Originally Posted by JDG 66

-Like Mr. Horn, you need to prove that government intervention was greater between the 1850s and 1920 than it was after WWII.

Good Luck!

Why should I need to prove that?

The facts remain,

1) America was an aristocracy until the mid-19th century sometime; then it became a plutocracy. Government intervention helped industry to develop in both periods.

2) Government intervention increased in the 20th century due to populist and progressive movements supported by the people. The New Deal and the effects/arrangements of WWII allowed a substantial middle class to develop for the first time in America.

3) That middle class is now eroding, thanks to the activities of folks such as yourself, who have been sold since Reagan on a revival of 19th century economics policies-- resulting in a decline of public institutions and government "intervention" and services since Reagan.

Originally Posted by JDG 66

-Uh, no. The result of the SO monopoly (actually 90% of market share, IIRC) was that prices dropped and stayed low; that was the only way to maintain the monopoly. You proved my point.

Not hardly. Once Standard Oil got a small leg-up, it used it to run everyone else out of business. Did they keep prices low? Sure, because they could and their competitors couldn’t. Once you have the clout, you can use it to render the very idea of competition moot. Once you own the market, well, you own the market.

Originally Posted by JDG 66 ...

-No. I'm arguing that governments tend to make the efficient illegal for two reasons:

1) Stupidity;
2) Because the powers that be want to prevent competition.

-Bad analogy. People want Uber. The taxi cabs want to use the power of the law to maintain their bogus monopoly.

Is it a bad analogy? Taxi medallions cost over $100,000 each, and are controlled to assure service at an acceptable level. The cost of the medallions covers the cost of policing and regulating the taxi industry. Uber just decided to skip that step, so yes, stealing is a good analogy.

Originally Posted by JDG 66 ...

-Really? So it's a coincidence?

Does the same rule apply to GM's top executives?

No, and you know why without asking. POTUS runs the country. The GM C-suite runs GM. I expect both to know what’s happening on their respective beats ... especially problems of long duration. Obama takes the hit for NSA abuses, but not some petty design dispute at GM.

Originally Posted by JDG 66 ...

-Uh huh. You're seriously claiming that the government interfered in the economy more between the 1850s and the 1910s than they did after WWII? You haven't made that odd claimed that until now.

Interfered, no. Collaborated with the oligarchs and subsidized their activities, absolutely. There’s a reason the Supreme Court was called the Railroad Court for decades. And striking miners were not just striking against men like Frick, they had the Army to contend with too.

Meanwhile, back on topic -

None dare call it ethnic cleansing:

http://news.yahoo.com/isis-torches-1...194750912.html

Originally Posted by '58 Flat

Meanwhile, back on topic -

None dare call it ethnic cleansing:

http://news.yahoo.com/isis-torches-1...194750912.html

I think you're a bit out of touch. Everyone has called this genocidal or somethng equvalent ... even the Sunnis who may stand to benefit.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...er-in-detroit/
...For over 150 years, the City of Detroit has operated one of the largest water filtration systems in the country with grand pumping facilities drawing hundreds of millions of gallons every day from the Great Lakes. It sells water at cost to residents and neighboring governments.

...Now the city is in bankruptcy.

Sorting through the bills, a new generation of forced realists learned the hard way Margaret Thatcher’s maxim about socialism. Eventually, you really do run out of other people’s money.

Turns out, for decades, the grand and generous city has been just giving water to residents for free. If the Koch Brothers had done this, environmentalists would freak out and picket their headquarters accusing them of wasting precious water. But it’s all cool in the name of welfare...

Out of the blue, lifelong water scofflaws got billed for the water they used. Residents were stunned... If they didn’t pay for the water they used, the water would be shut off. And it was.

...the Welfare Barons have no problem treating humans like this. They give them all the free stuff they can. Until they run out.

Then they scream, “Humanitarian crisis! Racism!” As if they weren’t the authors of this cruel, sick, twisted game to begin with... “Thirsty for Justice,” “Water is a human right,” read the signs protesters carry defiantly declaring their entitlement to free water.

The United Nations Human Rights Council declared the City of Detroit guilty of human rights violations. For cutting off the free water.

Just goes to show that nothing is so expensive as when it is “free.”

Anyway...

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Why should I need to prove that?...

-Well, Eric, you made this claim:

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

...According to every report, economic mobility has been hampered the last 33 years by your Republican Reaganoid policies...

...and Mr. Horn hinted at the same, here:

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

...I would hope that extreme wealth for a small number, comfort for a few more and grinding poverty for the rest can be relegated to the dustbin of history...

...and I pointed out that the most thorough historical research, based on US census records, actually shows that socio-economic mobility was greater during the 1850s -1920:

http://www.nber.org/papers/w11324

The nineteenth and early twentieth century tables (1860-80, 1880-1900, and 1900-20) show approximately the same high degree of mobility, but the twentieth century tables all show considerably less mobility... (p. 11)

The consistency of the results across these data sets and time periods suggests that something fundamental changed in the U.S. economy after the 1900-20 cohort and no later than the 1950/56-1973 cohort and that this change dwarfs any changes in intergenerational mobility since the 1950s... (pp. 11-12)

The U.S. had more relative occupational mobility across generations through the 1900-1920 cohort than either Britain in the second half of the nineteenth century or the U.S. in the second half of the twentieth century... (p. 14)

...(i.e., a period that "progressives" deride as the "era of unbridled capitalism") and had clearly declined by the late 1940s, and never recovered, during a period of "progressive" "improvements." Additionally, the evidence shows that your NYT article was wrong: socio-economic mobility did not decline during the 1980s as you claim, the decline began decades before.



If there were anything to your arguments, then the 1850s to 1920 would have been worse than the post-"New Deal," post-"Great Society" era, not better, and that if there was low socio-economic mobility in the Age of Reagan, then it was a process already set in place by factors that occurred sometime between 1920 and the 1950s.

Get it now?

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

...Once Standard Oil got a small leg-up, it used it to run everyone else out of business. Did they keep prices low? Sure, because they could and their competitors couldn’t...

...a long post were you seem oblivious to the fact that SO proves my point that the "monopoly power" is a myth. Even you admit that the only way SO could keep a 90% market share was by providing oil inexpensively. Thank You.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

...Taxi medallions cost over $100,000 each, and are controlled to assure service at an acceptable level...

-Most articles that discuss Uber note that the ostensible purpose behind high taxes and regulations is to improve service and safety. They also note that anyone who believes that probably doesn't ride a lot of taxis...

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

...Collaborated with the oligarchs and subsidized their activities, absolutely. There’s a reason the Supreme Court was called the Railroad Court for decades...

...and yet, during this era when "oligarchs" supposedly ruled the USA with heartless cruelty and abandon, people had far better opportunities to improve themselves than they did after the so-called New Deal and the so-called Great Society. Huh!

Originally Posted by JDG 66

-Well, Eric, you made this claim:

...and I pointed out that the most thorough historical research, based on US census records, actually shows that socio-economic mobility was greater during the 1850s -1920

The only thing Mr. Ferrie could show was occupational mobility; people could move into different kinds of occupations. He was unable to show any shifts in economic prosperity between generations. The data on this subject was not even collected, according to Mr. Ferrie.

The point of his article seems, if anything, to be the opposite of your opinions. Americans claim that their society is exceptional because of the opportunities it affords. But this is a delusion, which feeds Americans' unwillingness to support government measures to help people economically; Mr. Ferrie says. The USA afforded more mobility in the 19th century than aristocratic societies did, according to the study you cite. But this has not been true in the 20th century. So, your comparison is between a frontier capitalist society and an ancient aristocratic one. But American Democrats and liberals today do not advocate a return to aristocracy; nor do socialists and liberals advocate such a return in Europe. So your point is not well taken at all.

If there were anything to your arguments, then the 1850s to 1920 would have been worse than the post-"New Deal," post-"Great Society" era, not better, and that if there was low socio-economic mobility in the Age of Reagan, then it was a process already set in place by factors that occurred sometime between 1920 and the 1950s.

Get it now?
....you seem oblivious to the fact that SO proves my point that the "monopoly power" is a myth. Even you admit that the only way SO could keep a 90% market share was by providing oil inexpensively. Thank You.

Of course Standard Oil was able to offer lower prices. That is just how they forced other companies out of business and cornered the market for themselves. Once competition is crushed, they can then charge whatever they wish, and also treat their workers however they wish. Which is what they do. Maybe you'd like to be a 10-year old kid working 12 hours a day in one of their factories? And look at gas prices now; they are outrageous. And they crush competition from electric and hydrogen-powered cars, thus keeping climate change going, which is very expensive for all of us, even though it is convenient for them.

...and yet, during this era when "oligarchs" supposedly ruled the USA with heartless cruelty and abandon, people had far better opportunities to improve themselves than they did after the so-called New Deal and the so-called Great Society. Huh!

Your studies did not show that, but other studies definitely show that economic inequality has mushroomed since your Reagan policies came into being. Reagan offered a return to your 19th century utopia. But Reagan could not deindustrialize and depopulate America so that it was like the wild west frontier again, even though that is the romantic image that makes conservatives and Gen Xers like you support him and his political offspring like Gingrich, Boehner, Romney, Sarah Palin and Ted Cruz.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

I think you're a bit out of touch. Everyone has called this genocidal or something equivalent ... even the Sunnis who may stand to benefit.

This is another foreign policy issue among several that have come up since the great grand crosses in the sky in January and April and the Mars-stations in March and May, as I predicted would happen.

And what to do about the Islamic State is as puzzling as what to do both about Putin's Russian imperialism and the conflict in Ukraine, and how to stop the USA from supporting the genocidal thugs in Jerusalem and make them behave instead.

These are dilemmas that appear to be locking us onto their horns for some time to come. As I see it, the USA won't go to war over these issues anytime soon, but they may fester and lead to another war in Dec.2020 or Jan 2021 (without direct or ground US involvement), and the issue of whether the USA should act as world policeman will continue until then, and beyond-- until the moment of decisions in 2025.

The Islamic State is clearly dangerous to the people of the Middle East and The West. It is a new Taliban, which has sprung up in Iraq and Syria despite our efforts to stamp it out in Afghanistan. And our misguided efforts to "prevent" such an outcome in Iraq has apparently led to the very thing we feared.

Right now Obama seems to be doing the only thing he can: protect our allies and American interests and personnel in Kurdistan and Baghdad, and prevent mass starvation among victims of and exiles from the Islamic State. He won't be restarting the Iraq War, but if the new Iraqi government, now being encouraged by almost every power inside and outside of Iraq as an alternative to Maliki, can rally support, and if covert efforts to turn Sunnis against their new Taliban rulers can succeed, the Islamic State could shrink back to at-least manageable levels.

Of course, as Hillary Clinton points out (and I agree), this Islamic (Taliban-like) State in Iraq and Syria would not have arisen had we supported the moderate rebels in Syria. When we didn't, the Islamic State filled the vaccuum created by the equally-monstrous Assad and his policy of deliberate destruction of his own country. Such support is finally being ramped up, and that will also put more pressure on the Islamic State.

Simply withdrawing from the Middle East is as futile a policy as initiating wars of choice there to impose our way of life on them. But when the people themselves can rise up (as in Syria), or reform their own government (happening now in Iraq), then US support is needed against an alternative that could and will create more 9-11s everywhere. A balance between too much and too little involvement is needed.

Obama's response to the current ISIS crisis seems spot on to me. It is limited, only air, like Libya. Everybody screams about how Libya was a disastrous policy, yet I don't see American GI's getting killed or seriously injured in Libya. I don't see us sinking a trillion dollars into a Libyan sinkhole as his predecessor did when he chose to send in troops in Afghanistan and Iraq. Yes an ambassador got killed, but if he had stayed in the embassy like he is supposed to in a dangerous country like Libya, he would still be alive.

A limited air-only war in northern Iraq could tip the balance in favor of the Kurdish defenders just as air power turned the tide in favor of the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan. All we need to do is convince ISIS that they would be better off fighting somebody other than the Kurds. Let them advance on Baghdad. This would make ISIS an Iranian problem. We can then strike a deal with Iran: get out the nuke weapons business and we will restore normal trade relations, allowing you to ramp up the fight against ISIS. This way we keep the one thing worth salvaging* out of the Iraq mess, and dump the shit storm onto Iran's lap, and prevent a future war with Iran by saddling them with ISIS and Maliki and the mess that is Arab Iraq.

*From an American elite pov

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Simply withdrawing from the Middle East is as futile a policy as initiating wars of choice there to impose our way of life on them. But when the people themselves can rise up (as in Syria), or reform their own government (happening now in Iraq), then US support is needed against an alternative that could and will create more 9-11s everywhere. A balance between too much and too little involvement is needed.

I disagree. Striking a balance requires we have far more knowledge about what will happen in the future as a function of policy implemented today. We lack such knowledge.

The safest thing to do is to make small moves and watch what happens. Doing so allows up to map out the local gradient and then to proceed in a way to obtain a better result, something like evolutionary operations, but for foreign policy. In ordinary language we should take baby steps, and note the effects of these small perturbations, and above all, practice humility and prudence. No Grand Strategy--that is for Fools.

To have armed the moderate rebels In Syria is an example of Grand Strategy. To get the result we want requires that lots of things have to happen in certain ways. To know the strategy can work will require knowledge of the local gradient (that is have the ability to make accurate future predictions over short time frames). We cannot make such predictions, proving that we lack such knowledge. So we really don't know what the effect will be of such a policy.

For example pumping powerful weapons into a turbulent environment like Syria could lead to leakage (weapons ending up in hands of folks we don't like). Look we disbanded the old Baathist army in Iraq and built a new one from the ground up. We spent like 8 years training and supporting this new force. This is WAY more that just sending them some arms. In contrast, nobody trained ISIS. Yet when it came to a fight, our guys ran away, leaving ISIS a trove of US weapons. Reminds me of the ARVN and fortified hamlets.

What was the problem? The South Vietnamese government was simply a continuation of the old colonial government with a culturally European leader. The South Vietnamese had just fought (and supposedly won) a revolutionary war against the colonial power. And yet in the South, the colonial government remained, with a French-speaking Catholic as president. WTF? Meanwhile the (partially) victorious revolutionaries set up shop in the North.

It would be like if a superpower had intervened after Yorktown and imposed a settlement in which the Patriots would get the Northern colonies and the Tories keep the Southern colonies. Would there have been peace? Would the new army of the "Dominion of Dixie" (I couldn't think of a better name) be any more loyal to their Tory government than the ARVN or the Iraqi army would be to theirs? Don't you suppose men like Washington, Jefferson, and Madison, having fled to the North, would have started an insurgency to liberate the South? And wouldn't that superpower be dumbfounded by how badly the Dominion forces did against Washington and his rebel forces?

What I am saying is what happened to the Iraqi army we trained was not unpredictable We had done it before in Vietnam and it didn't work then either. Furthermore a simple thought experiment in which go back to our own insurgent origins can show that we too would not serve an illegitimate government. The army of the "Dominion of Dixie" would not serve any better than the ARVN or the Iraqi Army did. And many Americans in the South would have supported the insurgency, just as did many South Vietnamese peasants and Sunnis in Anbar.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

I disagree. Striking a balance requires we have far more knowledge about what will happen in the future as a function of policy implemented today. We lack such knowledge.

Uh, I have some knowledge

I have a good track record.

But you're right; we can't really know how any efforts by the USA in foreign policy will turn out. Even after Pearl Harbor, we didn't know for sure that the Nazis could be beaten. I don't know if giving aid to Mid East rebels is the right policy; it is just my opinion.

The safest thing to do is to make small moves and watch what happens. Doing so allows up to map out the local gradient and then to proceed in a way to obtain a better result, something like evolutionary operations, but for foreign policy. In ordinary language we should take baby steps, and note the effects of these small perturbations, and above all, practice humility and prudence. No Grand Strategy--that is for Fools.

To have armed the moderate rebels In Syria is an example of Grand Strategy. To get the result we want requires that lots of things have to happen in certain ways. To know the strategy can work will require knowledge of the local gradient (that is have the ability to make accurate future predictions over short time frames). We cannot make such predictions, proving that we lack such knowledge. So we really don't know what the effect will be of such a policy.

I think arming Syrian moderates would not have been part of a grand strategy, but a smart step.

For example pumping powerful weapons into a turbulent environment like Syria could lead to leakage (weapons ending up in hands of folks we don't like). Look we disbanded the old Baathist army in Iraq and built a new one from the ground up. We spent like 8 years training and supporting this new force. This is WAY more that just sending them some arms. In contrast, nobody trained ISIS. Yet when it came to a fight, our guys ran away, leaving ISIS a trove of US weapons.

The USA knew who the moderates were, and leakage was worth the risk. What we did in Iraq is not a good model for how to handle Syria. The Iraqi invasion was forced on the Iraqis. Syrian moderate rebels were the millions who rose up against Assad. They have already been fighting against the monster who attacked them. I'm not sure how much training they needed, but they have been outgunned by Assad's allies.

Reminds me of the ARVN and fortified hamlets.

What was the problem? The South Vietnamese government was simply a continuation of the old colonial government with a culturally European leader. The South Vietnamese had just fought (and supposedly won) a revolutionary war against the colonial power. And yet in the South, the colonial government remained, with a French-speaking Catholic as president. WTF? Meanwhile the (partially) victorious revolutionaries set up shop in the North.

It would be like if a superpower had intervened after Yorktown and imposed a settlement in which the Patriots would get the Northern colonies and the Tories keep the Southern colonies. Would there have been peace? Would the new army of the "Dominion of Dixie" (I couldn't think of a better name) be any more loyal to their Tory government than the ARVN or the Iraqi army would be to theirs? Don't you suppose men like Washington, Jefferson, and Madison, having fled to the North, would have started an insurgency to liberate the South? And wouldn't that superpower be dumbfounded by how badly the Dominion forces did against Washington and his rebel forces?

The American Revolution is a good example of a foreign power helping rebels, and it worked. That's the model, not Vietnam.

What I am saying is what happened to the Iraqi army we trained was not unpredictable We had done it before in Vietnam and it didn't work then either. Furthermore a simple thought experiment in which go back to our own insurgent origins can show that we too would not serve an illegitimate government. The army of the "Dominion of Dixie" would not serve any better than the ARVN or the Iraqi Army did. And many Americans in the South would have supported the insurgency, just as did many South Vietnamese peasants and Sunnis in Anbar.

I think that will happen to the Islamic State. The Sunnis will overturn it. We don't have to fight it. It probably will be a good idea to give aid to the Kurds and the Baghdad government though. But they will have to come up with their own army and do most if not all of the training. We can't fight for others' freedom.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

Obama's response to the current ISIS crisis seems spot on to me. It is limited, only air, like Libya. Everybody screams about how Libya was a disastrous policy, yet I don't see American GI's getting killed or seriously injured in Libya. I don't see us sinking a trillion dollars into a Libyan sinkhole as his predecessor did when he chose to send in troops in Afghanistan and Iraq. Yes an ambassador got killed, but if he had stayed in the embassy like he is supposed to in a dangerous country like Libya, he would still be alive.

You're right in those cases; if it's right to give aid or take action in those places, it's also right to help the Syrian moderates.

A limited air-only war in northern Iraq could tip the balance in favor of the Kurdish defenders just as air power turned the tide in favor of the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan. All we need to do is convince ISIS that they would be better off fighting somebody other than the Kurds. Let them advance on Baghdad. This would make ISIS an Iranian problem. We can then strike a deal with Iran: get out the nuke weapons business and we will restore normal trade relations, allowing you to ramp up the fight against ISIS. This way we keep the one thing worth salvaging* out of the Iraq mess, and dump the shit storm onto Iran's lap, and prevent a future war with Iran by saddling them with ISIS and Maliki and the mess that is Arab Iraq.

*From an American elite pov

We don't need a deal with Iran. We don't need to have the Iranians take over Iraq. The problem in Iraq is the Maliki government which is already pro-Iran and pro-Shia. The Iraqis are putting in a more inclusive government; we hope. Let's see how this works out. The Islamic State exists because of the Maliki government and our failure to support moderate Syrians. Those two causes need to be corrected. The Islamic State should not be allowed to advance on Baghdad, and we should not rely on our enemy Iran (who is supporting Assad, a genocidal terrorist) to save it. And we certainly don't need to make Iraq part of any nuclear deal. Everything sensible and practical should be done to roll back the Islamic State. It is a cancer, and a direct threat to our interests, and to our own safety and that of all of our allies.

To compare ISIS to cancer is to libel cancer. A single cancer never causes mass death.

War with ISIS is inevitable. It is impossible to cut deals with people for whom genocide is policy and for whom war crimes are military policy. Maliki of course must go, as he has created much of the problem.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

To compare ISIS to cancer is to libel cancer. A single cancer never causes mass death.

War with ISIS is inevitable. It is impossible to cut deals with people for whom genocide is policy and for whom war crimes are military policy. Maliki of course must go, as he has created much of the problem.

At the end of this I sure hope the Kurds get their own country. If the Turks whine, well, tough for them.

Originally Posted by Odin

At the end of this I sure hope the Kurds get their own country. If the Turks whine, well, tough for them.

I'm Anthony Brancato, and I approve this message.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

The USA knew who the moderates were,

No we didn't. We only know what people asking for weapons said they were.

and leakage was worth the risk.

No it wasn't because they couldn't win. Look they were fighting the government. But there were also extremists in the fight. Had the moderate faction actually gotten their hands on weapons, the government and extremists would gang up on the them and take them out, precisely because our willingness to back them would make then a real threat.

In an even contest extremists will always beat moderates because they are they are NOT moderate. A moderate is rational. To him there are things more important than the cause (like his children and in certain circumstances his life). An extremist will personally slaughter his only son if he believes that is what his God wants (think of Abraham). An extremist welcomes death over defeat (think of Massada). Only one side in the conflict will strap on suicide vests and blow themselves up to achieve some sort of tactical victory.

There is no prevailing over such an opponent in an even contest. You prevail by making it uneven: by being superior. Professional solders are superior in their training, and in their tactical management. They have better equipment and vastly superior support services, plus air cover. They can fight hard and take seemingly crazy risks, because such risk are not crazy, often they win, and if it goes bad they know their brothers will do everything possible to try to get as many of them out as they can.

Simply arming the moderates isn't going to convert them into the sort of force that could defeat guys like ISIS. Ditto there is nothing we can do that will convert the Iraqi army into the sort of force that can defeat ISIS.

The peshmerga are different. During the 1990's they were able to maintain independence from Baghdad because without air cover the Iraqi army was not strong enough to take them on. After the invasion, Kurdistan remained relative free of violence because groups like al Qaeda in Iraq could not get a footing there. This suggests that the pershmerga is probably as good as the other regional national armies, like Syria or Iran. The peshmerga are having trouble with ISIS partly because ISIS now has sufficient US equipment to make up for legitimacy deficiencies relative to the peshmerga making it an even fight. And in an even fight; their immoderation gives them the edge. We can restore the edge to the peshmerga by provide air cover and they will again have sufficient superiority to drive ISIS back.

We cannot do that with the Iraqi army or Syrian moderates because they are not as good as the peshmerga (they don't have the track record that proves they are good).

For example, the North Vietnamese did not immediately back the Viet Cong. They had to first demonstrate that they would prevail in an even contests. Only then did the North start to provide supplies to make the insurgents more equal to the ARVN, which would have given them the victory had not the Americans sent in their far superior forces with massive air cover. Now the North had to start using their regular army, supported by the Russians to contend with the Americans, because mere insurgents could not contend with the Americans.

The American Revolution is a good example of a foreign power helping rebels, and it worked. That's the model, not Vietnam.

No its not. In the American revolution, the French assisted the immoderate side. This would be like if the US had backed the Viet Minh against the French (Ho Hi Minh did come first to Washington looking for help). But for us Ho's side were the extremist faction, and we wanted to support the moderates, so we backed the French.

A modern example of where we did as the French did in the Revolution is Afghanistan in the 1980's. Here we backed the insurgents against an enemy colonial power. The guys we backed were not moderates; they saw themselves as holy warriors (mujahedeen) engaged in a crusade (jihad). This is just how the Taliban and ISIS see themselves.

And they won. The colonial power was driven out. Today WE are the colonial power and soon we will be leaving, because Afghanistan is hopeless.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

No we didn't. We only know what people asking for weapons said they were.

The ambassador and other experts say they knew. We knew who was rising up against Assad. It was young people rising up for democracy. That's all. The Islamists filled a void that we left.

No it wasn't because they couldn't win. Look they were fighting the government. But there were also extremists in the fight. Had the moderate faction actually gotten their hands on weapons, the government and extremists would gang up on the them and take them out, precisely because our willingness to back them would make then a real threat.

You guys are just forgetting recent history. There were no extremists in the fight originally. If we had given the rebels aid, they would have won quickly. Assad has only been propped up by Iran and Russia. The Syrians are almost unanimous that Assad be gone. Millions rose up against him peacefully and they were shot down. Arab Spring, remember? This is a time of revolution, spreading from country to country.

In an even contest extremists will always beat moderates because they are they are NOT moderate. A moderate is rational. To him there are things more important than the cause (like his children and in certain circumstances his life). An extremist will personally slaughter his only son if he believes that is what his God wants (think of Abraham). An extremist welcomes death over defeat (think of Massada). Only one side in the conflict will strap on suicide vests and blow themselves up to achieve some sort of tactical victory.

Nice theory, but it's not necessarily what's happening. I think if your theory were true, we'd all be living under Islamic Law by now. The extremists are ruthless, but they have less support from the people. The people turn on them, as they did in Iraq before, and will do again. The moderates are fighting well. They would have won by now if not for Assad's allies.

There is no prevailing over such an opponent in an even contest. You prevail by making it uneven: by being superior. Professional solders are superior in their training, and in their tactical management. They have better equipment and vastly superior support services, plus air cover. They can fight hard and take seemingly crazy risks, because such risk are not crazy, often they win, and if it goes bad they know their brothers will do everything possible to try to get as many of them out as they can.

Simply arming the moderates isn't going to convert them into the sort of force that could defeat guys like ISIS. Ditto there is nothing we can do that will convert the Iraqi army into the sort of force that can defeat ISIS.

Neither needs to be converted; they can train themselves. The Syrians have been fighting for 3 years; they know how. An Iraqi government that has support of the people will get a good army in the field. The Islamic State is a temporary phenomenon that will melt away because it has no support from the people. But it's true that Iraq needs to have that public support in order to field an army. The USA can help but the motivation has to come from the people. But they don't want to be living under the Islamic State. They supported it in the West in order to get rid of Maliki. That is being done; a new government will get more support. ISIS will not be able to take over Baghdad.

The peshmerga are different. During the 1990's they were able to maintain independence from Baghdad because without air cover the Iraqi army was not strong enough to take them on. After the invasion, Kurdistan remained relative free of violence because groups like al Qaeda in Iraq could not get a footing there. This suggests that the pershmerga is probably as good as the other regional national armies, like Syria or Iran. The peshmerga are having trouble with ISIS partly because ISIS now has sufficient US equipment to make up for legitimacy deficiencies relative to the peshmerga making it an even fight. And in an even fight; their immoderation gives them the edge. We can restore the edge to the peshmerga by provide air cover and they will again have sufficient superiority to drive ISIS back.

That's right, and the Kurds are not extremists.

We cannot do that with the Iraqi army or Syrian moderates because they are not as good as the peshmerga (they don't have the track record that proves they are good).

The Syrian moderates have a good track record. The Iraqi army has had some successes since the USA has been leaving.

For example, the North Vietnamese did not immediately back the Viet Cong. They had to first demonstrate that they would prevail in an even contests. Only then did the North start to provide supplies to make the insurgents more equal to the ARVN, which would have given them the victory had not the Americans sent in their far superior forces with massive air cover. Now the North had to start using their regular army, supported by the Russians to contend with the Americans, because mere insurgents could not contend with the Americans.

This situation will not be like Vietnam, for some years to come at least. The US is not sending ground troops.

No its not. In the American revolution, the French assisted the immoderate side. This would be like if the US had backed the Viet Minh against the French (Ho Hi Minh did come first to Washington looking for help). But for us Ho's side were the extremist faction, and we wanted to support the moderates, so we backed the French.

You think George Washington was immoderate? Not so sure. Both the Syrian rebels and the Yankees were moderate rebels seeking more democracy. But it's true in the American Revolution that there were no Islamic extremists to fill a vaccuum if the French had not stepped in.

In Vietnam, the USA backed the colonial power, not moderate rebels.

A modern example of where we did as the French did in the Revolution is Afghanistan in the 1980's. Here we backed the insurgents against an enemy colonial power. The guys we backed were not moderates; they saw themselves as holy warriors (mujahedeen) engaged in a crusade (jihad). This is just how the Taliban and ISIS see themselves.

And they won. The colonial power was driven out. Today WE are the colonial power and soon we will be leaving, because Afghanistan is hopeless.

Maybe, but I'm not so sure about that. The people want the new democracy, and they have 2 good new leaders.

We have to do what we can to aid people who are fighting the Taliban regimes throughout the Islamic world. They are a serious danger to the USA.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

The ambassador and other experts say they knew.

Then add them to the list of proven liars.

Originally Posted by Odin

At the end of this I sure hope the Kurds get their own country. If the Turks whine, well, tough for them.

Right now, the Turks are backing the Kurds, because they see the alternatives as much worse. I assume this will happen in the not distant future. In fact, contrary to former Sec Def Robert Gates, Biden may be the one that hits it right: three semi-autonomous regions run by the Kurds, Sunnis and Shiites.

Anything has to be better than the mess left by the British and French at the end of WWI.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Right now, the Turks are backing the Kurds, because they see the alternatives as much worse. I assume this will happen in the not distant future. In fact, contrary to former Sec Def Robert Gates, Biden may be the one that hits it right: three semi-autonomous regions run by the Kurds, Sunnis and Shiites.

Anything has to be better than the mess left by the British and French at the end of WWI.

The British and French wanted control of oil in the aftermath of WWI. Foreign policy based upon domination of economic resources has usually had bad results. Does that sound familiar?

It is telling that soon after the start of World War II, nominally-independent Iraq got the pro-Nazi government of Rashid Ali al-Gailani, who in his third time as Prime Minister (that time in the aftermath of a military coup) 'invited' support from Nazi Germany. Needless to say, the British used their military presence in Iraq to thwart a pro-Nazi regime and stripped Iraq of independence until 1947.

British occupation created an environment of exaggerated nationalism, and the Ba'ath Party exploited the exaggerated nationalism in Iraq. Little more need be said about Ba'ath rule.

...In theory the invasion of 2003 would allow Iraq to become a federal state with provinces other than Baghdad itself to become areas in which Kurds, Shi'ites, and Sunnis would prevail. Somehow that did not quite materialize.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

The British and French wanted control of oil in the aftermath of WWI.

And so did the Americans - which is why John D. Rockefeller and Edward Mandell House "discovered" the Hashemites - whose defeat at the hands of ISIS I would actually welcome, since then we could turn the Palestinians into a carbon copy of the Kurds, and that would solve a lot of problems!

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

If we had given the rebels aid, they would have won quickly. Assad has only been propped up by Iran and Russia. The Syrians are almost unanimous that Assad be gone. Millions rose up against him peacefully and they were shot down. Arab Spring, remember? This is a time of revolution, spreading from country to country.

The moderates would not have prevailed any more than they did in Eqypt. Recall what happened there. Like Syria, initially it was moderates involved. Unlike Assad, Mubarak lost the support of the army and so fell without a fight. Although the Islamists were not involved, they won the first democratic election. They were then replaced by Sisi, who is essentially a replacement for Mubarak, full circle.

My point is the moderates do NOT have the support of the people in Egypt, and that is why even though they started the protest they did not reap the rewards.

Any Iraqi government will not have the support of the people, because the people are divided. You should understand this, we are similarly divided here in America. Blues and Reds can't agree on just about anything. The disagreement usually does not ascend to armed conflict precisely because we already had our wars of religion, 400 years ago. Not only that, but we had our wars of ideology in the last century. Going back to that means the end of civilization. Compared to our history, the level of violence being pursued by jihadists is small.

Nice theory, but it's not necessarily what's happening. I think if your theory were true, we'd all be living under Islamic Law by now.

But we are far superior. When American regulars go up against these guys a LOT of them die for every one of ours. American soldiers are some of the best in the world, even though they don't, as a rule, have the sort of warrior mentality of say a Zulu warrior. Yet that warrior mentality did the Zulus precious little good when they went up against British regulars.

ISIS will not be able to take over Baghdad.

I doubt they would be able to even if Maliki was still in power. The reason is simple. There are a helluva lot of Shia further South who are going to get slaughtered if ISIS prevails. Numbers matter too, and there are many more Shia than the numbers ISIS can raise.

You think George Washington was immoderate?

Yes he was. In the 18th century the Right were supporters of the traditional ruling class, the King and the greater aristocrats. The Left were the insurgents who wanted rule by the middle (commercial) classes, the bourgeoisie. By this calculus, Washington was clearly a man of the Left--a radical, hardly moderate.

Two centuries after the victory of the bourgeoisie, the ruling class is the most successful of the commercial and professional classes. What was Left in the 1700's is now Right. Hence a modern who has the same sort of positions as Washington would be perfectly acceptable to today's ruling class in the West and be seen as a moderate.

But it's true in the American Revolution that there were no Islamic extremists to fill a vacuum if the French had not stepped in.

In the American revolution, the radicals won.

We have to do what we can to aid people who are fighting the Taliban regimes throughout the Islamic world. They are a serious danger to the USA.

No they aren't. They are no threat to Americans in America. We all got so spooked by 911 that we did not examine how this happened. I'm sure plenty of policy makers did look at, saw the obvious solution, but did not even try to implement it because either (1) they were deterred by what they perceived as insurmountable domestic political obstacles, or (2) doing nothing advanced other objectives deemed more important.

You statement above shows the truth of (1). How is it that you, of all people, embrace a neocon view of the world? In this particular issue the libertarians have pretty much gotten the right of it. Justin pretty much expresses it, and how much impact have his argument had on what people here believe on this topic.

It took me years to come to this conclusion as I slowly unlearned all what I thought I knew about foreign policy. Also, I typically have little sympathy to the libertarian pov, and so was not particularly receptive to their arguments. And yet, when it came to writing about Iraq, they were the only people not writing complete nonsense.

As an example of the problem with thinking about jihadists, check out the discussion between Andrew Sullivan and Sam Harris on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict on the Dish. Harris sounds like a complete fool. As an outspoken atheist, you would think he would know some history, and so know how crazy he sounds to somebody who has read some history. But obviously he hasn't. He has no comprehension of the Jihadists, thinking of them as crazy people. They are not crazy, they make sense if you deal with them in the paradigm that they hold, which is NOT our paradigm (thank God). Nevertheless they are what they are and we should consider them as they are and not assume they are some wacko faction from our paradigm.

An expression from our own history when we still had that paradigm is Caedite eos. Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius or in the modern vernacular, kill them all and let God sort them out.

A century after this, was the "calamitous 14th century" which Barbara Tuchman described as utterly alien from modernity. Yet one can understand the medieval mindset. Lawrence of Arabia, a student of medieval warfare, was able to understand the mindset of 20th century Arabs very well. Today conservatives in Islamic societies still hold on to those beliefs so prevalent in Lawrence's time, just as many conservatives in the US have views that were more mainstream in the America of a century ago.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

The moderates would not have prevailed any more than they did in Eqypt. Recall what happened there. Like Syria, initially it was moderates involved. Unlike Assad, Mubarak lost the support of the army and so fell without a fight. Although the Islamists were not involved, they won the first democratic election. They were then replaced by Sisi, who is essentially a replacement for Mubarak, full circle.

Well, that happens often in revolutions. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss. My favorite song. I do think we move forward, but it's at a glacial pace with many pendulum shifts, compared to initial expectations.

My point is the moderates do NOT have the support of the people in Egypt, and that is why even though they started the protest they did not reap the rewards.

But they DO have the support in Syria. And they have arms too, which the young rebels in Tahrir Square did not. Neither did the young democrats in Egypt have any political skills or sense at all, or they'd be in charge by now. They were stupid. They were deceived just like Occupy Wall Street into thinking that occupying a square would be enough. It's not; political organization is needed. The Muslim Brotherhood had it; the Syrian moderates have it; Occupy Tahrir Square did not.

Any Iraqi government will not have the support of the people, because the people are divided. You should understand this, we are similarly divided here in America. Blues and Reds can't agree on just about anything. The disagreement usually does not ascend to armed conflict precisely because we already had our wars of religion, 400 years ago. Not only that, but we had our wars of ideology in the last century. Going back to that means the end of civilization. Compared to our history, the level of violence being pursued by jihadists is small.

I don't know if Iraq will ever work. More partition or regional autonomy might work. The Kurds will become independent, and there could be a Sunni area too. Just like red and blue here, but more strongly, people have shifted geographically from what Iraq was before the US invasion. But that does not mean the Sunnis will support the Islamic State. Covert support for the Sunnis when they decide to revolt against it will work much in the same way it worked in 2007.

But we are far superior. When American regulars go up against these guys a LOT of them die for every one of ours. American soldiers are some of the best in the world, even though they don't, as a rule, have the sort of warrior mentality of say a Zulu warrior. Yet that warrior mentality did the Zulus precious little good when they went up against British regulars.

And so, if the Syrian moderates had more arms, they would be superior too. The only hope for peace in that country is more support for the moderates, leading to negotiation so that Russia and Iran pull out if we do, and Assad is forced out. That's the ONLY way. And if it doesn't happen, we can expect indefinite Islamic State situations.

I doubt they would be able to even if Maliki was still in power. The reason is simple. There are a helluva lot of Shia further South who are going to get slaughtered if ISIS prevails. Numbers matter too, and there are many more Shia than the numbers ISIS can raise.

We agree there.

Yes he was. In the 18th century the Right were supporters of the traditional ruling class, the King and the greater aristocrats. The Left were the insurgents who wanted rule by the middle (commercial) classes, the bourgeoisie. By this calculus, Washington was clearly a man of the Left--a radical, hardly moderate.

Two centuries after the victory of the bourgeoisie, the ruling class is the most successful of the commercial and professional classes. What was Left in the 1700's is now Right. Hence a modern who has the same sort of positions as Washington would be perfectly acceptable to today's ruling class in the West and be seen as a moderate.

In the American revolution, the radicals won.

I don't agree with that characterization. American rebels were moderates with moderate aims. They only replaced colonial rule with the same class in charge, but home-based. There was no class shift at all; the aristocracy continued, until Jacksonian Democracy in the North, and the civil rights movement in the South-- if even by then.

No they aren't. They are no threat to Americans in America. We all got so spooked by 911 that we did not examine how this happened. I'm sure plenty of policy makers did look at, saw the obvious solution, but did not even try to implement it because either (1) they were deterred by what they perceived as insurmountable domestic political obstacles, or (2) doing nothing advanced other objectives deemed more important.

I don't see that you have outlined any such alternative policy.

You statement above shows the truth of (1). How is it that you, of all people, embrace a neocon view of the world? In this particular issue the libertarians have pretty much gotten the right of it. Justin pretty much expresses it, and how much impact have his argument had on what people here believe on this topic.

It took me years to come to this conclusion as I slowly unlearned all what I thought I knew about foreign policy. Also, I typically have little sympathy to the libertarian pov, and so was not particularly receptive to their arguments. And yet, when it came to writing about Iraq, they were the only people not writing complete nonsense.

We aren't talking about Iraq now as it was in 2003. I and libertarians are still of one accord on that US invasion of Iraq. I was against it before it happened or was even considered. The facts seem to have borne out my opinion.

As an example of the problem with thinking about jihadists, check out the discussion between Andrew Sullivan and Sam Harris on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict on the Dish. Harris sounds like a complete fool. As an outspoken atheist, you would think he would know some history, and so know how crazy he sounds to somebody who has read some history. But obviously he hasn't. He has no comprehension of the Jihadists, thinking of them as crazy people. They are not crazy, they make sense if you deal with them in the paradigm that they hold, which is NOT our paradigm (thank God). Nevertheless they are what they are and we should consider them as they are and not assume they are some wacko faction from our paradigm.

The facts seem clear enough. I do consider them as they are. In this new Islamic State, if you are not a Moslem, you are to be killed. That is crazy, and it is not tolerable, just as genocide is not tolerable anywhere. The Taliban was crazy, and so are these guys. That does not mean we should go to war, but we should support rebels who are fighting tyrants and pleading for our help against monsters. You don't even have to lump all "jihadists" into one boat (Hamas is clearly not the Taliban or ISIS; nor is the Muslim Brotherhood). But Assad and the Islamic State are both monsters. And they are a clear threat to the USA.

We may not want to admit that fact, because it costs us something; but it IS the fact. The rebels against them need our help. If we don't help, monsters fill the vaccuum. That is not neo-con thinking; it is in line with Democratic Party policy, as in the former Yugoslavia in 1995-98. This policy worked well in that case, and it is the only policy that has ANY chance of working in Iraq and Syria.

The problem seems to be now that folks like yourself and others on this forum think that ANY US action abroad at all is neo-con belligerence. No, it's not. A balanced foreign policy is needed; multi-lateral, and wise. Naively thinking that we can allow absolutely anything to just go on in the world, that any paradigm is equally valid, and thinking it won't bite us if we do let it go on, is supremely foolish. That policy did not work in the 1930s, any more than the opposite over-aggression policy worked in the 1960s or 2000s. I may well be a bit more hawkish than I was before 9-11, but I am not a neo-con and still believe in peace. Just, not naively. No, the Nazis were another neo-medieval paradigm, and this new one in the Islamic State is no more valid than the Nazi one or the KKK one.

A century after this, was the "calamitous 14th century" which Barbara Tuchman described as utterly alien from modernity. Yet one can understand the medieval mindset. Lawrence of Arabia, a student of medieval warfare, was able to understand the mindset of 20th century Arabs very well. Today conservatives in Islamic societies still hold on to those beliefs so prevalent in Lawrence's time, just as many conservatives in the US have views that were more mainstream in the America of a century ago.

These are not Medieval times. Those who have 9th or 14th century mindsets need to be defeated, whether they live in the USA or in the MIddle East. The reality now is that young people everywhere are connected to one world society, and freedom is the way in this new world. They cannot be long denied. The Revolution has broken out as of 2011, and it will continue until it is victorious, even if this takes decades. It will not take centuries. The Revolution has advanced relentlessly since 1789, and it will continue to do so. That is modern romanticism in action. The young can tear up the rotten parchment bonds that tie us down. They will continue to rise up. Older folks need to get behind them, all the way.

Speaking of US support:

http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2014/08...nuke-material/

In the end the Kurds will survive because they have a strong political system and a motivated army, as will the Iraqi Shi'ites where they have an unqualified and contiguous majority. The Kurds have won some liberal sympathy by taking risks to rescue non-Muslims and non-Kurds.

We can all be sure that one country will fight ISIS ferociously if the questionable opportunity arises -- Israel.

Originally Posted by Bad Dog

Speaking of US support:

http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2014/08...nuke-material/

PressTV is an official Iranian news source, and it is not trustworthy.