« A Mark Riebling interview. | Main | Habakkuk on Obama's abuse of language. »

30 September 2015

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

LeaNder

PB et all, meaning anyone with military expertise: sorry, it was a rather weak attempt at parody. In this context, I should not babble.

Vaguely on the back of my mind: Years ago, I read an argument, quite possibly around the time of Operation Cast Lead, suggesting in a nutshell moral superiority based on the use of "precise" (minimum of collateral damage, so to speak) versus the immorality/evil of the ones that use "imprecise" weapons.

Admitted. I read about this stuff, but I haven't a lot of basic data stored on my aging synapses to recall matters correctly.

Wasn't there also a debate about the use of depleted uranium?

Ryan

"Madmen like McCain and various empty headed retired generals are busy on the media pushing the US public toward war with Russia. What is the matter with these people?"


PL must mean this one.

http://video.foxnews.com/v/4521582179001/gen-keane-putin-outmaneuvered-and-outbluffed-obama/?intcmp=hpnav&playlist_id=2114913880001#sp=show-clips

All,

The good general is mad as hell over this and believes Obama wants an excuse to sit on his hands. Good! I hope he does.

Keane is ticked off at Kerry as well for not wanting to exchange liaison teams and doesn't want any contact at all with the Russians. To hell with them and any fratricide.

His next complaint is the targeting of non-ISIS forces instead ISIS, displaying Russian perfidy. It's just to prop up Assad. This strikes me as odd as all these groups want to effect regime change so they all need to be killed.

He goes on to say that these airstrikes came about from information provided by the Iranians and are being made to clear the main highway running from Damascus to the coast. I was glad to hear him mention this road because none of the other military analysts I heard yesterday did. What I didn't hear him say that this is probably the reason for these attacks and a damn good one.

What the hell is their problem?

Of all the analysts yesterday the best was interestingly enough, a Democrat, Martha McSally. She is a former airforce colonel who advise extreme caution here including the importance of not shooting each other.

jld

Yup, that's the problem, WWWIII is a blunder away and...
Remind me who is on "our side"?

Lydia

Disagreement with President Obama, no matter how vehement, ought to be expressed without the childish "cocoa messiah." I read this blog often and have noticed that you frequently resort to this. How sad.

Valissa

An interesting, and too short, interview with Prof. Max Abrahms of Northeastern University.

‘Huge propaganda war’ going on to discredit Russian anti-terrorist efforts in Syria http://www.rt.com/op-edge/317150-huge-propaganda-syria-russia-usa/

Prof. Abrahms background here http://www.northeastern.edu/cssh/faculty/max-abrahms
Yes, he's one of those dreaded political science profs but his background is very pertinent, and here's what he said about himself in the above interview: "I’m way out of step with most analysts in the US on this topic. I don’t represent the American people. I had an op-ed in the New York Times over a year ago where I urged Washington to work closely with Damascus, including working with Moscow to beat back the Islamic State. So, I’m very much in favor of this sort of alliance, because I think the Islamic State poses the greatest threat, certainly to the West."

LeAnder

Basically: I wouldn't mind a vision--a Utopia--describing the aim via law, international law. What else have we got?

But how do we deal with the aspect of economical weapons in this context? That is a rather recent question of mine.

"Historical record is quite clear: the birth of a new civilization requires barbarian invasions, and the upgrading of an existing one requires a persistent form of "Revolution from Above" - as witnessed in Turkey, Japan, and for the past 400 years, in Russia."

I am not sure if Pat would opt for a "revolution from above", maybe he wouldn't opt for any type of "revolution"?

But your imagery somewhat reminds me that within another nitwit domain on my part I may have used a different mythological Indian figure then he does below.

I no doubt have a limited brain as to capabilities of storing, but for me you suggest Kali, for Pat you may suggest Shiva. And no I am no specialist, in fact the complexity of Indian mythology made me back off:

Destruction and Renewal:
http://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/2015/03/the-us-as-shiva-lord-of-destruction-and-renewal.html

Babak Makkinejad

All:

The Gulf states should do more for Syrian refugees:

http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/markaz/posts/2015/09/30-gulf-states-syrian-refugees-alkhateeb

Jagger

----Scoop Jackson's and the George Kennan's---

How long today would it take AIPAC to get rid of independent, realistic thinkers focused on US national interests ?

oofda

And it is starting to hot up- reports are that the Syrian rebels have fired rockets at an airport used by the Russian Air Force.

https://now.mmedia.me/lb/en/NewsReports/565978-syria-rebels-target-airport-used-by-russia

leaNder

I got it, McCain agrees with Petraeus.

For us foreigners you may want to see what you are alluding to:
http://edition.cnn.com/2015/10/01/politics/john-mccain-cia-russia-airstrikes/index.html

steve

Imho, much of the current conflict and destruction in Syria could have been avoided years ago with some quiet and rational diplomacy between the major parties.

In any job I've ever had, if I had screwed up as bad as the Washington bipartisan consensus has over Syria I would have been canned years ago. And, yes, I understand their are various factions within that elite, but for most of the recent past they only squabble over which side can best implement a stupid policy.

DC seems to function as a sheltered workshop. No offense meant to sheltered workshops.

steve

In more general terms, I've always thought that the stoking of anti-Americanism by European pols served at least one purpose for their domestic politics: it allowed those pols to more or less say with a cynical wink and a nod that "yes, the Americans may be a bit off on this issue, but what can we do, they are a powerful friend and ally, so we will support them"--a great and cynical excuse to do that which they favor in the first place.

Mark Gaughan

Here! Here!

Tyler

AE,

I think that the possibility is higher than its been in quite a while. All it takes is one blue on green incident and the bloody shirt is going to be waved while McCain shouts "Remember the Maine!".

And of course there's no shortage of false flag incidents.

Tyler

Lydia,

Nanny shaming language, moral signaling, and female hysteria at rhetorical shivs in the face of a possible hot war with a nuclear power are part of what got us where we are here.

You can see it in the response of the Cocoa Messiah Administration to Russia actually doing something against jihadis with all their talk of "right side of history" and "tyrant Assad" moral high horse BS.

Ryan

confusedponderer and LeaNder,

You may find this article of interest:

http://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/american_committee_for_peace_in_the_caucasus

I remember this neocon front from years back when it was called the "American Committee for Peace in Chechnya".

From the link above:

A writer for Antiwar.com suggested that groups like ACPC had promulgated an anti-Russian bias in Washington that precluded serious consideration of Russian warnings about potential Chechen terrorists. "How did [the bombers] manage to evade the multi-billion dollar 'security apparatus, which was set up with so much fanfare after 9/11? The answer is to be found in the manipulations and odorous alliances dictated by our interventionist foreign policy, a throwback to the cold war era, which has deemed Russia an enemy and the Chechens the Good Guys."

This squares with your view above, CP. Tell you what. It looks like the BS pulled to get MeK off the terrorist list is follows closely along these lines.

I saw that there are two articles with the second link you provided. This one bears out your views and mine even more and is quite detailed.

https://www.nsfwcorp.com/dispatch/prisoners-of-the-caspian-part-one/

I'm going to have to read them later because of length. Thanks for posting them.

In something unrelated I saw John Kasich give his opinion yesterday that the US should shoot down the Russians to show we mean business. And people have the nerve to question Trump possessing the nuclear football.


Tyler

As far as I can tell Trump is the only candidate who says its good Russia is fighting the jihadis and doesn't want to start seven wars in the MENA on January 21, 2016. Not sure why he catches so much flack around here.

Ryan

Israel, of whom we haven't heard a peep out of.

On the other hand I bet one could hear crude Talmudic curse coming out of the Israeli Prime Minister's office after that PA flag raising at the UN yesterday.

Babak Makkinejad

There is nothing different in Hindu doctrines regarding Creation/Destruction attributes of God (Vishnu, the Supreme Being - in some versions of Hinduism) that is not there in Judaic, Christian, an Islamic Thought. It was always understood by the thinkers in these Western Asiatic religion that God is Absolute Destroyer and Absolute Creator.

The extent to which Man is created in the Image of God - but not as an Archetype - he partakes in the Powers of God - in analogy to an Object and its Image in a mirror.

You are going too far, an explanatory religious framework is already available to you in the writings of the Christian Thinkers - from the Church fathers to the present.

I also think the best analogy for civilizational processes is that of biological organisms.

There is symbiosis, speciation, parasitism, death, and DNA exchanges.

ISL

Akira, I am quite familiar with OODA, developed by John Boyd, but not M&M.

See:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Boyd_(military_strategist)

Any links to the brilliant work of John Boyd would be greatly appreciated.

Thomas

SAC Brat,

I wonder if the Provincial Talib Amir of Kunduz was watching "The Man Who Would Be King" on satellite TV and thought to himself "I could do that."

Babak Makkinejad

And no sitting EU leader is supporting Russia's actions.

I guess they prefer the Jihadists.

The War against Shia Crescent is to continue; I should imagine.

Origin

BBC has been running some interviews with some of the "rebel fighters' hit by Russia who claim they are being funded by the CIA. It seems to me that the evidence is that Russia hit some JAL or other Al Qaeda affiliate's operations centers. Though it has long been suggested on this blog that JAN and its aliases are Al Qaeda and are being funded by the US, I wonder how long it will be before the press is able clearly to state that the US is now giving money and aid to the progeny of the outfit that collapsed the Twin Towers. The tone of the BBC seems to portray the jihadi freedom fighters as heroes.

Someone ought to ask Mad McCain how much money and arms the CIA is investing in AQ who is out to turn Syria back to the seventh century and to destroy US?

I wonder what will happen when the majority of the conservatives in this country wake up to the realization that the US is a major supporter of the unrepentant progeny of Al Qaeda?

My recollection is that the Congress has officially declared AQ to be our enemy in its war resolutions. The main stream media needs to start asking why is the CIA aiding and abetting our declared Salafist enemies and fighting against a regime that seeks to protect the remnant of Christianity in the Middle East?

Just crazy blindness, ignorance, and stupidity on the part of the US People!

Cee

This is a Chechen that I support. The enemies of ISIS need all the help they can get.


http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/russia-syria-chechen-leader-ramzan-kadyrov-says-his-forces-are-ready-march-front-row-1521849

mbrenner

Never discount the irrelevancy of the think-tank world as now constituted and oriented. Following the Rand citation, I came across this gem of sober advice:


“Any coherent plan against the Islamic State
must aim to eliminate, not merely degrade, its leadership
and potential leadership. The coalition has successfully
targeted numerous senior leaders, but the organization’s
focus on creating a deep bench of personnel means that
attacking individual leaders will not destroy the group.
Replacements will rise, and any damaging effect will be
temporary. So, to be successful, the coalition must do
more than take out key leaders: It must eliminate entire
layers of high-level managers, such as an administrative
emir and his administrative committee. The capture of
the group’s computers, memory sticks, and other records
would multiply these effects because they would provide
valuable information about group personnel, organization,
and activities. However, capturing such information
would likely require increased U.S. involvement in combat
situations.”

I immediately sought out the Appendix for operational details on how to accomplish this admirable end. Trojan Horse? Invite them all to a barbecue at an American base and poison the lot? Alas, nothing at all. I guess that they don’t see “operations” as their responsibility.
The RAND Report was made public on May 27m 2015. It has two authors and acknowledgements to seven. It has about 100 reference notes. It cost…..?

In September 2013, a Swedish Institute published a far more detailed report on ISIL and related rebel groups in Syria that gave specifics as to funding, organization, etc. (Unfortunately, reference is mislaid). Cost:??
Detailed data also was made available by West Point’s Combating Terrorism Center (Harmony Data base) in December 2013 and published by McClatchey.

INNOVATION HAS NO FINISHING POINT!

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo

February 2021

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
  1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
28            
Blog powered by Typepad