I think it's time for a break again
from all the serious death and destruction out there. This year the
Library of Congress added a number of titles to its collection of
significant songs in American history, including "Stand By Me" by Ben E. King. It was first recorded in 1961, but
was re-released in 1986 when it was used as the theme song in the
movie “Stand By Me”.
It is really the movie that I wanted to
talk about. It's one of my favorites. Why? In many ways it's a
serious film, yet it's a story of a period of childhood where
adventures are possible and friendships are deep, at least in that
moment.
It's the story of four friends who go
on an overnight camping trip to see a dead body. Along the way they
run into various obstacles and delve into the more serious sides of
their lives. It's set in a simpler era of America, before the
internet, before cell phones, and before friendships were based on
the more superficial aspects of life.
This scene always gets me because my friends and I did this when I was a kid. We were walking to the fair and took a shortcut across the railroad tracks over the river. The river wasn't as wide, the drop wasn't as long, and there wasn't any train, but there was still just a little shiver down the spine.
I know, I'm giving away part of the ending, but you've all probably already seen this movie, so I think I'm safe. I can't not add this scene. It's what the title's all about.
80 comments:
NYT
A gamble, indeed. I hope it works. Even with our air support the Kurds in Kobani had a tough fight. It sounds like this will be no less.
Lee: Unless, of course, we get ourselves too closely identified, too deeply involved, with the sectarian Islamic infighting.
Well, we are helping an Iraqi Shi'ite dominated government against a largely Sunni dominated entity in ISIL as well as helping a Saudi Sunni dominated government against a largely Shi'ite dominated rebel group in Yemen (logistical air support). Sooo it's kind of hard to say we're taking sides in a sectarian fight.
"Sooo it's kind of hard to say we're taking sides in a sectarian fight."
I trust the locals will have little problem selectively remembering where we were on the ‘other’ side and discounting any instances that don't fit their selected memories of themselves as the great fighters agin the Evil Merkins.
"By Day 2 of the American airstrike campaign against militants
holed up in Tikrit, the mission appeared beleaguered on several fronts
on Thursday: Thousands of Shiite militiamen boycotted the fight,
others threatened to attack any Americans they found, and Iraqi
officials said nine of their fighters had been accidentally killed in an
airstrike."
NYT
It appears the ‘gamble’ is going poorly.
@ Lynnette,
The House did manage to pass a Budget Bill. The gimmick worked. They went with the one that got the most votes, but I've been unable to find any outlines of which one that was, what was in it. I can only guess that either the suicide/mass murder on the mountaintop in France has dazzled the press, or maybe nobody believes it's serious enough to bother reporting on it's details.
I see the House Budget Bill added a provision to repeal ObamaCare, (this has gotta be up into the 50th+ time they've voted to repeal ObamaCare; I'm not sure who's keeping track of that anymore) thus guaranteeing that the legislation is going nowhere, which explains how they got their fractious caucus on the same page (papering over Republican infighting over the defense budget by getting them to do another vain vote against ObamaCare) and it explains why nobody was paying it any real attention.
OK, so now that ya'll have avenged the dead on 9/11 about a THOUSANDFOLD:
http://www.psr.org/assets/pdfs/body-count.pdf
Perhaps it's time for ya'll to let it go.
And to admit it was poorly handled maybe? No such admission from Lee I'm sure, and probably not from Lynnette either.
Ya'll still believe that invading Iraq on bogus charges was a good move?
Ya'll still believe that the ones responsible for that war didn't know the justification was a load of bogus crap?
(I might somewhat excuse Powell. I believe he lied involontarily after great pressure and false intel. And I do believe he's disgusted with how it turned out and is suffering from what he helped come about, and is embarrased about how he was being used)
But Stand By Me is a really good movie. The book's even better if I recall correctly. I was a real Stephen King buff back in the day and some of his past books are amonng the best I've ever read. "The Stand" stands out as the very best one IMO.
But I never got into this newest huge project of his with so many books in a sort of a series "the dark tower" series. I started with the first one, stopped mid through and never gave it another go. Maybe it's great, I don't know, but the start was not that inspiring.
Cujo - that's another really great read. Low key about a family and a rabid S:t Beernard dog. Sounds boring but it's a very good book.
SK was so drunk and coked up at the time he hardly even remebers writing that one. Then after an intervention he sobered up and continued writing.
"And to admit it was poorly handled maybe? No such admission
from Lee I'm sure…"
What sort of faerie tale history have you sold yourself on?
When Iraqi civilians began looting Baghdad back in April of ‘03, we had the 4th ID still on ships coming around through the Suez Canal and down the Red Sea, they had been denied entry to northern Iraq (Kurdistan) by our then supposed allies, the Turks.
Rumsfeld ordered the ships back to America with the 4th ID still onboard; they never made it to Iraq. We didn't have enough troops in the country to stop the looting of Baghdad, and that damn fool was turning troop ships around bringing them back to the States.
I began screaming about how they were handling the occupation right about then--I have several times described that decision as the first of an almost unbroken string of screw-ups.
You were here for all that. I must conclude you don't remember all the subsequent, often vicious arguments I got into with the neo-con supporters for my criticisms of the handling of the occupation because you prefer to not remember. You like your faerie tale history better than your memory.
Post Script and correction:
Note I found just found in an old file dump bearing original date of 11 Feb 2007 (I think that's the date I transfered my files to this computer).
Text as follows:
"April 09 ‘03--the looting started that day, scattered, isolated, but it
had begun.
"That was our signal that we'd missed something; we couldn't stop it
unless we were willing to start shooting civilians down in the streets to
restore order. And we weren't willing to do that.
"That was the sign; we needed a deterrent force; something big
enough and obvious enough that people weren't gonna try such shit;
something big enough they could afford to fire a few rounds in the air
and then sit back and wait a few minutes for the crowd to come to
their collective senses.
"But, instead, Rumsfeld turned the 4th ID, which was on its way in,
around the Suez Canal ( think it was the 4th), and sent them back
to base, to be used as ‘rotation’ instead of the obviously needed
reinforcements.
"And he stuck with that decision, and it all started goin’ to hell.
That was at least the third or fourth wrong move, that I can indentify,
in what became an almost unbroken string of screw ups."
Looking at that I can recall now what were the first and second, screw ups--I'm a little vague on what I might have thought to have been the third.
I trust the locals will have little problem selectively remembering where we were on the ‘other’ side and discounting any instances that don't fit their selected memories of themselves as the great fighters agin the Evil Merkins.
lol! Yeah, you're probably right, how could I forget? We are always at fault.
It appears the ‘gamble’ is going poorly.
It ain't over 'til the fat lady sings. If we can find a way to replace them, the withdrawal of the militia's backed by Iran may not be a completely bad thing. Remember, they have been fighting for some time and not achieving much, so it's questionable whether they could have succeeded anyway.
I see the House Budget Bill added a provision to repeal ObamaCare,...
Why did I even imagine they might actually come up with a reasonable solution? They don't even know the meaning of the word. *sigh*
And to admit it was poorly handled maybe?
I think I have said in the past over at Zeyad's that I believed we did not handle the aftermath of the invasion of Iraq well.
Ya'll still believe that the ones responsible for that war didn't know the justification was a load of bogus crap?
There is no evidence that the people responsible deliberately "cooked the books".
Perhaps it's time for ya'll to let it go.
9/11 is long past, yes. But the world today is no more safe than it was then. It is others who will not "let it go".
"…it's questionable whether they could have succeeded anyway."
I think the only significant question was how long Iran would give the Iraqi militia before sending in their own Regular Army (and whether or not that would actually be necessary).
What?! Cujo, boring? Not a chance! I never read the book, but I've seen the movie. That was one of the best scary flicks I've ever seen!
I've read a few Stephen King books. Recently I bought the "Under the Dome" books. Haven't started the first one yet. They're long.
I think the only significant question was how long Iran would give the Iraqi militia before sending in their own Regular Army
Perhaps that was what we were trying to prevent with our "gamble".
"There is no evidence that the people responsible deliberately ‘cooked the
books’."
I think the evidence is fairly overwhelming that Cheney in particular set about trying to conflate Saddam with al-Qaeda when he knew damn well they were not interacting with one another. It's also clear that he set about a campaign to assure that the CIA came back with the conclusion he wanted it to have, i.e. that Saddam was still in possession of WMD's and that was a ‘slam dunk’ as Tenet eventually mis-described it. That may not be exactly ‘cookin’ the books’ in your mind, maybe not what you were talkin’ ‘bout, but it's close ‘nuff to suit me.
Post Script:
It's also true that the CIA did think Saddam still had WMDs. Damn near every intelligence service in the world thought that; Saddam wanted them to think that. Tenet eventually oversold his evidence to convince a seemingly hesitant Bush, but Tenet did think Saddam had the goods.
What are WMD's?
Jarrod L. Taylor, a former Army sergeant on hand for the destruction of mustard shells that burned two soldiers in his infantry company, joked of “wounds that never happened” from “that stuff that didn’t exist.” The public, he said, was misled for a decade. “I love it when I hear, ‘Oh there weren’t any chemical weapons in Iraq,’ ” he said. “There were plenty.”
Perhaps it's that word "mass" that confuses people. Well, if these things weren't of concern then this shouldn't be an issue...
When three journalists from The Times visited Al Muthanna in 2013, a knot of Iraqi police officers and soldiers guarded the entrance. Two contaminated bunkers — one containing cyanide precursors and old sarin rockets — loomed behind. The area where Marines had found mustard shells in 2008 was out of sight, shielded by scrub and shimmering heat.
The Iraqi troops who stood at that entrance are no longer there. The compound, never entombed, is now controlled by the Islamic State.
"What are WMD's?"
I think there'd be general agreement that old hazardous waste dumps don't count as confirmation of Cheney's imaginary WMDs.
"hazardous waste dumps"
From what?
I'm not sure I understand the question. Are you going with the argument that because Saddam once did have WMDs, then that's good enough, and we should pretend that the remaining hazardous waste dumps were an actual threat to the United States, thus justifying a preemptive strike against Saddam? (I have seen that argument tried out before, although it would surprise me to find you reaching for it.)
I guess what I'm trying to say is that back then there was a very real possibility that what Saddam had done before he could very well do again if left to his own devices. I could be wrong, of course, in believing that our intelligence community really believed that Saddam still had working WMD's, which in itself would have been a legitimate reason for the invasion. But I still come back to the fact that he was simply not to be trusted to not reconstitute his programs if the sanctions were to be lifted with him still in power. In fact, unless he was lying, he did say in questioning after his capture that his intent was to try to get the sanctions lifted and to go on as before.
Whether that was a good enough reason for the invasion will always be up for question.
"I could be wrong, of course, in believing that our intelligence
community really believed that Saddam still had working WMD's…"
I'm certain they did believe it. (Which is a separate question from Tenet overstating his evidence for it.) I don't think that was, in and of itself, sufficient reason to depose Saddam, even if it had been true.
Lynnette: "Recently I bought the "Under the Dome" books. Haven't started the first one yet. They're long."
Are there more than one? I read Under The Dome as soon as it came out. Good book. Not one of the very best but definetly good.
And so it spreads.
I don't think that was, in and of itself, sufficient reason to depose Saddam, even if it had been true.
That would lead us to the question of what danger Saddam posed, and to whom, if he had working WMD's. Obviously that kind of leverage would give him, if he so chose, the ability to intimidate or try to coerce anyone he chose to. Whether he would have shared any of his assets, knowledge or a weapon itself, with anyone who had a grudge against the United States, making it a threat to us, is also up for question. I still really believe that in the aftermath of 9/11 our government was shaken up enough to seriously consider the possibility. In short, because we had ignored it in the past and gotten bitten, they were looking around to see where the next threat may come from and acted preemptively. Of course, we will never know what the true outcome would have been if we had left Saddam in power and walked away.
The question now is what will put out the fire that is currently raging through the Middle East.
Marcus,
I think it is just one book, but when they published it in the smaller paperback they split it into Parts 1 & 2. That is the version I bought. They actually made a TV series out of the book, but I haven't watched any of it. Usually I prefer the book to the video, movie or TV series.
Although in the case of "American Sniper" I think I actually preferred the movie. The book was easy to put down. I still think "House to House" was the best book I've read so far about a soldier's experiences during the Iraq war.
I'm listening to Ayaan Hirsi Ali on Fareed Zakaria. Interesting person. She is saying that military force can only take us so far, that we need to remind people of the values that made the West a powerful force. This is a war of ideas. I agree. So many people focus on our mistakes that they tend to forget that the values, such as liberty, that we have tried to incorporate into our lives are a good thing.
"Of course, we will never know what the true outcome would have
been if we had left Saddam in power and walked away."
We don't know the specifics.
We do know the trend lines were already headed towards the rise of the Islamists all across the region and the resultant increase in conflict and breakdown of the old autocratic authority.
Al-Qaeda was already on the rise, the Paki ISI was already working hand-in-glove with the Taliban. The Muslim Brotherhood was gathering steam in several countries. Erdoğan had already been elected Prime Minister of Turkey. Even previously secular Saddam had begun to embrace Sunni Islamism, trying to get ahead of the curve. People keep pretending that taking Saddam out is what blew up the Middle East. They conveniently forget it was heading just this way before we took him out. We were trying to get a potential alternate path going, but we pretty much failed in that endeavor.
"We were trying to get a potential alternate path going…"
Or, at least, that was the part of the story that sold me on the idea of taking Saddam out. Turned out neither Cheney nor Rumsfeld were serious ‘bout that part of it, and Bush wasn't actually in charge, as much as he might have thought otherwise.
Lynnette: "I still think "House to House" was the best book I've read so far about a soldier's experiences during the Iraq war."
For me it was easily "Joker One", written by a regular trooper in a Stryker regiment. It's something of a daily journal of the war without any analysis at all except for the daily life of the soldier on the ground.
On a larger scale, involving the political angle, I think "Life In The Emerald City" was the very best book.
We do know the trend lines were already headed towards the rise of the Islamists all across the region...
Yes, I think you're right.
People keep pretending that taking Saddam out is what blew up the Middle East.
While taking out Saddam may have changed the Middle East's picture to be sure, what happened in other countries with the Arab Spring was more home grown. The one thing that may have had a greater effect than the Iraq War was the Internet and the rise of social media, such as Facebook and Twitter. Both those mediums, as well as others, have developed since the start of that war. They have allowed people to communicate and organize. But the reality is that the virtual world can only do so much. People live in the real world and what happens on the ground will be the ultimate determining factor in how events unfold, good or ill.
What we are seeing in Yemen with Saudi intervention is apparently the rise of regional powers to fill the void left by superpower inaction or indifference. There was an interesting Op Ed piece in my paper today written by someone who has worked with the Saudi government.
The new leaders in Saudi Arabia have no choice but to move forcefully
It seems that when Bruno said so long ago that there would be someone to fill any void left by the US, he was right. But it is questionable whether or not it will lead to peace.
Marcus: For me it was easily "Joker One", written by a regular trooper in a Stryker regiment.
I have that book! But I haven't read it yet. It has been sitting in my bookcase in my book room for some time. I will have to get to it sooner rather than later.
I have read "Life in the Emerald City" as well. A rather depressing book, since it showed how ill planned and screwed up our effort was. Did you ever read "Mustang in Iraq"? At least I think that was the name he gave his blog, if I remember right. His take on what was happening dovetailed quite well with what that book was depicting. The blog was pulled, and I always assumed that it was because someone he worked for, or with, found out about it and shut him down.
"The Good Soldiers" by David Finkel was also a good book. There is a sequel to it that follows the soldiers after they returned home, "Thank You for Your Service", which I have not read yet. Since it has been so long since I read the first book I may have to reread it just to refresh my memory about the people and their stories. These are the soldiers that were involved in the shooting of the cameraman that received so much attention when it happened. I remember discussing that over at Zeyad's comments section.
"But it is questionable whether or not it will lead to peace."
Clearly it will not, at least, not over the short run. Those filling the gap are not primarily interested in peace. That's not why they're filling the gap. They're primarily interested in expanding their hold over that ‘void’ and over their neighbors, or, at the very least, in countering their neighbors' expansions. Peace is a secondary consideration, if that.
Here's something to look forward to:
"One [Republican] committee chairman [House not Senate], echoing a
view held by others, says the right-wing Republicans really want to shut
down the government sometime this year, as a matter principle…"
Bloomberg
Lynnette: "Did you ever read "Mustang in Iraq"? At least I think that was the name he gave his blog, if I remember right."
No, I ever read that one. But there was a book I remember was great about a war against an insurgency, but that was a russiaan depicting his tour in Chechnya. Gruesome stuff but he was wery good at explaining anti-insurgency tactics, like the storming of houses and ambushes and such. I'll try to dig up the title because that's a recommended read.
The budget approved last week, a number of conservatives acknowledge privately, is as an exercise in duplicity.
The measure claims to balance the federal budget in 10 years with no tax hikes. But it assumes $1 trillion in unspecified budget cuts and another $1 trillion from revenue generated by the Affordable Care Act, although the Republicans would eliminate Obamacare.
LOL! And they wonder why nobody likes politicians...
"And they wonder why nobody likes politicians..."
And that's on top of the fact that they took the military spending off-budget so they don't have to deal with that dispute just now either. None of these problems will have gone away by the time it's time to do the real appropriations bill. (This isn't the real budget, but rather a statement of intent, and they've managed to pass this only by not actually stating their intent after all--but they did get enough Republicans on-board for that by tacking on a ‘repeal Obamacare’ amendment, which proved to be sufficient inducement for them to join the fantasy. But, that does explain why nobody was taking this serious enough to bother analyzing it when there was the Germanwings’ murder/suicide, pilot story to compete with for page space.)
This book on Russia looks like it might be interesting.
I'm not familiar with the author. But he seems to have an opinion to air.
I recently read "Red Notice" by Bill Browder. Now there's a man who definetly has an opinion to air.
The Iraqi army is declaring that the recapture of Tikrit is imminent:
http://bigstory.ap.org/article/f99408fa850d44fd808c4364145c22d6/iraqi-minister-says-tikrit-be-recaptured-within-hours
Let's hope it was accomplished without too severe transgressions against civilians.
"Let's hope it was accomplished without too severe transgressions
against civilians."
I think those of us less adamantly opposed to American military action as a matter of principle can safely assume there were less ‘severe transgressions against civilians’ with American pin-point bombing followed up with regular Iraqi Army troops, than would have been the case with Quassim Suliemanie's guidance of the Shia militias into Tikrit.
A couple of writers whose opinions I generally give some respect, David Ignatius (usually writing for the Washington Post, but not this time) and George Friedman of Stratfor writing today.
They both seem to suggest that, contrary to popular opinion and conventional wisdom, the Obama adminstration is generally on top of things in today's Middle East.
I'm not familiar with the author. But he seems to have an opinion to air.
lol! Most do.
I'll have to check out the links later. I didn't have time last night and now I'm at work, so gotta get something done...
Lee: "I think those of us less adamantly opposed to American military action as a matter of principle can safely assume there were less ‘severe transgressions against civilians’ with American pin-point bombing followed up with regular Iraqi Army troops, than would have been the case with Quassim Suliemanie's guidance of the Shia militias into Tikrit."
I'm not against american military action as a matter of principle. You need only go back a few blog posts to see me write "by all means bomb 'em" with regards to IS. And since it's ya'll who've got the means it's ya'll I meant.
And I would wholeheartedly agree that the less involvment of shia militias and Iran in the fight against IS the better. I said not long ago that my preference is for sunnis to take a leading role in the battle - an awakening part 2 thingy would be my wish. Not only because there would be less risk of transgressions, but because it would decrease the risk of sunnis in general siding with IS against a perceived bigger threat. The more sectarian the fighting is the worse it will become - is my opinion.
If the Iraqi military battles the insane IS-fanatics and US air-power is needed and properly used I'd give such strikes my full support.
But if it's used to pave the way for sectarian cleansing it's not a good option.
But my view of the present situation is I do believe the US military knows this, and at least tries to make sure it's not paving the way for shiite death squads and more sectarian war.
Fact is I believe it was probably a demand from the US military that shiite militias should be kept at bay before the US agreed to assist with air strikes.
"You need only go back a few blog posts to see me write ‘by all means
bomb 'em’ with regards to IS."
That appeared to be an exception to your general principles made on account of Malmö having an imported jihadi problem.
It appears that a deal with Iran on its nuclear program may be in the offing after all.
Ironically, the Obama administration would be in a better position (domestically, politically) if the Iranians walked away from the deal, but they appear to have caved after their last gambit--stretching the negotiations out past the Obama administrations' previously marked ‘deadline’ didn't produce the result they wanted--i.e. the Obama administration neither caved to Iranian demands nor bowed to American Republican Party demands that we walk away from the negotiations.
Obama's on the air right now, announcing the framework agreed upon, and making a pre-emptive case against the inevitable counter-strikes by Netanyahu and the Republicans. No doubt a Q and A will follow shortly.
147 Killed in Attack on Kenyan College
I was watching a PBS special last night on the evolution of Judaism, a review of the process which lead the Jews to the conception of one, universal God. This made them a novelty in a world in which paganism, multi-deity religion was the then universal norm. (Near universal at least.) Two hours on NOVA. Their God is the God of both Christianity and Islam.
"147 Killed in Attack on Kenyan College"
Gotta wonder sometimes… How the hell did this part happen?
And we have Iranians dancing in the streets. (Over the agreement for eventual sanctions' relief, not the al-Sabbah attack on the African college.) See Guardian; and Yahoo News At first blush it appears to me that the Obama administration got a fairly good deal here, considering their bargaining position.
At the very least this strikes a blow against the Iranian hard-liners, who, like our hard-liners, did not want an agreement to result. They've got a population now waiting for the benefits of economic relief and they've had to actually negotiate with and make a deal with the ‘Great Satan’. This strikes directly at their philosophical raison-d‘être. It might be wise to watch them for an attempt to strike back. And this just after their golden general Suliemanie had to withdraw from the battle for Tikrit. "147 Killed in Attack on Kenyan College" comes suddenly to mind.
As I understand it we are trying to get to a point where Iran's ability to actually create a nuclear weapon would take at least a year, giving us time to respond. To do that we are attempting to lower the number of working centrifuges the Iranians have, remove to another country or dilute the material already created, and set up inspections of current facilities. We seem to have gotten an agreement on limiting the number of centrifuges. The Iranians prefer to dilute any material already created themselves, which we may or may not agree with depending upon the percent of dilution. Although apparently this process can be reversed.
The sticking point in my view is how confidant are we that we will have inspections that are going to catch any transgression by the Iranians, either involving material already created, or possible creation of secret facilities?
I just noticed on CNN that Obama is starting to try to sell an agreement to Congress. This may actually be far more difficult than inspecting Iran's nuclear facilities.
Two hours on NOVA.
That sounds like it would be interesting, but I don't always have two hours to string together. Maybe I'll check to see if they've uploaded it to YouTube so I can watch it in a couple of sittings.
Their God is the God of both Christianity and Islam.
"147 Killed in Attack on Kenyan College"
Gotta wonder sometimes… How the hell did this part happen?
Sad, isn't it? That people just can't tolerate other's beliefs, even if they really derive from the same source? You have to wonder what is the reason for that need to control others? Insecurity?
I bought a book, Zealot: The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth. I thought it might present an interesting perspective.
I'm going to try to get all of my work done so I can take off Easter Sunday. Maybe I'll set aside what I'm reading at the moment and start it. Then I'll only be reading three books at the same time. :)
Hmmm...it seems some Iraqis aren't impressed with those airstrikes we have been conducting in and around Tikrit. Strange, I could have said the same about them.
"it seems some Iraqis aren't impressed with those airstrikes we
have been conducting in and around Tikrit."
It did seem to go down a bit too easy. I've been wondering myself how much of the ISIS defeat in Tikrit was the result of a strategic withdrawal by ISIS. They've got some logistical problems developing, and trying to keep Tikrit when they knew the planes were coming may have seemed like too much cost for too little (they remember their costs in the loss at Kobanê). But, that also says something about ISIS view of the Iranians' ability to take Tikrit with only Shia miliamen. They were willing to stand and fight them, but maybe not so willing to suffer the airstrikes.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
"This may actually be far more difficult than inspecting Iran's
nuclear facilities."
It's gonna be a problem. And it's Democrats who're the key here; the Republicans will attack it as a matter of reflex; they're beyond reason, and will remain so until they lose another run at the White House in sequence, but there's also Democrats who should know better who're nevertheless looking to make their own electoral majorities for 2016 on the basis of "lookin’ tough" to their voters in what's become a rather complicated environment.
"Maybe I'll check to see if they've uploaded it to YouTube so I can
watch it in a couple of sittings."
Title was ‘The Bible's Hidden Secrets’ or something close to that. I didn't have time to watch it when it was on either, and snagged it on the DVR (I have an over-the-air DVR). It was worth the two hours, just as a history lesson on ancient religion.
But, that also says something about ISIS view of the Iranians' ability to take Tikrit with only Shia miliamen. They were willing to stand and fight them, but maybe not so willing to suffer the airstrikes.
It's easier to fight an enemy you can see and touch. Not so much one who is out of reach.
It was worth the two hours, just as a history lesson on ancient religion.
I think you can learn a lot about where you are when you look at where you came from. Probably why I'm so interested in history.
It seems the shia militias mmight have entered Tikrit and looted and burned after all:
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2015/04/iraqi-pm-orders-crackdown-looting-tikrit-150403214735174.html
If we're to believe Al Jazeera.
Old habits die hard, whether they be looting or lying about it.
Netanyahu is now insisting that any deal with Iraq on Iraq's nuclear program ‘must include’ Iraq finally issuing a proclaimation acknowledging Israel's ‘right to exist’. Politico.
Boehner is insisting that it also include the Ayatollah Khamenei surrendering himself at the gates of Gitmo for some intense questioning regarding Iran's intentions. (Okay, I just made that last part up, but it's gittin’ there.)
I'm listening to a discussion on CNN right now about Yemen. There was a major release of prisoners recently, as in AQ types. What the concern is now is that the rivalry between AQ and ISIL will heat up to the point of becoming a real and present danger to the US and Europe as they try to out do one another. With the prisoner release AQ now has more foot soldiers on the ground to participate.
There is also a real concern to the region, as the Saudis get more involved, in this becoming a real war between Iran and KSA, rather than a proxy one.
A 19 year old woman hid for 2 days in a closet from the attackers at the Kenyan University. She drank body lotion to deep hydrated.
It seems the shia militias mmight have entered Tikrit and looted and burned after all:
That was always a real concern. We are not there in force on the ground to intervene. It is up to the Iraqi government to try to control this behavior. No good choices, as always.
Netanyahu is now insisting that any deal with Iraq on Iraq's nuclear program ‘must include’ Iraq finally issuing a proclaimation acknowledging Israel's ‘right to exist’.
If Iran would do that, and mean it, this wouldn't be such an important negotiation.
"…the rivalry between AQ and ISIL will heat up to the point of
becoming a real and present danger to the US and Europe as they try
to out do one another."
More likely the danger will present itself mostly to the easiest targets of opportunity. I expect more hits in the Middle East and Africa, and fewer in Europe, and even fewer in the United States. Perhaps there will be an increase in ‘lone wolf’ attacks in Europe, as devotees try to grab headlines for their preferred outfit, but I'm not sure the ‘lone wolf’ types really have those sorts of preferences for one outfit over another; I don't think they're all that involved in anything other than alienation and anger. Meanwhile, the home offices will be trying to rat each other out in those instances where they know a potential homegrown jihadi is sidling up to the other side.
"If Iran would do that…"
Ain't a tinker's chance in hell Iran is gonna reverse 60 years of public policy and embrace the existence of Israel. Hell, even the Saudi won't do that and they're plottin’ with the Israeli agin the Iranians.
A handy visual aid to who's in bed with whom in today's Middle East.
Lee: "
"…the rivalry between AQ and ISIL will heat up to the point of
becoming a real and present danger to the US and Europe as they try
to out do one another."
More likely the danger will present itself mostly to the easiest targets of opportunity. I expect more hits in the Middle East and Africa, and fewer in Europe, and even fewer in the United States. Perhaps there will be an increase in ‘lone wolf’ attacks in Europe, as devotees try to grab headlines for their preferred outfit, but I'm not sure the ‘lone wolf’ types really have those sorts of preferences for one outfit over another; I don't think they're all that involved in anything other than alienation and anger. Meanwhile, the home offices will be trying to rat each other out in those instances where they know a potential homegrown jihadi is sidling up to the other side"
Probably à correct assessment. Europe is voulnarable to lone wolf attacks and we'll get some of them. But they are à limited threat, really. Large scale operations like 911 are probably beyond tthem at this point.
"…more hits in the Middle East and Africa…"
Might wanna add Asia to that list. The fundies in Pakistan, and to a lesser extent the Far East, are gonna wanna play too.
Supertankers lining up at Basra
(Hat tip: Petes)
Lee: I expect more hits in the Middle East and Africa, and fewer in Europe, and even fewer in the United States.
Marcus: Large scale operations like 911 are probably beyond tthem at this point.
While I don't want to wish ill on the ME, Africa or Asia, I certainly hope both of your assessments are accurate in regard to the US and Europe.
Ain't a tinker's chance in hell Iran is gonna reverse 60 years of public policy and embrace the existence of Israel.
Yup, you're right there.
Hell, even the Saudi won't do that and they're plottin’ with the Israeli agin the Iranians.
lol! Apparently there are some things worse than Israel in the Saudi calculations.
"I certainly hope both of your assessments are accurate in regard
to the US and Europe."
My assessment is based on the assumption that: By January 2017 it will have become apparent to the American voter that the Islamists first concern is within Islam and whomever follows Obama will not be able to muster public opinion for another ill advised adventure to save the Arabs from themselves. If we actually had a real shot at that in Iraq, we blew it. We don't need to revisit that failure again.
Post a Comment