ISIS....

[Loki]

Because the relatively homogeneous states in the region are democracies, right?

[Hazir]

Because the relatively homogeneous states in the region are democracies, right?

Israel you mean?

The Sykes Picot deal territory contains hardly any such, the states it does contain are the battleground for the more powerful neighbours.

[Loki]

My point is that there are virtually no democracies in the region. Chances are that if Iraq was composed of three states, none of them would be democratic. Same for Syria.

[GGT]

Language/terminology can matter sure. But the surest way to make things MORE confusing is to refuse to let people use their own name (or an appropriate translation/translitteration of it). It's what they call their organization GGT.

Huh, looks like France is refusing to call them ISIS/ISIL, along with Muslim and Arab anti-demation groups.....because it's not representative of Islam or a State. Of course they want to call themselves a name that elevates their status and cause -- it's good recruitment propaganda -- but we don't have to give them the legitimacy they want by using their choice of names.


As for the monetary things: I used "aid" to mean things like helping the region build modern infrastructure, accepting their students at our universities, allowing western businesses into their markets. Those things were all based on the philosophy that expanding "western values" of capitalism and consumerism would eventually lead to open, democratic societies, with equality and civil/human rights close behind.

That "aid" is in addition to providing intelligence, weaponry, and military training. Take Saudi Arabia as one example: they used US/western governments (and private contractors) to help build their transportation logistics (roads, bus systems, railways, airports), water treatment plants and electric grids decades ago, to bring them into the 20th century. Now they're literally dripping with money, have a well-funded, state-of-the-art military....but continue to rely on (expect) the US to manage their region's politics?

Not only that, but the Saudis have a horrible human rights record that includes torture....and women still can't legally drive a car. Saudis are also a main source of funding for the terrorists marauding their region, so let's not kid ourselves about their role in current events.

[LittleFuzzy]

Huh, looks like France is refusing to call them ISIS/ISIL, along with Muslim and Arab anti-demation groups.....because it's not representative of Islam or a State. Of course they want to call themselves a name that elevates their status and cause -- it's good recruitment propaganda -- but we don't have to give them the legitimacy they want by using their choice of names.

And of course France has no history of choosing more confusion for the sake of their. . . unique linguistic focus. We should definitely strive to follow their lingual example

As for the monetary things: I used "aid" to mean things like helping the region build modern infrastructure, accepting their students at our universities, allowing western businesses into their markets. Those things were all based on the philosophy that expanding "western values" of capitalism and consumerism would eventually lead to open, democratic societies, with equality and civil/human rights close behind.

That "aid" is in addition to providing intelligence, weaponry, and military training. Take Saudi Arabia as one example: they used US/western governments (and private contractors) to help build their transportation logistics (roads, bus systems, railways, airports), water treatment plants and electric grids decades ago, to bring them into the 20th century. Now they're literally dripping with money, have a well-funded, state-of-the-art military....but continue to rely on (expect) the US to manage their region's politics?

You say nothing new, your "clarification" does not add anything which wasn't obviously implicit when you just said "aid" and so I'll just repeat to you the exact same thing I replied with the first time you said "aid, intelligence, weaponry, and even train their military".

"Our aid (and I grant there's been quite a bit of it) is carefully tailored to NOT add much to their abilities to project power onto their neighbors and is often, where possible, predicated on them not trying to develop it themselves. We don't want them to have that kind of capability and you would be (and have been) just as strident about the consequences if they did have it. They might be better equipped to handle problems of their neighbors. . . but they'd also be much better equipped to engage in militaristic adventurism of their own and BE the problem neighbor. That's something else Loki can cite you pretty clear research on, he's discussed it on here before."

The US does not want Saudi Arabia, or any of the other powers in the Middle East, managing the regional politics of their area. It would be worse for us and probably for most or all of the West if they did, as suggested by how they choose to do things like fund terrorists the way you point out. And that's not even considering the local human cost of their actions if the US wasn't looming over their shoulders in its typical intrusive manner. A large amount of the money we spend on aid and military assistance comes with strings to limit those sorts of actions on their part.

[GGT]

"Our aid (and I grant there's been quite a bit of it) is carefully tailored to NOT add much to their abilities to project power onto their neighbors and is often, where possible, predicated on them not trying to develop it themselves. We don't want them to have that kind of capability and you would be (and have been) just as strident about the consequences if they did have it. They might be better equipped to handle problems of their neighbors. . . but they'd also be much better equipped to engage in militaristic adventurism of their own and BE the problem neighbor. That's something else Loki can cite you pretty clear research on, he's discussed it on here before."

I didn't mean that Saudi Arabia should drive middle east policy.....

The US does not want Saudi Arabia, or any of the other powers in the Middle East, managing the regional politics of their area. It would be worse for us and probably for most or all of the West if they did, as suggested by how they choose to do things like fund terrorists the way you point out. And that's not even considering the local human cost of their actions if the US wasn't looming over their shoulders in its typical intrusive manner. A large amount of the money we spend on aid and military assistance comes with strings to limit those sorts of actions on their part.

No, in reality, the money we've spent on aid or military assistance in the middle east has NOT come with any strings attached.

Those states continue to act as if the US/west is the only "force" that can change their trajectory, when the truth is they hold their own destiny in their hands. They just don't want to do the dirty work.

[Loki]

No, in reality, the money we've spent on aid or military assistance in the middle east has NOT come with any strings attached.

You're just factually wrong here...For the most obvious example, notice how Egypt and Israel haven't fought a war in 4 decades. Why do you suppose that is?

[GGT]

You're just factually wrong here...For the most obvious example, notice how Egypt and Israel haven't fought a war in 4 decades. Why do you suppose that is?

Sorry, but I won't distill the entire middle east climate into Israeli transactions.

[Loki]

It's far better for you to believe things that are disproven by reality but make sense in your head.

[GGT]

It's far better for you to believe things that are disproven by reality but make sense in your head.

And it's far easier for Professor Loki to believe, and teach, that the world operates according to theoretical or academic models. How's that working out?

[LittleFuzzy]

I didn't mean that Saudi Arabia should drive middle east policy.....



No, in reality, the money we've spent on aid or military assistance in the middle east has NOT come with any strings attached.

Those states continue to act as if the US/west is the only "force" that can change their trajectory, when the truth is they hold their own destiny in their hands. They just don't want to do the dirty work.

The money we've spent most assuredly does come with all sorts of strings. And you don't know what you mean. You never do. You just know what you want, for the world to work perfectly in accordance with your whim, without trade-offs, expenses, self-interest, effort, or any trace of agency by anyone. More freedom and power for Saudi Arabia (or other countries in the region) to act on their own without needing us is also freedom and power which they can and will use to follow their perceptions of their own interests without regard to what you (or anyone in the US State Dept.) might want them to do. Which is going to mean more violence and disorder in the region, not less. Because they'll still have less resources than we do and because their self-interests life in their own aggrandizement, at the expense of other interests in the region, including ours and those of humanitarianism, and they'll be operating in an area that does not have a stable or settled foundation or balance of power.

You know the most likely action Saudi Arabia would take if we weren't keeping our own presence and pressure on the area? They'd ally with the IS. They'd fund it, just like they currently fund terrorism and for the same reasons.

[GGT]

The money we've spent most assuredly does come with all sorts of strings. And you don't know what you mean. You never do. You just know what you want, for the world to work perfectly in accordance with your whim, without trade-offs, expenses, self-interest, effort, or any trace of agency by anyone.

Well fuck you, too.

More freedom and power for Saudi Arabia (or other countries in the region) to act on their own without needing us is also freedom and power which they can and will use to follow their perceptions of their own interests without regard to what you (or anyone in the US State Dept.) might want them to do. Which is going to mean more violence and disorder in the region, not less. Because they'll still have less resources than we do and because their self-interests life in their own aggrandizement, at the expense of other interests in the region, including ours and those of humanitarianism, and they'll be operating in an area that does not have a stable or settled foundation or balance of power.

They still use and exploit their oil/petroleum resources, and our government keeps that going. They don't have "less" resource powers when we depend on their petroleum products, or our gov't makes policy around oil energy.

You know the most likely action Saudi Arabia would take if we weren't keeping our own presence and pressure on the area? They'd ally with the IS. They'd fund it, just like they currently fund terrorism and for the same reasons.

Sure....so why should we consider Saudi Arabia a western ally? They not only fund terrorists, but turn around and ask the US/west for anti-terrorist help.

[LittleFuzzy]

They still use and exploit their oil/petroleum resources, and our government keeps that going. They don't have "less" resource powers when we depend on their petroleum products, or our gov't makes policy around oil energy.

I'm not sure what you're saying. I thought you were hypothesizing us NOT being active in the region. Which means any leverage their oil might give them over us is irrelevant because your scenario is predicated on us not being involved.

Sure....so why should we consider Saudi Arabia a western ally? They not only fund terrorists, but turn around and ask the US/west for anti-terrorist help.

Because it gives us more influence over them than we would have otherwise which mitigates and limits their activities. Like allying with the IS. We just covered that. They are more limited and more circumspect in what they do which they know we wouldn't like. Shades of behavior, not a simplistic "friends only do things we like and only non-friends do things we don't like" black and white binary. There is also the whole bit about how talking about countries behavior is a not terribly accurate abstraction of the aggregate actions of hundreds, thousands, and in some respects millions of individual actors all with relevant agency, but I know that tends to confuse you. The cooperation also provides dividends in areas unrelated to this thread.

[Hazir]

IS and the KSA would not cooperate under any circumstances for the simple reason that they, by their very nature, are mortal enemies. The question why the USA treats the KSA as an ally is an entirely justified and not answered by a deadpan answer like 'friends don't always do what we would like them to do'.

[GGT]

I'm not sure what you're saying. I thought you were hypothesizing us NOT being active in the region. Which means any leverage their oil might give them over us is irrelevant because your scenario is predicated on us not being involved.

I was saying that our involvement should be diplomatic and political influence first, and militarily as last resort. That Arab nations have been playing both sides of the field for too long --- with the US reluctant to hold that region's leadership accountable for its crises or failed state-status, but then acting like our military can (and should) be the answer to their problems.

Because it gives us more influence over them than we would have otherwise which mitigates and limits their activities. Like allying with the IS. We just covered that. They are more limited and more circumspect in what they do which they know we wouldn't like. Shades of behavior, not a simplistic "friends only do things we like and only non-friends do things we don't like" black and white binary. There is also the whole bit about how talking about countries behavior is a not terribly accurate abstraction of the aggregate actions of hundreds, thousands, and in some respects millions of individual actors all with relevant agency, but I know that tends to confuse you. The cooperation also provides dividends in areas unrelated to this thread.

Our influence hasn't been used wisely or for maximum results, IMO. We didn't take advantage of non-military options (like arms embargoes, financial regulations, trade sanctions, visa or immigration freezes, heavy tariffs) that can make a huge difference in political behaviors. I also don't think we've optimized that "cooperation with dividends" by turning a blind eye to the money trail, whether it was black market oil, weapons trading, or off-shore bank accounts used to launder money or fund jihadist militant terrorist groups.

Of course it's not a black-and-white binary, that's been my point all along....but things do cross a distinct line when we're conducting drone strikes or sorties, and leading military strikes, but still haven't exhausted the many non-military powers we have. Oh, I understand it's politically difficult, especially when many of our politicians think our greatest power as a Superpower is military might, and our biggest responsibility is to act like the world's army, or something.

[Loki]

What could possibly go wrong with having sanctions on every Middle Eastern country with human rights violations (i.e. every Middle Eastern country)?

[GGT]

IS and the KSA would not cooperate under any circumstances for the simple reason that they, by their very nature, are mortal enemies. The question why the USA treats the KSA as an ally is an entirely justified and not answered by a deadpan answer like 'friends don't always do what we would like them to do'.

Well, that problem has been brewing for thousands of years. It's not like sectarian religious infighting, or tribal battles are going to be solved by "western outsiders". If anything, most of our good intentions and military interventions have been used as propaganda that widens the divides, and new recruits (from "freedom fighting opposition forces" to jihadi suicide bomber terrorists).

So what's up with Turkey, Hazir? Since you travel there frequently, do you have any personal insights to share about their role in this mess?

[GGT]

What could possibly go wrong with having sanctions on every Middle Eastern country with human rights violations (i.e. every Middle Eastern country)?

What's wrong with having sanctions on US businesses that profit from countries that violate human rights and/or harbor/assist/fund terrorists groups? What's wrong with creating international "coalitions" or partnerships, so the US isn't the only nation going it alone?

For that matter....what's wrong with a US War Tax that would directly fund our military expenditures, and take care of our veterans at the same time? If it's not enough money, or too much money expected from US tax payers...then the whole damn thing should be re-evaluated.

[Loki]

Your ability to write paragraphs without engaging the post you're responding to is truly amazing.

[Hazir]

The Turkish government has been no help in preventing the present crisis. They were too busy dreaming up a new Ottoman empire that they didn't notice they were losing the last remnants of their influence in their old colonies.

[LittleFuzzy]

I was saying that our involvement should be diplomatic and political influence first, and militarily as last resort.

It already is. We've gotten militarily involved some. . . 4? times in the past 20+ years. 1) Gulf 1, where it was the clear only option besides just letting Hussein take over Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, neither of which began to have the means to fight him off and which could have served as a flashpoint reigniting the fading Cold War tensions if Iraqi aggression became a lingering issue. 2) Afghanistan, which was a response to a direct attack against US soil and had nothing to do with internal Middle-East politics or behavior. 3) Gulf 2, which you hate but which also had to do with the goals of the Bush administration and US domestic politics and not Middle-Eastern ones, and 4) Libya where we only got involved because Britain and France already had so we ended up stepping in for our allies. Again, nothing to do with Arab nations playing both sides.

I have to assume you mean "military involvement" to encompass a bunch of things which aren't "military involvement" to try and support your position but they'll still all be be on a fraught and collapsing foundation.

Our influence hasn't been used wisely or for maximum results, IMO. We didn't take advantage of non-military options (like arms embargoes, financial regulations, trade sanctions, visa or immigration freezes, heavy tariffs) that can make a huge difference in political behaviors.

That's just flat wrong. We do make heavy use of non-military options, most ME countries have felt the bite of those measures while relatively few have faced actual military options, and we've ALWAYS used almost all of the above on a country before resorting to any military option.

[Radar Love]

838. Iraq crisis (6/14/2014)

All of a sudden,Iraq is in crisis. The second biggest city is fallen. Baghdad isthreatened.




Iraqi securityforces, trained by Pentagon for years and well equipped with helicopters, tanksand armoured cars, vastly outnumber the jihadists, suddenly melted down in theface of ISIL rebels.

Consider Al Qaedajihadists are created and supported by the US to deal with its dislikes (suchlike Libya’s Gaddafi and Syria’s Assad) and the current Iraq government is apuppet set up by US in Iraq war, both sides are US’ assets. I think it’s adrama conducted by the US. You can see the leadership of Iraqi troops gave upthe city without any fight.



US inside groupused to create a case, with which to ask for more power and money. E.g. the 911attack has been created to get Patriot Act and two wars in Mid-East. What is itnow for this Iraq crisis?


839. Iraqi crisis created to save dollar(6/18/2014)
In early June,Russia switches the oil payment from dollars to Euros.



This is veryimportant news. If people starting to abandon the dollar, US will be hurtseriously in economy. Yet the news was little reported by the mainstream media.Several days later, the ISIL rebel in Iraq activates an offensive. The puppetIraqi government retreats without any resistance. As a result, the oil pricegoes up.




Since the moneyused in most oil trading is dollar, the higher oil price will force the buyerto keep more dollar in bank as purchasing power. It’s a big amount if futureoption is included. Manipulating oil price becomes a strategy to save thedollar. Iraq is a big country of oil production and exportation. Its politicalstability has huge influence to oil price. US has turned it into a switch toadjust the oil price.

Really not sure what you're trying to get at here. Fairly incoherent.

[Hazir]

What bothers me more than a little bit is that we've got 1.5 million Syrians in Turkey, with about 400k living in Istanbul. And nobody knows who of them are people on the run for war and who are terrorists preparing for war. Not so long ago in the suburb of Basaksehir a PKK unit actually engaged a IS unit and only yesterday IS supporters attacked students at Istanbul University who had put up a stand to protest Turkish inaction against IS.

[Loki]

You'd be surprised how many Turks (particularly poor ones) are supporting ISIS. There was a pretty recent NY Times article on it.

[Hazir]

You'd be surprised how many Turks (particularly poor ones) are supporting ISIS. There was a pretty recent NY Times article on it.

No I would not be surprised. You seem to forget I have first hand experience in the country.

[Loki]

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/28/wo...a-mission.html And another piece about Erdogan having some pretty warped priorities.

I have a friend who just moved there to work. You'll have to compete with him for strength of anecdotal evidence.

[katsung47]

Quote, "September 02, 2014

by TomDispatch

How AmericaMade ISIS

Their Videos and Ours, Their “Caliphate” and Ours
Despite those dramatic videos of al-Qaeda training camps inAfghanistan, that organization had no military force worth the name, anddespite what you’ve seen on “Homeland,” no sleeper cells in the U.S. either;nor did it have the ability to mount follow-up operations any time soon.

In other words, while the Bush administration talked about“draining the swamp” of terror groups in up to 60 countries, the U.S. militarywas dispatched against what were essentially will-o’-the-wisps, largelyrepresenting Washington’s own conjured fears and fantasies. It was, that is, initially sent against bandsof largely inconsequential Islamic extremists, scattered in tiny numbers in thetribal backlands of Afghanistan or Pakistan and, of course, the rudimentaryarmies of the Taliban.
http://www.commondreams.org/views/20...rica-made-isis

[Loki]

Do we really need to allow this kind of crap when he's not even willing to engage with any of the posters here? As far as I'm concerned, kat is no better than a spambot.

[GGT]

Your ability to write paragraphs without engaging the post you're responding to is truly amazing.

Thought I was -- at least your comment about sanctions.

It already is. We've gotten militarily involved some. . . 4? times in the past 20+ years. 1) Gulf 1, where it was the clear only option besides just letting Hussein take over Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, neither of which began to have the means to fight him off and which could have served as a flashpoint reigniting the fading Cold War tensions if Iraqi aggression became a lingering issue. 2) Afghanistan, which was a response to a direct attack against US soil and had nothing to do with internal Middle-East politics or behavior. 3) Gulf 2, which you hate but which also had to do with the goals of the Bush administration and US domestic politics and not Middle-Eastern ones, and 4) Libya where we only got involved because Britain and France already had so we ended up stepping in for our allies. Again, nothing to do with Arab nations playing both sides.

I disagree. We didn't take advantage of our economic, trade or financial powers that can re-shape our national policies as well as theirs. Our energy policy still largely revolves around fossil fuels, which caters to petrol-nations... and they then monetize that wealth through western banking/investment sectors. Of course Arab states are playing both sides, but it's because the US/west continues to play their game.

I have to assume you mean "military involvement" to encompass a bunch of things which aren't "military involvement" to try and support your position but they'll still all be be on a fraught and collapsing foundation.

I think "military involvement" should mean any time our military personnel is deployed and uses deadly weapons, even if that happens during undeclared wars, or uses un-manned drones in lieu of "boots on the ground". Using that definition we've been "militarily involved" in places like Grenada, Lebanon, Columbia, Serbia, Somalia, Yemen, Pakistan, etc.....and for longer than just the past 20 years.

That's just flat wrong. We do make heavy use of non-military options, most ME countries have felt the bite of those measures while relatively few have faced actual military options, and we've ALWAYS used almost all of the above on a country before resorting to any military option.

And I think you're flat wrong...and possibly have more "trust" in overall US policy.....and use that as example of our 'western, democratic superiority'....which makes it even harder to admit our own mistakes or failures! Both domestically and internationally.

That's not a personal insult, btw. We still haven't sent any *individual* CEO from Bank of America, Goldman Sachs, BP, or Exxon Mobil to prison for encouraging or harboring criminal activity that contributes to global instability. It's no wonder we don't have the nerve to enact sanctions on Qatar or Saudi Arabia. We can barely do that for China or Russia.

[Loki]

I know this might be a hard argument to accept: but one doesn't get to have an opinion on facts.