Originally Posted by Eric the Green

And so, if the Syrian moderates had more arms, they would be superior too.

There is much more to it than just weapons.

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.

You are probably right. But there is nothing we can do. An external power cannot bring any peace, other than the peace of the tomb.

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

There IS no policy WE can do other than kill them all and let God sort them out. And if we do that we are operating on their level. They is MUCH they can do. A younger generation of jihadists can come to question the validity of their approach to God just as the next generation of Evangelicals is questioning the focus on sex.

That is crazy

No its not. It's evil.

... it is not tolerable, just as genocide is not tolerable anywhere.

It seems to me that it must be tolerable to a great many Syrians since they seem to be so gung ho about it. To physically stop them from killing you would have to mount a land invasion.

That does not mean we should go to war...

Well that rules the land invasion out.

but we should support rebels who are fighting tyrants and pleading for our help against monsters.

OK we should help one side kill do genocide on the other. And what you suggest? How are you going to get arms to the "good guys" without the bad guys intercepting a lot of them. And when your good guys turn out to be not as good as you thought they were, do you then send in more arms to their opponents to try to beat them?

But Assad and the Islamic State are both monsters. And they are a clear threat to the USA.

I agree they are monsters, but they are hardly a threat to the USA. Exactly how are they going to attack us here?

If we don't help, monsters fill the vaccuum. That is not neo-con thinking;

Yes it is. The neocon ideology is the intersection of Wilsonian internationalism and Bismarckian realism.

...it is in line with Democratic Party policy...

It certainly is. The original neocons were mostly Democrats.

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.

You confuse evil with potency. ISIS may approach the evil that was the Nazis. But when Hitler came to power, he gained control of the second strongest power in the world. Only American was stronger, but America was in isolation mode. That made Hitler #1 of those playing the power game. If group like ISIS was gaining control of China, THAT would be similar to the 1930's. But ISIS is NOT gaining control of China or any other territory of significant strength to be worrisome. If ISIS lasts long enought to actually gain control of enough territory to become somewhat scary, and tries to export their terror here, we can always just nuke them.

They like to call us the Great Satan, but they don't believe it. Because one thing you would NEVER do is fuck with Satan.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

There is much more to it than just weapons.


You are probably right. But there is nothing we can do. An external power cannot bring any peace, other than the peace of the tomb.

Nothing? We can support the moderate rebels with arms. That will be enough; they are good fighters. Then at least we have cards to play against Russia and Iran in persuading Assad to step down. We can't topple Assad ourselves, that is true; nor should we.

There IS no policy WE can do other than kill them all and let God sort them out. And if we do that we are operating on their level. They is MUCH they can do. A younger generation of jihadists can come to question the validity of their approach to God just as the next generation of Evangelicals is questioning the focus on sex.

Waiting for the extreme Talibanists to come to their senses could just mean that we enter a dark age. I don't think we want that, any more than we should have waited for Hitlerians to come to their senses.

No its not. It's evil.

It is evil, and it's crazy too. The ISIS folks are sociopaths.

It seems to me that it must be tolerable to a great many Syrians since they seem to be so gung ho about it. To physically stop them from killing you would have to mount a land invasion.

Wrong once again. Those who say that the Syrians are supporting ISIS, aren't paying attention. These are outsiders who took advantage of the vaccuum and the chaos, and that is ALL that they are.

Well that rules the land invasion out.

There is none being suggested, as far as I know. I am not suggesting it, of course. Don't confuse providing arms with fighting a war; that's a common misconception around here.

OK we should help one side kill do genocide on the other. And what you suggest? How are you going to get arms to the "good guys" without the bad guys intercepting a lot of them. And when your good guys turn out to be not as good as you thought they were, do you then send in more arms to their opponents to try to beat them?

We give the arms to the good guys, and they use them to fight both of our enemies, which are also their enemies. That's pretty simple, and we ought to do it. The people of Syria rose up for freedom. Assad shot them down and bombed their homes. They are fighting back. Again, it's simple. Why complicate it? Assad is not acceptable; he's a monster. He has forfeited any legitimacy. The Islamic State has no legitimacy either. Only the moderate Syrian rebels have any legitimacy there at all.

I note that Iran and Russia somehow don't have a concern that providing arms to Assad will mean they are intercepted by the rebels.

I agree they are monsters, but they are hardly a threat to the USA. Exactly how are they going to attack us here?

They are Al Qaida. They have declared their intention to mount terrorist attacks. A home base for more 9-11s is definitely a threat to the USA and all our allies.

Yes it is. The neocon ideology is the intersection of Wilsonian internationalism and Bismarckian realism.

No it isn't. Neo-con policy is to wage deliberate wars of choice to enforce a New American Century and spread "democratic" capitalism.

It certainly is. The original neocons were mostly Democrats.

Those Democrats were not neo-anything. Those Democrats were just the post-war norm, and pretty-much bipartisan.

I support the Clinton and Carter approach. Mostly that is Obama's approach too. Post-Vietnam Democratic Party. Support human rights and those fighting for them with aid if they ask. Don't start wars, and don't fight if our interests are not directly threatened, and don't impose our ideology on other nations. Neo-cons have a different approach; direct intervention. If anything, Obama has been too hawkish for me in certain respects, and maybe Clinton was too on occasion. But in general, it's in the right direction.

You confuse evil with potency. ISIS may approach the evil that was the Nazis. But when Hitler came to power, he gained control of the second strongest power in the world. Only American was stronger, but America was in isolation mode. That made Hitler #1 of those playing the power game. If group like ISIS was gaining control of China, THAT would be similar to the 1930's. But ISIS is NOT gaining control of China or any other territory of significant strength to be worrisome. If ISIS lasts long enough to actually gain control of enough territory to become somewhat scary, and tries to export their terror here, we can always just nuke them.

They like to call us the Great Satan, but they don't believe it. Because one thing you would NEVER do is fuck with Satan.

Nuking anyone is not a solution to anything. Being the Great Satan in that way would unleash nuclear war all over the world. Now THAT would be a crazy policy. Hillary's approach would have kept all of this from happening. Judicious use of power where it makes a difference, in a timely and multi-lateral way, and without direct offensive intervention. What's wrong with that? You agree with me with respect to the Kurds. You just have the wrong idea about Syria, that is all. That's a common mistake on this forum.

The Islamic State is where Nazi Germany was when Hitler took power. If we had nipped him in the bud earlier, there would not have been WWII. We need to nip this thing in the bud if we can. The Islamic State does not have to be as strong as Hitler, and we don't have to suffer WWII, for it to be necessary to stop them. More 9-11s is enough of a threat to justify doing what we can. And stopping inevitable genocide is worthwhile too.

But whatever else they are, or not, ISIS is not doing to people what the Romans did to Jesus - in that the victims of their "crucifixions" were both already dead when "crucified," and tied to those "crosses" - not nailed.

Don't take my word for it, though: Simply google "ISIS crucifixions" or something similar, and look closely - or not even that closely, really - at the images.

Why do the neoconartists have to lie?

Then again, I guess that's why they're neoconartists.

ISIS may be first-class dirtbags - but there is no excuse for this willful misrepresentation.

No wonder Xers and Millennials are reluctant to go to war in this part of the world - again.

On the other hand, I am skeptical about US air strikes against the Islamic State. To defend an imminent threat to Irbil and to stave off a humanitarian disaster and genocide is one thing, but should we go on the offensive against this new Taliban? Then we will definitely become a target for another 9-11 attack, if we aren't already, and we could start killing innocent civilians and turn the people there against us.

We needed to act in Afghanistan in 2001. But reliance on airstrikes not only resulted in bin Ladin getting away, but killed thousands of people needlessly. We can't fight a war from the air; if we're going to fight them, then we need to invade. And we don't want to do that either.

We can be idealists. We simply cannot be starry-eyed idealists and expect good results. Sometimes we really need the mailed fist behind the velvet glove as foreign policy. When we deal with Nazis or ISIS we need the mailed fist. Moral suasion against evil persons and causes never works. We cannot assume that similarities of culture (Nazis never spared Jews for being Germans by culture) or the shared tenets of religious faith (ISIS is killing plenty of Muslims) can give us common cause. War crimes and genocide forfeit any claims by a side to defensible virtues.

As there was nothing hypocritical about loving Beethoven and hating Nazis in the last Crisis, there is nothing hypocritical about recognizing the virtues of Islam and hating ISIS in this Crisis. Don't fool yourself -- this is now as deadly-serious a Crisis Era as any in the past. ISIS now kills non-Muslims (and the "wrong sorts of") Muslims in northern Iraq today. As with fascists of the last Crisis they show no signs of any willingness to let some geographical line constrain them.

Maybe we don't want war with ISIS. I hardly expect ISIS to bend to our sensibilities on war and peace. Maybe we don't want to fight it on its own turf. To the extent that it can conquer it will compel us to fight on others' turf. Vile as it is and with no cause to sue for peace it may finally compel us to fight it on its own turf as we eventually did on the 'sacred' German soil of the Third Reich.

Islam is not the enemy. Multitudes of Muslims find ISIS a great horror offensive to their sensibilities. Plunder, rape, oppression, and murder are not Islam.

Originally Posted by TimWalker

I mentioned that the Kurds were preventing the spread of ISIS on their turf. Which brings up a question-if ISIS isn't all that powerful, could other groups in the region contain it? Containment might be based on ethnic or sectarian differences, rather than idealism.

Mention is being made by experts that aid can be covertly funnelled to Sunni groups under the heel of the Islamic State once they decide to overthrow it. Containment can also be assisted with aid to:

The Kurds
Syrian moderate rebels/Free Syrian Army
The Iraqi government, now ruling over a predominantly Shiite area.

Calling this "idealism or ethnic differences" misses the mark. The evil Islamic State must be stopped by all who know that it must be stopped. It is not "idealism" to stop or prevent genocide; it is common sense.

I've said it before - and I'll say it again, since officials as high-ranking as Chuck Hagel are still utterly clueless:

You cannot "handicap" a war the same way you can "handicap" a horse race, or a football game.

Huge underdogs/longshots win wars all the time. Does Vietnam ring a bell? And how about how our own nation was born - by a bunch of ragtag "Minutemen" slaying the mighty British Empire!

Coming at this from a different but I believe related direction. First, let me say that I almost never watch the Sunday talk shows but I did catch about 5 minutes of Face the Nation this morning. And it appears that they learned nothing from our ten years in Iraq. They were talking about ISIS and that small sample of talk I saw gave me the feeling that it was 2003 all over again. At least amongst the talking heads, neoconism is back. It was pretty much a full bore ''Fight 'em over there before...'' type response.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Nothing? We can support the moderate rebels with arms.

Where are they? Here is a map that shows positions held by Islamic state, Kurdish government, Syrian government, and others. Green is others. Look like a big territory, but others includes many, many groups, some moderate, others Islamic that have an alliance between in this situation the enemy of your enemy is your friend. Where in that constantly shifting green mass are the moderates? If you send stuff in how can you be sure it gets to the handful of truly liberal groups and not one Islamist allies? It was the same in Eqypt. The rebels consisted of a mix of moderates and Islamists. They won, but when the dust settled the Islamists came out on top, because there are more of them. Its the same over here, there are more of them than us, and that is why the Red side controls more state legislatures, governorships, Congress, and the Judiciary.

The ISIS folks are sociopaths.

Sociopaths are not crazy. They just don't have a conscience.

Those who say that the Syrians are supporting ISIS, aren't paying attention. These are outsiders who took advantage of the vaccuum and the chaos, and that is ALL that they are.

Where are the outsiders supporting the moderates? You know like the folks who went to Spain in 1936 to fight for the republicans against Franco? How is it foreigners have been able to gain control over so much of Syria and Iraqi if none of the residents are supported them? Who is supplying them? Certainly not the Russians or the Iranians (they back the government). We aren't. I serious doubt the Europeans or China are. So who is backing ISIS? I thought I read that ISIS has been able to finance themselves.

If so, how is a bunch of "foreigners" can waltz into Syrian and set up shop in a couple of years, when the guys who have been there from the beginning can't? The answer is they can't. ISIS is the group formerly called al Qaeda in Iraq. It been around in the Syrian-Iraqi border region for almost a decade. They are no longer even nominally affiliated with the remnants of bin Laden's group, and have dropped the al Qaeda brand name.

There is none being suggested, as far as I know. I am not suggesting it, of course. Don't confuse providing arms with fighting a war; that's a common misconception around here.

I am not confusing it. We aren't fighting a war. Giving arms to one of the Syrian factions will just inject more weapons into the area and will kill even more people. If the moderates were really good fighters they would have been as successful as ISIS. They haven't, because at the beginning they were not fighters. When Assad started shooting at the demonstraters, that was the time for them to give up. Syria is different from Eqypt.
There are many minorities who would be slaughtered if the government fell. The demonstraters would not be able to protect them from Hezbollah, the home-grown Sunni Islamists (in the green area) or the ISIS.

We give the arms to the good guys, and they use them to fight both of our enemies, which are also their enemies.

Which is what we did in Vietnam, first aiding the French until they lost and then the South Vietnam until they were on the brink of losing. That is when we send in the ground forces and then WE lost.

I note that Iran and Russia somehow don't have a concern that providing arms to Assad will mean they are intercepted by the rebels.

Assad's regime is a government that has control of seaports. The "moderate" faction doesn't. it is easy to get arms to the Syrian government. Much harder to get it to the insurgents unless you have the neighboring countries on board. If Turkey wanted the moderates to succeed they would have helped them. A Muslim part is in charge of Turkey and I don't think they want the moderates to win. If Turkey is out of the question then who what neighbor is going to help? Surely you don't think Israel would be a good choice for a backer in Syria? Then who? Iraq is a mess they can't even hand on to their own territory. The only folks who want to push ISIS back, and who have their act together are the Kurds. And it's not arms they need, but air support. And that is why Obama is doing. I would do the same if I were Obama.

[support]I support the Clinton and Carter approach. Mostly that is Obama's approach too. Post-Vietnam Democratic Party. Support human rights and those fighting for them with aid if they ask.[/quote]
I know. You are a liberal interventionist (LI). Based on his book, Obama is too. I used to be a hybrid between LI and a Scowcroftian realist. I changed over the 2003-2005 when I realized that the Gulf War intervention, which I supported, was a big mistake.

Nuking anyone is not a solution to anything. Being the Great Satan in that way would unleash nuclear war all over the world. Now THAT would be a crazy policy.

I don't think if ISIS became a state and began to spread in all directions that China or Russia of India would be too happy about it. A joint ultimatum that they desist or be destroyed by the combined attack of these nuclear powers would likely make them stop.

Hillary's approach would have kept all of this from happening. Judicious use of power where it makes a difference, in a timely and multi-lateral way, and without direct offensive intervention. What's wrong with that?

It justifies the empire. If we decide LI is OK (and I don't have a big problem with it per se) then this gives a reason for liberals to support the military-industrial complex. My belief is it will have to go in either this 4T or we are seriously screwed.

You agree with me with respect to the Kurds.

The Islamic State does not have to be as strong as Hitler, and we don't have to suffer WWII, for it to be necessary to stop them. More 9-11s is enough of a threat to justify doing what we can.[/QUOTE]
You don't need an Islamic state to carry out a 911. All you need is like half a million bucks and a couple of dozen guys. There are lots of NGO's that could pull it off. You are subscribing to the old, if we don't fight them over there, we will have to fight them over here fallacy.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

Where are they? Here is a map that shows positions held by Islamic state, Kurdish government, Syrian government, and others. Green is others. Look like a big territory, but others includes many, many groups, some moderate, others Islamic that have an alliance between in this situation the enemy of your enemy is your friend. Where in that constantly shifting green mass are the moderates? If you send stuff in how can you be sure it gets to the handful of truly liberal groups and not one Islamist allies? It was the same in Eqypt. The rebels consisted of a mix of moderates and Islamists. They won, but when the dust settled the Islamists came out on top, because there are more of them. Its the same over here, there are more of them than us, and that is why the Red side controls more state legislatures, governorships, Congress, and the Judiciary.

Nice map. I don't think we should shrink from giving the democrats in Syria the chance to defeat the worst tyrant of this century who is practicing genocide, on the excuse that we can't find them. Whut? Of course we can. Just use your map!

Sociopaths are not crazy. They just don't have a conscience.

"path" means they are sick, or IOW crazy. Crazy and evil and every other bad term in the book. That's the Islamic State group, a new Taliban, similar to Al Qaeda; IOW our enemies, and very dangerous and should be rolled back in any effective way. Although notice I am wary about using American power to roll them back directly, at least for now.

As for Egypt, it's hard to tell if there were more MB supporters than democrats. The problem was that the Muslim Brotherhood was organized and the Tahrir Square rebels were not; as I said.

Where are the outsiders supporting the moderates? You know like the folks who went to Spain in 1936 to fight for the republicans against Franco? How is it foreigners have been able to gain control over so much of Syria and Iraqi if none of the residents are supported them? Who is supplying them? Certainly not the Russians or the Iranians (they back the government). We aren't. I serious doubt the Europeans or China are. So who is backing ISIS? I thought I read that ISIS has been able to finance themselves.

Moderate Arab states and now the USA and Europe are backing the moderates. Iran and Russia are backing Assad. Nefarious rich fanatics from Arab lands are backing ISIS, and they have captured arms from the Iraqis.

If so, how is a bunch of "foreigners" can waltz into Syrian and set up shop in a couple of years, when the guys who have been there from the beginning can't? The answer is they can't. ISIS is the group formerly called al Qaeda in Iraq. It been around in the Syrian-Iraqi border region for almost a decade. They are no longer even nominally affiliated with the remnants of bin Laden's group, and have dropped the al Qaeda brand name.

That's true enough.

I am not confusing it. We aren't fighting a war. Giving arms to one of the Syrian factions will just inject more weapons into the area and will kill even more people. If the moderates were really good fighters they would have been as successful as ISIS. They haven't, because at the beginning they were not fighters. When Assad started shooting at the demonstraters, that was the time for them to give up. Syria is different from Eqypt.
There are many minorities who would be slaughtered if the government fell. The demonstraters would not be able to protect them from Hezbollah, the home-grown Sunni Islamists (in the green area) or the ISIS.

Killing supporters of Assad is what needs to happen, unfortunately. The reality is that the Syrians cannot and will not stop rebelling against a monster who has destroyed their state. Assad is simply no more acceptable than Hitler. And Assad will not stop destroying his country and his people. So, the only alternative is to supply arms. Regrettably, there are monsters in the world. It is naive to think we can sing kumbaya and they will just go away. Sometimes they need to be stopped. We the USA can't do all the stopping, but wise use of force and arms can help do the only thing that needs to be done.

The government of Syria should not be propped up. There is no reason at all for doing it, and every reason to topple it. Not toppling it is the only reason ISIS exists. Not toppling it means continued and endless war spreading throughout the region. That is just what I said would happen, and that's what's happening. Libertarians may sometimes uncontrollably lurch into the truth, but their ideology cannot be trusted at all.

The time for them to start fighting is just when they started fighting. The moderates are not going to slaughter minorities. They are seeking an inclusive government. The sooner we get over these delusions, the sooner this outrage will end. We can't endlessly justify turning our back on the world, just because we have been too aggressive for too long.

Which is what we did in Vietnam, first aiding the French until they lost and then the South Vietnam until they were on the brink of losing. That is when we send in the ground forces and then WE lost.

Quite the opposite is the case, of course. That's what the protests were all about. As Martin Luther King Jr. said at Riverside Church in March 1967, we were on the wrong side of the world revolution. Ho was the good guy, the French were the bad guy. Our ideological war made it impossible for us to see that fact.

Assad's regime is a government that has control of seaports. The "moderate" faction doesn't. it is easy to get arms to the Syrian government. Much harder to get it to the insurgents unless you have the neighboring countries on board. If Turkey wanted the moderates to succeed they would have helped them. A Muslim part is in charge of Turkey and I don't think they want the moderates to win. If Turkey is out of the question then who what neighbor is going to help? Surely you don't think Israel would be a good choice for a backer in Syria? Then who? Iraq is a mess they can't even hand on to their own territory. The only folks who want to push ISIS back, and who have their act together are the Kurds. And it's not arms they need, but air support. And that is why Obama is doing. I would do the same if I were Obama.

I don't see not having seaports as an obstacle. The only obstacle is failure of will and common sense on our part. I already said who is backing the moderates. Turkey may be giving them some aid too.
There are at least 6 forces who can help push ISIS back, and some of them can be supported to good effect.

I support the Clinton and Carter approach. Mostly that is Obama's approach too. Post-Vietnam Democratic Party. Support human rights and those fighting for them with aid if they ask.

I know. You are a liberal interventionist (LI). Based on his book, Obama is too. I used to be a hybrid between LI and a Scowcroftian realist. I changed over the 2003-2005 when I realized that the Gulf War intervention, which I supported, was a big mistake.

I am likely ahead of the curve on you. I opposed the Gulf War very strongly, and the Iraq War too. Now I am in favor of some use of American power. I am not an interventionist though. I don't see a basis for calling me that, unless you ARE confusing supplying arms with fighting a war.

I don't think if ISIS became a state and began to spread in all directions that China or Russia of India would be too happy about it. A joint ultimatum that they desist or be destroyed by the combined attack of these nuclear powers would likely make them stop.

I don't know how far they can expand, but such a state would mean many terrorist attacks indefinitely. Nuclear attacks are not a solution to anything; just monstrous behavior as bad as Assad and ISIS.

It justifies the empire. If we decide LI is OK (and I don't have a big problem with it per se) then this gives a reason for liberals to support the military-industrial complex. My belief is it will have to go in either this 4T or we are seriously screwed.

America is still a superpower, and is likely to remain so for a while. That's not a bad thing if the Democrats stay in charge and conduct a wise foreign policy, as (mostly) Carter, Clinton and Obama have done. The MIC needs to be reined in, but I don't necessarily think a disarmed USA is a good thing for the balance of power in a world that has some monsters in it from time to time. The best route ahead is eventually for the UN to become the executive of the international world police force. I don't know how soon we will get there, but it will still require the USA to be a primary supplier of arms, intelligence and policy to this force.

You don't need an Islamic state to carry out a 911. All you need is like half a million bucks and a couple of dozen guys. There are lots of NGO's that could pull it off. You are subscribing to the old, if we don't fight them over there, we will have to fight them over here fallacy.

No, I'm not at all. I'm not saying we should go fight them over there. You are misrepresenting my views in order to make a strawman. Not that I don't enjoy the exchange with you. But yes we should help prevent a large and powerful homebase state from being established to facilitate terrorist attacks. Afghanistan was the previous home, and that homebase made 9-11 possible. The Taliban protected Al Qaeda, and that's why we had to do something there. We did the wrong things, but we still needed to do our best to capture the terrorists and dismantle or weaken Al Qaeda to the extent possible. I am a LI to the extent that I think it's just common sense that criminals and monsters can't be allowed to proliferate without the USA taking some multi-lateral and measured, sensible defensive actions.

From the Cairo Review

To back this rhetoric, ISIS has assembled a large army, recruiting heavily in the region and internationally. Inside Iraq, the organization has shown signs of having learnt from the mistakes of its predecessor, AQI, which alienated the Sunni community and lost its tribal leaders to coalition forces and the central government of Iraq.

ISIS’s sweep through northwestern Iraq has thus far been facilitated by the acquiescence of the Sunni population and the active
participation of tribal forces against the Maliki government. Whereas AQI depended on funding from individual patrons from Iraq and the Gulf, ISIS appears to be self-funded. The organization has robbed banks; they have hijacked petrol
trucks, oil refineries and, more recently, oil wells, to fund and arm themselves. ISIS has also cleverly taken over military bases in Syria and Iraq, gaining heavy weaponry in the process, notably armored vehicles and tanks. With the Iraqi army having hastily fled from major cities in the north, valuable American equipment is now in the hands of ISIS fighters, including possibly Abrams tanks. In the areas under its control, ISIS has called back to duty oil workers, engineers, and technicians to keep oil and water facilities operational and has apparently managed to sell oil and profit from it.

ISIS has made itself into a potent force without support from another nation. The moderates have failed to do this.

ISIS does have local support. They are setting up a state. I doubt it will last for long, but they have done a lot better, starting from nothing, than anyone else in the region. Look at the Iraqi government. After spending a trillions dollars, and nearly a decade of US training and aid, they are a joke.

In contrast, the Kurds were able to assemble a rudimentary state in the 1990's right under Saddam's nose. All that was require was US air power to neutralize the Iraqi's advantage in the air. All the Kurds need is US air power to neutralize the advantage ISIS gained from the advanced US weaponry the Iraqi's left when they ran away. They don't have to get training (ISIS hasn't got any). Since Arab operatives cannot effectively operate in Kurdistan (only those who speak fluent Kurdish with a local dialect are permitted to move about freely) Kurdistan never had the massive roadside bombs and suicide attacks prevalent elsewhere in Iraq during the US occupation. So Kurdistan is fairly safe and US trainers could operate there without requiring the massive security apparatus needed to operate anywhere else in Iraq. So it could stick to just special forces trainers and State Department folks.

Personally I think we should large vacate the US embassy in Baghdad and leave non-Kurdish Iraq to the Iranians. But we should make this part of a deal to stop Iran's nuke program with the goal of establishing normal relations with the country.

Unfortunately the Armed Conflict database seems to be paywalled now. Back when it wasn't I checked out the war records of Iran and the US since 1800. What I saw convinced me that I do not have to worry about Iran. The Persians just aren't very warlike nor expansionary, unlike the Russians or the Americans, who are. The Chinese don't seem to be into making wars either and they are a long track record. The voyages of Cheng Ho compared to Vasco de Gama shows this particularly well.

Arabs, the Israelis and many Western nations are inhabited by belligerent peoples. We just are. Look at us, the only nation that had to fight a goddam war to get rid of slavery. We still like to execute folks, we practice torture, we keep a permanent underclass of darker-skinned people, we are the only industrialized nation that doesn't have universal health care. I mean Korea and Taiwan are advanced enough to have it, but not America. When I was born both of these nations were still undeveloped countries and now they are more advanced than us.

It's not like Korean and Taiwan don't have poor folks for whom a welfare system can serve as a disincentive to work. its not like they don't have their own crazy right wingers. When my colleague Kitae asked me why Americans voted the way they do, I said it has to do with the South and the Civil War. He was understandably confused, I said it's complicated and I don't really understand it either, but hey you can't tell me you don't have crazies back in Korea. He replied oh no, Korea is full of crazies, but this is America! Well, we have out own crazies, everybody has them. What I didn't think of adding is "Even hear of American exceptionalism? Well, our crazies are exceptional."

The new free Syria was doing well militarily and near victory until support from Iran and Russia for Assad and his thugs was ramped up. They have the support of most of the people, many of whom are in exile. Assad has some support from Alowites, and the Islamic State of Whatever has some support among those who hate the regimes of Iraq and Syria; that is, until they come under their rule for a while, or are chased out.

To allow Iran to expand is a bad idea, which the USA and its allies in the region will never go for, and the Shiites of Iraq don't want to be part of Iran. They want to be in a new democratic Iraq. The Iraqi government will do better now that it has more competent leadership. As long as that's the case, it should get American support, but no troops. Air strikes are always unwise or used with extreme caution. A non-Islamic State Sunni region might be a good solution now, along with Kurdish independence. Iraqis will need to work that out.

Sometimes bad guys can arise within good-guy states like the USA, yes. They need to be toppled too. I helped try to topple Bush in 2004. The culture wars were still going strong, so we failed.

Originally Posted by TimWalker

I mentioned that the Kurds were preventing the spread of ISIS on their turf. Which brings up a question-if ISIS isn't all that powerful, could other groups in the region contain it? Containment might be based on ethnic or sectarian differences, rather than idealism.

Israel certainly will. Tangling with the Israelis in a frontal war is a huge mistake.

Originally Posted by herbal tee

Coming at this from a different but I believe related direction. First, let me say that I almost never watch the Sunday talk shows but I did catch about 5 minutes of Face the Nation this morning. And it appears that they learned nothing from our ten years in Iraq. They were talking about ISIS and that small sample of talk I saw gave me the feeling that it was 2003 all over again. At least amongst the talking heads, neoconism is back. It was pretty much a full bore ''Fight 'em over there before...'' type response.

And this latest news item certainly won't hurt the neocons' cause:

Off with his head!

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

The new free Syria was doing well militarily and near victory until support from Iran and Russia for Assad and his thugs was ramped up.

Then how it is ISIS even exists, much less holds the territories it does? Iran and Russia are not backing ISIS.

...the Shiites of Iraq don't want to be part of Iran. They want to be in a new democratic Iraq.

Then maybe they should have established one before the US finished leaving. They had a whole decade to do it They don't want a democracy any more than American right wingers want it.

Democracy means accepting the other guys are in charge when they get more votes. And that sucks. The Democratic solution to our problems is elect the Republicans, put them in charge and hope something like a panic happens. Yes it will suck for Americans, but it won't suck as bad as it does for Iraqis, and after we endure the pain, perhaps we get our democracy back.

But here in America. with split government, we have the American right plotting on how to neutralize Obama before he even got into office. The Iraqi right (be they Kurds, Sunnis or Shiites) are like ours in that they will only work with others on their team.

The solution for them (and I fear for us) is to put the Right in charge since they will only work with their won, and they have all the weapons. For us that means put the GOP in the White House. For Iraq it means separate the Kurds, Sunnis and Shia so each groups works exclusive with it own. Left out of all this will he the liberals. In an era where personal violence is the only currency of the land, liberals, who eschew personal violence as part of their basic philosophy, cannot rule.

Here in this country we have a steady sequence of unarmed black teen guys getting shot by both professional and amateur white shooters. This is an expression of Blackbeard's maxim: If I didn't shoot one of you now and again, you'd forget who I am!

On the other hand, what you don't see is billionaires getting shot.

We couldn't build a democracy HERE in this day. We wouldn't be a democratic republic ourselves if we hadn't inherited one from our ancestors.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

Then maybe (the Shi'ites) should have established one before the US finished leaving. They had a whole decade to do it They don't want a democracy any more than American right wingers want it.

They may be learning this too late.

Democracy means accepting the other guys are in charge when they get more votes. And that sucks. The Democratic solution to our problems is elect the Republicans, put them in charge and hope something like a panic happens. Yes it will suck for Americans, but it won't suck as bad as it does for Iraqis, and after we endure the pain, perhaps we get our democracy back.

But if we lose our democracy we have the world's most formidable armed forces behind the tyranny that we get. Soldiers are trained for bravery on the battlefield but cowardice toward their leaders. I have my idea of what a fascistic America would be like -- a pure plutocracy in which working people suffer for three rapacious elites at once (big landowners of the Southern planter heritage, tycoons like those who backed Hitler so that they could make serfs out of industrial workers, and a managerial nomenklatura as corrupt as the Soviet version). One of those is bad enough, but all three could bring literal hunger in a land with the world's most productive agriculture. Our rulers would see their greed as the highest of virtues and any faltering of workers as a crime worthy of death. Count on the political leadership using the American military machine to spread the monstrosity elsewhere. We can call one part of that scenario "World War III".

Maybe we get our liberty back... at the insistence of the top generals of the victors who defeat the monstrosity. Maybe they will seek to restore liberalism because it creates fewer difficulties for a conqueror who seeks to act charitably. Germany, Italy, and Japan have given America no problems for nearly 70 years. Let's see -- ban the Party that created the tyranny and started the war, break up the trusts and cartels, prosecute and punish war criminals, establish or restore a democratic process with the restoration of democratic process including stronger defenses against any assault on the process.

But here in America. with split government, we have the American right plotting on how to neutralize Obama before he even got into office. The Iraqi right (be they Kurds, Sunnis or Shiites) are like ours in that they will only work with others on their team.

And now the Shi'ites have come to recognize that the Kurds are their allies. Maybe when ISIS is thoroughly purged from Iraq, people will insist upon strong checks and balances and upon giving the Sunni Muslims a stake in the system. Political wisdom develops when it does not out of ideation but instead out of necessity.

The solution for them (and I fear for us) is to put the Right in charge since they will only work with their won, and they have all the weapons. For us that means put the GOP in the White House. For Iraq it means separate the Kurds, Sunnis and Shia so each groups works exclusive with it own. Left out of all this will he the liberals. In an era where personal violence is the only currency of the land, liberals, who eschew personal violence as part of their basic philosophy, cannot rule.

I don't know -- do you trust the current GOP with your civil liberties, with economic opportunity, and with pluralism? I see some very cranky characters in the GOP, and I see advocacy of even the abolition of the minimum wage (so that workers can 'freely' choose to work unpaid hours to protect their livelihoods from the whim of employers). I trust Pope Francis more than I trust the mainstream of the GOP today -- and I am not a Catholic.

Here in this country we have a steady sequence of unarmed black teen guys getting shot by both professional and amateur white shooters. This is an expression of Blackbeard's maxim: If I didn't shoot one of you now and again, you'd forget who I am!

It looks as if some police forces need major reforms. I'm guessing that the right-wing police force of St. Louis County, Missouri is afraid of losing power as the county itself changes. If I were black, I would do everything possible to avoid St. Louis County, Missouri. If I were a black motorist I would make sure to get my needed services in St. Louis itself and make sure to drive very carefully -- and two mph below the speed limit -- and stick to the Interstate.

Tough luck, brutal cops. It is their responsibility to adapt to ethnic and cultural change. What does not change is the laws and the tenets of good police work.

On the other hand, what you don't see is billionaires getting shot.

We couldn't build a democracy HERE in this day. We wouldn't be a democratic republic ourselves if we hadn't inherited one from our ancestors.

Maybe we would be wise to imitate the German Federal Republic! We might have to ban the KKK, though.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

Then how it is ISIS even exists, much less holds the territories it does? Iran and Russia are not backing ISIS.

ISIS is Al Qaeda in Iraq, as you said; the Islamic State filled the void created when Assad bombed out his country and we did not support the Free Syrian Army. These militants get funds from rich thugs in the Arab world. Recently they stole American arms from Bush's Iraqi soldiers who gave up.

Then maybe they should have established one before the US finished leaving. They had a whole decade to do it. They don't want a democracy any more than American right wingers want it.

They don't have much experience with it, and they are too sectarian, and so are some of their leaders. Getting the wrong leader makes a big difference. Absent one Supreme Court vote, we would have had Gore instead of Bush. Iraq got Maliki. Big problem.

But I know that Iraqis don't want to be Iranians. Polls have shown that.

Democracy means accepting the other guys are in charge when they get more votes. And that sucks. The Democratic solution to our problems is elect the Republicans, put them in charge and hope something like a panic happens. Yes it will suck for Americans, but it won't suck as bad as it does for Iraqis, and after we endure the pain, perhaps we get our democracy back.

I already explained why that won't work.

But here in America. with split government, we have the American right plotting on how to neutralize Obama before he even got into office. The Iraqi right (be they Kurds, Sunnis or Shiites) are like ours in that they will only work with others on their team.

The solution for them (and I fear for us) is to put the Right in charge since they will only work with their won, and they have all the weapons. For us that means put the GOP in the White House. For Iraq it means separate the Kurds, Sunnis and Shia so each groups works exclusive with it own. Left out of all this will he the liberals. In an era where personal violence is the only currency of the land, liberals, who eschew personal violence as part of their basic philosophy, cannot rule.

I don't think so. Separating the Iraqis into groups may be a good idea, but that does not exclude liberal democracy from any of the groups. Liberal Interventionists like me (as you call me) and like the Iraqi government by definition don't eschew violence, although it's not "personal" but collective violence.

Really, speculative ideas like you are giving us here just evade the hard facts. The Islamic State is a threat to all peoples and cannot be allowed to spread or prosper; it must be rolled back. How much the USA can do is indeed a good question, but rationalizations for not doing anything or not being concerned are just obviously wrong.

Here in this country we have a steady sequence of unarmed black teen guys getting shot by both professional and amateur white shooters. This is an expression of Blackbeard's maxim: If I didn't shoot one of you now and again, you'd forget who I am!

On the other hand, what you don't see is billionaires getting shot.

We couldn't build a democracy HERE in this day. We wouldn't be a democratic republic ourselves if we hadn't inherited one from our ancestors.

He hee. Again, speculation that might not be correct

We may have to rebuild it from the ground up soon. This is a 4T, and we ain't seen nothin yet. We might have to live up to the challenge!

What we do have that our ancestors didn't, is black guys not under the control of the lash of slavery. Our ancestors could just write them off as 3/5 of a person. Today we Americans must deal with the fact that we have differences, and that some people (especially non-whites) have been disadvantaged by the world our ancestors gave them. Police fear blacks and hispanics, and therefore shoot them unfairly. Blacks also have a culture of greater crime and violence rooted in history as well as economics that has not been cured, and that arouses fears among the police and whites generally.

Sectarian and racial differences are a big problem in Iraq, the USA, and many countries. I think there's a song that says "we've got to live together"

Ah, here it is
http://youtu.be/3JvkaUvB-ec

This speaks for itself.
Usual disclaimers apply.

Originally Posted by yahoo

(Sgt. Jeffrey Lucas/US Army) It has been almost four years since US forces withdrew from Iraq, and the fate of the country has never seemed more uncertain.

ISIS continues to control large swathes of the country, Iran's influence is growing, and the Kurds are in an increasingly strong position to declare independence and fracture the country for good.

This splintering of Iraq illustrates how difficult it is to reconstruct a country after years of war and destruction. Unfortunately, the seeds of this current dysfunction were in place years well before the US military began its withdrawal in 2011.

No story demonstrates the difficulty of Iraqi reconstruction, and the mistakes made, quite as vividly as the Mother of All Generators (MOAG).

Almost immediately after the invasion of Iraq in 2003 the country faced persistent energy problems. Rolling blackouts were common and Iraqis could count on a scarce few hours of power a day. To rectify this, the US Agency for International Development (USAID) bought a $50 million Siemens V94 generator which was designated for a new power plant in Kirkuk. It was supposed to single-handed increase Iraq's power generation by six 6%....

....Since the 700-ton generator was too heavy to airlift to its final destination, MOAG was first transported by sea to the Syrian port of Tartous. From Tartous it was driven to the Tishrim Dam east of Aleppo at a painstakingly slow speed of five miles per hour.

But the Syrians refused to allow the generator to cross the dam in retaliation for US sanctions on the country. USAID was forced to reroute MOAG overland through Syria to Jordan. To reach Kirkuk from the Jordan, the generator would be forced pass through the Iraqi province of Anbar, the center of the ongoing Sunni insurgency. Instability in the province necessitated that the generator's movement be delayed as a "single Kalashnikov round could destroy" it, Johnson said .

This rerouting caused the generator to sit on the Jordanian border for all of 2004 and the first three months of 2005. James Stephenson, a veteran member of USAID, notes in his book Losing The Golden Hour how the generator's delivery was further delayed until after the battle of Fallujah and the subsequent clearing of insurgents. Moving the generator before the city was pacified — with its maximum convoy speed of five miles per hour — would have given the insurgents an easy and very tempting target. But the costs of protecting the generator in Jordan ran around $20,000 a day in private security fees, Johnson notes .

All this time, Kirkuk continued to face power shortages. By April 2, 2005, MOAG finally reached its destination in Kirkuk after a 640-mile journey through Iraq, with 250 to 300 military personnel accompanying MOAG alongside Humees and a number of helicopters.

Ultimately, all of this work and money was completely wasted.

"[N]obody had bothered to train the Iraqi plant workers in the operations and maintenance of this state-of-the-art generator," Johnson told The Daily Beast. "So, months after it was handed over in a triumphant ribbon-cutting ceremony, the generator was broken."

Today, Kirkuk is at the frontline in the fight against ISIS. Kurdish forces took over the city in June of 2014 shortly after ISIS blitzed through much of the rest of northern Iraq. The city remains a point of dispute between Baghdad and Iraq's Kurdistan Regional Government, each of which claims the city as part of its sphere of control.

Somebody tell me again how going back into the Middle East is a can't miss for a great future.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

...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...

-S.O. kept the price low to maintain their 90% share; not just to beat the current competition, but to deter NEW competition. If S.O. had tried to "charge whatever they wish," that would've opened the door to upstart competitors. It's only in a over-regulated system, where it's hard for an upstart to get in, that the modern equivalent of S.O. actually could fulfill your fantasies. That over-regualted system is something progressives work to create.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

... 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...

-You could only have posted that if you didn't read the study very carefully. That's OK. Here:


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

...Recent research... reveals that U.S. mobility is not exceptional today... [p. 2]

...that's TODAY, Eric, as in the post-"New Deal," post-"Great Society" era.

...and:

...Nineteenth-century observers were right: the United States was more mobile both socially and phyisically than other places... [p. 20]

...as in, during the supposedly horrible "Era of Unbridled Capitalism."

...and:

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...

...which is a pretty straightforward declaration, Eric.

So...

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)

[NOTE: "Cohorts" refers (roughly) to the years that adults were part of the workforce, not to their dates of birth, as with S&H]

...the US enjoyed superior socio-economic mobility between 1850-1920. This period is excoriated by modern progressives as an era of "unbridled capitalism," but it was an era when when people had the chance to improve their condition better than in other places. The study shows that this exceptionalism didn't break down during the Age of Reagan in the 1980s, but after 1920, when progressives started to put their policies into effect.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

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...

1) He observes that occupational mobility is a good proxie for economic mobility on page 5.

Come on, Eric. Duh.

2) If you go back to my earlier post, you'll notice I also included this study:

Originally Posted by JDG 66

http://www.jstor.org/stable/2566845
...

... which I suppose you overlooked. The study directly compares both the social mobility and the ECONOMIC mobility of workers in Newburybort, MA between 1850 and 1860. Social mobility and economic mobility seem to go hand in hand (again, duh), and geographic mobility plays an important part in both.


One thing you should take away from these papers is that geographic mobility is important for economic mobility. The modern welfare state actually rewards geographic stagnation and therefore, economic stagnation.

But of course, you won't...

BTW:

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/264296/rich-aren-t-getting-richer-kevin-d-williamson

...Our dear, dear friends at the IRS keep track of actual households (boy, do they ever!), and sometimes the Treasury publishes data about what has happened to them...

...During the horrible, horrible Reagan years, as National Review noted back in 1991, the average income growth for actual households in the lowest income bracket was 77 percent over the course of a decade; income growth for actual households in the top group was only 5 percent during those same years. Of those who were in the poorest fifth in 1979, 85.8 percent had moved to a higher bracket by 1988, and 14.7 percent of them moved to the top bracket — which is to say, the poor of 1979 were more likely to be the rich of 1988 than to be the poor of 1988. The poor got richer, and some of them got a lot richer. Reagan’s record has not been matched — Ronald Reagan was the champion of the poor, as it turns out — but economic mobility has been pretty stable for the past 20 years...

When somebody says that that top 1 percent saw its income go up by X in the last decade, they are not really talking about what happened to actual households in the top 1 percent. Rather, they are talking about how much money one has to make to qualify for the top 1 percent...

When Robert Reich writes that “super-rich got even wealthier this year,” he is making a statement that is not true in most cases — 75 percent of the Clinton-era super rich were not members of the Obama-era super rich. In fact, Treasury found:

Income mobility of individuals was considerable in the U.S. economy during the 1996 through 2005 period with roughly half of taxpayers who began in the bottom quintile moving up to a higher income group within ten years.
About 55 percent of taxpayers moved to a different income quintile within ten years.
Among those with the very highest incomes in 1996 — the top 1/100 of one percent — only 25 percent remained in the group in 2005. Moreover, the median real income of these taxpayers declined over the study period.
The degree of mobility among income groups is unchanged from the prior decade (1987 through 1996).
Economic growth resulted in rising incomes for most taxpayers over the study period: Median real incomes of all taxpayers increased by 24 percent after adjusting for inflation; real incomes of two-thirds of all taxpayers increased over this period; and median incomes of those initially in the lower income groups increased more than the median incomes of those initially in the high income groups...


Progressives ignore this income mobility when denouncing the wicked, wicked rich and their income-hogging ways. This leads to a lot of bad analysis and stupid rhetoric...

Originally Posted by JDG 66

...Progressives ignore this income mobility when denouncing the wicked, wicked rich and their income-hogging ways. This leads to a lot of bad analysis and stupid rhetoric...

Just so the dust has a place to settle, mobility in this country was best by far in the post-WWII era from roughly 1946-1973 when the oil embargo changed everything. The Clinton Presidency was the next closest period, and Ragan's years being third. After the 2008 collapse, mobility has dropped to Gilded Age levels. And yes, mobility in the US was better then than it was in Europe, which was still laden with a rigid class structure. It was still bad. Given the rapid rate of decline in mobility today, the US will acquire a pseudo-rigid class structure in the next decade or two at the most, unless the issue of extreme inequality is successfully addressed. Even the GOP and it's team of econo-flacks agree with that.

What they don't agree about is the extent to which that will matter. In GOP-speak, inequality is the result of inadequate effort, and, perhaps, somewhat limited access to opportunity. Counter that with study after study that documents the nearly impossible task to advance with so many obstacles in ones path. Of course, there is always an isolated case here and there. Ben Carson is a case in point. Assuming that the average person can perform at a level necessary to duplicate that result is nonsense by any standard. And it's the average level of success that defines how well the society functions as a whole.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Just so the dust has a place to settle, mobility in this country was best by far in the post-WWII era from roughly 1946-1973 when the oil embargo changed everything. The Clinton Presidency was the next closest period, and Ragan's years being third. After the 2008 collapse, mobility has dropped to Gilded Age levels. And yes, mobility in the US was better then than it was in Europe, which was still laden with a rigid class structure. It was still bad. Given the rapid rate of decline in mobility today, the US will acquire a pseudo-rigid class structure in the next decade or two at the most, unless the issue of extreme inequality is successfully addressed. Even the GOP and it's team of econo-flacks agree with that.

What they don't agree about is the extent to which that will matter. In GOP-speak, inequality is the result of inadequate effort, and, perhaps, somewhat limited access to opportunity. Counter that with study after study that documents the nearly impossible task to advance with so many obstacles in ones path. Of course, there is always an isolated case here and there. Ben Carson is a case in point. Assuming that the average person can perform at a level necessary to duplicate that result is nonsense by any standard. And it's the average level of success that defines how well the society functions as a whole.

For me personally, obviously the 1940s - early 1970s period was N/A in terms of mobility. Getting out of school in the mid 80s, mobility was fairly pathetic, as a result of the gray ceiling (e.g. lack of promo possibilities - too many Boomers who were 5 - 10 years ahead of me jostling for all the good jobs). My first good breakthrough was in '88 - a substantial jump through a single job change. Then through the late 80s and into the 90s, a series of moderately good jumps. Clearly, the first major speedbump was the crash of 2000 and the Dot.bomb melt down. From that point, although I did get some raises, career wise nothing has happened since then. I may be in a plateau until retirement (whether voluntary retirement or involuntary "early retirement").

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

...mobility in this country was best by far in the post-WWII era from roughly 1946-1973...After the 2008 collapse, mobility has dropped to Gilded Age levels...

-Sadly, making up facts is not a substitute for actual data. The study I've posted (had you bothered to actually read it- in my prevuious posts, I even noted the pages for readers to find):

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

...shows that socio-economic mobility was better between 1850-1920, not post-New Deal. Well, maybe before 1850 as well, but they didn't have the US Census data to go back that far. Anyway, the much derided "Gilded Age" had much better mobility than the post-New Deal era. IOW, teh studies findings are diametrically opposed to your supposition. Period. You have a right to your own opinion, but not a right to your own facts. Please don't comment again until you've actually read the studies. I don't think it's too much to ask. Sheesh.

Originally Posted by XYMOX_4AD_84

For me personally, obviously the 1940s - early 1970s period was N/A in terms of mobility...

-Your personal anecdotes are better than Mr. Horn's made-up guesses, but they don't really equal those of tens of thousands of cases from US Census data. Do they?

There will be more talk of US troops on the ground/invading Iraq and Syria, if the IS continues to make gains. Most Republican candidates are pushing it. It seems plausible, in fact, if the goal is to prevent a base for terrorist attacks against America. That's why we started and continued the Afghan War. Another consideration is that the IS army is not that big; it only succeeds because its opposition is so weak. The Iraqi troops alone outnumber them about 20 to 1.

I don't support sending US troops against the IS, but I might consider supporting it IF the Iraqi government and the Syria free army ask us to. Even then, it's probably not a good idea. More blood and treasure dumped into this everlasting hell-hole is not an inviting prospect. It may be something the next president will be called upon to decide. Odds are good that the next president will be more hawkish than the current one.

I do think the USA has to get more pro-active with the Iraqi government. It needs to make sure that competent and committed officers are assigned to the front. This is the Iraq government's responsibility; to replace the Shi'ite political hacks that Maliki put in charge of the military, with qualified commanders. US special forces may need to get closer to the line and guide these troops.

Originally Posted by JDG 66

-Sadly, making up facts is not a substitute for actual data. The study I've posted (had you bothered to actually read it- in my prevuious posts, I even noted the pages for readers to find):

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

...shows that socio-economic mobility was better between 1850-1920, not post-New Deal. Well, maybe before 1850 as well, but they didn't have the US Census data to go back that far. Anyway, the much derided "Gilded Age" had much better mobility than the post-New Deal era. IOW, teh studies findings are diametrically opposed to your supposition. Period. You have a right to your own opinion, but not a right to your own facts. Please don't comment again until you've actually read the studies. I don't think it's too much to ask. Sheesh...

Since you're trying to be an expert on this study, you may be well advised to read it in depth. First: context. The 1850-1920 era arguments hinge on continental expansion with an open frontier. Even then, the mobility was only marginally better (see the norming charts near the end of the paper) than the geographically constrained but politically open post-WWII era. Not to put too fine an edge on this, but open and fully accessible frontiers are not currently an option. Even Alaska and Siberia have only limited open-access areas, and neither can support the kind of unbridled expansion that 19th century North America offered ... which was one of the main points of the paper.

Another point that should have been obvious from the raw data was the extent to which mobility was possible in the two eras. In that earlier period, most of the population lived on farms, and had minimal education. Then again, the economy had a minimal need for more educated urban people, but it did need food. Add the beginning of industrialization to the open frontier, and the opportunities were huge. Of course, each nation only gets to have the industrial revolution once. We had ours in the 19th and early 20th century. China is having its right now. Results are similar, but the methodology was very different. FWIW, China's advance was much quicker than ours, so don't count your model as necessarily superior for rising economies either.

Laissez faire works well when the entry costs are low and opportunities broad. It works poorly when entry costs are high and opportunities limited ... like today.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

... I don't support sending US troops against the IS, but I might consider supporting it IF the Iraqi government and the Syria free army ask us to. Even then, it's probably not a good idea. More blood and treasure dumped into this everlasting hell-hole is not an inviting prospect. It may be something the next president will be called upon to decide. Odds are good that the next president will be more hawkish than the current one...

I hope that we finally recognize that we can't fight an endless string of foreign wars with the Praetorian Guard. If we won't restart the draft, and make all Americans responsible for fighting the wars we choose to fight, then we will break the military and create a permanent class of disabled warriors we refuse to fully embrace. We're nearing that point already.