Unlike some recent NYT articles about conflict in the Middle East, there is some discussion of the role of the Obama administration:
The Obama administration defends its record of engagement in the region, pointing to its efforts to resolve the Iranian nuclear crisis and the Palestinian dispute, but acknowledges that there are limits. “It’s not in America’s interests to have troops in the middle of every conflict in the Middle East, or to be permanently involved in open-ended wars in the Middle East,” Benjamin J. Rhodes, a White House deputy national security adviser, said in an email on Saturday....
For all the attention paid to Syria over the past three years, Iraq’s slow disintegration also offers a vivid glimpse of the region’s bloody sectarian dynamic. In March 2012, Anthony Blinken, who is now President Obama’s deputy national security adviser, gave a speech echoing the White House’s rosy view of Iraq’s prospects after the withdrawal of American forces. Iraq, Mr. Blinken said, was “less violent, more democratic and more prosperous” than “at any time in recent history.”...
As the United States rushed weapons to Mr. Maliki’s government late last year to help him fight off the jihadis, some analysts said American officials had not pushed the Iraqi prime minister hard enough to be more inclusive. “Maliki has done everything he could to deepen the sectarian divide over the past year and a half, and he still enjoys unconditional American support,” said Peter Harling, a senior analyst at the International Crisis Group. “The pretext is always the same: They don’t want to rock the boat. How is this not rocking the boat?”
The worsening violence in Iraq and Syria has spread into Lebanon...
पोस्ट्स
९९ टिप्पण्या:
Temporizing and stalling on Iran, while spending time on a Palestinian Peace Fantasy does not mean that the Obamites have had any success.
Our position, influence, respect and power has diminished in every region...
Until the US becomes an Islamic country we have no reason to side with either the Sunni or the Shia, so we should stay out of their civil war.
In many ways Al Qaeda is a Western myth. By transmogrifying Al Qaeda into a mythical organization which has hijacked Islam and which has only limited support among followers of the religion of peace, the Western leaders on the right and on the left have avoided the awful truth that there are many millions of radical Muslims who are not formally affiliated with Al Qaeda but who agree with Al Qaeda's goals and tactics in achieving them. This myth has prevented the West from mounting an effective defense against our enemy who has declared war on us and whose goal is to subject the entire World to Islam and bring the entire World under sharia law.
Power Vacuum in Middle East Lifts Militants
In other words, Obama's foreign policy sucks?
American officials had not pushed the Iraqi prime minister hard enough to be more inclusive.
Inclusiveness is not Obama's deal.
Illuninati,
Exactly, and unless we want to declare war on all of Islam, we need to keep our military out of their quarrels with each other. What would we hope to achieve by intervening? That they would then like us and not want to kill us anymore? Now its my turn to say "Benghazi". Keep our troops there so they can get the brunt of their hatred for us? Sacrifice your own daughters and sons if that's what you believe.
"“The pretext is always the same: They don’t want to rock the boat. "
and that other famous phrase
"Leading from behind"..
Lazy ass administration. They won, got elected and have all the perks, the minions are getting enriched, why work hard to solve anything. Hey, let us go golfing! They even brought politics into a live situation and didn't do anything while 4 men died.
Illuminati,
Kind of contradicting yourself, aren't you?
If the aim of all these millions - and it sounds as if you are just considering the Sunni medievalists and forgetting the Shia ones - is to convert all of us to their version of Islam by force, it is going to be a little hard for us to stay out of the fighting by ignoring them, isn't it?
Hagar said...
"Illuminati,
Kind of contradicting yourself, aren't you?
If the aim of all these millions - and it sounds as if you are just considering the Sunni medievalists and forgetting the Shia ones - is to convert all of us to their version of Islam by force, it is going to be a little hard for us to stay out of the fighting by ignoring them, isn't it?"
I hope I understand your post correctly. If not you can correct me. Sunni Islam is much larger than Shia Islam and the majority of Muslim missionaries in the West are Sunni Muslims. When Western countries succumb to Islam, they will probably succumb to Sunni Islam. Therefore, unless we take proper defensive measures to protect ourselves Western countries will probably eventually join the Sunni Muslims against the Shia Muslims.
I don't think the Muslims will use force until they get about 10% of the population in Western countries, so we have a small window of opportunity to block the takeover. 10% to 15% seems to be the tipping point in most societies before Muslims begin a protracted war of attrition on people of other religions or of no religion. For us to intervene in the war between the Sunni and the Shia will simply distract us from our own impending destruction.
Inga said...
"Illuninati,
Exactly, and unless we want to declare war on all of Islam, we need to keep our military out of their quarrels with each other. What would we hope to achieve by intervening?"
I had to pinch myself a couple of times to be sure I wasn't dreaming. We agree.
Those of you who are interested in this topic and have not read "America Alone" or "After America" by Mark Steyn (purchased through the Althouse portal, of course) are in for a treat. Laugh-out-loud funny but on the defining and sobering dominant topic of this century.
Maybe the smartest thing Obama has done was pulling back on his threat of direct military action in Syria.
The post WWII era is over. No worries about Soviet domination of the Mideast and its oil. And with more sources of foreign oil and forthcoming US energy independence, less dependency on that region to supply us.
The bigger problem is keeping China happy vis-a-vis the Senkakus. We do have a defense treaty with Japan, and in 2010, Panetta told the Chinese the treaty covered those islands.
10% to 15% seems to be the tipping point in most societies before Muslims begin a protracted war of attrition on people of other religions or of no religion.
OMG, India with its 13% Muslim population is teetering on the edge (not). Also India has steadfastly blocked the influence of Saudi Arabia on its Muslims. And I think that is key. US has already picked its side by siding with the Saudis.
Inconceivably, the Obama pivot for U.S. investment from Iraq to Afghanistan didn't help Iraq.
From the article: For the first time since the American troop withdrawal of 2011, fighters from a Qaeda affiliate have recaptured Iraqi territory.
The first of many firsts, I suspect.
As the United States rushed weapons to Mr. Maliki’s government late last year to help him fight off the jihadis...
This is what you get when your foreign policy has no strategic vision. Temporizing followed by reaction.
It's clear from history that the Illuninati/Inga option is never really an option for a superpower. Our administrations are always drawn into quarrels. The question is, on what terms?
Inga asks What would we hope to achieve by intervening? I agree with the unspoken answer. Yet "intervening" is in fact the outcome of the hands-off policy. Intervening is reactive.
The one thing John McCain got right in 2008 was his strategic vision of consolidation in Iraq. Strengthen the country that even the Obama administration admits was “less violent, more democratic and more prosperous” than “at any time in recent history.”
When Obama abandoned Iraq -- the result of a cynical election-year promise coupled with an equally cynical and deadly promise to pivot to Afghanistan -- he wrote this outcome in stone.
Without a strategic vision, the United States administrations -- this one and the ones to come -- will lurch between the policies of abandonment and intervention.
Inga. You should read some of the writings of George F Kennan. From Wisconsin. Famous for the concept of containment.
...the Western leaders on the right and on the left have avoided the awful truth that there are many millions of radical Muslims who are not formally affiliated with Al Qaeda but who agree with Al Qaeda's goals and tactics in achieving them.
This. From the very beginning.
The myth rests partly on the mistaken notion that the population of a radicalized State is not involved in the radicalization of its government; they are just bystanders or mere victims of the Government that they have. The only ME nations where the population is showing any signs of resisting their radical governments are Egypt and to some extent, Turkey.
The Sunni medievalist mullahs are positively Jeffersonian in their admiration of the simple life and traditional values, such as stoning to death and beheadings by the sword. The Shia ayatollahs, being in the minority, go for industrial development sufficient to produce nuclear-tipped missiles.
And you stated, I believe, that the ultimate aim of both is to subjugate us, as soon as they have finished with each other.
So, how does it help us to stay out of their fraternal wars?
To think one man's body language caused all this.
Please people! Teach your children not to swagger.
Its going to take years to unswagger this mess.
Unswaggering is a lot like twerking. Not everyone can pull it off and it frequently leads to abdominal and pelvic cramping.
Worse, Sometimes unswaggering is mistakes for twerking which can be a diplomatic disaster, so its not without risks.
Is Hillary really up for this?
Eeesh! What mess.
There are over a billion Muslims, no? It'll take a long time for them to be done killing each other. If they come for us we can then fight THEM, not help them fight each other.
pm317 said...
OMG, India with its 13% Muslim population is teetering on the edge (not).
I'm not sure where you get your information. The word Kashmir should be enough to settle that issue. If not I would suggest the following site:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Hindus
India as we know it today is a rump state of a once vast Hindu/Buddhist dominion. There are few Hindus left in Pakistan and probably none in Afghanistan. Bangladesh is rapidly cleansing itself of its Hindu population.
http://ravilochanan.blogspot.com/2009/03/demographic-changes-in-bengal-hindu.html
Overall the Muslims have made excellent progress in their war on Hinduism in the past and continue to making excellent progress right now. Their strategy is to break off chunks of territory, cleanse it of Hindus and then go back in for more territory.
Hagar said:
"And you stated, I believe, that the ultimate aim of both is to subjugate us, as soon as they have finished with each other.
So, how does it help us to stay out of their fraternal wars?"
We need to reserve our blood and treasure to defend ourselves when the time comes. I don't understand your point about the Shias and the Sunnis. The Pakistanis are mostly Sunni and they already have atom bombs.
Illuninati said...
----------
Not challenging you about the information you have.. I get mine having grown up there and keeping up with what is going on. Kashmir is a special case because of Pakistan and you are right, that they are responsible for the vast exodus of Hindus from that region. But Muslims in India are a long way from causing the kind of breakdown in other parts of India that you are envisioning and frankly Indian Muslims have long resisted the corruption from outside influences (read Saudi and Pakistani).
At least Hillary did a fine job.
When we were a net oil consumer, chaos in the Middle East was bad for the US economy. Now that we're a net oil producer and will be for at least 300 years, chaos in the Middle East is slightly annoying. We should never publicly say it - but the Saudis and the rest of the ME should know that we remember the embassy kidnappings and bombings; we remember the oil embargos; we remember the negotiations in bad faith; and we remember the three thousand dead on 9/11. We don't wish for the Middle East to descend into chaos. It's just that, well, we're just not going to be able to so much to prevent it. They're on they're own.
pm317 said...
"Kashmir is a special case because of Pakistan and you are right, that they are responsible for the vast exodus of Hindus from that region."
With Islam it is always a special case. Just give us this territory and we will be happy
-- for the moment. Then they move on. Israel is experiencing the same process in their so called land for peace process.
"But Muslims in India are a long way from causing the kind of breakdown in other parts of India that you are envisioning and frankly Indian Muslims have long resisted the corruption from outside influences (read Saudi and Pakistani)."
Good for the Hindus. They are in a life and death struggle with Islam. Their struggle is our struggle.
Perhaps the Muslims in India you refer to are Sufis? The Indians tell me that the Sufis are less dangerous than other Muslims although they assure me that Sufis are still dangerous enough.
IMO BH0 is just interested in letting time pass and praying he can get out of office without some severe event happening on his watch. Let President X deal with the facts.
For all the attention paid to Syria over the past three years, Iraq’s slow disintegration also offers a vivid glimpse of the region’s bloody sectarian dynamic.
Wow. Bloody sectarian dynamic in the ME. Who knew? Thank God for experts.
...some analysts said American officials had not pushed the Iraqi prime minister hard enough to be more inclusive. “Maliki has done everything he could to deepen the sectarian divide over the past year and a half, and he still enjoys unconditional American support,” said Peter Harling, a senior analyst at the International Crisis Group. “The pretext is always the same: They don’t want to rock the boat. How is this not rocking the boat?”
The beauty of being a Middle Eastern analyst is that there is no solution. (Well, short of the Roman hard-core imperial hammer and earth-salting "solution".) So you can just stay in business for decades "discovering" sectarianism, which is going to be fixed by "inclusiveness", which when that fails is going to be fixed by dazzling new insights into the sectarian structures of the country, which...
I believe The Onion covered all this definitively once.
Illuninati said...
Read this article, if you will. It is my goto article to show how Indian Muslims feel about being Indians. But more importantly, Indian Muslim story is one of religious freedom, opportunity and assimilation. They are rewarded for their music, their Bollywood talent, their entrepreneurial skills (WIPRO CEO).. and so on. It is not all rosy but there is opportunity to lead a productive life. Historically, Muslims have done well in mixed societies. Trouble starts when they are Islamic Republics and the power mongers enforce their religion to control their populace.
And yeah, I think there is a predominant Sufi strain. One of the very good things is the beautiful music brought to India because of its Muslim invasion.. So invasions have their advantages as invasions go.
Al Qaeda now has a secure base area two days drive from central Europe.
Thousands of European Islamists have gone out to Syria. Some of them will return and do who knows what.
They can carry on their 7th century vendetta, we don't care, we don't need their petro-carbon gunk any more.
I blame Bush.
A lack of policy is still a policy.
A failure to choose is still a choice.
Doing nothing about Syria has killed more people than invading Iraq.
SomeoneHasToSayIt said...
I blame Bush.
Finally a sensible comment from the right. You and Rand Paul are now on the same page.
Illuninati said...
When Western countries succumb to Islam, they will probably succumb to Sunni Islam.
Who writes nonsense like this?
This is edutcher-level reasoning.
The post WWII era is over.
Which leaves us where? Back in the pre-WWI era? With lots of powers & alliances jockeying for dominance -- that worked out well, didn't it?
What difference, at this point, does it make? President HRC will use her vast experience and sound negotiating skills to solve all these problems and protect America's interests. A Nobel Peace Prize awaits.
The Shia Sunni conflict has been going on since Mohammed died without a male heir. The generals seized power (the Sunnis) and pushed the family (the Shia) out. The Shia survived because they conquered the Persian empire and made a base there.
The Islamic mind closed after the siege of Baghdad and the teachings of Al-Gazhali. Those two events focused Islam on the perfection of itself and the need to "purify" everything else. All of the conquests have been toward that aim, and the fighters today echo that cry if you just listen.
The comment about India - that was the bloodiest conquest in World history, putting WW2 to shame in pure killing ferocity.
The reason we have to stay involved now, rather than letting them kill themselves is simple - Pakistan has nuclear weapons and unless the Pak generals are convinced that we will destroy them, one of the nukes will "disappear" and be used against some non-Muslim area as a test of strength. I seriously welcome a debate over what would be the correct response to such an event.
I think it will be more near the Roman solution to Carthage.
The Shia Sunni conflict has been going on since Mohammed died without a male heir. The generals seized power (the Sunnis) and pushed the family (the Shia) out. The Shia survived because they conquered the Persian empire and made a base there.
The Islamic mind closed after the siege of Baghdad and the teachings of Al-Gazhali. Those two events focused Islam on the perfection of itself and the need to "purify" everything else. All of the conquests have been toward that aim, and the fighters today echo that cry if you just listen.
The comment about India - that was the bloodiest conquest in World history, putting WW2 to shame in pure killing ferocity.
The reason we have to stay involved now, rather than letting them kill themselves is simple - Pakistan has nuclear weapons and unless the Pak generals are convinced that we will destroy them, one of the nukes will "disappear" and be used against some non-Muslim area as a test of strength. I seriously welcome a debate over what would be the correct response to such an event.
I think it will be more near the Roman solution to Carthage.
Illuninati said...
pm317 said...
"Read this article, if you will. It is my goto article to show how Indian Muslims feel about being Indians. But more importantly, Indian Muslim story is one of religious freedom, opportunity and assimilation. They are rewarded for their music, their Bollywood talent, their entrepreneurial skills (WIPRO CEO).. and so on. It is not all rosy but there is opportunity to lead a productive life. Historically, Muslims have done well in mixed societies. Trouble starts when they are Islamic Republics and the power mongers enforce their religion to control their populace."
That is a good article. I used to admire Bhutto and her description of Islam as a religion which supported family values. I wish the problem really were limited to the power mongers and was not the direct result of a literal reading of the holy books.
Because Sharia law prescribes death to anyone who leaves Islam, there are many Muslims who wish they could leave Islam but are unable to. That type of Muslim is happy living as a minority in a majority kaffir society such as Hindu India or Jewish Israel. As the Israelis are learning, when push comes to shove, many of the peaceful Muslims end up supporting the Muslim enemies. Paraphrasing Mao, the Muslim masses are the sea in which the jihadis swim. Many of those who remain in Islam either end up actively supporting the very thing they claim to dislike or tacitly support them by their silence.
" Historically, Muslims have done well in mixed societies."
I'm curious about those societies you have in mind. Could you be referring to the myth of Andalusia?
Not familiar with the myth of Andalusia. I have visited the cathedral/mosque in Cordoba and seemed like there was a period when the Muslims lived harmoniously with the Christians. Going back to Kashmir, there was a long history of Muslims and Hindus living side by side until Zia Ul Haq started his religious 'death by thousand cuts' campaign to weaken India. He also was the one who made Pakistan go all religious when he saw he could control the masses that way. If you look at Afghanistan in the 50s, pr-epartition or early Pakistan, you see well adjusted pro-western societies and they were definitely mixed societies. There was a photo-essay from Foreign Policy magazine about 1950s Afghanistan -- google may find it.
pm317 said:
"Going back to Kashmir, there was a long history of Muslims and Hindus living side by side until Zia Ul Haq started his religious 'death by thousand cuts' campaign to weaken India."
Things are not always as they seem on the surface. As I understand the history, Islam commits genocide by slow strangulation punctuated by episodic violence. Here is a discussion about the Muslim Holocaust against Hindus beginning in AD 1000.
http://www.hinduwebsite.com/history/holocaust.asp
the bale blue dot
"Power Vacuum in Middle East Lifts Militants."
Is there a more obvious conclusion that could be drawn then the title of the article? Why did it take the NYT so long to come to that conclusion.
WHen we talk about Al Qaeda taking over Iraq, due to our negligence and lack of interest repeat that headline over and over again.
This in fact is the policy that the liberals are pushing.
AReasonableMan wrote:
Finally a sensible comment from the right. You and Rand Paul are now on the same page.
Funny because Bush left the current president a pacified Iraq with a fledgling democracy. And this current president will leave the next president an Al Qaeda stronghold.
So, if blame is in order, it wouldnt' be on Bush.
John Lynch wrote:
A lack of policy is still a policy.
A failure to choose is still a choice.
Doing nothing about Syria has killed more people than invading Iraq.
"all that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing"
This current president and current liberals arent' even making a pretense to try to stop evil. Apologists for the current totalitarian regimes, just as the old progressives were the apologists for the old totalitarian regimes.
pm317: He also was the one who made Pakistan go all religious when he saw he could control the masses that way. If you look at Afghanistan in the 50s, pr-epartition or early Pakistan, you see well adjusted pro-western societies and they were definitely mixed societies.
If an individual can "make" the masses "go all religious", subverting an allegedly pro-Western, harmoniously "mixed" society...that's a pretty good sign that the "harmonious" class was the elite veneer on a decidedly less tolerant society.
There's nothing unusual about that - educated elites tend to swim along fine with other educated elites in the higher, internationalized classes. There's nothing new about it, either, as you will find if you delve at any depth, for example, into the history of Andalusia. The cultural efflorescence and co-operation among just such "educated elites" in the golden age of Al Andalus is not a "myth" in itself. What is a myth is that this was a stable state encompassing all levels and divisions of society, a utopia of tolerance that was wrecked by a few bad actors. In the same vein, while that photo-essay of Afghanistan you mention is a very interesting set of images, they leave out "the rest (that is, most) of the story".
Anglelyne wrote
The beauty of being a Middle Eastern analyst is that there is no solution.
And yet for groups like Al Qaeda and countries like Russia there is a solution. Which is why they are stepping into the void left by our absence to shape the ME the way that they want.
When, if the dynamic were as you say, wouldn't it be impossible for them to win either? Since there would be no solution for them either.
Yet, there is. Which means, countries can affect the region in ways that are beneficial or harmful to themselves. Usually it requires some active participation though. But if you don't participate, it's not as if another country wont step in and do the job for you.
We left Iraq a functioning and stable burgeoning democracy that wasn't run by Sadaam and which we didn't need to contain. ANd now Al Qaeda is stepping in because we're stepping out.
INga wrote:
Exactly, and unless we want to declare war on all of Islam, we need to keep our military out of their quarrels with each other. What would we hope to achieve by intervening?
Um, not having Al Qaeda control Iraq? Not have Al Qaeda control Afghanistan.
Why is your daughter there if you're so pessimistic as to the outcome of her mission. Shame on you.
Inga wrote:
"There are over a billion Muslims, no? It'll take a long time for them to be done killing each other. If they come for us we can then fight THEM, not help them fight each other."
So do they live on their own separate planet? No? So then you're arguing garbage.
If he had just let Hitler take Europe what's the problem. It's not as if North America is Europe. How many millions of europeans were there. Not our problem.
Though, imagine a world if we didn't step in and fight WWII.
Inga wrote:
Exactly, and unless we want to declare war on all of Islam, we need to keep our military out of their quarrels with each other. What would we hope to achieve by intervening?
Not all of Islam is Al Qaeda. You say Al Qaead hijacked Islam. So how about beating Al Qaeda so that Islam isn't hijacked by Al Qaeda?
There are moderate forces in the region that aren't AL Qaeda. Why not assist them so that we don't have to deal with a world where Al Qaeda is predominant and controlling the region.
If that were to happen and Al Qaeda were able to destroy all the moderates wouldnt' we then have to deal with the ME controlled by AL Qaeda and not moderates? Which is better an Iraq that doesn't have WMD"s and is relatively democratic or a terrorist state?
The problem I have with Ron Paul is that he believes in a fortress America. The problem I have with you is you also believe in a fortress America.It can't happen.
Al Qaeda is but one organization amongst thousands. It has high visibility and enough contacts that everything can be blamed on it, even when there is causative relationship.
Hezbolla is arguably worse and far more dangerous.
Regardless, these organizations are not controlling Islam, but acting from Islam society; they are the symptoms, not the disease. Both represent fanatical elements of their respective sects.
For all intents and purposes, Hezbolla represents Shi'a Islam while Al Qaeda represents Sunni Islam. In Syria, they've taken opposite sides, which has probably weakened Hezbolla. Regardless, it has pitted both sides against each other, which is probably the best we can hope for, while limiting collateral damage. Unfortunately, this latter point is where the Obama administration has fallen down--by cozening up to Iran, they are taking the side of Hezbollah.
Still, taking either or both out, won't really change anything except, at least on the short term, causing more chaos. Shortly, they would be replaced by yet another group.
"Unfortunately, this latter point is where the Obama administration has fallen down--by cozening up to Iran, they are taking the side of Hezbollah."
THey are in fact taking the sides of any and all extremists that are not moderates. I've never seen anything as brazenly horrible as this foreign policy. It's as if they cede all ground to the worst actors in the region and then put their head up their butt to pretend that ceding such ground is invetiable and that there are no outcomes for doing so.
Even Jimmy Carter wasn't this horrid. And that goes for Jimmy Carter on the economy as well. In fact, Im thinking I owe Jimmy Carter an apology. HEre I was thinking he was the textbook example of a weak leader. I need to rethink my definitions.
It's not just Afghanistan and Iraq. It's Iran, and Syria, and Egypt even. Unbelieable.
Jr. I did not say Al Qaeda hijacked Islam. I said no such thing. I said Muslims in Islamic countries hate us generally and are not against Al Qaeda killing us for them. Get it right.
Jr. My daughter has been home ( in the US) from Afghanistan since last January. My daughter went there because she had orders to, that's why. As for shame, No the shame is yours, send your own damn children into a country to fight a war to help Muslims who do not appreciate a thing we do for them and would turn around and kill us if they saw fit. Look at Benghazi, how did our helping them with their revolution end? Not well for 4 men, did it?
"Benjamin J. Rhodes, a White House deputy national security adviser, said in an email on Saturday…."
The proud owner of a Masters in fiction writing. No wonder our policy is so clueless. If Obama was pushing energy independence and a strong military but staying out of mideast wars, I could understand his policy. He is not doing this.
If he were supporting the rebellious Iranian population that wants out from under the corrupt regime, I could understand. Iranian birth rate is down and mosque attendance is at 3%. We wouldn't have to invade, just give them the support Reagan gave east Europe.
There is no plan; just flailing around day to day, like health care.
" how did our helping them with their revolution end? Not well for 4 men, did it?"
Speaking of clueless ! We were "helping" the Brits and French with their quarrel with the tame Ghaddafi. Bush pulled his sting back in 2004.
Michael K, no kidding, yes we were helping the Brits and the French, THIS action helped the Insurrectionists. Surely you understand this. Some of those insurrectionists were involved in the protests and attacks that ended up with four dead Americans.
" Surely you understand this. Some of those insurrectionists were involved in the protests and attacks that ended up with four dead Americans."
I understand that we had no quarrel with Ghaddafi. Do you ? The "insurrectionists" had no quarrel with us (other than the general Muslim quarrel with moderns) until we got involved with the British and French which, as I recall, involved oil contracts with national oil companies.
Come on ! This stuff is not that tough !
Reading is good for you .
The effort was initially largely led by France and the United Kingdom, with command shared with the United States. NATO took control of the arms embargo on 23 March, named Operation Unified Protector.
jr565: And yet for groups like Al Qaeda and countries like Russia there is a solution. Which is why they are stepping into the void left by our absence to shape the ME the way that they want.
When, if the dynamic were as you say, wouldn't it be impossible for them to win either? Since there would be no solution for them either.
They manage because they don't have any time for the bullshit messianic "solutions" Americans are so easily propagandized into supporting.
You see, it's quite possible to have a sane foreign policy that doesn't involve messianism, or a sane policy of national defense that doesn't involve idiotic beliefs that one's own nation embodies the peak of political evolution or "the end of history", which oddly enough entails ordinary Americans giving over their sons to be killed or maimed for the self-interest of everybody else in the world but themselves.
Lol. It's 20 bloody 14, jr565. Still buying that "we have to fight them over there so we don't have to fight them here" propaganda? In case you haven't noticed, "your" government is (and has been) importing jihadis ("Al Qaeda") to this country as fast as you can say "NGO". So while Putin is just another tyrant who will stomp on the Russian people in the time-honored fashion, I'm quite pleased that he outmaneuvered Obama and the usual cast of senile war-mongers and Saudi retainers on Syria.
Lol. It's 20 bloody 14, jr565. Still buying that "we have to fight them over there so we don't have to fight them here" propaganda? In case you haven't noticed, "your" government is (and has been) importing jihadis ("Al Qaeda") to this country as fast as you can say "NGO". So while Putin is just another tyrant who will stomp on the Russian people in the time-honored fashion, I'm quite pleased that he outmaneuvered Obama and the usual cast of senile war-mongers and Saudi retainers on Syria"
So you are please with a tyrant stomping on his people. Marvelous.
Iran will move into Iraq by invitation to shore up the Shia regime. Obama will dither.
Lebanon has been toast for years, but Iran's alliance with and support for Hezbollah will strengthen their influence there. Obama will dither.
Saudi will shit. Obama will dither.
Al Qa'ida will continue to wreak havoc wherever they can. Obama will dither.
Etc., etc.
Muslims, Europeans, no difference, Inga.
No the shame is yours, send your own damn children into a country to fight a war to help Muslims who do not appreciate a thing we do for them and would turn around and kill us if they saw fit
Inga wrote:
No the shame is yours, send your own damn children into a country to fight a war to help Muslims who do not appreciate a thing we do for them and would turn around and kill us if they saw fit. Look at Benghazi, how did our helping them with their revolution end? Not well for 4 men, did it?
Stop infantilizing your daugher. I wouldn't SEND my kids anywhere. They would volunteer to go. And stop villifying all muslims as Al Qaeda, you bigot.
Do you think the girl Malala shot in the face by the Taliban in Pakistan is the same as the Taliban who shot her in the face?
Way to stick up for womens rights.
And you're the liberal?
Michael K, yes sure, but that does not change the argument I am making, which is Muslims do not want us in their countries. They do not appreciate anything we do for them, or " to " them. My argument continues to be that we should keep our nose out of THEIR business and leave them to their own devices.
Jr.
There are Muslims that are not haters of Americans, they are not in power, nor are they the majority. Your other comments are so stupid they are not worth addressing.
Angelyne wrote:
You see, it's quite possible to have a sane foreign policy that doesn't involve messianism, or a sane policy of national defense that doesn't involve idiotic beliefs that one's own nation embodies the peak of political evolution or "the end of history", which oddly enough entails ordinary Americans giving over their sons to be killed or maimed for the self-interest of everybody else in the world but themselves.
Back in WWII we came to Britains aid to fight the Nazis. Should have let you guys rot. Why waste one drop of blood on a bunch of twats like you.
Your grandparents were the greatest generation. You're spoiled brats. Who pretend to be liberals while supporting any and all totalitarianism so as to not get your feet wet.
And if you're not a brit. You're still a twat.
Angelyne wrote:
You see, it's quite possible to have a sane foreign policy that doesn't involve messianism, or a sane policy of national defense that doesn't involve idiotic beliefs that one's own nation embodies the peak of political evolution or "the end of history", which oddly enough entails ordinary Americans giving over their sons to be killed or maimed for the self-interest of everybody else in the world but themselves.
what's that sane policy of yours? Make sure all ME countries are terrorist states? Making sure that all the Malala's of the world are shot in the face when they try to get an education?
Jr. thinks that it's the job of the US to be the police and protector of all downtrodden in the world? Sorry but we sacrificed enough of our own young people, no more. You neocons can just go form your own Armies and send your own sons and daughters to fight your pet wars. One day if and when we get attacked on our own soil, and we will, despite having troops spread far and wide, we will be facing a scenario in which we have war weary troops due to multiple deployments. Now you want to send them back to Iraq? Hasn't there been enough dead and maimed young Americans for you warmongers and armchair warriors? Sorry but Malala is not enough of a reason to have more of OUR OWN killed and maimed.
Inga wrote:
r. thinks that it's the job of the US to be the police and protector of all downtrodden in the world? Sorry but we sacrificed enough of our own young people, no more
NO more? Never again? Ever? Should any of our allies sacrifice any blood to work with us either? Why?
Just end all alliences.
I never said it was our job to to the protector of all the downtrodden everywhere. But do you really think its our job to be protectors of no one anywhere, ever?
I feel bad for your daughter. I value her service a lot more than you do.
To you I guess she wasted her life. If so, and if she feels the same way, please have her resign from the military.
Jr.
Bullshit. Simply bullshit. You value your opinions and relentless debate.
This is all part of the con job that the dems played on us back when Bush was in power. They talked about the "Real War on Terror" When in reality the exact same argument for why we shouldnt go to Iraq applies to Afghanistan.
They will bow out of that war too. Then as Al Qaeda resurges and takes over more and more areas, and as countries like Syria and Iran become more emboldened and kill more and more moderates and as the various regimes violate more and more interantional norms, the only recourse that Inga's of the world would offer was to shove their head even further up their own ass. Even as the entire ME turns into a tinder box and then a raging inferno.
Which will necessitate us geting into an even bloodier war.
This is exactly what the Neville Chamberlains thought of Hitler. And why instead of having minor conflagrations we had a World War.
You dont nip problems in the bud they become bigger problems.
So what good do you think your daughter did in Afghanistan? Why did she waste one drop of sweat there? What a waste of effort on her part.
"My argument continues to be that we should keep our nose out of THEIR business and leave them to their own devices."
If Obama was pushing fracking and a rational defense policy, I would be OK with your argument. We could now be self sufficient for the first time since 1973. I don't think we can surrender the sea lanes to China but we now have the smallest navy since World War I.
Your messiah, Obama is fucking up our world.
Aside from the damage he is doing to the economy.
It's really funny how so called liberals really have such a low opinion of people in the Middle East. They actually argue that they just might need a dictatorship and a strongman. They aren't ready for democracy.
Wen in fact that could be because those who are are getting shot in the face by those who aren't.
And this farce of a president can't even enforce a red line that backs up grandiose liberal ideas about warfare. We won't allow chemical weapons use, until you use them, and then I guess we will. Because we are full of shit.
(we meaning Obama and his cronies).
Meanwhile, we get outraged at the collateral damage inflicted in our fight against the very people shooting Malala in the face.
I'm glad she didn't get the Nobel Prize. Dumb upstart thinking free minded people would back her plight.
No, she's one of the faceless people you dont want to lift a finger to help.
If this were the movie High Noon this would be about the time that all the "good" townsfolk abandon the sheriff, and make him fight the bad guys by himself. And probably even bad mouth him for the effort.
"If Obama was pushing fracking and a rational defense policy, I would be OK with your argument. We could now be self sufficient for the first time since 1973. I don't think we can surrender the sea lanes to China but we now have the smallest navy since World War I."
Even if Obama were pushing fracking we wouldn't get off of ME oil for decades. But it would be a start.
When Apple went from the Power PC to the Intel chip they had to create an emulator program so that you could still use programs that were written for Power PC. And it took years to transition from one chip to the next.
So too if we're going to wean ourself off of foreign oil. In the meantime we still need a ME that is not blowing up in our face so that we can function as a country.
Until then we have to not bury our heads in the sand when al Qaeda turns yet another country into a terrorist state.
ESPECIALLY one we just pacified.
So Inga, since I still think we are at war with Al Qaeda, and will be until they can't muster enough support to be able to turn states into terrorist states, then you fight them where they are. Iraq is now part of the war on terror Proper. IN Iraq because Obama created a power vaccum and they filled it. So we need enough of a presence there to beat them back.
And then maintain a presence so they don't come back.
This wouldn't be starting another war. This would be continuing the existing war. The war that needs to be fought. Despite you sh*tting all over it because of cowardice and priviledge.
Jr.
Cowardice and privilege?
Neocons have big balls when they can send others to do their fighting FOR them.
INga wrote:
Cowardice and privilege?
Neocons have big balls when they can send others to do their fighting FOR them.
Obama sent others to do his fighting for him. Including your daughter apparently.
Was that a neo con adventure too?
Do you think your duaghter was duped?
Incidentally, isn't that kind of how it works? The president sends troops into do the fighting? That's kind of how armies work, and has been the de facto setup since we had armies.
Inga wrote:
"Cowardice and privilege?"
Yes, I said it. This "neo con" shouldn't have to lecture a liberal about the value of pushing and promoting liberal values, sometimes even at the end of a rifle.
But you really suck at it.
An old 60's neocon said these words way back in the day:
"And yet the same revolutionary beliefs for which our forebears fought are still at issue around the globe—the belief that the rights of man come not from the generosity of the state, but from the hand of God.
We dare not forget today that we are the heirs of that first revolution. Let the word go forth from this time and place, to friend and foe alike, that the torch has been passed to a new generation of Americans—born in this century, tempered by war, disciplined by a hard and bitter peace, proud of our ancient heritage—and unwilling to witness or permit the slow undoing of those human rights to which this Nation has always been committed, and to which we are committed today at home and around the world.
Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill,
This much we pledge—and more.
To those old allies whose cultural and spiritual origins we share, we pledge the loyalty of faithful friends. United, there is little we cannot do in a host of cooperative ventures. Divided, there is little we can do—for we dare not meet a powerful challenge at odds and split asunder." (that sounds like Obama doesn't it?)
"To those new States whom we welcome to the ranks of the free, we pledge our word that one form of colonial control shall not have passed away merely to be replaced by a far more iron tyranny. We shall not always expect to find them supporting our view. But we shall always hope to find them strongly supporting their own freedom—and to remember that, in the past, those who foolishly sought power by riding the back of the tiger ended up inside.
To those peoples in the huts and villages across the globe struggling to break the bonds of mass misery, we pledge our best efforts to help them help themselves, for whatever period is required—not because the Communists may be doing it, not because we seek their votes, but because it is right. If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich.
To our sister republics south of our border, we offer a special pledge—to convert our good words into good deeds—in a new alliance for progress—to assist free men and free governments in casting off the chains of poverty. But this peaceful revolution of hope cannot become the prey of hostile powers. Let all our neighbors know that we shall join with them to oppose aggression or subversion anywhere in the Americas. And let every other power know that this Hemisphere intends to remain the master of its own house.
To that world assembly of sovereign states, the United Nations, our last best hope in an age where the instruments of war have far outpaced the instruments of peace, we renew our pledge of support—to prevent it from becoming merely a forum for invective—to strengthen its shield of the new and the weak—and to enlarge the area in which its writ may run. 10
Finally, to those nations who would make themselves our adversary, we offer not a pledge but a request: that both sides begin anew the quest for peace, before the dark powers of destruction unleashed by science engulf all humanity in planned or accidental self-destruction."
etc etc. Inga must have missed that speech. Neo cons of today would probably applaud that speech. Liberals of today would call JFK a neo con warmonger. Who sounds a lot like Bush only more eloquent.
Who's the liberal again? Not only wouldnt you bear any costs you would bear no costs.
Its funny how modern liberals denigrate "neo cons" for promoting and defending and protecting liberal values, even if it sometimes means we have to go to war to do it.
The peacenick in you has made you a lover of totalitarianism.
Jr.
Has it occured to you that your pet wars may drain our fighting forces and our country's treasury?
When we MUST fight we need to have a military and money hasn't been wasted on unnecessary wars of choice.
You're a foolish man.
Next time we fight, in the ME or anywhere else, we need to use the total war tactics of Jackson, Sherman and Lemay. Much less expensive in blood and treasure. And they achieve victory and lasting peace.
Ingawrote:
When we MUST fight we need to have a military and money hasn't been wasted on unnecessary wars of choice.
all wars are wars of choice.
Was Afghanistan, the one your daughter fought in necessary?
Iraq was the diversion from the REAL war on terror remember. And why? Because Al Qaeada was in Afghanistan (though Al QAeda recognized that they would fight us in Iraq because that's where we were engaged most strongly and so helped foment the uprising and insurgency).
But, Al Qaeda now is in Iraq and has taken over Fallujh. So then why is it unnecessary? I would think it would finally be part of the real war on terror for you.
But if that's not a war that should have been fought, how again are you supportive of your daughters mission?
"pointing to its efforts"
Well, sure. It's not like it can point to any favorable results, now, can it?
Michael,
"Inga. You should read some of the writings of George F Kennan. From Wisconsin. Famous for the concept of containment. "
Alas, not written for the Teen Girl Squad audience.
Illuninati,
I understand where you're coming from, but seriously: no matter what else is is view, you cannot use the term "rump state" for the second-most-populous nation on earth, and hope to be taken seriously.
And to side with pm317: the Mumbai atrocity was Pakistani-led, not instigated by disaffected Muslim locals.
Inga,
"Jr. thinks that it's the job of the US to be the police ... in the world? "
OF COURSE IT IT. I guaran-damn-tee you that, if you survive the process, you'll rue the day somebody else took over that position.
Ironclad,
"I think it will be more near the Roman solution to Carthage. "
Yes it will. Not surprisingly, the world's best English-language commentator on foreign affairs wrote about this a little more than a decade ago.
Where are all the libertarians? In hiding? Hoping the neocons won't bite them?
Even if you argue that the UN should be the worlds police it's still us. If we don't do it, someone else steps in and fills the void.
And since when has it not been in our self interest to attack and destroy Al Qaeda. Inga acts as if we haven't been at war with them.
Her idea of victory is unilateral withdrawal and retreat from all fronts. Including ones her daughters brothers in arms fought and died for to win.
Does that mean our only recourse is to completely reoccupyiraq? no. But since when is it sound foreign policy to completely ignore it as Al Qaeda turns areas into terrorist states? Why are you so divested in losing?
Shouldn't Al Qaeda have to earn their victory at least.
jr565,
Heh. Sadly heh, though. Imagine if it had been some units of US Marines in Kigali as the Rwanda genocide came to a head, instead of unionized Belgian troops! The latter's rules of participation included that they couldn't be billeted in tents, and so they were housed in small groups around then city--with the result that, when things really heated up, they were not any kind of effective fighting force.
Also heh: It's not just the UN -- NATO == "Needs Americans To Operate".
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा