Media naivety

[Walsingham]

I know English isn't your first language, but that's not actually paranoia, is it?

[Junai]

I know English isn't your first language, but that's not actually paranoia, is it?

 

When a person believes that half the world harbours terrorists who are out to get him and his countrymen,

he's not only paranoid, he's insane as well. If you wish to believe that the inmates at Gitmo are criminals,

and that evil shoe-bombers roam the land plotting to kill you, you're welcome to do so.

 

I'm not worried however. Even you will come around one day.

I just hope your kind wakes up before the US is broke, coz I don't want my country to end up a financial

protectorate of the People's Republic of China.

 

 

J.

Edited August 20, 2010 by Junai

[Walsingham]

I'm so inexpressibly tired of George Orwell fanbois spouting this drivel. The fact is that terror attacks have killed tens of thousands of civilians, and would cheerfully threaten many more without the tireless efforts of numerous police and military services. (Leaving aside the obvious) Indonesia, Egypt, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia these are just the front line as it currently stands. Behind that consider Nigeria, the Mahgreb, Thailand, Malaysia, the Caucasus... Then we have the attacks which have been perpetrated as rarities, but plotted in large numbers in the US, the UK, France, Spain...

 

But don't let any of that bother you, will you? No you sit there and pretend none of it is happening. That it's all a government plot to hike your taxes up and nothing more. There are no popoulations living with daily fear and uncertainty, in the shadow of fervid revolutionaries. that there is no danger of instability leading to national overthrows or wars of any kind. That a cynical eyebrow is all you need lift in defence of ... I don't even know what does motivate you? Hotdogs?

[Monte Carlo]

I know that WW2 was the 'good' war, but sometimes I wonder if it would be seen as so good if the media hadn't got behind it. I say this being personally convinced it was. But if there had been a wikileaks at the time we'd have heard of allies shooting prisoners of war, bombing victims, etc etc. Would we have had the stomach to continue fighting through the mincing machine of Cassino, Caen, Nijmegen?

 

I made this point to a friend, a serving officer with a shed-load of ops tours under his belt. I made the old "imagine the BBC at Omaha Beach" argument. He replied that WW2 was a war of national survival. Afghanistan manifestly isn't. The hoops you have to jump through to make even a vicarious argument that it is simply aren't credible. Although I doubt anybody of one star rank plus who planned Overlord would ever have been promoted, by modern standards, and Ike would never have made PotUS.

 

The French, for example, were extremely magnanimous about the strategic bombing of vast areas of Normandy in June 1944, even when it became apparent that it wasn't remotely accurate. Why? Because the alternative was Nazi occupation. The public in early 1944 were also fully aware of the charnel house of Cassino. After all, neighbours in every street were getting telegrams informing them of deaths in action. Why did they swallow it? Because the Nazis bombed London and Bristol and Exteter and Coventry and killed thousands.

 

My argument remains - We could police Afghanistan by air, in much the same way we contained Saddam for ten years. The people there don't appear to want 'liberation.' We are spending blood and treasure we cannot afford on something that increasingly looks like a fool's errand. This isn't even a remotely controversial POV, I have neither a beard nor sandals and am one of the more Hawkish members of this forum.

 

I simply believe that you only fight wars you can win, with clear strategic and tactical objectives. Afghanistan is the red-headed bastard stepchild of Tony Bliar and Dubya's love in. It really is time to move on, and find other smarter, cheaper and frankly ruthless ways of managing Islamo-Fascism festering in failed states.

 

Cheers

MC

[Walsingham]

Monte, you of all people should know that smart and war don't usually go together. Sometimes you just have to go with bags of smoke, straight up the middle, etc etc.

 

The problem as I see it, and I'm genuinely interested to hear your rejoinder, is that we are fighting now in order to avoid the kind of 'justified' war which the public seem to enjoy. Not only is pre-emptive striking less costly in our own blood, but I fear it is the only system possible in a world running in so many dimensions and with such powerful, long ranged weapons.

 

Naturally I'm talking about the danger of another campaign on the same scale as the IRA bombing campaigns, with hundreds of devices exploding each year across the country, not just in Ulster. But I'm also talking about the danger of a resurgent fascist inspired pan nationalism. As I say, not in two years but in ten.

 

I don't deny that there's a good case to be made for not choosing to start a head on conflict with jifascism in the way we have and when we have and where. But we are in the breach now, and merely retreating is not only going to waste the blood shed so far but necessitate a higher blood price in the long run as our enemies are emboldened by that failure. Whereas success, however dim it seems and far off, is the best means of discrediting those enemies and ensuring they remain as challengers to international system rather than proper players in it.

Edited August 23, 2010 by Walsingham

[Monte Carlo]

You are correct, utterly, in conflating the issues of the War (capital 'W' deliberate) with the political dimension in Europe. We now have (a) a large Muslim population in Europe who have every right to be cautious about military action and (b) a growing sense of discontent with multiculturalism, which even significant voices on the political left suggest isn't working quite how they envisaged it. Every round fired in Helmand (etc) has a potential political impact in London and Amsterdam and Paris. Modern European Islam needs nuturing as a natural buffer against it's less enlightened cousin. We aren't doing that. We also need to get uncompromisingly tough with Pakistan, a nuclear armed military dictatorship that can barely feed it's people or manage natural disasters but can plot relentlessly and ingeniously it's nearest democratic neighbour like a silent movie villain tying a girl to the railway track. Much of the threat is the ISI's glove puppet, and it needs to be ripped off.

 

My view is that the growth of violent, politicized Islam is one of the first big ripples hitting us from the collapse of the Soviet Union. And we have to ride it, not try and build impregnable flood defences doomed to be swamped. The way to do that, in an era of 24 hour news media, the internet, asymmetric warfare and politically balkanized populations in Western democracies is not War. By War I mean tanks and airborne brigades and objectives and body counts.

 

I do like my history, and I often think "what would a colonial administrator in Trans-Jordan do in 1920?" OK, his first move would probably be to send over some bombers to drop poison gas followed by a squadron of Rolls Royce armoured cars to shoot up what was left. But, triteness aside, these would have been the bluntest of instruments in a very large tool box full of other, more precise, devices. He would have known all the players, personally. Spoken the language. Lived in the region. Set up and administered everything that actually worked. I know imperialism is a dirty word, but the alternative in the 21st century seems to be either 'peacekeepers' cowering in barracks whilst mass rapes and genocide takes place or keeping Scandie aid workers in tax free salaries and brand new SUVs. Or, now, alientating the adherents of one of the world's great religions by fighting bloody great wars with no discernible big picture objectives.

 

So what do we do? Big carrots, big sticks. Go seriously Mossad on the bad boys. Nurture moderate Islam. Woo Turkey. Manage Pakistan. Be pragmatic about immigration and cultural and social cohesion without being racist or exclusionary. Give the Afghans an option - do you want us to fix this place or don't you? If you do then we need to run it for you for a while, but not with Karzai. But if you invite the Taliban back then there will be consequences.

 

None of these things are especially radical, but they're not happening.

[Walsingham]

Hmm. I may get this response wrong on the first pass, because you've given me a lot to chew on.

 

I like your notion of working with and propounding a less radical version of Islam. I'm also 100% convinced of the necessity of working with Turkey.

 

I'm not sure what the correct mode is for working with Pakistan. Quite frankly I'm not sure Pakistan is a viable healthy nation state, composing as it does two radically different polities. You have the urban and agrarian areas of the southeast and coast, awkwardly welded onto the (and I mean this in the nicest way) dingbat hillbillies of the North and tribal administrations. The two regions need radically different economic models to function, let alone political systems.

 

My feeling, especially after reading the superb I Wouldn't Start from Here is that the political spark must be present. Mueller describes the way Paddy Ashdown engaged with Bosniaks in his role as 19th century colonial adminstrator (in the 20th century). And I think the need for charismatic personal commitment and flair is especially important and especially absent from many troubled areas. People cannot and should not trust abstract institutions, so they can only be engaged by serious personal tuchus. I'm damned if I know who taht could be in this day and age, but recognising that sending grey faced careerists is not the answer would be a bloody good start.

[Monte Carlo]

My feeling, especially after reading the superb I Wouldn't Start from Here is that the political spark must be present. Mueller describes the way Paddy Ashdown engaged with Bosniaks in his role as 19th century colonial adminstrator (in the 20th century).

 

I think you've hit my nail on the head. Ashdown was precisely the sort of supremo (q.v. Gerard Templar in Malaya) required. Send him to the 'Stan forthwith and give him some clout. The pity is, and I'm genuinely not being chippy about the Yanks, the US foreign policy machine consists of almost nothing but careerists you are rightly leery of. Iraq proved that US civilian administrators are NOT match-fit. You'd need an ex-military man, as the US armed services has thrown up a generation of thoughtful, imaginative generals whjo might be ideal for the role.

 

And I think the need for charismatic personal commitment and flair is especially important and especially absent from many troubled areas. People cannot and should not trust abstract institutions.

QED.

 

o they can only be engaged by serious personal tuchus.

. Agreed, boychick

 

See? We agreed all along.

[Orogun01]

Hmm. I may get this response wrong on the first pass, because you've given me a lot to chew on.

 

I like your notion of working with and propounding a less radical version of Islam. I'm also 100% convinced of the necessity of working with Turkey.

This would only work if the statements come from a trusty source and for them that means someone they can relate to. If a westerner starts reforming their religious views they will respond with hostile force, even with one of their own the are bound to be dissent.

I'm not sure what the correct mode is for working with Pakistan. Quite frankly I'm not sure Pakistan is a viable healthy nation state, composing as it does two radically different polities. You have the urban and agrarian areas of the southeast and coast, awkwardly welded onto the (and I mean this in the nicest way) dingbat hillbillies of the North and tribal administrations. The two regions need radically different economic models to function, let alone political systems.

It is precisely that kind of division that allows the current situation. There first must be an unification of sorts, at least a form of communication that's trusted and reliable for all the country. But most important the presence of enforcement in these remote areas.

My feeling, especially after reading the superb I Wouldn't Start from Here is that the political spark must be present. Mueller describes the way Paddy Ashdown engaged with Bosniaks in his role as 19th century colonial adminstrator (in the 20th century). And I think the need for charismatic personal commitment and flair is especially important and especially absent from many troubled areas. People cannot and should not trust abstract institutions, so they can only be engaged by serious personal tuchus. I'm damned if I know who taht could be in this day and age, but recognising that sending grey faced careerists is not the answer would be a bloody good start.

Charismatic people like that are hard to find, plus with no discernible medium of communication he would have to risk going to a lot of these villages. Even if we could charm everyone this only works as a long term plan, with the area as it is the most likely outcome is either the death of said person or a list of demands by each village. Stability should come first before solidification, the area is simply not stable enough that people will listen to promises.

[Walsingham]

I agree that it's hard to find such people, but *suddenly thumps table hard* no ****er said it would be easy!

 

You mention security and I'll use my fire analogy again. Healthy state means economic fuel, security oxygen, and political spark. One doesn't come first. They have to all occur together.

[Orogun01]

I agree that it's hard to find such people, but *suddenly thumps table hard* no ****er said it would be easy!

 

You mention security and I'll use my fire analogy again. Healthy state means economic fuel, security oxygen, and political spark. One doesn't come first. They have to all occur together.

Impossible, for a state to be considered healthy it requires all those working together. It is fairly impossible for those to occur simultaneously. It's a kind of a Maslow social hierarchy of needs, safety and physiological needs come first than politics i'm afraid. The best political course of action is actual action, solve their problems and make your "idol" look good, soon you'll have an unifying messiah. If you can't find one make one.

Edited August 24, 2010 by Orogun01

[Walsingham]

*scribbling noises*

 

note to self: acquire venture capital. Messiah factory. Holy Land a bit crowded. North Wales?

[Raithe]

*scribbling noises*

 

note to self: acquire venture capital. Messiah factory. Holy Land a bit crowded. North Wales?

 

Take it to the needy and lost... How about the Isle of Wight?

[Monte Carlo]

Make a plan. Prosecute it violently. Do it today.

 

General Douglas MacArthur.

[Orogun01]

*scribbling noises*

 

note to self: acquire venture capital. Messiah factory. Holy Land a bit crowded. North Wales?

 

Tell you what, I'll lend you my Messiah factory.

[Walsingham]

Make a plan. Prosecute it violently. Do it today.

 

General Douglas MacArthur.

 

 

Make an appallingly bad plan. Prosecute it badly. Run away.

 

The real Dougie MacArthur.

[Junai]

I agree that it's hard to find such people, but *suddenly thumps table hard* no ****er said it would be easy!

 

You mention security and I'll use my fire analogy again. Healthy state means economic fuel, security oxygen, and political spark. One doesn't come first. They have to all occur together.

Impossible, for a state to be considered healthy it requires all those working together. It is fairly impossible for those to occur simultaneously. It's a kind of a Maslow social hierarchy of needs, safety and physiological needs come first than politics i'm afraid. The best political course of action is actual action, solve their problems and make your "idol" look good, soon you'll have an unifying messiah. If you can't find one make one.

According to cbo.gov the make-up kit for our beloved CIA-stooge-messiah - Karzai - is now up to $.6T.

Someone obliterates DC buildings, and a country receives a trill for democratic facelift-purposes?

 

Who wrote the script for this play?

 

You don't liberate helpless girls in burkas by straightening out their Taliban daddies. The girls will come around by their own accord when they're strong enough.

That's when the real messiah appears, when he's really needed. Unfortunately, such pivotal figures are usually removed by the US, coz they interfere with the empire's interests.

I'm more worried about my own western world than curtain-dressed Afghan-girls living under the yoke of Taliban mongrels.

 

How about we get out of this media-solipsis of circular war-reasoning and ask the question that really matters, which is; what the **** happened?

 

 

J.

Edited August 29, 2010 by Gorth
Language

[Walsingham]

Oh yes, I'd actually forgotten you were a 9/11 truther. I really should have a wall chart or something.

 

Cometo think of it, can someone make a Obsidian Forums wallchart?

[Gromnir]

My feeling, especially after reading the superb I Wouldn't Start from Here is that the political spark must be present. Mueller describes the way Paddy Ashdown engaged with Bosniaks in his role as 19th century colonial adminstrator (in the 20th century).

 

I think you've hit my nail on the head. Ashdown was precisely the sort of supremo (q.v. Gerard Templar in Malaya) required. Send him to the 'Stan forthwith and give him some clout. The pity is, and I'm genuinely not being chippy about the Yanks, the US foreign policy machine consists of almost nothing but careerists you are rightly leery of. Iraq proved that US civilian administrators are NOT match-fit. You'd need an ex-military man, as the US armed services has thrown up a generation of thoughtful, imaginative generals whjo might be ideal for the role.

 

 

 

which respected ex-military man would take the job if he is gonna know he do not have genuine support o' the current administration? what sorta respected ex-military man With Clout is actually gonna be chosen by the powers that be?

 

as a student o' history, you is of course aware that the region you speak of has had a tumultuous past. the success o' outsiders to stabilize has been limited and typically a considerable 'mount o bloodshed were necessary to achieve moments o' relative "peace." the "consequences" you spoke o' earlier looks like war to the casual observer.

 

*shrug*

 

am thinking it is too late for this administration to make genuine progress. sadly, by the time a new administration comes to power, the necessary military and infrastructure resources will have been pulled outta the region making new efforts impractical/impossible.

 

HA! Good Fun!

Edited August 29, 2010 by Gromnir

[Zoraptor]

My feeling, especially after reading the superb I Wouldn't Start from Here is that the political spark must be present. Mueller describes the way Paddy Ashdown engaged with Bosniaks in his role as 19th century colonial adminstrator (in the 20th century).

 

I think you've hit my nail on the head. Ashdown was precisely the sort of supremo (q.v. Gerard Templar in Malaya) required. Send him to the 'Stan forthwith and give him some clout. The pity is, and I'm genuinely not being chippy about the Yanks, the US foreign policy machine consists of almost nothing but careerists you are rightly leery of. Iraq proved that US civilian administrators are NOT match-fit. You'd need an ex-military man, as the US armed services has thrown up a generation of thoughtful, imaginative generals whjo might be ideal for the role.

which respected ex-military man would take the job if he is gonna know he do not have genuine support o' the current administration? what sorta respected ex-military man With Clout is actually gonna be chosen by the powers that be?

Yep, the Jay Garner situation (not just him being replaced by an incompetent stooge for not being a yes man but more especially the slander involved in his removal) should ensure that no military man would touch something like that again without absolutely cast iron guarantees. Which is a real shame because Garner gave the impression of avoiding just about every pitfall Bremer cheerfully leapt into with both feet.