ISIS: What the US Doesn’t Understand
December 2, 2014 4:21 PM Subscribe
Over the last few days, as the United States has stepped up its bombing campaign against ISIS in Syria, it has been hard to escape another reality: the US is still looking for a coherent strategy against the Islamic State.
Along with its relentless drive across the deserts of Syria and Iraq, and its continued massacre of civilians and members of endangered minorities, ISIS can now also claim its first victim in Washington with the sacking of Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel. His departure—prompted in part by divisions with the White House over Syria policy—highlights the deep problems of an air offensive against ISIS that has alienated Arab states and other allies in NATO, even as it has failed to bring tangible results.
In contrast to al-Qaeda, however, ISIS has not made the US and its allies its main target. Where al-Qaeda directed its anger at the “distant enemy,” the United States, ISIS wants to destroy the near enemy, the Arab regimes, first. This is above all a war within Islam: a conflict of Sunni against Shia, but also a war by Sunni extremists against more moderate Muslims—between those who think the Muslim world should be dominated by a single strand of Wahhabism and its extremist offshoot Salafism and those who support a pluralistic vision of Muslim society. The leaders of ISIS seek to eliminate all Muslim and non-Muslim minorities from the Middle East—not only erasing the old borders and states imposed by Western powers, but changing the entire ethnic, tribal, and religious composition of the region.
Along with its relentless drive across the deserts of Syria and Iraq, and its continued massacre of civilians and members of endangered minorities, ISIS can now also claim its first victim in Washington with the sacking of Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel. His departure—prompted in part by divisions with the White House over Syria policy—highlights the deep problems of an air offensive against ISIS that has alienated Arab states and other allies in NATO, even as it has failed to bring tangible results.
In contrast to al-Qaeda, however, ISIS has not made the US and its allies its main target. Where al-Qaeda directed its anger at the “distant enemy,” the United States, ISIS wants to destroy the near enemy, the Arab regimes, first. This is above all a war within Islam: a conflict of Sunni against Shia, but also a war by Sunni extremists against more moderate Muslims—between those who think the Muslim world should be dominated by a single strand of Wahhabism and its extremist offshoot Salafism and those who support a pluralistic vision of Muslim society. The leaders of ISIS seek to eliminate all Muslim and non-Muslim minorities from the Middle East—not only erasing the old borders and states imposed by Western powers, but changing the entire ethnic, tribal, and religious composition of the region.
It's those unknown knowns.
posted by clarknova at 4:56 PM on December 2, 2014 [2 favorites]
posted by clarknova at 4:56 PM on December 2, 2014 [2 favorites]
The article seems to believe that Turkey is an Arabic country. Bizarre. Israel is closer to being an Arabic country than Turkey (20% Arabic citizens vs ~1%).
posted by justsomebodythatyouusedtoknow at 4:57 PM on December 2, 2014 [2 favorites]
posted by justsomebodythatyouusedtoknow at 4:57 PM on December 2, 2014 [2 favorites]
It seems obvious to me that the entire point of the air war is for Western governments to be seen doing something while not actually doing much at all.
Canada contributed a few F-18's to the mission, but it was the smallest contribution possible, and was done entirely to ensure Canada has some sort of credibility and voice at the table - far from the noble humanitarian goals the Canadian government mouths but no one actually believes.
In a way the Western support of the Arab Spring represents the same magical thinking on display after the invasion of Iraq, when, because of the destruction of the Iraqi government, Iraqis (and, for example Kuwaitis) were finally "free" to do whatever.
The Arab Spring, encouraged by Western countries weakened or removed whatever structures had been keeping a lid on the mafias (disguised as sectarian groups) that are running the show now.
And there is no political will or ability to get rid of the Syrian government, for example, and no will to support the Syrian government.
I have no idea if the writer of the NYR article here is right or not, but I think it's a mistake to posit that "the US doesn't understand" the situation.
I think the US is interested in managing and containing the status quo, because there are no easy ways out of this quagmire.
But with cheap oil comes the promise of more instability, so 2015 should be even more interesting than 2014. What a century so far...
posted by Nevin at 5:07 PM on December 2, 2014 [1 favorite]
Canada contributed a few F-18's to the mission, but it was the smallest contribution possible, and was done entirely to ensure Canada has some sort of credibility and voice at the table - far from the noble humanitarian goals the Canadian government mouths but no one actually believes.
In a way the Western support of the Arab Spring represents the same magical thinking on display after the invasion of Iraq, when, because of the destruction of the Iraqi government, Iraqis (and, for example Kuwaitis) were finally "free" to do whatever.
The Arab Spring, encouraged by Western countries weakened or removed whatever structures had been keeping a lid on the mafias (disguised as sectarian groups) that are running the show now.
And there is no political will or ability to get rid of the Syrian government, for example, and no will to support the Syrian government.
I have no idea if the writer of the NYR article here is right or not, but I think it's a mistake to posit that "the US doesn't understand" the situation.
I think the US is interested in managing and containing the status quo, because there are no easy ways out of this quagmire.
But with cheap oil comes the promise of more instability, so 2015 should be even more interesting than 2014. What a century so far...
posted by Nevin at 5:07 PM on December 2, 2014 [1 favorite]
This is above all a war within Islam: a conflict of Sunni against Shia, but also a war by Sunni extremists against more moderate Muslims—between those who think the Muslim world should be dominated by a single strand of Wahhabism and its extremist offshoot Salafism and those who support a pluralistic vision of Muslim society.
ISIS and its supporters often don't even like other strands of Salafism but their own: they mock Madkhalis who are just as fundamentalist as themselves but reject violence. Indeed, they seem to regard vast numbers of Muslim as unbelievers*, which must make their ultimate appeal actually rather narrow. The threat they pose is that the minority which do back them have absolutely no qualms about using violence to achieve their goals.
*There's a wonderful array of categories for how to classify "fake" Muslims, or so it seems: the Shia are rafida, or those who have rejected the right path; the Kurds are murtadeen, or apostates; the Arab monarchies and their supporters are munafiqeen, or hypocrites who only pretend to follow Islam correctly. Often they're all referred to as kuffar, which includes all non-Muslims.
Significantly, they have not condemned Israel at all,...
Have they put out a statement on the colour of the sky or where bears go to the toilet?
posted by Thing at 5:11 PM on December 2, 2014 [9 favorites]
ISIS and its supporters often don't even like other strands of Salafism but their own: they mock Madkhalis who are just as fundamentalist as themselves but reject violence. Indeed, they seem to regard vast numbers of Muslim as unbelievers*, which must make their ultimate appeal actually rather narrow. The threat they pose is that the minority which do back them have absolutely no qualms about using violence to achieve their goals.
*There's a wonderful array of categories for how to classify "fake" Muslims, or so it seems: the Shia are rafida, or those who have rejected the right path; the Kurds are murtadeen, or apostates; the Arab monarchies and their supporters are munafiqeen, or hypocrites who only pretend to follow Islam correctly. Often they're all referred to as kuffar, which includes all non-Muslims.
Significantly, they have not condemned Israel at all,...
Have they put out a statement on the colour of the sky or where bears go to the toilet?
posted by Thing at 5:11 PM on December 2, 2014 [9 favorites]
The article seems to believe that Turkey is an Arabic country.
How do you figure? Also Arabic is a language, Arab is an adjective.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 5:19 PM on December 2, 2014
How do you figure? Also Arabic is a language, Arab is an adjective.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 5:19 PM on December 2, 2014
Arab regimes need to come together far more than they have done if they are to convince their populations that the extremism carried out by ISIS in the name of Sunni Islam is destroying the traditional, tolerant Islam that most Arabs have always believed in. But only the US and NATO countries can make that happen through intense diplomatic activity across the region. Until it does, the US obsession with aerial bombardment will accomplish little.
The US obsession with aerial bombardment being viewed in any context other than a continuation of the creeping short term bolstering of the military-industrial complex is giving lie to any assertion that pursuing diplomatic, financial and humanitarian solutions to these issues is ever going to happen. There are no benevolent actors on the world stage, only ones with more or less at current short term risk. Nor is the world stage actually a place where benevolent actors can be said to exist, everyone has skin in the game, nobody lives much beyond 80-90 years and very few consider a view much beyond the scope of their lifetime and perhaps that of their children.
I'm sorry to be old and worn out by 39 years of age, but I hold out more hope of an actual working time machine being invented that circumvents causality and a Manhattan Project level think tank being formed to figure out where between the enlightenment and now that we could enact a rational socialist world government than any kind of solution to the world's problems being accomplished by anything short of a 50% extinction level event. I don't despair of human nature in any individual but the chrome has worn off the handlebars about our species.
tldr: AQ then ISIS then resource wars then ? = :(
posted by Divine_Wino at 5:31 PM on December 2, 2014 [9 favorites]
The US obsession with aerial bombardment being viewed in any context other than a continuation of the creeping short term bolstering of the military-industrial complex is giving lie to any assertion that pursuing diplomatic, financial and humanitarian solutions to these issues is ever going to happen. There are no benevolent actors on the world stage, only ones with more or less at current short term risk. Nor is the world stage actually a place where benevolent actors can be said to exist, everyone has skin in the game, nobody lives much beyond 80-90 years and very few consider a view much beyond the scope of their lifetime and perhaps that of their children.
I'm sorry to be old and worn out by 39 years of age, but I hold out more hope of an actual working time machine being invented that circumvents causality and a Manhattan Project level think tank being formed to figure out where between the enlightenment and now that we could enact a rational socialist world government than any kind of solution to the world's problems being accomplished by anything short of a 50% extinction level event. I don't despair of human nature in any individual but the chrome has worn off the handlebars about our species.
tldr: AQ then ISIS then resource wars then ? = :(
posted by Divine_Wino at 5:31 PM on December 2, 2014 [9 favorites]
The eighteenth-century founder of Wahhabi teachings, Muhammed Abd al-Wahhab (1703-1791), was neither a jihadist nor a promoter of violence and hatred. He was part of the anti-colonial revivalist movement within Islam at that time and his only abhorrence was Sufism, the mystical side of Islam.
Well, if there's some pointlessly subtle way in which Abd al-Wahhab wasn't an ancestral jihadist, he was certainly a fucking asshole.
posted by batfish at 5:32 PM on December 2, 2014 [2 favorites]
Well, if there's some pointlessly subtle way in which Abd al-Wahhab wasn't an ancestral jihadist, he was certainly a fucking asshole.
posted by batfish at 5:32 PM on December 2, 2014 [2 favorites]
PS: I ain't quitting the fight, just every year I put more and more stock into the great Soviet Army toast: Here is to the success of our hopeless task!
posted by Divine_Wino at 5:35 PM on December 2, 2014 [8 favorites]
posted by Divine_Wino at 5:35 PM on December 2, 2014 [8 favorites]
Reddit User Lonsdaleite:
posted by Drinky Die at 5:46 PM on December 2, 2014 [4 favorites]
So take all that in and imagine you're a typical Iraqi young man that shows up for training. You look around and everyone you see doesn't give a fuck about whats going on as long as they get a paycheck and a rifle. You notice people don't show up the next day. Your Iraqi officers aren't picked by meritocracy like the U.S. Army but by who is a Shia or who is rich. Everyone talks about how ISIS takes no prisoners and how Iraqi bases surrender en masse. You look at each others cellphones and see Iraqi soldiers get executed in droves.U.S. seeks to build lean Iraqi force to fight the Islamic State:
That's what I saw when I tried to train them. 1 out of 50 loved their country and tried hard. Some of them would show up very excited to get trained by the U.S. Army but by the end of the week most just kept their rifles and never returned. Half the ones that did stay would take our training and go home just to protect their neighborhoods against the opposing Sunni/Shia in their religious wars that were fought between mosques. None of them really saw the training as a tool to protect their country because they had little sense of nationalism.
As the Obama administration scrambles to counter the Islamic State, commanders have decided against trying to rebuild entire vanished divisions or introduce new personnel in underperforming, undermanned units across the country, according to U.S. officials. Rather, the officials said, the hope is to build nine new Iraqi army brigades — up to 45,000 light-infantry soldiers — into a vanguard force that, together with Kurdish and Shiite fighters, can shatter the Islamic State’s grip on a third of the country.Do we REALLY have to do this? Is it really an essential thing for American military interests? If so...can we just fucking send American troops we can trust instead of playing the training game again?
“The idea is, at least in the first instance, to try and build a kind of leaner, meaner Iraqi army,” said a senior U.S. official, who, like others, spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss planning.
posted by Drinky Die at 5:46 PM on December 2, 2014 [4 favorites]
Crazy idea: Let's stay out of it and let the countries in the neighborhood deal with them.
posted by Renoroc at 6:07 PM on December 2, 2014 [7 favorites]
posted by Renoroc at 6:07 PM on December 2, 2014 [7 favorites]
Israel is closer to being an Arabic country ...
I believe Netanyahu might disagree with you on that point this week ...
posted by ZenMasterThis at 6:14 PM on December 2, 2014 [1 favorite]
I believe Netanyahu might disagree with you on that point this week ...
posted by ZenMasterThis at 6:14 PM on December 2, 2014 [1 favorite]
Crazy idea: Let's stay out of it and let the countries in the neighborhood deal with them.
Yeah, it's 'over there'. We're 'over here'. Best pretend we didn't see anything.
posted by obiwanwasabi at 6:18 PM on December 2, 2014 [1 favorite]
Yeah, it's 'over there'. We're 'over here'. Best pretend we didn't see anything.
posted by obiwanwasabi at 6:18 PM on December 2, 2014 [1 favorite]
Israel is closer to being an Arabic country ...
I believe Netanyahu might disagree with you on that point this week ...
Oh, he'd agree. But with a catch. Israel's Jewish population is about 50% "Arab Jewish." Except they call themselves that in the same way Asterix and his friends call themselves Romans in Asterix in the Olympics.
posted by ocschwar at 6:19 PM on December 2, 2014 [2 favorites]
I believe Netanyahu might disagree with you on that point this week ...
Oh, he'd agree. But with a catch. Israel's Jewish population is about 50% "Arab Jewish." Except they call themselves that in the same way Asterix and his friends call themselves Romans in Asterix in the Olympics.
posted by ocschwar at 6:19 PM on December 2, 2014 [2 favorites]
According to the article, a Saudi + Jordanian leadership role is the key to success. Also, more coalition-yness, but coherent like, and with effective diplomatics.
posted by batfish at 6:20 PM on December 2, 2014 [1 favorite]
posted by batfish at 6:20 PM on December 2, 2014 [1 favorite]
Crazy idea: Let's stay out of it and let the countries in the neighborhood deal with them.
Is that idea crazy because no one has thought of it before or because the entire neighborhood has been manipulated by vested Western powers since probably about the age of sail and certainly since the the industrial era?
posted by Divine_Wino at 6:20 PM on December 2, 2014 [4 favorites]
Is that idea crazy because no one has thought of it before or because the entire neighborhood has been manipulated by vested Western powers since probably about the age of sail and certainly since the the industrial era?
posted by Divine_Wino at 6:20 PM on December 2, 2014 [4 favorites]
Crazy idea: Let's stay out of it and let the countries in the neighborhood deal with them.
Two words: Carter Doctrine.
posted by ocschwar at 6:22 PM on December 2, 2014 [2 favorites]
Two words: Carter Doctrine.
posted by ocschwar at 6:22 PM on December 2, 2014 [2 favorites]
Foreign Policy: Expert's picks: The top 10 sites to follow if you want to understand events in Iraq, by Joel Wing. They are:
National Iraqi News Agency
Niquash
Institute for the Study of War
All Iraq News Agency
Iraq and Gulf Analysis
Daily Updates From Anbar
Al Mada
Al Sumaria
Al Rayy
Aymennjawad
posted by the man of twists and turns at 6:25 PM on December 2, 2014 [9 favorites]
National Iraqi News Agency
Niquash
Institute for the Study of War
All Iraq News Agency
Iraq and Gulf Analysis
Daily Updates From Anbar
Al Mada
Al Sumaria
Al Rayy
Aymennjawad
posted by the man of twists and turns at 6:25 PM on December 2, 2014 [9 favorites]
Yeah, it's 'over there'. We're 'over here'. Best pretend we didn't see anything.
Let's pretend we can't see how we might have contributed to "it" happening with our previous interventions. The only sound conclusion from needing to go in now is that we were wrong to leave in the first place. Go ahead and argue that case if you want.
posted by Drinky Die at 6:28 PM on December 2, 2014 [5 favorites]
Let's pretend we can't see how we might have contributed to "it" happening with our previous interventions. The only sound conclusion from needing to go in now is that we were wrong to leave in the first place. Go ahead and argue that case if you want.
posted by Drinky Die at 6:28 PM on December 2, 2014 [5 favorites]
1 out of 50 loved their country and tried hard.
I'm surprised it's that many. "Iraq" is a country, but it isn't a nation. Who would fight for an irrelevant political entity founded by foreigners and subsequently controlled by foreigners for basically its entire history?
[They] would take our training and go home just to protect their neighborhoods against the opposing Sunni/Shia in their religious wars that were fought between mosques. None of them really saw the training as a tool to protect their country because they had little sense of nationalism.
Exactly. Why die for some weirdo from another tribe 100 miles away whose only connection to you is that some British or American diplomat/general/"liberator" says you ought to?
Family, neighbors, tribe, kin - that's who matters, that's who people die for. I think sometimes we forget that not everybody in the world has the civic religion of Americans, that says an attack on a stranger, anywhere - who is American - is an attack on all Americans.
Every week or so we get an article on "How to Beat ISIS". Every solution offered by every "expert" is different. But here's the real deal - they're winning because they're willing to do what we weren't to conquer a country. Take over, provide services, benevolence for those who submit, the sword for those who don't. No Geneva Conventions, no rules of engagement, no mercy. It's the oldest story in the book. And what can men do (using only airstrikes, and local militia who don't have their hearts in it) against such reckless hate?
posted by mrbigmuscles at 6:35 PM on December 2, 2014 [10 favorites]
I'm surprised it's that many. "Iraq" is a country, but it isn't a nation. Who would fight for an irrelevant political entity founded by foreigners and subsequently controlled by foreigners for basically its entire history?
[They] would take our training and go home just to protect their neighborhoods against the opposing Sunni/Shia in their religious wars that were fought between mosques. None of them really saw the training as a tool to protect their country because they had little sense of nationalism.
Exactly. Why die for some weirdo from another tribe 100 miles away whose only connection to you is that some British or American diplomat/general/"liberator" says you ought to?
Family, neighbors, tribe, kin - that's who matters, that's who people die for. I think sometimes we forget that not everybody in the world has the civic religion of Americans, that says an attack on a stranger, anywhere - who is American - is an attack on all Americans.
Every week or so we get an article on "How to Beat ISIS". Every solution offered by every "expert" is different. But here's the real deal - they're winning because they're willing to do what we weren't to conquer a country. Take over, provide services, benevolence for those who submit, the sword for those who don't. No Geneva Conventions, no rules of engagement, no mercy. It's the oldest story in the book. And what can men do (using only airstrikes, and local militia who don't have their hearts in it) against such reckless hate?
posted by mrbigmuscles at 6:35 PM on December 2, 2014 [10 favorites]
@obiwanwasabi, if you can point to a course of action the USA can take that a) has a chance of improving things, and b) won't make things worse, then I'd be delighted to consider it.
Until then, I think it's **LONG** past time the government and people of the USA admitted that blowing semi-random people up with drones in the middle east isn't really a strategy that accomplishes anything of value, and in fact that it tends to produce negative outcomes for US interests.
Doing something effective might be justifiable. Doing something known to be ineffective (and drone campaigns certainly count) is absolutely not justifiable. Doing something that is likely to be ineffective (spending money on arming or training resistance to ISIS) is also likely not justifiable.
Bush blew it big time. He horribly messed up for bad reasons, and in so doing he messed up the middle east for the forseeable future. The middle east wasn't in good shape pre-Bush, make no mistake. Vile and brutal dictators aren't good at all. But we've seen that quasi-anarchism with crazy theocratic gangs providing what little order exists is even worse than brutal dictators.
And I appreciate that many Americans, even those who aren't still insisting that if we just clap harder Bush's idiocy will turn into genius, feel responsible. Because we are. We failed utterly to stop the insanity of Bush's adventurism and many of us, even on the left, made the mistake of actually supporting Bush's adventurism. There's an urge to believe that since it is collectively our mess than the US has a responsibility to fix things.
But the US can't fix things in the middle east. It isn't that we lack the collective will to spend the necessary resources to fix things there, it is that the US actually fixing the middle east as as impossible as flying to the moon by flapping your arms really hard. It cannot be done. The US has, for very good reasons, absolutely no credibility there, no one trusts the US there, and all available tools the US can deploy will make things worse, not better.
The absolute best thing the USA could do for the middle east is get out and stop making the situation there worse.
posted by sotonohito at 6:52 PM on December 2, 2014 [19 favorites]
Until then, I think it's **LONG** past time the government and people of the USA admitted that blowing semi-random people up with drones in the middle east isn't really a strategy that accomplishes anything of value, and in fact that it tends to produce negative outcomes for US interests.
Doing something effective might be justifiable. Doing something known to be ineffective (and drone campaigns certainly count) is absolutely not justifiable. Doing something that is likely to be ineffective (spending money on arming or training resistance to ISIS) is also likely not justifiable.
Bush blew it big time. He horribly messed up for bad reasons, and in so doing he messed up the middle east for the forseeable future. The middle east wasn't in good shape pre-Bush, make no mistake. Vile and brutal dictators aren't good at all. But we've seen that quasi-anarchism with crazy theocratic gangs providing what little order exists is even worse than brutal dictators.
And I appreciate that many Americans, even those who aren't still insisting that if we just clap harder Bush's idiocy will turn into genius, feel responsible. Because we are. We failed utterly to stop the insanity of Bush's adventurism and many of us, even on the left, made the mistake of actually supporting Bush's adventurism. There's an urge to believe that since it is collectively our mess than the US has a responsibility to fix things.
But the US can't fix things in the middle east. It isn't that we lack the collective will to spend the necessary resources to fix things there, it is that the US actually fixing the middle east as as impossible as flying to the moon by flapping your arms really hard. It cannot be done. The US has, for very good reasons, absolutely no credibility there, no one trusts the US there, and all available tools the US can deploy will make things worse, not better.
The absolute best thing the USA could do for the middle east is get out and stop making the situation there worse.
posted by sotonohito at 6:52 PM on December 2, 2014 [19 favorites]
"...because the entire neighborhood has been manipulated by vested Western powers since probably about the age of sail and certainly since the the industrial era?"
But...
"One of the stereotypical features of a pirate in popular culture, the eye patch, dates back to the Arab corsair Rahmah ibn Jabir al-Jalahimah, who wore it after losing an eye in battle in the 18th century." (Wiki)
Argh?
posted by clavdivs at 6:54 PM on December 2, 2014 [3 favorites]
But...
"One of the stereotypical features of a pirate in popular culture, the eye patch, dates back to the Arab corsair Rahmah ibn Jabir al-Jalahimah, who wore it after losing an eye in battle in the 18th century." (Wiki)
Argh?
posted by clavdivs at 6:54 PM on December 2, 2014 [3 favorites]
I found this section the most chilling:
ISIS is on the borders of Lebanon and Jordan, where pro-ISIS riots have taken place; and last month ISIS cells in Saudi Arabia claimed to have killed eight Shias. In other words, ISIS has already established itself as a pan-Arab movement trying to transform the whole region and efforts to treat it as an Iraqi phenomenon will fail.
I live in Qatar and we've recently had "credible threat" warnings from the U.S. Embassy about attacks on Western teachers. If isolated nutjobs within Qatar decide to jump on the ISIS bandwagon, we could have casualty rates that approach the U.S. levels of gun violence. The last attack here was in 2005 by a married Egyptian programmer working for Qatar Gas.
posted by mecran01 at 6:56 PM on December 2, 2014
ISIS is on the borders of Lebanon and Jordan, where pro-ISIS riots have taken place; and last month ISIS cells in Saudi Arabia claimed to have killed eight Shias. In other words, ISIS has already established itself as a pan-Arab movement trying to transform the whole region and efforts to treat it as an Iraqi phenomenon will fail.
I live in Qatar and we've recently had "credible threat" warnings from the U.S. Embassy about attacks on Western teachers. If isolated nutjobs within Qatar decide to jump on the ISIS bandwagon, we could have casualty rates that approach the U.S. levels of gun violence. The last attack here was in 2005 by a married Egyptian programmer working for Qatar Gas.
posted by mecran01 at 6:56 PM on December 2, 2014
> the US is still looking for a coherent strategy against the Islamic State
How's this for a plan: stop bombing their civilians and infrastructure, and see if that makes them a little more friendly towards us. It's crazy that our politicians think our violence makes us safer. If someone bombed the US, would that make them any safer? Heck no. Violence begets violence, and since our stated goal is to prevent violent terrorism, maybe we should start practicing what we preach.
posted by foobaz at 7:05 PM on December 2, 2014 [7 favorites]
How's this for a plan: stop bombing their civilians and infrastructure, and see if that makes them a little more friendly towards us. It's crazy that our politicians think our violence makes us safer. If someone bombed the US, would that make them any safer? Heck no. Violence begets violence, and since our stated goal is to prevent violent terrorism, maybe we should start practicing what we preach.
posted by foobaz at 7:05 PM on December 2, 2014 [7 favorites]
Foreign Policy: Expert's picks: The top 10 sites to follow if you want to understand events in Iraq, by Joel Wing. They are:
Thank you, TMOTAT. To that list I'd add Patrick Cockburn's writings, often found in the LRB.
posted by standardasparagus at 7:07 PM on December 2, 2014 [1 favorite]
Thank you, TMOTAT. To that list I'd add Patrick Cockburn's writings, often found in the LRB.
posted by standardasparagus at 7:07 PM on December 2, 2014 [1 favorite]
"One of the stereotypical features of a pirate in popular culture, the eye patch, dates back to the Arab corsair Rahmah ibn Jabir al-Jalahimah, who wore it after losing an eye in battle in the 18th century." (Wiki)
Argh?
Argh you taking the piss? If not then I'd say that the influence of the eastern Empires was finally pushed back to almost nothing by somewhere after the end of WWI and everything else has been the fallout of the failure of the British Empire and the post-colonial adventures of America with Europe as a semi-compliant backstop to same. Those same post-colonial adventures require a little more overt nuance than straight empire building, but other than some transactional overhead and a little application of social science are basically the same thing. The history of the industrial world is not actually measured in discrete eras as lightly summed up in history books. That's why the American Vietnam war has been said to be fought for 18th century colonial ideals in the 1960's and 70's and as it turns out to the detriment of everybody, our American adventures in the Middle East and Central Asia are today.
Anyway I love you all, Marx was maybe better at economics than politics, and the baby having been thrown out with the bathwater could do with a good scrubbing, a wholesome meal and socialized healthcare, education and a decent effort by any government to enforce the fundamental equality of all human beings.
posted by Divine_Wino at 7:29 PM on December 2, 2014 [3 favorites]
Argh?
Argh you taking the piss? If not then I'd say that the influence of the eastern Empires was finally pushed back to almost nothing by somewhere after the end of WWI and everything else has been the fallout of the failure of the British Empire and the post-colonial adventures of America with Europe as a semi-compliant backstop to same. Those same post-colonial adventures require a little more overt nuance than straight empire building, but other than some transactional overhead and a little application of social science are basically the same thing. The history of the industrial world is not actually measured in discrete eras as lightly summed up in history books. That's why the American Vietnam war has been said to be fought for 18th century colonial ideals in the 1960's and 70's and as it turns out to the detriment of everybody, our American adventures in the Middle East and Central Asia are today.
Anyway I love you all, Marx was maybe better at economics than politics, and the baby having been thrown out with the bathwater could do with a good scrubbing, a wholesome meal and socialized healthcare, education and a decent effort by any government to enforce the fundamental equality of all human beings.
posted by Divine_Wino at 7:29 PM on December 2, 2014 [3 favorites]
What Obama Doesn't Understand About Syria
posted by the man of twists and turns at 7:31 PM on December 2, 2014
posted by the man of twists and turns at 7:31 PM on December 2, 2014
The situation is pretty simple. America went to war to crush a state we'd already weakened with sanctions so anglo-led multinationals could own its oil. Good old fashioned imperialism. It ended up not working, and after a decade we had lost all morale and our credit line.
In the power vacuum a real awful bunch of shits, funded by the usual suspects, managed to get traction. They are now an army. They have a a lot of gear and money, some of which they were given and some of which they plundered. They're a force to be reckoned with.
It's going to take another ground war to get rid of them. But Americans don't want one. We're scammed out. You won't be able to sell that to us for another twenty or thirty years. But this is a war we're morally obligated to fight. We broke it. It's incumbent on us to fix it. But we just can't be fucked to try. So if it can't be done with cheap robot planes and proxies the victims are on thier own.
A few weeks ago I made a post claiming one of the IS beheading videos was western propaganda. The brutality of this group just seemed too cartoonishishly evil. Their videos too cleanly produced. Their jingoistic arrogance too cliched. If you were a defense conglomerate trying one last, desperate push to get America back into an expensive war it looked like just the unscrupulous bullshit your PR team would gin up. Certainly American MILSPEC propaganda has orchestrated much bigger hoaxes.
But I was absolutely wrong. Islamic States really is that ugly. That horrific and stupid. They really are a caricature of an ethnic cleansing militia.
And they really ARE our responsibility now. Just like the new crop of horribly deformed Iraqi children are our responsibility. And the quarter million dead. And the razed infrastructure of a formerly developed society.
If isolated nutjobs within Qatar decide to jump on the ISIS bandwagon, we could have casualty rates that approach the U.S. levels of gun violence.
Considering the vast gulf between the ruling class and the abject poor in Qatar, you'll be very lucky if that's all you'll have.
posted by clarknova at 7:33 PM on December 2, 2014 [2 favorites]
In the power vacuum a real awful bunch of shits, funded by the usual suspects, managed to get traction. They are now an army. They have a a lot of gear and money, some of which they were given and some of which they plundered. They're a force to be reckoned with.
It's going to take another ground war to get rid of them. But Americans don't want one. We're scammed out. You won't be able to sell that to us for another twenty or thirty years. But this is a war we're morally obligated to fight. We broke it. It's incumbent on us to fix it. But we just can't be fucked to try. So if it can't be done with cheap robot planes and proxies the victims are on thier own.
A few weeks ago I made a post claiming one of the IS beheading videos was western propaganda. The brutality of this group just seemed too cartoonishishly evil. Their videos too cleanly produced. Their jingoistic arrogance too cliched. If you were a defense conglomerate trying one last, desperate push to get America back into an expensive war it looked like just the unscrupulous bullshit your PR team would gin up. Certainly American MILSPEC propaganda has orchestrated much bigger hoaxes.
But I was absolutely wrong. Islamic States really is that ugly. That horrific and stupid. They really are a caricature of an ethnic cleansing militia.
And they really ARE our responsibility now. Just like the new crop of horribly deformed Iraqi children are our responsibility. And the quarter million dead. And the razed infrastructure of a formerly developed society.
If isolated nutjobs within Qatar decide to jump on the ISIS bandwagon, we could have casualty rates that approach the U.S. levels of gun violence.
Considering the vast gulf between the ruling class and the abject poor in Qatar, you'll be very lucky if that's all you'll have.
posted by clarknova at 7:33 PM on December 2, 2014 [2 favorites]
In the power vacuum a real awful bunch of shits, funded by the usual suspects, managed to get traction. They are now an army. They have a a lot of gear and money, some of which they were given and some of which they plundered. They're a force to be reckoned with.
It's going to take another ground war to get rid of them. But Americans don't want one. We're scammed out. You won't be able to sell that to us for another twenty or thirty years. But this is a war we're morally obligated to fight.
Our good friends the Saudis are much closer, how about they pay back a little of America's kindness for letting them get away with 9/11 and they deal with the ground war this time instead?
posted by T.D. Strange at 7:49 PM on December 2, 2014 [2 favorites]
It's going to take another ground war to get rid of them. But Americans don't want one. We're scammed out. You won't be able to sell that to us for another twenty or thirty years. But this is a war we're morally obligated to fight.
Our good friends the Saudis are much closer, how about they pay back a little of America's kindness for letting them get away with 9/11 and they deal with the ground war this time instead?
posted by T.D. Strange at 7:49 PM on December 2, 2014 [2 favorites]
Even granting that ISIS is the responsibility of the U.S.A., it doesn't follow that U.S.A. action in the region will actually make things better. In fact if you're a liberal type who is truly concerned about people's welfare there you should support total withdrawal, since the entirety of the historical evidence available suggests we will make it worse.
All of the problems in the Middle East flow from people there sorting out two problems: 1) they hate colonialist imperialist invader types; and 2) they hate each other. People who hate colonialist imperial invader types are going to throw those types out, and they sure as shit won't fight for them. People who hate each other, deeply, fundamentally, can't live in the same nation, or even in the same neighborhood. And we'll go to great lengths to not have to do it. Pogroms, deportation, genocide, white flight, redlining, blockbusting, ghetto-ization, etc.
The U.S.A. was founded on a mountain of Native and African corpses, our leaders sit on a throne of skulls, and our borders were drawn in blood. Like most other nations, our history is one of unceasing violence and near-unimaginable cruelty and depravity. The Middle East is no different. There isn't a damned thing that the USA or any other country can do to prevent the (irrelevant) borders of the peoples who live there from being redrawn. And there's nothing we can do to stop the violence, nothing we can stomach anyway. It's just the way of things and the longer we write and read articles about "beating ISIS" and the more we vote and support politicians who think and act like there is anything we can do except make it worse, the longer that process will take.
posted by mrbigmuscles at 7:55 PM on December 2, 2014 [9 favorites]
All of the problems in the Middle East flow from people there sorting out two problems: 1) they hate colonialist imperialist invader types; and 2) they hate each other. People who hate colonialist imperial invader types are going to throw those types out, and they sure as shit won't fight for them. People who hate each other, deeply, fundamentally, can't live in the same nation, or even in the same neighborhood. And we'll go to great lengths to not have to do it. Pogroms, deportation, genocide, white flight, redlining, blockbusting, ghetto-ization, etc.
The U.S.A. was founded on a mountain of Native and African corpses, our leaders sit on a throne of skulls, and our borders were drawn in blood. Like most other nations, our history is one of unceasing violence and near-unimaginable cruelty and depravity. The Middle East is no different. There isn't a damned thing that the USA or any other country can do to prevent the (irrelevant) borders of the peoples who live there from being redrawn. And there's nothing we can do to stop the violence, nothing we can stomach anyway. It's just the way of things and the longer we write and read articles about "beating ISIS" and the more we vote and support politicians who think and act like there is anything we can do except make it worse, the longer that process will take.
posted by mrbigmuscles at 7:55 PM on December 2, 2014 [9 favorites]
This is nonsense on stilts:
I don't expect that Jews were treated much better or worse than Christians or Yezidis or whatever, but I happen to know a bit about the historical treatment of Jews in the Middle East: they were subjugated, robbed, oppressed, humiliated with a thousand laws and customs designed to remind them of their lowly status. There were laws governing their homes, their clothes, their place of worship, how they were to greet Muslims, the mandated gifts for officials, the special taxes. Their children were stolen as slaves or concubines, their possessions were ransacked, their lives themselves were at the mercy of local judges. And as for appealing to a court - if the court itself were not the one responsible for the oppression - Jews were legally incapable of testifying against Muslims. So traditional and tolerant my aunt Fanny: there's a reason why there are basically no Middle Eastern Jews left outside Israel.
posted by Joe in Australia at 8:05 PM on December 2, 2014 [4 favorites]
[T]he extremism carried out by ISIS in the name of Sunni Islam is destroying the traditional, tolerant Islam that most Arabs have always believed in.I don't know who the author counts as "Arabs" but basically every sect and ethnic group in the area has treated every other one like crap. Every story you hear to the contrary is wishful revisionism, on a par with "Mawmaw was always real good to the help."
I don't expect that Jews were treated much better or worse than Christians or Yezidis or whatever, but I happen to know a bit about the historical treatment of Jews in the Middle East: they were subjugated, robbed, oppressed, humiliated with a thousand laws and customs designed to remind them of their lowly status. There were laws governing their homes, their clothes, their place of worship, how they were to greet Muslims, the mandated gifts for officials, the special taxes. Their children were stolen as slaves or concubines, their possessions were ransacked, their lives themselves were at the mercy of local judges. And as for appealing to a court - if the court itself were not the one responsible for the oppression - Jews were legally incapable of testifying against Muslims. So traditional and tolerant my aunt Fanny: there's a reason why there are basically no Middle Eastern Jews left outside Israel.
posted by Joe in Australia at 8:05 PM on December 2, 2014 [4 favorites]
Our good friends the Saudis are much closer, how about they pay back a little of America's kindness for letting them get away with 9/11 and they deal with the ground war this time instead?
If you'd clicked on that link in the line you quoted, you'd see that SA is actually funding them. So I'm sure if you'd asked them "how about it?" the laughing response would be, "how about not?"
If we were going to indulge in a big imperialist invasion for oil after 9/11, the rational target would have been Saudi Arabia. The more I think about it the more I don't understand why not. Sure the state department and the Bush family had strong ties to them, but our home team was once chummy with Saddam, too. Why betray one but not the other?
And I'm sure a lot of regional governments would have secretly breathed a sigh of relief.
posted by clarknova at 8:11 PM on December 2, 2014 [1 favorite]
If you'd clicked on that link in the line you quoted, you'd see that SA is actually funding them. So I'm sure if you'd asked them "how about it?" the laughing response would be, "how about not?"
If we were going to indulge in a big imperialist invasion for oil after 9/11, the rational target would have been Saudi Arabia. The more I think about it the more I don't understand why not. Sure the state department and the Bush family had strong ties to them, but our home team was once chummy with Saddam, too. Why betray one but not the other?
And I'm sure a lot of regional governments would have secretly breathed a sigh of relief.
posted by clarknova at 8:11 PM on December 2, 2014 [1 favorite]
Our good friends the Saudis are much closer, how about they pay back a little of America's kindness for letting them get away with 9/11 and they deal with the ground war this time instead?
The Saudis are a client state*, we fight their wars, including the wars that certain aspects of their crazy-ass feudal kleptocracy helped fund and people the inception of as part of the whole "Great Game". This has come up several times, and in an ideal world I would agree, let's you and him fight, but the real deal is that the real enemy is, was and always will be the small portion of the population that has the wherewithal to pull the strings. You want a more simple view of this? Ok: Every single weapon in the hands of every single person shooting at each other anywhere in the world is built by the United States, Russia, China or a client state or tame, neutral member of the Global Conflict economy of same.
*as are the Israelis
posted by Divine_Wino at 8:13 PM on December 2, 2014 [1 favorite]
The Saudis are a client state*, we fight their wars, including the wars that certain aspects of their crazy-ass feudal kleptocracy helped fund and people the inception of as part of the whole "Great Game". This has come up several times, and in an ideal world I would agree, let's you and him fight, but the real deal is that the real enemy is, was and always will be the small portion of the population that has the wherewithal to pull the strings. You want a more simple view of this? Ok: Every single weapon in the hands of every single person shooting at each other anywhere in the world is built by the United States, Russia, China or a client state or tame, neutral member of the Global Conflict economy of same.
*as are the Israelis
posted by Divine_Wino at 8:13 PM on December 2, 2014 [1 favorite]
The US obsession with aerial bombardment being viewed in any context other than a continuation of the creeping short term bolstering of the military-industrial complex
No, we're going to buy the missiles anyway. Seriously; we have a massively bloated defense budget due to the military-industrial complex, but that's not why we use it. We still buy tanks and we don't use them, we still buy aircraft carriers and we don't use them. We don't need to "use up" bombs and missiles to buy new ones; we're going to buy them anyway. Our defense contracts haven't been realistically tied to actually fighting wars for some time now.
There's a lot that can be said about the military-industrial complex, but the hoary old Communist line about war for the gunmakers is totally outdated. It explains nothing about why we fight wars.
posted by spaltavian at 8:14 PM on December 2, 2014 [2 favorites]
No, we're going to buy the missiles anyway. Seriously; we have a massively bloated defense budget due to the military-industrial complex, but that's not why we use it. We still buy tanks and we don't use them, we still buy aircraft carriers and we don't use them. We don't need to "use up" bombs and missiles to buy new ones; we're going to buy them anyway. Our defense contracts haven't been realistically tied to actually fighting wars for some time now.
There's a lot that can be said about the military-industrial complex, but the hoary old Communist line about war for the gunmakers is totally outdated. It explains nothing about why we fight wars.
posted by spaltavian at 8:14 PM on December 2, 2014 [2 favorites]
However it explains everything about why the Wall Street Journal cheerleads for wars.
posted by telstar at 8:21 PM on December 2, 2014 [1 favorite]
posted by telstar at 8:21 PM on December 2, 2014 [1 favorite]
There's a lot that can be said about the military-industrial complex, but the hoary old Communist line about war for the gunmakers is totally outdated. It explains nothing about why we fight wars.
Oh wow, I'm a communist* because I imagine that the bloated defense budget is justified by constant low level war? I ain't never met a communist that my old wobblie ass could listen to for more than a minute. It's not about using them bud, as in using them up, it's about justifying the continual expense, munitions are just as harmful or even more harmful in their batteries and magazines than fired at humans.
Otto: No, I ain't no commie.
Bud: Well, you better not be. I don't want no commies in my car. No Christians either.
*who the fuck talks about communists as a viable player in the 21st century?
posted by Divine_Wino at 8:26 PM on December 2, 2014 [3 favorites]
Oh wow, I'm a communist* because I imagine that the bloated defense budget is justified by constant low level war? I ain't never met a communist that my old wobblie ass could listen to for more than a minute. It's not about using them bud, as in using them up, it's about justifying the continual expense, munitions are just as harmful or even more harmful in their batteries and magazines than fired at humans.
Otto: No, I ain't no commie.
Bud: Well, you better not be. I don't want no commies in my car. No Christians either.
*who the fuck talks about communists as a viable player in the 21st century?
posted by Divine_Wino at 8:26 PM on December 2, 2014 [3 favorites]
Our strategy is actually quite clear. We are going to kill people whom we re fairly certain are at least in proximity to the baddies using bombs and local proxies until the situation becomes more to our liking. What could possibly go wrong.
posted by humanfont at 8:34 PM on December 2, 2014 [1 favorite]
posted by humanfont at 8:34 PM on December 2, 2014 [1 favorite]
If we were going to indulge in a big imperialist invasion for oil after 9/11, the rational target would have been Saudi Arabia.
Because we didn't invade for oil. Does anyone have more oil now? Americans get their oil from the Western Hemisphere, and so as long as the Middle East is pumping it out to keep the market price stable (and they were), there's no petroleum-based reason to invade Iraq.
The invasion of Iraq was due to a constellation of factors lining up. Some people in the Bush administration were probably even dumb enough to believe in their own bin Laden/Hussein collaboration nonsense, but it was more about a sweeping neo-conservative vision of a new Pax Americana. Post 9/11 fear; a pathological need to appear "strong", legacy grasping and paranoia and dislike of the UN and international consensus driving them to the opposite conclusion all played a part.
At the end of the day, though, they didn't really have to settle on one or a few coherent reasons- and they never did, even publicly- because they thought 9/11 gave them a blank check domestically. They were right, for about four years. But in 2002, it was Christmas on the right, and everyone got to pick something off the shelf.
here's a lot that can be said about the military-industrial complex, but the hoary old Communist line about war for the gunmakers is totally outdated. It explains nothing about why we fight wars.
Oh wow, I'm a communist*
Not what I said. That is a classic Leninist line that's been around forever, though, and it was frequently (and incorrectly) invoked to explain WWI. It's just wrong. The line is Communist, I did not say you were, calm down.
I imagine that the bloated defense budget is justified by constant low level war?
No one has had to justify the defense budget in the last 50 years. We buy weapons for economic and political reasons. No one is worried about the lefties would do with all that Pentagon cash, it's never going to happen. The Navy is a lot more worried that the Air Force is going to get the space command money, or the Marines are worried they'll get Army hand-me-downs rather than their own thing. No one is worried their budget will be cut to build a school. That's just not how appropriations works.
posted by spaltavian at 8:34 PM on December 2, 2014 [6 favorites]
Because we didn't invade for oil. Does anyone have more oil now? Americans get their oil from the Western Hemisphere, and so as long as the Middle East is pumping it out to keep the market price stable (and they were), there's no petroleum-based reason to invade Iraq.
The invasion of Iraq was due to a constellation of factors lining up. Some people in the Bush administration were probably even dumb enough to believe in their own bin Laden/Hussein collaboration nonsense, but it was more about a sweeping neo-conservative vision of a new Pax Americana. Post 9/11 fear; a pathological need to appear "strong", legacy grasping and paranoia and dislike of the UN and international consensus driving them to the opposite conclusion all played a part.
At the end of the day, though, they didn't really have to settle on one or a few coherent reasons- and they never did, even publicly- because they thought 9/11 gave them a blank check domestically. They were right, for about four years. But in 2002, it was Christmas on the right, and everyone got to pick something off the shelf.
here's a lot that can be said about the military-industrial complex, but the hoary old Communist line about war for the gunmakers is totally outdated. It explains nothing about why we fight wars.
Oh wow, I'm a communist*
Not what I said. That is a classic Leninist line that's been around forever, though, and it was frequently (and incorrectly) invoked to explain WWI. It's just wrong. The line is Communist, I did not say you were, calm down.
I imagine that the bloated defense budget is justified by constant low level war?
No one has had to justify the defense budget in the last 50 years. We buy weapons for economic and political reasons. No one is worried about the lefties would do with all that Pentagon cash, it's never going to happen. The Navy is a lot more worried that the Air Force is going to get the space command money, or the Marines are worried they'll get Army hand-me-downs rather than their own thing. No one is worried their budget will be cut to build a school. That's just not how appropriations works.
posted by spaltavian at 8:34 PM on December 2, 2014 [6 favorites]
> This is above all a war within Islam: a conflict of Sunni against Shia, but also a war by Sunni extremists against more moderate Muslims
The US invaded Iraq under false pretenses and has been bombing them senseless for more than a decade. Millions have died, the economy is in shambles, and there is a whole generation growing up now who has known nothing but war. And when they take up arms, we blame it on their religion? We are shocked to discover that there is now anti-American sentiment in the region? I want to know, who among us could live through that and not become radicalized ourselves?
Of course religion plays a major role. But they could have been Christian or Buddhist, and the results would have been the same. These people are not inherently violent or anti-American. We made them that way.
posted by foobaz at 8:43 PM on December 2, 2014 [4 favorites]
The US invaded Iraq under false pretenses and has been bombing them senseless for more than a decade. Millions have died, the economy is in shambles, and there is a whole generation growing up now who has known nothing but war. And when they take up arms, we blame it on their religion? We are shocked to discover that there is now anti-American sentiment in the region? I want to know, who among us could live through that and not become radicalized ourselves?
Of course religion plays a major role. But they could have been Christian or Buddhist, and the results would have been the same. These people are not inherently violent or anti-American. We made them that way.
posted by foobaz at 8:43 PM on December 2, 2014 [4 favorites]
"The history of the industrial world is not actually measured in discrete eras as lightly summed up in history books. That's why the American Vietnam war has been said to be..."
A pissing contest with the Michelin man?
I assume your referring to George Novaks' "Uneven and combined Development in World History?
For example: " as history advances, there occurs a faster or slower growth of productive forces in this or that segment of society, owing to the differences in natural conditions and historical connections."
For example: when the Middle East saw it's first big money from oil companies, the sheiks did fairly well.
But the upgrading of new technologies and ideas cannot help but undermine as they break up the conditions for which old tribal regimes rested and create new forces to oppose and replace them.
IMO, then don't take the money.
posted by clavdivs at 8:44 PM on December 2, 2014
A pissing contest with the Michelin man?
I assume your referring to George Novaks' "Uneven and combined Development in World History?
For example: " as history advances, there occurs a faster or slower growth of productive forces in this or that segment of society, owing to the differences in natural conditions and historical connections."
For example: when the Middle East saw it's first big money from oil companies, the sheiks did fairly well.
But the upgrading of new technologies and ideas cannot help but undermine as they break up the conditions for which old tribal regimes rested and create new forces to oppose and replace them.
IMO, then don't take the money.
posted by clavdivs at 8:44 PM on December 2, 2014
I'm sure if you'd asked them "how about it?" the laughing response would be, "how about not?"
My point was the Saudis are funding this disaster in their own back yard, if their end goal is to help construct a medieval terror state as their new neighbor, Im not sure why we should stop them, rather than leave them to deal with the inevitable consequences. Yes, Bush started this current cycle of violence, but I don't buy that there's any moral imperative keeping successive US administrations from walking away, as its clear that no improvement can or will ever occur as a result of US intervention.
If we were going to indulge in a big imperialist invasion for oil after 9/11, the rational target would have been Saudi Arabia. The more I think about it the more I don't understand why not. Sure the state department and the Bush family had strong ties to them, but our home team was once chummy with Saddam, too. Why betray one but not the other?
Agreed, if/when there's a next time, Riyadh should maybe be the starting point.
posted by T.D. Strange at 8:45 PM on December 2, 2014 [1 favorite]
My point was the Saudis are funding this disaster in their own back yard, if their end goal is to help construct a medieval terror state as their new neighbor, Im not sure why we should stop them, rather than leave them to deal with the inevitable consequences. Yes, Bush started this current cycle of violence, but I don't buy that there's any moral imperative keeping successive US administrations from walking away, as its clear that no improvement can or will ever occur as a result of US intervention.
If we were going to indulge in a big imperialist invasion for oil after 9/11, the rational target would have been Saudi Arabia. The more I think about it the more I don't understand why not. Sure the state department and the Bush family had strong ties to them, but our home team was once chummy with Saddam, too. Why betray one but not the other?
Agreed, if/when there's a next time, Riyadh should maybe be the starting point.
posted by T.D. Strange at 8:45 PM on December 2, 2014 [1 favorite]
Ok all good, forgot why I avoid politics on the internet, thanks for telling me to calm down, I'll consider that from my fortress of hysteria.
posted by Divine_Wino at 8:52 PM on December 2, 2014
posted by Divine_Wino at 8:52 PM on December 2, 2014
My own proposal, for both Iraq and Afghanistan: allocate a bunch of money -- maybe whatever we'd spend on this over the next year, tops -- and use it and a very short-term military incursion if necessary to go in and pull out all the Iraqis and Afghanis who put their lives on the line to help us (and their families) and who want to get out, because we owe that to them. We owe it to those who remain, and we owe them real assistance in resettling in the US. Or, at least, those of them that are left, since so many of them have already died.
And then get out.
One of those items we tend to forget on our list of shameful failures in this mess is just how many interpreters and other friendly locals we've left behind. So many have applied to immigrate; the number of approval is inexcusably, atrociously low. I acknowledge that we'll never find them all at this point, but it's awful that we haven't even tried.
posted by scaryblackdeath at 8:56 PM on December 2, 2014 [1 favorite]
And then get out.
One of those items we tend to forget on our list of shameful failures in this mess is just how many interpreters and other friendly locals we've left behind. So many have applied to immigrate; the number of approval is inexcusably, atrociously low. I acknowledge that we'll never find them all at this point, but it's awful that we haven't even tried.
posted by scaryblackdeath at 8:56 PM on December 2, 2014 [1 favorite]
One of those items we tend to forget on our list of shameful failures in this mess is just how many interpreters and other friendly locals we've left behind. So many have applied to immigrate; the number of approval is inexcusably, atrociously low. I acknowledge that we'll never find them all at this point, but it's awful that we haven't even tried.
Pace my arguments with my endocrinological betters, this is a very good point. It is soul-crushingly shameful that all of the US interpreters and allies in Iraq and Afghanistan were not given immediate green cards (or whatever the appropriate legal status is) and immigration support as terms of their employment.
posted by Divine_Wino at 9:02 PM on December 2, 2014 [6 favorites]
Pace my arguments with my endocrinological betters, this is a very good point. It is soul-crushingly shameful that all of the US interpreters and allies in Iraq and Afghanistan were not given immediate green cards (or whatever the appropriate legal status is) and immigration support as terms of their employment.
posted by Divine_Wino at 9:02 PM on December 2, 2014 [6 favorites]
Because we didn't invade for oil.
I seriously hope you don't believe that.
Im not sure why we should stop them, rather than leave them to deal with the inevitable consequences.
The reasons would be moral and humanitarian. And I'm not sure those chickens would ever come home to roost for SA. If there's one thing the House of Saud is truly good at, it's deflecting justifiable revolutionary rage.
posted by clarknova at 9:04 PM on December 2, 2014 [1 favorite]
I seriously hope you don't believe that.
Im not sure why we should stop them, rather than leave them to deal with the inevitable consequences.
The reasons would be moral and humanitarian. And I'm not sure those chickens would ever come home to roost for SA. If there's one thing the House of Saud is truly good at, it's deflecting justifiable revolutionary rage.
posted by clarknova at 9:04 PM on December 2, 2014 [1 favorite]
Depending on whose charts you believe, the US is already energy-independent, or will be within the next few years. A widening WTI-vs.-Brent (eg.) spread favors US producers.
Perhaps deliberate destabilization of Middle East oil producers IS the US's strategy.
posted by ZenMasterThis at 9:05 PM on December 2, 2014 [4 favorites]
Perhaps deliberate destabilization of Middle East oil producers IS the US's strategy.
posted by ZenMasterThis at 9:05 PM on December 2, 2014 [4 favorites]
clarknova: the rational target would have been Saudi Arabia. The more I think about it the more I don't understand why not.
Possibly because any attack on Saudi Arabia could easily be spun as an attack on Mecca and Medina. If there’s one thing that could get everyone to temporarily put aside their differences it would be that.
posted by El Mariachi at 9:27 PM on December 2, 2014 [2 favorites]
Possibly because any attack on Saudi Arabia could easily be spun as an attack on Mecca and Medina. If there’s one thing that could get everyone to temporarily put aside their differences it would be that.
posted by El Mariachi at 9:27 PM on December 2, 2014 [2 favorites]
Some things to understand about the middle east and ISIS
1. ISIS considers nothing but ISIS, their goals are simple. Whatever we are, or do, or did, are irrelevant. They are so simple, neat, they are a plot. They are not our business. If the middle east wants to return to the middle ages, no problem.
3. If the middle east does not want this, they have to shake a leg.
4. This is how the Middle East rolls, it is what they do. They are good at it.
5. Read the history of the area, they have been handing each other their asses since before the Mastodons died out.
6. They have a will and a passion for this.
7. The social structures attendant to polygamy, poverty, abandonment, slavery, and the fanaticism that comes from monosexual society, make for the all or nothing mindset of one camp, and the suffering and submission of the other. They have nothing to lose, they will be so happy to hand us our international rainbow coalition asses collectively. They are brothers and fanaticism, war, and judgement is pleasant for them. It is a brutal feast of man love, acted out by destroying and enslaving unbelievers.
8. The question is more, why would you put your hand in a bag of scorpions? What could be the long distance prize? Money men and their political toadies are jumping up and down to get someone to die for them over there, for war and oil routing. Every ISIS guy is a slightly different version of some dictator we have put on a throne of skulls. Every politician trying to suss out a plan reading the web, Is just looking for a photo op pose to strike. Really it is family over there, they have to hash it out.
posted by Oyéah at 9:29 PM on December 2, 2014 [3 favorites]
1. ISIS considers nothing but ISIS, their goals are simple. Whatever we are, or do, or did, are irrelevant. They are so simple, neat, they are a plot. They are not our business. If the middle east wants to return to the middle ages, no problem.
3. If the middle east does not want this, they have to shake a leg.
4. This is how the Middle East rolls, it is what they do. They are good at it.
5. Read the history of the area, they have been handing each other their asses since before the Mastodons died out.
6. They have a will and a passion for this.
7. The social structures attendant to polygamy, poverty, abandonment, slavery, and the fanaticism that comes from monosexual society, make for the all or nothing mindset of one camp, and the suffering and submission of the other. They have nothing to lose, they will be so happy to hand us our international rainbow coalition asses collectively. They are brothers and fanaticism, war, and judgement is pleasant for them. It is a brutal feast of man love, acted out by destroying and enslaving unbelievers.
8. The question is more, why would you put your hand in a bag of scorpions? What could be the long distance prize? Money men and their political toadies are jumping up and down to get someone to die for them over there, for war and oil routing. Every ISIS guy is a slightly different version of some dictator we have put on a throne of skulls. Every politician trying to suss out a plan reading the web, Is just looking for a photo op pose to strike. Really it is family over there, they have to hash it out.
posted by Oyéah at 9:29 PM on December 2, 2014 [3 favorites]
A different opinion on the subject.
Mister Nerd isn't always correct, but some of his points are very interesting.
posted by qinn at 9:34 PM on December 2, 2014 [2 favorites]
Mister Nerd isn't always correct, but some of his points are very interesting.
posted by qinn at 9:34 PM on December 2, 2014 [2 favorites]
"With the looming withdrawal of U.S. forces from Afghanistan, thousands of Afghans who have served as military interpreters are in limbo as the State Department works to clear a backlog of SIV applications. Congress had authorized 8,750 visas for Afghan interpreters, but only 1,982 have been issued through Dec. 10." http://articles.latimes.com/2014/jan/31/world/la-fg-afghanistan-interpreters-20140131
That is one heck of a backlog.
I wonder if a presidential order could help speed things along. The form to fill out is interesting.
posted by clavdivs at 9:40 PM on December 2, 2014
That is one heck of a backlog.
I wonder if a presidential order could help speed things along. The form to fill out is interesting.
posted by clavdivs at 9:40 PM on December 2, 2014
I don't even care if the fantasies of Dictator Obama exceeding his authority have to come true to make it happen, Obama should make it happen.
posted by Drinky Die at 9:45 PM on December 2, 2014
posted by Drinky Die at 9:45 PM on December 2, 2014
The nerd is a good read. Creepily, they have the ISIS leader's wife and child. Family style warfare.
posted by Oyéah at 10:22 PM on December 2, 2014
posted by Oyéah at 10:22 PM on December 2, 2014
State, Labor, and CIS handles the VISA's and the president handles those departments. Seems 4000 applications will be given out this year.
posted by clavdivs at 10:25 PM on December 2, 2014
posted by clavdivs at 10:25 PM on December 2, 2014
The US doesn’t want to remove him from power until ISIS is defeated, while the Arabs largely want him gone now. But future US policy on Syria will only be successful if it is made in concert with Arab governments. The US will have to tilt to Arab wishes if it wants the coalition to continue. In recent weeks, the US has been discussing a shared military strategy in Syria with Turkey, but it is not yet clear what will come of it.
The author seems to have an agenda to topple Assad. Assad is a war criminal and should have been charged with war crimes a long time ago, but a Sunni led coalition attempting to topple Assad in Damascus would widen the conflict and cause a lot more suffering. The Turkish security zone being reconsidered would be good imo, unless it used by Turkey to crack down on the Kurds, as they fear it will.
Firstly, the Arab states who are most directly affected by ISIS’s rise to power should be leading the coalition, not the Pentagon.
Unfortunately, the Sunni states continue to provide a lot of support to the jihadists, many of whom eventually end up in Daesh, and are far more concerned about toppling Assad. Turkey opening its borders for Western jihadists is a big part of how the problem got so bad to begin with. Turkey's foreign minister has written about how he thinks Western style secular governments can not succeed in the ME and they and Qatar are trying to bring about unified Muslim Brotherhood leadership throughout the Arab countries. Many Shi'a militias supported by Iran are committing huge attrocities in Iraq and Syria. This situation makes it a bad idea to cede too much leadership to the "Arab states" and Turkey it seems to me.
ISIS has already established itself as a pan-Arab movement trying to transform the whole region and efforts to treat it as an Iraqi phenomenon will fail.
The US isn't focusing on Iraq because they think Daesh is an Iraqi phenomenon, it's because they have partnerships with Baghdad and Erbil and relationships with some of the Sunni tribes and can actually formulate some sort of a strategy there. They have none of that inside Syria, except for the dubious "FSA," and the PYD (an enemy of Turkey).
Another bright spot in Iraq is the Ayatullah Sistani, who was instrumental in the rejection of Maliki and often praises Sunnis and reconciliation in his Friday prayers. If Iraq somehow holds together and recovers from this, Sistani sould get a Nobel.
I thought this was quite good. It goes into some depth on Syria:
New Yorker: The Vortex - A Turkish city on the frontier of Syria’s war.
posted by Golden Eternity at 1:16 AM on December 3, 2014 [2 favorites]
The author seems to have an agenda to topple Assad. Assad is a war criminal and should have been charged with war crimes a long time ago, but a Sunni led coalition attempting to topple Assad in Damascus would widen the conflict and cause a lot more suffering. The Turkish security zone being reconsidered would be good imo, unless it used by Turkey to crack down on the Kurds, as they fear it will.
Firstly, the Arab states who are most directly affected by ISIS’s rise to power should be leading the coalition, not the Pentagon.
Unfortunately, the Sunni states continue to provide a lot of support to the jihadists, many of whom eventually end up in Daesh, and are far more concerned about toppling Assad. Turkey opening its borders for Western jihadists is a big part of how the problem got so bad to begin with. Turkey's foreign minister has written about how he thinks Western style secular governments can not succeed in the ME and they and Qatar are trying to bring about unified Muslim Brotherhood leadership throughout the Arab countries. Many Shi'a militias supported by Iran are committing huge attrocities in Iraq and Syria. This situation makes it a bad idea to cede too much leadership to the "Arab states" and Turkey it seems to me.
ISIS has already established itself as a pan-Arab movement trying to transform the whole region and efforts to treat it as an Iraqi phenomenon will fail.
The US isn't focusing on Iraq because they think Daesh is an Iraqi phenomenon, it's because they have partnerships with Baghdad and Erbil and relationships with some of the Sunni tribes and can actually formulate some sort of a strategy there. They have none of that inside Syria, except for the dubious "FSA," and the PYD (an enemy of Turkey).
Another bright spot in Iraq is the Ayatullah Sistani, who was instrumental in the rejection of Maliki and often praises Sunnis and reconciliation in his Friday prayers. If Iraq somehow holds together and recovers from this, Sistani sould get a Nobel.
I thought this was quite good. It goes into some depth on Syria:
New Yorker: The Vortex - A Turkish city on the frontier of Syria’s war.
posted by Golden Eternity at 1:16 AM on December 3, 2014 [2 favorites]
All of the problems in the Middle East flow from people there sorting out two problems: 1) they hate colonialist imperialist invader types; and 2) they hate each other.
Bullshit on stilts.
Let's start with #2, shall we? Do the Mideasterners really hate each other that much? Then pray tell, why aren't Arab-heavy regions of the US, like Dearborn, MI, Toledo OH, or the state of New Hampshire, why aren't they smoldering war zones? You'll find representative families of both sides of almost every conflict living in those areas.
It's true that the American state and predominant culture gives immigrants a strong message that they have to leave their hatreds behind when coming here (and Europeans really should take a fucking hint about that - successful immigrant societies require more than just the willingness to issue residence visas). But it's also true that most of these immigrants aren't harboring that kind of hate to begin with.
When you're seeing Iraqis reach for their rifles and serve with the militias they've decided to join, the predominant reason is that those militas offer the most credible promise of helping these Iraqis guard their hearth & home, which is where the Iraqi state is failing. (And where the former Iraql state wasn't even trying to begin with.) Same deal with Syria.
These people are not atavists. They are stuck inside failed nation states, and are playing the hand they are dealt. If some magic wand out there could turn Iraq or Syria into credible multi-communal states that would uphold the rights and dignity of all Syrians or Iraqis, most of those militia fighters would grab it and use it to that end.
Except for ISIS. Those guys just need killing.
posted by ocschwar at 7:38 AM on December 3, 2014 [2 favorites]
> Creepily, they have the ISIS leader's wife and child. Family style warfare.
Jason Ditz posts this is an exaggerated claim.
posted by bukvich at 7:48 AM on December 3, 2014
Jason Ditz posts this is an exaggerated claim.
posted by bukvich at 7:48 AM on December 3, 2014
Then pray tell, why aren't Arab-heavy regions of the US, like Dearborn, MI, Toledo OH, or the state of New Hampshire, why aren't they smoldering war zones?
Non-arab cops?
Except for ISIS. Those guys just need killing.
But by whom, there's the question.
posted by IndigoJones at 10:24 AM on December 3, 2014
Non-arab cops?
Except for ISIS. Those guys just need killing.
But by whom, there's the question.
posted by IndigoJones at 10:24 AM on December 3, 2014
IHS Jane's 360: Turkey frustrated at European reluctance for deeper defence co-operation
posted by rosswald at 10:46 AM on December 3, 2014
posted by rosswald at 10:46 AM on December 3, 2014
Then pray tell, why aren't Arab-heavy regions of the US, like Dearborn, MI, Toledo OH, or the state of New Hampshire, why aren't they smoldering war zones? You'll find representative families of both sides of almost every conflict living in those areas.
My guess would be the same reason I don't hate the English. My family moved to America, and didn't stay in Ireland. I don't think the comment you're responding to is arguing that groups in the Middle East genetically hate each other.
posted by spaltavian at 2:03 PM on December 3, 2014
My guess would be the same reason I don't hate the English. My family moved to America, and didn't stay in Ireland. I don't think the comment you're responding to is arguing that groups in the Middle East genetically hate each other.
posted by spaltavian at 2:03 PM on December 3, 2014
Turkey frustrated at European reluctance for deeper defence co-operation
Turkey,
which is presently occupying a member of the EU,
which has been nurturing a civil war in its neighbour's territory,
which is led by a nutter,
which is yet another potential target of Russia,
presently hosting members of Hamas,
a mono-colour country,
which ruthlessly suppresses any reference to the genocide of the Armenians,
frustrated at European reluctance to embrace further problems.
posted by Joe in Australia at 5:01 PM on December 3, 2014 [2 favorites]
Turkey,
frustrated at European reluctance to embrace further problems.
posted by Joe in Australia at 5:01 PM on December 3, 2014 [2 favorites]
Really disappointing what's happening there, too. Turkey seemed like it was on a good trajectory quite recently.
posted by spaltavian at 5:38 AM on December 4, 2014
posted by spaltavian at 5:38 AM on December 4, 2014
I don't think the comment you're responding to is arguing that groups in the Middle East genetically hate each other.
Correct.
For example we all know that Lebanon was for a long time basically a peaceful and prosperous multicultural society right up until it blew up in 1975; there are ancient synagogues in Baghdad which used to have a thriving Jewish population; John of Damascus wrote a refutation of Islam while under the protection of an Islamic caliph, etc etc. But things sure ain't the way they used to be!
If some magic wand out there could turn Iraq or Syria into credible multi-communal states that would uphold the rights and dignity of all Syrians or Iraqis, most of those militia fighters would grab it and use it to that end.
But that's just the point! There is no magic wand. Even assuming "Iraqis" today want a multi-communal state (questionable - do the Kurds really want to be governed by Shiites, or anybody but themselves?) what reason is there to think the US or anybody else can give them one? What reason is there to think we won't just make things worse? "Do nothing" sounds cruel, and is hard to say in the face of so much suffering, but I really just haven't seen any plan or rationale for intervention that doesn't look just like the failed nation-building attempts of the past.
posted by mrbigmuscles at 6:22 AM on December 4, 2014 [1 favorite]
Correct.
For example we all know that Lebanon was for a long time basically a peaceful and prosperous multicultural society right up until it blew up in 1975; there are ancient synagogues in Baghdad which used to have a thriving Jewish population; John of Damascus wrote a refutation of Islam while under the protection of an Islamic caliph, etc etc. But things sure ain't the way they used to be!
If some magic wand out there could turn Iraq or Syria into credible multi-communal states that would uphold the rights and dignity of all Syrians or Iraqis, most of those militia fighters would grab it and use it to that end.
But that's just the point! There is no magic wand. Even assuming "Iraqis" today want a multi-communal state (questionable - do the Kurds really want to be governed by Shiites, or anybody but themselves?) what reason is there to think the US or anybody else can give them one? What reason is there to think we won't just make things worse? "Do nothing" sounds cruel, and is hard to say in the face of so much suffering, but I really just haven't seen any plan or rationale for intervention that doesn't look just like the failed nation-building attempts of the past.
posted by mrbigmuscles at 6:22 AM on December 4, 2014 [1 favorite]
there are ancient synagogues in Baghdad which used to have a thriving Jewish population
It was the center of Jewish life from say 200 CE to around the year 1000 CE. After that it had a large Jewish population, but Europe was the center. That's because of Muslim persecution. The Jewish community there was basically destroyed in the 1930s and 1940s and the last I heard there were six Jews left. That was a while ago though, they may have fled or been murdered.
So please stop it with the "peaceful and prosperous multicultural society". Life for Jews in Arab countries was perilous. You don't need to go any further than the fact that Jews couldn't take Muslims to court, or testify against them.
posted by Joe in Australia at 2:44 PM on December 4, 2014
It was the center of Jewish life from say 200 CE to around the year 1000 CE. After that it had a large Jewish population, but Europe was the center. That's because of Muslim persecution. The Jewish community there was basically destroyed in the 1930s and 1940s and the last I heard there were six Jews left. That was a while ago though, they may have fled or been murdered.
So please stop it with the "peaceful and prosperous multicultural society". Life for Jews in Arab countries was perilous. You don't need to go any further than the fact that Jews couldn't take Muslims to court, or testify against them.
posted by Joe in Australia at 2:44 PM on December 4, 2014
Al-Arabiya seems serious about this, but my sense of satire has been sprained lately: Jihadelicious? ISIS shares new pancake recipe
posted by Joe in Australia at 4:36 PM on December 4, 2014
posted by Joe in Australia at 4:36 PM on December 4, 2014
I have had trouble believing many recent reports out of Lebanon. This Op Ed concurs with my own reading of the situation: ISIS will devour Lebanon
One thing I didn't know: Hezbollah has apparently contracted out a whole lot of its security to the PFLP. This is weird for a whole lot of reasons. Firstly, Lebanon subcontracted Hezbollah which subcontracted the PFLP. Secondly, the PFLP is Palestinian, not Lebanese, and Lebanon (which has a huge Palestinian population) has deliberately excluded Palestinians from citizenship, professional jobs, free movement and residence. Thirdly, the PFLP is notionally secular - Marxist, actually. Hezbollah is a theologically-inspired group. So, weird for a whole lot of reasons.
posted by Joe in Australia at 4:44 PM on December 4, 2014 [1 favorite]
One thing I didn't know: Hezbollah has apparently contracted out a whole lot of its security to the PFLP. This is weird for a whole lot of reasons. Firstly, Lebanon subcontracted Hezbollah which subcontracted the PFLP. Secondly, the PFLP is Palestinian, not Lebanese, and Lebanon (which has a huge Palestinian population) has deliberately excluded Palestinians from citizenship, professional jobs, free movement and residence. Thirdly, the PFLP is notionally secular - Marxist, actually. Hezbollah is a theologically-inspired group. So, weird for a whole lot of reasons.
posted by Joe in Australia at 4:44 PM on December 4, 2014 [1 favorite]
ISIS isn't gong to devour Lebanon. There will be violence and trouble, but there is always violence and trouble in Lebanon. Three things to keep in mind. First all the non-Sunni factions are terrified of Daesh and are rallying around Hezbollah. Second Hezbollah is a highly capable military organizations. Third while some members of the Sunni community support ISIS and Salafist groups; these groups and the larger Lebanese Sunni community is not united.
ISIS may be able to pull off some spectacular attacks, but they will not be able to gain any significant territory in Lebnanon, much less devour it.
posted by humanfont at 5:51 PM on December 4, 2014 [1 favorite]
ISIS may be able to pull off some spectacular attacks, but they will not be able to gain any significant territory in Lebnanon, much less devour it.
posted by humanfont at 5:51 PM on December 4, 2014 [1 favorite]
Humanfont: I'm not sure about that. Hezbollah and the Lebanese army have reportedly been unable to operate in the north-eastern border mountains for some time.
posted by Joe in Australia at 5:56 PM on December 4, 2014
posted by Joe in Australia at 5:56 PM on December 4, 2014
Al Arabiya says the DNA tests confirm it is the daughter of the ISIS leader. I am glad to aee everyone getting into the act, even ome Chechens decided on a Grozny rerun, that was handled in short order.
posted by Oyéah at 6:11 PM on December 4, 2014
posted by Oyéah at 6:11 PM on December 4, 2014
Kidnapping someone's wife and daughter so you can use them as hostages is actually a war crime. I would have hoped that a journal calling itself "Antiwar.com" would recognise this.
posted by Joe in Australia at 6:51 PM on December 4, 2014
posted by Joe in Australia at 6:51 PM on December 4, 2014
Kidnapping someone's wife and daughter so you can use them as hostages is actually a war crime.
Kidnapping them to use them as hostages is a war crime. Capturing them for their value in terms of war intelligence isn't. The distinction is pretty subtle obviously. Kind of like how assassinating an enemy leader is a war crime but shooting down an enemy airplane that you know happens to be carrying Admiral Yamamoto is not.
posted by Justinian at 7:40 PM on December 4, 2014
Kidnapping them to use them as hostages is a war crime. Capturing them for their value in terms of war intelligence isn't. The distinction is pretty subtle obviously. Kind of like how assassinating an enemy leader is a war crime but shooting down an enemy airplane that you know happens to be carrying Admiral Yamamoto is not.
posted by Justinian at 7:40 PM on December 4, 2014
Those reports are inaccurate Joe. Nusra capture Arsal for about 3 days in August and was beaten back. Those mountains have a rough reputation and recent events have not changed that.
posted by humanfont at 7:56 PM on December 4, 2014
posted by humanfont at 7:56 PM on December 4, 2014
But that's just the point! There is no magic wand. Even assuming "Iraqis" today want a multi-communal state (questionable - do the Kurds really want to be governed by Shiites,
No, what Iraqis today are reluctant to do is risk their fortunes, their lives, and their honor, rallying behind the flag of a state that lacks credibility.
Instead they rally behind the flags of their smaller communities because those flags stand for instutitions with more credibility.
If a magic wand could make such a state come into being, they'd ask for it.
posted by ocschwar at 7:48 AM on December 5, 2014 [2 favorites]
Syria's al Qaeda offshoot Nusra said on Friday it killed a captive Lebanese soldier in retaliation for the arrest by Lebanese authorities of women identified as wives of Islamist militants.
posted by Joe in Australia at 8:28 PM on December 6, 2014
Lebanese authorities earlier this week said they had detained a wife of Islamic State leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi and the wife of a Nusra front leader..As I said above, this looks like a war crime. I don't expect anyone will be indicted for it, though. The rest of the article seems to be conveying an elliptical message:
The women were apparently viewed by some Lebanese security elements as a possible bargaining chip with the militants to gain the release of the captive soldiers.
Last Tuesday, at least six Lebanese soldiers were killed by gunmen from Syria who attacked an army patrol near the border.I think the implication is that the "armed men" who "appeared in the streets" are associated with these "protesters". And if they're armed "hardline ... Sunni Islamists" that oppose Hezbollah's intervention on behalf of Assad that means the Syrian civil war is effectively within Lebanon right now.
Shortly after the execution of Ali al-Bazzal was announced, protesters blocked a highway near his home village of Bazalia not far from Arsal. Armed men also appeared in the streets there, security sources said.
Many Sunni Syrian rebels and hardline Lebanese Sunni Islamists accuse Lebanon's army of working with the Lebanese Shi'ite movement Hezbollah, which has sent fighters to aid Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, a member of the Shi'ite-derived Alawite minority.
posted by Joe in Australia at 8:28 PM on December 6, 2014
Syrian state TV claims Israel has bombed two installations, one near Damascus and one near the Lebanese border
posted by adamvasco at 1:06 PM on December 7, 2014
posted by adamvasco at 1:06 PM on December 7, 2014
From The Christian Science Monitor, which has broken a surprising number of stories lately: UN reports Israeli support for Syria rebels
We already knew Israel was treating wounded Syrians, but the report indicates that the rebel groups were in actual communication with Israel. The report also says that the UN observers "observed IDF on the Alpha side handing over two boxes to armed members of the opposition on the Bravo side.". Two boxes isn't very much, if that transfer is representative, but it's interesting that it occurred at all.
posted by Joe in Australia at 5:26 PM on December 7, 2014 [1 favorite]
We already knew Israel was treating wounded Syrians, but the report indicates that the rebel groups were in actual communication with Israel. The report also says that the UN observers "observed IDF on the Alpha side handing over two boxes to armed members of the opposition on the Bravo side.". Two boxes isn't very much, if that transfer is representative, but it's interesting that it occurred at all.
posted by Joe in Australia at 5:26 PM on December 7, 2014 [1 favorite]
@Charles_Lister: "ISIS sources reporting full capture of Deir ez Zour airport. If accurate, it would be a major defeat for #Syria Army."
Oops, now I'm seeing that fighting is still ongoing. This may just be a rumor.
posted by Golden Eternity at 10:52 AM on December 8, 2014
Oops, now I'm seeing that fighting is still ongoing. This may just be a rumor.
posted by Golden Eternity at 10:52 AM on December 8, 2014
Pearl Harbor just a montage, Erdoğan says
posted by Golden Eternity at 1:28 PM on December 8, 2014
Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan has continued his criticism of various aspects of reality, now claiming that “everyone should know that the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor was a Hollywood montage."Weird.
"Do not hope for objective points of view in a world where Americans and Japanese decide according to their own ideologies, politics, beliefs and marketing needs. Anything that happens in the middle of an ocean is subject to scrutiny. I mean, it's so far away that anything and everything could be staged. Do you know who Isoroku Yamamoto was? He was a Japanese admiral. Do you know what 'Isoroku Yamamoto' means in Turkish? It means 'Fethullah Gulen', that's what. Hah! And Hirohito means 'parallel' " said Erdoğan, speaking at the Presidential Awards Ceremony on Dec. 3. He also said he was fed up with all the ceremonies in Hawaii every December 7 because some fishing boat sank seventy years ago.
posted by Golden Eternity at 1:28 PM on December 8, 2014
A few weeks ago Erdogan claimed that Moslems discovered America. He has made other weird claims, and consequently someone made a widely-distributed satire in which he denied that people went to the Moon. I expect that this is another of those satires.
posted by Joe in Australia at 2:10 PM on December 8, 2014
posted by Joe in Australia at 2:10 PM on December 8, 2014
Oh. Yes it satire. Oops.
posted by Golden Eternity at 2:56 PM on December 8, 2014
posted by Golden Eternity at 2:56 PM on December 8, 2014
In His Own Words, an Iranian Fighter Explains Tehran’s War in Syria
posted by Golden Eternity at 9:15 AM on December 9, 2014 [1 favorite]
posted by Golden Eternity at 9:15 AM on December 9, 2014 [1 favorite]
AJE: Russia's burgeoning ISIL problem - As many as 2,500 people from Russia's restive North Caucasus region have become fighters in Syria and Iraq.
posted by rosswald at 7:27 PM on December 10, 2014 [1 favorite]
posted by rosswald at 7:27 PM on December 10, 2014 [1 favorite]
Yes, well: Beheading damages our image, Yemen al-Qaeda boss rules
posted by Joe in Australia at 9:17 PM on December 10, 2014
posted by Joe in Australia at 9:17 PM on December 10, 2014
The US is on the verge of losing its last remaining elements of leverage & policy interest in the Syrian conflict.
posted by Golden Eternity at 7:19 AM on December 11, 2014
posted by Golden Eternity at 7:19 AM on December 11, 2014
Unmasked: the man behind top Islamic State Twitter account
...the man operating the account (@ShamiWitness) is called Mehdi and he is an executive in Bangalore working for an Indian conglomerate.One Of The Most Popular Sources On Syria Happens To Be An Extremist Supporter
[...]
Mehdi said he would have gone to join Islamic State himself, but his family were financially dependent on him: "If I had a chance to leave everything and join them I might have.. my family needs me here."
[...]
ShamiWitness seemed to express glee at the deaths and rapes of Kurdish fighters on Twitter, but later said that this comment was taken out of context.
He had written and later deleted the tweet where he said: "@ArjDnn I should thank PKK for recruiting female fighters, specially the ones caught alive by rebels. lol".
Shami, who is not connected to any armed group, regularly interacts with some of the foremost experts of the increasingly complex conflict. His access to and understanding of what's happening on the ground make him a useful source of information.posted by Golden Eternity at 12:55 PM on December 11, 2014 [1 favorite]
[...]
Shami's analysis has been published by Jihadology, a clearinghouse for information relating to Global Jihadism run by prominent expert Aaron Zelin, and on the blog of jihadi expert Pieter van Ostaeyen.
I wonder how the new government in India will respond to this revelation.
posted by humanfont at 5:13 PM on December 11, 2014
posted by humanfont at 5:13 PM on December 11, 2014
How do you mean? The guy's reportedly an individual. I suppose what he's doing may be illegal, but it doesn't look like the sort of thing that should cause a policy crisis.
posted by Joe in Australia at 5:52 PM on December 11, 2014
posted by Joe in Australia at 5:52 PM on December 11, 2014
The current leader of India oversaw Gujarat during the anti-muslim riots in 2002. He and his party are Hindu nationalists. There have been some issues with Pakistan of late. Things are tense. I wouldn't expect a crisis, but it will he interesting to see what response if any the government makes wrt this report.
posted by humanfont at 9:13 PM on December 11, 2014
posted by humanfont at 9:13 PM on December 11, 2014
IHS Jane's 360: Syrian military and ISIS have been ‘ignoring’ each other on the battlefield - according to information from the IHS Jane’s Terrorism and Insurgency Centre (IHS JTIC) database [...] the Islamic State and Assad’s security forces have embraced the clever strategy of ignoring each other while focusing on attacking more moderate opposition groups.
posted by rosswald at 1:32 AM on December 12, 2014
posted by rosswald at 1:32 AM on December 12, 2014
Sunni Tribes Will Bet on the Strong Horse, and That’s ISIS
posted by Golden Eternity at 9:53 PM on December 12, 2014
He and other tribal leaders throughout the province had worked closely with American troops in those days, convinced they had a long-term commitment: that the U.S. could be counted on, that they were “the strong horse,” as al-Shammari would say later.For the US to be the 'Strong Horse,' they would have to be permanently heavily engaged with the Sunni tribes militarily and financially. Why is it that Iran is so effective at running Shia militias, if not the Iraqi and Syrian governments, and Saudi Arabia is so unable to support Sunni militias that they have to turn to Daesh?
He was wrong, he now acknowledges, on all counts, and in Amman he would make his displeasure clear at a meeting with a U.S. special forces officer he had worked with. The message he was delivering was simple: On October 5, 23 tribes in Iraq and Syria were going to declare their allegiance to the Islamic State (commonly known as ISIS). They had not been attacked—not yet, anyway—so were not doing so under duress.
[...]
“We have to believe that the U.S. and the coalition is the winning side. That [the tribes] can trust the United States, and that this is a long-term commitment. Can you do that? We don’t think so. And unless you do, you are no longer the ‘strong horse;’ the jihadis are. So we are dealing with reality.” And that reality, he concludes wearily, “probably means another decade of war.”
posted by Golden Eternity at 9:53 PM on December 12, 2014
I suspect that part of the answer is the different social structures of Iran and Saudi Arabia. Iran is a highly militarised society run on a permanent revolutionary basis. There are lots of intelligent, well-trained Iranians who are willing to serve their country's interests abroad, even if this means leading or joining a foreign militia. As for those militias themselves, they have the hope of becoming part of the new power structure if and when their own revolution succeeds.
Saudi Arabia has a very different military. Wikipedia says that
Q: What's the Saudi anthem?
A: Onward Christian Soldiers.
The problem (then and now) is that Saudi Arabia is a kingdom and a Saudi's position within the power structure depends on his relationship to other Saudis. They don't really have the idea of national service as a means of advancement, because there's little or no means of advancement between levels. The people they support can't even hope to become senior figures in, say, a new Kingdom of Syria. So while Iranian troops and/or agents are despatched by a system that demands and rewards good military service and Iranian-supported militias have the hope of rising to literally any level of power, there's no possibility that Saudi agents and Saudi-supported militia could get to be anything other than a direct (rather than indirect) subordinate of a prince. Consequently, Saudi-supported militia are motivated by their own needs and their desire to keep munitions flowing, not by any loyalty to Saudi Arabia.
This is why you have this weird jihadist economy based on swapping jihad and atrocity videos for munitions: there's no overall strategy, the Saudis aren't looking for an overall victory or the triumph of a particular rebel group, and hence there's no reason for the Saudis to supply resources in a meaningful and coherent way. Consequently, Saudi-supported militias are a fractured bunch of loons, and ISIS - the most successful of them - is the one that excels at PR and out-atrocitied the others.
posted by Joe in Australia at 6:26 PM on December 13, 2014 [2 favorites]
Saudi Arabia has a very different military. Wikipedia says that
Saudi Arabia ranks among the top 5 nations in the world in government spending for its military, representing about 9 percent of its gross domestic product in 2013. Its modern high-technology arsenal makes Saudi Arabia among the world’s most densely armed nations, with its military equipment being supplied primarily by the US, France and Britain.Despite this expenditure you wouldn't say that the Saudi military ranks in the first five - or ten - for effectiveness. In fact, I suspect that Saudi Arabia would collapse if it faced a genuine existential threat: I have no doubt that without the US's intervention Saddam would have conquered it easily. I remember the joke at the time was:
Q: What's the Saudi anthem?
A: Onward Christian Soldiers.
The problem (then and now) is that Saudi Arabia is a kingdom and a Saudi's position within the power structure depends on his relationship to other Saudis. They don't really have the idea of national service as a means of advancement, because there's little or no means of advancement between levels. The people they support can't even hope to become senior figures in, say, a new Kingdom of Syria. So while Iranian troops and/or agents are despatched by a system that demands and rewards good military service and Iranian-supported militias have the hope of rising to literally any level of power, there's no possibility that Saudi agents and Saudi-supported militia could get to be anything other than a direct (rather than indirect) subordinate of a prince. Consequently, Saudi-supported militia are motivated by their own needs and their desire to keep munitions flowing, not by any loyalty to Saudi Arabia.
This is why you have this weird jihadist economy based on swapping jihad and atrocity videos for munitions: there's no overall strategy, the Saudis aren't looking for an overall victory or the triumph of a particular rebel group, and hence there's no reason for the Saudis to supply resources in a meaningful and coherent way. Consequently, Saudi-supported militias are a fractured bunch of loons, and ISIS - the most successful of them - is the one that excels at PR and out-atrocitied the others.
posted by Joe in Australia at 6:26 PM on December 13, 2014 [2 favorites]
The alleged owner of the shami witness Twitter account has been arrested and named publically according to various news outlets.
Meanwhile in Lebanon the army arrested a number of Salafist leaders this week near Tripoli. Included in the list was the son of the main Salafist cleric in Lebanon. They also arrested more wives of various ISIS leaders. Amine Gemayel the leader of the main Christian party and part of a storied Lebanese political dynasty made a visit to south Lebanon to make nice with the Shi'ite and Druze leaders there. It would appear if civil war breaks out it will be everyone be the Sunni's which will would be different from the big 70s-90s war when all the groups fought each other.
posted by humanfont at 7:16 PM on December 13, 2014
Meanwhile in Lebanon the army arrested a number of Salafist leaders this week near Tripoli. Included in the list was the son of the main Salafist cleric in Lebanon. They also arrested more wives of various ISIS leaders. Amine Gemayel the leader of the main Christian party and part of a storied Lebanese political dynasty made a visit to south Lebanon to make nice with the Shi'ite and Druze leaders there. It would appear if civil war breaks out it will be everyone be the Sunni's which will would be different from the big 70s-90s war when all the groups fought each other.
posted by humanfont at 7:16 PM on December 13, 2014
A former al-Shabab fighter tells his story
Did you carry out any attacks?posted by Golden Eternity at 10:47 AM on December 15, 2014 [1 favorite]
No, I was a real soldier. Those carrying out attacks are secret groups. I had nothing to do with them. We mostly fought against Ethiopian troops that were stationed in the country.
What you're describing makes it sound like al-Shabab is some kind of a state.
Yes, the structure is really that of a government. Al-Shabab has ministries of information, health, domestic affairs and so on. It's just that they call them offices, not ministries.
What is al-Shabab's goal?
They want to turn Somalia into an Islamist state. But they also have pan-African and international ambitions.
A former information minister would always say that "as long as we can't hoist the Islamic flag in Alaska, we have to go on fighting."
There are many Islamist terrorist groups in Africa: al-Shabab, Boko Haram, al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb, Ansar Dine, among others. How interconnected are they?
There are very close links. First, there are the shared beliefs. But that is by far not all. To give a concrete example, many important Boko Haram figures from Nigeria were trained in Somali training camps. Al-Shabab fighters regularly travel to Yemen for training and vice versa. There are many such links.
Rewriting Syria’s War - An influential, unpublished report looks to radically revise notions of how to achieve peace in this war-torn country.
posted by Golden Eternity at 12:46 PM on December 18, 2014
posted by Golden Eternity at 12:46 PM on December 18, 2014
Syrian Bomb Plot Marked Deadly Turn in Civil War - New Revelations Suggest Killing of Bashar al-Assad’s Brother-in-Law Was Inside Job
posted by Golden Eternity at 4:07 PM on December 19, 2014
posted by Golden Eternity at 4:07 PM on December 19, 2014
German Journalist Returns From Time With ISIS With Chilling Stories
“I think the Islamic State is a lot more dangerous than Western leaders realize. They believe in what they are fighting for and are preparing the largest religious cleansing campaign the world has ever seen."posted by Golden Eternity at 12:14 PM on December 22, 2014
[...]
Todenhöfer told German press that there is an “almost ecstatic enthusiasm” for the jihadist group in the city and one that he has not seen “in any other war zone”. He also said that there was a constant stream of men coming to sign up to fight. “When we stayed at their recruitment house, there were 50 new fighters who came every day. And I just could not believe the glow in their eyes.
[...]
The fighter also had a stark warning for the West, telling Todenhöfer: “We will conquer Europe one day. It is not a question of if we will conquer Europe, just a matter of when that will happen.”
« Older Dave's Killer Bread | Face the face Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
- Rumsfeld's conscience
posted by Artful Codger at 4:40 PM on December 2, 2014 [3 favorites]