Tonight President Obama is going to speak about our plans to counter and stop the advance of ISIL. I am having serious feelings of déjà vu, that strange feeling of been there, done that. Of course that was a different President and a different acronym. So my guess is that the strategy will be different, more or less. We will see. I will have an update once I have heard him speak.
Why should other countries get involved in what appears to
be a regional problem in the Middle East?
Maybe it is simply that we are all flying around on this piece of rock
together and there is no way to avoid involvement in other areas of the world? We can talk about the morality of our
intervention or lack thereof, but at the end of the day it might simply be that we
have little choice in the matter. It
does affect us. Call it The Butterfly Effect.
What can a war weary world do? While
people may be ambivalent on this matter there is a lot that can be done. But it will take a concerted effort by more
than just a few people, because this is a problem that has many causes, some
that have been festering for decades, if not centuries, and others that are
more recent.
For those in the region facing up to whatever internal
issues they have and dealing with them honestly is the only long term
solution. Why is it that when there is a
revolution in the Middle East it seems to inevitably slide into a secular
dictatorship or a theocracy? Why are people attracted to an entity like
ISIL? These are questions they need to
ask and answer. Always blaming outside forces is merely a
crutch to avoid having to look critically at the problem. And the solution may require real change, not
just white washing.
For those outside the region where ISIL has been successfully
recruiting, including my own state of Minnesota, we need to find a way to reach
out to those who are disaffected or unduly influenced by the illusion of
constructive rebellion they seem to see in ISIL. The United States in particular has always
been a nation of immigrants and has provided a path to a better life for
many. We need to make sure that that
still holds true. We need to give our
own children a better foundation of values to build their lives upon. No, we can’t always stop those who are
suffering from poor mental health from resorting to violence. But we can help those who are struggling to
find a solution.
These are things anyone can do, in their own way. It is our
world and we need to decide what kind we want to live in.
Update:
The President has just finished outlining his strategy for fighting ISIL. It is basically as follows:
1. We will continue airstrikes against ISIL in Iraq, not just to protect our forces or infrastructure, but also in conjunction with Iraqi forces offensive actions. (I believe we have already seen some of this)
2. We will take action against ISIL anywhere they operate. This includes Syria.
3. We will increase support for forces fighting on the ground. He plans to send 475 more advisers to Iraq. There will be no combat forces sent.
4. We will help stand up Iraqi National Guard units in Sunni areas of Iraq. (Hmm...that sounds a bit like the Awakening forces of the past.)
5. We will increase aid to Syrian opposition members fighting in Syria. (I presume he means the FSA.)
6. We will attempt to prevent ISIL attacks elsewhere.
7. We will continue with humanitarian aid to civilians displaced by the actions of ISIL.
53 comments:
"blaming outside forces is merely a crutch to avoid having to look critically at the problem"
What bullshit, since ya'll lit this fire to begin with. Now, because you'd find it convenient they sould all mellow down, sing Kumbaya and get along?
Where were you with that pacifist notion in 2003? Oh, I remember, you were cheering the bombardments that killed a million people and set off this current war.
Now, one million lives lost later, and with increasing areas of the ME in turmoil, you cry your crocodile tears?
Shame on you Lynnette. Shame!
"…ya'll lit this fire to begin with."
Are you entirely nuts?
What bullshit, since ya'll lit this fire to begin with.
We didn't start this fight, Marcus. We were dragged into it by other people's actions, starting in 1990. Nor did we start the Sunni/Shia schism. Other people before us pandered to that whole concept.
Now, because you'd find it convenient they sould all mellow down, sing Kumbaya and get along?
Don't be silly, they should have at least tried to create an inclusive government when we left.
They didn't.
Oh, I remember, you were cheering the bombardments that killed a million people and set off this current war.
I was not cheering. I would have been very happy if Saddam had stepped down quietly or if we had managed to take him out in the beginning when we tried to. And as far as I know the number is not at a million.
"We were dragged into it by other people's actions, starting in 1990."
The fire goes back even further than 1990. It was burning long before we got burned by it. The Nazi were funding the Muslim Brotherhood clear back into the 1930s (also the predecessor organizations that later became the PLO) and Syad Qutb began writing his ‘America is evil’ stuff in the 1940s
Of course, the Wahhabi entered into their alliance with the House of Saud before there even was a United States of America.
Have been out all evening ... back just in time to get tea and bikkies ready for Obama. I'll try not to let his delivery style annoy my face off, as it often does.
I do think it's going to be a fine line to tread for Obama. He has to show a firm stance on ISIS. On the other hand, there is a certain irony in the fact that he will be announcing a new excursion in Iraq, even if not with "boots on the ground". At the same time he has not succeeded in finally closing Guantanamo Bay, and the withdrawal from Afghanistan (assuming it occurs on schedule) will be into the latter half of his second term. I doubt if this is the way he saw things unfolding in 2008. He probably didn't envisage the rocky road that health care reform would take, or the bed of nails that immigration reform would become either.
I wonder if tonight could be his defining moment? Personally, I expect to just hear another in a long series of attempts to sound "presidential".
First thoughts -- it was a speech of two halves. The first half was carried off very well. Obama managed to sound assertive while still reassuring the Yanks that this was not going to be the same as recent wars. He comments about Syria were interesting. Sounds like he's with ISIL in not necessarily respecting the Iraq-Syria border. I must be mistaken -- he said the US would not be working with Assad, but I thought I heard him say they would support the opposition there. Has he suddenly found an opposition to work with?
Part 2 seemed incongruous to me. Was this really the right time to start talking up the American economy? For a moment I thought he might even mention the new Apple Watch, even if he stopped short of punching the air like the Apple fan bois yesterday. Maybe he would have if it wasn't Chinese factories that are benefitting from the employment :)
Anyway, Part 2 sounded like unabashed cheerleading for Democratic policy.
"I expect to just hear another in a long series of attempts to sound
‘presidential’."
I'd say ya got that much at least.
It was better than I'd expected. Quick and clean; here it is; here's the plan (outlined anyway); no bullshit, or only a little. I grade it a good speech.
"it was a speech of two halves…"
Don't think it was nearly halved.
Like you, Petes, I tend to find his style a little off putting at times. I think it's the lawyer in him. Sometimes he sounds like he is lecturing. He actually comes off better in interviews.
As for the part where he seemed to be talking up the economy, my guess was he was trying to head off the critics that will start crawling out of the woodwork about the expense. If we were back in March 2009 this would be harder for him to pull off. But I assume that his meetings with that "broad coalition" will entail discussions about who will help foot the bill. No doubt he will hit up some of the Arab states for contributions. It is after all trash collecting in their neighborhood.
I noticed he avoided using the phrase "coalition of the willing". That might have sounded too George W. Bush like. :)
"I'd say ya got that much at least."
Yes, although I was being sarcastic of course. But he carried it off well.
"It was better than I'd expected... I grade it a good speech."
I agree.
"Don't think it was nearly halved."
It's a soccer metaphor.
"I noticed he avoided using the phrase "coalition of the willing". That might have sounded too George W. Bush like. :)"
Yes, although I have already heard commentators saying that he has "embraced the Bush doctrine", if not the Nixon doctrine.
I played it back and listened to it again. Not much ‘Democratic policy’ in there if any. Mostly a ‘rah, rah, America’ segment intended to convince Americans we can do this, and we should do this.
International reaction that I have heard so far is cautiously positive. However, one commentator drew attention to the ambiguity over the Syria situation. It seems I did hear correctly about supporting Syrian opposition. Some asked how US airstrikes on, say, Raqqa are going to work when Assad's airforce is also in the air bombing the opposition (although admittedly mostly ignoring ISIL territory in Northern Syria. Will US planes take on Syrian ones first? Those are questions that need a lot more clarification.
"Not much ‘Democratic policy’ in there if any.
Not explicitly, but I've never heard an incumbent politician who wasn't hoping to create the link in the minds of the audience between positive economic news and their own governance.
"It seems I did hear correctly about supporting Syrian opposition."
Yes, you did. It seems Obama has decided to try to ‘astroturf’ a non-Islamist Syrian, Sunni opposition if one won't grow naturally. That's the only request he mentioned he has for Congress, and he's gonna need money for that.
"…who wasn't hoping…"
What he hopes and what he said are two different things. The Republicans would be all over him for that if they heard that tonight. Don't think you'll hear a word out of them in support of your theory. (Never mind FoxNews tomorrow--they got airtime to fill with hating Obamas--no mainline Republican complaints I don't think.) I think the only one who heard that is probably you. We'll know ‘bout that soon ‘nuff--they'll either squeal or they won't.
That is serious astroturfing about Syria. Given the unholy Sunni alliance that has formed in Iraq, how is he expecting to find reliable opposition to work with in Syria? Sounds like a pipedream, and one that could seriously blow up in his face if he tries it. A few crucifixions in Christian villages by "moderate" US "allies" would be seriously bad PR.
"That is serious astroturfing about Syria."
Yeah, it is.
"…how is he expecting to find reliable opposition to work with in
Syria?
Perhaps you're not fully familiar with the American political term ‘astroturf’? It means to bring about the appearance of grass artificially. (Hopin’ that some native grass can begin to grow in the less trampled parts of the stadium.)
It also means to give a misleading impression of grassroots support where none exists.
Note to Lynnette:
Petes has brought up a thing I was gonna mention sometime, but it's here now.
We gotta be careful about not getting out ahead of the Arabs on this one. They'll fade out if we let ‘em even imagine we're gonna fix it for ‘em. Obama didn't mention that problem, but, then again, this wasn't the proper venue for mentioning that problem.
"It also means to give a misleading impression of grassroots support where
none exists."
I thought I said that.
I misread you as saying that Obama was hoping to kickstart a new opposition from scratch.
"Obama didn't mention that problem, but, then again, this wasn't the proper venue for mentioning that problem."
That, presumably is why Kerry's Arab road show is already under way. Good move.
Nope, he'll try to pick up what's there of course, and incorporate that. But, moderates got no chance until (if) we get the local Arab powers to back off on supporting the Islamists. For now it's gonna be starting something the moderates can join and eventually take over. How much of their own structure and people they can bring to the party is a ‘to be determined’ type of thing.
That, I think, is the mistake Obama (and the US) risks making. What does "moderate" mean in the context of a war? You aim to win or you may as well not take part. Does he really think there is going to be a fixedly moderate opposition in Syria that will not be a morass of shifting allegiances as that conflict ebbs and flows? I thought that fiction had already been dispelled.
"Does he really think there is going to be a fixedly moderate
opposition in Syria that will not be a morass of shifting allegiances as
that conflict ebbs and flows?"
I don't think so. I believe he's better informed than that. It is an ambitious idea, but he's left room in there for some backup planning too.
What does "moderate" mean in the context of a war? You aim to win or you may as well not take part.
Part of the reason we are seeing the brutality of ISIL is they are using it as a scare tactic to intimidate their enemies. It has worked rather well for them. But I think what they didn't count on was the involvement of the US, with our air power capability. Kind of reminds me of this. Minus the last couple minutes, of course. :)
"What does ‘moderate’ mean in the context of a war? You aim to
win or you may as well not take part."
So we should nuke ‘em and be done with it? I'm afraid it's not quite that simple. There are will be other contexts to deal with after the warring is done, a lesson Bush and Cheney learned too late.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
"But I think what they didn't count on was the involvement of the
US…"
I'll have to disagree. I think they were counting on getting us involved, on dragging us into it. Aside from their value as recruitment and propaganda, those videos were intended to be a challenge and a provocation that American politicians couldn't ignore. They went for reporters not just because they were available but also because they were reporters, knowing full well that other reporters would get all worked up, and it'd be sure to get concerned reporters with grim visages taking up air time on American TV.
I think they were hoping to get Obama to send American combat troops back into Syria/Iraq. They could then count on al-Jazzera and EuroweenieTV to splash more video of Evil Merkins busting down Arab doorways all across Asia, Africa and Europe, over and over and over again. And, of course, video of casualties from bombing runs is always good even if they can't get American troops in there. ISIS has learned this lesson from their brothers in Hezbolla and especially Hamas, and from the American pacification operations in Iraq; it has demonstrated value.
I honestly don't think that is the case, Lee. They were very happy establishing their Islamic State over the area they occupied. I think they counted on the American public having no desire to go back to Iraq. They knew they were safe from American ground troops. What they didn't count on perhaps was the dislike for their style of governance and that people would find an outside ally to help them.
We didn't stay in Libya. We have not involved ourselves in Egypt, or Syria to any great extent, despite what people say.
They simply misread us as Bin Laden did.
I also note that they have been trying to rattle Putin's Russia with threats of attacks there. So it doesn't even appear that they are trying to work the US and Russia against each other. They are focused on only one thing, their caliphate.
Well, there's no way to prove it one way or the other for now. So I guess we'll just have to figure it out later, if then.
As for this:
"What they didn't count on perhaps was the dislike for their style
of governance and that people would find an outside ally to help them."
I presume you're not necessarily talkin’ ‘bout the residents of the new ‘Islamic State’ there?
I'm not sure that a majority of the resident Sunni are ready yet to give up on ISIS just yet. They may need to enjoy their new masters a while longer. We need to not get ahead of the curve on that one either. For now I think it's enough to drive them back on the margins with the Kurds, and kick them off of the dams, keep ‘em out of Jordan, and such as that. Taking it to ‘em in the tribal homelands can wait a spell yet. We don't need to get ahead of our plans on this.
Well, it is a bed of their own making, that's for sure. It will remain to be seen how quickly they notice the sheets are too tight.
The US will do what benefits the US geopolitcally. No more no less.
Most countries will act in their own interests, Marcus. The US is not any different.
Just a small change of subject. Apparently there is a massive solar storm headed our way for Saturday. I might take a peek outside tonight or Friday and see if I can see any unusual lights. :)
Lynnette -- have you seen aurorae before from your latitude? I know they're more common in North America because of the declination of the magnetic North Pole in your direction. But I'm really surprised to hear they get as far south as Minneapolis. I read that they are common from 52 degrees north. I'm at 52 N, but they are far from common here (wrong side of the planet) -- although a little more common at the top end of the country at 54 N. Even in N. America I'd have thought they'd be highly unusual at 44 N ? (Although I little reflection just now tells me that the angle from here to the magnetic north pole might be the same or more than for you ... must check more closely).
I've seen aurora appear as far south as the Mason-Dixon line, 36°30'. (Just the diffuse red glow that far south, no sheets nor active curtains.)
I have not been fortunate here. I know someone else who has. Although I have seen them in the past farther north. Tonight I was tired and laid down on the couch for a nap and woke up 2 1/2 hours later. Oh well, maybe tomorrow.
I am at 45 N.
Here is a discussion about the Northern Lights in Minnesota.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ZTkYPRpXJE
Lee: "Are you entirely nuts?"
Way, way way, way quadrupled, way more sane than you are, warmonger and apologist for torture.
"…you…apologist for torture…"
A fairly clear indication there that you are nowhere near as sane as you think you are.
Marcus,
If that fellow on the video has a day job, I wouldn't quit if I were him.
Not only is his voice a little off, but his reasoning is as well. :)
I still remember Lee how you strived to whitewash the troopers who put a former Iraqi general inside a sleeping bag in the desert heat and kicked him around until he suffocated to death. You tried to make the case that that there had been no breaches of US troops to the Geneva Conventions despite that example. That's on record in these pages. I'd say that's a fairly clear indication you are full of shit Lee.
My view of Lee is that you could post a picture of a US soldier with pliers in his hands next to an arab with bleeding fingertips and a pile of fingernails in the sand beneath him, and Lee would claim no harm had been done. Always there for the home team, eh?
"I still remember Lee how you strived to whitewash the troopers
who put a former Iraqi general inside a sleeping bag in the desert heat
and kicked him around until he suffocated to death. Etc.…
despite that example"
I was wondering whether you were delusional, or merely hallucinating. Your response doesn't clear that up. (I didn't care enough to inquire.)
Here's the thing… Didn't happen. Your memory fails you.
You want to hear more than that, you find this wholly imaginary instance of yours; gimme a link.
Sorry, Marcus, I have to agree with Lee on that. I don't remember that exchange at all. And I assume you mean over at Zeyad's since we have only been up and running for a short while here. Petes could clear that up easily, since he has a copy of all of Zeyad's archives.
"I don't remember that exchange at all."
That's cause it never happened.
I do vaguely recall Marcus mentioning an alleged incident of an Iraqi colonel being tied in a sleeping bag and kicked to death, but, best as I can recall, my response was that the allegation was not self-proving; it was not proven merely by the act of making the allegation, and besides, it was fairly irrelevant to what we had been discussing up to that point (which was, I think Abu Ghraib and Gitmo), an unhelpful distraction from the argument we'd been having.
Post Scrip:
I think it was well after the conversion from Haloscan to Blogger comments. Resort to Petes' archives should be unnecessary. Marcus can search his memory and then the archives available online. I'll be patient.
Seems to me to be from the Haloscan era. First a description of the event:
Bruno, 14-Jun-2006:
**********************************
[randyG] “You do as you try and spin that our troops are evil. But you don't have any facts...just inuendos.”
Randy just asking to get smashed over the head with a mallet:
Death Of A General
CBS - April 9, 2006 - Harry Moses
Welshofer explained the bag came down over the general's head, and was open at the bottom and open at the back. Mowhoush weighed more than 250 pounds. He was 56 years old and not in good shape. Welshofer took an electrical cord, wrapped it around Mowhoush’s middle to hold the bag in place, and put Mowhoush on his stomach. Then he straddled him.
"The idea is you are putting him in a close confinement. You want to maximize the idea of him not being able to move," says Welshofer. But when Mowhoush didn’t give him the answers he was looking for, Welshofer says he put his hand over his mouth, while the general was in the sleeping bag.
[…]
The Army's official press release, said the general met his end through "natural causes." But later the autopsy found that he died of "asphyxia due to smothering and chest compression." Welshofer was given a letter of reprimand and he thought that was the end of it. He went back to work and was even selected for promotion.
[…]
Two days before he died, Gen. Mowhoush was visited by a team from U.S. Army Special Forces and the CIA, men who came equipped with rubber hoses. When the general continued to insist he knew nothing, Welshofer watched the session turn violent. "There were probably five or six guys who, you know, are hitting the general. And he’s rolling around on the floor trying to move away from one guy who’s hitting him. But as he rolls away from one, he happens to roll into where another guy is at. And then that guy hits him," Welshofer recalls. Welshofer says there was slapping, says he did see a kick that got the general on the side and recalls that there were two rubber hoses.
[…]
The blows took their toll on the general, as a picture and the Army autopsy show. “Findings included rib fractures, numerous contusions (bruises), some of which were due to impacts with a blunt object(s),” the autopsy read. //end excerpt.
But according to Randy that’s not evil. Uh, OK. Let that happen to your people and see how you react then.
You want more?
[al hajeji] “I believe that iraq has no future, their oil and wealth is in the hands of the iraqi government officials and the US military officers. […] Whether you like it or not, al-zarqawi has more supporters! I had been searching through arab forums and believe me, they are writing poems about him!”
Oh, look somebody who knows what is really happening. Surprise – he’s an Arab. I wonder why Arabs always seem to have a better grasp of what is occurring in their countries than the pro-war fruitcakes? This continually baffles me, given the way the fruitcakes go on as if they knew everything.
I agree with you.
What you wrote is the truth. And the truth is that this invasion has so brutalised Iraqis that some of them are willing to turn to anybody who they think will deliver them from this scourge. Funny to note that before the invasion Zarqawi and his ilk were cowering in the Kurdish mountains in the safety of the US no – fly zone. And today they are rampaging through Iraq. Yeah, great job in fighting terrorism, USA.
The war on terrorism – it would be a laff riot if it weren’t so damn tragic.
**********************************
Right, that's my duty done for a while. Am buried in final few weeks of my astrophysics degree so I may be a bit out of circulation. P.S. Tried to look out for aurora tonight but the downside of the beautiful sunny autumn we've been having for weeks now is that the nights are still and dewy, and we get radiation fog that obscures the sky up to forty or fifty degrees declination, so there is not much of a northern horizon to view.
"Seems to me to be from the Haloscan era."
Well, aside from me being wrong ‘bout that, the rest of it fits fairly well with my described ‘vague’ recollection.
So, now the only question remaining to be answered was whether Marcus was suffering hallucinations or delusions. I'd have to inquire further to figure that out. And I still ain't much interested, so I ain't gonna.
Post a Comment