In brief, prospects for ongoing US foreign policy are not encouraging. The Donald's ineptitude is such that he is certain to defer to "the best generals" in matters of war and peace, and Hillary's stance in the 2008 primaries and as Secretary of State suggest that she will continue her ongoing attempts to prove she has enough "balls" to be "one of the boys." Bernie Sanders will probably have significant impact on the Democratic platform, but the relationship between a party's platform and what happens when that party wins an election has little if any bearing on what its candidate does when elected to office.
The "War on Terror"
Tr*mp vacillates between isolationism and carpet bombing (along with use of torture and killing the families of terrorists), but his commitment to building the size and strength of the military makes one wonder if "boots on the ground" might be inevitable — the military-industrial complex would like that, since it could restore sales to 2010 levels. Clinton has been largely silent on her suggestion of a "no-fly zone" in Syria lately, but her history on interventionism is troubling, including her vote for the war in Iraq and endorsement of intervention in Libya. Neither has any fresh ideas for dealing with the Islamist State as an international threat, even if Obama's efforts to cut into the territory it occupies continue to make progress.
The Middle East
It seems clear that Clinton will maintain US support for the Arab autocracies, despite copious human rights abuses within their territories and Saudi war crimes in Yemen. She also will be more friendly to Netanyahu's increasingly bellicose and repressive path for Israel than Obama has been, and the Palestinians will be out of luck, no matter what Bernie gets into the Democratic platform. Tr*mp's support from Sheldon Adelson suggests that he will be even deeper in Netanyahu's pocket than Clinton; and his rejection of the Iran deal and insistence that the Saudi's "pay their own way" would be a recipe for a nuclear armed Middle East. With regard to Assad, Tr*mp might be too conciliatory, Clinton too bellicose.
Europe
I don't know if anybody has considered problems that might arise from installing missile "defense" systems (against Iran? Yeah, right!) in Eastern European countries moving ever closer to fascism, but that probably can wait for 2020. Neither US candidate has anything to offer Europe in dealing with its refugee crisis, and neither will use US influence over the IMF in an attempt to soften Europe's devastating austerity regime, albeit neo-liberal (aka neo-conservative) US bankers have a lot more influence than US political leaders. Clinton certainly understands Europe's problems better than Tr*mp, but she's no less neo-liberal in her thinking than her husband was — and nobody knows what impact Tr*mp's affection for Putin might bring
Asia and the Pacific
The US Chamber of Commerce seems confident that Clinton will change her mind about support for the TPP as soon as she's president, and they're probably right. Tr*mp seems to think he could negotiate a "better deal," but his confidence in his negotiating skills is just as inflated as his hair. The Chinese, I suspect, couldn't care less which of them is elected because China's economic and military power is unlikely to be affected. Tr*mp's fantasies of Japan and South Korea having their own nuclear arms would almost certainly remain fantasies, because not all Republicans are total idiots.
Africa
If Tr*mp can identify more than three African countries on an outline map, I'd be very surprised. Clinton, at least, is aware of the mess that is African politics and economics, but is unlikely to move beyond Obama's very limited engagement there. With either of them, Africa will remain on the back burner until something explodes.
Latin America
Haven't you had enough pessimism for one post? It's certainly been enough for me, so I'll pass over Latin America — where the US has had virtually no policy at all since "our" dictators were overthrown — and save it for another day. In the meanwhile, though, keep an eye on Venezuela, Brazil, Mexico, Peru, Argentina, Honduras, El Salvador, Guatamala, et al. Tr*mp's "wall" won't keep the chaos south of the border.
Showing posts with label ISIS. Show all posts
Showing posts with label ISIS. Show all posts
Sunday, June 5, 2016
Friday, November 27, 2015
ISIS? Isis who?
(Sorry, it's another long one — but it had to be.)
The Russians and the Turks are rather upset with each other at the moment, Turkey having shot down a Russian aircraft that was bombing northern Syria. The Islamist State (as I prefer to call it,) most Americans might be surprised to learn, was not at all involved.
Putin and the Russians support Bashar al-Assad, the Allawite leader of Syria. Russia has an ongoing deal with Assad which permits Russia to maintain its only military/naval presence in the Middle East. Turkey under Erdogan is dominated by an authoritarian Sunni Islamist party hostile to Assad and his Allawists, although Erdogan's primary goal in the region is to suppress the Kurds, who have been getting closer to having their own, autonomous state. To defeat the Kurds, Erdogan has made use of Turkmen rebels, who happened to be be concentrating their own efforts on both Assad and the Kurds, and whom the Russians bombed for being anti-Assad. The Kurds, of course, have been the only effective US ally in the region.
Meanwhile, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States have been restricting most of their bellicosity to Yemen, where they are trying to destroy the Houthi. The Houthi have some degree of support from Iran, Saudi Arabia's chief rival in the region. Iran, its Shi'ite proxy Hezbollah, and Russia are cooperating in support of Assad.
So where does IS come in? Good question. And where does the USofA come in? Better question.
IS offends Western sensibilities in a variety of bloodthirsty ways, so the US is necessarily against it. Inspired by Salafi Islamists from Saudi Arabia, and probably making use of private Saudi seed money, IS has been endeavoring to create and maintain a Sunni extremist caliphate in Iraq and Syria. Some of our "allies," though, are far more concerned with Assad and Iran than with IS atrocities. The USofA is providing Saudi Arabia "logistic support" (telling them where to bomb the most civilians?) in Yemen, thereby helping their proxy war against Iran. In Iraq, however, the Iranians are our chief allies in protecting what was supposed to be our puppet regime. In reality, though, it's their puppet regime because we let it be dominated by Shi'ites.,
Turkey, a NATO ally, really has nothing in particular against IS, considering how it is keeping the Kurds from establishing an independent state on Turkey's border. The Turkish border with Syria restricts the IS supply of weapons, war materiel and foreign fighters about as well as a chain link fence obstructs the flow of water. Bear in mind that Turkey is part of NATO, and supposedly opposed to IS, but since it started bombing in northern Syria, its primary targets have been the US allied Kurds.
In brief, since the USofA opposes both Assad and IS, and since others in the region have mixed feelings about which other groups present the greatest threat to their own self-interests and different historically and geopolitically based affinities and animosities, there are too damned many sides, and every new development creates more ambiguity.
It's a ridiculous time for anybody to want to be president, which sheds a little light on the general ridiculousness of foreign policy discussions in the current campaign. If we adopt Hillary's "no-fly zone" idea, who do we enlist to help us and who do we keep out? If we follow Lindsey Graham's prescription and send in ground forces to eradicate the "State" part of IS, it might turn out much more difficult to contend with a stateless enemy.
We're probably leaning on the Turks and the Saudis and the Iranians and the Russians and anybody else who has a real state as hard as we can, but our diplomatic pressure is spread too thin. Don't blame Obama (this time) — at least he's not actively making it worse.
The Russians and the Turks are rather upset with each other at the moment, Turkey having shot down a Russian aircraft that was bombing northern Syria. The Islamist State (as I prefer to call it,) most Americans might be surprised to learn, was not at all involved.
Putin and the Russians support Bashar al-Assad, the Allawite leader of Syria. Russia has an ongoing deal with Assad which permits Russia to maintain its only military/naval presence in the Middle East. Turkey under Erdogan is dominated by an authoritarian Sunni Islamist party hostile to Assad and his Allawists, although Erdogan's primary goal in the region is to suppress the Kurds, who have been getting closer to having their own, autonomous state. To defeat the Kurds, Erdogan has made use of Turkmen rebels, who happened to be be concentrating their own efforts on both Assad and the Kurds, and whom the Russians bombed for being anti-Assad. The Kurds, of course, have been the only effective US ally in the region.
Meanwhile, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States have been restricting most of their bellicosity to Yemen, where they are trying to destroy the Houthi. The Houthi have some degree of support from Iran, Saudi Arabia's chief rival in the region. Iran, its Shi'ite proxy Hezbollah, and Russia are cooperating in support of Assad.
So where does IS come in? Good question. And where does the USofA come in? Better question.
IS offends Western sensibilities in a variety of bloodthirsty ways, so the US is necessarily against it. Inspired by Salafi Islamists from Saudi Arabia, and probably making use of private Saudi seed money, IS has been endeavoring to create and maintain a Sunni extremist caliphate in Iraq and Syria. Some of our "allies," though, are far more concerned with Assad and Iran than with IS atrocities. The USofA is providing Saudi Arabia "logistic support" (telling them where to bomb the most civilians?) in Yemen, thereby helping their proxy war against Iran. In Iraq, however, the Iranians are our chief allies in protecting what was supposed to be our puppet regime. In reality, though, it's their puppet regime because we let it be dominated by Shi'ites.,
Turkey, a NATO ally, really has nothing in particular against IS, considering how it is keeping the Kurds from establishing an independent state on Turkey's border. The Turkish border with Syria restricts the IS supply of weapons, war materiel and foreign fighters about as well as a chain link fence obstructs the flow of water. Bear in mind that Turkey is part of NATO, and supposedly opposed to IS, but since it started bombing in northern Syria, its primary targets have been the US allied Kurds.
In brief, since the USofA opposes both Assad and IS, and since others in the region have mixed feelings about which other groups present the greatest threat to their own self-interests and different historically and geopolitically based affinities and animosities, there are too damned many sides, and every new development creates more ambiguity.
It's a ridiculous time for anybody to want to be president, which sheds a little light on the general ridiculousness of foreign policy discussions in the current campaign. If we adopt Hillary's "no-fly zone" idea, who do we enlist to help us and who do we keep out? If we follow Lindsey Graham's prescription and send in ground forces to eradicate the "State" part of IS, it might turn out much more difficult to contend with a stateless enemy.
We're probably leaning on the Turks and the Saudis and the Iranians and the Russians and anybody else who has a real state as hard as we can, but our diplomatic pressure is spread too thin. Don't blame Obama (this time) — at least he's not actively making it worse.
Saturday, November 14, 2015
An Immodest Proposal
Like just about everybody else who isn't an Islamic extremist, I'm upset and angered by yesterday's attacks in Paris. At times like these, one's thoughts are inclined to turn towards revenge.
Needless to say, it is very difficult, to say the least, to take revenge on a suicide bomber. Nevertheless, I've had some thoughts on the matter. Given that the perpetrators of such attacks are motivated by religion, and assuming that such religionists are generally irrational (not to mention dead), and given that they expect rewards in an "afterlife," I've come up with a means to screw with their religiously inspired brains that might have some sort of impact: ritual pollution.
Gather up the remains of the attackers. Pack them in lard before dumping them into the ocean, where their bodies cannot be recovered and "purefied." Surely, the stench of pork grease would be so offensive to their medieval concept of Allah that entry into Paradise would be out of the question. I have other ideas for any captured alive, involving lard as a lubricant and homosexual rapists, but I suspect the "enlightened" Western world would disapprove; on the other hand, given that the CIA has shown itself to be impervious to Western Enlightenment, I suppose we could get around such disapproval if amply motivated.
Outrageous? You betcha! More outrageous than murdering random innocents? I don't think so. If such a policy dissuades a few angry, misguided young people from strapping on suicide bombs, I think a dose of political incorrectness would be perfectly okay. Hell, even if it didn't slow the rate of extremist atrocities one bit, it still would make me feel better.
Needless to say, it is very difficult, to say the least, to take revenge on a suicide bomber. Nevertheless, I've had some thoughts on the matter. Given that the perpetrators of such attacks are motivated by religion, and assuming that such religionists are generally irrational (not to mention dead), and given that they expect rewards in an "afterlife," I've come up with a means to screw with their religiously inspired brains that might have some sort of impact: ritual pollution.
Gather up the remains of the attackers. Pack them in lard before dumping them into the ocean, where their bodies cannot be recovered and "purefied." Surely, the stench of pork grease would be so offensive to their medieval concept of Allah that entry into Paradise would be out of the question. I have other ideas for any captured alive, involving lard as a lubricant and homosexual rapists, but I suspect the "enlightened" Western world would disapprove; on the other hand, given that the CIA has shown itself to be impervious to Western Enlightenment, I suppose we could get around such disapproval if amply motivated.
Outrageous? You betcha! More outrageous than murdering random innocents? I don't think so. If such a policy dissuades a few angry, misguided young people from strapping on suicide bombs, I think a dose of political incorrectness would be perfectly okay. Hell, even if it didn't slow the rate of extremist atrocities one bit, it still would make me feel better.
Saturday, August 15, 2015
Sexual Slavery
Having been a daily consumer of a vast amount of news reporting for half a century or so, I'm not easily horrified, but an article in the New York Times recently pushed my horror button about as hard as it's ever been pushed. You should read the entire article, but, in brief, it describes how Islamist State has made the rape of Yazidi girls as young as 12 into a religious virtue.
First, the young warrior buys his sex slave from IS higher-ups. (The Koran, it seems, fully endorses the enslavement of "heretics," especially apparent polytheists like the Yazidi.) He is obliged to recite specific prayers before he rapes the girl, and others afterwards. Thus, not only is the rape not sinful, it is transformed into a kind of religious duty.
Soldiers have been raping captured women and girls for millennia. Often, rape is seen as serving the military purpose of demoralizing the enemy, while adding some extra motivation for the foot soldiers putting their own lives at risk. Why do I find the religious component introduced by IS especially distasteful? I'm not sure.
I suppose that IS fighters are meant to think of themselves as "holy warriors," pure in body and mind. That sense of moral superiority might be threatened if they were left to run around raping whoever happened to be available, like your average soldier in your average war. Ritualizing the inevitable rape keeps them "pure," and worthy of service to Allah and whoever is claiming to be caliph at the moment. If they never doubt their purity, and eventual entrance into Paradise, they are better fighters.
Needless to say, selling sex slaves also generates some extra cash for the organization. Do IS leaders actually believe what they're telling the rank and file? I don't know. Maybe. Probably. Humanity is an extremely fucked-up species, and organized religion is Exhibit A.
First, the young warrior buys his sex slave from IS higher-ups. (The Koran, it seems, fully endorses the enslavement of "heretics," especially apparent polytheists like the Yazidi.) He is obliged to recite specific prayers before he rapes the girl, and others afterwards. Thus, not only is the rape not sinful, it is transformed into a kind of religious duty.
Soldiers have been raping captured women and girls for millennia. Often, rape is seen as serving the military purpose of demoralizing the enemy, while adding some extra motivation for the foot soldiers putting their own lives at risk. Why do I find the religious component introduced by IS especially distasteful? I'm not sure.
I suppose that IS fighters are meant to think of themselves as "holy warriors," pure in body and mind. That sense of moral superiority might be threatened if they were left to run around raping whoever happened to be available, like your average soldier in your average war. Ritualizing the inevitable rape keeps them "pure," and worthy of service to Allah and whoever is claiming to be caliph at the moment. If they never doubt their purity, and eventual entrance into Paradise, they are better fighters.
Needless to say, selling sex slaves also generates some extra cash for the organization. Do IS leaders actually believe what they're telling the rank and file? I don't know. Maybe. Probably. Humanity is an extremely fucked-up species, and organized religion is Exhibit A.
Sunday, June 7, 2015
Turkish Elections
Turks will be going to the polls this weekend, in an election that is likely to determine the future of their country, and have major consequences for US foreign relations. Recip Tayip Erdogan, who has become increasingly Putinesque over the past decade, is hoping to win a 60% majority in Parliament, enabling him to change the Turkish constitution and solidify his power.
As a NATO member, Turkey is a vital participant in US Middle East operations. The US looks to Turkey as a partner in its struggle against ISIS (aka etc. etc.), but that partnership has not been what the US might have expected before Ergogan's Islamist party came to power. It well may be that Erdogan feels more comfortable with ISIS across the border than the Kurds, and his participation in the war against ISIS has been sorely lacking.
As Iraq fragments into Shi'a, Sunni, and Kurdish sectors, and the likelihood that the Kurds finally will achieve the Kurdish homeland they have aspired to for at least the past century, Erdogan feels increasingly threatened by the PKK and other Kurdish nationalists in Turkey. Personally, I believe that the Kurds deserve a homeland, including Kurdish Iraq, Kurdish Syria and, ideally, Kurdish Turkey as well. It is understandable that the Turks are unwilling to see a significant chunk of their country pulled away to become part of greater Kurdistan, but tacit support for ISIS by the Erdogan government can only help to further exacerbate conflict in the Middle East.
It also is in the best interest of the US for the secularists who led Turkey since the days of Ataturk maintain essential political influence. If the current election gives Erdogan the ability to aggrandize his increasingly autocratic power, we all are losers.
..........
Later:
Great news! Not only did Erdogan not make his 60%, he lost his parliamentary majority! Better yet, the biggest gains were by the pro-Kurdish HDP (People's Democratic Party), which made significant outreach to secularists, gays, women, and others not comfortable with Islamism. Hooray!
As a NATO member, Turkey is a vital participant in US Middle East operations. The US looks to Turkey as a partner in its struggle against ISIS (aka etc. etc.), but that partnership has not been what the US might have expected before Ergogan's Islamist party came to power. It well may be that Erdogan feels more comfortable with ISIS across the border than the Kurds, and his participation in the war against ISIS has been sorely lacking.
As Iraq fragments into Shi'a, Sunni, and Kurdish sectors, and the likelihood that the Kurds finally will achieve the Kurdish homeland they have aspired to for at least the past century, Erdogan feels increasingly threatened by the PKK and other Kurdish nationalists in Turkey. Personally, I believe that the Kurds deserve a homeland, including Kurdish Iraq, Kurdish Syria and, ideally, Kurdish Turkey as well. It is understandable that the Turks are unwilling to see a significant chunk of their country pulled away to become part of greater Kurdistan, but tacit support for ISIS by the Erdogan government can only help to further exacerbate conflict in the Middle East.
It also is in the best interest of the US for the secularists who led Turkey since the days of Ataturk maintain essential political influence. If the current election gives Erdogan the ability to aggrandize his increasingly autocratic power, we all are losers.
..........
Later:
Great news! Not only did Erdogan not make his 60%, he lost his parliamentary majority! Better yet, the biggest gains were by the pro-Kurdish HDP (People's Democratic Party), which made significant outreach to secularists, gays, women, and others not comfortable with Islamism. Hooray!
Wednesday, February 25, 2015
More etc., etc.
Love of Country
I was trying to figure out whether or not I love the USofA. Well, probably not, unless you count as love the relationship of a long-married couple who shuffle along side by side primarily because splitting up would be more trouble than it's worth. In other words, I'm not about to "lay down my life" to "protect" some alleged "ideals" that may or may not have ever been put into practice. Anyway, the plutocracy is strong enough and rich enough to look after its own ass.
Four Months for Greece
Greeks will continue to suffer as long as Greece is stuck with austerity, and if Syriza is pushed aside by the Germans and their fellow travelers, "Europe" is likely to find itself dealing with Golden Dawn. Europe will be pulled, one way or the other, by Greece, and Europe has to decide whether it will be pulled to the left or the right.
Three British Girls
The three girls who recently lit out for the Islamic State were middle class, good students, and not especially religious until very recently. So why did they take off for the alleged caliphate? My guess is that they were made to feel more and more isolated and alienated from British society, and the IS was the only outlet they could find. The hatemongers, both in Europe and the USofA, are doing more to strengthen the enemy than to weaken it.
Net Neutrality
So far, so good. Back in the eighties and nineties, monopolistic telephone companies were forced to lease bandwidth to competitors, which led to steep declines in the prices of long-distance phone calls. If Comcast and the other internet giants are forced to lease bandwidth to smaller competitors, what might the impact be? Let's hope we get to find out.
Homeland Security
Maybe we should try getting along with a lot less of it for a while, and see if it makes a difference. To bad for the employees who will have to work without getting paid, but since those who work for the Department are not allowed to unionize, I guess they'll just have to eat it.
Thursday, February 12, 2015
The AUMF
Obama's request for Congress to give him Authorization for Use of Military Force against Islamic State, like most Obama proposals, has failed to fully satisfy anybody. Since it is an Obama administration proposal, nobody should be surprised that it tries to skate adroitly among the holes in the ice.
Since the requested war powers would expire in three years, some of the dimmer lights in Congress may be able to convince themselves that they are regaining control of warmaking powers. That's not the case, of course, because without Congressional approval, the prez already is making war in Syria and Iraq, and nothing in the current proposal stops him from continuing to make war wherever and whenever it seems politically acceptable — based on his torturous interpretation of the 2001 resolution against Al Qaeda.
Nothing would stop Hillary either, and she is more of a hawk than Barack. Anyway, some meaningless piece of legislation will pass, supported by pitchfork waving Republicans and torch pumping Democrats, and Obama will have what he wants — a "bipartisan" endorsement of whatever he happens to do. When everything gets screwed up, as it has a way of doing in the Middle East, it won't be only his fault.
Since the requested war powers would expire in three years, some of the dimmer lights in Congress may be able to convince themselves that they are regaining control of warmaking powers. That's not the case, of course, because without Congressional approval, the prez already is making war in Syria and Iraq, and nothing in the current proposal stops him from continuing to make war wherever and whenever it seems politically acceptable — based on his torturous interpretation of the 2001 resolution against Al Qaeda.
Nothing would stop Hillary either, and she is more of a hawk than Barack. Anyway, some meaningless piece of legislation will pass, supported by pitchfork waving Republicans and torch pumping Democrats, and Obama will have what he wants — a "bipartisan" endorsement of whatever he happens to do. When everything gets screwed up, as it has a way of doing in the Middle East, it won't be only his fault.
Saturday, October 4, 2014
Panic Attacks!
Ebola
Well, Dallas kind of screwed up, but I'm still not too terrified of an epidemic on this side of the Atlantic. Now that the idiots have figured out that doctors and nurses really should talk to each other, and the CDC (not always perfect, but still pretty good) is involved, the USofA will get it worked out. Getting it worked out in West Africa will be more difficult.
Beheadings
The latest terminology is "the group calling itself the Islamic State, also called ISIS or ISIL." I guess we don't want to offend the Saudis, whose state supported the Salafist, Wahabi ideology which was mainly responsible for the growth and financing of IS. Now that we're producing more oil than the Saudis, though, maybe we could step on them a little harder.
Secret Service
I gather that a lot of black Americans think the SS (yes, the same acronym) is less committed to protecting their allegedly black president than they might have been to John McCain. Personally, I think that assholes will be assholes, and that race is not a factor. They're just incompetents.
Hong Kong
I am so afraid that those "Occupy" kids who are too young to remember Tiananmen will find themselves lying among the dead. State Capitalism, I am inclined to believe, has to be worse than State Socialism — but, then again, maybe it's all just plutocracy. It's always plutocracy. Isn't It?
Friday, September 12, 2014
Here We Go Again
Yes, those guys from the Islamic State are truly terrible. As you may have gleaned from my previous post, I was not terribly impressed by the beheading of those two American journalists — nobody is a war correspondent except by personal choice. There have been a lot of other beheadings, though. Every time ISIL overran some Iraqi army position, they sorted out the Shi'a "heretics" and lopped their heads off. They made pretty convincing attempts at genocide against the Yazidis and the Maronite Christians. I suppose somebody ought to stop them.
Somehow, though, I don't think the USofA can manage the job. Yes, I know — we were the ones who broke Iraq, so, supposedly, we bought it. Maybe it's time, however, to toss the broken pieces in the trash and move on.
Right now, we're arming and training Shite militias that were trying to kill us five years ago. We're looking for "moderate" Syrian militias to arm and train, although that requires stretching the term "moderate" to include quite a few extremists. Sadly, we seem pretty inept at the arming and training business, as witnessed by the collapse of the Iraqi army.
Air strikes seem to be the only approach the American public is comfortable with at this stage of the game, and you can't use air strikes without killing a lot of innocents, and radicalizing their friends and relatives. Let's face it: nobody over there likes us, or really wants our presence.
Politically, though, Obama has to do something, so he will. But it won't work.
Somehow, though, I don't think the USofA can manage the job. Yes, I know — we were the ones who broke Iraq, so, supposedly, we bought it. Maybe it's time, however, to toss the broken pieces in the trash and move on.
Right now, we're arming and training Shite militias that were trying to kill us five years ago. We're looking for "moderate" Syrian militias to arm and train, although that requires stretching the term "moderate" to include quite a few extremists. Sadly, we seem pretty inept at the arming and training business, as witnessed by the collapse of the Iraqi army.
Air strikes seem to be the only approach the American public is comfortable with at this stage of the game, and you can't use air strikes without killing a lot of innocents, and radicalizing their friends and relatives. Let's face it: nobody over there likes us, or really wants our presence.
Politically, though, Obama has to do something, so he will. But it won't work.
Thursday, September 4, 2014
Those Dead Journalists
Disregarding the messiness, beheading strikes me as a rather humane means of execution. I know it has to be very upsetting to family and friends of the victims, but if I had to choose between beheading and lethal injection in certain states of the USofA, I think the beheading might be far preferable.
What makes a person a journalist? Both Sotloff and Foley were freelancers, selling their reportage to many different news outlets. They enjoyed no worker benefits — not life insurance, nor health insurance, nor any formal backup when they got themselves into very serious trouble. Blame the Islamic State by all means — it is the very definition of terrorism — but also blame the news media, the deprofessionalizing of reportage, and a media culture that encourages young people to toss themselves into extreme danger for a small chance of "success."
The photojournalists and videojournalists are in more peril than the print journalists, albeit more likely to be killed outright on the battlefield than captured and used as propaganda tools. Reporters of all stripes need much more professional training if they will work in war zones, and the media should accept that responsibility.
What makes a person a journalist? Both Sotloff and Foley were freelancers, selling their reportage to many different news outlets. They enjoyed no worker benefits — not life insurance, nor health insurance, nor any formal backup when they got themselves into very serious trouble. Blame the Islamic State by all means — it is the very definition of terrorism — but also blame the news media, the deprofessionalizing of reportage, and a media culture that encourages young people to toss themselves into extreme danger for a small chance of "success."
The photojournalists and videojournalists are in more peril than the print journalists, albeit more likely to be killed outright on the battlefield than captured and used as propaganda tools. Reporters of all stripes need much more professional training if they will work in war zones, and the media should accept that responsibility.
Sunday, August 31, 2014
Obama's Foreign Policy
Second guessing Our President on foreign policy seems to be the new national pastime, but none of the second-guessers seems to have an answer to the question, "Well, then what would you do?" I sure don't.
McCain and Graham like to dance around like Yosemite Sam and sing their "Get tough" song, but really — invade Iraq again? Go to war with Russia, perhaps? Sometimes the options come down to few or none.
Arm and train the "moderates" in Syria? First you'd have to find some, and you probably couldn't find enough to have any impact on the situation over there. Apart from the Kurds, the Iraqis are pretty much worthless when it comes to fighting ISIL, and Haider al-Abadi looks to me like Nuri al-Maliki lite. Okay, it would be very nice if the Kurds didn't have to rely on Soviet era weapons, but arming them with something better risks pissing off the Iranians and the Turks. (The Iranians and the Turks? No wonder Obama seems more than a little burnt out lately!)
How about arming and training the western Ukrainians? It yet may happen, but didn't we fight enough proxy wars against Russia last century? And think how successful those were!
As you know, I'm not a big fan of Barack Obama, but as far as foreign policy goes, I suggest he's muddling through as best he can — and no worse than anybody else could manage, under the circumstances. Let's all just take a step back, and let him muddle.
McCain and Graham like to dance around like Yosemite Sam and sing their "Get tough" song, but really — invade Iraq again? Go to war with Russia, perhaps? Sometimes the options come down to few or none.
Arm and train the "moderates" in Syria? First you'd have to find some, and you probably couldn't find enough to have any impact on the situation over there. Apart from the Kurds, the Iraqis are pretty much worthless when it comes to fighting ISIL, and Haider al-Abadi looks to me like Nuri al-Maliki lite. Okay, it would be very nice if the Kurds didn't have to rely on Soviet era weapons, but arming them with something better risks pissing off the Iranians and the Turks. (The Iranians and the Turks? No wonder Obama seems more than a little burnt out lately!)
How about arming and training the western Ukrainians? It yet may happen, but didn't we fight enough proxy wars against Russia last century? And think how successful those were!
As you know, I'm not a big fan of Barack Obama, but as far as foreign policy goes, I suggest he's muddling through as best he can — and no worse than anybody else could manage, under the circumstances. Let's all just take a step back, and let him muddle.
Friday, June 27, 2014
ISIS or ISIL?
So, how do you translate "al-Sham?"
There is a real difference between "Syria," a modern state, and "the Levant," a nineteenth century translation of "al-Sham" that included most of Iraq, greater Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, and Israel. Recently (on YouTube, of course,) "al-Dawla al-Islamiya fi Iraq wa al-Sham" cleared it up for us. They're talking Levant. Their intended caliphate includes pretty much all of of the aforementioned states.
Poor Jordan. Poor Lebanon, only recently emerged from so many years of internal strife. Poor everybody else, if Israel decides it has to use its nukes.
Now and in the future, when I use the term "ISIS," the final "S" stands for "al-Sham."
There is a real difference between "Syria," a modern state, and "the Levant," a nineteenth century translation of "al-Sham" that included most of Iraq, greater Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, and Israel. Recently (on YouTube, of course,) "al-Dawla al-Islamiya fi Iraq wa al-Sham" cleared it up for us. They're talking Levant. Their intended caliphate includes pretty much all of of the aforementioned states.
Poor Jordan. Poor Lebanon, only recently emerged from so many years of internal strife. Poor everybody else, if Israel decides it has to use its nukes.
Now and in the future, when I use the term "ISIS," the final "S" stands for "al-Sham."
Sunday, June 15, 2014
The Mess in Iraq
Saddam Hussein was dreadful, but Nuri Kamal al-Maliki has been a catastrophe. His virtual elimination of Sunni Muslims from the Iraqi government, beginning with his targeting the now exiled Sunni vice president Tariq al-Hashemi immediately following the withdrawal of U.S. forces in 2011, left Sunni Iraqis with no political power and no way to address grievances. Add to that his increasing authoritarianism, and civil war looked inevitable. ISIS is merely the precipitating factor.
Those currently insisting that Obama "should have" left some American troops in Iraq conveniently forget that Maliki refused to sign the status of forces agreement that would have permitted that. It was clear at the time that Maliki wanted the United States out of Iraq, so he could more easily pursue his sectarian goals.
Now Maliki wants Obama to send air power to help him fight off the ISIS rebels, but without dependable American spotters on the ground, air strikes are more likely to kill hapless civilians than rebel fighters. Old Baathists are joining up with the ISIS forces, Shi'a militias are forming, and QUDS guardsmen from Iran already may be in Baghdad. Quite frankly, any American involvement at this point seems absurd.
I'm waiting for the Kurds to spread out from their autonomous region, perhaps even into Syria, and declare an independent Kurdistan. Their pesh murga is the best fighting force in the region, and the ongoing chaos in Iraq may be their best chance to have the homeland that has been their goal for many years.
Those currently insisting that Obama "should have" left some American troops in Iraq conveniently forget that Maliki refused to sign the status of forces agreement that would have permitted that. It was clear at the time that Maliki wanted the United States out of Iraq, so he could more easily pursue his sectarian goals.
Now Maliki wants Obama to send air power to help him fight off the ISIS rebels, but without dependable American spotters on the ground, air strikes are more likely to kill hapless civilians than rebel fighters. Old Baathists are joining up with the ISIS forces, Shi'a militias are forming, and QUDS guardsmen from Iran already may be in Baghdad. Quite frankly, any American involvement at this point seems absurd.
I'm waiting for the Kurds to spread out from their autonomous region, perhaps even into Syria, and declare an independent Kurdistan. Their pesh murga is the best fighting force in the region, and the ongoing chaos in Iraq may be their best chance to have the homeland that has been their goal for many years.
Wednesday, February 19, 2014
Syria
I don't imagine anybody is surprised that the Syrian "peace talks" failed. Syria is a mess.
Now the Obama administration is being pressed to "do something," but it's very unclear whether anything at all can be done. The Free Syrian Army is a joke; ISIS is operating across a completely porous Iraqi border; al Nusra, the al Qaeda affiliate al Qaeda still recognizes, is not up to defeating Assad's forces, especially if it has to simultaneously fight off ISIS; Assad has been strengthening his position, backed by Hezbollah, the Iranian QUDS force, and a lot of heavy armament from Russia.
Clearly, Americans have no stomach for military action after losing both in Iraq and, soon, Afghanistan. We might give the Saudis the go-ahead to provide more advanced weapons to rebel groups, but knowing the Saudis, the weapons will wind up in the hands of jihadis.
The only positive contribution by the United States I can imagine is a broad increase in humanitarian aid for the vast numbers of refugees in Turkey, Iraqi Kurdistan, and Lebanon — but providing that aid should not involve any branch of the armed forces. Given how the Agency for International Development has had close ties to the CIA throughout its history, AID also might be a bad choice.
The best bet would be to channel additional aid through organizations already on the ground, like the Red Crescent and Doctors Without Borders. Nobody in the Middle East wants any more Americans wandering around.
Now the Obama administration is being pressed to "do something," but it's very unclear whether anything at all can be done. The Free Syrian Army is a joke; ISIS is operating across a completely porous Iraqi border; al Nusra, the al Qaeda affiliate al Qaeda still recognizes, is not up to defeating Assad's forces, especially if it has to simultaneously fight off ISIS; Assad has been strengthening his position, backed by Hezbollah, the Iranian QUDS force, and a lot of heavy armament from Russia.
Clearly, Americans have no stomach for military action after losing both in Iraq and, soon, Afghanistan. We might give the Saudis the go-ahead to provide more advanced weapons to rebel groups, but knowing the Saudis, the weapons will wind up in the hands of jihadis.
The only positive contribution by the United States I can imagine is a broad increase in humanitarian aid for the vast numbers of refugees in Turkey, Iraqi Kurdistan, and Lebanon — but providing that aid should not involve any branch of the armed forces. Given how the Agency for International Development has had close ties to the CIA throughout its history, AID also might be a bad choice.
The best bet would be to channel additional aid through organizations already on the ground, like the Red Crescent and Doctors Without Borders. Nobody in the Middle East wants any more Americans wandering around.
Monday, January 6, 2014
Back in Iraq
Senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham, uncomfortable with their "liberal" reputations among the Republican Party's crazies, recently came up with a new way to "redeem" themselves: they are blaming Barack Obama for the current disastrous situation in Anbar Province. If Tea Party nut cases manage to defeat them in primaries, they deserve it — and it might help any Democratic challengers.
The person most responsible for the success of the Al Qaeda linked ISIS group in Iraq is Iraq's leader, Nuri Kamal al-Maliki. It was al-Maliki who blocked residual American troops from remaining in Iraq. It was al-Maliki who pushed Sunni politicians out of the Iraqi government, marginalizing all Iraqi Sunni Muslims, and leaving them no potential allies apart from Sunni Muslim extremists.
Hopefully, some of the Sunni tribes in Anbar will continue to resist cooperation with ISIS — but when choosing the lesser of two evils, many are likely to choose Al Qaeda over al-Maliki.
The person most responsible for the success of the Al Qaeda linked ISIS group in Iraq is Iraq's leader, Nuri Kamal al-Maliki. It was al-Maliki who blocked residual American troops from remaining in Iraq. It was al-Maliki who pushed Sunni politicians out of the Iraqi government, marginalizing all Iraqi Sunni Muslims, and leaving them no potential allies apart from Sunni Muslim extremists.
Hopefully, some of the Sunni tribes in Anbar will continue to resist cooperation with ISIS — but when choosing the lesser of two evils, many are likely to choose Al Qaeda over al-Maliki.
Thursday, December 12, 2013
Schismatics
According to the Times, the United States has discontinued non-lethal aid to the Syrian rebels after fighters for the Islamic Front grabbed up a couple of warehouses full of stuff we'd contributed to the Free Syrian Army, the administration's preferred rebel group. I read the article twice, and a couple of things stood out. First, it was suggested that no Free Syrian Army fighters were around to defend the warehouses. Second, the Islamic Front has no relationship with ISIS or Al Qaeda.
The administration is "considering" support to the Islamic Front, but by the time consideration is over, you can bet the Islamic Front will have fragmented into a bunch of new militias, along with a bunch of other rebel groups. The main motivation for a large majority of those groups, at this point, is to steal as much as possible. Pity the refugees, and the countries to which they have fled. There will be nothing left if they ever get to go home.
..........
More schismatics: Despite his "fiscal" dedication to taking food out the mouths of poor children, Paul Ryan is under attack by the very members of Congress (and outside organizations financed by such as the Koch brothers) who were kissing his ass a few years ago. Then John Boehner came to his defense, displaying what might pass as genuine anger, but with no tears.
It seems there are a few Democrats in the House who genuinely like Ryan, or so they say. Is he moving to the middle for the sake of the next presidential election? Can he find the critical point that balances the true crazies against the traditional conservatives? Can the Republican Party keep from ripping itself apart?
Stay tuned.
The administration is "considering" support to the Islamic Front, but by the time consideration is over, you can bet the Islamic Front will have fragmented into a bunch of new militias, along with a bunch of other rebel groups. The main motivation for a large majority of those groups, at this point, is to steal as much as possible. Pity the refugees, and the countries to which they have fled. There will be nothing left if they ever get to go home.
..........
More schismatics: Despite his "fiscal" dedication to taking food out the mouths of poor children, Paul Ryan is under attack by the very members of Congress (and outside organizations financed by such as the Koch brothers) who were kissing his ass a few years ago. Then John Boehner came to his defense, displaying what might pass as genuine anger, but with no tears.
It seems there are a few Democrats in the House who genuinely like Ryan, or so they say. Is he moving to the middle for the sake of the next presidential election? Can he find the critical point that balances the true crazies against the traditional conservatives? Can the Republican Party keep from ripping itself apart?
Stay tuned.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)