World Politics

[gooner]

If you are able to, watch Al-Jazeera, which has much the best coverage of this major crisis - that Americans have been avoiding even noticing, because Eric Cantor's primary loss was the most important event in the world.

Americans have a wonderfully descriptive term for what Iraq was, is, and will continue to be for the foreseeable future - clusterfcuk.

Consider Machiavelli's dictum about the enemy of your enemy, and then look at who opposes these ISIS/ISIL lunatic killers - US, Iran, Turkey (NATO,) Assad, the current Iraqi regime, and the Kurds. Unholy alliance, anyone?

I wrote the following piece off the top of my head earlier today in reply to some cretins who were blaming the current situation on a 'failure of Obama's foreign policy'.

That's an excellent summary and Iran's foreign minster has said they are willing to offer support. It's takes a special kind of person to put this on Obama.

Iran: The Shiite state will look upon developments in Iraq with great concern. ISIS is a real foe, and its success in Syria and Iraq is an existential challenge to two staunch allies of Tehran. Iran's foreign minister on Wednesday promised Baghdad support in its fight against "terrorism." Iranian aid may be seen most conspicuously in the emboldened Shiite militias that could spring up to counter ISIS.

This adds an even more concerning element with al-Sadr:

Powerful Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr has called for the mustering of Shiite militias to operate in the vacuum. This gives the conflict an even more dangerous and sectarian edge, something the Sunni extremists in ISIS probably hoped to achieve.

I don't have Al Jazeera myself but you took the words right out of mouth with your point about more attention on Candor's loss. I couldn't believe it when watching Anderson Cooper and Scott Pelley.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...the-factions-fighting-for-the-future-of-iraq/

 

[Echoes]

How can Al-Jazeera be trusted when Qatar is one of the invaders in this affair ...

Judge & party.

 

[Amsterhammer]

How can Al-Jazeera be trusted when Qatar is one of the invaders in this affair ...

Judge & party.

Al Jazeera International is a far more informative and objective source of information on the entire Middle East than any other station, imo. They are also remarkably objective about Israel. AJI is staffed almost entirely by expat Brits, Canadians, and Americans, who they stole from CNN, Sky and BBC for big bucks. Despite Qatar's involvement in funding the revolution against Assad, which includes some of the same guys now busy in Iraq, AJI coverage of events in Iraq has been factual and objective.

 

[RetroActive]

Black Flags Over Mosul
http://www.counterpunch.org/2014/06/12/black-flags-over-mosul/

The prospect of refighting the war in order to beat the radicals which the administration-itself created through its own disastrous arm-the-terrorist policy is bound to be widely resisted as well as reviled.

And this is why the US will probably not deploy combat troops to engage the Sunni fighters in Mosul. It’s because the Obama administration’s strategic goals and those of the terrorists are nearly identical. Which should surprise no one.

 

[hiero2]

Well Hiero, you were evidently better informed about Middle East gas matters than I was. All the stuff I heard in that Al-Jazeera report was news to me. Egyptian corruption was certainly no news, but the way a couple of shifty, shady, Israeli businessmen were able to shaft the corrupt Egyptians was an eye opener for me. Granted, they could have done it in less minutes, but that's a minor quibble.

Well, if it WAS news to you - or someone else - then they did a decent job, imo. And, apparently, the level of corruption WAS of some surprise to the average Egyptian citizen. But these things - the level of surprise of your common man - are extremely difficult to measure. But, I did see it reported elsewhere that there was surprise.

I don't know why - but this was one of those things that, personally, I found irritating rather than informative. I DO recognize that it could be informative.

Since the REAL topic is conflict in the ME, particularly Egypt, I found an interview quote I heard today particularly interesting and illuminating. Not a 200W bulb, but at least a 60W bulb, ok? Terri Gross, on NPR, was interviewing Hillary Clinton. Ms Clinton spoke about meeting with, and talking with, the Tahrir square protesters. She asked them about their preparations to assume political power.

On Egypt, particularly, I just want to make this point; the revolution in Egypt was an extraordinary event. And it was largely leaderless. It was catalyzed by, led by young people in Tahrir Square. The Muslim Brotherhood didn't lead it. They were latecomers to it. And when Mubarak was forced out of office, the question is, what would come next? I went to Egypt. I went to even see Tahrir Square.

I met with a large of young Egyptians who'd been there demanding freedom from Mubarak's heavy hand. And I asked them, I said, so who's going to run for office? Who's going to form a political party? Who's going to stand for the values that you've been advocating for? And they said, we don't do that. That's not what we do. Others will do it.

I said, well, you know, there are only two organized forces in this country - the Muslim Brotherhood and the military. If you don't do it, they're going to be back in charge. And there was no understanding of politics, nothing that led any of them to believe that they could take this extraordinary accomplishment and institutionalize it. So this is a complicated, ongoing effort that the United States is engaged in, trying to help people who have never experienced democracy, never been given the opportunity to lead or empowered to know how to do that.

In Iraq - there was nothing - literally nothing - to take the place of the Bath party. Egypt, Thailand, Russia, Yugoslavia, the story repeats itself.

 

[python]

pardon my expressing the old gripe over and over, but i see the american foreign policy as an incomprehensible (given the us economic, military, financial and intelligence advantages ) sequence of amateurish, or more precisely, stoooopid blunders...

l'll try to let facts speak for themselves. please feel free to challenge the facts. a disclaimer is due here before i proceed:

i am no political scientist. as a biochemist, i AM a member of the scientific folk... but a think tank 'academic' (whatever the inclination, though i do read some regularly, I am NOT. nor ever could be... as, being perfectly frank, i consider most 'think takers' political wh0res of variable pay scale. those charging most are total wh0res in my book.

so, speaking of facts. or more specifically, the facts more or less widely accepted....

fact 1: there was no haven in iraq before america illegally invaded it in the name of freedom. but there was also NO alkaida as saddam outlawed them...the sad fact is, in stark contradiction to the us stated aims, that after 2 american invasions costing hundreds of thousands of iraqi lives, a) alkaida has siezed 3 major cities yesterday; b) the current iraqi Shiite govt is anti-american and pro-Iran; c) the today's obama claim of possibly militarily interfering in iraq on the side of pro-iran shiite govt is...yes, a gift to iran ayatollas they never could ask allah for.

fact 2: the us has entered into the 1st ever serious confrontation with china, the world's 2nd economy and the fastest growing military, over a host of issues (cyber spying, disputable jap, vietnam, philipo islads, currency friction, 'democracy deficit etc'). by itself, it is hardly a surprise that america, often reasonably so, has raised the issues...the surprise, well, not really, was the tone of the us gripes, as if america has a higher moral ground to stand on. the total spying on its own citizens and the foregn heads of states, of course, never mentioned...

fact 3: the obama foreign ministry wizards have chosen putin as their beating boy. they have somehow ignored that vlad, unlike anyone else, can wipe out america off the face of this green earth if pushed far enough...they have ignored the clear lessons vlad left after georgia invasion. take them for what they stand, but vlad vladicovic aint a pushover and never could be given his dictator's mind, internal support and the macho setup.

fact 4: i am not saying the us is solely responsible for the 'arab spring'. but the wave of rabid anti-american govts and actions in egypt, lybia, syria and potentially 2-3 more arab states, have clearly pointed to the utter failure of the us military interference in those counties as the separatism and the wave of civil wars have sprung up as soon as the us announced a 'withdrawal'. why the american public at large is failing to see their own govt's share in the world's troubles, is beyond me
.
fact 5: one of the most significant, yet least acknowledged facts is that the us failed misarably in 'expediting' the peace process btwn the palestinians and israel...granted, it was a noble effort, at least that's what we were told, but, given the elementary understanding of the middle east dynamic in general, and the Palestinian gaza desperation in particular, it was plain idiotic to expect a jailed nation to honour the jailor in an entirely unequal setting. again, the washington policy makers are either stupid or plain arrogant if they cant see the simple shyte. many say the state department is filled with the pro-israel american jews whose allegiance is to anything but the country they were born in, employing them and on whose behave hey are suppose to think and act...yes their role is an ultimate political perversion if you ask me.

i could go on, but imo the facts of obama's foreign policy being stupid- confronting so many enemies at once while losing its power and influenceare - is a no brainer. unless anyone can show me the flaw in the facts...

 

[hiero2]

If you are able to, watch Al-Jazeera, which has much the best coverage of this major crisis - that Americans have been avoiding even noticing, because Eric Cantor's primary loss was the most important event in the world.

Americans have a wonderfully descriptive term for what Iraq was, is, and will continue to be for the foreseeable future - clusterfcuk.

Consider Machiavelli's dictum about the enemy of your enemy, and then look at who opposes these ISIS/ISIL lunatic killers - US, Iran, Turkey (NATO,) Assad, the current Iraqi regime, and the Kurds. Unholy alliance, anyone?

I wrote the following piece off the top of my head earlier today in reply to some cretins who were blaming the current situation on a 'failure of Obama's foreign policy'.

Well - one thing - it sure is a clusterfcuk.

Saddam was a bad man, but nowhere near as bad as he-who-must-not-be-named or Stalin, or Kim Jong Il or Un. And, you DO know, most Russians regard Stalin as a GOOD leader, not a bad one. Saddam was oppressive, and was somewhat nasty towards certain minorities - but his actions do not compare to the Armenian genocide, the Holocaust, the Russian oppression under Stalin, Rwanda - to name the few I can think of. On the other hand, he offered good education and peaceful streets for the majority of the population. I could never regard Saddam Hussein as a GOOD man, but he was far better than what Bush2 created.

Oh, and though I do not support them - I do not think ISIS is well described by the term "lunatic killers". They have de facto popular support - perhaps not a majority, but a significant percentage - which is, itself, the basis of democracy, yes? Ok, so let's say that they don't have majority support. I am sure Saddam Hussein did not have majority support in an election. But, in an environment where the common voting man (/woman, I use the term as in mankind, generically") has no intention or will to take part in the governance process, what does a majority vote mean? Let's go back to Clinton's observation - the kids in Tahrir square had no intention of taking part in the GOVERNMENT. It that was the attitude of your child, what would you do? You would say, "Well, if you are not willing to do the hard work, then I will still have to tell you what to do." You would assume that your child does not have the maturity to "graduate" to decision-making yet. These "common men" - who do not demonstrate a willingness to take on the task of self-governance - are similar. Somebody else is going to get to make the decisions for them.

So, ISIS, in these terms, may actually be a legitimate power. They have public support. Their objectives are antithetical to my own, but still, they may be legitimate. We try to paint them as wackos and extremists to achieve the goals of some people in the higher echelons of power.

Ok - I've forgotten my points. Closing this post.

 

[rhubroma]

The problem was, from the outset, an approach governed by a corporate managerial mentality that predominates among the political so called American "think tanks," just as it does in applying such criteria to accademic performance in fields where the laws of business stats have no application, such as in humane critical thinking. This is because by now the Americans think that everthing can be run like a business. A nation, society? That's just another corporate setup and so can be managed accordingly.

Those of infinite wisdom among the US war mongers who precipitously lead America into the Iraq invasion, thought they could just blow the country to smithereens ("shock and awe" I believe was how it was put) and then remold the nation the way a company is made and have it run like a Western business. In the Middle East. The total clusterfook it has become in the secterian violence and local tribal non-conformism to the US plan, to anybody with a discerning mind was a foregone conclusion.

How crass.

 

[Lupi33]

How can Al-Jazeera be trusted when Qatar is one of the invaders in this affair ...

Judge & party.

exactly

Qatar are helping ISIS disrupt Iraq building a pipeline from Iran through to Syria....

Qatar want to build theirs up to Turkey but Syria isnt going so well for the islamist extremists armed by western interests

 

[Amsterhammer]

The number of foreigners fighting in Syria - and now in Iraq - are going to represent a potentially serious problem for other countries going forward. I have no idea what the best solution might be. Killing off all the 'jihadis' sounds like an impractical goal.

We estimate that -- from late 2011 to 10 December 2013 -- between 3,300 and 11,000 individuals have gone to Syria to fight against the Assad government. These figures include those who are currently present as well as those who have since returned home, been arrested or killed.

Based on the credibility of various sources, our own judgement, and the feedback we have received since publishing our April estimate, we believe the "true" figure to be above 8,500. This would mean that the numbers have nearly doubled since April, with a particularly steep increase among non-Arabs, especially Westerners.

While Arabs and Europeans continue to represent the bulk of foreign fighters (up to 80 per cent), we have identified individuals from Southeast Asia, North America, Australia, and (non-Arab) Africa. Overall, we believe that residents and citizens from at least 74 countries have joined militant opposition groups in Syria.

http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/...s-in-syria-steep-rise-among-western-europeans

 

[hiero2]

. . .This is because by now the Americans think that everthing can be run like a business. . . .

Those of infinite wisdom among the US war mongers who precipitously lead America into the Iraq invasion, thought they could just blow the country to smithereens ("shock and awe" . . .) and then remold the nation the way a company is made and have it run like a Western business. In the Middle East. The total clusterfook it has become in the secterian violence and local tribal non-conformism to the US plan, to anybody with a discerning mind was a foregone conclusion.

How crass.

Crass. Absolutely. I distinctly recall thinking that the invasion COULD be ok, if they had a plan (a realistic plan) to get rid of Saddam and get out in 3 months or less. Turns out we didn't have any plans at all for anything past rolling the tanks into Baghdad.

You have a point about management mindset, but I personally do not think that was what was at work here. I think those in power, who were driving the Iraq invasion, had personal mental images of it being like the liberation of France at the end of WW2. We would roll through with a victory parade, and somebody would be there to take over. The people would vote, and the government would be good.

But Ms Clinton's point, in Egypt, about the lack of governing organizations and structures is precisely also pertinent for the Iraqis. We compounded the misguided images of "how it would work" by intentionally removing every last person who had any association with the Bath party or with the former military leadership. Unlike the hydra, there were not 9 heads, there was only 1, or maybe 1.5. You take away all the people who know how to get things done, and what do you get? We can answer that question with a great deal of accuracy.

 

[hiero2]

Black Flags Over Mosul
http://www.counterpunch.org/2014/06/12/black-flags-over-mosul/

The bits you quote, imo, leave much to be desired, and give a wrong impression of the points of the article. From the same article, immediately preceding your 2nd quote:

. . .The report suggests that the ISIS is not a ragtag amalgam of rabid fanatics, but a highly-motivated and disciplined modern militia with clearly outlined political and territorial objectives. If this is the case, then it is likely that they will not march on Baghdad after all, but will tighten their grip on the predominantly Sunni areas establishing a state within a state. And this is precisely why the Obama administration may choose to stay out of the conflagration altogether, because the goals of the ISIS coincide with a similar US plan to create a “soft partition” that dates back to 2006.

The plan was first proposed by Leslie Gelb, the former president of the Council on Foreign Relations, and then-senator Joe Biden. According to the New York Times the “so-called soft-partition plan ….calls for dividing Iraq into three semi-autonomous regions…There would be a loose Kurdistan, a loose Shiastan and a loose Sunnistan, all under a big, if weak, Iraq umbrella.” . . .

If this is what ISIS wants (which is a big assumption on the author's part and mine), then this could be one of the best possible outcomes for this area. At least that would leave some safety valve where the energy behind the current conflicts could see some relief. A Balkanization of the area. It is a big assumption to think, though, that ISIS will stop with the north. One of the mindsets of both factions is "we are better, and they should be like us". Like ****stan and India, and the Balkans, perhaps some self-imposed segregation, while disruptive in the short term, may be beneficial to stability in the long term.

One of the difficulties for such a scenario, at least with ISIS, is that it may be encouraging the religious extremist factions, a la Iran. A lot of people would be oppossed to giving those factions any encouragement.

 

[Amsterhammer]

The inherent contradictions of this latest unholy Sunni alliance are bound to unravel. Some Sunnis, who have been welcoming the jihadis as 'liberators' from Shia central government 'oppression', will soon lose their enthusiasm once the jihadis try to restrict or ban all aspects of modern society that most Iraqis have become accustomed to, and when summary executions and the chopping off of limbs begins (already has, according to some reports). Equally, the disgruntled Baathists who have apparently joined up with ISIL, are at the opposite end of the ideological spectrum to the jihadi fanatics. There are divisions within divisions everywhere.

 

[Zam_Olyas]

http://www.vice.com/read/heroin-warfare

 

[RetroActive]

The bits you quote, imo, leave much to be desired, and give a wrong impression of the points of the article. From the same article, immediately preceding your 2nd quote:



If this is what ISIS wants (which is a big assumption on the author's part and mine), then this could be one of the best possible outcomes for this area. At least that would leave some safety valve where the energy behind the current conflicts could see some relief. A Balkanization of the area. It is a big assumption to think, though, that ISIS will stop with the north. One of the mindsets of both factions is "we are better, and they should be like us". Like ****stan and India, and the Balkans, perhaps some self-imposed segregation, while disruptive in the short term, may be beneficial to stability in the long term.

One of the difficulties for such a scenario, at least with ISIS, is that it may be encouraging the religious extremist factions, a la Iran. A lot of people would be oppossed to giving those factions any encouragement.

I'm glad you read it. I've been reading your thoughts on the subject and have noticed a few...ahem, omissions.

If the area is Balkanized then that's plays according to script. The Israelis have articulated these goals for years as a means for regional hegemony. Interests spread out and intersect from there. I don't know how well understood this is by the ISIS tools.

 

[RetroActive]

Obama 'urgently' considering air assault on targets in Syria and Iraq

President will decide on military package 'in the days ahead' to halt rapid advance of Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant
http://www.theguardian.com/world/20...air-assault-isis-syria-iraq#start-of-comments

gotta' bomb Syria too - oops, sorry Pootie Pu.

 

[python]

Obama 'urgently' considering air assault on targets in Syria and Iraq



gotta' bomb Syria too - oops, sorry Pootie Pu.

why are you sorry ?
Vlad stands to gain from this tremendously no matter how you look...

If america goes to the UN for strike approval, he can hold Obama by the balls. If America will choose to strike on it's own, it will be likely against isis rebels in syria thus benefiting Asad.

If America mistakenly are not hits asad as well putya will have a chance to suck America in by supplying more weapons to anyone protesting

Anyway it will be a welcome distraction for his plan in Ukraine.

It is this arrogant American military culture that will likely suck it into another trouble no matter what he says about a limited action

 

[rhubroma]

Crass. Absolutely. I distinctly recall thinking that the invasion COULD be ok, if they had a plan (a realistic plan) to get rid of Saddam and get out in 3 months or less. Turns out we didn't have any plans at all for anything past rolling the tanks into Baghdad.

You have a point about management mindset, but I personally do not think that was what was at work here. I think those in power, who were driving the Iraq invasion, had personal mental images of it being like the liberation of France at the end of WW2. We would roll through with a victory parade, and somebody would be there to take over. The people would vote, and the government would be good.

But Ms Clinton's point, in Egypt, about the lack of governing organizations and structures is precisely also pertinent for the Iraqis. We compounded the misguided images of "how it would work" by intentionally removing every last person who had any association with the Bath party or with the former military leadership. Unlike the hydra, there were not 9 heads, there was only 1, or maybe 1.5. You take away all the people who know how to get things done, and what do you get? We can answer that question with a great deal of accuracy.

I don't think our interpretations need to be in conflict though, that is that our leaders had approached the problem from an all too simplistic corporate managerial perspective, while they thought the local population would have just recieved their liberators like a triumphal procession.

Who was behind the misguided adventure after all? Hobbes or Halliburton?

Even today's so called security management is borne from the corporate model.

 

[Lupi33]

look no further than the Kagan family as chief drivers #$@!ing up the world in both europe and the middle east

 

[Amsterhammer]

Guess who said this, without googling!

“We discard a whole generation to maintain an economic system that no longer endures, a system that to survive has to make war, as the big empires have always done."

 

[blutto]

Guess who said this, without googling!

“We discard a whole generation to maintain an economic system that no longer endures, a system that to survive has to make war, as the big empires have always done."

....ok...ok....I googled just a little....bottom line is that was tres cool....the grim reality is there may well be an incident/accident coming real soon....this guy really likes it off the reservation and some folks don't cotton to that kinda behaviour because its people like that wot cause social unrest....

Cheers

 

[blackcat]

Guess who said this, without googling!

“We discard a whole generation to maintain an economic system that no longer endures, a system that to survive has to make war, as the big empires have always done."

i am hearing it in a gallic voice, especially if the person is translating it himself. so i go a french prime minister?

 

[blackcat]

i am hearing it in a gallic voice, especially if the person is translating it himself. so i go a french prime minister?

but, content. ron paul.

now, even tho they are much different libertarian, his son rand?

 

[blackcat]

The bits you quote, imo, leave much to be desired, and give a wrong impression of the points of the article. From the same article, immediately preceding your 2nd quote:



If this is what ISIS wants (which is a big assumption on the author's part and mine), then this could be one of the best possible outcomes for this area. At least that would leave some safety valve where the energy behind the current conflicts could see some relief. A Balkanization of the area. It is a big assumption to think, though, that ISIS will stop with the north. One of the mindsets of both factions is "we are better, and they should be like us". Like ****stan and India, and the Balkans, perhaps some self-imposed segregation, while disruptive in the short term, may be beneficial to stability in the long term.

One of the difficulties for such a scenario, at least with ISIS, is that it may be encouraging the religious extremist factions, a la Iran. A lot of people would be oppossed to giving those factions any encouragement.

but if they have a state, without the US military support like planes and weapons like Saudi Arabia, how possibly can they keep a state together? And no economy, can they really run the oil wells without trade with foreign countries. (i mean, if US slaps Iran sanctions on them, they could not manage a state from scratch)

 

[MBotero]

A good article in New York Post about the dream of Islamic Caliphate http://nypost.com/2014/06/14/the-ma...&utm_source=NYPFacebook&utm_medium=SocialFlow