Periodically there are stories of
volcanic eruptions in the news. The latest was the eruption in Costa
Rica. They always remind me that there are dangers in living on this
planet that go beyond what we humans can do to ourselves.
Yellowstone National Park, located in Wyoming, was created in 1872 by President Grant.
Like so many others I have visited there, viewing Old Faithful Geyser
and being awed by its power. What one doesn't really think about too
closely is what that power really means. We humans take much of our
lives on this planet for granted. But while we are occupying those
lives with harrying our political rivals, fighting our wars, or just
trying to live, we are actually sitting atop a sleeping giant.
Well, actually, more than one, but right now I'm just focusing on the
Yellowstone Caldera. Because what those geyers really mean is that
we are walking atop a huge volcano. And some day it may very well
erupt, causing untold damage.
So, for a little exercise in humility, spend a little time contemplating how fragile our lives really are.
122 comments:
At 41 minutes, that'll have to wait until later for me to get a look at it.
For some reason I had it in the back of my mind that Theodore Roosevelt was the president who'd signed on to Yellowstone National Park. I was probably thinking about Yosemite; I'll look that up later.
But, I do know that Yellowstone National Park was the very first National Park in the world. It was a new concept, the setting aside of national treasures for the benefit of the common people. The natural interest areas of Europe had all been claimed initially by kings and nobles, bishops and the like, and later by the very rich capitalists. The very idea of setting aside areas of natural beauty and unique character as national parks for the equal access and enjoyment of all the citizens was one of America's innovations. One of our better ideas I think.
Yeah, that video may not actually be the best one out there, but I had watched it all and didn't want to have to watch all the others to try and find one without the pauses or sensationalism. It does have some nice maps and interviews with some knowledgable people.
When I visited Yellowstone we were on a road trip so couldn't spend as much time as I would have liked there. But it is an amazing area to visit and I would recommend it.
With all the volcanic activity in the news lately it seemed a good time to remember that Yellowstone is still an active volcano. Not to mention some people seem to think they can order their world to suit them, when in fact we are here on sufferance of a larger force (the Earth).
Wasn't there that movie made on Theodore Roosevelt and the National Park system? He was famous for his conservation efforts.
Yes, I agree, the National Parks were one of our better ideas. I would love to be able to visit all of them in my lifetime.
"How Islamic Is the Islamic State? Not at All.--
What The Atlantic got wrong about ISIS"
Mehdi Hasan
The title tells it all. I do think the two authors are talking past one another though.
But, this is the sort of argument the Muslims are going to have to play out, fellas like Hasan, who's claiming that he's a pious Muslim and doesn't believe that jihadi beheading people, new Caliphate stuff, against the thousands who've gone to Sunnistan to fight with ISIS and the many thousands more who support them.
I hope the folks like Hasan win that argument, but, whomever wins, it's not gonna be settled soon.
That was long, but worth reading.
I too hope the moderates come out ahead in this fight.
"I too hope the moderates come out ahead in this fight."
So, we both hope that the moderates win. Unfortunately, hope is not a plan (no, I don't have a plan either). More unfortunately, I don't think the moderate Muslims' chances of seeing their views prevail are all that good (not over the near-term anyway), nor do I think they have a plan to change those odds.
What I do think is that this guy, Hasan, is talking right past Woods (author of the previous article). Woods would no doubt agree with Hasan's argument that ISIS first off attracts people who are motivated by ‘identity’ rather than religious passion, it gets recruits who ‘are angry, or even bored, young men in search of a call to arms and a thrilling cause’. The thing Hasan doesn't acknowledge is that the Middle East is just chock full of such people. The populations are young; their economies don't work; their immediate prospects are grim.
On top of that, the fundamentalists are currently winning the argument, and are likely to win the current war. Most of the major players are fundamentalists of one stripe or another. ISIS or the ayatollahs, one side will come out of this stronger. Neither side is much inclined to moderation. So we're pretty much guaranteed that a fundamentalist, Islamic jihad type entity will be the immediate winner here. Perhaps it matters whether or not it's Shia or Sunni, but I rather think not. This will be but the first round of a long fight; neither side will back down just because they're thwarted on this round.
The secondary players, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, the IAE, are all dominated by fundamentalists, differing little in philosophy from ISIS. ISIS is the natural end state for the Wahabi/Salafi philosophy most highly promoted in Arab Islam these days--including the Muslim Brotherhood which is dominant in Egypt and some places where the Saudi themselves are not popular (they won the election handily, although they were not able to hold on in the face of the coup; they'd win the election again if another were held).
The biggest difference, the thing that makes ISIS stand out, is the Wahabi, and even the Brotherhood, see the Caliphate as inevitable, but not just now; ISIS is going for ‘now’. ISIS is doing what the fundies teach.
The chances that voices of moderation will prevail in that environment are not good.
Unfortunately, through the years, if not centuries, it has been learned in the Middle East that only the strongest faction will survive. And strength means the use of violence to get your way. The more ghastly, the better, for intimidation purposes.
The only way for moderates to come out ahead is for that moderation to be guaranteed by someone willing to enforce it. At the moment there is no someone.
"At the moment there is no [such] someone."
As we have seen in recent years, all across the region, those sorts of people don't win elections in Arab countries. And while some dictators have inclined to moderation (early Saddam Hussien comes to mind before he too began to embrace Islamism in his later years), that doesn't seem to be an effective answer either.
Okay, so why haven't the conspiracy theorists come out with a conspiracy theory tying the murder of Nemtsov together with the subsequent disappearance of Putin?
I liked this blog post and the clip. One of these days I'm gonna treat myself to a real roadtrip across the USA and see some of the spots I haven't seen yet. I imagin I'll start off in Florida and drive zig-zag up to Seattle, and I intend to have at least 6 months to spend. Maybe Yellowstone will be one of the spots I'll visit. I just hope that volcano, or any other, erupts before that and throw a spanner into my planning works.
Now to read the articles Lee posted. Might be I'll come back with an opinion here if I have something to say on the matter. We'll see.
Well, I hope it DOESN'T erupt, would be my meaning, in case you were wondering what the hell I was talkin' 'bout.
Don't generally find the Pope endorsing military force, but, it turns out he don't have much use for ISIS either. (Actually, they had the Vatican official spokesman make the news for him, but still…)
This afternoon we already have conservative pundits explaining why it is that Netanyahu's recent speach for Boehner and the Republican neo-con caucus in Congress is not just about to cost him re-election. (Methinks they doth protest too much--or at least too soon; he's not lost yet. But, if they're gettin’ antsy already then Netanyahu's probably in more trouble at home than I knew.)
One of these days I'm gonna treat myself to a real roadtrip across the USA and see some of the spots I haven't seen yet.
I hope you do, Marcus. There are so many interesting things to experience when you're driving. People who fly miss so much. And when you're on the road you do really get the feel for how big and diverse the US is.
We so often forget that the Earth itself is always changing and has a power that we, with all our military might and human machinations, can never truly match. Sometimes I feel we can be a little arrogant in forgetting that.
Okay, so why haven't the conspiracy theorists come out with a conspiracy theory tying the murder of Nemtsov together with the subsequent disappearance of Putin?
Ahh, he probably just has the flu. That stuffs really icky. I still don't feel up to par.
I think the Pope has spoken out against ISIS in the past. But, yes, his endorsement of military force is rather unusual.
I don't know if this will help or hurt. People are so touchy about any implication of some kind of religious war.
But, if they're gettin’ antsy already then Netanyahu's probably in more trouble at home than I knew.
I did read somewhere that Israelis are kind of tired of Netanyahu. I guess we'll see Tuesday if his ploy in speaking before the US Congress did him any good.
ISIL problems in northern Iraq
Marcus,
If you do plan a road trip for the US, you may want to consider taking in Glacier National Park as well. It's just up north in Montana from Yellowstone. We did that at the same time. The Going to the Sun Road is a beautiful drive. You know you're up high when you realize that the fog you're driving through is actually clouds. :)
Lee: "Okay, so why haven't the conspiracy theorists come out with a conspiracy theory tying the murder of Nemtsov together with the subsequent disappearance of Putin?"
Here you go:
http://3dblogger.typepad.com/minding_russia/2015/03/what-i-think-is-going-on-in-moscow.html
Amusing take on it. The conspirators against Putin had Nemtsov taken out because Nemtsov could endorse a successor in the next elections.
As long as we're on conspiracy theories… Netanyahu has found a conspiracy of foreign liberals, including the U.S., is out to get him.
I've long believed that is was Netanyahu's policy, but I don't think he's ever publicly admitted it before:
"According to the Times of Israel, during an interview with Israeli
website NRG, Netanyahu was asked: ‘If you are prime minister, there
will be no Palestinian state?’ He answered: ‘Indeed.’
"‘I think anyone who is going to establish a Palestinian state and to
evacuate territory is giving radical Islam a staging ground against the
State of Israel,’ Netanyahu said, according to the Times of Israel’s
translation of his remarks."
Politico
And, Sean Hannity came on for his three hour long daily rant extremely animated about Netanyahu's election. It seems that the Obama administration has ‘pulled out all the stops’ in an effort to the Prime Minister of America's best ally in all the world defeated.
These guys are extremely upset about the prospect they'll be embarrassed by Netanyahu's defeat after they pulled that stunt of giving him the floor to denounce an agreement with Iran. (They don't want to see Israel give an inch of ground to the Palestinians either, but they're most highly animated I think about the prospect of being publicly embarrassed.) And, It seems the newly Republican Senate is going to ‘investigate’ the Obama administration for tampering in the Israeli elections (or, so says Hannity anyway; he claims they're working up the committee assignments for it already. I wonder if they'll think they need to see Hillary's e-mails on that one?)
Interesting piece of info… Civilians seeking to leave ISIS held Mosul, to go south into Iraq for any reason, have to surrender title to a home or an auto in value of over $20,000 (USD). If they're traveling to Turkey they don't have any such a requirement. (Associate Press) It appears ISIS considers Turkey a friendly power.
It seems Malmö has something of a reputation…
"The most persecuted Jew in Europe is almost certainly Shneur
Kesselman, the rabbi of Malmö, a city in southern Sweden. "
The Atlantic
It appears that our general population has a difference of opinion with our elected Congressmen (generally, I'd say the guys in Congress are behind the curve here)
"[A] new CNN/ORC poll out Tuesday finds that most Americans
favor the ongoing direct negotiations, with 68 percent of those
surveyed supporting and 29 percent opposing the talks. The results
have a partisan split, as 77 percent of Democrats responded that they
back the talks, compared with 65 percent of Republicans and 64
percent of independents."
Poll
And yet, the Congress is approaching veto-proof majorities to demand that the Obama administration submit any executive agreement to Congress for approval. (It will, of course, not be approved by a resurgent neo-con Republican Congress bent on opposing Obama in all things, no matter what its terms might be.)
Civilians seeking to leave ISIS held Mosul...
Judging from accounts of what is happening in Mosul and Zeyad's accounts of events elsewhere I'm thinking those poor people are caught between a rock and a hard place.
You gotta wonder, is there no one in Iraq with any common decency? Or are they all being killed off?
(generally, I'd say the guys in Congress are behind the curve here)
I'd say the guys in Congress haven't changed much then. Keep on going and eventually they'll rival used car salesmen in popularity.
I'm thinking this guy is probably more crazy than a real jihadi.
Few have faced consequences for abuses at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq
Early exit polls in Israel indicate that Netanyahu pulled it out in the end, turned the election in his favor, just in the last few days. It's early and it's exit polls, but it's solid enough that CNN has pundits willing to go on-record with the estimate that Netanyahu has probably won a slim victory.
I'm now worried about where American/Israeli relations go from here. The contempt Netanyahu showed for Obama was an irritation for Obama, I'm sure, but it wasn't a real deal breaker for the relationship.
Netanyahu's disavowal of the ‘two-state-solution’ seems to me to be a much bigger deal. American policy is to support the creation of a viable Palestinian state. The Israeli may have just elected a Prime Minister who's now openly opposed to American policy in the Middle East. Not just the means but opposed to the ends that we seek.
I fixed the video. YouTube had removed the other one. I don't know if it had something to do with the Nat Geo label as a source or what. The one I have up has pretty much the same content.
Here's more info on the Yellowstone Volcano.
Lee: "It seems Malmö has something of a reputation…"
Yup. Our own media has done their damndest to try to pin it on right wing swedes. The last nazi type skinhead I saw in Malmö was in the mid 80's though. It took foregn media getting interested before our own media very reluctantly had to come to terms with this being islamic/islamist jew hatred.
I can't really guess the threat level. Probably an attack such as the one in France or the less organised one in Denmark would be the biggest danger.
The Shia victory over ISIS in Tikrit may have been prematurely announced. WaPo (The Islamic State has also begun an offensive action against the Shia forces in Ramadi.)
Did anyone really believe the removal of ISIL would be easy for the Iraqis? Even the Kurds in Kobani couldn't do it alone.
I think the question was more about whether or not it'd be easy for the Iranians, who're running that show.
Maliki is well on his way to becoming another Assad, a puppet of the Iranians (the Iraqi Sunni have long accused him of being just that, now they're making him into that).
By the way, I mentioned before that our Congressmen seemed to be behind the curve. Turns out I'm not the only one who views them that way.
"This is where a lot of U.S. policy is heading these days in the
Middle East. Mind the gaps — on Iran, Israel and Iraq. We’re talking
about our choices in these countries with words that strike me as
about 10 years out of date."
Thomas Friedman -- NYT
Lee:
"The Shia victory over ISIS in Tikrit may have been prematurely announced. WaPo (The Islamic State has also begun an offensive action against the Shia forces in Ramadi.)"
That doesn't surprise me in the least. It's a very tall task to take a city from an entrenched enemy.
The US managed to take Fallujah, yes, but that was because of an immense superority in intel, air power, fighting skills, numbers of fighting men and weaponry. Still it came at the cost of 100+ dead US soldiers.
It's a tall order for any other fighting force to try out what the US military did at a high cost. When the very, very best military force in the world took serious casualties it might not inspire less proficient armies to try the same.
To imagine the shia forces, militias and the Iraqi "army" would be able to pull that sort of thing off... well in any scenario it would be way more costly for them than it was for the US Army. They'd need lots and lots of bodybags.
A while back I read Stalingrad by Anthony Beevor (recommended btw) and in the battle for Stalingrad during WW2 it shifted from one party to the next so many times it's almost unbelieveble.
Conclusion: City fighting is a real bitch. Even for the stronger party. And even if "Iraq" gets Tikrit back from ISIS it might not mean much at all.
I've been saying I expected a long bloody stalemate across mostly static battle lines reflecting segregated areas (Sunni/Shia/Kurdish dominated areas) -- those Shia militias aren't gonna fight for control of Sunni cities as enthusiastically as they fought to hold on to their own.
The single exception I can see is Mosul. The Kurds could cut down the length of their armed border with ISIS by quite a lot if they cut across the valley and took out the ‘bulge’ that give the Sunni Arabs access to Mosul. There are advantages in defending a shorter border.
On the other hand, the current borders follow natural terrain, and the Kurds would have their guys positioned out in the open valley if they cut a line across the base of that bulge.
"…even if 'Iraq' gets Tikrit back from ISIS it might not mean
much at all.
They need control of Tikrit to open the road to Mosul.
"They'd need lots and lots of bodybags."
I read that they were burying between 60 and 100 per day in Najaf, that Shia shrine/cemetary city south of Baghdad.
Militants attack Tourists at Tunisian Museum
Maliki is well on his way to becoming another Assad,...
Was, he's no longer in power. There is still hope for the new guy. But, yes, it was always how well the Iranians could fight against ISIL, without our help. And for us it's a tough choice, because we don't want to ally with Iran against the Sunni community in Iraq. Those Sunni's who are fighting alongside the government of Iraq had a tough choice as well, but they apparently hated the governance of ISIL enough to risk being coattail allies of Iran. Says something about ISIL.
I take that back; it was 40 to 60 a day, sometimes up to a hundred, but on those days they'd not deliver all the bodies the same day, so's to hide the fact that some general screwed up somewhere.
"Was, he's no longer in power.
Yes, of course, I forgot. Abadi is so important that important that I forgot all about him.
Allah supposed to disapprove of the tourist industry?
I like Thomas Friedman, but that article was rather depressing. Although I fear he is right that there are few good choices for us. But, and this is a strong but, I am not so sure that doing nothing is the right thing, especially as ISIL seems intent on recruiting people from the west to join its caliphate. At that point they are a threat to our people that needs to be addressed.
Abadi is so important that important that I forgot all about him.
lol! Poor guy.
Allah supposed to disapprove of the tourist industry?
If they are Western tourists.
"Although I fear he is right that there are few good choices for us."
Few good choices that involve pounding things, and declaring things properly pounded, which seems to be the preferred option of most of our generals and most of the arm chair generals. They think we're supposed to ‘do something’ to fix it. The fix is to be ready to deal with what's left after the Muslims get tired of slaughtering each other. ‘Cause they're not gonna quit until they get tired. They don't wanna be talked out of it.
Meantime, we gotta get the Israeli thing straightened out. We can't do business with an Israel that's abandoned the ‘two-state solution’ on the same terms we've had with them over the last 30 years. We're not on the same page with them anymore. We need to come to terms with that.
And, I'm in favor of arming the Kurds to the damn teeth, give ‘em all the firepower they're willing to carry into battle. I see one friendly in the neighborhood, and that's them. Too bad they're landlocked and surrounded. But, it means they need firepower.
It appears that Thomas Friedman is at least as disappointed by Netanyahu's re-election as am I. Thomas Friedman -- NYT
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
I probably gave this argument short shrift the first time around…
"ISIL seems intent on recruiting people from the west to join its
caliphate. At that point they are a threat to our people that needs to
be addressed."
It's not people who join its caliphate whom we need to worry about. It's people go and get training in terrorist skills and come back to practice those skills. This doesn't require a caliphate; it merely requires a training ground. As long as the jihadi are able to continue to play this as a fight against ‘The West’ the problem will persist, whether it's in the Islamic State or whether it relocates back to Yemen where the preferred training ground existed before ISIS showed up as easier to get to. You want to address the problem? We need to change the narrative. This is a fight among Muslims. We need to keep pointing that out; somehow make that truth clear. We're not going to be able to make that argument effectively to the ISIS recruits if we continue to try to lead the fight.
I don't entirely agree with this guy. But, Mr. Lawson's got the broad outline correct. The rise of the jihadi, the burning of the Middle East, is a self destructive condition; they will eventually burn themselves out amidst slaughter, famine and misery. They will, with little doubt, take their progenitors, the Brotherhood, the Wahabi, the Iranian ayatollahs with their vilayat al-faqih down with them. In the meantime they constitute a problem to be managed, not corrected (at least, not by us).
And, by the way, if we could develop alternative energy strategies, it'd help them along on their inevitable road to famine and misery. At which point they will eventually have to abandon the foolishness they're embracing now.
Lee: "I've been saying I expected a long bloody stalemate across mostly static battle lines reflecting segregated areas (Sunni/Shia/Kurdish dominated areas) -- those Shia militias aren't gonna fight for control of Sunni cities as enthusiastically as they fought to hold on to their own."
I think you're right. And even if they "take" a sunni town they will probably have big problems holding onto it, unless they do some serious sectarian cleansing (which they might do at some point).
"They think we're supposed to ‘do something’ to fix it. The fix is to be ready to deal with what's left after the Muslims get tired of slaughtering each other. ‘Cause they're not gonna quit until they get tired. They don't wanna be talked out of it."
Not the ones doing the fighting, which are the ones who matter. There are probably lots of regulat folks who would want the fighing parties to back down and talk, but they don't really matter currently. So yes, this will most likely be a fire that just has to burn itself out. Sort of like the 30-years sectarian war in Europe, although we can hope it won't take no 30 years this time around.
"Meantime, we gotta get the Israeli thing straightened out. We can't do business with an Israel that's abandoned the ‘two-state solution’ on the same terms we've had with them over the last 30 years. We're not on the same page with them anymore. We need to come to terms with that."
I think the only real change is that the abandonent of the two-state solution is now out in the open. It was already there but not so openly. Netanyahu let that genie out of the bottle for political purposes in the election, and given the results in that election it seems to have paid off for him. A new US strategy and approach? But which one?
Lee: "And, by the way, if we could develop alternative energy strategies, it'd help them along on their inevitable road to famine and misery. At which point they will eventually have to abandon the foolishness they're embracing now."
A wet deam almost. Good for the environment and perfect as an antodote to our dependence on what are really a bunch of rogue regimes the lot of them. But - as I have stated so many times here - there are very limited options that are realistic with todays knowledge and technology. We need a gamechanger, an iPhone-event in the energy sector if you will.
Lee: "I don't entirely agree with this guy. But, Mr. Lawson's got the broad outline correct."
It was a good read. I found this passage to be the most interesting:
"Thanks to the shale revolution in the United States, America now has energy security. While it is critical to understand that the United States will never have energy independence due to the fungibility of the commodity and the global impact on price, security means that no one will “turn off the spigots.” We may have to pay more somewhere down the line, but oil will still flow. Ultimately, this means that while Middle Eastern oil still retains importance for the United States., it is more important to other nations that receive far more of the energy from the region than the United States now does. East Asia, especially China and Japan, gets the majority of its oil from the region."
Clearly the US is one of the nations that has the least to lose if the entire ME blows up. Sure, that would crash the stockmarket everywhere and it wouldn't be good for anyone, but the US is better positioned than most in such a scenario.
East Asia is mentioned as a loser but I'd add continental Europe as well. A big energy importer and with land borders to the conflict zone Europe is way more in harms way than the US is.
Netanyahu has just made an ambitious victory speech in which he basically said that the United States and the other five negotiators can't make a deal with Iran over the Iranian nuclear program without his approval.
"A new US strategy and approach? But which one?"
Unfortunately, with the U.S. presidential elections pending, there will be no agreement on a new approach from the Republicans. They're committed to preserving the pretense that the corpse lives, at all costs. They'll not be willing to deal with reality while they're courting an electorate to whom they've sold faerie tale fantasizes for so long.
It'll have to wait until after January of 2017 (Hillary might get out front with a few ideas, but likely not.)
Lee: "It'll have to wait until after January of 2017 (Hillary might get out front with a few ideas, but likely not.)"
I am aware this is close to an impossible question to answer so I'll ask it in terms of likelihood. What do you reckon the chances are for Hillary being the next prez? And who do you believe will be the Rep cadidate?
Myself, at this point, I'd guess a race between Hillary and Jeb Bush, with Hillary winning by a comfortable but not wide margin. I'd say I'd bet on Hillary today if I was promised about 1.7 on my money back.
But I may be underestimating the general American´s appetite for "change". Maybe both those two will look like belonging to "dynasties" and the US public will reject them and go for somthing new instead.
What's your best guess at this point? (and I am aware it's an impossible question and much can change until election time so I am on board with us not bashing eachothers guesses later on, with hindsight)
Just enough time for one comment...
That is my guess, Marcus, Hillary and Jeb. But you're right, it's still early, anything could happen.
"I'd guess a race between Hillary and Jeb Bush, with Hillary winning
by a comfortable but not wide margin."
It's too early in the game… But, at this point, were it to come down to Hillary against Jeb Bush, I'd go along with ‘Hillary winning by a comfortable but not wide margin.’
But, I don't think it'll be Bush. I think the right-wing crazies have denounced him to one another on Radio Right-Wing long enough and loud enough that they can't reverse course now and accept him. I think they're strong enough inside the Republican Party to beat his nomination back this time. (They think they got screwed over by the Republican ‘Establishment’ in the last two elections, and got moderates as nominees and that's why they lost--a true-believer right-wing crazie would have won they think, or, at least, that's what they keep telling themselves they think.)
I also don't think any of the known crazies, Ted Cruz, Mike Lee, Dr. Ben Carson, etc. will be able to beat back ‘Establishment’ resistance (i.e Wall Street and the Malignant Mighty Mega-Banks). (Libertarian Rand Paul is his own kinda kooky, but he's not got a real shot either.) I'm thinking it'll be a nominee you've never heard of; one of the second tier potential candidates, somebody who's not been noticed enough to have already been declared ‘totally unacceptable’ by either faction; who'll emerge as a sort of consensus compromise, somebody that Radio Right-Wing hasn't already savaged over some perceived deviation from right-wing craziness and whom the big money guys think can be bought off with money. Then all he'll have to do is throw in with the resurgent neo-cons and war hawks and he'll have all three factions of the traditional Republican coalition.
Some names include… John Kasich, or Rick Snyder, Scott Walker, or maybe even Marco Rubio.
I don't know how to mark that match up--haven't seen them campaign for real in a general national election. But, if I had to put money down on a bet at even odds (and I do not have to do that), I'd probably put my money on Hillary at this point.
Post Script:
There is a chance there'll be no Republican nominee come out of the primary campaign. Nobody'll be able to pull together enough delegates to cinch down a win, and they go to the convention without a settled nominee and have to pick one there. If that happens, all bets are off, anybody could get lucky and make the right back-room trades at the right time, just by accident. I consider a fought-over Republican convention to be a real possibility this time. And if that happens, it's anybody's guess who comes out of it on top.
No great shock: Netanyahu is already trying to ‘walk back’ his campaign promise of a rejection of any Palestinian state on his watch. NBCNews. Unfortunately, for both him and the U.S., he made those statements in English, not in Hebrew, so he can't claim poor translation of his meaning.
I don't think he's ever going to be able to un-ring that bell. (The Republicans running for President will all pretend to believe it--that'll save them some complications on the campaign trail, and it'll be pitched over and over on Radio Right-Wing, so, of course, the congressional Republicans will pretend to believe it too, but I don't think anybody else is gonna buy it.)
Boehner's taking a victory lap along with Netanyahu; he'll be making a visit to Israel in the next few weeks. WaPo
Bombs in Yemen Kill 137
ISIL claims responsibility.
"A federal judge has ordered the release of about 2,000 photos
depicting the abuse of prisoners in U.S. military custody—images that
President Barack Obama declared years ago should be kept from
public view."
Politico (ruling here)
I rather hope the Obama administration appeals and wins. I don't see where making those public would be helpful in today's world. (Might help ISIS with recruiting, but I'm generally agin helping them with recruiting.)
I agree. We already know about prisoner abuse by the US military in the past. What is of more concern is what is happening now.
Petraeus: Greatest Threat to Iraqi Stability Isn't ISIS
Netanyahu is apparently of the opinion that, because he won the Israeli election handily, it is up to the White House to come to him, hat in hand, to ask that the American/Israeli relationship be repaired on some basis acceptable to Netanyahu. The Obama administration appears to disagree. They seem to be none too eager to ask Netanyahu's forgiveness. An op-ed in the NYT opines that this is a sign they think they're on track to actually get a nuclear agreement with Iran, and trying to buddy up with Netanyahu just now isn't likely to facilitate reaching that agreement.
Lee: "I don't see where making those public would be helpful in today's world. (Might help ISIS with recruiting, but I'm generally agin helping them with recruiting.)"
I actually agree with that. I wouldn't have a few years ago but to drag that mess up again, well I can't see any good it would do. And the risk of such photos being used for extremist propaganda, or even the risk that present or future prisoners will be treated even worse as some sort of retaliation, seems real enough.
But what I'm most disgusted about with that whole affair was how a few low level prisonguards were the only ones to face consequences, over institutional abuse that must have reached much, much higher. Only the ones dumb enough to pose for pictures were tried and sometimes sentenced. I very much doubt they came up with it all on their own.
"I very much doubt they came up with it all on their own."
Probably not; at the very least they'd heard of previous examples they were emulating.
However, the problem of the justice system too often catching the small-fry out front while the bigger fish slip the net is not a failure particular to American justice, nor to American military justice. I would have hoped to see it done better than average there, especially as the offenses became so public, but none of the small-fry seemed to want to give up any of the bigger fish, which is usually how the bigger fish get caught.
Post Script:
And, I might point out that every officer in the direct chain of command, right up to LieutenantGeneral Sanchez, had their military careers ruined for allowing Abu Ghraib to happen. The military might not have gotten convictions, but they did get rid of those officers.
Personally, what happened at Bagram still makes me angry. Those people should have been locked up and the key thrown away.
I see Bruno is still around. I just noticed he left a comment over at Zeyad's under the severed head post. Apparently things are not going too well in South Africa. I haven't noticed anything on our news and he didn't go into detail.
I've long suspected the CIA was running rather close to the surface at Bagram. IF anybody was ever held accountable for that disaster, we'd be unlikely to hear about it. They're past masters at avoiding publicity and certainly at avoiding public accountability. Goes with the territory.
Minnesota jihadi makes the pages of the New York Times
I have a great deal of respect for those people at CIA who are able to perform their jobs professionally and successfully. What happened at Bagram, if the CIA was involved, was inexcusable in the fact that those who apparently deliberately killed the one detainee forgot the values they were hired to protect. Murder is murder, and that certainly seemed to be the case from everything I read.
I hope you are correct that the people who were involved are no longer in our service.
Lynnette: "What happened at Bagram, if the CIA was involved, was inexcusable in the fact that those who apparently deliberately killed the one detainee forgot the values they were hired to protect."
I think it's pretty well established that it all started with that "reversed sere" program and grew from there.
It goes like this: It started when US airmen were shot down and captured during the Korea war. They appeared on TV denouncing the US and heaping praise on communism. The US was baffled as to how they could have been coerced into such treachery. It was fond out that their Chinese captors had learned torture and coercion from the masters at the time, the soviets. That torture included sleep deprivation, induced hypotheria, stress positioning, restricting food and drink, and such. It breaks the psyche way worse than mere physical torment and is especially convenient in extracting forced confessions - something the Soviets were obcessed with.
SERE was your military's responce. A progra to train special forces to have something of a toolbox to withstand such treatment (even though it's very much in doubt anyone ever could accomplish that).
Reversed SERE in effect was to reverse the resistance methods to communist torture methods, and you then of course end up with: communist torture methods. And THAT is precisely what your government agencies subjected a lot of people to. Why? Because it works, as own your shot down pilots once proved.
The problem is it works really well to extract confessions if, like for the Soviets, the confession is a goal in itself. It doesn't really work at all in getting the truth out of people becuse they'll just about say anything so you might get some truths but you get a bunch of false truths also.
Lynnette:
"I see Bruno is still around. I just noticed he left a comment over at Zeyad's under the severed head post."
I'm gonna go there and leave a link to ths blog, in case Bruno's wondering where we all went. It would be fun to have him around again.
I finally got a chance to read that article you posted, Lee, about the jihadist from Minneapolis.
As noted there is a large Somali community here. Perfect hunting grounds for those who would lure foolish people to join Shabab or ISIL's caliphate. And, unfortunately, they have met with some success. I would hope that the mosque that this man attended not only is looking for anyone who may be recruiting, but is actively talking to it's younger members about the realities of what these terrorist groups really are. Death cult is an appropriate name. While these young men may be looking for purpose and adventure, what they will find is very likely death, no paradise included.
Marcus,
It's probably a long shot that Bruno will see it. I don't know if he reads Zeyad regularly. I don't always notice if there are comments myself, which is why I didn't notice Bruno's on that older post before. With the Arabic script Zeyad has went to it's not always obvious. I just happened to do Google translate and scrolled down.
Lynnette
"It's probably a long shot that Bruno will see it. I don't know if he reads Zeyad regularly."
Maybe not. But at least Zeyad let my comment promotong this blog be published. I wasn't so sure about that.
Any theories on why Zeyad is still posting in English when he's got the blog set up for Arabic?
He still wants to talk to those who speak English?
If you look at the subjects of his posts you see that he is warning people that even if ISIL is defeated Iraq still has problems between Sunni and Shia. It's the same thing that Petraeus is warning about.
Ted Cruz declares he's running for President
*sigh*
What's with the ‘sigh’? I thought it was a foregone conclusion that Ted Cruz was gonna run for President.
Lee: "Any theories on why Zeyad is still posting in English when he's got the blog set up for Arabic?"
I don't know. But out of curiosity I went back to old posts and comment sections to have a look.
It seems we collectively bailed on Zeyads blog for mainly two reasons: The first was that he changed the format into arabic making it user unfriendly (for us). The second was that he started to delete posts at wanton (yourse in paticular) so that a coherent debate could not be held.
On top of the deleting of other's posts he began spamming the comment section with insults or nonsense. It just became an impossible format for debate.
I also noticed I myself was very, very pissed off at you during the last phase of our commenting over at Zeyads. Can't really remember what got me that agitated but it must've been something. And since your posts are mostly deleted I can't say how that got started.
And I remember I got into some serious mudslinging with Zeyad too, and although some of it's still there parts have been erased.
Anyway, unless Zeyad changes his blog back into english and stops the deleting and spamming we're all better off here. Could be Zeyad is fine with that and doesn't want us around any longer anyhow. His blog - his choice.
This new blog works fine for me. And PeteS´s "rules" for a minimum level of civility are probably for the better, even though I sometimes brush up against them wanting to go further.....
^me
The only thing I am not pleased with is if someone of our past contributors check in and decide the community is dead.
Like Jeffrey. Could he find this new blog? Or Bridget? Or Bruno? Or An Italian?
In case they were to check in I'd like for them to be able to come here. I did my part by linking to this blog in the comment section at Zeyads where Bruno made a coment (and Zeyad let that comment through).
We COULD ask Zeyad to link to this blog for old blog commenters, but why should he? OK I'll ask anyway:
Zeyad: since you obviosly don't want a commentors community at your own blog, could you please re-direct old commenters to this new blog?
Shit, I forgot to mention RhusLancia. Wonder what he's upto.
What's with the ‘sigh’? I thought it was a foregone conclusion that Ted Cruz was gonna run for President.
I don't have to like it.
I did tell Bridget about the blog, Marcus, as I still had a working email for her. We were actually having a discussion about Gitmo not too long ago.
It is a little difficult to comment at Zeyad's now because of the right justification, which just throws me all off. I have left him links when I think he may be interested in the subject.
lol!
And if you're fishing, I don't know if he's lurking out there reading your comment or not. :)
"He still wants to talk to those who speak English?"
Seems to be the only viable theory so far.
Oops, forgot to mention, I just started that book "We Are Anonymous'. It's interesting, although the security guy in the beginning sounds like an idiot.
The Wall Street Journal (uncharacteristically, open to the public; no subscription required) is reporting that the Israeli were engaged in spying on the closed-door negotiations and the negotiators for the potential Iranian nuclear arms deal, now being held in Geneva.
Supposedly Israel fed classified information back to selected American congressmen (Republicans all) in an effort to give them ammunition to derail the talks politically back here at home.
John Boeher, who's scheduled to make a victory lap with Netanyahu, in Israel in a few days has professed shock over these revelations. Apparently the victory lap trip is still on though.
Sheesh! Now we have "Spygate". Politics is a dirty business.
Does anyone remember if the Malaysian planes that went down were Airbus's?
Boeing's. 777's I think.
I seem to vaguely recall that Malaysia Airlines has signed a contract to buy new Airbuses though.
"Sheesh! Now we have ‘Spygate’."
I don't expect that to take up too much air-time. How surprised can one be? In any other era that'd be a big deal, but now, it's just one more deal.
@ Lynnette,
Have you been following the machinations in the House over the proposed Budget Bill? Boehner thinks he's come up with a gimmick to get the ‘hell no’ crowd rounded up and all working on the same page. (Maybe this will work, but I think I can already see a couple of ways for this to blow up in his face.)
Boeing's? Well, that shoots that theory I was hatching. The recent crash reminded me so much of the incident with flight 370 I was starting to wonder if there wasn't some common factor causing either depressurization or a fire.
I guess we'll see what they find on the black box.
Hmmm...of course, just because they were manufactured by different companies doesn't necessarily mean they didn't use a common parts vendor.
In any other era that'd be a big deal, but now, it's just one more deal.
That seems to be the case with many things now.
No, I haven't been following the Budget bill process. That's interesting, though. They are bringing to the floor 6 budgets to vote on and adopting the one with the most votes. Are they allowed to vote multiple times or just once? Could someone vote for his/her favorite but also a second best one they could still live with? Taking it a step further and using ranked voting would add another dimension to the process.
This actually makes watching voting interesting.
No ranked voting, but they're allowed to vote all six times. They're expected to vote all six times. But, they vote either yea or nay, for or against. The one with the highest number of Republicans in favor is supposedly gonna be the one. (Since I don't see how they can forbid Democrats from voting, I see an opportunity for minor mischief here, but that's a minor matter compared to the other things that can go wrong with this plan.)
Newsfeeds are telling me that that the U.S. has begun bombing in support of Shia troops in and around Tikrit. (Supposedly in support of Iraqi forces, not their Iranian cohorts.) I am definitely not in favor of this. If Obama had asked me, I would have argued against it. However…
Saudi Arabia Launches Air Strikes in Yemen
I'd be interested to know your thinking on the drawbacks to the voting plan, Lee. Or do you want to wait until it's done?
Yes, I saw that about the air support around Tikrit. I'm of two minds about it as well. I would like to know their reasoning.
Thinks aren't looking very good in Mosul for the residents there. There was an article in my paper about an Iraqi man and woman who were stoned to death for adultery. Such executions are not uncommon there, apparently. One man they interviewed, who refused to give his last name, says he feels abandoned by the Iraqi government.
"Thinks" should be "things" :)
NYT Times reports pilot locked out of cockpit
Lynnette: "Newsfeeds are telling me that that the U.S. has begun bombing in support of Shia troops in and around Tikrit. (Supposedly in support of Iraqi forces, not their Iranian cohorts.)"
I think it's very hard to separate the two at this point. I think they come as a package.
Lynnette: "I am definitely not in favor of this. If Obama had asked me, I would have argued against it. However…"
Probably you're right. The way I see it is IS/Al Qaeda can only really be defeated like they were by the Awakening, bu fed up sunnis. But if the shia supported by Iran are attacking the sunnis will fear them even more and ally with IS/Qaeda out of perceived necessity.
Maybe an all out clash is inevitable and the fire must burn itself out of fuel. In such a scenario I don't really see a palatable choice for US or western involvment. Except perhaps to assist the Kurds so they can defend themselves.
"…on the drawbacks to the voting plan…"
Well, aside from the possibility of Democrats voting and making mischief with the counts, there's the very real possibility that the one with the most votes will nevertheless not have enough votes to pass.
Lynnette: "Newsfeeds are telling me that that the U.S. has begun bombing in support of Shia troops in and around Tikrit. (Supposedly in support of Iraqi forces, not their Iranian cohorts.
Nope, Marcus, Lee and I aren't the same person. :)
The way I see it is IS/Al Qaeda can only really be defeated like they were by the Awakening, bu fed up sunnis. But if the shia supported by Iran are attacking the sunnis will fear them even more and ally with IS/Qaeda out of perceived necessity.
But I do agree with you on this.
... there's the very real possibility that the one with the most votes will nevertheless not have enough votes to pass.
Then it's back to square one.
They're saying the co-pilot deliberately brought down the Germanwings plane.
Obama's intervention in Tikrit begins to look a little less obviously a mistake to me after reading this:
"Mr. Obama approved the airstrikes after a request from Prime
Minister Haider al-Abadi on the condition that Iranian-backed Shiite
militias move aside to allow a larger role for Iraqi government counter-
terrorism forces that have worked most closely with United States
troops, American officials said. Qassim Suleimani, the commander of
the Quds Force of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps who has
been advising forces around Tikrit, was reported on Sunday to have
left the area."
NYT
And there's more there.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
(Suicide and mass murder does seem to be the current favorite theory on that Germanwings plane)
"Then it's back to square one."
Worse, Boehner's got egg on his face, another gambit that didn't work, trying to corrall his roudy charges. And, they've already gone on record; switching votes after having publicly voted means they're open to charges that they caved to the ‘establishment’ which is a high crime among the right-wing crazies.
Also, whatever their vote, they're open to primary campaign ads claiming they ‘refused to fund the troops’ or ‘voting to increase spending’, whatever the spin the challenger puts on it in a 30 second disinformation ad, six times in their first year.
By the way, Lynnette,
The big plan by the Republican ‘Establishment’ is a return to the Bush Jr. years' gimmick where they take the cost of the war off-budget. They approve a Pentagon budget which assumes no war costs, and then fund the overseas spending as ‘unanticipated emergency expenditures’ even though they already know how much they intend to authorize for that. Then they hit up domestic spending for all their cuts to the budget--and later approve ‘unanticipated emergency spending’ for the costs of the war. Bush Jr. did this all through his term in office; the Iraq war and Afghanistan were both done ‘off budget’ to allow them to publish bogus numbers, so he could get his tax cut through the congress.
I'm not sure how much of an improvement that is over the right-wing crazies' notions for the budget.
Closing thought for the morning:
I'm looking at the news out of Yemen (supposedly today's locus of the grand failure of Obama's foreign policy), and hearing all sorts of dire predictions about how al-Qaeda will be unleashed by the withdrawal of our 100 or so special forces personnel from Yemen.
But, it occurs to me that al-Qaeda got its ‘Western’ orientation only after several years of efforts against the governments of the Middle East had resulted in zero wins and a lot of losses. The local authoritarian regimes were very effective at cracking down on the Islamists who were challenging them. (Zawahiri did time in Egypt for trying to kill Anwar Sadat--I think he escaped prison there, but I'm not sure I recollect that correctly; al-Qaeda had been driven out of Saudi Arabia and bin-Laden was a fugitive from Saudi justice.). However, with the Cold-War over and the lid coming off of the big powers' client regimes, and the oil money not enough to go around anymore where the oil money used to go, things have changed.
Al-Qaeda decided to go after the ‘Far Enemy’ (that'd be us) because they needed a new plan. Going after the ‘Near Enemy’, the local governments, had proven a disaster for them. ISIS, although giving lip-service to going on to Rome and etc., is mostly tied up with local concerns and that looks unlikely to change in the foreseeable future.
I'm not sure that upheaval in the region is really likely to result in an increase in terrorism outside the region. I don't expect it to go away for us either, don't get me wrong there, but I don't see that sectarian Islamic infighting should likely result in great waves of terrorist violence far from the scenes of the sectarian Islamic infighting. Unless, of course, we get ourselves too closely identified, too deeply involved, with the sectarian Islamic infighting.
Might wanna stand back and let 'em have at each other.
Egypt is ramping up to send ground troops into Yemen. NYT This is fast ramping up to be a fully sectarian, Sunni/Shia, fight. Good reason for us to stay out of it. We are, of course, gonna get blamed for supporting whoever is currently winning, blame to shift to a claim of our support for the other side if the other side manages to get on top.
Post a Comment