Category Archives: Terrorism & War

A Salute Returned

The big talking point of the day, for both conservatives that are skeptical of the peace process and the Left, is the returned salute from Pres. Trump. Some people are already hard at work spinning it to make it appear as if Pres. Trump initiated the salute and, indeed, when the only image accompanying it is Pres. Trump looking at an N. K. officer while rendering the salute, the deception is complete.

Newly released video footage from North Korean state media shows President Donald Trump returning a salute to a North Korean military general during this week’s summit in Singapore, an extraordinary display of respect from a US president to a top officer of a hostile regime. (CNN)

Note that the released footage from North Korean state media itself shows that President Trump was returning the salute. This is actually a rather important detail because, undoubtedly, one of the ideas cooked up is that the real damage of the salute is that it can be manipulated into something that it is not, e.g., Pres. Trump rendering a salute first and showing a sort of submission as opposed to receiving a submissive gesture from a North Korean officer and simply answering it.

Remember that all North Korean males and a significant amount of N. Korean females all have to serve in the military and would be totally familiar with decorum. It would be impossible for civilians to confuse the meaning of this.

CNN fortunately continued to clarify a few other things:

n the military, returning a salute from a military officer of a friendly foreign nation is common practice for US military officers and considered a display of military professionalism. There is no rule that a US president is obliged to return a salute, which is considered a sign of mutual respect.

This caveat of “friendly” is rather interesting to me as I had been taught that rendering a salute to officers, friend or foe, was customary at any kind of meeting. However, it now appears that Army regulations say that it is necessary to officers of friendly nations, but the same regulation notes that saluting is mandatory on ceremonial occasions (Army Study Guide). Presumably, this sort of meeting would qualify as a very officious and ceremonial affair, and this is a distinction quite different from simply coming across a N. Korean officer on the street (lol) and rendering him a salute without any other context.

It should be also noted that there are occasions where one is expected to explicitly salute enemy soldiers:

Prisoners of war, with the exception of officers, must salute and show to all officers of the Detaining Power the external marks of respect provided for by the regulations applying in their own forces.

Officer prisoners of war are bound to salute only officers of a higher rank of the Detaining Power; they must, however, salute the camp commander regardless of his rank. (Article 39, Geneva Conventions, hosted at UMN.)

Yet… There are people who are acting as if it is highly inappropriate to return the salute of a foreign Officer during discussions pertaining to peace negotiations?

Indeed, imagine having a meeting to arrange a treaty and then decidedly not rendering respect or entertaining mutual honor & decorum.

Of course, I will concede this to the Left who are complaining about this: if Pres. Obama had done the same (while doing what Pres. Trump was doing now), it would have been held over his head for the whole of his Presidency and to this very day. That is utterly undeniable. However, I am not sure why the low standards of your political opponents would justify low standards for oneself.

We should also consider that we are experiencing something already a bit unexpected: Pres. Trump is viewed as a potential warmonger, and is from a party that is stereotyped as warmongers, yet he is pursuing peace, and, while doing so, rendering all sorts of honors and treating everyone with dignity and respect.

The reason for the outrage is not actually a real objection to the things being done but comes from deep seated hatred for the President as a person and potentially conservatism in general.

And, perhaps an even more interesting talking point, and one that has a wide variety of applications, the willingness to accept that Pres. Trump is doing this for conservatives is also coming from a sort of base love for their ‘own guy,’ so to speak.

Ultimately, Pres. Trump did the right thing for the circumstances. Whether or not the negotiations will bear real fruit and CVID will actually occur is a completely different story, and people’s skepticism towards this is entirely justified. However, to be angry about participating in the basic rendering of respect between persons in a formal setting would be no different than demanding that nobody ever shakes hands at negotiations between parties with bad blood.

Haley Walkout, Quiet Deception, & Evolving Thoughts on Israel

Let me preface this by saying I had no idea that I would find this one, small opening to an article so interesting, and also that you will have to forgive me for a rambling delivery. But I really did find this to be a particularly interesting topic because it delves into a lot of small areas that interest me. The Israel/Palestine topic is so rich by itself, and is so utterly complex it is hard to ever adequately deal with it, and when we add in the media’s attempts to gaslight us into a strange position it gets to be even more fun.

I really only stumbled upon this by accident. In one of the Chess forums that I frequent, a leftist was throwing a fit over this story and, voila, here we are.

Nikki Haley, U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, forcefully defended Israel in the violence at Gaza, potentially widening a rift between the U.S. and allies.

The U.N.’s Middle East envoy said there was no justifying the killings of more than 50 Palestinians by Israeli fire at the Gaza border, and several Security Council members called for an independent investigation, but the council had no unified message Tuesday as the U.S. said Israel had acted with “restraint.” Haley placed all blame for the conflict with Hamas, after more than 50 Palestinians were killed by Israeli fire at the Gaza border, following the U.S. Embassy move to Jerusalem that was celebrated Monday. Haley laid blame for Monday’s violence on the Hamas extremists who rule Gaza and insisted it had nothing to do with the opening the embassy, a move that infuriated Palestinians.

CBS

It is kind of like the media wants to make it a foregone conclusion that it is the US & Israel alone on these issues, and that all of our other “allies” are thinking of turning their backs on us. But I do not know how accurate of a portrayal this is. I think the US has always vocally supported the Israel party line, more or less, while places like Europe openly oppose it in their words but do nothing with their actions, which is this happy medium that they have entertained for a very long time. In reality, I think nothing dramatic is happening here.

I think that the real interests of the media are quite clear on issues like this:

By emphasizing that this could cause conflict with our allies,  the more that it seems like a disturbance, and the more that it seems like people are meaningfully at odds with each other, the more that they can vilify the Trump administration.

This also provides us with a potentially funny situation where we have the Left and the “Resistance” to Pres. Trump, who are known for all manner of disruption tactics in their efforts to resist the ebil Nazis, arguing that it is beyond the pale to walk out of a discussion like this. Of course, you can almost hear them sputtering but, but, but it’s different because this is the United Nations.

Like shoes don’t get occasionally pounded on tables and what not. Like the people who paraded through the streets with hats meant to mimic female anatomy & have actively campaigned for shifting all standards of decency away from conservative values are truly disheartened by anything less than Victorian quietism when there is a disagreement.

What is also interesting about this sort of incident is that it highlights that there is a lot of change happening in the West re: Israel.

We have seen, more and more, the loyalties to Israel begin to dissipate in favor of the fresh & new “post-colonial” narratives that you see popping up here and there. These ideas gaining popularity pose a great problem for the Left, in my opinion, because they only serve to hammer home the impracticality of Leftist thought. Are we really prepared to burn our bridges with one of the only functional states in the Middle East just to further some line about democracy, autonomy, self-determination, etc., for absolutely everyone, and to talk about “Zionist oppression?”

What is also really fascinating about all of the talk about Israel is that, no matter how you cut the cake, no matter who you side with, it can come back to pro-Nationalist narratives. Israel sticks out like a sore thumb to the globalists: two different peoples that are finding it rather difficult to live one another and both want to have full autonomy. No matter who you side with, it is not too difficult to talk about the validity of each people having a right to self-determination, which, in the era of globalization, sounds increasingly like a radical position. Radical only because the post-WWII narrative about muh rights above every other consideration now makes the basis of some “collective” having rights distasteful to the Libertarian right and unpalatable to the Left for a different collection of reasons.

It has really been a long time since I have sat and thought about Israel… I have grown, over the years, to be increasingly “centrist” and disinclined towards radical positions on the topic. This has marked a stark shift from my youth when I was a kneejerk supporter of everything Israel and had little sympathies on the sides. I simply want to emphasize that both the American right & left tend to make major mistakes on this topic — there is no reason for us to be unquestioningly loyal to Israel, and there is no reason for us to support settlements that are unfair to Palestinians because it theoretically advances some obscure geopolitical cause that we have.

After all, hasn’t the last decade and some change convinced us of the disaster of our interventions in the Middle East? Haven’t we simply come to some point where we can at last put down the mantle of “democratization” there? Why should we work on furthering some super intense posturing of the state of Israel against all others in the Middle East, when, in the long-term, the real goal should be stability, and there is no stability that can come from promoting fundamental imbalances?

The right has to drastically moderate its stance on Israel because no matter how irrational anti-Israel advocates can be we have to be rational actors. Two irrational people flinging dung at each other do not make a right.

Palestinians have inalienable human rights, just like Israelis, and Palestinians have a right to national autonomy and a future. We should do everything that we can to treat them with dignity and come to agreements that see them prosper. As Israel is already a well established state with a high standard of living, more has to be done to see to the needs of Palestinians, and any process which does not prioritize justice for these people will simply lead to more severe and prolonged conflict.

There is also something slightly sick with the obsession that the American conservatives can get with Israel — I’d really like to sit down and discuss this with my people in real life. There gets to be an unhealthy obsession and a borderline psychosis when it comes to defending the state of Israel, as if it can do no wrong and as if the whole of the world is in conspiracy against them. I can only explain it by thinking that the trauma of the Holocaust has pushed people toward heightened sensitivity, and also that the events of the various conflicts prior to my birth were also instrumental in bolstering it a bit higher. I do not think that they are entirely irrational in their position but they have certainly done nothing to moderate their beliefs on the topic over the years.

I honestly think that my position is hopelessly boring, moderate, and uncreative. But I am sure people will find fault in it — this is Israel/Palestine, after all, a topic just as sensitive as abortion and, even though an actual middle ground exists, people like to pretend that there can be no such middle ground and that to seek it out is folly in itself.

Nobel Peace Prize Winner Asked Other Peace Prize Winner to Stop Bombing Her Country (LOL?)

This is the sort of comedy that ensues when you give a Nobel peace prize to Pres. Obama before he started his own Presidency…

For the first time in history, and a point that I hope will not be lost on historians in 100 years, we have seen one Nobel Peace Prize winner ask another Nobel Peace Prize winner to essentially stop bombing to smitherines her country…

… And to just re-emphasize this, let’s also throw into the picture the fact that the bombing campaign is being conducted by bloody robots…. But they aren’t bloody; they fly too high to be bloody.

On Friday morning, 17 year-old Pakistani activist Malala Yousafzai won the Nobel Peace Prize. Yousafzai’s prize is well-deserved: she’s been a prominent campaigner for girls’ education for years, and survived a Taliban assassination attempt for her efforts.

But women’s education isn’t Malala’s only cause. She’s also waged a prominent campaign on a topic Americans aren’t talking much about nowadays: the drone war in Pakistan.

In characteristically bold fashion, Yousafzai brought these concerns up in a meeting with President Obama back in October 2013 — one that had originally been held to celebrate her commitment to education.

“I thanked President Obama for the United States’ work in supporting education in Pakistan and Afghanistan and for Syrian refugees,” Yousafzai said in a statement after the meeting — before turning to drones. “I also expressed my concerns that drone attacks are fueling terrorism. Innocent victims are killed in these acts, and they lead to resentment among the Pakistani people. If we refocus efforts on education it will make a big impact.”

The White House statement on its meeting with Yousafzai left that bit out.

Vox

Again, I merely point out what a hilarious moment in history when two recipients of the same peace prize are in this situation…

Perhaps the absurd decision makers of the Nobel Peace Prize committee ought to be blamed for this situation.

Afghanistan in Crisis As Obama Prepares Withdrawal

2014 has been an epic year for Pres. Obama:

– He attempted to destabilize the secular Syrian government & ended up supporting Islamist terrorists. The Russians & Iranians who backed Assad won out.

– His withdrawal from Iraq predictably culminated in mass civil warfare. Islamists recovered billions of dollars in currency & advanced military equipment making them incapable of being dislodged. Obama helped move to sack Maliki, who he had previously been fine with until this catastrophe (a little bit of late effort there, isn’t it?).

– Who can forget in the face of Russian aggressive posturing to take Crimea he sent John Kerry & his Hapsberg jaw to Ukraine; nothing was done to prevent Russian expansion, and instead money was given to a fledgling government of closet Fascists & corrupt strongmen in Kiev, who just this morning killed 10 civilians in artillery shelling of the Donetsk region. 

– Now Afghanistan is in a miserable position:

MAHMUD RAQI, Afghanistan —Taliban fighters are scoring early gains in several strategic areas near the capital this summer, inflicting heavy casualties and casting new doubt on the ability of Afghan forces to contain the insurgency as the United States moves to complete its withdrawal of combat troops, according to Afghan officials and local elders.

The Taliban have found success beyond their traditional strongholds in the rural south and are now dominating territory near crucial highways and cities that surround Kabul, the capital, in strategic provinces like Kapisa and Nangarhar.

Their advance has gone unreported because most American forces have left the field and officials in Kabul have largely refused to talk about it. The Afghan ministries have not released casualty statistics since an alarming rise in army and police deaths last year.

At a time when an election crisis is threatening the stability of the government, the Taliban’s increasingly aggressive campaign is threatening another crucial facet of the American withdrawal plan, full security by Afghan forces this year.

“They are running a series of tests right now at the military level, seeing how people respond,” one Western official said, describing a Taliban effort to gauge how quickly they could advance. “They are trying to figure out: Can they do it now, or will it have to wait” until after the American withdrawal, the official added, speaking on the condition of anonymity because the coalition has officially ceded security control.

Interviews with local officials and residents in several strategic areas around the country suggest that, given the success of their attacks, the Taliban are growing bolder just two months into the fighting season, at great cost to Afghan military and police forces.

New York Times

Basically, the Taliban is poised to plunge the entire nation into civil war and perhaps even come out victorious in the end. They are so confident of their ability to do this they are even attacking now before the US troops have withdrawn — signs that they feel powerful.

is anything going right at all in his foreign policy?

Perhaps people can try to tie this all back to Pres. Bush, but one cannot help but think that the overly ‘aggressive’ and ‘warmongering’ Pres. Bush would have at least not yapped like a tiny dog while Russia expanded into Crimea, or have witnessed the complete & total deterioration of conditions within Iraq & Afghanistan.

The real losers in this whole mess are the Iraqi & Afghan people who were treated to a glimmer of hope of democracy only to have it snuffed out by the awkwardness & inadequacy of the US government. The other major losers are the thousands of Americans and other allied fighters that have died or been maimed & wounded in Iraq & Afghanistan– now their sacrifices truly have been for little to nothing.

The only people that have won out during the Obama administration are the Russians, the Iranians and the various Islamic extremist organizations throughout the Middle East.

Russia “Created Conditions” (!?) Leading To MH-17 Tragedy

In the world of politics you often see that even when it is clear that they cannot completely burn their political opponents for an incident that they will seek to otherwise accuse them. On some level this is a human phenomena — we all seek to get to the bottom of it, and sometimes that means making a lot of sober and rational judgments and sometimes that just means pointing fingers out of frustration.

Senior intelligence officials said Tuesday Russia created the “conditions” that led to the downing  of a Malaysia Airlines passenger jet over eastern Ukraine but stopped short of directly linking Moscow to the fatal missile strike.

The officials said-that anti Ukraine government forces, which are backed by Russia, likely fired the missile that took down Flight MH-17 last Thursday, killing all 298 aboard.

However, they made no direct link to Russia.

The assessment follows a series of State Department comments and releases over the weekend that made a strong connection among the strike, Russia and the pro-Russian separatists, who are believed to have fired a SA-11 surface-to-air missile.

The officials said the plane was likely shot down by the separatists who are in eastern Ukraine, based on intercepted communications, satellite photos and social media postings, some of which have been authenticated by U.S. experts.

But the officials said they did not know who fired the missile or whether any Russian operatives were present at the launch.

A senior intelligence official confirmed Tuesday that the separatists are being training in air defense systems at a Russian training facility in Rostov, near the Ukraine border.

In terms of who fired the missile, “we don’t know a name, we don’t know a rank and we’re not even 100 percent sure of a nationality,” one official said, adding at another point, “There is not going to be a Perry Mason moment here.”

The officials also said Russia has continued to help the rebels after the downing, providing additional tanks and rocket launchers.

The officials said the most plausible explanation for why the plane was shot down is that the rebels made a mistake. Separatists previously had shot down 12 Ukrainian military airplanes, the officials said.

Fox News

It seems pretty obvious that the Ukrainian separatists who shot down the aircraft were on some level educated and trained fighters, whether from Rostov or from previous military experience. Separatists had successfully shot down 12 other aircraft — they merely made an unfortunate mistake here.

The problem with the US officials saying that they created the conditions which lead to the downing of the US aircraft is that it could imply that, at other times, the United States has created similar conditions that led to the deaths of civilians as well. It creates a basis for argumentation that can bring us towards conclusions that are rather unflattering to the United States government.

… Of course, the government expects the people to be so generally blind in their fanaticism that they would have little regard to being objective and trying to understand the deeper ramifications of such an accusation.

But John Kerry & Barrack Obama haven’t stilled themselves and remained calm, and instead have pursued this in a predictably backwards & hypocritical fashion. I am not sure if we can necessarily blame Kerry & Obama, though, as this is the modus operandi of American politics: boldfaced stupidity & hypocrisy.

After all, it is what we tolerate as American people in our politics.

The Islamic State Offers Up A Map

Of course, the idea that Spain & the Balkans are going to become dominated portions of the Islamic state is incredibly silly, but there are a few things that we can see from the article below & the map that they offered up:

ISIS has formally declared the establishment of a caliphate, or Islamic state, in the vast stretches of the Middle East that have fallen under its control, and has outlined a vision to expand into Europe.

The announcement was described as the ‘most significant development in international jihadism since 9/11’.

Upon declaring a caliphate, the Sunni militants – whose brutality in attempting to establish control in Iraq and Syria has been branded too extreme even by Al Qaeda – demanded allegiance from Muslims around the world.

With brutal efficiency, ISIS has carved out a large chunk of territory that has effectively erased the border between Iraq and Syria and laid the foundations of its proto-state.

Daily Mail

And here is the map:

Notice how they do not apparently seek to take any lands beyond what was once theoretically held within Europe.

Notice, as well, that Kordistan would take up a massive swathe of land — a good chunk of Turkey and a large chunk of Iran.

I imagine that ‘Qoqzaz’ is theoretically existent there as a ruling area for the Azeri / Turkic peoples that are otherwise not in Anatolia.

Khorasan is intimidatingly large, taking up much of central Asia, parts of Iran, Pakistan, India, and… The Uighur lands. We can conclude from that that they are consciously in opposition to the Chinese government who has taken away domestic control from the Uighur people. I imagine that indicates that even if the Islamic State fails, there could be money, support and increased interest in the Uighur struggle which may be a new frontier of jihad.

Notice the entire lack of Iran — not surprising that they would abolish an entire Shi’ite theocracy, after all. 🙂

The map is significant as far as it gives us an interesting worldview of the Jihadis — one in which it seems to respect the traditional territories held by these various peoples to some extent, and appears to care about correcting theoretical past wrongs.

Perhaps you can see that while the goal is most assuredly not something that can be achieved, the dream is certainly there, and they have shown some interesting sympathies and inclinations that will be indicators of their future behavior.

The IS just has to buckle down and resist whatever onslaughts are coming towards them and hope that Obama & NATO foreign policy stays impotent, and this is going to be a wild summer for us all.

ISIS/ISIL/The Islamic State & “Caliph” Abu-Bakr al-Baghdadi

By now many are talking about this transition from being “ISIS/ISIL” and becoming simply the Islamic State. I certainly found the whole thing rather interesting.

The ISIS/ISIL enclave had become incredibly rich through their exploits and captured loads of great military supplies of US origin — including helicopters. They even joked that they expect the USA to service them and honor the warranty. They also seized an esitmated $400 million in currency (source: NY TImes). Certainly, these are very serious characters.

That does not mean that I think this is the erection of a permanent and recognizable state. This honestly depends on the will of the Iranians & the Syrians at this point, and the diplomatic skill of the new IS rulers. I also wonder if the Turkish will involve themselves, and in what capacity the Israelis & the US will act. Obama the cowardly lion brings little to the table though I wouldnt’ be surprised if he takes some sort of misguided, probably illogical action.

What is most interesting about this series of developments is the identity of this new “Caliph” which can shed some light on the issue.

His new, official name and identity, is as follows (and is as released by IS itself) and likewise explains their motive in dropping the geographic specifications of their title:

a khalīfah for the Muslims, and the pledge of allegiance to the shaykh (sheikh), the mujāhid, the scholar who practices what he preaches, the worshipper, the leader, the warrior, the reviver, descendent from the family of the Prophet, the slave of Allah, Ibrāhīm Ibn ‘Awwād Ibn Ibrāhīm Ibn ‘Alī Ibn Muhammad al-Badrī al-Hāshimī al-Husaynī al-Qurashī by lineage, as-Sāmurrā’ī by birth and upbringing, al-Baghdādī by residence and scholarship. And he has accepted the bay’ah (pledge of allegiance). Thus, he is the imam and khalīfah for the Muslims everywhere. Accordingly, the “Iraq and Shām” in the name of the Islamic State is henceforth removed from all official deliberations and communications, and the official name is the Islamic State from the date of this declaration.

Longwar

He is being identified in popular media and elsewhere simply as Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, which wikipedia notes as his nom de guerre.

One interesting aspect of his origin is that he was a Ph.D. student of Islamic studies at the University of Baghdad and that he apparently can claim lineage from the Prophet. I am guessing that both of these are correct — we may disagree with the IS and their cruel actions, but we can certainly consider that somewhere among that massive organization there may surely be a descendent of the Prophet. They even say that Prince George is a descendant of the Prophet (the Local, France). There is no shortage of people with this distinction.

I found another interesting tidbit that shows the inaccuracy and lameness of popular media coverage of the whole background of events concerning how ISI (Islamic State in Iraq) essentially took power over Jabhat al-Nusra:

When the formation of ISIS was announced in April 2013, al-Baghdadi stated that the Syrian Civil War jihadist faction,Jabhat al-Nusra, had been an extension of the ISI in Syria, and was now to be merged with ISIS.[8][20] The leader of Jabhat al-Nusra, Abu Mohammad al-Jawlani, disputed this merging of the two groups and appealed to al-Qaeda emirAyman al-Zawahiri, who issued a statement that ISIS should be abolished and that al-Baghdadi should confine his group’s activities to Iraq.[21] Al-Baghdadi, however, dismissed al-Zawahiri’s ruling and took control of a reported 80% of Jabhat al-Nusra’s foreign fighters.[22] In January 2014, ISIS expelled Jabhat al-Nusra from the Syrian city of Raqqa, and in the same month clashes between the two in Syria’s Deir ez-Zor Governorate killed hundreds of fighters and displaced tens of thousands of civilians.[23] In February 2014, al-Qaeda disavowed any relations with ISIS.[4]

Wikipedia

Those dumb asses everywhere from NPR to the Guardian touted this title of them being “Too extreme for al-Qaeda!”  (look at all these articles via google search) but there is little to really verify such a fact (hell, the Guardian article points out that they were told to not raise any hands against religious / tribal / clan groups that did not want to fight on their behalf).

Really, we are just dealing with a scenario where there was in-fighting within al-Qaeda and clearly they wanted to have their own, centralized body that was independent of the al-Qaeda network. It was a powerplay by ISI & al-Baghdadi, and it appears that it has truly paid off over there.

I am very fascinated to see how things are going to unfold and to see what this new “Caliph” is going to declare and do. This is a very fascinating point for Middle East history, and I am excited to say that I can write about a portion of it.

Now let’s just see where this is all heading and how the rest of the world reacts.

Keep your eyes peeled and dig for the truth — this is a complex scenario, so do not depend on mainstream media alone concocting some strange story. There is a lot of moving pieces here that have large political ramifications for the Middle East, and if you do not find a good thread to follow you will run the risk of getting duped or being ill informed.

I also recommend following some famous twitter handles that the Islamic State is using; many of them appear and disappear but a few of them for you are:

@troublejee

@islam4allXs

@AbuBakrAl_Janab

@abuomarassayf

@MuawiyaIASufian

These are changing all the time and I am unsure which are directly linked, but it appears @Islam4allXs is perhaps the best one for English source on it that I have seen so far, and they are incredibly active.

Enjoy.

USA n00b Foreign Policy: How Idealism Interfered W/ Practicality

In games, timing is everything… Of course, in many games I want to do something earlier in the game than is reasonable. Some people bring their Queen out early in chess & encounter game ending disasters due to their overeagerness. Of course, developing your Queen and putting her into a position where she can wreak the most havoc is a necessary part of chess, but to do so prematurely invites loss.

Likewise you have people in all manner of game that are just silly n00bs. They want to gank with Faceless Void before he has Chronosphere at Level 6; they want to just get in the tank & rush anenemy strongpoint in the first 5 minutes of the Battlefield match even though everyone knows the first thing they do is mine the gate… The number of newbish moves that people make in games because they act prematurely is infinite.

Perhaps it is a part of human psychology to desire early, quick victory, and to believe that we can just sort of throw it out there and something great happens.

Hell, sometimes just because our enemy is also a newb the tactic works — so we try it again, with hopes that it will be applicable in every match.

This is basically USA foreign policy in Iraq & Afghanistan over the last decade.

… Everybody knows that there is a specific order that you have to do things or the overarching strategy doesn’t work. This principle is found in everything. I

USA foreign policy has sought to democratize entire societies as quickly as possible without developing their education, security & health care. It could also be said that we attempt to develop all of them at the same time. 

This is a lot like trying to bake the bread, cook the meat, dice up the vegetables and ready the spices while setting the table for dinner simultaneously. We have all tried to achieve maximum multitasking to thereby achieve high level of efficiency while cooking, but generally speaking, this always results in failure.

It’s almost as if because of the nature of the criticisms that the USA has faced over the last century in the support of dictatorial regimes, and it is almost because of the rationale we use to prop ourselves up as righteous in our interference with foreign states, that we forget that you can never jump from largely ignorant, unstable third world state into a first world democracy without decades of coordinated effort.

& it is as if we set these nations up for abject failure specifically when we give them weak, unhinged “democratic” governments. They are only “democratic” by virtue of it describing the process by which tribalists & sectarians manipulate the masses to gain control and perpetuate internal strife. They are “democratic” only in the sense that the Weimar Republic was a democratic state — it is an unsustainable flash in the pan that lends itself well to eventual total collapse & civil war.

If we actually did have interest in seeing these countries prosper we would have to get rid of this newbie mentality of front loading our ideology. We have to understand that the real process for building & achieving a sustainable state is far more subtle & involves the development of far more basic institutions before the subsequent achievement of others.

Perhaps the fact that we are stooped in over-the-top emotional rhetoric on liberty has also undone is… “He who would exchange liberty for security deserves neither,” (paraphrase). What a silly idea…

Would you rather live in a place where there is no civil war, growing education & health facilities, peace and a rapidly developing economy but, there is a lack of freedom…

… Or do you want to live in Iraq, where, over the last decade, you have endured intense warfare, have little to no new opportunities and are suffering…

… But you get to cast your vote along with the millions of other sectarian tribalists?

The answer is obvious.

Don’t be a n00b & bring your queen out to get caught right away and lose the game; don’t be a n00b and try to gank a stronger character while your ulti isnt even unlocked.

Don’t be a stupid n00b and make the Iraqis do democracy while they are steeped in civil warfare & economic meltdown….

Obama Admin Playing Stupid on Iraq In Spite of Evidence

First off, I find it hilarious that the Obama administration would even attempt to feign ignorance on this topic because of the fact that one would imagine that keeping track of intelligence and threats towards the nascent little republic we set up & were working with should be top priority… Much like it would have been getting Maliki to play nice with others, something that the administration continued to bemoan later as his shortcoming in spite of little to no news or actions from Obama previously concerned with fixing such a situation.

Evidence has come out that has shown that the Obama administration had known about the growing threat of ISIL months before they reared their ugly heads in Iraq:

The U.S. intelligence community warned about the “growing threat” from Sunni militants in Iraq since the beginning of the year, a senior intelligence official said Tuesday — a claim that challenges assertions by top administration officials that they were caught off guard by the capture of key Iraqi cities.

Earlier Tuesday, in an interview with Fox News, Secretary of State John Kerry said “nobody expected” Iraqi security forces to be decisively driven out by the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, or ISIS, as they were earlier this month in Mosul.

And here comes another great kicker:

Offering a grave warning about the current strength of the group — which is a State Department-designated terror organization — the official also said that barring a major counteroffensive, the intelligence community assesses that ISIS is “well-positioned to keep the territory it has gained.”The official said the ISIS “strike force” now has between 3,000 and 5,000 members.

Fox News

So you are telling me that they were not aware that a group with a “strike force” of only 3,000-5,000 men could bring the Iraqi military down to its knees, begging their Iranian neighbors for help? You are telling me, we left the country essentially defenseless so that Obama could win the theoretical ‘early withdrawal’ points?

The entire security situation of Iraq was being ignored while it deteriorated — as was the threat from ISIl, who we were sticking out feelers months ago to see if we could get the support of people to help fight Assad… Assad being the thin guard against Islamic extremism, don’t you know.

I am beginning to be convinced that this administration totally failed in Iraq on all accounts, and so amazingly.

And we love how they actually go before the American people and say… sorry guys, we just missed it! In spite of evidence to the contrary, of course, but still… The idea that this wouldn’t, say, oh… Be a major priority to them!

Thousands of Americans died and thousands more lost limbs and lost all manner of things over in Iraq. And what did they get for that loss? Apparently, a government that is disinterested in even maintaining what little gains we made in that country, and an environment where they are willing to just throw it all away.

Shameful. Naive. Stupid.

Imagine if, at work, I just blew off one of my big assignments at work… I would be fired, and I could expect that people would laugh at me behind my back.

So what do these jokers & snakes in the Obama administration anticipate for themselves?

They just go and tell a boldfaced lie before the brainwashed public.

US Politicians Calling for Maliki to Step Down (LOL!)

What is so utterly genius about this is that there could be no greater lack of self-awareness on the US Politician’s part — it is like they have no clue about the situation unfurling in Iraq, nor any clue about the historic divisions within the country.

I think it even reveals that these morons literally believed that Democracy would work out in some way for the Iraqis, as if these thing ever stood a chance. I used to be too crass to believe that these politicians cared at all about ideology, preferring to believe that these miscreants merely were intelligent people manipulating us — such a truth was a lot easier to swallow than the idea that the majority of these people in Washington were truly ignorant asses.

But this seals the deal:

(Reuters) – President Barack Obama came under pressure from U.S. lawmakers on Wednesday to persuade Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki to step down over what they see as failed leadership in the face of an insurgency threatening his country.

As Obama held an hour-long meeting with congressional leaders on U.S. options in Iraq, administration officials joined a chorus of criticism of Maliki, faulting him for failing to heal sectarian rifts that militants have exploited.

In Oval Office talks, Obama briefed the lawmakers on efforts to get Iraqi leaders to “set aside sectarian agendas,” reviewed options for “increased security assistance” and sought their views, the White House said.

Maliki has so far shown little willingness to create a more inclusive administration.

“The Maliki government, candidly, has got to go if you want any reconciliation,” said U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein, Democratic chairwoman of the Senate Intelligence Committee.

Republican Senator John McCain, speaking in the Senate, called for the use of American air power, but also urged Obama to “make it make very clear to Maliki that his time is up.”

The Obama administration has not openly sought Maliki’s departure, but has shown signs of frustration with him.

“This current government in Iraq has never fulfilled the commitments it made to bring a unity government together with the Sunnis, the Kurds and the Shia,” Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel told the congressional hearing.

White House spokesman Jay Carney said Maliki had not done enough “to govern inclusively and that has contributed to the situation and the crisis that we have today in Iraq.”

Reuters

LOL!

Here’s what we do:

(1) Create a democracy in a country that suffers from massive sectarianism and whose borders were largely arbitrarily created. The country also suffers from massive issues with education, health, sanitation… Literacy… You know, everything we take for granted, basically.

(2) Leave that country while it is still a toddler and has no coherent direction let alone any consensus; pull out all the forces on the advise of both Conservative & Liberal people that felt this entire Iraq conflict was going to be a shortlived event.

(3) Fund militants in a neighboring, chaotic country even when they are losing their civil war because God knows that could never accidentally spill over… 

(4) Blame Maliki, the leader of this terrible place, for failing to heal the 1200 year Sunni – Shi’a riff and the equally old Kurdish – Arab divide! Accuse him of not doing enough!

… And that is, of course, assuming that Maliki ever had such an intention in the first place. Which might be the most naive article of them all.

(5) And, of course, we are going to call for him to step down in the middle of a crippling civil war. Because NOW IS THE TIME FOR ELECTIONS! NOW IS THE TIME FOR MASSIVE GOVERNMENT CHANGE! 

Perhaps this is all an effort of sending a message that we will negotiate with any jackasses that will come to the table and sack Maliki for any deal because, as the USA, we have to see that we somehow have a foot in the door and that the scenario’s outcome is not determined by the Iranians.

The whole scenario is hilarious with big names like Feinstein & McCain coming in and making their own ridiculous statements that are naive at best.

WTF are these people?

Unless this is all part of an Evil Genius plot to communicate that we are willing to do realpolitik negotiation with ISIL, I want out.