ISIS/ISIL

[Chad]

More pistols and fewer westerners?

So like, providing weapons and support, but allowing the Arabs to supply their own ground troops?

As in, exactly the creative solution that the liberal who has no idea how things work proposed in the article?

No. Just the opposite. In a modern military, pistols are for officers and tankers. Soldiers who are never supposed touse them. Pistols are better than clubs, but not much more serious.

Conversely, a civilian with a pistol is an armed citizen. He is much more capable of dealing with a civilian threat. An armed society is much less subject to the whims of tyrants. Whether that tyrant is a dictator, or a company commander.
Arming 10% or more of the civilian population, and leaving, would be the best move we could make.

You think the problem is that civilians can't get guns in Iraq or elsewhere in that region? Come on.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/03/world ... d=all&_r=0

Access to weapons is not an issue for these people. You are doing exactly what Jacob very aptly describes above. You are blinded by your own idealism.

[Chad]

Last night's speech was such a good example of how politics is all theater. There is so much pressure on Obama to 'do something' but, as pointed out earlier, there's nothing to be done right now. It forces him to make a speech outlining what the US will do which technically is what the US was already doing, only covertly. Sprinkle in some statements calling ISIS a cancer for soundbites, and you have a speech that is meaningless except for bringing up that pesky "Is this legal?" question whenever covert becomes overt.

This isn't a criticism of Obama in particular, just the pointlessness of so much of this.

Yeah, the "do something" chant is loud right now. Of course, the options of the "do something" crowd are always the same...war. That is the short game and a losing strategy, as has been demonstrated since the end of WWII. The Middle East has a lot to sort out, so let's let them do it.

[Chad]

Wow, riggerjack, your rhetoric is shockingly polemic and dumb.

Yeah, this isn't helpful. Riggerjack's first sentence or so in his initial response was similar and not helpful either. Let's not continue down this path of emotional responses. Pointing out flaws in arguments or making a counter argument is fine, but we shouldn't make flat emotionally charged declaratives that do nothing but insult the person.

[jacob]

The gun culture in the US is nothing compared to the gun culture in Iraq. Many Iraqis carry automatic rifles (ubiquitous Ak47s) for self-defense (much like many Americans have a 12 gauge lying around somewhere). Some of the tribes (post 2003) even had their own tanks. Old tanks, but still tanks, which they turned over to the US in return for money.

The problem with guns is that even guns are no match for larger military hardware. For example, the Peshmerga does not have access to heavy hardware. The IS has heavy US hardware, which they got from overrunning Iraqi Sunni positions---which were easy to overrun, perhaps not so surprisingly, giving Sunni dissatisfaction with the official government.

I should add:

7) The West supplying heavy armor to the force du jour.

This strategy hasn't changed either.

[Dragline]

As much as I respect Switzerland, they have their own Muslim problems. They do have a nice military program, though.

"If we skip the goal of "resource extraction", we can all skip the rest of this shit and go home."

A nice idea, but it hardly removes us from the "Great Satan" list. We've done a lot of damage, just walking away leaves us as target/distraction/enemy number 1. Well, maybe #2, behind Israel.

" And stop whining about whether people "respect us" like some insecure teenager."

That comes from the whole "Kissinger, American Empire" image. That there is some balance of power, and we are the power brokers.

That kind of begs the question of how we got on the "Great Satan" list or the "Capitalist/Imperialist Pigs" list of yester-years.

I agree that short-term we need to go after pirates, kidnappers and the like. But lets just treat them like a criminal gang -- that's all they really are. The ideology is just a patina. But when we are done taking them out, let's not pretend we can make any region "safe" for us by installing some new regime. It doesn't work that way -- we just end up getting bit in the ass.

Started teaching my class again today. A twenty-something walked in sporting an artificial leg from a war. That's the reality of this situation.

[Chad]

...let's not pretend we can make any region "safe" for us by installing some new regime. It doesn't work that way -- we just end up getting bit in the ass.

Started teaching my class again today. A twenty-something walked in sporting an artificial leg from a war. That's the reality of this situation.

Yep. True safety is an illusion with all of this. It won't happen with direct military intervention like Iraq or Afghanistan (which is having major Taliban issues again), as we aren't willing to put whole regions to the sword like Genghis Khan or Rome. Even then, all we would be doing is sowing the seeds of animosity even deeper and kicking the can down the road.

Of course, no other strategy would make us truly safe either. We need to select the most efficient one, not necessarily the most expensive one that goes for the brass ring (war) with only a .5% chance of succeeding.

I recently worked with a guy who had lost his leg in Iraq. He couldn't even use a prosthetic, as there wasn't enough left. I felt guilty everyday I saw him. Should have done more to try and stop the Iraq War, but I couldn't convince anyone it was a bad idea at the time. We, as US citizens, failed those soldiers.

[JohnnyH]

@Chad: Well, it is a volunteer army and all of them should understand the risks going in.

[RealPerson]

These are some interesting discussions. What matters to me most now is whether is IS likely to be a fertile ground for more terrorism? If so, are we likely to see another 9/11 come from that?

More terrorism... without a doubt. That can be a real problem for us if their aim is global.

A secundary question is whether IS is likely to destabilize the Middle East further. That could be a existential problem for Israel, and even allies like Jordan and Turkey. A changing map of the ME is not necessarily a big problem for us. The Arabs want the money as much as we want the oil. What can change is who pumps the oil and sells it. Our "interest" there may be more to protect the revenue stream of US oil companies, rather than protecting the flow of oil itself.

Another mess with no clear answers. Still, I don't see a compelling reason why we could not sit back and wait how IS shakes out. The "must do something" chant is fueled by the heavily publicized beheadings. Either IS doesn't understand western politics, or they are trying to draw us into the conflict.

[George the original one]

> Either IS doesn't understand western politics, or they are trying to draw us into the conflict.

IS loses momentum if the west stays out of the conflict.

[Chad]

@Chad: Well, it is a volunteer army and all of them should understand the risks going in.

I don't disagree, but that doesn't mean they should be thrown away on useless or worse than useless wars. It's our responsibility to prevent that.

[Ego]

I agree that short-term we need to go after pirates, kidnappers and the like. But lets just treat them like a criminal gang -- that's all they really are.

Today, by all standard measurements, we have very little to be afraid of. I'd argue that our own insatiable appetite is our greatest enemy. Statistically speaking, that is something we should legitimately fear. To distract ourselves from our self-inflicted wounds we allow ourselves the indulgence of a boogie man in a black robe. We talk about beheadings when we should be focusing on far greater problems. But beheadings benefit broadcasters.

[jacob]

Thinking of terrorism as a symptom of colonial control (the disease), it becomes apparent that

1) It's very hard for a country to acknowledge [to itself] that its behavior is the cause of the problem(*).
2) Like any chronic disease, the people of colonial powers eventually learn to live with it. It becomes the "cost of doing business".

(*) I think this is especially hard to see for "Team USA, World Police", because the general belief is that invading "terrorist countries/areas" actually cures the disease. However, that's getting it entirely backwards. The policing is actually what causes the problem.

The "cost of doing business" is exactly what terrorism which is a form of asymmetric warfare with extremely imbalanced costs seeks to increase beyond the point where continued occupation remains beneficial to the colonial power.

Cost in terms of military expenses and loss of voter confidence in a democracy.

Cost is the main reason that European countries had to give up their world empire following WWII (a process that was already underway starting in the 19th century). Having experienced hundreds of years of terrorism due to their colonial behavior, Europeans are also not as appaled by its inevitable blowback. 9/11 was not a special case. It was an expected historical outcome based on plenty of past experience. What makes it strange is that it took so long---possibly because the US is moated by big oceans on each side. However, it's not like US possessions or relations weren't attacked outside the US prior to 9/11. It's just that those news were relegated to page 9 in the newspaper---behind the latest NFL scandal.

Also perhaps because US colonialism is not nearly as extortionate as the European form of colonialism was. Remember, the world really used to like the US. It had a huge amount of international goodwill, but it has been steadily eroded since US domestic oil production peaked in 1972 and increasing amounts of colonial control became required.

Solution: Terrorist attacks on the US could be significantly reduced by withdrawing US military presence from the hot countries in which a significant amount of uncompensated [natural] wealth leaves for US shores. In other news, I hear that "the American way of life is non-negotiable", so ... what this means is that we're pretty far from an actual solution. This solution would require US initiative.

The alternative solution/outcome is business as usual. This means increasing military costs (to compensate for the asymmetric attacks) which fall on the taxpayers and ultimately the productivity of the country. However, people will slowly get used to terrorism and start thinking of it as a hassle rather than the end of the world as we know it. Eventually, another dynamics enters, namely the countries who do not pay the empirical costs of colonialism and yet benefit from its protection. Like the Barbarians of Rome or German and Japan of the UK/Dutch/French of WWII, they too---having failed to learn any historical lessons---question why not they should enjoy the spoils since, after all, their growth is and has been so rapid (because they haven't spent their productivity on military control) and they're now so big that they'd like to expand their control. Then we all have a big war that affects all parts of the empire.---Which in this day and age is the entire world. This requires no initiative and so this is probably what politicians/leaders will prefer.

The third solution is for the colony to shame the colonial power into pulling back by making the difference between what the empire supposedly stands for and what it actually does painfully visible. This worked in India. This requires "terrorist" initiative.

[Chad]

I agree that short-term we need to go after pirates, kidnappers and the like. But lets just treat them like a criminal gang -- that's all they really are.

Today, by all standard measurements, we have very little to be afraid of. I'd argue that our own insatiable appetite is our greatest enemy. Statistically speaking, that is something we should legitimately fear. To distract ourselves from our self-inflicted wounds we allow ourselves the indulgence of a boogie man in a black robe. We talk about beheadings when we should be focusing on far greater problems. But beheadings benefit broadcasters.

And, it's easier to tell the population to "go shopping" than to have them sacrifice now for a long-term goal that would actually improve our security.

[Dragline]

Not that we're really that insecure. We're almost completely irrational about it, though.

The odds of being killed in a terrorist attack in the US are somewhere on the order of 1 in 20 million. Less than being struck by lightning or dying from a dog bite. We should worry about our health, common accidents and getting shot. See http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicd ... ly-chart-7

Most would-be terrorists fall into the delusional and/or incompetent boob categories: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/colorado-te ... jihadists/

Come to think of it, its funny how the opposition is always made out to be both incompetent boobs and evil masterminds at the same time. More common in American political theater -- Day 1: "If so-and-so gets elected, he'll single-handedly destroy America with his evil machinations" Day 2: "See, I told you he was an incompetent boob."

[jennypenny]

I don't think it's that irrational. Maybe a better word is instinctual. Sure, the flu kills thousands of people every year, but it doesn't go out looking for victims and then film them while it kills them. I think there is something inherently sinister about that kind of stuff that makes people react the way that they do. It's the same kind of reaction most have when something heinous happens to a child, or when we hear about people abusing animals. We don't fear the death as much as the act itself.

When Boko Haram kidnaps 200 young women, as humans, we should be appalled and feel compelled to do something. I don't want to live in a world where an act like that is considered the cost of doing business and dismissed as a statistically-irrelevant threat.


Donning my Team USA shirt for a minute...
People take the 'our American way of life in non-negotiable' thing too far, but I'm willing to say that certain aspects of our culture are superior to many other cultures (like our treatment of women) and I wish we would try harder to influence others around the world. The US is not alone in this, obviously, and I wish more cultures would try harder to promote education and equality for women.

[jacob]

@jp - I recently saw some poster making the rounds on facebook. The background was a US camo country arm patch and it was written by some US soldier stating that he was willing to go fight the evil and only waiting for the politicians to give the go-signal. It received lots of Likes. Very inspiring!

The problem is that the other side doesn't see our side as superior. When we torture our pows with water boarding, dogs, humiliation, heat/cold, and various stress positions---and those pictures get published on the front page of the media as well. When our sanctions cause hundreds of thousands deaths (and that, in Albright's words, "the price is worth it"). When we forcefeed people in Guantanamo. When we see gun/drone camera images of people while the gunners refer to the dead as splatter or whatever the term is. The other side sees us exactly the same way as we see them when they execute their pows in the most graphic manner.

I bet they're circulating their own facebook memes using more or less the same moral reasoning. I bet they're inspired too.

All this "inspiration" spells trouble!

We treat our women well. Yes, conversely our culture is inferior when it comes to economic behaviour that makes us rich---making it much easier to afford those very freedoms/education/equality---at the cost of making people (except a minute elite) poor in other countries. As well, neither does the flu invade other countries claiming it's bringing them freedom and democracy(*). It just does what it does because it's in its nature.

You know the story about the frog and the scorpion, right?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Scorpion_and_the_Frog

(*) Maybe it does. It's just that we're not listening to flu-propaganda and simply observe everything it actually does.

There are, in the world, people who will readily fight(**) what they consider atrocities or simply whatever they find unfair but especially for a chance to put on a shirt. When both sides are guilty. These people will don either shirt accordingly. That is when inevitable ongoing conflict becomes almost a law of nature. The form of the fight is simply defined by the nature of the parties, here empire vs indigent rebels.

(**) Especially adolescent males.

As long as either side can find plenty of moral arguments as to why their side is superior, there will be plenty of men (and women) willing to join the fight wearing their respective shirt. As long as both sides pour fuel on the fire, it will continue. Business as usual. Nothing is happening here we haven't seen many times before.

[Ego]

People take the 'our American way of life in non-negotiable' thing too far, but I'm willing to say that certain aspects of our culture are superior to many other cultures (like our treatment of women) and I wish we would try harder to influence others around the world. The US is not alone in this, obviously, and I wish more cultures would try harder to promote education and equality for women.

http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/slee ... armageddon

The reality of martyrdom and the sanctity of armed jihad are about as controversial under Islam as the resurrection of Jesus is under Christianity. It is not an accident that millions of Muslims recite the shahadah or make pilgrimage to Mecca. Neither is it an accident that horrific footage of infidels and apostates being decapitated has become a popular form of pornography throughout the Muslim world. Each of these practices, including this ghastly method of murder, find explicit support in scripture.

and

But it remains taboo in most societies to criticize a person’s religious beliefs. Even atheists tend to observe this taboo, and enforce it on others, because they believe that religion is necessary for many people. After all, life is difficult—and faith is a balm. Most people imagine that Iron Age philosophy represents the only available vessel for their spiritual hopes and existential concerns. This is an enduring problem for the forces of reason, because the most transformative experiences people have—bliss, devotion, self-transcendence—are currently anchored to the worst parts of culture and to ways of thinking that merely amplify superstition, self-deception, and conflict.

Edit to add: It is no coincidence that those jumping up and down to don the shirts on both sides (from Jacob's post above) are devout.

[jennypenny]

@jacob--I don't believe in moral relativism. I believe in certain universal truths, and I'm willing to defend those beliefs. When others disagree, conflicts will arise. I accept that. I'm not going to apologize for believing that abusing women and children or killing people because of their faith is wrong.

That doesn't mean I see the US as superior to other countries. As I said, I do think that certain aspects are better, just as I believe other countries do a better job in other ways. I don't see the argument as either the US is the World Police or the US withdraws from everywhere. There are more nuanced approaches between those two that might produce better results with less conflict.


@ego--My comment was not directed at any particular religion and does not stem from my own religion. I detest the subjugation of women in any context, religious or secular. Some Christian faiths are guilty of it as well, and I'm just as critical of them.

[RealPerson]

I totally get that the statistical chance of dying at the hand of a terrorist in the US is smaller than dying from a dogbite. I myself am not worried about dying due to terrorism. But that is not necessarily the point. The impact of 9/11 was far greater than the "only" 3000 deaths of civilians. Besides the economic damage inflicted on the world economy at that time, without 9/11 it is unlikely that George Bush would have taken us to war in Afganistan and Iraq. We are still dealing with the consequences of those conflicts.

Terrorism is asymmetrical warfare and we have triggered quite a lot of it. Just like our support for the Shah ultimately created the Iran of Khomeini. But would a disengagement at this point take us off the target list of "asymmetrical warriors"? Also, who else might fill the vacuum left by such a withdrawal? Iran? Russia? China? Not terribly palatable either. So maybe we are stuck. Maybe that's why Obama, arguably the most pacifist president since Carter, feels compelled to do something. There may not be any good options.

[JohnnyH]

Pacifist Obama?