Originally Posted by Mikebert

Ten years? It was fouryears, as opposed to 18 years. The 1983 event only makes sense of the US is target, and then only in a context relevant to Lebanon. The first response that counts in 2001, 18 years later, which is your argument.

The 1991 makes sense of either the US or Saudi Arabia is the target. AQ struck in Saudi Arabia in 1995, just four years after OBL's expulsion from SA in 1991.

2001 - 1991 = 10
2001 - 1983 = 18; rounded to decade = 20

Originally Posted by Mikebert

No the difference is you that if the US military kills enough people over there this will somehow prevents things like 2008 from happening. I note that we were engaged in two wars and had killed a shitload of people over there and 2008 still happened.

Now don't jump the shark on me. I was referring to one particular element of our discussion - domestic consequences, particularly economic - I keep raising the devastating impacts to our economy and markets from major geopolitical and economic disruptions (i.e. oil prices skyrocketing to nuclear exchanges) and you keep counter with 'in the long run, keep calm and everything will be fine.' It was getting a tad annoying.

Regardless, I've actually haven't said much of anything about body counts - shitloads. or otherwise.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

You are assuming that the negative effect of instability is greater than the negative effect of stability. It amounts to an argument about insurance. If the insurance to smooth out bumps caused by unforeseen events is bankrupting the company, it isn't worth it. I maintain that the "stability fetish" is bankrupting America' middle class by creating a nice safe world for the international assets of the wealthy.

'Safe for the wealthy' may be your definition of international stability, and maybe that's why it easy for you to discount it.

It's not mine, however.

My definition does include body counts. That is why I prefer international stability that reduces the potential for 100s of millions of deaths from sovereign nations exchanging nuclear spearheads. And it's why I can live with the deaths of a few 1000s of fanatical, but relatively piss-ants, ISIL types.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

Huh? Russia and China were at time totalitarian states, which is at least as dangerous religious fundamentalism.

I fundamentally disagree!

Those totalitarian states' leaders see life on earth as their one chance; the dangerous religious fundamentalist see life on earth as the glorious means to achieve what comes after - the more glorious their departure, the better! We have a pretty good track record on talking with the former; not so much on the latter - have you ever talk to a West Bank settler? I've tried - whatever you thought you believed about them is probable correct if you multiply by a 1000.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

No. If you are trying to remove a Phillips screw, the number of hammer you have doesn't matter. If military power was effective at "promoting stability" in the modern Middle East, then that region of the world would be as calm as a millpond. It isn't.

Is a Mill pond the correct comparison? I don't believe it is nor likely ever will be. I'd be happy with the lack of genocide in the ME region and mitigation of threats to the homeland and overseas presence to some acceptable slight level above nil. To get there is not only going to require the occasional Phillips or sledge hammer but also on occasion the electron microscope and a podium.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

This reflects my key point, which you have never addressed directly. You seem to believe that military power works to promote stability as advertised. If this is so, the why do all the other nations behave as though it is not. If this is so, why is our overwhelming military power so ineffective at getting the stability it is supposed to achieve?

See above - with my definitions of international stability and the specific level of acceptable stability in the ME, I think its been pretty good (with, of course, the one BIG recent exception being Bush's Iraq invasion).

I value that accomplishment. Moreover, I find it to be living in magic pony land to think we have the luxury of throwing up our hands and closing up shop just because we can't achieve some sort of permanent state of Kumbaya brotherly love.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

This seems to be a type "this time its different argument".

Yep.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

I note that the "moderate" Syrian rebels who are supposed to be on our side, have an object to our attacks in Syria .

If I was them, I would want to be holding hands and singing Kumbaya with us as well.

If this was easy, we probable would of turn it over to the locals or the Chinese.

Originally Posted by playwrite

2001 - 1991 = 10
2001 - 1983 = 18; rounded to decade = 20

You ignored the rest of my response.

I was referring to one particular element of our discussion - domestic consequences, particularly economic - I keep raising the devastating impacts to our economy and markets from major geopolitical and economic disruptions

Yes you keep asserting that things will happen on the foreign scene that will have these scary bad effects on our markets and economy although you have provided no examples of this. The most serious crisis I can think of was the Cuban missile crisis.

It began with the observation of Russian missiles in Cuba on Sunday 14 October 1962. The previous Friday the S&P500 closed at 56.95. On 22 October the alert was raised to DEFCON 3. The market closed at 54.96, down 3.5% from pre-crisis levels. On the 23rd, the market closed at 53.59, down 6.1% from pre-crisis levels. On 24 October the alert was raised to DEFCON 2, just one step from nuclear war. The market traded down to an intraday low of 52.55 (down 7.7% from the crisis start) but closed higher at 55.21. Over the entire 13-day crisis the maximum market movement was down 7.7%.

The most spectacular crisis I can think of is 911. Over the 13 days after market close on 9/10/2008, the market fell a total 11.6% at close 9.21 before rebounding.

For comparison over the 13 days from the 2 Oct 2008 close to the 15 Oct 2008 close the market fell 18.5%.

My point is internally-generated financial crises like 2008 have much greater market/economic impacts than political or foreign crises do. And this has been true historically. Over and over political events that one would think would have big market impacts fail to have these. Bin Laden thought like you do. The targets chosen on 911 were intended to incite maximum panic in American psyches and crater our markets sending us into a depression. He got the intended psychological effect--but not the market/economic effect.

If DEFCON 2 and a huge attack at the very center of American power and wealth could not crater our markets and economy then I doubt this instability you so much fear is going to either. I find your fears of extreme market/economic blowback from instability abroad absurdly exaggerated.

My definition does include body counts. That is why I prefer international stability that reduces the potential for 100s of millions of deaths from sovereign nations exchanging nuclear spearheads.

There is no evidence that anything the US can do will reduce the probability of an Indian-Pakistani nuclear exchange. Your view seems too-much based on faith.

We have a pretty good track record on talking with the former; not so much on the latter - have you ever talk to a West Bank settler?

There are hardliners everywhere. After 911 tons of folks of Americans I live and worked with were all set for the US to just nuke Afghanistan and be done with it. I half agreed with them. But we weren't in a position to actually do that. And neither are those settlers. And during the Cold War both sides of guys who advocated first strikes and talked about acceptable casualties in the tens of millions.

I'd be happy with the lack of genocide in the ME region

So would I, but I don't harbor the delusion that this can be brought about if only we join in the killing.

and mitigation of threats to the homeland

What threats? And how does killing more people as collateral damage stop it?

See above - with my definitions of international stability and the specific level of acceptable stability in the ME, I think its been pretty good

Compared to what? I look at the 1991-2014 period of US as the sole superpower and do not see greater stability, and better conditions at home that we saw during the previous three decades. The 1970's outbreak of terrorist was way milder than the current one. Both periods saw no wars between great powers. The large scale wars undertaken by great powers: Vietnam (US), Afghanistan (USSR), Iraq (US), Afghanistan (US) were lost during both. So how do you decide hat the US hegemonic project over 1991-2014 has been more successful that the previous era of two superpowers.

Since the US has arrived on the scene, at no time has the world been "run" as well as it was in the century after the Napoleonic wars.

I value that accomplishment.

What accomplishment? Compared to what real-world reality?

Originally Posted by Mikebert

...
There are hardliners everywhere. After 911 tons of folks of Americans I live and worked with were all set for the US to just nuke Afghanistan and be done with it. I half agreed with them. But we weren't in a position to actually do that. And neither are those settlers. And during the Cold War both sides of guys who advocated first strikes and talked about acceptable casualties in the tens of millions.
...Compared to what? I look at the 1991-2014 period of US as the sole superpower and do not see greater stability, and better conditions at home that we saw during the previous three decades. The 1970's outbreak of terrorist was way milder than the current one. Both periods saw no wars between great powers. The large scale wars undertaken by great powers: Vietnam (US), Afghanistan (USSR), Iraq (US), Afghanistan (US) were lost during both. So how do you decide hat the US hegemonic project over 1991-2014 has been more successful that the previous era of two superpowers

I was more hardline after Iran held our hostages for a year and still see Iran as a potential threat( if they develop nuclear weapons) to the USA. After 911, I was never if favor of the occupation of Afghanistan or iraq.
I do support the current action against ISIL.

It is ironic that the world seemed more stable with the USA and the USSR as superpowers. I recall Bush saying that the world would be a safer place after the fall of the USSR, but I never expected it,
In my opinion, the world has become much less stable and less safe with a single superpower.

Originally Posted by playwrite

Those totalitarian states' leaders see life on earth as their one chance; the dangerous religious fundamentalist see life on earth as the glorious means to achieve what comes after - the more glorious their departure, the better!

Yeah, but I will note that Mullah Omar is still breathing, and so is Ayman al Zwahiri. And Osama would still be breathing too if McCain had been elected. None of these guys seem all that eager for the glorious departure. And it was ever so. These fundamentalists love life just as much as the next guy. How they behave is just a rational or as irrational as any other people are. Just put yourself in the shoes of your enemy and think like they do and you will see that.

Our policy with ISIS seems as muddled as the one in Iraq was. One theory is we are trying to "mow the grass" as Israel periodically does with their opponents. But Israel has a relevant metric, they can measure the number of terrorist attacks against their homeland simply by counting the rockets launched into their territory. The Israelis can measure the success level of their policies by comparing the numbers of attacks before and after. One can engage rationally with the policy.

We cannot use the Israeli metric of number of attacks on the homeland. Before our ISIS war began they had been no attacks and it is likely that there will be no attacks after its done. But if you look at what actually got us going, it was the two beheadings. So suppose after several years of war three more American heads get chopped off. What do we do then? Is our goal to simply kill some large number of Arab men of military age? How many is enough?

Some people say we should just kill the "terrorists". How do you do that? Suppose you see a photo of two dead Arabs, both males in their early 20's. You are told one is a terrorist. Could you pick out the terrorist? Neither can we. So we call all Arab males of military age that we kill terrorists. Terrorists are defined as men of military age killed by the weapon aimed at the target of the attack. The target is someone who has been put on a Muslim terrorist list by one of the US intelligence services and is in the region selected for attacks. If the target of the attack turns out not to be the guy we thought he was, he still counts as a terrorist because he's a guy of military age killed in an American attack.

So it really does amount to killing large numbers of Arab men of military age. But we don't try to kill all Arab males of military age. We simply kill Arabs until we cannot locate targets anymore. We can call that "degrading" the terrorists, like we degraded the Vietnamese communists and the Soviets degraded the jihadists in Afghanistan and then we degraded the jihadist in Afghanistan (again) plus some in Iraq. Now we are degrading terrorists in Yemen and Iraq (again) plus those Syria--and we are still at it in Afghanistan. I wonder in how many places we will be degrading terrorists in another ten years.

Osama bin Laden, Al Qaeda, the Islamic State militants; they are all about as rational as Timothy McVeigh or the brothers who attacked the Boston Marathon. They target civilians randomly in an attempt to make a statement against the USA and The West. I don't think this is quite as rational as you or I.

It's true we can't measure the threat like the Israelis can measure rocket attacks (which also aren't much of a threat, really, compared to how many Gazans they actually kill). But the IS is a threat, to all the states in the region, and to the USA and all of our allies. The IS, if allowed to stand, is now a base for terrorist attacks like Afghanistan was.

We have launched air attacks to defend the Kurds. So we have become the enemy of the IS already, without any further attacks. We are now defending Iraq and Syria with air attacks too. This is being done to eliminate this threat. I could be wrong, but as of now, I support it, just as I initially supported Bush's attack on Afghanistan in 2001.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

... The most serious crisis I can think of...

None of your examples would come close, by orders of magnitude, to an actual nuclear exchange - whether that be between NK and Japan; China and Japan; India/Pakistan or Israel/Iran.

Moreover the inherent weakness of the internally-generated financial crisis is still with us and would make any negative geopolitical major incident just further magnified.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

There is no evidence that anything the US can do will reduce the probability of an Indian-Pakistani nuclear exchange. Your view seems too-much based on faith.

It's based on the fact that it hasn't happened, yet.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

There are hardliners everywhere. After 911 tons of folks of Americans I live and worked with were all set for the US to just nuke Afghanistan and be done with it. I half agreed with them. But we weren't in a position to actually do that. And neither are those settlers. And during the Cold War both sides of guys who advocated first strikes and talked about acceptable casualties in the tens of millions.

You can believe that is just luck; I don't.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

So would I, but I don't harbor the delusion that this can be brought about if only we join in the killing.

The Yazidis, Kurds in Iraq and just about everyone still living with their heads on in Baghdad would disagree with you. The Kurds in Syria might if there are any of them left in the next couple weeks with their heads still on -

http://www.dailystar.com.lb/News/Mid...-in-syria.ashx

ISIS behead captured Kurds in Syria

BEIRUT: Activists say ISIS militants have beheaded nine Kurdish fighters, including three women, captured in clashes near the Syria-Turkey border....

Images posted on social media networks show women's heads placed on a cement block, said to be in the northern Syrian city of Jarablous, held by militants.

You're really okay with this?

Originally Posted by Mikebert

What threats?

Exactly.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

And how does killing more people as collateral damage stop it?

Killing the right people. It's been the #1 rule of combat since humans first picked up a stick.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

Compared to what?

Exactly.

I remember practicing duck-and-cover to kiss one's ass goodbye in the 1950s. I remember a war in the 1960s that killed 55,000 US alone with casualties much higher. I remember Mao's purges going into the mid-1970s. And I've seen the transitions in Eastern Europe, even Russia, China, Vietnam, Cambodia, and even Burma/Mynamar. I see the possibilities in Africa. That's the path we've been on and the path we are still on - all during the US emergence as hegemon.

You want to believe that is by coincidence and happenstance; I don't.

As such, I'm not supportive of throwing away those achievements and the potential for more to pursue some sort of roll of the dice Fortress America magic pony ride. Particularly adverse to cuddling-up in the fetal position if the motivation to do so comes from some piss ants named ISIL.

IS may be a real blessing in disguise, in that it may evoke the "OH SHIT!" response from moderate Islam. The peace loving, politically moderate component of said faith community has been all but silent. For the most part, the fight against Islamic wingnutism has been carried by western nations and the cancer that is Israel. Now, with IS cropping up in their midst, we may see the local neighborhood actually take a role in stemming it. We may also see more and more vocal messages from the moderate component of Islam. Thank you IS! Your barbarous tactics and animalistic approach to establishing "world peace" may be just the 2x4 between the eyes (and red hot poker up the ass) Islam needed to get on the band wagon of stemming wingnutism.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

Yeah, but I will note that Mullah Omar is still breathing, and so is Ayman al Zwahiri. And Osama would still be breathing too if McCain had been elected. None of these guys seem all that eager for the glorious departure. And it was ever so. These fundamentalists love life just as much as the next guy. How they behave is just a rational or as irrational as any other people are. Just put yourself in the shoes of your enemy and think like they do and you will see that.

Our policy with ISIS seems as muddled as the one in Iraq was. One theory is we are trying to "mow the grass" as Israel periodically does with their opponents. But Israel has a relevant metric, they can measure the number of terrorist attacks against their homeland simply by counting the rockets launched into their territory. The Israelis can measure the success level of their policies by comparing the numbers of attacks before and after. One can engage rationally with the policy.

We cannot use the Israeli metric of number of attacks on the homeland. Before our ISIS war began they had been no attacks and it is likely that there will be no attacks after its done. But if you look at what actually got us going, it was the two beheadings. So suppose after several years of war three more American heads get chopped off. What do we do then? Is our goal to simply kill some large number of Arab men of military age? How many is enough?

Some people say we should just kill the "terrorists". How do you do that? Suppose you see a photo of two dead Arabs, both males in their early 20's. You are told one is a terrorist. Could you pick out the terrorist? Neither can we. So we call all Arab males of military age that we kill terrorists. Terrorists are defined as men of military age killed by the weapon aimed at the target of the attack. The target is someone who has been put on a Muslim terrorist list by one of the US intelligence services and is in the region selected for attacks. If the target of the attack turns out not to be the guy we thought he was, he still counts as a terrorist because he's a guy of military age killed in an American attack.

So it really does amount to killing large numbers of Arab men of military age. But we don't try to kill all Arab males of military age. We simply kill Arabs until we cannot locate targets anymore. We can call that "degrading" the terrorists, like we degraded the Vietnamese communists and the Soviets degraded the jihadists in Afghanistan and then we degraded the jihadist in Afghanistan (again) plus some in Iraq. Now we are degrading terrorists in Yemen and Iraq (again) plus those Syria--and we are still at it in Afghanistan. I wonder in how many places we will be degrading terrorists in another ten years.

The metrics are there - some clearer than others, for sure.

The Shia and non-ISIL groups in Baghdad know the difference between being left to their own devices and being under the threat of decapitation by ISIL; I think any American walking the streets of Baghdad would know pretty quickly if ISIL was in control or not.

Same with the Kurds in Erbil in Kurdish- land.

From there it gets tricky in Sunni-land of western Iraq - granted that is a tough nut.

BUT, at least one aspect is made clear - when tank, APCs, artillery, or larger units are moving in or firing upon Shia-land or Kurish-land, the sorting out becomes pretty damn clear to everyone. And that is exactly what the air campaign is doing. It's been knee-slapping funny to listen to ISIL spokesmen telling us how clever they are in moving their assets into the population and underground to avoid airstrikes - they haven't yet grasp how long those assets are going to be sitting there. Just compare that to what they were doing in June.

That's the metric - isolation and lack of freedom of movement. Next, will be a degradation of their leadership. Yes, a new #2 will be found and occasionally rise to #1; just keep in mind there is the more typical reason why the replacements weren't originally #1s and #2s - degrading skill levels. Then watch the metrics of frustration set in, the splintering of groups, when these guys' glory days are pretty much now limited to suicide bombings - just not the same thing as riding into town on a tank to behead more than a few of the scared shitless.

Now granted, all of that is more difficult to overlay in Syria for obvious reasons. But its not impossible and certainly I don't see that as sufficient reason to hide under the bed.

Originally Posted by Skabungus

IS may be a real blessing in disguise, in that it may evoke the "OH SHIT!" response from moderate Islam. The peace loving, politically moderate component of said faith community has been all but silent. For the most part, the fight against Islamic wingnutism has been carried by western nations and the cancer that is Israel. Now, with IS cropping up in their midst, we may see the local neighborhood actually take a role in stemming it. We may also see more and more vocal messages from the moderate component of Islam. Thank you IS! Your barbarous tactics and animalistic approach to establishing "world peace" may be just the 2x4 between the eyes (and red hot poker up the ass) Islam needed to get on the band wagon of stemming wingnutism.

ISIS will be a blessing if they take over Jordan - since in that case, we can get the Palestinians to then overthrow ISIS and take over Jordan, after which the Palestinians won't even need Judea or Samaria or Gaza!

Originally Posted by playwrite

That's the metric - isolation and lack of freedom of movement.

That's not relevant. ISIL did not have tanks and hardware when they got started. They obviously did not need them to get to where they are. And they don't need tanks to kill people and chop off heads in the territory they control.

Next, will be a degradation of their leadership.

Yes were will kill Arab men and nearby women and children until we get tired. We'd been doing this for years, and still ISIS pops up. So we will do it some more, but now we will be doing it in three places, instead of two a decade before, and just one a few years before then. I suppose in time it will be four and five. How many places are you going to want to kill Muslims until you finally conclude that its stupid?

Then watch the metrics of frustration set in, the splintering of groups

To reappear elsewhere.

Now granted, all of that is more difficult to overlay in Syria for obvious reasons. But its not impossible and certainly I don't see that as sufficient reason to hide under the bed.

There's no hiding under the bed. Look if you want to save lives, why not just spend the resources we are putting in killing people in Syria-Iraq into saving lives in West Africa? In six months a million could be infected, half of whom could die. Is ISIS going to kill 500,000 in the next 6 months?

You keep assuming that military power still works like to used to. Military power can always produce one type of peace, the peace of the grave. When sufficiently coercive, fighting the power means certain death. So they stop fighting and hide, like rats. But the regions they inhabit will also be completely unproductive, unless you ethnically cleanse them and resettle with your own people.

The trick is to maintain order in a functioning society. You cannot get that without support from the culture. People have to feel they have something to gain in order to generate the cultural support that order needs. But you offer nothing but threats.

Groups like ISIS spring up because there is nothing better being offered. These same populations once bred Western secular movements half a century ago, now they breed Islamists. I think the reason is the same as why the minor political parties in the US today are mostly on the right.

Doesn't anyone wonder why the "moderates" we like never seem to do very well? When I was a kid I used to wonder why the moderates we supported overseas never seemed to do as well as their communist opponents. Nowadays the moderates don't seem to do well against their Islamist opponents.

Originally Posted by Skabungus

IS may be a real blessing in disguise, in that it may evoke the "OH SHIT!" response from moderate Islam. The peace loving, politically moderate component of said faith community has been all but silent. For the most part, the fight against Islamic wingnutism has been carried by western nations and the cancer that is Israel. Now, with IS cropping up in their midst, we may see the local neighborhood actually take a role in stemming it. We may also see more and more vocal messages from the moderate component of Islam. Thank you IS! Your barbarous tactics and animalistic approach to establishing "world peace" may be just the 2x4 between the eyes (and red hot poker up the ass) Islam needed to get on the band wagon of stemming wingnutism.

Ska! Good to hear from you again. I agree with your analysis. IS may be just a little too much for even the Islamo-apologists to swallow. Apparently, Turkey is now moving, albeit slowly. Others may follow, but only if we make it clear that this is their mess to clean-up. If we bring troops and take up the fight, don't count on much more than whining about our lack of proper sensibilities and excessive heavy handedness.

Originally Posted by '58 Flat

ISIS will be a blessing if they take over Jordan - since in that case, we can get the Palestinians to then overthrow ISIS and take over Jordan, after which the Palestinians won't even need Judea or Samaria or Gaza!

I don't see that happening ... period. We have too close ties to Jordan to allow them to be overrun.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Ska! Good to hear from you again. I agree with your analysis. IS may be just a little too much for even the Islamo-apologists to swallow. Apparently, Turkey is now moving, albeit slowly. Others may follow, but only if we make it clear that this is their mess to clean-up. If we bring troops and take up the fight, don't count on much more than whining about our lack of proper sensibilities and excessive heavy handedness.

Yes, putting American boots on the ground would send the signal that we're willing to clean up the mess and leave us open to an unending stream of accusations and criticism from the neighborhood (picture Arab nations standing on the sidelines pointing fingers and throwing shoes).

Methinks we've done a really poor job of tying US support to tangible outcomes performed by the supported. We need to adopt a performance based approach that says, "you go do this and we'll support it, but we wont do it for you"

There are some who say we should sit on the sidelines and watch the neighborhood thrash it out. Let the Islamic world have its sectarian blood bath and sort it out for themselves. I don't envision us doing that, but, I can say that it would be a good idea to tell everyone that only if they speak up and pitch in for their fair share FIRST, will we consider putting our efforts forth.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

That's not relevant. ISIL did not have tanks and hardware when they got started. They obviously did not need them to get to where they are. And they don't need tanks to kill people and chop off heads in the territory they control.

It's about momentum. It's like peaking in high school as the football captain, graduating, and riding on the back of a trash truck aspiring to being driver someday. With that comes a lot of frustration and drift; doesn't make much of a recruitment poster.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

Yes were will kill Arab men and nearby women and children until we get tired. We'd been doing this for years, and still ISIS pops up. So we will do it some more, but now we will be doing it in three places, instead of two a decade before, and just one a few years before then. I suppose in time it will be four and five. How many places are you going to want to kill Muslims until you finally conclude that its stupid?

Do you remember Bushra?

Most people don't. She was the wife of the brother of Osama bin Laden's courier. Along with OBL and his son, Khalid, she and the other two were killed by the Navy SEALS.

I'm not even sure most ISIL fighters remember them let alone get motivated by them.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

To reappear elsewhere.

Probably, but with what potentials and capacities? I see an obvious downward trend. And you more than most know a secular trend will still have its bumps and dumps.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

There's no hiding under the bed. Look if you want to save lives, why not just spend the resources we are putting in killing people in Syria-Iraq into saving lives in West Africa? In six months a million could be infected, half of whom could die. Is ISIS going to kill 500,000 in the next 6 months?

It's a false choice; we can do both with our hands tied behind our backs if we choose to. Pretty sure Ebola is going to turn out as much a piss-ant as ISIL. We'll see.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

You keep assuming that military power still works like to used to. Military power can always produce one type of peace, the peace of the grave. When sufficiently coercive, fighting the power means certain death.

I do see it as being more complicated in its offerings than perhaps you do particularly when one adds the array of auxiliary functions that come with it. For example, the primary function of Marines along the border between North and South Koreas is a tripwire that can send a signal to a Tridant sub that sends a single MIRV that ends an invasion pretty darn fast. What goes along with that rather limited military presence but rather certain stability is the allowing of a host of auxiliary interactions through the years that have made S. Korea just outside the top 10 economies in the world by purchasing power.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

So they stop fighting and hide, like rats. But the regions they inhabit will also be completely unproductive, unless you ethnically cleanse them and resettle with your own people.

The trick is to maintain order in a functioning society. You cannot get that without support from the culture. People have to feel they have something to gain in order to generate the cultural support that order needs. But you offer nothing but threats.

I think the Kurds and Shia in Iraq would disagree with you unless you want to claim that they are our "own people." The Sunnis might have gotten there except for Maliki - only second to the invasion as the biggest Bush fuck up.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

Groups like ISIS spring up because there is nothing better being offered. These same populations once bred Western secular movements half a century ago, now they breed Islamists. I think the reason is the same as why the minor political parties in the US today are mostly on the right.

Doesn't anyone wonder why the "moderates" we like never seem to do very well? When I was a kid I used to wonder why the moderates we supported overseas never seemed to do as well as their communist opponents. Nowadays the moderates don't seem to do well against their Islamist opponents.

Is it really that way? Or, is it a matter of what the news covers to sell papers?

Did you know that by every quantifiable measure, the world has become less violent? It's actually been doing so for some time now. Kind of seems to dovetail our emergence as the hegemon.

Originally Posted by playwrite

It's about momentum. It's like peaking in high school as the football captain, graduating, and riding on the back of a trash truck aspiring to being driver someday. With that comes a lot of frustration and drift; doesn't make much of a recruitment poster.

And we did the same thing to AQI, the more or less disappeared. And now they are back under a new name.

ISIS has been called a cancer. That's actually a fairly good analogy. The cancer is Jihadism. Jihad means a holy war. Those who fight in a jihad are mujahideen (holy warriors), we call them jihadists. The current jihadist cancer first appeared in Afghanistan in the 1980's when it was directed against a leftist government supported by the USSR. In that conflict the US supported the jihadists.

Note: given a choice between Marxists (a secular Western philosophy, whose adherents you see as rational actors) and jihadist (right-wing religious autocrats) we chose to aid the jihadists.

This cancer produced mets in the form of OBL and his AQ database. AQ produced mets in the form of AQI and AQAP. The chemo applied in Afghanistan, Iraq and Yemen has not been effective. Although it looked like the AQI tumor was wiped out, it has grown back as ISIS. So now we are applying more chemo. What I am suggesting that further rounds of standard chemo aren't going to work. If they were effective they would have worked already. We should try interferon therapy.

I see an obvious downward trend.

Down trend in jihadism? On what timescale? I do not see a falling trend in this stuff over the past forty years, and that's only half a saeculum.

I think the Kurds and Shia in Iraq would disagree with you unless you want to claim that they are our "own people."

The Kurds in a way are "our people" because we created Kurdistan with the 1990's Iraq air war. The Shia in Iraq are Iran's people in a similar sense, because the Shia government in Iraq came from Iran. The Sunni's were Saddam's people. We killed Saddam, and fought the Sunnis for years. Now they are ISIS's people, or perhaps you can say ISIS is their state.

Did you know that by every quantifiable measure, the world has become less violent?

Of course. I have pointed out that the US dominates military spending today, NOT because we spend so much, but because everybody else spend so little. The principle cause of the decline in violence has been due to the decline in interstate war. I have been arguing that military power is increasingly ineffective. So people buy less of it and use it much less. War does not pay any more. And so there is less of it, and less violence.

It's actually been doing so for some time now. Kind of seems to dovetail our emergence as the hegemon.

I would say it dovetails with the appearance of nuclear weapons. Once great powers had these there were no longer wars between great powers. That is probably the key factor in the decline in interstate war. So now I do not think they will be war between India and Pakistan, and certainly not between India and China. And Israel will NOT preemptively strike at Iran with their nukes.

And the reason is simply. I do not think political actors are irrational. I think ISIS is perfectly sane. Barbaric yes, but not insane. William I could probably match them for barbarism and Ivar the Boneless could probably teach them a thing or two. Neither of these guys were insane.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

And we did the same thing to AQI, the more or less disappeared. And now they are back under a new name.

ISIS has been called a cancer. That's actually a fairly good analogy. The cancer is Jihadism. Jihad means a holy war. Those who fight in a jihad are mujahideen (holy warriors), we call them jihadists. The current jihadist cancer first appeared in Afghanistan in the 1980's when it was directed against a leftist government supported by the USSR. In that conflict the US supported the jihadists.

Note: given a choice between Marxists (a secular Western philosophy, whose adherents you see as rational actors) and jihadist (right-wing religious autocrats) we chose to aid the jihadists.

This cancer produced mets in the form of OBL and his AQ database. AQ produced mets in the form of AQI and AQAP. The chemo applied in Afghanistan, Iraq and Yemen has not been effective. Although it looked like the AQI tumor was wiped out, it has grown back as ISIS. So now we are applying more chemo. What I am suggesting that further rounds of standard chemo aren't going to work. If they were effective they would have worked already. We should try interferon therapy.


Down trend in jihadism? On what timescale? I do not see a falling trend in this stuff over the past forty years, and that's only half a saeculum.


The Kurds in a way are "our people" because we created Kurdistan with the 1990's Iraq air war. The Shia in Iraq are Iran's people in a similar sense, because the Shia government in Iraq came from Iran. The Sunni's were Saddam's people. We killed Saddam, and fought the Sunnis for years. Now they are ISIS's people, or perhaps you can say ISIS is their state.


Of course. I have pointed out that the US dominates military spending today, NOT because we spend so much, but because everybody else spend so little. The principle cause of the decline in violence has been due to the decline in interstate war. I have been arguing that military power is increasingly ineffective. So people buy less of it and use it much less. War does not pay any more. And so there is less of it, and less violence.


I would say it dovetails with the appearance of nuclear weapons. Once great powers had these there were no longer wars between great powers. That is probably the key factor in the decline in interstate war. So now I do not think they will be war between India and Pakistan, and certainly not between India and China. And Israel will NOT preemptively strike at Iran with their nukes.

And the reason is simply. I do not think political actors are irrational. I think ISIS is perfectly sane. Barbaric yes, but not insane. William I could probably match them for barbarism and Ivar the Boneless could probably teach them a thing or two. Neither of these guys were insane.

Was Hitler insane? My nightmare is a new Hitler with nuclear weapons. It is true that there has been nothing on the scale of WWII since then. But , that does not mean that WWIII can not happen.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

And we did the same thing to AQI, the more or less disappeared. And now they are back under a new name.

ISIS has been called a cancer. That's actually a fairly good analogy. The cancer is Jihadism. Jihad means a holy war. Those who fight in a jihad are mujahideen (holy warriors), we call them jihadists. The current jihadist cancer first appeared in Afghanistan in the 1980's when it was directed against a leftist government supported by the USSR. In that conflict the US supported the jihadists.

Note: given a choice between Marxists (a secular Western philosophy, whose adherents you see as rational actors) and jihadist (right-wing religious autocrats) we chose to aid the jihadists.

Not exactly. The USSR actually invaded Afghanistan, just like Putin recently invaded Crimea and Saddam invaded Kuwait, or as Hitler invaded Poland. The USSR's expansionism and conquest was being resisted, so we supported the local resistors.

This cancer produced mets in the form of OBL and his AQ database. AQ produced mets in the form of AQI and AQAP. The chemo applied in Afghanistan, Iraq and Yemen has not been effective. Although it looked like the AQI tumor was wiped out, it has grown back as ISIS. So now we are applying more chemo. What I am suggesting that further rounds of standard chemo aren't going to work. If they were effective they would have worked already. We should try interferon therapy.

I don't know what a "met" is, and I don't know what your interferon therapy would involve.

The Kurds in a way are "our people" because we created Kurdistan with the 1990's Iraq air war. The Shia in Iraq are Iran's people in a similar sense, because the Shia government in Iraq came from Iran. The Sunni's were Saddam's people. We killed Saddam, and fought the Sunnis for years. Now they are ISIS's people, or perhaps you can say ISIS is their state.

Over-simplified. The Kurds are our people? Maybe. The Shia government in Iraq was exclusively pro-Shia, but it did not "come from" Iran. The Sunnis were Saddam's people, but not all Sunnis in Iraq supported Al Qaeda, but fought against it in 2007, and they might fight against ISIS.

Of course. I have pointed out that the US dominates military spending today, NOT because we spend so much, but because everybody else spend so little. The principle cause of the decline in violence has been due to the decline in interstate war. I have been arguing that military power is increasingly ineffective. So people buy less of it and use it much less. War does not pay any more. And so there is less of it, and less violence.

That's true. The IS represents a new surge in it though.

I would say it dovetails with the appearance of nuclear weapons. Once great powers had these there were no longer wars between great powers. That is probably the key factor in the decline in interstate war. So now I do not think they will be war between India and Pakistan, and certainly not between India and China. And Israel will NOT preemptively strike at Iran with their nukes.

And the reason is simply. I do not think political actors are irrational. I think ISIS is perfectly sane. Barbaric yes, but not insane. William I could probably match them for barbarism and Ivar the Boneless could probably teach them a thing or two. Neither of these guys were insane.

Right, but I'm pretty sure that the IS militants are insane. We'll see about that though; for example whether their actions get Turkey into the war against them. If they don't back off against the Kurdish villages in Syria, and thus provoke Turkey into the war, I'd say that's not the "sanity" you observe among the nations you mentioned.

What is a "met"? It is likely a great shortening of words related to "metastasis". People in most businesses vastly shorten long words that they commonly use that laymen do not use.

Metastasis, or metastatic disease, is the spread of a cancer or disease from one organ or part to another not directly connected with it. The new occurrences of disease thus generated are referred to as metastases (sometimes abbreviated "mets"). It was previously thought that only malignant tumor cells and infections have the capacity to metastasize (also spelled metastasise); however, this is being reconsidered due to new research. Metastasis is a Greek word meaning "displacement", from μετά, meta, "next", and στάσις, stasis, "placement". The plural is metastases.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metastasis

The word was originally used in the treatment of cancer to describe the spread of cancer from one place to another. Because much that is evil and deadly (like cancer) is seen to be particularly nasty when it spreads from one place to another (as in breast cancer to the liver), metastasis is often used in describing a pathological organization such as a criminal gang or a political or religious movement that one despises appears in places not of its origin.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

I don't see that happening ... period. We have too close ties to Jordan to allow them to be overrun.

Well we should break those ties then.

Nothing personal, just business - like we did to Ngo Dinh Diem?

Originally Posted by radind

Was Hitler insane? My nightmare is a new Hitler with nuclear weapons. It is true that there has been nothing on the scale of WWII since then. But , that does not mean that WWIII can not happen.

Hitler wasn't insane; evil yes, but not insane. And Hitler had chemical munitions, lots of them. Never used them because the Allies had them too and there was no way they could be used advantageously. The same has been true of fission weapons; they have only been used when the wielder had a monopoly. Based on his actual restraint from use of chemical munitions there is no reason to believe that Hitler would have used atomic weaponry if the allies had them too.

I think Americans like to engage in sloppy thinking on these sort of issues because it is less uncomfortable. After all why should one believe that evil monsters are any more likely to use nukes than normal leaders? After all the only leader who ever used nukes was Harry Truman who hardly belongs in the pantheon of crazy-evil bad asses. He did this because rationally he could get away with it; they other side did not have them. This is no longer true and nobody uses them intentionally--not even the North Koreans.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Not exactly. The USSR actually invaded Afghanistan,

From the Wikipedia article:

The Afghan government, having secured a treaty in December 1978 that allowed them to call on Soviet forces, repeatedly requested the introduction of troops in Afghanistan in the spring and summer of 1979. They requested Soviet troops to provide security and to assist in the fight against the mujahideen rebels. On April 14, 1979, the Afghan government requested that the USSR send 15 to 20 helicopters with their crews to Afghanistan, and on June 16, the Soviet government responded and sent a detachment of tanks, BMPs, and crews to guard the government in Kabul and to secure the Bagram and Shindand airfields.

I don't know what a "met" is, and I don't know what your interferon therapy would involve.

A met is a metastasis. What makes cancer so difficult to treat is it is your own cells that are killing you. The cancerous cells are embedded in healthy tissue. Radiation and most chemotherapy are poisons. They have stronger effects on growing cells and since cancers grow faster than most human tissues, sub-lethal doses can kill a lot of the cancer cells. Because you do not want to kill the patient you cannot give a certain knockout blow and so chemotherapy mostly slows metastatic cancer rather than eliminates it. The analogy to insurgency fighting is lethal violence (chemo) is used to kill insurgents while minimizing the killing of non-insurgents so as to prevent the patient (nation) from dying.

Interferon is a therapy that involves boosting the body's immune defenses to fight the cancer rather than using poison. The analogy to ISIS is for the US to withdraw, allowing ISIS to grow as a threat. Since Turkey, Iran and Saudi Arabia are the local powers who will be most affected; if their leaders come to see ISIS as a threat to their power, the will work to take them down. The key is to work with whom an affinity exists. So Iran, whose protéges are in charge of Southern and central Iraq and who is allied with the Syrian government, would aid the Iraqi and Syrian governments. The US, who helped create Kurdistan, would stand by the Kurds there (but not the Kurds outside of Kurdistan). ISIS is right next door to the Turks and so they have a national defense interest. ISIS wants to create caliphate. Saudi Arabia currently fulfills this role (they manage the holy shrines). So ISIS is a direct challenge to their authority and at some point the Saudis will have to reckon with them if they cannot get their American lackeys to do it for them.

Over-simplified. The Kurds are our people? Maybe. The Shia government in Iraq was exclusively pro-Shia, but it did not "come from" Iran.

The people didn't come from Iran, the government did. The major Shia parties that run the country today were located in Iran when Saddam was in power.

The Sunnis were Saddam's people, but not all Sunnis in Iraq supported Al Qaeda, but fought against it in 2007, and they might fight against ISIS.

That's up to the Sunnis and the Sunni powers (Turkey and Saudi Arabia) to work out. Christian, or worse, secular (pagan) America has no legitimacy in this area.

Right, but I'm pretty sure that the IS militants are insane.

Do you have any evidence for this? Cutting off heads isn't insane, its perfectly rational for a barbarian.

We'll see about that though; for example whether their actions get Turkey into the war against them. If they don't back off against the Kurdish villages in Syria, and thus provoke Turkey into the war, I'd say that's not the "sanity" you observe among the nations you mentioned.

Are you saying ISIS should be more scared of the Turks than they are of America? Why?

Originally Posted by Mikebert

Hitler wasn't insane; evil yes, but not insane. And Hitler had chemical munitions, lots of them. Never used them because the Allies had them too and there was no way they could be used advantageously. The same has been true of fission weapons; they have only been used when the wielder had a monopoly. Based on his actual restraint from use of chemical munitions there is no reason to believe that Hitler would have used atomic weaponry if the allies had them too.

I think Americans like to engage in sloppy thinking on these sort of issues because it is less uncomfortable. After all why should one believe that evil monsters are any more likely to use nukes than normal leaders? After all the only leader who ever used nukes was Harry Truman who hardly belongs in the pantheon of crazy-evil bad asses. He did this because rationally he could get away with it; they other side did not have them. This is no longer true and nobody uses them intentionally--not even the North Koreans.

Hitler was surely evil. And there was evil in the USSR. When the USA and USSR were the two superpowers, there was stability with two sane powers.
However, I do question the sanity of Hitler based on his invasion of Russia and needless sacrifice of his military by overruling the advice of senior military leaders.
I do not equate evil with insanity.
In any case,my concern is that an evil and insane person gains control of nuclear weapons.
The decision by Truman to use nuclear weapons was based , in large part, by desire to end the war and reduce American casualties.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

From the Wikipedia article:

And then a few months later the USSR staged a full invasion.

A met is a metastasis. What makes cancer so difficult to treat is it is your own cells that are killing you. The cancerous cells are embedded in healthy tissue. Radiation and most chemotherapy are poisons. They have stronger effects on growing cells and since cancers grow faster than most human tissues, sub-lethal doses can kill a lot of the cancer cells. Because you do not want to kill the patient you cannot give a certain knockout blow and so chemotherapy mostly slows metastatic cancer rather than eliminates it. The analogy to insurgency fighting is lethal violence (chemo) is used to kill insurgents while minimizing the killing of non-insurgents so as to prevent the patient (nation) from dying.

Interferon is a therapy that involves boosting the body's immune defenses to fight the cancer rather than using poison. The analogy to ISIS is for the US to withdraw, allowing ISIS to grow as a threat. Since Turkey, Iran and Saudi Arabia are the local powers who will be most affected; if their leaders come to see ISIS as a threat to their power, the will work to take them down. The key is to work with whom an affinity exists. So Iran, whose protéges are in charge of Southern and central Iraq and who is allied with the Syrian government, would aid the Iraqi and Syrian governments. The US, who helped create Kurdistan, would stand by the Kurds there (but not the Kurds outside of Kurdistan). ISIS is right next door to the Turks and so they have a national defense interest. ISIS wants to create caliphate. Saudi Arabia currently fulfills this role (they manage the holy shrines). So ISIS is a direct challenge to their authority and at some point the Saudis will have to reckon with them if they cannot get their American lackeys to do it for them.

The analogy is correct; it's just your analysis of the specifics that is not. The USA giving help that is requested by local powers who are resisting the IS caliphate, is boosting the area's immune defenses. We don't want anyone to aid the Syrian "government," who caused IS to grow. Iran is not aiding the legitimate government of Syria, it's aiding the illegimate genocidal murderer whom the people have rejected. Obama is doing the right thing here, not Iran. But yes, the Turks and Saudis will have to deal with the IS threat, and Iran if it wants to help, it will have to work out their mistake in Syria and help to bring a solution there, as well as help Iraq (without the silly idea that it would take over Iraq, or be allowed to turn the new government of Iraq into another Shia government, which is the danger of allowing Iran to help Iraq).

The people didn't come from Iran, the government did. The major Shia parties that run the country today were located in Iran when Saddam was in power.

No, they are Shia parties from Iraq. They were banned under Saddam, but the people who made these parties after Saddam came from Iraq, not Iran.

That's up to the Sunnis and the Sunni powers (Turkey and Saudi Arabia) to work out. Christian, or worse, secular (pagan) America has no legitimacy in this area.

We helped them work it out in 2007, and they can be helped again. Not directly, as in 2007, but in the same way as we are helping the legitimate government of Syria now.

Do you have any evidence for this? Cutting off heads isn't insane, its perfectly rational for a barbarian.

They are doing this to their own people. Yes, it is insane because the victims have done nothing wrong and are no threat to them. It's pathological. Even barbarians are more sane because they do this to gain territory and spoils and wipe out their enemies. The IS caliphate is doing this merely because they are not converting to their insane, illegitimate version of Islam. Are they the only insane folks who have ever existed? No, but insane they are.

Are you saying ISIS should be more scared of the Turks than they are of America? Why?

For just the reason you say; they are threatened by the IS on their border. The IS is killing and threatening Kurds just across the border from Turkey, arousing the Turkish Kurds. Turkey is stopping their Kurds from joining the fight now, but at some point they will need to answer their own Kurd demands to fight IS on the ground (which the USA won't do), if IS keeps attacking Kurds near Turkey.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

Hitler wasn't insane; evil yes, but not insane. And Hitler had chemical munitions, lots of them. Never used them because the Allies had them too and there was no way they could be used advantageously. The same has been true of fission weapons; they have only been used when the wielder had a monopoly. Based on his actual restraint from use of chemical munitions there is no reason to believe that Hitler would have used atomic weaponry if the allies had them too.

On the one hand, his restraint in some areas showed sanity. He obeyed the Geneva convention at least to some extent when it came to prisoners of war too. But he wiped out people just because they were of a certain religion or ethnic group. That is insane. Whether it was insane or not to be hubristic and take on more than he could rationally do, it certainly showed instability, and on more than one occasion.

I think Americans like to engage in sloppy thinking on these sort of issues because it is less uncomfortable. After all why should one believe that evil monsters are any more likely to use nukes than normal leaders? After all the only leader who ever used nukes was Harry Truman who hardly belongs in the pantheon of crazy-evil bad asses. He did this because rationally he could get away with it; they other side did not have them. This is no longer true and nobody uses them intentionally--not even the North Koreans.

Insane leaders can be suicidal. That is certainly true of the Islamic martyrs and suicide bombers. Are their leaders different? I'm not so sure. I'm not so confident of the North Korean leaders' sanity either. Iran, maybe not. The danger there is not so much insanity, but proliferation. It might be just as insane or at least foolish for Israel or the USA to attack Iran if it gets nuclear weapons.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

Hitler wasn't insane; evil yes, but not insane. And Hitler had chemical munitions, lots of them. Never used them because the Allies had them too and there was no way they could be used advantageously. The same has been true of fission weapons; they have only been used when the wielder had a monopoly. Based on his actual restraint from use of chemical munitions there is no reason to believe that Hitler would have used atomic weaponry if the allies had them too.

I think Americans like to engage in sloppy thinking on these sort of issues because it is less uncomfortable. After all why should one believe that evil monsters are any more likely to use nukes than normal leaders? After all the only leader who ever used nukes was Harry Truman who hardly belongs in the pantheon of crazy-evil bad asses. He did this because rationally he could get away with it; they other side did not have them. This is no longer true and nobody uses them intentionally--not even the North Koreans.

Do you think he would have used them if we didn't have them at the time? Do you think we would've used them on Japan if Japan had them at the time?