This morning as I was reading my paper
I came across an article entitled Pakistan's War on Books . For
someone who loves books I was saddened to say the least.
Books are windows into other worlds, they open the mind to other
ways of thinking, they entertain us when we are bored, and they
comfort us when we are lost.
But perhaps more disturbing then all of
the above, is the idea that a government is so afraid of outside
ideas that they would go to the extreme measure of stifling them.
It is a tool that authoritarian regimes use to control their
citizens.
We have seen it before.
91 comments:
foist
Hiya, Z.
:)
"We have seen it before."
And we'll see it again. It's not just Pakistan; Boko Haram is a local Arabic dialect for books are forbidden, that's literal, the meaning they tell me is ‘Western education is forbidden’.
Western education is forbidden
That may be the meaning they suggest, but I have to wonder if it really isn't any education is forbidden.
It looks like Egypt has retaliated for the beheadings of its citizens in Libya.
One has to wonder if it is ISIL's goal to make enemies out of everyone?
ISIL seems to be making threats beyond Libya.
Italy has beaten everybody to the punch in demanding military action against ISIS in Libya. NBCNews France is demanding a U.N. Security Council meeting. (Presumably to end-run Italy's attempt to get France and England involved in bombing Libya again.) So far there've been few revisionist history efforts to blame this one the United States (other than on American Radio Right-Wing, which is all over it today). We can assume that may change shortly.
That looks like the same link I put up, Lee.
An interesting article I ran across regarding a little known aspect of the Iraq war.
Sunni lawmakers to boycott parliament
"That looks like the same link I put up, Lee."
An error in my cut and paste processing it seems; well, shit happens.
NBCNews site seems to have moved along, and the link I intended to put up has gone off the front page.
CNN Poll says that a majority of Americans don't think the fight with ISIS is going well, and don't approve of the President's handling of the issue (as usual, no consensus on what oughta change)
Americans? More bombs usually would do it.
You're probably not interested in knowing any better, but, for the record…
There's a significant number of Americans who're not seriously interested in the details of foreign policy. Those sorts of questions generally test for public perceptions of whether things are going well, or going poorly, which a significant number of Americans judge by how much foreigners show up on their evening news. The more foreigners show up on the evening news, the more a fairly large swath of Americans judge foreign policy to be going poorly.
This is particularly true when said foreigners are burning people alive, or staging mass beheadings.
This is pretty much the foreign policy outlook for enough Americans to swing that sort of generic question. (Which is why I went the extra step of noting that there was no consensus on what oughta change). As it turns out, not so many Americans as you might think figure that more bombs will solve the problem--they just know they think it's Obama's job to handle that stuff, and it's lookin’ ugly on the evening news; ergo, he's not handlin’ the job well enough. That's pretty much all those generic questions tell us, but you're wrong about the strength of the ‘more bombs’ crowd.
Get Ready for $10 a Barrel Oil--Bloomberg
The President is usually considered the commander in chief, whether you are talking foreign or domestic affairs, all the recalcitrant legislators aside. At least that is the perception of the American people. So the responsibility for bad news will get laid at his/her door.
Americans are also notoriously impatient. So if there is a plan going forward they are not prone to letting it play out before they start to complain. Of course, it doesn't help with all the talking heads and so called analysts finding ISIL creep where ever they look.
Marcus,
While I think there is a place for bombing, it is not the ultimate solution. What it does do well is eliminate some of the heavy weaponry that ISIL has confiscated from various parties, helping to level the battlefield.
What would be helpful is coordination, and sharing of intelligence, between coalition states in their actions, like we are seeing in Iraq and Syria with the the US and its partners. I am not sure about the Egyptian government's recent bombing in Libya. Hopefully they have hit the proper targets.
Baghdad and the Kurds finally came to an agreement regarding oil? I hadn't read that. That's at least one hurdle crossed.
Yes, well, it seems to be the perfect storm of events creating lower oil prices.
I just noticed gas prices have went up here about .30.
Oh! Those poor people in New York! You know it's bad when they start routing tourists to Florida! lol!
Our snow cover here is pretty minimal for this time of year. But it is cold. Some people up north are having their drainage fields freeze up because of the lack of snow to insulate the ground.
"Baghdad and the Kurds finally came to an agreement regarding
oil? I hadn't read that."
That's because it's semi-unofficial. Baghdad is reserving the right to back out of the deal. They only agreed to sort of look the other way because the Kurds' recent actions against ISIS has made it a bit easier for the U.S.A. and some parties in Europe to relax their enforcement of the oil embargo against the Kurds and start letting them actually sell some oil. Baghdad has done no more than let it be known they consider enforcing that to be lower priority than it was before. They reserve the right to back out of any deal there.
But, for now, it is what it is.
"What ISIS Really Wants--The Atlantic
"The Islamic State is no mere collection of psychopaths. It is a
religious group with carefully considered beliefs, among them that it is
a key agent of the coming apocalypse. Here’s what that means for its
strategy—and for how to stop it."
Give yourself some time or print out for offline reading; this is a long one.
Funny, I was just reading something about ISIS belief in the end times. That does look long, but interesting, I'll have to print it out and read it later. Thanks.
I've mentioned before how it appears to me that Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin is a classic fascist, a right-wing political animal. His political philosophy seems to match up quite clearly with classical fascist ideologies.
It seems I'm not the only one to have noticed these right-wing leanings.
Big Brother ain't the only one watching. ExtremeTech.Com
It appears that Italy has renounced its prior call for a military intervention in Libya. The Daily Beast (These guys theorize that's because nobody stepped up to supply the troops and Italy can't even field enough troops to take a minor city in Libya.)
I printed out that Atlantic piece and will read it later. Too much to do right now.
I did take a minute to read the Daily Beast article. I should think that Italy's reaction is just what ISIL wants. Fear is their greatest weapon. But while it is true that Italy may have a deficit when it comes to military power it is still a democracy, and as such holds values that are not compatible with ISIL's. Taking root there may not be as easy as they may think. Same goes for the rest of Europe. Sure you will find cells or copycats. But when it comes to complete takeover of government I think that would be a tough road to hoe.
And, frankly, it would not be in the interest of the United States for Italy to go the way of ISIL.
Cease-fire notwithstanding, the Russians have raised the rebel flag over yet another town in the Eastern Ukraine today. The cease-fire is working out quite well for them so far; and Putin's not above rubbing it in:
"Of course, it’s always bad to lose. Of course it’s always a hardship
when you lose to yesterday’s miners or yesterday’s tractor drivers.
But life is life. It’ll surely go on."
FoxNews
"And, frankly, it would not be in the interest of the United States for
Italy to go the way of ISIL."
I don't consider that to be a real possibility. Eventually the Euroweenies will discover that they really do have to fight back now and again. (And that goes for Putin's Russia as well as ISIS.) The day they figure that out will come quicker, I believe, if we pull out of NATO.
By the way, Lynnette…
I had the opportunity to talks politics with some folks I know whom I've not seen in a while now. They brought it up, but I didn't let the opportunity to ask a few of questions get away from me. I did manage to get in the question of what was the Republican right-wing gonna do when Obama was gone? Do they really think they can get away with the same sort of full scale, always on, 24/7 assault, on Hillary's patriotism, citizenship, honesty, morality, religion, etc. that they've kept running against Obama for six plus years now? Do they really think they can get away with running that sort ‘one of the others’ campaign against a woman, when women vote in higher numbers than men do? And what happens when they can't use that sort thing to inflame their ‘base’ and get their participation rate up higher than the moderates and liberals who outnumber them? What do they do for a second act when they don't got Obama anymore to demonize as ‘not one of us’?
It took the lunch table a few seconds to get it. The two women got the meaning of the question first. What crossed their faces looked mostly like blind panic when my theory sank in. After circling around the question again, their men-folk figured out the point; by then they'd started to work on how they were gonna compensate for the loss of Obama as demon-figure in their narrative.
But, the first look looked a hell of a lot like panic.
*smothered laughter*
Yes, those tactics would certainly backfire.
Also, given her years in government service it is hard to question her capability on a more pragmatic level.
They may very well have to resort to suggesting that she is out of touch with the average working American.
I don't consider that to be a real possibility.
No, neither do I. And given the recent raids in Europe after the Charlie Hebdo attack I think the Europeans are well aware that ISIL does need monitoring.
‘Monitoring’ may prove to be an inadequate response. Jihadi John called on Obama by name during those early snuff films because ISIS was hoping to draw the U.S. into another ground war in the Middle East. Obama has (wisely in my opinion) ignored the taunt and resisted the temptation. Like al-Qaeda, ISIS needs enemies to keep the narrative filled out, and, although the U.S.A. was their preference, they will almost certainly accept substitutes. The nation-states of Europe will serve well enough.
But, that does bring up another question, a poltical one, but one I didn't bother to ask my briefly garrulous lunch mates. They would have had no clue.
Radio Right-Wing and FoxNews (and now the Republican Presidential field) has long been trying to make an issue of forcing Obama to criticize Islam as a religion. They think it politically expedient to raise hell over Obama's referring to ‘religious extremism’ instead of specifying ‘Islamic’ extremism as the particular enemy. (Their recent complaints about Obama mentioning historical Christian religious excesses is a case in point.) Obama has so far ignored the taunts and resisted the temptation. Up until here lately this set of compliants have gotten traction only on Radio Right-Wing and FoxNews where it's a staple of conversation. Mainstream media has pretty much ignored the persistent howling. However, the subject has recently been getting some reporting (example--it also came up briefly on BBC World News this morning with Obama speaking to the issue at the podium of the "conference" they're having in Washington), and we can figure the Republican primary season will ratchet up the mentions of the need to hate Muslims in general even if the Republican nominee has to run away from that position once the primaries are over and the general election season begins, and also ratchet up complaints about Obama for refusing to go along with hating on Muslims in general. (The Republican Presidential primary will, no doubt, prove to be a boon for the Islamists who're looking to boost their narrative of a war of Islam against the West; but there's nothing to be done about that now, the Republicans will cooperate with them in that, and there's no way to talk them out of it.)
But, I've been wondering… How much traction has that story been getting among non-right-wingers. (I live in a very right-winger community and don't have a feel for whether the recent MSM attention to the howls are a leading indicator, or just something they've picked up to keep their political campaign divisions active until the real action comes along and Hillary declares her candidacy or something like that happens to write about.) What've you been hearing on the subject, if anything?
The Russians are making even less of a pretense at observing the new cease-fire than even I expected. I reckon they figure that just pretending at the table in Minsk was enough to keep the Europeans marching towards the end of the sanctions. No need to pretend in the field as well, not even for a few days.
They think it politically expedient to raise hell over Obama's referring to ‘religious extremism’ instead of specifying ‘Islamic’ extremism as the particular enemy.
What've you been hearing on the subject, if anything?
Most of my co-workers are not spending any time on the subject. They all have other concerns that they are more interested in.
What I find rather interesting, though, is that one of the experts interviewed for that article you linked to in the Atlantic seems to actually agree with the Republican views that this is very much Islamic extremism.
"Even the foot soldiers spout this stuff constantly." Haykel said, "They mug for their cameras and repeat their basic doctrines in formulaic fashion, and they do it all the time." He regards the claim that the Islamic State has distorted the texts of Islam as preposterous, sustainable only through willful ignorance.
Haykel goes on to say, "Slavery, crucifixion, and beheadings are not something that freakish [jihadists] are cherry-picking from the medieval tradition. Islamic State fighters "are smack in the middle of the medieval tradition and are bringing it wholesale into the present day."
I am halfway through that article and am finding it rather disturbing. The theory that ISIL is intentionally playing out some kind of prophecy of end times makes it appear doubtful that they could ever be reasoned with on any logical or pragmatic level. They are more on a par with Jim Jones's cult, as the author alluded to briefly. That would imply that the only way to really defeat them is to try to starve them of recruits, territory and supplies. Even if they are pushed out of Mosul or Raqqa there is no guarantee of their giving up. They will just sprout up elsewhere, unless their beliefs can be shown for the sham they are. This will not happen overnight.
Btw, it appears that the fight for Mosul is set to occur around April or May, depending upon how the training and equipping of the Iraqis goes. They will be the ones doing the bulk of that fighting. Or at least that is what is being said in the press.
I never expected much from that ceasefire in Ukraine. Putin has his agenda and he will try to fulfill it no matter what. I don't think a true ceasefire was ever part of it. It was only a ruse.
A bit chilly here this morning. It got down to 20 below zero over night and was still 10 below at 8:00 am. I think I'd take that over what Boston and other places out east are having to deal with!
"What I find rather interesting, though, is that one of the experts
interviewed for that article you linked to in the Atlantic seems to
actually agree with the Republican views that this is very much Islamic
extremism."
I don't think Obama ever said, or meant to say, that it wasn't Islamic extremism. He said rather that ISIS is un-Islamic, just as one might say that Jim Jones was hardly Christian (literal meaning ‘Christ like’).
Bunches of Islamic leaders, and also now clerics, are falling all over themselves to also now denounce ISIS as "un-Islamic". But then again, I've seen Petes telling us that America's cafeteria Catholics aren't really Catholics either. And the Baptists are still holding out that the Mormons aren't really Christians. And the Catholics think we're all going to hell ‘cept them; I think that's still official Catholic doctrine, but then the Baptists seem to think the same thing. (As for me--I recall that Jesus was actually a Jew, which tidbit usually gets me looked at askance by most Christian preachers if I make the mistake of mentioning it.)
I suspect the current fuss over who's really Islamic, who's really a Muslim, is not worth getting into here, but they do have lots of different opinions on the subject. (They being the Muslims themselves.) Not surprising that there'll be differences of opinion on the subject of who's really a Muslim, and who's got it wrong, among non-Muslims too. Personally, I don't think it's up to the Christians to decide who's got it right so far as being a Muslim goes--on account of a truly believing Christian would be of the opinion that they all wrong--the Christians are right.
What Obama's gotta watch is that anything and everything he says will be taken out of context, stripped of all context, and used against us among that majority of Muslims who already think that both al-Qaeda and ISIS are creations of the West, brought into being so that we'd have an excuse to attack Muslims. Repeated over and over, and out of all context. Both ISIS and al-Qaeda desperately want to make this a religious war. Obama's trying to not give them more ammo.
He's kinda caught between the right-wingers who're also wanting to make this a religious war (bad idea for us, but then they've been full of bad ideas these last 30 years), and the Islamic militants, who also want to make it a religious war (good idea for them, but then they're actually much better at PR than are our right-wing crazies; at least they don't adopt their enemies' ideas when those ideas are bad for their narrative).
Couple of other articles you might find interesting on the subject. NYT editorial on the subject, by a Muslim. And a perspective piece from the National Journal. (Both short; I've piled you up with reading assignments already.)
By the way, Shaun Hannity was beside himself with glee today--three solid hours of highly animated stuff on how Obama is un-American and pro-Islamic and how we all need to be hating on the Muslims in general, and wound way up--all he could do to contain himself--way pleased that this had finally broken through to the mainstream media and determined to press his advantage. He even had Rudy Guilliani on for a good half-hour.
It occurs to me that you've almost certainly heard about Rudy Guilliani's remarks by now, but, in case you haven't…
This is the morning after, minimum spin, report on where Guilliani took it.
(Pretty much everything after this hit the morning news was seriously spun one way or another.)
Fareed Zacharia commenting on that long piece from The Atlantic. (Short piece; I'm not gonna load you up before you've even digested that long piece.)
Shaun Hannity's been doin’ the hatin’ on Muslims and Obama (for not joinin’ the hatin’ on Muslims parade) for two hours straight now. He obviously intended to run the full three hours on it (got Guilliani gonna make an appearance on his TV show tonight, so he says), but he's running out of steam , startin’ to drag a little bit. Sorta off his glee from yesterday too, seems to actually be pissed that the Obama administration has started to argue back (none too soon for that, in my opinion).
I did finally finish the Atlantic piece. I also read Fareed Zakaria's piece.
Obama's saying ISIL is un-Islamic is certainly designed to appeal to the majority of Muslims by making it clear that he believes that ISIL's views of what Islam is are not theirs.
Graeme Wood's point that ISIL's governmental style follows the Islam of medieval times appears to be accurate, yes.
And then we have Fareed Zakaria who raises this point:
Islam Yaken is now a true believer. But the question surely is, how did he get there? And what were the forces that helped carry him along?
The answers to these questions may help understand why ISIL has taken root where it has, but they don't necessarily help us understand the appeal of ISIL for recruits in the West.
A lack of economic opportunities may be one motive, but for those from wealthier countries who do have bright futures that does not appear to be the case. For them the reasons may be more diverse and complex, making it harder to prevent their recruitment. For them ISIL may simply be the fad of the times, a way to act out their unhappiness in a very extreme way.
Oh, yes, I had heard about Guilliani's remarks. It sounds like he's positioning himself to run for President in 2016.
The Mustafa Akyol piece in the NYT was very sensible. The first thing I've read that has a solution to what is happening that feels right. I agree with it.
"I did finally finish the Atlantic piece."
Worth the effort don't ya think? Or do we regret me showing that to you?
"It sounds like he's positioning himself to run for President in 2016."
I think it more likely that he's auditioning for Mike Huckabee's old job with FoxNews.
"The Mustafa Akyol piece in the NYT…"
It was almost guaranteed you'd like that one. It was inclined towards the warm fuzzies, in comparison to what else is being said in public these days. You are a nice person and you are inclined to like warm fuzzies. You might also like this piece (fairly short); it's not got quite the same level of warm fuzzies, but it leans the same direction.
Changing subjects… Paul Krugman on a subject he actually knows (he can sometimes pontificate on subjects he don't know quite so well).
Here he briefly expresses his disgust for the right-winger political/economic doctrine and dogma alternately known as either ‘supply side’ or ‘trickle down’ economics.
I think that's always good for a mention.
And, I meant to address this the other day, but managed to go on to other things without taking it up…
"Putin has his agenda and…I don't think a true ceasefire was ever
part of it. It was only a ruse."
It wasn't supposed to fool anybody I don't think. It was merely waved in the air to give the Europeans an excuse to put the kibosh on American talk about arming the Ukrainian government, and to to grease the skids on a slide back from sanctions.
[Lynnette] I did finally finish the Atlantic piece.
[Lee] Worth the effort don't ya think? Or do we regret me showing that to you?
Well worth the effort. I would have finished it sooner, but too busy with work, chores and catching up on sleep. :)
I think the problem with fighting ISIL is that the group is made up of so many varying people with different reasons for joining. That article spotlights the hard core believers of a religion from the past.
[Lynnette] The Mustafa Akyol piece in the NYT...
[Lee] It was almost guaranteed you'd like that one. It was inclined towards the warm fuzzies, in comparison to what else is being said in public these days.
That may be, yes, in the sense that it is a solution that basically requires people to lay down their arms and give over to another power their destiny. Hmmm...strange, that sounds a little like a religious text doesn't it?
You are a nice person and you are inclined to like warm fuzzies.
Thank you. Although sometimes I do have my moments. But, yes, I do like warm fuzzies and happy endings. :)
It doesn't hurt to hope, does it?
I'm afraid I'm out of time for now, have to to errands, and hopefully out to lunch and a movie. :)
A clear, cogent and concise explanation of the American government's ‘language problem’ with regard to The Islamic State from Doyle McManus. The guy demonstrates here why he's an award winning writer, and I'm not.
…Link…
The long Atlantic piece was an interesting read. Here's another long and interesting story about an American journalists captivity at the hands of Al Nusra:
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/28/magazine/theo-padnos-american-journalist-on-being-kidnapped-tortured-and-released-in-syria.html?_r=0
It was long and an interesting read, but I don't know that it teaches us much.
I did get the impression that the author suffers a bit from Stockholm Syndrome.
"…or were you just trying to irritate Marcus to provoke a fight…"
I had, in fact, already decided I wasn't going to allow myself to get dragged into a fight over what I thought I'd clearly ‘an impression’. If he wanted to disagree, he'd have to just disagree. But, since you asked, I spotted a few things like this…
"I was curious about the futures of the five people now responsible
for looking after me."
…as I went along. I thought it curious that he considered them as responsible for looking after him instead of as guards preventing his escape. I had thought it odd earlier when he seemed to want to offer what seemed like an almost positive assessment of a guard who hit him a little less fiercely than the rest and once brought him apples and tea. A few things like that.
Oops, sorry about that. I misread Lee's comment to Marcus. I thought Lee was referring to the Atlantic piece, rather than the link Marcus left.
That was a long article, but it was interesting as well.
I guess I would still say I don't see evidence of Stockholm Syndrome, just a guy trying to survive by making friends with his guards. He didn't seem to espouse his captors beliefs.
But it is an eloquent picture of how messy things are in Syria. It's interesting, though, that in this case these people do seem more motivated by money and practical matters of survival rather than the fanatic beliefs of some in ISIS. Also interesting that they were quite open about lying to the Americans who were training them in Jordan. That doesn't bode well for future military efforts.
"…they were quite open about lying to the Americans who were
training them in Jordan. That doesn't bode well for future military
efforts."
I don't think that's news. This is not the newly announced ‘training in Jordan’ for the still-to-be-identified ‘moderate opposition’. This is FSA being trained prior to last summer. We already knew they weren't dependable, and that the efforts the Obama administration had put into finding people whom they could rely upon to not throw in with the Islamists were deemed unsuccessful.
Although, now that I think about it… This may be worth bringing to the attention of John McCain, and Lindsey Graham, not to mention Hillary Clinton and Bob Gates.
We have a former General here who's telling us, apparently with a straight face, that the spring offensive planned for Mosul will fail because Obama doesn't say ‘Islamic terrorism’ often enough with sufficient emphasis on the word ‘Islamic’.
Whodda thunk that without the help of FoxNews? (Personally, I think it's likely to not go off on schedule, but because the Shia militias ain't gonna be all that interested in getting themselves killed taking a Sunni city.)
Hmmm...it sounds like he's saying that Mosul is only one facet of the ISIL threat and that it will take more than retaking that city to defeat them. I think in that he's right. That ISIL appears to appeal to other extremist groups in other countries, namely Libya, does seem to imply that their appeal has more to do with just economics.
As for the timetable they have set for that battle, I am guessing that may be adjustable depending on various factors. At least one would think so, anyway.
"Hmmm...it sounds like he's saying that Mosul is only one facet of
the ISIL threat and that it will take more than retaking that city to
defeat them."
I'm pretty sure he intends that to read as a claim that the Iraqi can't retake Mosul. To wit:
"Unless the United States takes dramatically more action than we
have done so far in Iraq, the fractious, largely Shiite-composed units
that make up the Iraqi army are not likely to be able, by themselves,
to overwhelm a Sunni stronghold like Mosul, even though they out-
number the enemy by ten to one."
(second paragraph)
And his prescribed solution for the problem…
"Yet to defeat an enemy, you first must admit they exist, and this
we have not done.
(third paragraph)
(He descended into non sequiturs and general incoherence shortly after that. It looks like it might make some sense, but if one actually parses it out, none of what came next seems to track his opening premises.)
"I am guessing that [the timetable] may be adjustable depending
on various factors."
As it turns out, the critics are already setting up to announce that any adjustments of the schedule are an admission of an irredeemable defeat in Mosul…
Derek Harvey, director of the University of South Florida Global
Initiative for Civil Society and Conflict, and a former advisor to former
Iraq commanders Gens. Dave Petraeus and Raymond Odierno.
"The CENTCOM official told reporters Thursday that if the Iraqi
Army was not ready, they would move the date back. But Harvey said
there already were costs to announcing the operation.
“‘The worst thing you could is telegraph it, go after it and fail,’ Harvey
said. ‘And neither [the peshmerga nor the Iraqi security forces] is
good at this kind of fighting.’"
Daily Beast
Note Bene: This would not just be bad; this would be ‘the worst thing’. They're already settin’ it up.
My proposed solution remains the same, and requires a level of patience on our part that we've needed to demonstrate in the Middle East for a long time. I propose everybody agrees to let the Kurds keep Mosul after they take it. (I think they will take Mosul if they get to keep it. They may take it the old fashioned way, by siege--starve the bastards out, but they can take it by siege.) The Shia in Baghdad are not yet on board with this idea, but eventually, if we're patient enough, they may have to come ‘round to it eventually.
"I did get the impression that the author suffers a bit from Stockholm Syndrome"
I got the same impression.
What the piece taught me was something about the emnity between Nusra and IS. It seems to be mostly a turf war, like between two street gangs.
"What the piece taught me was…"
Yeah, I already re-thought that part ‘bout not seeing a whole lot to learn there.
Another potentially interesting read here; a Canadian's view on the power of Angela Merkel.
I'm pretty sure he intends that to read as a claim that the Iraqi can't retake Mosul.
My bet is that if he were alive Chris Kyle would agree with him. Yes, I am still reading that book. Anyway, I just ran into a section where he talks about working/training the Iraqi military. His opinion was that they were not up to the task at that time(to put it nicely) and that the war should be won before you try to train recruits. He said that there were a number of operations that we gave credit to the Iraqis for, when in fact we had done the ops. I often wondered about that. But anyway, that might be partly why they folded so quickly under ISIS pressure.
Retaking Mosul will be just as difficult as retaking Fallujah was, unless you can get people within the city to help.
And, my own two cents, is that retaking Mosul will only shift the problem if other areas are not addressed as well.
[Lee] I did get the impression that the author suffers a bit from Stockholm Syndrome
[Marcus] I got the same impression.
Two against one, yet I still don't see it. *shrug*
"Retaking Mosul will be just as difficult as retaking Fallujah was,
unless you can get people within the city to help."
I have mentioned before that it may be too early to liberate Mosul. We may want to make sure the locals have enjoyed as much of ISIS' governance as they can stand. In any case, you're still thinking in terms of overrunning the place. The Sunni Arab ‘majority’ exisits as a majority in downtown Mosul only (courtesy of recent ‘Arabization’ efforts). Sometimes referred to as 'western’ Mosul--i.e. west of the Tigris river. Sunni Arabs are a minority east of the river and in the suburbs surrounding ‘downtown’ Mosul, a plurality at best, the largest of the minorities in a population with no majority contingent. Current battle plans forecast that ISIS will conceed the eastern bank, blow the bridges and try to hold out in western Mosul.
I still think it may be best to use old fashioned methods from there on--instead of trying to overrun the place, lay siege to it instead--starve the bastards out. The civilian Sunni population can be allowed, even encouraged, to escape during the siege and then escorted to less hostile environments to the south (and then obliged to remain ‘escaped’ after the Kurds re-take the hold-out reaches of the city)
Post Script:
This plan requires more patience than is the norm for American battle plans. Americans are used to blowing the hell outta things and getting it over with quick. That may not be the way to do it here.
By the way, Sean Hannity is not happy today. The narrative got away from him over the weekend. Gulliani's foot-in-mouth moment from last week has over-taken the right-winger howling ‘bout whether or not Obama says ‘Islamic’ terrorism often enough. (That and the Obama administration began pushing back too.) Hannity is not a happy camper.
It would appear that negotiations between Greece and the E.U. have broken down. The Greeks are beginning to balk at German demands for further Greek ‘austerity’. I don't know if the German banks are ready for a Greek default, but we may find out soon. (Mostly I'm hoping we are ready for the German banks to take some major hits.)
I still think it may be best to use old fashioned methods from there on--instead of trying to overrun the place, lay siege to it instead--starve the bastards out.
I'm thinking that would be difficult to do. At least from a public relations stand point. Watching civilians starve is not something the American public would want to see.
It would appear that negotiations between Greece and the E.U. have broken down.
For some reason this doesn't surprise me. This whole Greece thing seemed to be made up of stop gap measures.
The Greeks are beginning to balk at German demands for further Greek ‘austerity’.
No surprise there.
It seems those three missing schoolgirls form the UK may have made it to Syria. *sigh* So much for security at airports. You would think someone would have questioned them along the way.
"Watching civilians starve is not something the American public
would want to see."
Not something I hadn't considered, but there won't be that much ‘watching’ going on, ISIS isn't gonna want to allow western journalists in, so there'll be not so much video footage to show. They'll try to run their own PR, of course, and we'll have to be ready to counter that.
I already mentioned needing to have a program going to facilitate civilians "escaping from ISIS dominated areas", camps set up for escapees--designated lanes where they can safely move to designated capture areas. The bigger problem will probably be dealing with the inevitable suicide bombers mixed among the escapees. But, that should be a manageable problem. The bigger problem will be managing the western inclination to get impatient and want to start blowing the hell outta people and stuff and thereby make the process move along at speeds more suitable to Western media expectations.
"This whole Greece thing seemed to be made up of stop gap measures."
I suspect the whole point was to keep Greece going long enough for the Masters of the Universe to pawn off the bad debts on their clients' accounts, transfer the risk out of their own accounts and on to unsuspecting and gullible investors, and only then allow Greece to default.
And I notice that I have two of "the bigger problems" designated above, but I think you can catch the drift there.
ISIS holds Assyrian Christians hostage
‘Hostages’ implies demands of some sort.
Yeah, from what I can see the only demand has been attention. And they are certainly getting that.
Meanwhile, apparently Al-Shabaab has been feeling left out because they have made threats against malls in the US and Canada, including the Mall of America, which is here in Minnesota.
I've been to the MOA once. It's huge. But I think their security is rather good. They had problems there in the past with teenagers fighting and made some changes to their set up.
Perhaps someone should remind al-Shabaab on the ill fated Jesse James Northfield bank robbery attempt...:)
But I suppose they are trying to appeal to any alienated members of the Somali community here.
Sean Hannity's been doing the best he can to alienate as many immigrants as can, as fast as he can. And he's been payin’ special attention to Muslims.
Opinions about the verdict against that guy who killed Chris Kyle and his pal? I just read about it but know next to zero about that story.
The defendant admitted to the killing. The defense was insanity, which would have gotten him committed to a mental institution pending a decision that he had been restored to sanity and was no longer a danger to society (in a murder case that's often a life sentence in the mental system--the guy who shot, but did not kill, Ronald Reagn better than 30 years ago has been deemed improved enough that he's now getting weekend home visits with his family, but he's pretty strictly monitored even for those).
At first blush I would have thought insanity was fairly likely in this case, but I didn't hear the evidence at trial, didn't follow it closely, and I'm not going to pretend I have any reason to contest their conclusion that he wasn't legally insane. I understand it was a second degree murder verdict (not premeditated), so he'll not get the death sentence. Life in prison is likely; parole one of these days is possible.
One of the jurors was interviewed on the news the other night. What clinched it for her was the tape of his questioning after he was detained by police. The officer bluntly asked him, "you do know what you did was wrong, right?" His response was, "yessir".
That wouldn't have done it for me. I judged the fella to be highly suggestible at that point, just from what litte I do know about the case. (I may have come to the same conclusion based on other evidence and other criteria; eleven other people came to the same conclusion, but that wouldn't have done it for me.)
Yes, without having sat on the jury it's hard to know how they determined the outcome they chose.
Post a Comment