ISIS/ISIL

[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?

[RealPerson]

Pacifist Obama?

Well, relatively speaking. . Obama has certainly been fairly hesitant in putting US boots on the ground. I guess drones are his preferred weapon. Less political risk.

[jacob]

@jp - In my initial posts, I outlined why the conflict exists in the first place. It has little to do with moral values or religion---that's just how it gets sold because shirts are an easy way to frame the problem and divert attention away from the actual cause (colonialism). I also suggested some solutions that would minimize the damage as well as the solution that will most likely be taken and what will happen. Then in a few years, I can unfortunately do the "I told you so" routine again. Civilization is a train wreck.

In my last post I outlined why your position of not abusing/killing women and children is a really hard [moral] sell to a country that's been on the receiving end of sanctions that's killed somewhere between 100-500,000 children. Where very many has had relatives killed [as seen on TV] due to collateral and misidentifications from air attacks. While prior to that you supported an oppressive dictator with weapons. I'm fairly convinced that very few (except the criminals in charge of the kidnapping-for-profit) sign up for either side because they want to be evil. No, they want to fight the side they consider evil and imperial behavior always paints a pretty big target.

http://reason.com/blog/2014/09/11/watch ... nts-a#fold

I'm not aware of any imperial solutions that will stop the side-effects. The only solution I see to that is to cease being an empire and start policing the greatest atrocities instead. Kinda how countries patrol for pirates. The goal would be to defend people against human rights violations [and also simply human privilege violations(*)] while not committing them yourself. That is doable. But I don't think it's possible for an empire.---It requires too much expediency.

(*) By which I mean things like not screwing people over in the pursuit of wealth.

[Ego]

It has little to do with moral values or religion

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_S ... vant#Goals

[jacob]

@Ego - Yeah, no. Saying that IS is mainly driven by religion is like saying that Americans were driven by republicanism during their colonial rebellion (thus starting the string of defeats of European powers) when Americans were just sick of paying taxes for nothing and having the English military police the streets. It makes for a high-brow interpretation, but I doubt that most people wake up one morning thinking "I want to create a Sunni or Republican country". I think it's far more likely that they wake up thinking "My life sucks, the colonial powers destroyed my livelihood and killed my cousin, but these new rebel guys seem to know what they're doing".

Religion is just the rallying point for the Sunni tribes which haven't had a good time under the previous administrations in their respective countries. I think the overriding importance of tribal affiliation is completely underestimated in the west.

Check out a map of Sunni/Shia distribution of the ME and you'll see that Sunnis cover just about what their initial name described, ISIL. They still want to hold that area but not according to the border lines that Europeans drew on the map 50-100 years ago. Now they figure they can turn this into a state. After all, they got the training. Once secured, the Sunni interpretation will be the governing form. But in my opinion, interpreting this as being driven by religion is putting the cart before the horse.

[Ego]

Here is their manifesto, PDF http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/MSNBC/Secti ... ifesto.pdf

They have said what they want. Their name says what they want. A caliphate, "for the purpose of compelling the people to do what the Sharia (Allah's law) requires of them."

What would they need to say and how would they need to say it for you to believe them when they say their motivation is religious?

[Chad]

I don't think it's that irrational.

It's completely irrational. Those odds that Dragline mentioned are actually much much much lower for most Americans. The only Americans at real risk for terrorism are those that travel in certain regions and those that live in NYC and DC, and the two possible outliers are Chicago and LA (though, still unlikely). No terrorist is going to attack Cleveland, Pittsburgh, KC, etc. They probably can't even find them on a map.

Even there biggest weapon is more of an economic threat than a deadly one. (you will have to give them your email address to read it)

http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/biggest- ... z3D3iicXFR

This touches on what I have said for a long time. People are terrible at judging risk.

[Dragline]

You might prefer this formulation, jp:

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-09-1 ... -terrorist

[jacob]

@Ego - I think we're talking about different things. E.g. whether the motivation for the American revolution was the Declaration of Independence or simply throwing out the British? I'm focusing on the latter kind of motivation. I think the latter motivation is the driving force. I think manifestos just provide the rationalization.

Basically, to convince me of the power of a document, I would require the document to exist prior to the actions people took and prior to the environmental setup that generally/historically leads to such actions. I would also require it to be widely read/seen. Otherwise, I find it more useful/explanatory to attribute motivations to actions that are already being taken and actions that follow from conditions that already exist; and said document to simply be a rationalization of such actions.

For example, I don't believe that anyone here is pursuing ERE simply because I wrote a manifesto. I think you're doing it because you were either already taking actions towards simple living and financial independence or conditions were such that you did not enjoy/suffered under conventional career paths.

I say a manifesto provides the intellectual/religious/whatever framework. But it does not provide the motivation.

In principle, we can both be correct. I just find my interpretation more useful. Attributing IS to religion doesn't explain very much to me. E.g. it doesn't explain why this is happening now? Why it didn't happen 20 years ago (most of the ME is Sunni)? Why it happens in this particular area and not, say, Saudi Arabia? Conversely, I could see a Sunni rebellion being motivated for all other kinds of reasons than religious.

[Dragline]

@Ego -- What you should be concerned about is that their motivation is apocalyptic and utopian, not the parameters of the underlying belief system, which might as well just be the colors on a flag. Non-religious utopian movements are just as dangerous as religious ones. Worst ones in the past century have been based on economic and social science theories -- religion without a god, if you prefer.

Regardless of the basis, a belief in a utopia can create an army of true believers ready to kill in the name of creating that utopia that become red meat for sociopathic leadership that inevitably emerges. Focusing on the particular belief system just clouds the real issue.

[Riggerjack]

@jacob

You tend to look at group motivations as individual motivations en masse, (bottom up) whereas ego and chad tend to look at the group motivations as leader/follower motivations (top down).

I'm not going into which is more accurate, (I think that's personal, and subject to change), but I don't think they are incompatible. Blind men describing elephants, and all that.

[jacob]

@Riggerjack - Another dichotomy perspective is relations vs individuals, background vs foreground, environment vs choices, eastern vs western...

I mentioned Sun Tzu above. IS, whether deliberate or not, seems to follow that art of war much better than the US has done/is doing. I think the eastern perspective is missing from the debate. I have a hard time conveying things [above] that seem obvious to me. Like how it's hard to explain the concept of water to a fish. I wonder whether that's because I'm the only non native American in this thread? What's going on here?

[jennypenny]

@Chad, Dragline--I wasn't arguing the statistics. My point was that some acts are so gruesome that they evoke more fear regardless of how miniscule the risk is. People are much more likely to die in an automobile crash than a plane crash, yet most people fear a plane crash more because the idea of being in a plane crash is much more terrifying.

My other point was that you don't have to be afraid of being the victim of a terrorist attack [I'm not] to want to prevent attacks or punish the perpetrators of such acts.

*sigh* I'll stop. I'm obviously not being clear. Maybe I'll just link to tomorrow's article when they post it.

[jacob]

My point was that some acts are so gruesome that they evoke more fear regardless of how miniscule the risk is.

If this wasn't the case, terrorism as a way of war wouldn't work.

Suppose 9/11 happened and people instead had thought: Well, history teaches us that that was bound to happen sooner or later because we're so involved in the ME. However, that's just the way it is. We'll just stay there and go on with our lives because that's our policy. We won't revamp our security procedures. We wont add government departments. We'll just do what we've always done because this event was expected and just the cost of our actions and way of life. It's a risk just like driving. In fact it's far less dangerous than driving or eating french fries which we do gladly because we never dwell on their risks. In particular, we won't stop flying because we know statistically that by driving instead, many more people will end up dead. And we will for sure not eat more fries either.

AQ would have been sunk right there. They would have been powerless.

"I must not fear.
Fear is the mind-killer.
Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration.
I will face my fear.
I will permit it to pass over me and through me.
And when it has gone past I will turn the inner eye to see its path.
Where the fear has gone there will be nothing.
Only I will remain."

But that is not what happened...

<- That's a great [series of] books btw.

[oldbeyond]

Some countries are tribes having acquired nationhood, some are founded on ideas and some are the results of historical circumstances, like Belgium, or more interestingly, Iraq. In Iraq you had a crazy but secular dictator holding together what should logically be three independent nation states(in the Woodrow Wilson sense of the word). When that stable if far from perfect ecology went in 2003, in a move of such geopolitical idiocy that it will be long remembered, it did so forever, and Iraq has been on the brink of civil war(or over it...) ever since. Sooner or later, de facto or de jure, Iraq will become three countries. Perhaps it is more fair to say that the split has already occurred.

The US could sit this one out. There would certainly be a military response from Iran, and I'd bet that Turkey would help the kurds, to avoid a refugee crisis and a possible rebellion at home. However, this could get messy, and even if Iran et consortes should be able to tackle ISIS, you never know. ISIS might get lucky, Iran/Turkey might mess up. Even if ISIS is contained to Syria and sunni parts of Iraq, US interests will be affected sooner or later in terrorist attacks.

I think the "colonial resource extraction"-narrative fits rather poorly with actual events. Several oil producing arab nations are rich, and have "very high" HDI. How is this so if colonialism robs them of everything they have? Rather, these countries have made necessary alliances with the first world in exchange for mountains of cash. A sizable part of this cash is then funneled to religious extremists(or to the creation of whom in madrasas around the world).

[Chad]

@Chad, Dragline--I wasn't arguing the statistics. My point was that some acts are so gruesome that they evoke more fear regardless of how miniscule the risk is. People are much more likely to die in an automobile crash than a plane crash, yet most people fear a plane crash more because the idea of being in a plane crash is much more terrifying.

My other point was that you don't have to be afraid of being the victim of a terrorist attack [I'm not] to want to prevent attacks or punish the perpetrators of such acts.

*sigh* I'll stop. I'm obviously not being clear. Maybe I'll just link to tomorrow's article when they post it.

I realize you weren't arguing statistics and that you personally weren't suggesting you were feeling this way, but it seemed like you were arguing that this feeling of fear by the general public was ok. My goal was to argue against the idea that it was ok for them to fear the new boogeyman.

@Jacob
Dune is probably my favorite fiction work of all time. I love that quote. One of the few novels I have ever re-read.