi arabia's proxy (or for the political machinations of turkey or israel) to depose assad?
Officials on both sides say the partnership could help rebuild trust between longtime allies whose relations have been deeply strained over the U.S.'s response to the Arab Spring uprisings and Mr. Obama's outreach to Saudi rival Iran. It was also a sign the Saudis might take on a greater security role in the region, something the U.S. has long pressed for.anyway, i'd just note that freddie deboer had a piece in jacobin last year that argued for staying out of syria and everything he said then -- on the sincerity of liberal hawks, on libya, rwanda and kosovo -- remain true today, except that islamic state (it sounds like a college when you take out the the) seems to be trying to commit every moral atrocity it can think of -- they're like the silicon valley of terror; such innovators -- to provoke the US and... its allies? the 'west'? civilized people? anyone with a shred of decency? regional despots? into a fight or quagmire or something that will prove their/our... worth or undoing or whatever. i dunno.
Reaching that agreement, however, took months of behind-the-scenes work by the U.S. and Arab leaders, who agreed on the need to cooperate against Islamic State, but not how or when. The process gave the Saudis leverage to extract a fresh U.S. commitment to beef up training for rebels fighting Mr. Assad, whose demise the Saudis still see as a top priority.
Wary of a repeat of Mr. Obama's earlier reversal, the Saudis and United Arab Emirates decided on a strategy aimed at making it harder for Mr. Obama to change course. "Whatever they ask for, you say 'yes,'" an adviser to the Gulf bloc said of its strategy. "The goal was not to give them any reason to slow down or back out."
i guess i'm just wondering at what point should the world (UN?) step in and stage an intervention (obviously we are already trying); i'd like manning's idea of containment to succeed, just as i'd like to see putin stop being such a dick (or ebola to stop spreading) but how does that happen? again, i find it hard to escape the president's conclusion that: "the only lasting solution to
posted by kliuless at 3:56 PM on September 25, 2014
The utter brutality of the Islamic State leads to another big difference between now and 2003: Obama's coalition (in theory) has much wider support- 60-plus nations that includes both Arab nations and the entire West (including France and Germany). This is a hugely different kettle of fish from the can of sardines that Bush assembled a decade ago. World consensus is not against intervention at this point, as far as dismantling the Islamic State is concerned.
posted by Apocryphon at 4:18 PM on September 25, 2014
posted by Apocryphon at 4:18 PM on September 25, 2014
Looks like he forgot about Poland, though.
posted by en forme de poire at 5:03 PM on September 25, 2014
posted by en forme de poire at 5:03 PM on September 25, 2014
Nation Admits It Could Probably Be Talked Into Another War
posted by Drinky Die at 5:05 PM on September 25, 2014 [4 favorites]
posted by Drinky Die at 5:05 PM on September 25, 2014 [4 favorites]
As far as Syria is concerned the Brits and French should take ownership there, the U.S. can't be grand architect and prime mover for every single problem and solution in the world.
I don't think the West can architect a solution in Syria effectively, maybe it can help facilitate one. There are regional like Iran and Saudi Arabia who will have way more influence than the West will ever have in Syria, even if they completely invade the country as we learned in Iraq. The West will always be seen as an outsider acting only in their own interest. The big problem with Syria, it seems to me, is there is no one to work with on the ground. The Kurds perhaps. The "FSA" perhaps, but they do not seem very reliable. The remaining local population in rebel-held areas that hasn't already been either killed by Assad or left the country have actually have a lot of sympathy for the various jihadis as could be seen from their reaction to the strike on Jabhat al-Nusra. I wonder what the Pentagon's plan is. I think it is likely they will try to use drones and air power over a very long period of time to wear down ISIS similar to Waziristan. The idea that the "FSA" are going to defeat ISIS and then invade Damascus and take over the country entirely without operating along with any jihadi groups does not seem very realistic, or even very promising if it were to happen. It seems that an actual solution must some how involve the government in Damascus and probably Iran. This is something the neocons would never be comfortable with, I don't think, and probably they have very good reasons not to be. It would also be a lot easier if Assad were to be removed from power somehow and replaced by someone who could work with "FSA."
posted by Golden Eternity at 5:30 PM on September 25, 2014
I don't think the West can architect a solution in Syria effectively, maybe it can help facilitate one. There are regional like Iran and Saudi Arabia who will have way more influence than the West will ever have in Syria, even if they completely invade the country as we learned in Iraq. The West will always be seen as an outsider acting only in their own interest. The big problem with Syria, it seems to me, is there is no one to work with on the ground. The Kurds perhaps. The "FSA" perhaps, but they do not seem very reliable. The remaining local population in rebel-held areas that hasn't already been either killed by Assad or left the country have actually have a lot of sympathy for the various jihadis as could be seen from their reaction to the strike on Jabhat al-Nusra. I wonder what the Pentagon's plan is. I think it is likely they will try to use drones and air power over a very long period of time to wear down ISIS similar to Waziristan. The idea that the "FSA" are going to defeat ISIS and then invade Damascus and take over the country entirely without operating along with any jihadi groups does not seem very realistic, or even very promising if it were to happen. It seems that an actual solution must some how involve the government in Damascus and probably Iran. This is something the neocons would never be comfortable with, I don't think, and probably they have very good reasons not to be. It would also be a lot easier if Assad were to be removed from power somehow and replaced by someone who could work with "FSA."
posted by Golden Eternity at 5:30 PM on September 25, 2014
-US is right to extend fight against Isis but its goals must be defined
-Maybe the forces of global order have to be brought to bear
-It's hard to see an end
-ISIS vs. the Kurds
posted by kliuless at 7:49 PM on September 25, 2014
-Maybe the forces of global order have to be brought to bear
-It's hard to see an end
-ISIS vs. the Kurds
posted by kliuless at 7:49 PM on September 25, 2014
Assad is basically Iran's Kim Jong-Un at this point, having inflicted such brutality on his own people. At this point it would be best to work with the Iranians on good faith to curb him, much as we do (or don't do?) with the Chinese to restrain North Korea.
posted by Apocryphon at 8:57 PM on September 25, 2014
posted by Apocryphon at 8:57 PM on September 25, 2014
So the neocons want to turn Syria into Gaza I guess. Preserve the status quo by continually 'mowing the lawn': Our real Syria strategy — containment-plus
posted by Golden Eternity at 9:28 PM on September 25, 2014
posted by Golden Eternity at 9:28 PM on September 25, 2014
Turks Weigh Bigger Role in Fight Against Islamic State: "Turkey is showing signs of shifting to a more active role in the campaign against Islamic State as the government faces pressure from impatient U.S. and Arab officials."
posted by kliuless at 7:11 AM on September 26, 2014
posted by kliuless at 7:11 AM on September 26, 2014
girls call their parents while they are being raped?
that's so evil that it is awesome, in that i am awe that one could be like, should we be this evil? and actual human beings said yes! let's be that evil!
posted by angrycat at 7:32 AM on September 26, 2014
that's so evil that it is awesome, in that i am awe that one could be like, should we be this evil? and actual human beings said yes! let's be that evil!
posted by angrycat at 7:32 AM on September 26, 2014
- but making girls call their parents so they can listen while they're being raped
The mother of one woman still held captive told The Daily Beast about the call she received from her daughter. She was forced to listen as her daughter detailed being raped by dozens of men over the course of a few hours.
Reads to me like she called to describe her rape, not forced to call the family to make them listen during. Not that this is any less evil, or any less evil than the fate of the men and boys who were just lined up and shot.
posted by Drinky Die at 8:08 AM on September 26, 2014
The mother of one woman still held captive told The Daily Beast about the call she received from her daughter. She was forced to listen as her daughter detailed being raped by dozens of men over the course of a few hours.
Reads to me like she called to describe her rape, not forced to call the family to make them listen during. Not that this is any less evil, or any less evil than the fate of the men and boys who were just lined up and shot.
posted by Drinky Die at 8:08 AM on September 26, 2014
(The "Some imprisoned women have been forced by militants to call their families. " link goes here, to a story that does not seem to describe that, though there are several indications the story has been updated at some point.)
Then the sisters said they were being held in a prison, possibly in the town of Badush between Tel Afar and the caliphate’s capital, Mosul. In the last conversation, now, several days ago, the girls said they had been told to convert to Islam or die. Hanifa’s sisters told her that other girls had agreed to do so, but they had not. The oldest of the captive sisters was pretending to be the mother of the youngest girl, hoping they would be kept together. The other three teenage sisters were taken away, she said over her hidden phone. She did not know where they had gone. She warned Hanifa not to call, for fear the phone would be discovered. And then, there were no more calls. (updated)
posted by Drinky Die at 8:16 AM on September 26, 2014
Then the sisters said they were being held in a prison, possibly in the town of Badush between Tel Afar and the caliphate’s capital, Mosul. In the last conversation, now, several days ago, the girls said they had been told to convert to Islam or die. Hanifa’s sisters told her that other girls had agreed to do so, but they had not. The oldest of the captive sisters was pretending to be the mother of the youngest girl, hoping they would be kept together. The other three teenage sisters were taken away, she said over her hidden phone. She did not know where they had gone. She warned Hanifa not to call, for fear the phone would be discovered. And then, there were no more calls. (updated)
posted by Drinky Die at 8:16 AM on September 26, 2014
oh. well. when you get to the crucifixion stage, it's kind of easy to believe that they also believe in kitten torture or whatever the fuck is alleged to be done by these guys.
posted by angrycat at 9:06 AM on September 26, 2014 [1 favorite]
posted by angrycat at 9:06 AM on September 26, 2014 [1 favorite]
The problem is the unconscionable complacency that inaction entails. It ultimately demonstrates a lack of compassion for those suffering - for example, the people being butchered by ISIS as we speak.
We must do something to help ISIS's victims.
Bombing is...something.
We should bomb ISIS
posted by justsomebodythatyouusedtoknow at 10:39 AM on September 26, 2014 [3 favorites]
We must do something to help ISIS's victims.
Bombing is...something.
We should bomb ISIS
posted by justsomebodythatyouusedtoknow at 10:39 AM on September 26, 2014 [3 favorites]
These stories of ISIS atrocities are so outlandish. We're in babies ripped from incubators territory. Saddam's institutionalized rape jails.
Some skepticism is warranted.
posted by notyou at 11:17 AM on September 26, 2014 [2 favorites]
Some skepticism is warranted.
posted by notyou at 11:17 AM on September 26, 2014 [2 favorites]
the edited-to-go-viral journalist beheadings
The War Nerd: The long, twisted history of beheadings as propaganda
posted by the man of twists and turns at 12:12 PM on September 26, 2014 [1 favorite]
The War Nerd: The long, twisted history of beheadings as propaganda
posted by the man of twists and turns at 12:12 PM on September 26, 2014 [1 favorite]
justsomebodythatyouusedtoknow: You're right! We should give them candy and flowers! They'll all get a warm feeling inside, and drop their knives, mid-beheading.
In all seriousness, I have no idea if bombing ISIS is the right thing to do, and in fact never mentioned it at all... I advocated not leaving them entirely alone to do what they want. Cute syllogism though.
Actually, you know what would have made a good target for bombing? All the equipment in abandoned US bases that ISIS later got their hands on. I don't understand why they were allowed to capture so much materiel, and become so much more of a threat.
posted by pixelrevolt at 3:48 PM on September 26, 2014 [1 favorite]
In all seriousness, I have no idea if bombing ISIS is the right thing to do, and in fact never mentioned it at all... I advocated not leaving them entirely alone to do what they want. Cute syllogism though.
Actually, you know what would have made a good target for bombing? All the equipment in abandoned US bases that ISIS later got their hands on. I don't understand why they were allowed to capture so much materiel, and become so much more of a threat.
posted by pixelrevolt at 3:48 PM on September 26, 2014 [1 favorite]
We really should've just given it to the Kurds.
posted by Apocryphon at 6:45 PM on September 26, 2014
posted by Apocryphon at 6:45 PM on September 26, 2014
islamic state: NOT making girls call their parents so they can listen while they're being raped
posted by kliuless at 7:56 PM on September 26, 2014 [1 favorite]
posted by kliuless at 7:56 PM on September 26, 2014 [1 favorite]
Istanbul anarchists, leftists, feminists, and 'Gezi park types' have managed to cross over into the northern town of Kobane in Syria which is currently threatened by ISIS.
...
Thousands of young people - socialists, trade unionists, revolutionary, feminist, libertarian - poured in from all over Turkey to Kobanê to support and defend the city.
posted by Golden Eternity at 9:59 PM on September 26, 2014 [5 favorites]
...
Thousands of young people - socialists, trade unionists, revolutionary, feminist, libertarian - poured in from all over Turkey to Kobanê to support and defend the city.
posted by Golden Eternity at 9:59 PM on September 26, 2014 [5 favorites]
How about that? Is that how the Turks get to make their NATO Allies happy while keeping the local Islamist political machine on board?
To the locals they can say, look it's those whack progressives, and to the West they can say, look, we sent a bunch of motivated fighters!
posted by notyou at 12:04 AM on September 27, 2014
@ABarnardNYT: "Without Hajji Obama, we would all lose our heads," said the old Kurdish man, Sheikh Mohammed, running finger across throat. Kobani
posted by Golden Eternity at 10:56 AM on September 27, 2014
posted by Golden Eternity at 10:56 AM on September 27, 2014
Turkey Hesitant to Ally With U.S. in Syria Mission
Turkish soldiers in armored vehicles stood by at the border fence, taking no action except to block Turkish and Syrian Kurds from crossing into Syria to defend Kobani, where Kurds fear a massacre.Noam Chomsky on the Kurds
...
“Turkey will do something militarily,” he said, citing a proposal by President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, reported Saturday, to use Turkish ground forces to set up a secure zone inside Syria. but one of Turkey’s goals, Mr. Ozel said, might be “to crush or dissolve the Syrian Kurdish autonomous zone.”
"The Kurds should always remember their famous slogan that the Kurds have no friends except the mountains."posted by Golden Eternity at 12:44 PM on September 27, 2014 [1 favorite]
The Defense of Kobani
Besieged people of Kobane plead 'don't send us food or aid. Send us weapons'
FEMALE STATE | Behind-the-scenes on the frontline
Kobane: Heroic defence resists ‘Islamic State’ assault
How an ancient tomb is a fault line in Syria’s brutal civil war
posted by Golden Eternity at 7:23 AM on September 28, 2014 [2 favorites]
Besieged people of Kobane plead 'don't send us food or aid. Send us weapons'
FEMALE STATE | Behind-the-scenes on the frontline
Kobane: Heroic defence resists ‘Islamic State’ assault
Kobane, 135 kilometres north-east of Aleppo, hard up against the Turkish border, is a vital part of the “Rojava Revolution”. Its system of “democratic confederalism” is an inspiring attempt to build a society inclusive of all ethnicities and religious communities and to empower women.Rojava: Syria's Unknown War
The contrast between this humane, democratic project and that of the brutal, fundamentalist, women-hating IS could not be greater.
Kurds are the majority community in Rojava (which means “west”, as in West Kurdistan) but many other ethnic and religious groups are also part of this experiment, including Arabs, Assyrians, Syriac Christians and Turkmen). In this sense, Rojava is a model for the entire Middle East.
The defence of Kobane has become a national crusade for the Kurdish people.
...
Rhetoric notwithstanding, the Turkish authorities are giving direct support to the IS killers. Villagers have witnessed trains unloading tanks, weapons and ammunition at the border opposite IS-controlled villages. Just before the assault on Kobane began on September 15, witnesses reported that several thousand jihadis came in buses and were escorted across the border by Turkish soldiers.
A private hospital, supported by government-linked entities, has been established in Antep (Gaziantep, about 90km from Kobane) to treat wounded jihadis. It is hardly a secret, with photos being published in a daily left-wing newspaper.
And now the Turkish government is floating the idea of a “buffer zone”. The buffer would be on the Syrian side of the border. It would not be aimed at the IS but at buffering Turkey from the deeply unpleasant reality of a democratic, self-governing, multi-ethnic, Kurdish-majority Rojava.
How an ancient tomb is a fault line in Syria’s brutal civil war
posted by Golden Eternity at 7:23 AM on September 28, 2014 [2 favorites]
U.S-led raids hit Syria grain silos, killing civilians
A couple of the Israeli blogs I follow have been rather snarky about this.
posted by Joe in Australia at 4:17 AM on September 29, 2014
A couple of the Israeli blogs I follow have been rather snarky about this.
posted by Joe in Australia at 4:17 AM on September 29, 2014
White House exempts Syria airstrikes from tight standards on civilian deaths
Amid reports of women and children killed in U.S. air offensive, official says the 'near certainty' policy doesn’t apply
I cannot believe this guy got a Nobel Prize.
posted by Joe in Australia at 6:33 PM on September 30, 2014 [1 favorite]
Amid reports of women and children killed in U.S. air offensive, official says the 'near certainty' policy doesn’t apply
I cannot believe this guy got a Nobel Prize.
posted by Joe in Australia at 6:33 PM on September 30, 2014 [1 favorite]
*generic angry muttering* Really, I don't have much else left at this point in this presidency. I'm pretty sure I'm done with voting for Democrats though.
posted by Drinky Die at 6:39 PM on September 30, 2014
posted by Drinky Die at 6:39 PM on September 30, 2014
White House exempts Syria airstrikes from tight standards on civilian deaths
It's like they've been planning to fail all along. We know that bombing and and an air campaign alone will not defeat forces like ISIS. But we do it anyway. We know that when confronted by a mobile force like this, and with intelligence as poor as it has repeatedly been shown, we will rarely manage to hit the actual combatants and instead, there will be a lot of civilian deaths. We know this, and indeed this is what happened: the bad guys got away (moved, according to multiple reports), and civilians died. We know that civilian deaths tend to turn the population against us and drive them into the arms of our enemies. In order to facilitate this process, we therefore abandon any pretense and go ahead and loosen the standards with the inevitable result that more civilians will die.
It sure looks like a mistake is in the making. A planned mistake. And we all know that after this has spun into a massive clusterfuck - well, what must we do? Fix the mistake, of course! And a new campaign and new justification can be proffered for more military engagement, more missiles expended that then need to be replaced, the military-industrial complex is humming, the security industry and those who live off of it are fully employed and all is well - all except for the broader interests of the U.S., the ME, the world at large, and of course, many innocent people will die. Mission accomplished.
posted by VikingSword at 9:54 AM on October 1, 2014
It's like they've been planning to fail all along. We know that bombing and and an air campaign alone will not defeat forces like ISIS. But we do it anyway. We know that when confronted by a mobile force like this, and with intelligence as poor as it has repeatedly been shown, we will rarely manage to hit the actual combatants and instead, there will be a lot of civilian deaths. We know this, and indeed this is what happened: the bad guys got away (moved, according to multiple reports), and civilians died. We know that civilian deaths tend to turn the population against us and drive them into the arms of our enemies. In order to facilitate this process, we therefore abandon any pretense and go ahead and loosen the standards with the inevitable result that more civilians will die.
It sure looks like a mistake is in the making. A planned mistake. And we all know that after this has spun into a massive clusterfuck - well, what must we do? Fix the mistake, of course! And a new campaign and new justification can be proffered for more military engagement, more missiles expended that then need to be replaced, the military-industrial complex is humming, the security industry and those who live off of it are fully employed and all is well - all except for the broader interests of the U.S., the ME, the world at large, and of course, many innocent people will die. Mission accomplished.
posted by VikingSword at 9:54 AM on October 1, 2014
It's like they've been planning to fail all along.
Fail at what? I mean this seriously: what are the US's goals? To randomly drop bombs until a stable democracy emerges from the rubble?
Say you have a town that's been taken over by IS. What does the US propose to do? It can't selectively kill militia from the air; it can't identify military targets when they're not being used; it can't provide backup for local allies, because there are no real targets.
Does the US actually have any local allies ? I mean, people capable of confronting their enemies and driving them back? Or are the only "allies" people who are already being massacred? And what's going to happen to them when the US gets bored?
This is like taking Iraq Wars 1&2, clipping out the worst elements, and making a compilation video. You want a policy in chaos? Here's two seconds of it. Bombs hitting civilians? Here you go! Deals with local warlords? A quarter of a second, because then we switch to a shot of the US being "betrayed". And then it's back to the bombs.
posted by Joe in Australia at 5:06 PM on October 1, 2014 [2 favorites]
Fail at what? I mean this seriously: what are the US's goals? To randomly drop bombs until a stable democracy emerges from the rubble?
Say you have a town that's been taken over by IS. What does the US propose to do? It can't selectively kill militia from the air; it can't identify military targets when they're not being used; it can't provide backup for local allies, because there are no real targets.
Does the US actually have any local allies ? I mean, people capable of confronting their enemies and driving them back? Or are the only "allies" people who are already being massacred? And what's going to happen to them when the US gets bored?
This is like taking Iraq Wars 1&2, clipping out the worst elements, and making a compilation video. You want a policy in chaos? Here's two seconds of it. Bombs hitting civilians? Here you go! Deals with local warlords? A quarter of a second, because then we switch to a shot of the US being "betrayed". And then it's back to the bombs.
posted by Joe in Australia at 5:06 PM on October 1, 2014 [2 favorites]
Can't disagree with anything you've written above. There is no plan, beyond the vague "degrade and ultimately destroy ISIL". There are no real benchmarks of success to that vague plan, but I suspect that's by design. With "fail", the obvious reference would be to that vague phrase - insofar as "destroying" ISIL, I highly doubt there will be any such outcome within any reasonable time frame. After all, they can always argue that they're "degrading continually" (never mind the reality of perhaps actually strengthening it) for however long the politics of it work for them - if asked "have you achieved 'destruction'?" they can always say "soon!" and repeat that ad infinitum until they move onto the next thing. In the end when I wrote "planning to fail", I acknowledged the reality of what is likely to transpire: they already must know that "destruction" is not in the cards, so they know that they will fail from that point of view and are planning accordingly and assuming all along "yep, we'll never 'ultimately destroy' ISIL". So they're planning to fail. I cannot imagine - though probably that's the failure of my imagination - that they're deluded enough to imagine that somehow this pathetic bombing campaign will bring about the "ultimate destruction" of ISIL. They must know this, but nonetheless they're moving ahead with this hopeless strategy - thus planning to fail.
ISIL is merely a symptom - *even if* this particular organization loses its present structure and leadership figureheads and is therefore "destroyed" in that sense, the problems that gave rise to it and that fuel it, and the people involved will not vanish, they'll simply transmute into the next incarnation. You could say that in fact ISIL has itself been derived from AQ as the antecedents of ISIL can be found in the figureheads of AQ in Iraq - the spiritual father of which was Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.
The U.S. cannot hope to bomb its way to imposing peace and stability in the ME. Yet, that's what they're ostensibly trying to do. Why? There are many reasons, but nobody seriously imagines that the stated objective represents the actual thoughts of the policy makers - and if those are the actual thoughts, than we are more screwed than even I imagined.
posted by VikingSword at 6:14 PM on October 1, 2014
ISIL is merely a symptom - *even if* this particular organization loses its present structure and leadership figureheads and is therefore "destroyed" in that sense, the problems that gave rise to it and that fuel it, and the people involved will not vanish, they'll simply transmute into the next incarnation. You could say that in fact ISIL has itself been derived from AQ as the antecedents of ISIL can be found in the figureheads of AQ in Iraq - the spiritual father of which was Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.
The U.S. cannot hope to bomb its way to imposing peace and stability in the ME. Yet, that's what they're ostensibly trying to do. Why? There are many reasons, but nobody seriously imagines that the stated objective represents the actual thoughts of the policy makers - and if those are the actual thoughts, than we are more screwed than even I imagined.
posted by VikingSword at 6:14 PM on October 1, 2014
I'm okay with just going home saying "oops sorry we fucked up so much in the middle east". I'm also okay with appointing Chelsea Manning to secretary of defense and embracing her idea of containment, meaning "Do not bomb ISIL directly, but aid their neighbors who do not want to be invaded, possibly including bombing ISIL's offensive forces." Integral to containment is allowing ISIL to prove it's inability to govern justly, which means allowing them to govern somewhere.
posted by jeffburdges at 6:30 PM on October 1, 2014
posted by jeffburdges at 6:30 PM on October 1, 2014
AMERICA DOES NOT STAND ALONE: Footage of a British air strike on an armed Islamic State pick-up truck in north-west Iraq on Tuesday.
Yeah, it's a cheap shot, but this is seriously what they thought was worth reporting.
posted by Joe in Australia at 9:40 PM on October 1, 2014 [1 favorite]
RAF Tornado GR4 aircraft carried out the mission which the Ministry of Defence described as successful. A heavy weapons position in the same area was also targeted by British Tornado warplanes.Cower, Islamist horde, evermore deprived of your pickup truck! Where are your fuzzy dice now? Your Peeing Calvin decal, immolated in the righteous wrath of our fury, can never extinguish the doom that will surely await you once our forces manage to hit those pesky heavy weapons positions. One truck down. Millions more to come.
Yeah, it's a cheap shot, but this is seriously what they thought was worth reporting.
posted by Joe in Australia at 9:40 PM on October 1, 2014 [1 favorite]
Ghosts of Aleppo - VICE News embedded with the Islamic Front
posted by Golden Eternity at 9:12 AM on October 2, 2014 [1 favorite]
posted by Golden Eternity at 9:12 AM on October 2, 2014 [1 favorite]
U.S. envoy Allen arrives in Iraq, to visit Jordan, Egypt, Turkey
"Retired General John Allen's trip abroad, his first in his new role, is "in support of international coalition efforts to degrade and defeat ISIL," the State Department said in a brief statement, referring to the Islamic State group."
"Defeat" seems much more flexible a term than "destroy", so that opens the door to any political timing. We can just claim we "defeated" them at any point. The grand old tradition of declaring victory and going home. Which is what we should have done to begin with instead of engaging in this charade that will merely result in more civilian victims and more blowback.
Corrupt empires often resemble each other in their MO. These days there is zero honest discussion or communication from the U.S. about its foreign policies, and instead it's like in the old Soviet Union, where they'd latch onto some opaque phrase and repeat it like a mantra as a substitute for any reasoned or natural communication. At which point, the rest of the world examines the phrase for minute variations which signal policy shifts, as interpreted by wizard-like Kremlinologists.
That's where we find ourselves. It's a clusterfuck of epic proportions, doomed from the very inception, and transparently dishonest. So, the U.S. now doesn't bother to use human language but retreats into bureaucratic Soviet like incantations, which are then quoted by the press (in quote marks, no less). Right now, the U.S. is labeling the clusterfuck with the phrase "degrade and destroy ISIL" and the new subtle variation "degrade and defeat ISIL".
Can't wait to see what the next variation in the phrase will be, which then they'll dictate to the slavish press.
posted by VikingSword at 12:35 PM on October 2, 2014 [1 favorite]
"Retired General John Allen's trip abroad, his first in his new role, is "in support of international coalition efforts to degrade and defeat ISIL," the State Department said in a brief statement, referring to the Islamic State group."
"Defeat" seems much more flexible a term than "destroy", so that opens the door to any political timing. We can just claim we "defeated" them at any point. The grand old tradition of declaring victory and going home. Which is what we should have done to begin with instead of engaging in this charade that will merely result in more civilian victims and more blowback.
Corrupt empires often resemble each other in their MO. These days there is zero honest discussion or communication from the U.S. about its foreign policies, and instead it's like in the old Soviet Union, where they'd latch onto some opaque phrase and repeat it like a mantra as a substitute for any reasoned or natural communication. At which point, the rest of the world examines the phrase for minute variations which signal policy shifts, as interpreted by wizard-like Kremlinologists.
That's where we find ourselves. It's a clusterfuck of epic proportions, doomed from the very inception, and transparently dishonest. So, the U.S. now doesn't bother to use human language but retreats into bureaucratic Soviet like incantations, which are then quoted by the press (in quote marks, no less). Right now, the U.S. is labeling the clusterfuck with the phrase "degrade and destroy ISIL" and the new subtle variation "degrade and defeat ISIL".
Can't wait to see what the next variation in the phrase will be, which then they'll dictate to the slavish press.
posted by VikingSword at 12:35 PM on October 2, 2014 [1 favorite]
When we get to "dissuade and deter," we'll know we're getting close.
posted by notyou at 1:03 PM on October 2, 2014 [1 favorite]
posted by notyou at 1:03 PM on October 2, 2014 [1 favorite]
And of course, a big reason to cling to these stilted phrases, is that they avoid one danger of speaking freely - the inadvertent revealing of the mendacity behind a given policy. Here is an article on the tragicomic bungling of our military moves in Syria in the last few days, where Obama says something that has not been thought through by the propaganda apparatchiks:
"Obama, who came close to ordering air strikes against Assad's government a year ago to punish Damascus for using chemical weapons, said in an interview on Sunday that he recognised the apparent contradiction in attacking Islamic State, among the most powerful of Assad's enemies on the ground.
He still wants Assad out of power, but now considers Islamic State a bigger threat, he said: "For Syria to remain unified, it is not possible that Assad presides over that entire process.
"On the other hand, in terms of immediate threats to the United States, ISIL, Khorasan Group, those folks could kill Americans," Obama said, using an acronym for Islamic State and referring to another group targeted in U.S. strikes."
So I guess Obama is quite cognizant that the entire U.S. campaign against Assad was just as much of a warmongering imperial attack as the other liar's - GWB - imperial attack on Saddam. In neither case were we defending ourselves from an evil Iraqi dictator bent on attacking us (despite "mushroom cloud" lies from our propaganda machine), or Syria's Assad. This is not a war of defense, it is a war of aggression against states that have not threatened or harmed us. We portray this in the media as an endless WOT and we gin up fake evidence to cover the blatant aggressive imperial wars. Indeed, Mr. President, Assad was never threatening or killing Americans, and this is not a defensive war. So why are we inserting ourselves into this conflict where we have no defensive purpose at all? The result of such meddling is of course that real harm will come to Americans as a result of our destabilizing the ME - both in Iraq and in Syria, our meddling helped launch real enemies who do indeed wish to harm Americans. It's called blowback. Although even there we were careful to escalate as much as we could - after all ISIL's ambitions were regional and not focused on fighting the West on its own soil and conducting terrorist operations against us. Naturally we made sure to change that, by these idiotic bombing raids, and now "these folks could kill Americans".
Meanwhile the disarray of our strategy is so baroque in its absurdity, that it's fully parody-resistant, being at once its own parody and contradiction. It would be comical, were it not for the inevitable civilian victims of this grotesquery. We decided to overthrow Assad, despite him posing no threat to us, and this unleashed forces like ISIL, which we now battle and so also help Assad. All the while we proclaim that we're not helping Assad, and that our ultimate goal is to overthrow Assad, and help the "good" rebels (the FSA - who happen to be anything but good or aligned with our interests). Except the reality on the ground is that not only are our actions ineffective against ISIL, but are strengthening Assad, and the one loser in all this, are the very guys whom we supposedly support:
"The U.S. top ranking military officer, General Martin Dempsey, played down the idea of a buffer zone last week, saying it was not part of the present campaign.
In a complex multi-sided civil war, one possible hope of U.S. planners is that by hurting Islamic State they can free up fighters from the Western-backed Free Syrian Army (FSA), which is fighting against both Islamic State and Assad's government.
But FSA commanders say the U.S.-led campaign has not helped them; it has only helped Assad's government."
"Nevertheless, after first tamping down the use of its own air power in the initial days of the strikes, Syria's military has intensified its own bombing against some of the rebel groups in the west of the country that Washington considers its allies.
Last Thursday alone, Syrian warplanes dropped bombs, including steel drums packed full of explosives and shrapnel, in Hama, Idlib, Homs and Aleppo provinces and around Damascus, according to the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, a monitoring body."
It is clear as day, that we have no business inserting ourselves militarily into civil wars in the ME. No amount of U.S./the West bombing and rocketing will generate peace and stability. The only result of our involvement will be more destabilization, more death and destruction and the growth of our security and military industry.
posted by VikingSword at 1:40 PM on October 2, 2014
"Obama, who came close to ordering air strikes against Assad's government a year ago to punish Damascus for using chemical weapons, said in an interview on Sunday that he recognised the apparent contradiction in attacking Islamic State, among the most powerful of Assad's enemies on the ground.
He still wants Assad out of power, but now considers Islamic State a bigger threat, he said: "For Syria to remain unified, it is not possible that Assad presides over that entire process.
"On the other hand, in terms of immediate threats to the United States, ISIL, Khorasan Group, those folks could kill Americans," Obama said, using an acronym for Islamic State and referring to another group targeted in U.S. strikes."
So I guess Obama is quite cognizant that the entire U.S. campaign against Assad was just as much of a warmongering imperial attack as the other liar's - GWB - imperial attack on Saddam. In neither case were we defending ourselves from an evil Iraqi dictator bent on attacking us (despite "mushroom cloud" lies from our propaganda machine), or Syria's Assad. This is not a war of defense, it is a war of aggression against states that have not threatened or harmed us. We portray this in the media as an endless WOT and we gin up fake evidence to cover the blatant aggressive imperial wars. Indeed, Mr. President, Assad was never threatening or killing Americans, and this is not a defensive war. So why are we inserting ourselves into this conflict where we have no defensive purpose at all? The result of such meddling is of course that real harm will come to Americans as a result of our destabilizing the ME - both in Iraq and in Syria, our meddling helped launch real enemies who do indeed wish to harm Americans. It's called blowback. Although even there we were careful to escalate as much as we could - after all ISIL's ambitions were regional and not focused on fighting the West on its own soil and conducting terrorist operations against us. Naturally we made sure to change that, by these idiotic bombing raids, and now "these folks could kill Americans".
Meanwhile the disarray of our strategy is so baroque in its absurdity, that it's fully parody-resistant, being at once its own parody and contradiction. It would be comical, were it not for the inevitable civilian victims of this grotesquery. We decided to overthrow Assad, despite him posing no threat to us, and this unleashed forces like ISIL, which we now battle and so also help Assad. All the while we proclaim that we're not helping Assad, and that our ultimate goal is to overthrow Assad, and help the "good" rebels (the FSA - who happen to be anything but good or aligned with our interests). Except the reality on the ground is that not only are our actions ineffective against ISIL, but are strengthening Assad, and the one loser in all this, are the very guys whom we supposedly support:
"The U.S. top ranking military officer, General Martin Dempsey, played down the idea of a buffer zone last week, saying it was not part of the present campaign.
In a complex multi-sided civil war, one possible hope of U.S. planners is that by hurting Islamic State they can free up fighters from the Western-backed Free Syrian Army (FSA), which is fighting against both Islamic State and Assad's government.
But FSA commanders say the U.S.-led campaign has not helped them; it has only helped Assad's government."
"Nevertheless, after first tamping down the use of its own air power in the initial days of the strikes, Syria's military has intensified its own bombing against some of the rebel groups in the west of the country that Washington considers its allies.
Last Thursday alone, Syrian warplanes dropped bombs, including steel drums packed full of explosives and shrapnel, in Hama, Idlib, Homs and Aleppo provinces and around Damascus, according to the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, a monitoring body."
It is clear as day, that we have no business inserting ourselves militarily into civil wars in the ME. No amount of U.S./the West bombing and rocketing will generate peace and stability. The only result of our involvement will be more destabilization, more death and destruction and the growth of our security and military industry.
posted by VikingSword at 1:40 PM on October 2, 2014
Turkey's parliament has authorised its government to intervene in Syria, should it decide to do so.
posted by Joe in Australia at 4:09 PM on October 2, 2014
posted by Joe in Australia at 4:09 PM on October 2, 2014
But FSA commanders say the U.S.-led campaign has not helped them; it has only helped Assad's government.
The FSA have been unable to cement a successful coalition against Assad, despite having every incentive to do so and at least a certain amount of actual support from outside. If they had been able to put their personal struggles aside they would now be the government of Syria. As it is, they have probably condemned themselves and their apparent supporters to death.
posted by Joe in Australia at 4:15 PM on October 2, 2014
The FSA have been unable to cement a successful coalition against Assad, despite having every incentive to do so and at least a certain amount of actual support from outside. If they had been able to put their personal struggles aside they would now be the government of Syria. As it is, they have probably condemned themselves and their apparent supporters to death.
posted by Joe in Australia at 4:15 PM on October 2, 2014
This isn't a site I normally follow (or would link to), but the article is actually funny for two reasons: firstly, yes, the US President himself was at one point a not-very-good Muslim who smoked marijuana; but more significantly, what the hell is the US State Department doing making snarky tweets about individual IS members? Who the hell cares? Why are they wasting their time sending out links to French newspapers? Do they secretly employ my mother's bridge partner? Am I to expect links to videos of adorable animals or top-ten motivational tips?
Anyway, here's the link to the Gateway Pundit.
posted by Joe in Australia at 4:28 PM on October 2, 2014
Anyway, here's the link to the Gateway Pundit.
posted by Joe in Australia at 4:28 PM on October 2, 2014
Barack Obama was never a Muslim and that is the dumbest website on the Internet and should never be linked.
posted by Drinky Die at 4:34 PM on October 2, 2014 [1 favorite]
posted by Drinky Die at 4:34 PM on October 2, 2014 [1 favorite]
Catholic school records identified him as a Muslim when he was a kid and he reportedly accompanied his stepfather to a mosque. I think that level of association would generally be enough to describe someone as a Muslim, or Christian, or whatever; maybe not enough for technical religious purposes, but enough to justify the description. I wasn't aware this was actually controversial.
posted by Joe in Australia at 5:05 PM on October 2, 2014
posted by Joe in Australia at 5:05 PM on October 2, 2014
I wasn't aware this was actually controversial.
For real? Well, okay. It's part of the birther conspiracy theories and very controversial.
The same form that listed him as a Muslim when he attended Catholic school and prayed to Jesus four times a day also listed him as an Indonesian citizen and was full of other errors. It's not your best source there. He was also six at the time and not likely smoking too much pot.
posted by Drinky Die at 5:29 PM on October 2, 2014 [2 favorites]
For real? Well, okay. It's part of the birther conspiracy theories and very controversial.
The same form that listed him as a Muslim when he attended Catholic school and prayed to Jesus four times a day also listed him as an Indonesian citizen and was full of other errors. It's not your best source there. He was also six at the time and not likely smoking too much pot.
posted by Drinky Die at 5:29 PM on October 2, 2014 [2 favorites]
Yeah, there's a world of crazy that I'm mostly oblivious to because I don't care very much about it. I remember reading that he had attended a madrassa and I only found out now that this was not the case.
posted by Joe in Australia at 5:49 PM on October 2, 2014
posted by Joe in Australia at 5:49 PM on October 2, 2014
I think when someone is parroting propaganda from the world of crazy, and is aware enough of the craziness to the point of putting in disclaimers about how they wouldn't normally link to it, it behooves them to be a bit more skeptical about the claims made therein.
posted by tonycpsu at 6:57 PM on October 2, 2014 [2 favorites]
posted by tonycpsu at 6:57 PM on October 2, 2014 [2 favorites]
I wouldn't normally link to it because it looks like most of it is boring tendentious rubbish. I don't see any obvious indication that it's part of the world of crazy, but if it is: oh well. Would all the sites you link to stand up to scrutiny?
posted by Joe in Australia at 7:31 PM on October 2, 2014
posted by Joe in Australia at 7:31 PM on October 2, 2014
Well, I would hope so. Certainly, the Muslim bullshit has been debunked so many times that I'm surprised a keen observer of U.S. politics like yourself wouldn't know that, or would think that someone who's six years old can have a meaningful religious identity, or wouldn't at least have the "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" bells going off in your head, but I'll take you at your word.
posted by tonycpsu at 8:07 PM on October 2, 2014
posted by tonycpsu at 8:07 PM on October 2, 2014
I'll take you at your word.
That is enormously good of you. I'm not aware that anyone has debunked the suggestion that he was nominally a Muslim in his youth, nor any reason why they should care: most people, especially children, are nominally of one faith or another. I acknowledge that he isn't a Muslim, but that isn't really the point: I'd say the same if the State Department criticised someone for being a bad Christian or Jew. In any event, the point about the marijuana use still stands: it was a cheap shot by the US State Department that could just as easily be laid against the President.
posted by Joe in Australia at 8:18 PM on October 2, 2014
That is enormously good of you. I'm not aware that anyone has debunked the suggestion that he was nominally a Muslim in his youth, nor any reason why they should care: most people, especially children, are nominally of one faith or another. I acknowledge that he isn't a Muslim, but that isn't really the point: I'd say the same if the State Department criticised someone for being a bad Christian or Jew. In any event, the point about the marijuana use still stands: it was a cheap shot by the US State Department that could just as easily be laid against the President.
posted by Joe in Australia at 8:18 PM on October 2, 2014
I'm not aware that anyone has debunked the suggestion that he was nominally a Muslim in his youth,
If you trust an error filled form over the testimony of the man himself and his family I'm not sure what to tell you.
I'm playing the world's smallest violin for the ISIL guy who received a media cheap shot.
posted by Drinky Die at 8:38 PM on October 2, 2014
If you trust an error filled form over the testimony of the man himself and his family I'm not sure what to tell you.
I'm playing the world's smallest violin for the ISIL guy who received a media cheap shot.
posted by Drinky Die at 8:38 PM on October 2, 2014
Well, for future reference. (image for anyone who's getting different Google results.)
posted by tonycpsu at 8:38 PM on October 2, 2014 [1 favorite]
posted by tonycpsu at 8:38 PM on October 2, 2014 [1 favorite]
If they had been able to put their personal struggles aside they would now be the government of Syria. As it is, they have probably condemned themselves and their apparent supporters to death.
It's always easy to say what would have happened, but I think this is probably quite false. The neocons usually say that if Obama had given arms to the FSA early on and then bombed Assad after he massacred a few thousand innocent people with chemical weapons everything would now be good in Syria and Iraq and ISIL would have been quickly defeated. I'm not sure if the "FSA" has ever been anywhere close to having the capability to defeat Assad who is heavily backed by Putin and Iran. The FSA was never as effective against the regime as Jabhat al-Nousra and the Islamic Front and altogether they seem to have been stopped at a stalemate.
I'm starting to become convinced that the only solution at this point is for Iraq and Syria to breakup into three or four different states: a majority Shia state formed out of southern Iraq strongly allied with Iran which possibly could merge with southern Syria? An Islamist Sunni state in Northern Iraq and Syria; and Kurdistan - there is a ton of conflict within Kurdish groups so this may have to allow for a lot of internal diversity. The challenge here of course is Turkey. Kurdistan isn't going to be given a State, they will have to build it by force. There just doesn't seem to be any real "moderate" or secular Sunni movement. The majority of the population in rebel held areas of Syria seems to support the Islamic Front and Jabhat al-Nousra, if not ISIL. Perhaps a prospective Kurdistan could make room for moderate Sunnis and Yazidis and other refugee populations, or maybe Turkey could just swallow up a significant portion of Syria and resettle them. The goal of the West should be to try to facilitate some sort of stability between Iran, Shia Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Qatar, Turkey, etc., and shut-off the Sunni areas of Syria and Iraq from weapons, oil revenue etc. The Jihadists are going to be a very big problem for a very long time, and there should be a long term strategy of some sort to try to prevent them from spreading further. Perhaps the best thing is to back the moderate Jihadists like Islamic Front?
Shia militias, still operating under the control of former Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki, are laying siege to Latifiyya, especially the Asa’ib Ahl al-Haqq militia. Failure to address the broader effects of international assistance in Iraq’s fight promises to further polarize Iraq’s communities.
Syria: Assad loyalists concerned by rise of paramilitaries
posted by Golden Eternity at 11:07 PM on October 2, 2014 [1 favorite]
It's always easy to say what would have happened, but I think this is probably quite false. The neocons usually say that if Obama had given arms to the FSA early on and then bombed Assad after he massacred a few thousand innocent people with chemical weapons everything would now be good in Syria and Iraq and ISIL would have been quickly defeated. I'm not sure if the "FSA" has ever been anywhere close to having the capability to defeat Assad who is heavily backed by Putin and Iran. The FSA was never as effective against the regime as Jabhat al-Nousra and the Islamic Front and altogether they seem to have been stopped at a stalemate.
I'm starting to become convinced that the only solution at this point is for Iraq and Syria to breakup into three or four different states: a majority Shia state formed out of southern Iraq strongly allied with Iran which possibly could merge with southern Syria? An Islamist Sunni state in Northern Iraq and Syria; and Kurdistan - there is a ton of conflict within Kurdish groups so this may have to allow for a lot of internal diversity. The challenge here of course is Turkey. Kurdistan isn't going to be given a State, they will have to build it by force. There just doesn't seem to be any real "moderate" or secular Sunni movement. The majority of the population in rebel held areas of Syria seems to support the Islamic Front and Jabhat al-Nousra, if not ISIL. Perhaps a prospective Kurdistan could make room for moderate Sunnis and Yazidis and other refugee populations, or maybe Turkey could just swallow up a significant portion of Syria and resettle them. The goal of the West should be to try to facilitate some sort of stability between Iran, Shia Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Qatar, Turkey, etc., and shut-off the Sunni areas of Syria and Iraq from weapons, oil revenue etc. The Jihadists are going to be a very big problem for a very long time, and there should be a long term strategy of some sort to try to prevent them from spreading further. Perhaps the best thing is to back the moderate Jihadists like Islamic Front?
Shia militias, still operating under the control of former Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki, are laying siege to Latifiyya, especially the Asa’ib Ahl al-Haqq militia. Failure to address the broader effects of international assistance in Iraq’s fight promises to further polarize Iraq’s communities.
Syria: Assad loyalists concerned by rise of paramilitaries
posted by Golden Eternity at 11:07 PM on October 2, 2014 [1 favorite]
Fighter: ISIS enters Syrian city of Kobani
By Laura Smith-Spark and Phil Black, CNN
Ridiculous. Where the fuck was the air support? It appears Turkey is stopping Kurdish reinforcements and weapons from crossing the border, while ISIL is probably still operating on both sides of the border.
These Remarkable Women Are Fighting ISIS. It's Time You Know Who They Are (before they are all dead)
posted by Golden Eternity at 8:51 AM on October 3, 2014 [2 favorites]
By Laura Smith-Spark and Phil Black, CNN
Ridiculous. Where the fuck was the air support? It appears Turkey is stopping Kurdish reinforcements and weapons from crossing the border, while ISIL is probably still operating on both sides of the border.
These Remarkable Women Are Fighting ISIS. It's Time You Know Who They Are (before they are all dead)
posted by Golden Eternity at 8:51 AM on October 3, 2014 [2 favorites]
At least somebody is coming out ahead from this entire boondoggle:
Military firms likely to benefit from airstrikes in Iraq, Syria
"Three days after U.S. warships fired 47 cruise missiles at Sunni militant targets in northern Syria last week, the Pentagon signed a $251-million deal to buy more Tomahawks from Raytheon Co., a windfall for the military giant and its many subcontractors."
"But with U.S. and allied aircraft now bombing Islamic State and Al Qaeda positions in Iraq and Syria, including 41 airstrikes since Monday, many analysts foresee a boost to bottom lines for munitions manufacturers, weapons producers and other military contractors — including many in Southern California.
"There are plenty of reasons to think that defense spending is going to be on the rise again. Defense companies are not being harmed by the current situation.
- Wayne Plucker, an aerospace analyst with research firm Frost & Sullivan
The daily pounding by U.S. bombers, fighters and drones, and the resupply of European and Arab allies that have joined the effort, has cost nearly $1 billion so far, analysts say, and will cost billions more down the road."
And this is not a passing thing, but will be going on for years and years:
"Investors anticipate rising sales for precision-guided missiles and bombs, and other high-priced weapons, as well as sophisticated surveillance and reconnaissance equipment, as the Pentagon gears up for a conflict that commanders say is likely to last years."
Of course, we'll generously spread the gravy, with half a billion financing rogues and scoundrels adding another element to the chaos (and blowback down the road):
"Congress also has agreed to provide $500 million in weapons and training to Syrian rebels who can act as a ground force against the militants in Syria, although it's unclear whether that will require new stocks."
Of course, all this is just the beginning. More and more and more will be coming down the road, because, you see, it is an "emergency" that needs "emergency funding" - since it is never an emergency when poor people whose food stamps have been cut are going hungry and our infrastructure is falling apart:
"Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel says the Pentagon needs more money to combat Islamic State, and Pentagon officials have begun working with Congress on an emergency measure to make more available.
"We're going to require additional funding from Congress as we go forward," Hagel said at a news conference Sept. 26. "We're working now with appropriate committees on how we go forward with authorizations and funding.""
posted by VikingSword at 8:59 AM on October 3, 2014 [3 favorites]
Military firms likely to benefit from airstrikes in Iraq, Syria
"Three days after U.S. warships fired 47 cruise missiles at Sunni militant targets in northern Syria last week, the Pentagon signed a $251-million deal to buy more Tomahawks from Raytheon Co., a windfall for the military giant and its many subcontractors."
"But with U.S. and allied aircraft now bombing Islamic State and Al Qaeda positions in Iraq and Syria, including 41 airstrikes since Monday, many analysts foresee a boost to bottom lines for munitions manufacturers, weapons producers and other military contractors — including many in Southern California.
"There are plenty of reasons to think that defense spending is going to be on the rise again. Defense companies are not being harmed by the current situation.
- Wayne Plucker, an aerospace analyst with research firm Frost & Sullivan
The daily pounding by U.S. bombers, fighters and drones, and the resupply of European and Arab allies that have joined the effort, has cost nearly $1 billion so far, analysts say, and will cost billions more down the road."
And this is not a passing thing, but will be going on for years and years:
"Investors anticipate rising sales for precision-guided missiles and bombs, and other high-priced weapons, as well as sophisticated surveillance and reconnaissance equipment, as the Pentagon gears up for a conflict that commanders say is likely to last years."
Of course, we'll generously spread the gravy, with half a billion financing rogues and scoundrels adding another element to the chaos (and blowback down the road):
"Congress also has agreed to provide $500 million in weapons and training to Syrian rebels who can act as a ground force against the militants in Syria, although it's unclear whether that will require new stocks."
Of course, all this is just the beginning. More and more and more will be coming down the road, because, you see, it is an "emergency" that needs "emergency funding" - since it is never an emergency when poor people whose food stamps have been cut are going hungry and our infrastructure is falling apart:
"Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel says the Pentagon needs more money to combat Islamic State, and Pentagon officials have begun working with Congress on an emergency measure to make more available.
"We're going to require additional funding from Congress as we go forward," Hagel said at a news conference Sept. 26. "We're working now with appropriate committees on how we go forward with authorizations and funding.""
posted by VikingSword at 8:59 AM on October 3, 2014 [3 favorites]
The Troubled Background of the American Who Went to Fight ISIS in Syria
posted by Apocryphon at 11:17 AM on October 3, 2014
posted by Apocryphon at 11:17 AM on October 3, 2014
Workers Solidarity Movement (Ireland):
As darkness falls it appears ISIS have failed to capture Kobane today - fierce fighting is reported but the towns defenders heroically hold out. They have sworn they will deny Isis the Eid al-Adha prayers they boasted they would make in Kobane tomorrow. A large assault coming from the East and South West appears to have petered out in the last few minutes.
The defenders armed with light weapons have now held out longer than the five divisions of the Iraqi army did at Mosul, and those divisions were armed with tanks and other heavy weapons supplied by the US. Kurdish YPG video from the front lines clearly shows ISIS controlled US Tanks being used against them, presumably the US equipment captured when Mosul fell. A video ISIS have released even shows a destroyed home made armoured vehicle the defenders were using, built it appears around a bulldozer body. It looks like one of the workshop made 'tanks' that the anarchists in Spain built in 1936 as they faced German and Italian panzers while being denied Russian supplied tanks and heavy weapons. Very different situations, and such vehicles must be hopelessly mismatched against the ISIS armour.
The photograph above is a lesson for liberals who imagine human rights can be delivered by NATO action. NATO member Turkey holds an ever lengthening border with ISIS. Here at Kobane the Turkish army has parked its armoured vehicles pointing away from Kobane, presumably to demonstrate to ISIS that they intend to take no action and so there is no need to fire on them. Despite the ISIS tanks visible in the YPG videos from the fighting there have been almost no air strikes in the area.
At the end of the 1991 Gulf War George Bush allowed Saddam to destroy the insurrections in the south and the north of Iraq. Today Obama is allowing ISIS to assault the Kurdish zone of northern Syria with captured US supplied tanks on a relatively open plain. Whatever the realities of the libertarian experiment that it is claimed is in progress in the region it seems clear that Turkey, NATO and the US have decided to wait till ISIS liquidates Kobane and its defenders before intervening. On Twitter comparisons have been made with Stalingrad but perhaps the more apt one is the Warsaw Uprising.
Sounds like even when an intervention is made, it's not even done right, and isn't helping those who need it the most.
posted by Apocryphon at 6:11 PM on October 3, 2014 [2 favorites]
As darkness falls it appears ISIS have failed to capture Kobane today - fierce fighting is reported but the towns defenders heroically hold out. They have sworn they will deny Isis the Eid al-Adha prayers they boasted they would make in Kobane tomorrow. A large assault coming from the East and South West appears to have petered out in the last few minutes.
The defenders armed with light weapons have now held out longer than the five divisions of the Iraqi army did at Mosul, and those divisions were armed with tanks and other heavy weapons supplied by the US. Kurdish YPG video from the front lines clearly shows ISIS controlled US Tanks being used against them, presumably the US equipment captured when Mosul fell. A video ISIS have released even shows a destroyed home made armoured vehicle the defenders were using, built it appears around a bulldozer body. It looks like one of the workshop made 'tanks' that the anarchists in Spain built in 1936 as they faced German and Italian panzers while being denied Russian supplied tanks and heavy weapons. Very different situations, and such vehicles must be hopelessly mismatched against the ISIS armour.
The photograph above is a lesson for liberals who imagine human rights can be delivered by NATO action. NATO member Turkey holds an ever lengthening border with ISIS. Here at Kobane the Turkish army has parked its armoured vehicles pointing away from Kobane, presumably to demonstrate to ISIS that they intend to take no action and so there is no need to fire on them. Despite the ISIS tanks visible in the YPG videos from the fighting there have been almost no air strikes in the area.
At the end of the 1991 Gulf War George Bush allowed Saddam to destroy the insurrections in the south and the north of Iraq. Today Obama is allowing ISIS to assault the Kurdish zone of northern Syria with captured US supplied tanks on a relatively open plain. Whatever the realities of the libertarian experiment that it is claimed is in progress in the region it seems clear that Turkey, NATO and the US have decided to wait till ISIS liquidates Kobane and its defenders before intervening. On Twitter comparisons have been made with Stalingrad but perhaps the more apt one is the Warsaw Uprising.
Sounds like even when an intervention is made, it's not even done right, and isn't helping those who need it the most.
posted by Apocryphon at 6:11 PM on October 3, 2014 [2 favorites]
How The Battle For A Key Border City Is Changing Turkey's Approach To The Syria Crisis
posted by Golden Eternity at 10:16 AM on October 4, 2014
The main Syrian Kurdish militia, assorted elements of the Free Syria Army, and a previously quiet group called Jabhat al-Akrad banded together in September, raising eyebrows across the region. Announcing the establishment of a specialized task force — built around the nucleus of a "Euphrates Volcano" operations center — disparate groups of non-Islamist fighters declared their intention to liberate Raqqa and Aleppo.Turkey and the Kurds Hold the Key to Defeating the Islamic State
Over the years, the PKK has developed into a transnational social and political movement with separate but affiliated parties in the four parts of Kurdistan — in Iran, Syria, Iraq, and Turkey — all of which fall under the umbrella of the Kurdistan Communities Union (KCK). Their message incorporates women's rights, human rights, environmentalism, communalism, and ''democratic autonomy,'' a grassroots form of democracy and governance viewed by Ocalan's followers as a model for governing in the Middle East and Kurdistan.Middle East Week Podcast - Kobani Crisis & Airstrikes in Syria
...
Numbering nearly 2 million, or 10 percent of Syria's population, the Syrian Kurds inhabit three noncontiguous areas in north and northeastern Syria, a region known to Kurds as Rojava. The PKK's Syrian affiliate, the Democratic Union Party (PYD), was established in Syria in 2003 from remnants of the PKK, which until 1998 received support from Syria. Since the rebellion against President Bashar al-Assad began in 2011, the PYD has followed a so-called ''third path'' of siding with neither the regime nor Arab opposition.
posted by Golden Eternity at 10:16 AM on October 4, 2014
Syria: the Kurds who bravely fight against ISIS
But every attack by ISIS jihadist caused dozens of injuries. Every day there are dozens of these attacks. ” Among the fighters killed or wounded to defend Rojava (Western Kurdistan) from ISIS barbarian hordes, there are young people and many women. “The percentage of women who fight in the ranks of YPG / YPJ (People’s Protection Unit) – tells Berès – is very high. At least 40% of the fighters severly injured that I medicated are women. This is a feature unique to the region. The structures of Kurdish society are secular, women’s role is very important, at the head of every institution there are usually a man and a woman, a view which is in contraddiction with the typical misogyny of this area of the Middle East. This view also clashes with ISIS dogmatic fundamentalism. I was just a kilometer away from the battle front and I have seen women and young fighters repel the assaults of the jihadists with simple rifles and kalashnikov. Fighters are armed with courage, they often come from Turkish Kurdistan to help the resistence in Rojava. But they are equipped only with old Kalashnikovs.posted by Golden Eternity at 10:32 AM on October 4, 2014
A ‘Revolution’ under Attack
This quiet revolution is, however, not a question of independence. It is not the founding of yet another nation-state. Deliberately declaring itself an autonomy region instead of a state, derived from the critique of existing nation-states with their homogenising and exclusionary principals of citizenship, centralism of government and non-democratic structures under which the Kurds in Iran, Iraq, Turkey and Syria have suffered on the one hand and the strategies of classic national liberation movements on the other. This critique along with an alternative model of “democratic autonomy” was brought forward by the imprisoned leader of the PKK, Abdullah Öcalan, and replaced the earlier struggle for independence. The concept of democratic autonomy is envisaged along the lines of libertarian thinker Murray Bookchin as a decentralised, radical democracy within or despite the given nation-states which abides by principals of equality between genders, religious- and ethnic affiliations as well as ecology[2]. In this sense, the PKK and its affiliated organisation PYD (Democratic Union Party) in Syria are promoting this model, whose fundamental principal is to achieve a unity of all different faiths and ethnic groups without assimilating them, for the whole of the Middle East.posted by Golden Eternity at 4:18 PM on October 4, 2014 [2 favorites]
Within the past one and a half years the outnumbered Syrian military has been expelled from most parts of the region; police, secret service, and the civil service of the old regime have been dismantled, and the legal and education system transformed. Additionally, despite the detrimental security situation, central institutions for the most radical changes have been established in three main areas: the introduction of direct self-government through communes, assurance of equal participation in all areas of decision-making for all faith and ethnic groups and the strengthening of the position of women.
Aiming at decentralizing decision-making and realizing self-rule, village- or street communes consisting of 30-150 households have been organised. These communes decide on questions regarding administration, electricity, provision of nutrition, as well as discussing and solving other social problems. They have commissions for the organisation of defence, justice, infrastructure, ecology, youth, as well as economy. Some have erected communal cooperatives, e.g. bakeries, sewing workshops or agricultural initiatives[3]. They also organise the support of the poorest of the community with basic nutrition and fuel. Delegates of the communes form together a council for 7-10 villages or a city-district, and every city has yet another city council. The city council is made up of representatives of the communes, all political parties, the organisation of the fallen fighters, the women’s organisation, and the youth organisation. All councils as well as the communes have a 40% quota for women. The decisions are to be made on basis of consensus and equal speaking-time is enforced. Besides this, a co-chairperson system has been implemented for all organisations, which means that all councils have both a female and male chairperson. All members are suggested and elected by the population. However, according to the co-president of the PYD, Salih Muslim, this radical change from dictatorship to this form of self-rule is not an easy process: “The people are learning how to govern themselves”[4].
Golden Eternity wrote: I'm not sure if the "FSA" has ever been anywhere close to having the capability to defeat Assad who is heavily backed by Putin and Iran.
No, but at one point there was genuine international momentum for regime change. That fell apart with the Geneva II conference, which was boycotted by many of the opposition groups.
The reason for the Geneva II conference was that the international community wanted a genuine opposition group. It was ready to hand over Syria's UN seat and so forth to any plausible alternative government. I don't know that they would have been ready to intervene on its behalf, but I think they would: the main reason they didn't agree to military intervention back then was that the targets and beneficiaries were unclear (as they are now). I was frankly amazed when the opposition groups boycotted the conference. In my experience these boycotts always mean one of two things: either the boycotters know the process is going to go against them; or they are unable to hold their coalition together in the fact of public scrutiny. In the case of Geneva II I think it was the latter: the various opposition groups couldn't agree on representatives, or a platform, and would have been unable to bind their principals to any sort of deal. And that's why we're here now.
posted by Joe in Australia at 9:45 PM on October 4, 2014
No, but at one point there was genuine international momentum for regime change. That fell apart with the Geneva II conference, which was boycotted by many of the opposition groups.
The reason for the Geneva II conference was that the international community wanted a genuine opposition group. It was ready to hand over Syria's UN seat and so forth to any plausible alternative government. I don't know that they would have been ready to intervene on its behalf, but I think they would: the main reason they didn't agree to military intervention back then was that the targets and beneficiaries were unclear (as they are now). I was frankly amazed when the opposition groups boycotted the conference. In my experience these boycotts always mean one of two things: either the boycotters know the process is going to go against them; or they are unable to hold their coalition together in the fact of public scrutiny. In the case of Geneva II I think it was the latter: the various opposition groups couldn't agree on representatives, or a platform, and would have been unable to bind their principals to any sort of deal. And that's why we're here now.
posted by Joe in Australia at 9:45 PM on October 4, 2014
I think it is highly unlikely Russia would have agreed to any intervention unless they were the ones intervening - which they had already been doing and are still: on Assad's behalf.
posted by Golden Eternity at 9:53 PM on October 5, 2014
posted by Golden Eternity at 9:53 PM on October 5, 2014
Syria Daily: Islamic State Takes Key Hill Near Kobane
posted by Golden Eternity at 11:18 PM on October 5, 2014
An insurgent officer points to photos in the building, which he says prove the presence of Russian military forces in the facility.I seem to recall reading about captured conversations of Russian special forces in Ukraine talking about their experience operating in Syria.
The Oryx blog claims the post was for the operations of Russian and Syrian signals intelligence units, “recording and decrypting radio communications from every rebel group operating inside Syria”.
posted by Golden Eternity at 11:18 PM on October 5, 2014
At one point there was a suggestion that Assad be left with a sort of mini-Syria and the rest be split into Kurdish, Shiite, and whatever. I think the Russians might have gone along with that, and it would have been a good deal better than what we have now. But there was an outcry that Assad was evil (which is true) and that we couldn't possibly let somebody evil run a state (which is patently false).
In the other thread currently discussing Syria I linked to a Wikipedia summary on Civil Wars after 1945. It's quite worth reading.
posted by Joe in Australia at 11:19 PM on October 5, 2014
In the other thread currently discussing Syria I linked to a Wikipedia summary on Civil Wars after 1945. It's quite worth reading.
posted by Joe in Australia at 11:19 PM on October 5, 2014
« Older Running a server? Drop everything and update it... | I love how your torso has an arm on either side Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
Oh, but he also decided to keep bombing the crap out of the Middle East.
Nobel Peace Prize FTW.
posted by entropone at 7:52 PM on September 24, 2014 [52 favorites]