The Cold War was primarily a standoff between two military powers. The Soviet impact on, and involvement in, the world's economy was negligible. Probably one of the major reasons the USSR collapsed. It was Soviet military, and the resultant political power, that we wanted to keep in check. We are now dealing with a new Russia, and that new Russia has become an economic player far greater than the old Soviet Union. Now, when Russia rattles it's political saber, there are economic ramifications of concern. Yet we still seem to be stuck in the Cold War mentality that Russia is always to be opposed.
This morning's Athens Newspaper, Ekathimerini, has a couple of interesting pieces about the Ukraine mess. Of interest was their editorial, stating that a "stable and powerful Russia" is a key ingredient to global economic security.
An OpEd similarly addressed the situation, concluding with, "The world today has become a very complicated place, a place where there is no room left for experimentation, naivete or dogmatism."
Point is, we seem to be of the mentality that we have to have an "enemy" to be a real superpower. We oppose terrorism, radical Islam, dictators, and our old foe, Russia. But then, after opposing Assad, we learn that the "rebels fighting for democracy" include a strong ISIS element, and now, perhaps, Assad isn't so bad after all. As far as Russia is concerned, well Putin was KGB, and perhaps new Russia is really the old Soviets after all, and didn't we have to stand up against them for decades?
Perhaps the fall back on blind ideology is simply part and parcel to being a power in decline? Maybe we can't get beyond GWB's "If you are not with us, you are against us"? Maybe it's time to learn to coexist with those who primarily are simply not against us, and replace dogmatism with pragmatism, even if it means we aren't be biggest player on the block.
This morning's Athens Newspaper, Ekathimerini, has a couple of interesting pieces about the Ukraine mess. Of interest was their editorial, stating that a "stable and powerful Russia" is a key ingredient to global economic security.
An OpEd similarly addressed the situation, concluding with, "The world today has become a very complicated place, a place where there is no room left for experimentation, naivete or dogmatism."
Point is, we seem to be of the mentality that we have to have an "enemy" to be a real superpower. We oppose terrorism, radical Islam, dictators, and our old foe, Russia. But then, after opposing Assad, we learn that the "rebels fighting for democracy" include a strong ISIS element, and now, perhaps, Assad isn't so bad after all. As far as Russia is concerned, well Putin was KGB, and perhaps new Russia is really the old Soviets after all, and didn't we have to stand up against them for decades?
Perhaps the fall back on blind ideology is simply part and parcel to being a power in decline? Maybe we can't get beyond GWB's "If you are not with us, you are against us"? Maybe it's time to learn to coexist with those who primarily are simply not against us, and replace dogmatism with pragmatism, even if it means we aren't be biggest player on the block.
Al: I agree with you. Except that it is more (and less) than blind ideology. It is the great Washington Poker game.
ReplyDeleteI.e. American government (including Foreign Policy) is mostly a never ending poker tournament.
There is no overarching story. Simply a bunch of players trying to win a stake to get them to a higher ranked table and the folks at the high stakes tables looking to win a big enough pot to knock the other guys out of the game.
The "Soviets" were a useful high value chip and the players are loathe to re-evaluate its worth as it may lessen their stakes (or potential winnings). Therefore, you treat the modern Russians the same as you treated the Soviets and they will respond accordingly, maintaining their value in your stash.
Similarly, the players all agreed that "terrorists" were high value chips (even though they clearly were not). However, after two decades of being involved in high stakes games, they have metastasized nicely into their given roles.
The only role the real world plays in this game is to determine which card gets drawn next (and then only if you can't manipulate the flip via leger de main.
Ael has a good point. Our political system seems to breed 'would-be-heroes-seeking-dragons-to-slay' so they can talk tough at the polls.
ReplyDeleteI have always admired Russians: the people, their music and their history. Their literature is outstanding, and I don't mean just Pushkin and Tolstoy, even the Soviet age writers had a way with words.
If the Ukraine is serious about territorial integrity then let her give back lands that rightfully belong to the Polish, Slovaks, and Romanians stolen in the last century. Guys like Brezhnev ( an ethnic Russian from the Ukraine ) and Krushchev ( an ethnic Russian born and raised on the Ukraine border ) made the Ukraine what it is today. I do not understand what the beef is in Kiev. I suspect that it is a small minority of Ukrainians led by an even smaller band of activists that is pushing for war with the breakaway regions. Lets hope they don't re-arm with nukes as some Ukrainian politicos are now making noises about.
That's not how the world works, for this would lead to gazillions of bloody wars, revenge wars etc.. Tried and rejected.
DeleteNowadays the borders are the default position, and basically all countries have pledged to respect them (even if they make claims) by signing and ratifying the Charter of the United Nations that's outlawing violence as a tool in international political disputes (unless OK'd by the UNSC).
Russia insists on enjoying the benefits from this agreement, so 100+ countries can legitimately demand that Russia accepts the downside, too.
Same for the USA(!).
And you might look at the legitimacy of Poland having had territory that's now Ukrainian. In reality, Poland lost almost exclusively non-ethnic Polish territories in 1940-1945.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Ukraine#mediaviewer/File:UkraineNativeLanguagesCensus2001detailed-en.png
From Kiev Today: The U.S. Department of State has made a statement in which it accuses Russia of supplying arms to militants in southeastern Ukraine.
ReplyDeleteMeanwhile, from Reuters: Light arms supplied by the United States are flowing to "moderate" Syrian rebel factions in the south of the country and U.S. funding for months of further deliveries has been approved by Congress, according U.S. and European security officials.
Obviously, all rebels are not created equal.
@ S O: "Poland lost almost exclusively non-ethnic Polish territories in 1940-1945."
ReplyDeleteIn reality, the ethnic cleansing of Poles from Volhynia and Galicia by the Banderistas is why that wiki language map you cited look so uniform. Stalin had something to do with it also by deporting one million plus Poles from those areas to Siberia and Kazakhistan, and that was done in 39, 40 and early 41, and then again in 45. Let's not even count Himmler's dead Poles in those regions as most of those killings were most likely done for Himmler by Ukrainian policemen.
And who provided those demographic numbers for that language map to wikipedia anyway? Yes, you guessed right, it was a Ukrainian State census bureau. You can trust them if you wish, I don't. Here are some figures of Polish language speakers in the 1930s, note that Ukrainian speakers were a minority in the Tarnopol and Lvov regions which are now part of the Ukraine:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massacres_of_Poles_in_Volhynia_and_Eastern_Galicia#mediaviewer/File:Mother_tongue_poland_1931_census.png
Regarding the United Nations: I am no international law expert, but I would think that a permanent seat on the UN Security Council is a trump card of some sort of value.
What matters is the majority:
Deletehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_minorities_in_Poland#mediaviewer/File:Poland1937linguistic.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polonization#Second_Polish_Republic_.281918.E2.80.931939.29
They lost most of those areas for a good reason (from the nation state point of view).
About trustworthiness; look up linguistic maps of the Soviet Union; no sizeable Polish-speaking areas either, and they sure don't lack diversity
I would offer that the Ukraine has to be viewed in terms of the separatist goals of the eastern regions. Are they objecting to the government in Kiev (i.e. opposition to the government of that total geo-political entity called Ukraine) or are they objecting to be forced to be part of a political entity called Ukraine? Those are two fundamentally different notions. What approach does the international community take towards the fact they don't give a flying f*** about who governs Western Ukraine, but simply want nothing to do with being part of Ukraine to begin with? Backing Kiev isn't shoring up a government against violent overthrow as much as it is helping a government suppress the popular will of a geographic region. And particularly sticky in that the assignment of that region to a particular sovereign state was not necessarily by the will of the people at any point in the process.
ReplyDeleteI guess you could try to draw parallels to the US Civil War, but none of the seceding states was involuntarily made part of the US to begin with, and the Union they voluntarily joined offered no legal path to secede. Were the people of eastern Ukraine voluntarily included in the present country or simply assigned to it as a matter of a geographical line?
Not saying I possess answers to the above, but there is a considerable degree of complexity that does not lend itself to simplistic answers.
Apparently, Ukraine wants to join NATO. Do you think NATO will say no, after all their rhetoric? Can you think of a way to make the crisis worse?
ReplyDeleteAl, I'm still trying to figure out why you have such a poor opinion of Ukrainians. The Ukrainian immigrants that I know are typically humble people. Indeed, I have an aunt that traveled back to Ukraine every summer for 20 years to distribute food an clothing to orphanages there. I have an uncle who came to the US to escape conscription by the Germans during WWII.
ReplyDeleteThe only animosity that any of my relatives speak of is toward Stalin and the forced famine. That is when my father's parents left. My mother's family came to the US much earlier.
My aunt is too old to go back any more. But from speaking to her, the overreaching desire to escape Russian tyranny is the driver there. Animosity toward other countries, Poland, the Russian people, not so much.
Also, do you not place any credence on the reports that Putin sent what amounts to special ops operatives in to foment a violent effort toward separation? Think about it, Crimea went without a fight. If the people of Donetsk and Luhansk saw that, why would they expect to need heavy weapons and armor to secede? Why would they set up barricades ahead of time? These weren't protests, but were armed insurrections.
As I see it, Putin is a power hungry despot. He has no problems waging war to get what he wants. I'll end with my thoughts on what a fool he is. I'll quote the old saying, "You can catch more flies with honey than with vinegar." Had he offered Ukraine some amount of concessions, then he might have avoided pushing them toward the EU and NATO. He's stuck in the 19th century mentality of empire building.
wourm -
ReplyDeleteIn fairness to Al, it was not him but me that started in on the Banderistas. That was not meant as an attack on the Ukrainian people as a whole, only on that small faction that teamed up with Hitler and the SS. As I said above I believe it is a small minority led by an even smaller group of activists (kind of similar to the Bolsheviks in 1917). My wife's brother who lives in upstate NY near Rochester married a second generation Ukrainian girl, she is a jewell and so are their children my nephews. She and her family have the same opinion of Putin that you do, but they also share a contempt for the UPA and for Bandera, who gave the Ukraine a bad name.
My family immigrated from Ukraine around 1900 (thanks to Dr. Josef Oleskow ). Growing up, all I knew about foreign politics was that both Hitler and Stalin were bad people and that was why, if your were shown where to look, they were depicted as burning in Hell on the cathedral's mural depicting heaven and hell.
ReplyDelete"a "stable and powerful Russia" is a key ingredient to global economic security
ReplyDeleteBut my caveat would be that today's Russia is neither particularly stable nor all that powerful, and it is that very instability and striving FOR power that makes it such a difficult neighbor.
Not arguing that the current U.S. position of "whatever Russia is, I'm against it" is a sensible one. But that's not to say that Russia in its current condition is a force for any sort of constructive politics in central Asia...
Don't forget that Siberian resources are a key ingredient to China's industrial (and urban) flowering. Shaking up that resource flow would be hugely disruptive to Asian stability.
DeleteChief - The author could very well have been speaking in the future tense, clearly rebutting the "whatever Russia is, I'm against it" mentality. There is just no sense thinking that a nation the size (physical and economic) of Russia can be ignored or pounded into subservience. They do not suffer the same sort of fundamental economic weakness that the USSR suffered.
DeleteWell...I'd argue that instead the Russian economy has inherited a lot of the Soviet weaknesses and overlaid it with 1) a thicker layer of corruption and 2) an excessive, almost-Nigerian-level of extraction resource dependency. It's still a very strong nation, though, and I agree than any US/EU pol that thinks the Russians can be intimidated or ignored is living in a dream world.
DeleteIndeed, that's my problem with this. Putin has promised his ultranationalist and Soviet-nostalgist supporters a return to the old Soviet borders to the extent possible. I don't think that's something that anyone outside Russia wants to see. But I also don't see how the US/EU can do much about that, short of the sorts of diplomatic and economic pressure they're using now. To push an armed confrontation in the former Soviet republics seems like a VERY bad idea.
wourm: "Al, I'm still trying to figure out why you have such a poor opinion of Ukrainians."
ReplyDeleteI have not expressed an "opinion of Ukrainians". I was commenting on the issue of "separatism" and that it is a different issue than trying to overthrow a government, especially when the national boundaries including the separatist regions in a given state were not formed by the will of the people living within those boundaries. I was not proposing an answer, just suggesting that the situation be viewed on its own merits and details rather than simply labeling the separatists as "rebels".
As I said, it would appear that the separatists do not wish to topple the government in Kiev and place all of Ukraine under their political will. Rather, it would appear that they are willing to accept Kiev's sovereignty over certain territories, but not those in which they live. That's a different situation than in, for example, Syria or Iraq, where "rebels" are seeking to take control of the government itself. Was not West Virginia formed as a separatist state?
It doesn't surprise me that we in the US get confused. Gerrymandering and voter suppression - rigging the game to allow a minority of voters to take control of the government, is the accepted norm. And while not violent, there are indeed right wing separatist movement in several US states that have gotten their objectives on the ballot.
It's a more complex issue than "Rebels vs Seated Government".
I think Putin's desire for the Ukraine is going to get side-railed by ISIS...just saying. A lot of Chechens are getting in on the ISIS band-wagon, and if there is one thing every upstart wanna-be knows is that your greatness is measured by the size of your enemies.
ReplyDeleteISIS declared war on the US...for whatever that is worth...good luck crossing that ocean, there, guys. But Russia, that's a four day truck ride north...SO...I would say with today's threat delivered to Russia via, "oh, hey, by the way, these nifty new fighters you gave to Syria...yeah, ours now. thank you very much!" is a threat no one ignores. Not even Putin.
Granted, ISIS need pilots, but lets face it...Iraq has lots of trained former airforce pilots familiar with Soviet equipment and are of the Sunni persuasion; and nothing says, "aw shit!" like those pilots being gung-ho for the new ISIS caliphate.
All around, as I said at the beginning, yeah, Putin wants Ukraine back in his good will via annexation, but in all reality, I think he's going to have to look south and deal with that problem first.
Sheerahkahn
Sheer-
ReplyDeleteGood point. And before anyone writes off ISIS as merely terrorists, it would appear that they are pretty sharp at quickly establishing functioning governments, complete with effective public services.
Again, as I offered about not falling prey to the stock in trade stereotype of Russia, perhaps a bit more thought needs to be applied to ISIS.
Even more interesting is this historic take on ISIS. Will the US "declaring war" on ISIS only fuel the risk in Saudi Arabia?
ReplyDeleteWhat would be the economic impact of the Saudis, and thus the region, going Wahhabi?
The Saudis ARE Wahhabi; that's one of the biggest problems in the region. A lot of the toxicity that came out of Afghanistan in the Eighties had a lot to do with the Saudis using their madrassis to train the guys who went to fight with the muj. The appeal of IS is less one of strict Wahhabism than their appeal to the sorts of Muslims who yearn for the 8th Century. That's a pretty limited appeal, as demonstrated by the fact that even in western Iraq a lot of the people in places like Fallujah who are happy to fight Baghdad aren't happy to do it as IS troops.
DeleteMy problem with this article is this:
"And here is the difficulty with evolving U.S. policy, which seems to be one of "leading from behind" again -- and looking to Sunni states and communities to coalesce in the fight against ISIS (as in Iraq with the Awakening Councils)."
You'll note the article provides nothing as an alternative to this. Because there really IS no alternative to this - other than cutting ties with the region altogether. The U.S. has nothing to offer the Saudis that they want or are willing to accept other than "leading from behind". The ostensibly secular U.S. is an anathema to most Saudis, and few, if any, would respond to any other U.S. approach.
Still interesting in the Ukraine - will the peace hold? Maybe! Or will Zakharchenko push on towards Mariupol? Or will 'Right Sector' and other neo-fascists sabotage the cease fire?
ReplyDeleteI will comment more later, but this article I read the other day makes a very similar point. http://news.yahoo.com/obama-s-anti-doctrine-doctrine-084914806.html
ReplyDelete(btw, how are you guys embedding hyperlinks?)
Link text
ReplyDeleteSee http://www.w3schools.com/html/html_links.asp for details.
bg- good to see you again!
ReplyDeleteIf you are using Mozilla Firefox Browser, this add on handles formatting and link embedding for you quite easily.
bg- Matt Bai's piece is not too far afield in concept from the Greek editorial. Simply more general in nature. Dogmatism is killing us.
ReplyDeleteBack in the day I thought that providing air support for the Baghdad government might have helped the U.S. come to a diplomatic arrangement with Iran. That possibility has gone completely sideways, and I'd argue that the current stand-alone U.S. airwar over western Iraq is pretty pointless.
ReplyDeleteAnd I find the current hysteria over the Islamic State somewhere between risible and dangerous. The Sunni muj are dangerous only to the local people in the areas they rule. They will not expand significantly outside the western deserts of Iraq and the eastern end of Syria, where, even there they are unable to be more than one of the many Sunni factions struggling with the Alawites.
I cannot see a single possible course of action that would include the phrases "U.S. military action" and "The Islamic State" that has an outcome that actually increases stability in the region. The IS is a Middle Eastern problem and any solution would have to be a Middle Eastern solution. At this point any unilateral U.S. (or U.S.-led) action should be ruled out under the "first, do no harm" rubric.
I agree with you Chief, except that IS is a spear pointed towards Saudi Arabia.
ReplyDeleteBut, it is their problem and not ours.
FDC, I think with ISIL, you have to throw out everything we think we know about how Sunni organizations work. This isn't AQ, but they are also not the Muslim Brotherhood or Hamas. Fact is, we don't know what they are capable of just yet, so I am not going to underestimate their capabilities or intentions just yet. I disagree with the way the POTUS is playing down ISIL. No other regional terror threat has had so many westerners as part of their ranks. Not saying we should declare terror threat alert red or orange or whatever color corresponds with "oh shit" but I am saying let's not treat these guys like just another group. They have demonstrated success, something you can't say about many other groups.
ReplyDeleteAs far as what is next, expect to see the POTUS announce a 2-3 year strategy. Build up the Iraqi and Kurd forces so they can retake northern Iraq. This is a pipe dream. Remember how hard it was for US Marines to take a small piss ant town in Anbar called Fallujah? Mosul is no Fallujah, and the ISIL are digging in. By the time the ISF is ready for the great offensive, that will be supported by coalition airpower, the city will be somewhere between Fallujah (+) and Stalingrad (-).
This whole situaiton is a lose-lose. Right now the biggest beneficaries of our actions are 1. Assad, 2. Iran. But if we did nothing, there is no doubt that ISIL's region (which would include Syria, Iraq, and eventually Jordan) would become late 90's Afghanistan. Probably still heading that direction based on the limited support and extended timeline that is currently being planned. Of course, if we did nothing, Iran would be expending all of its resources against an existential threat, and Iran would be conducting more strikes (yes, more, they are conducting strikes to accompany brigades of Badr Corps, Quds Force in country). One thing Iran wouldn't be doing is protecting Assad right now.
Lose-lose.
Here's the thing about these guys, bg; they DO represent, in their ridiculously-nostalgic-for-the-8th-Century way, the Sunni Arab parts of "Iraq" and "Syria" (which, we need to keep reminding ourselves, are really 20th Century fictions, notional borders thrown down to make European colonial maps simpler.
DeleteSo why the hell would either the Kurdish or Shia portions of this region WANT to "retake" northwestern and western "Iraq"? They have no constituency there. The whole damn reason this hot mess boiled over is that in the zero-sum politics of the Middle East the Sunni only had two choices; fight, or surrender. That these IS mooks turned out to be their instrument of warfare sucks for those Sunnis who don't long for the glory days of the Just Caliphs (or the poor bastards like the Yazidis who will be slaughtered as infidels) but is really neither unexpected nor a real, direct, existential threat to the West.
And, you'll note, as a fighting force the IS ain't all that such of a muchness. Sure, they ran off the sad-sack IA - but NOT from the non-Sunni parts of the joint. They pushed the Peshmerga out of the Sunni flatlands but have had zero success moving into the Kurdish hills or past the Jordanian border.
Right now we have no proof that an IS in western Iraq and eastern Syria would be anything more than what it is now; a bunch of raggedy-assed theocrats hunkered down in one of the poorest wastelands on Earth. Seriously; there's just no there there. This is a bunch of Cheneyite dead-enders looking for a casus belli. Throwing airstrikes at technicals is what the Brits used to call "breaking windows with guineas"; not worth the effort.
Chief, in parts, I can see why you feel that way, but in my opinion, low tech...and it is what it is...a tempest in a tea pot, has a tendency to build pressure on neighboring communities/states. And then the teapot becomes a boiler under strain.
DeleteI'm neither cheerleading a "BOOTS AND SADDLES, BOYS, WE'RE GONNA GET US SOME!" or saying "hey, bombs, bombs, everywhere you look, bombs!"
Because both have been tried in that region and it's for shit. However, when it came to "Well, should we arm the Syrian rebels or not?" I was definitely one of those, "Holyfuckmeareyouseriouslydicussingthis?!?!?!?"
I think, part and parcel of our governments problem is that they see a problem, they know it's a problem, and that the potential for this problem to totally fuckup their world view is pretty significant...but they really just don't know how to think it out.
So, fuck it, do something for something sake...at least it looks like America is doing "something."
I wouldn't under estimate ISIS...they got more than just kinetics...their a clever batch of neanderthals, and they have an idea of where they want to be, and what they want it to look like...and in truth...it's far more than what our Government has going for it.
Sheerahkahn
bg You call ISIS a "regional terror threat". Wouldn't a "theocratic political movement" be more like it? They are trying (and in bits and chunks succeeding) to create an ultra-conservative religious state. They just have a different idea of what the national borders should be. They may be ruthless in applying their version of "law", but they do seem to have a "law" to apply, and as you note, a wide base of adherents, to include westerners.
ReplyDeletePerhaps there is a parallel here to a comment a friend in St Petersburg made in 1992 to us - "Gorbachev failed because he was not enough of a thug. We Russians are most comfortable when ruled by thugs. Imperial thugs, Communist thugs. Simply a polity difference for the glory of Mother Russia."
ISIS is a movement for the heart of Islam as well as territory. Perhaps the Muslim world longs for a thug for the glory of "Mother Califate"? In this case, a thug that also has the keys to "heaven"? I mean, if you are going live like shit no matter how you slice it, then why not do so to be a king in the next life? You can't view these folks with a Western Christian "God's reward is on Earth" mentality.
Which reiterates my point; if there IS a "solution" to these jokers it has to come from within the Middle East. The U.S. can't "defeat" the IS any more than the Spanish could "defeat" the Dutch rebellion in the 16th Century. We can kill people and break shit, but the experience of 2003-2010 shows how useless that is.
DeleteAnd, to my mind, worse; fighting religious wars tends to bring out the worst theocratic impulses in the people who fight them. So lining up against Muslim theocrats - in the sense of actively making war on them - will inevitably tend to yank our own theocrats out of the woodwork. Not somewhere I want to go, thanks!
Al, FDC, I don't agree with anything you guys said.
ReplyDeleteAl, how about they are both, a regional terror threat AND a theocratic political movement. Let's not forget, they've been car bombing Baghdad for years. Threat is defined as capability plus intent. ISIL intent to attack the US in the US is well established, but their capability to date has not been proven. The threat of US born jihadis going to Syria and coming home is not new, it's been happening for years in Somalia, and we've done a decent job of tracking them and keeping them from coming home without eyes on.
I think the concern of the administration is that we allow another FATA/sanctuary to be created. I agree with all of your points about geopolitics above, the context of history and who drew the maps. I also agree it is a Middle East problem to solve. However.... From the optic of politicians in the US, the fear is that on their watch, an attack will happen against US interests that was planned in ISIL sanctuary. Therefore there has to at least be political perception of "dealing" with the problem. So who is to blame? The politicians for giving in to fear, or the media for pushing the politicians to act and for the zero defect atmosphere that is the US media and politics?
Haha, sorry! I don't DISAGREE with anything you guys said. I can't edit it, sorry!
ReplyDeleteI think IS will only be a regional threat until they are comfortable where they are, then, they'll focus on spreading their reach and influence.
ReplyDeleteThey've claimed they're going to destroy us. I believe they'll try, even if they're the typical incompetent Arab fighters. I was in Iraq for 16 months with 2CAV, and I have no worries of their military 'might'.
However, the southern border that has more holes than closed sections of it will let them casually saunter right through with whatever weapons they feel like bringing. And if they're caught, they'll just claim they fear for their lives in *insert random central american country name here* and the CPB will buy them bus tickets to wherever they wanna go.
That's what I'm worried about.
I think the thing that will monkey-wrench their "plans", Levi, is that I don't see any point in the near future where they ARE "comfortable where they are". They're such xenophobic Sunni extremist bastards that the Iranians will never let them alone. If they ever DO get close to regional power-projection the Israelis will start pounding their asses, too (the thing that makes me skeptical of the claims for their power and influence even among the jihadi groups is the degree to which the Israelis HAVE left them alone. The Mossad and the IDF are the most paranoid sonsofbitches around - not without some reason - and they jump on the neck of any Islamic organization they find truly scary. They looked down from the Golan Heights for a couple of years on the hot mess that was the Syrian rebellion with a cat-smile of satisfaction...which tells me that they have these jokers sussed out as all kaffiyah/no goats...
DeleteSo the value of running a stand-alone US campaign against these gomers seems far too likely to produce little but blowback in return for negligible gains. We'd be better off leaning on the goddamn Saudis to close their madrassis and cut off the funding to the damn Sunni muj.
And as for the other Sunni's not following them, I think its because they think the conditions for the Caliphate have not been met. I haven't heard anything about the violence being too great, just that they were poser caliphaters. I also heard a BBC report that interviewed some small taliban group in Afghanistan that said if IS met a few more requirements ofthe caliphate, they would go join them.
ReplyDeleteBTW, I don't disagree with your assessment, nor am I advocating a new military campaign.
ReplyDeleteI just like being prepared is all. I think they'll try something eventually, and I think our current government's huge level of incompetence (especially in regards to the southern border of the US) provides them a prime opportunity to accomplish something.
Given the U.S. government's obsession with the Middle East I can't imagine that there is a single defense or intelligence agency that isn't "prepared" for just about anything and everything that might come out of that benighted region up to and including the Mosaic plagues. I think you can sleep easy if that's your concern.
DeleteHowever, my point is that your actual statement was "I think IS will only be a regional threat until they are comfortable where they are, then, they'll focus on spreading their reach and influence. They've claimed they're going to destroy us. I believe they'll try..." and THAT was the basis for my reply. IMO we've seen entirely too much of this "They claim they're going to destroy us" as an excuse for doing extremely stupid things in the Middle East. At this point there are all sorts of people - many of them the same fucking idiots that claimed that knocking off the secular dictator of an impoverished and rabidly-sectarian former Ottoman semi-failed state was going to unleash a new birth of freedom in the Middle East - advocating similar stupid things because of these raggedy-assed gomers. What I'm recommending is that we pull up our big-boy panties and stop doing those stupid things, as they only make things worse.
As a side note - since we're already WAY off-topic on Russia, which is the title of this post - the "current government" (are we talking Kenyan Usurper here..? Just curious.) doesn't seem any less competent than the Cheney or Clinton Administrations during which the massive drug-fueled instability in Mexico and Central America exploded, or the Bush I, Reagan, Carter, Ford...on back to the Wilson Administrations and beyond that all helped facilitate (or were, at least, largely indifferent to) the underdevelopment and instability of the region that helps drive the flow of people from Central America to El Norte.
This is a whole 'nother topic in itself, but if you look hard at The Border I think you'll see a geopolitical problem nearly unique in human history; a huge, wealthy empire with an immense, nearly indefensible land border with a desperately poor, nearly ungovernable polity with which it is notionally at peace. The European enclaves in North Africa are as close as I can come to an analogue and they're a similar sort of hot mess. To be "competent" (by which I assume you mean stemming the flow of maids, landscapers, busboys, and interant carpenters from south to north) would involve a combination of economic and geopolitical steps nearly unprecedented in U.S. history and ones that have a real possibility of setting up a semi-state-of-war with the regional South. Conversely, U.S. actions that would stem that flow at the source would involve an investment in political and economic capital in improving social and political conditions in Central America and Mexico that would dwarf the Marshall Plan even assuming they would or could be successful.
So...I do not think that word "incompetent" means what you think it means. Or means anything at all, in the context of La Frontera.
Chief- I would suggest that our unwillingness to understand Russia is the same as our unwillingness to understand the Middle East and Mexico. Simplistic, ideological solutions to vastly more complex issues. So it's really not going OT when addressing our fucktard policies. Brute force is not the answer to every perceived problem, but it is very attractive, as it requires little or no intellectual exertion.
ReplyDeleteTo a point, perhaps, but I'm not sure that it goes much beyond the whole "The Public (and the sort of politicians that pander to the idiot Public [cough...John McCain...cough, cough...] is an Ass" thing.
DeleteOur commentor's point wasn't really addressing our fucktard policies so much as illustrating WHY we have fucktard policies. He was parroting the idiot notion that a bunch of rabid Sunni theocrats are going to come sneaking across the U.S.-Mexico border because our government (or perhaps just this administration, it was hard to tell...) is too "incompetent" to do...something. Build an intra-German border fence from San Diego to Padre Island. Deploy the 1st Armored Division to Brownsville. Carpet-bomb the State of Chihuahua. I have no idea, really (which was the point of my reply).
But that was my problem; it seemed to me that he wasn't so much making the intellectual exertion of analyzing the situation in the Sunni Triangle as he seemed to be just falling in with the entire idea that the U.S. should "be prepared" to "do something" about these gomers. Whilst my point is that geopolitics is a little like medicine. If you don't have a GOOD option the next best option is to "do no harm" even if that means doing little or nothing but watching and waiting.
Al - what is the latest in the Athens press re the Ukraine? Or can you recommend an English language Greek news website?
ReplyDeletemike - nothing really new versus what's running in the Western media. I read Ekathimerini simply because they have a reasonably good English language edition. Unfortunately, their news reportage is somewhat digested and more focused on domestic issues in the English edition, but their translated editorials, cultural features and OpEds are not digested.
ReplyDeleteOK, I'll bite. The President aims to "degrade and ultimately destroy" Islamic State militants in Syria and Iraq. That effectively means eradicating a particular religious sect that has been growing in popularity and influence much as a result of US military adventures in the region for the past 11 years. Am I missing something here?
ReplyDeleteThink like a magician. What is going on with the hand that you *don't* see.
ReplyDeleteAt this point, everything coming from Washington is coloured with upcoming election paint.
Think locally and act globally!
Ael- a coffee drinking buddy put it this way
ReplyDeleteThere is no such thing as foreign policy. There is only domestic politics. The only votes that can be bought are ours.
Al, the POTUS is a smart man. He did not define what "degrade" or "destory" means. Therefore in 2 years, he can claim victory using whichever term he feels most appropriate. He can say "we were successful in degrading ISIL by reducing ...." He can later say, "we destroyed their ......." It gives him the chance to define victory after the fact.
ReplyDeletebg- hadn't thought of that. Silly me for thinking one speaks in concrete terms to get concrete results. However, a new fly is in the ointment - ISIS has come to an accord with several of the "moderate" rebel groups in Syria.
ReplyDeleteAl, have you seen/read Game of Thrones? One of my favorites discussions is between the King's Hand (senior advisor) and one of the other advisors, they are discussing what should be done to avoid a war after the King dies. One advisor suggests making peace with a house the King's Hand is fueding with.
ReplyDeleteKing's Hand, "I will not make peace with them, they are my enemies."
Advisor, "Who else would you make peace with if not your enemies? Otherwise it would not be called making peace."
bg- no haven't read or seen it, but that one snippet above should be plastered on billboards all across the US. Not that I think it would enlighten the population, but at least fulfill a moral obligation to try.
ReplyDelete