President Obama’s plan to “degrade and destroy” the Islamic State counts on pretty much everything going right in a region of the world where pretty much anything the U.S. does always goes wrong.
Our newspapers of record today finally remembered it’s their job to point stuff like that out.
The New York Times, in particular, calls bullshit this morning — albeit without breaking from the classic detached Timesian tonelessness.
Mark Mazzetti, Eric Schmitt and Mark Landler (with contributions from Matt Apuzzo and James Risen) start by pointing out the essential but often overlooked fact that “American intelligence agencies have concluded that [the Islamic State] poses no immediate threat to the United States.”
And then, with the cover of “some officials and terrorism experts,” they share a devastating analysis of all the coverage that has come before:
Some officials and terrorism experts believe that the actual danger posed by ISIS has been distorted in hours of television punditry and alarmist statements by politicians, and that there has been little substantive public debate about the unintended consequences of expanding American military action in the Middle East.
You’ve got to love these quotes:
Daniel Benjamin, who served as the State Department’s top counterterrorism adviser during Mr. Obama’s first term, said the public discussion about the ISIS threat has been a “farce,” with “members of the cabinet and top military officers all over the place describing the threat in lurid terms that are not justified.”
“It’s hard to imagine a better indication of the ability of elected officials and TV talking heads to spin the public into a panic, with claims that the nation is honeycombed with sleeper cells, that operatives are streaming across the border into Texas or that the group will soon be spraying Ebola virus on mass transit systems — all on the basis of no corroborated information,” said Mr. Benjamin, who is now a scholar at Dartmouth College.
(For a taste of alarmist statements by politicians, please read my recent post: The Congressional Hyperbole Caucus.)
A few paragraphs later, “some American officials” return, warning “of the potential danger of a prolonged military campaign in the Middle East, led by the United States” and saying “there are risks that escalating airstrikes could do the opposite of what they are intended to do and fan the threat of terrorism to American soil.”
The Times writers raise the very legitimate concern that Obama may be playing right into the Islamic State’s hands:
Even a limited air campaign could play into an ISIS narrative that American infidels were intervening on behalf of apostate governments in Iraq and Syria.
In the Washington Post this morning, Rajiv Chandrasekaran focuses on all the implausible things that have to go right beyond “U.S. bombs and missiles hitting their intended targets”:
In Iraq, dissolved elements of the army will have to regroup and fight with conviction. Political leaders will have to reach compromises on the allocation of power and money in ways that have eluded them for years. Disenfranchised Sunni tribesmen will have to muster the will to join the government’s battle. European and Arab allies will have to hang together, Washington will have to tolerate the resurgence of Iranian-backed Shiite militias it once fought, and U.S. commanders will have to orchestrate an air war without ground-level guidance from American combat forces.
Meanwhile, in Syria, prospects are way worse:
The strategy imagines weakening the Islamic State without indirectly strengthening the ruthless government led by Bashar al-Assad or a rival network of al-Qaeda affiliated rebels — while simultaneously trying to build up a moderate Syrian opposition…
“Figuring out where we can strike ISIL so that it weakens them and empowers a more moderate Sunni group instead of the government — you have to think that one through,” said Michele Flournoy, a former U.S. undersecretary of defense. “I’m not sure we know yet how to pull that off.”
And Chandrasekaran reports that Obama’s approach “was not the U.S. military’s preferred option.”
Responding to a White House request for options to confront the Islamic State, Gen. Lloyd Austin, the top commander of U.S. forces in the Middle East, said that his best military advice was to send a modest contingent of American troops, principally Special Operations forces, to advise and assist Iraqi army units in fighting the militants, according to two U.S. military officials. The recommendation, conveyed to the White House by Gen. Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, was cast aside in favor of options that did not involve U.S. ground forces in a front-line role, a step adamantly opposed by the White House.
It’s a classic damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don’t scenario: “Supporters of the president’s approach” point out that putting U.S. ground troops in the lead would encourage the Iraqi soldiers to hang back, while “Austin’s predecessor, retired Marine Gen. James Mattis, says “the decision not to send ground troops poses serious risks to the mission.”
The Associated Press’s Julie Pace writes a bold first paragraph:
For a president criticized as overly cautious and reluctant to lead, Barack Obama is taking a huge risk. He is thrusting U.S. fighting forces into a growing military operation with clear dangers, unknown costs, an indefinite length and unpredictable consequences.
Meanwhile, AP colleagues Zeina Karam and Vivian Salama make the previously almost-unheard argument that maybe the Islamic State isn’t worth all the fuss. There “has been an inclination to exaggerate the group’s capabilities,” they write.
The Islamic State group is often described as the most fearsome jihadi outfit of all: a global menace outweighing al-Qaida, with armies trembling before its advance.
But while the group has been successful at seizing parts of Iraq and Syria, it is no unstoppable juggernaut. Lacking the major weaponry of an established military, it wields outsize influence through the fanaticism of a hard core of several thousand, capitalizing on divisions among its rivals, and disseminating terrifying videos on social media.
And they offer up some numbers:
Most analysts… estimate the number of Islamic State fighters in both Iraq and Syria to be about 20,000…
The Iraqi military and police force are estimated at more than 1 million. The Syrian army is estimated at 300,000 soldiers. There are believed to be more than 100,000 Syrian rebels, including the al-Qaida-linked Nusra Front and the powerful Islamic Front rebel umbrella group, currently fighting the Islamic State group in Syria. Tens of thousands of Kurdish Peshmerga forces are fighting the group in Iraq.
Julian E. Barnes and Siobhan Gorman write in the Wall Street Journal:
A cornerstone of the expanded U.S. military campaign against Islamic State militants will be reliance on U.S.-trained local forces to confront the group head on.
But good luck with that:
In Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan and elsewhere, results have been mixed at best in U.S. efforts to push local forces to the forefront of fights against extremists. U.S. military campaigns conducted with little or no local ground support—such as those in Pakistan and Yemen—have met with some success but have lasted for years. Success, officials and experts say, is especially difficult when American troops are prohibited from serving alongside local units on the front lines or without a yearslong U.S. presence to train, advise and mentor the partner forces.
There’s also that little problem of giving weapons and training to precisely the wrong people:
In Syria, officials have repeatedly raised the problem of adequately vetting rebels to ensure the people trained and armed by the U.S. don’t join the ranks of Islamic State. In Iraq, the U.S. believes that many of the Shiite-dominated military forces have been penetrated by Iranian agents.
The McClatchy Newspapers Washington bureau , finally no longer alone in expressing skepticism about Obama’s plans, goes all Buzzfeed with a Hannah Allam story: “5 potential pitfalls in Obama’s plan to combat the Islamic State“.
Allam notes that Yemen and Somalia are hardly examples of success; that the new Iraqi government is hardly “inclusive”; that training of Iraqi soldiers hasn’t worked in the past; that in Syria it’s unclear which “opposition” Obama intends to support; and that it may be too late to cut off the flow of fighters and funds.
Even USA Today gets into the game, with Jim Michaels pointing out some of the “risks” involved.
Attacks on Islamic State militants in Syria could inadvertently help President Bashar Assad, whom the Obama administration has been trying to oust. Islamic State militants have been the most effective force in fighting the Assad regime…
Another worry with airstrikes is the risk of civilian casualties, which can quickly undermine public support. As airstrikes increase, Islamic State militants are likely to mingle more among the population, making targeting more difficult and increasing the risks of civilian casualties.
It’s great our leading mainstream news organization are finally pointing out the flaws of a president’s plan to bomb Iraq. Last time around, they waited until over a year after the invasion to suddenly pile on.
But nobody has the understanding of the region, the writing chops, and the moral standing of Andrew J. Bacevich, the Boston University political science professor and former Army colonel who lost his son in the Iraq war in 2007. He writes today for Reuters Opinion:
Even if Obama cobbles together a plan to destroy the Islamic State, the problems bedeviling the Persian Gulf and the greater Middle East more broadly won’t be going away anytime soon.
Destroying what Obama calls the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant won’t create an effective and legitimate Iraqi state. It won’t restore the possibility of a democratic Egypt. It won’t dissuade Saudi Arabia from funding jihadists. It won’t pull Libya back from the brink of anarchy. It won’t end the Syrian civil war. It won’t bring peace and harmony to Somalia and Yemen. It won’t persuade the Taliban to lay down their arms in Afghanistan. It won’t end the perpetual crisis of Pakistan. It certainly won’t resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
All the military power in the world won’t solve those problems. Obama knows that. Yet he is allowing himself to be drawn back into the very war that he once correctly denounced as stupid and unnecessary — mostly because he and his advisers don’t know what else to do. Bombing has become his administration’s default option.
Rudderless and without a compass, the American ship of state continues to drift, guns blazing.
Photo of U.S. mortar fire in Iraq in 2004: Aaron Allmon II/U.S. Air Force via Getty Images
Didn’t US intelligence understate al Qaeda’s threat to the US before 9/11 as well? I’m not sure who to believe any more.
There are lots of question marks around this whole ISIS issue. Here:
1) When Obama decided not to strike Syria, it was evident that Israel, Saudi and Erdogan would cook up something. Is the US intelligence so stupid that they weren’t watching out?
2) The perfect time to hit ISIS was apparently when they were marching out of Syria. That was when Maliki asked for air strikes. Why was it so important to deny Maliki?
3) That was also exactly the time Israel was looking for its teenagers – they did not make any comments when Mosul fell, did they? Instead they went and started bombing Gaza, as if ISIS was the perfect distraction.
4) Come to think of it, Assad said, in the very beginning, that he was fighting Al Qaeda. No one listened, and the BBC made so much anti-Assad rattle that it became impossible to visit their site.
5) Now this ISIS is driving those Humvees right in front of our noses. And, they are always approaching, and approaching, and approaching that last 50 km to Baghdad. And, some bombs are falling around — but the oil business is still the usual business. How very fortunate !
6) The UK just sent a consignment of “heavy machine guns” to Iraq. even that “initial package” looks sufficient to confront 5-6 thousand ISIS. But alas! ISIS headcount is now updated. They are not 10 thousand anymore -they they can be anywhere around 30 thousand. How very unfortunate !
1) “It was evident”. Where is the evidence?
2) “why was it so important to deny Maliki?” We do not have access to military intelligence that can certify your view that it was the best time to use air strikes. Moreover, ISIS’ success in the western part of Irak was due mostly to the Sunni tribes who decided not to fight for the Maliki’s government. Bombing that area at that time would present a situation in which the US could have been perceived as being a Shia ally bombing the Sunnis.
3) The Israeli leadership rarely make comments or share its opinions about the situation in Iraq. Moreover, ISIS is focused on other Muslims and other religious minorities not on Israel at this time.
4) Multiple media outlets including the BBC reported multiple times they were Al Qaeda groups in Syria for years. The civil war in Syria that started in 2011 was not between the government and Al Qaeda, it was mostly the Syrian government against soldiers and civilians who decided to topple Assad.
5) Yes, unfortunately, war is good for business.
6) “Look sufficient” ??
This, of course, should be a preface to every foreign policy piece.
William Blum
Instances of the United States overthrowing, or attempting to overthrow, a foreign government since the Second World War. (* indicates successful ouster of a government)
China 1949 to early 1960s
Albania 1949-53
East Germany 1950s
Iran 1953 *
Guatemala 1954 *
Costa Rica mid-1950s
Syria 1956-7
Egypt 1957
Indonesia 1957-8
British Guiana 1953-64 *
Iraq 1963 *
North Vietnam 1945-73
Cambodia 1955-70 *
Laos 1958 *, 1959 *, 1960 *
Ecuador 1960-63 *
Congo 1960 *
France 1965
Brazil 1962-64 *
Dominican Republic 1963 *
Cuba 1959 to present
Bolivia 1964 *
Indonesia 1965 *
Ghana 1966 *
Chile 1964-73 *
Greece 1967 *
Costa Rica 1970-71
Bolivia 1971 *
Australia 1973-75 *
Angola 1975, 1980s
Zaire 1975
Portugal 1974-76 *
Jamaica 1976-80 *
Seychelles 1979-81
Chad 1981-82 *
Grenada 1983 *
South Yemen 1982-84
Suriname 1982-84
Fiji 1987 *
Libya 1980s
Nicaragua 1981-90 *
Panama 1989 *
Bulgaria 1990 *
Albania 1991 *
Iraq 1991
Afghanistan 1980s *
Somalia 1993
Yugoslavia 1999-2000 *
Ecuador 2000 *
Afghanistan 2001 *
Venezuela 2002 *
Iraq 2003 *
Haiti 2004 *
Somalia 2007 to present
Libya 2011*
Syria 2012
Q: Why will there never be a coup d’état in Washington?
A: Because there’s no American embassy there.
Our political leaders are the dumbest bunch of losers on the planet. From Obama on down, they lack courage, intelligence and integrity. Did we really get the leaders we deserve? If so, it doesn’t say much for the nation.
Superb analysis. It sure sounds like the old warlocks of George Bush Jr are holding sway again. What hasn’t been tried, to my knowledge, is a well-publicized public debate hosted by the U.S State department to discuss ideas on how using police (not the military) might be effectively used to get at the root of the problem. Germany, for instance, in the ’60s, successfully brought the murderous Red Brigade to heel. There is legislation there today which limits the growth of Neo-Nazi groups. The public debate I propose must include representatives of moderate Islamic groups from countries all over the world.
Basevich’s list of unsolved problems in the Middle East and central Asia — problems either in part or in full created by the US and/or its vassals — is a sobering suggestion of where this present project is headed. The image of the ship of state, “adrift, guns blazing” is only too apt.
“We don’t need another dumb war,” is the title of Rosa Brooks’s article of yesterday at FP:
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2014/09/11/we_don_t_need_another_dumb_war_obama_speech_isis_isil_iraq_syria_islamic_state
No one would assess the financial situation of a company by only looking at one side of the balance sheet. The FP article only considers the negative aspects of a war, in this case:
– other regional actors are in a better position to neutralize ISIS, who have overextended themselves anyway
– ISIS poses no military threat to the US
– partition of Iraq is probably the best outcome at this point, so why try and prevent it.
– the ‘successful’ models of airstrikes used in Yemen and Somalia haven’t reduced terrorism
– is being implemented in violation of both US and international law (although this one may be a positive)
However, consider the arguments in favor of war.
– politics; easy for readers to dismiss, less so for politicians
– allowing the region to solve its own problems would set a terrible precedent
– other powers (Russia, China) might enter into the vacuum created by a US withdrawal
– continued military presence in M.E. cements US strategic role as global guarantor of oil flow.
– the US can directly dictate policy to all countries in the Middle East because they are carrying a big stick
– opportunity to test new weapons systems
– increase sales of military equipment to neighboring countries
So on the positive side, it has political, geopolitical, military and financial benefits. On the negative side, it doesn’t solve anything. But is solving things such a good idea? What if turned out that the US was part of the problem? Solving things is greatly over-rated, since the end result is generally worse than the original situation. The US is a capitalist country, so if there are short term benefits to waging a war, they should go for it. Empire is addictive and war is the ultimate adrenaline rush.
The strategic issues will resolve themselves over time.
You seem to believe that “ISIS” actually exists.
How about sky gods?
Fairies?
Some news organizations finally understand that history is repeating itself.
Obama — the new Vietnam-type President John Kennedy:
Says Wiki: In May 1961, U.S. Vice President Lyndon B. Johnson visited Saigon and enthusiastically declared Di?m the “Winston Churchill of Asia.”[147] Asked why he had made the comment, Johnson replied, “Di?m’s the only boy we got out there.”[130] Johnson assured Di?m of more aid in molding a fighting force that could resist the communists.
Kennedy’s policy toward South Vietnam rested on the assumption that Di?m and his forces had to ultimately defeat the guerrillas on their own. He was against the deployment of American combat troops and observed that “to introduce U.S. forces in large numbers there today, while it might have an initially favorable military impact, would almost certainly lead to adverse political and, in the long run, adverse military consequences.”[148] The quality of the South Vietnamese military, however, remained poor. Poor leadership, corruption, and political promotions all played a part in weakening the South Vietnamese Army (ARVN). The frequency of guerrilla attacks rose as the insurgency gathered steam. While Hanoi’s support for the Viet Cong played a role, South Vietnamese governmental incompetence was at the core of the crisis.[149]
Americans love blood, gore and dismembered children. They vote for it. You recall we could have had Kucinich or Nader and if citizens had an ounce of morality that’s what would have happened. Now they’ll line up to vote for the vampire Hillary with veins hanging from her teeth. Throw away our wealth to buy a pile of rotting, stinking bodies a mile high.
That’s what Americans want and that’s what they’ll get until we’re all reduced to living in cardboard boxes and eating grass. They’re just zombies who act on the whims of their overlord bankers and blame everyone else for the problems they themselves have created by voting for known war criminals.
Blood, gore, dismembered children is what Americans want. It’s what they vote for. Phoney liberals and their Death’s Head President. You recall we could have had Kucinich or Nader. Things would be totally different if Democrats had an ounce of morality. Now they’re lining up for Hillary, another vampire with veins hanging from her mouth to rob, plunder and kill. Throw away our wealth to buy a pile of rotting flesh.
You are what you eat and nobody deserves what has happened to this country more than the people who continue to vote for war and bankers.
At the beginning of the year it was reported that ISIL had 3,000-5,000 members. That was when the talk was all about acting as the airforce for them in their battle against Assad. Last month the numbers had grown to 7,000-10,000 when they were a menace to the region and were in the process of installing a “caliphate” across Syria and Iraq. Now it’s 20,000. It is an impressive growth rate for an army which is at war with the Syrian army, the Iraqi army, the Peshmerga, al-Qaeda, various Shia militias and the Western backed Syrian rebels. They go into battle against forces with a combined total of perhaps half a million or more, and rather than casualties they multiply. Wait until the flying carpet battalion start swooping down on US cities, with nefarious genies in tow, then we will really know what it’s all about.
My money is on a “mission accomplished” moment when the coalition of US backed rebels “destroy” ISIL, followed by the annexation of northern Syria as part of the Sunni settlement in a federated states of Iraq.
‘So Little Compassion': James Foley’s Parents Say Officials Threatened Family Over Ransom
http://abcnews.go.com/International/government-threatened-foley-family-ransom-payments-mother-slain/story?id=25453963
Commenter lib(ertarian) makes some interesting observations via twitter:
What was it Obama said when he was criticized about being photographed golfing in Martha’s Vineyard immediately following his speech about Foley’s death? Something about “the optics”?
The optics of this thing are more out of whack than he realizes.
`p-ska..
Much appreciated.
Brought back memories of the hypocrisy represented by our government official’s unwavering support of the MEK.
[snip]
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/sep/23/iran-usa
Many valid points here unlike most of the lame stream media attempts to prop up a deeply flawed, misguided, coalition based bombing campaign aimed at bolstering the free fall of this President in the eyes of the American public. Just when you thought the ineptitude couldn’t get worse, this administration concocts another reactionary, poorly thought out pr campaign packaged as a ‘strong’ response to the current mess in the Middle East. This from a man who was visibly pained at having to do anything, let alone something that has all the requisite ingredients of a quagmire war. But to make matters worse: it’s not a war! Oh Dont we feel so much safer now? The fact is that Mr Obama can’t make any decision without first overlaying his partisan optics map on the problem. For the umpteenth time, we see him leading from behind, failing to convince our allies or the majority of Americans that he has the resolve to see this through. The coalition is a farce and won’t materialize in any way shape or form, but you can bet this administration will reference it as if it’s a force to be dealt with. The pitfalls so vastly outnumber the faux ‘gains’ here that only an amateur would suggest this is a good strategy. It’s not and you can count on it failing across the board. This president is so disengaged from reality that the few believe he is capable of mounting a campaign that is capable of accomplishing much except killing a few hundred radicals while increasing the instability and turmoil in the region. I have zero confidence in anything this administration claims to be be accomplishing. They are as rudderless and inept as any administration in our history. It will fall to the next President to untangle the mess and you can be certain that this current crew will take no ownership for any of it.
beautiful. lmao. it’s a graphic novel and we’re living it.
Since everyone seems to know that our allies Saudi Arabia and Qatar are funding ISIS and were behind the 9/11 attacks, why haven’t we given these allies a phone call to stop it?
Could it be that the rabbit hole runs too deep…Evidence is provided of the United States motive in fomenting sectarian conflicts and supporting extreme Islamic group as has occurred in Libya, Syria and Iraq. As a matter of fact, I would not be surprised if the funding of these groups inside Syria was encouraged as the United States was handing out arms or making it possible for groups inside Syria to get arms without regard to identifying what their long-term ambitions were. As long as they opposed the [Syria] government, the US was for them.
The neocons strategy is based on maintaining American economic and military hegemony and is outlined in a policy paper funded by the US Army and produced by the
http://www.globalresearch.ca/debacle-of-a-great…/5395402
Why don’t you guys in the media just shut up and let Obama show Putin the proper way to invade a country? This is a pissing contest he’s sure to win!
Mr. Froomkin aptly remind us that for once some media outlets have not been sleeping while reporting!
Regrettably he does not make clear that they are not “awake” either – while reporting! NYT, WP, Reuters, AP, NPR, and all the rest are quick to point out that Mr. Obama’s prescription for rooting out ISIL is “BS” – to state it in technical terms. Yet, they fail epically in providing context! Context that implicates the media in what could be as a minimum negligent narrative writing (and perhaps complicit story telling) for over a decade now – effectively being the free providers of advertisement for more conflict in the middle east.
The reason Mr. Obama and the future President are in this mess is partly of their own making. But the abysmal reporting work of people Mr. Froomkin calls colleagues in getting the American people in touch with the “real” realities of the M.E. cannot be overstated!
Dan you write:
“But nobody has the understanding of the region, the writing chops, and the moral standing of Andrew J. Bacevich, the Boston University political science professor and former Army colonel who lost his son in the Iraq war in 2007.”
NOBODY? Not Noam Chomsky? Not Arundhati Roy, John Pilger, William Blum, Tariq Ali, Robert Fisk, Patrick Cockburn, Edward Herman, Nir Rosen, Eduardo Galeano,….?
And what does Col. Bacevich with his “moral standing” say about the immoral, illegal preventative war of aggression on Iraq – “Obama knows that. Yet he is allowing himself to be drawn back into the very war that he once correctly denounced as stupid and unnecessary”.
As tangentially interesting as the opinions of military folks may be they are hardly the real go to people when it comes to “moral standing” or “writing chops”!
While the colonel may have some pragmatic military insight as to the smartest military strategy to undertake (or not) – something that one could have found amongst the ranks of Soviet generals or colonels arguing about the USSR’s invasion of Afghanistan – his opinions are actually amoral and represent the dovish extreme allowed within mainstream punditry which rests on the idea that “the United States in its righteous zeal to do good sometimes makes mistakes”. This as opposed to the hawkish extreme which is based on “The United States is a force of righteousness on the planet that never makes mistakes”. You would do well to jettison both extremes in favor of analysts who actually have a moral compass.
A great article. The final paragraph is very powerful..
Great article, the main stream press has finally joined in the debate, way too late. Neither of the last two Imperial presidents brake for public debate. However, at least this time this president took a bit of time to plan something even if wrong and he only talked for 15 minutes. After the bluster of half-cocked neocons this is marginally better. Again our congress is abdicating their responsibility to influence our involvement in warfare. Sadly the Obama War plan is way over blown and complexity can take you where you do not want to go. We should be looking for a way out not a way in.
Limited military advisers and air support for Iraqi Kurds, moderate Sunni and Shia to “balance” the threat within Iraq of ISIS already armed with many US weapons may be the best of bad chooses. Iraq never was a unified nation and most Iraqis general never seemed to want one. Partition is the probable outcome, end game. Both leaders and governments of Syria and Iran will benefit and this was always the logical outcome to our intervention/invasion of Iraq.
President Obama is right “Don’t do anything stupid” should be the first rule of warfare and governance. I wish our last two presidents had followed this advice or at least had the pressure of press and congress, we the people to do so.
Two things:
– I wish people would leave the word ‘degrade’ out of these conversations, because honestly, then it just sounds like we’re slut-shaming ISIS.
– I still do not understand the starfish-saving mentality that seems to make perfect sense to people in these situations, and which I believe Craig Summers has already invoked somewhere in these comments. I mean, is that really it, this one starfish just happened to be laying at our feet so that seemed like a good enough reason to throw it back? What about all the other genocides and wars and displacements and torture on the beach? I am actually not averse to intervention if it really and truly alleviates suffering, but the inconsistency in this argument (or, to be more generous, my inability to understand it) just irks me.
Brilliant spoof, coram. You have a really nice touch; I think even Gore Vidal would feel admiration (though of course he wouldn’t admit it). And an excellent piece, Mr Froomkin. All we need is more and more informed commentators getting articles like this one published. Gradually, public opinion is bound to adjust to reality.
You’re welcome, TW. I might say that the model is not so much the NewsHour — that’s a format — but an old Steve Allen show called “Meeting of Minds.” Good material, and now it’s fun if to imagine Gwen Ifill or Glenn G. having a roundtable discussion with, say Napoleon III and Norton I about geopolitics, or Richard III and J. Edgar Hoover about official Washington.
Hi Redthread
Your suggestions are absolutely right.
QUOTE
a) stop pouring fuel on the fires in Afpak / Iraq / Syria / Gaza / elsewhere;
b) influence the Saudi regime to cool off their proxy war against Shiism;
c) practice our highest principles of freedom and openness;
d) make reparations and apologize for many of the mistakes of the last 20-30 years, ideally not just symbolic;
e) over time build confidence and trust with the bulk of those populations such that the malefactors lose support.
UNQUOTE
But they won’t do a THING for the share prices of Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, Raytheon, BAe Systems, etc etc.
Truth & reconciliation would involve some VERY bad people publicly confessing to war crimes.
That doesn’t mean you are wrong, just that the MIC/Deep State/1%/NWO will, for now at least, successfully resist loss of their power, influence, wealth and ultimately their freedom
Obama — the new Vietnam-type President John Kennedy:
Says Wiki: In May 1961, U.S. Vice President Lyndon B. Johnson visited Saigon and enthusiastically declared Di?m the “Winston Churchill of Asia.”[147] Asked why he had made the comment, Johnson replied, “Di?m’s the only boy we got out there.”[130] Johnson assured Di?m of more aid in molding a fighting force that could resist the communists.
Kennedy’s policy toward South Vietnam rested on the assumption that Di?m and his forces had to ultimately defeat the guerrillas on their own. He was against the deployment of American combat troops and observed that “to introduce U.S. forces in large numbers there today, while it might have an initially favorable military impact, would almost certainly lead to adverse political and, in the long run, adverse military consequences.”[148] The quality of the South Vietnamese military, however, remained poor. Poor leadership, corruption, and political promotions all played a part in weakening the South Vietnamese Army (ARVN). The frequency of guerrilla attacks rose as the insurgency gathered steam. While Hanoi’s support for the Viet Cong played a role, South Vietnamese governmental incompetence was at the core of the crisis.[149]
So the media to say that all these actions are and have been mistakes and all the awful consequences unintended. What else is new? The agitation about ISIS was bound to lead the US to become directly involved in Syria. Now “we” go into Syria against ISIS without coordinating with Damascus. Before long an American plane will be shot down,”we” (politicians and media) will blame Assad, and then….
TO: OWH
Someone needs to send a peacekeeping mission to Alaska.
http://wonkette.com/559940/anchorage-pd-palins-were-present-at-20-person-brawl-fate-of-hos-weave-unknown
Be careful! Religious zealots and armed groups may be operating in the region.
9/11 was the greatest act of treason ever committed on American soil.
Andrew J. Bacevich, you nail it.
Can’t imagine what a truly free and democratic USA could do for this world!
Mr. Froomkin
Your article points out the complexities associated with the current political environment in the Middle East. The rise of the ISIS is not based on the US invasion of Iraq, or because the US (and Israel) kills Muslims. Both are ridiculous assertions. The ISIS has tapped into Sunni discontent with the Maliki government which marginalized them from the political process. In addition, ISIS filled in a power vacuum in Syria made available by the murderer Assad who chose a brutal massacre of peaceful (Arab Spring) Muslim demonstrators over granting (some) political rights to his opponents. He – alone – is responsible for the situation in Syria. Currently, Assad is being propped up by Russia, Iran and Hezbollah. There can be no political solution which leaves Assad in power – thus that war will continue.
The only viable strategy is to do exactly what Obama prescribed: replace the Maliki government and attempt to woo the Sunni population back into the same government which rejected them after the US left Iraq. The Sunnis worked with the US to defeat al-Qaeda in Iraq so the Sunnis can defeat the ISIS if they choose. The US can help by bombing ISIS when they are out in the open, or when spotters on the ground locate ISIS hideouts. None the less, Iraqi Sunnis will bear the brunt of the upcoming war whether they choose to fight on the side of the new Iraqi government or the ISIS. There are a lot of unknowns in this war which could turn into a long bloody war (with or without US involvement).
Finally, the ISIS is a zero threat to the US, but the US was right to intervene on behalf of the Yazidis and help repel the ISIS from the dam which could have led to a dangerous flooding of several Iraqi cities. These were “no brainer” decisions. I missed the story in the Intercept which explained how so many people were to be saved without US MILITARY involvement?
Hi Craig, great to see you back in top form. Can you just confirm, “the US was right to intervene on behalf of the Yazidis”. As far as I can remember, the Yazidis were being helped by the PKK before, most of the US even knew they existed. Then having dropped a few crates of water and supplies from planes, the USAF rushed off to defend the ‘US interests’ several hundreds of miles away, before the crates had even smashed onto the rocks. The PKK then carried on, as before, helping the Yazidis.
ISIS eh.They breed like rabbits. Yesterday they numbered 10, 000. This morning 20, 000 – 30, 500. The terrorists new weapon, fecundity.
Great point, but I’m still waiting for the article from the Intercept which shows some sympathy for the Yazidis. Oh, I forgot. They don’t live in Gaza.
The Israelis would never imprison Yazidis in Gaza Craig. Please don’t be so cynical. The media can only report on one or two oppressed minorities at any one time. The plight of the Yazidis has been known for some time, as you know, even before The Intercept was born. From the CIA website , Wikipedia:
…”The 2007 Yazidi communities bombings occurred at around 7:20 pm local time on August 14, 2007, when four co-ordinated suicide bomb attacks detonated in the Yazidi towns of Kahtaniya and Jazeera (Siba Sheikh Khidir), near Mosul.
Iraqi Red Crescent’s estimates say the bombs killed 796 and wounded 1,562 people,[1][3] making this the Iraq War’s most deadly car bomb attack during the period of major American combat operations. It was also the second deadliest act of terrorism in history, following only behind the September 11 attacks in the United States….”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_Yazidi_communities_bombings
I think you are being a bit unfair to The Intercept?
Thanks for your response.
“……I think you are being a bit unfair to The Intercept?…..”
I don’t think I’m being unfair to the Intercept at all. They are representative of the Israel and US-obsessive fringe left which – as you might guess – focuses all of their attention on the US and Israel. Their continuous focus and criticism of Israel and US policies amounts to selective moral outrage. For example, Russia is not only propping up one of the biggest murderers in the twenty-first century (Assad), but has sent troops into Ukraine to fight on behalf of Ukrainian rebels. This is after they militarily invaded and illegally annexed the Crimean Peninsula. Three thousand people have died (including the passenger jet shot down by the Rebels with Russian supplied missiles which killed 300 people). Assad is responsible for 200,000 deaths.
You would think the Intercept could pull at least one story out of their ass on those subjects. And that’s just one area in the world. No my friend. I’m being quite easy on the Intercept.
Actually the Kurds did ask for air support publicly on BBC. I just have a question. Was it wrong to bomb ISIS members who made it clear to the world that they intended to kill the Yazidis?
@Craig
The US wants to weaken the entire world as part of its attempt to create a “New American Century” favourable to American “interests”.
The US doesn’t give a fuck about the Ukrainian people, just like it didn’t give a fuck about the Iraqi, Libyan or Syrian people. You’re either with them or against them. If you’re with them, you do as you are told. If you are not, you’re next.
The US will work with Islamic terrorists and Ukrainian Nazis to get what it wants, and it doesn’t care how many people die in the process. The US has killed millions of people over 50 years of “defending its interests”. What’s a few thousand more?
“The only viable strategy …”
Bullshit
a) stop pouring fuel on the fires in Afpak / Iraq / Syria / Gaza / elsewhere;
b) influence the Saudi regime to cool off their proxy war against Shiism;
c) practice our highest principles of freedom and openness;
d) make reparations and apologize for many of the mistakes of the last 20-30 years, ideally not just symbolic;
e) over time build confidence and trust with the bulk of those populations such that the malefactors lose support.
There will always be wannabes for revolution and violence, whether driven by ego or greed, but the real problem is that their message has traction with their source of support and recruits. Do you fight the match or the bonfire? The cycle of violence and revenge really can be stopped with a truth and reconciliation is the only way. All people have families, relative, friends, hobbies, businesses, passions … our common humanity is the antidote to this madness.
“……make reparations and apologize for many of the mistakes of the last 20-30 years, ideally not just symbolic…..”
Are you kidding? The west should pay reparations not only for slavery and destroying indigenous cultures just about everywhere in the world, but for climate change as well which threatens the entire third world. So reparations (and apologies) should extend back at least 500 years.
If you are going to dream, why not dream a little bigger?
Not kidding, and I think this is a pragmatic as well as effective way forward. See South Africa a country with many problems that at least for a while has not seen anything like the strife many predicted. Hurts cannot be undone, but they can be healed somewhat by dialog. Ever notice that the last thing the warmongers like is communication ? The horror it might lead to dialog and addressing of mutual concerns !
It is widely accepted to draw the line for events that are out of living memory, usually taken to be ca. 100 years. But fixing our face is the main point, truth and reconciliation an essential part of that. There are genuinely irreconcilable claims, in particular over land rights, but only a small minority of people are willing to be irreconcilably bound to those causes. The majority have more invested in their own lives and will not support the fanatics if they feel engaged and/or enfranchised in peace. Again I say: at least stop fuelling the fire !
“The rise of the ISIS is not based on the US invasion of Iraq, or because the US (and Israel) kills Muslims. Both are ridiculous assertions. The ISIS has tapped into Sunni discontent with the Maliki government which marginalized them from the political process”.
Craig, already your comments have become hopelessly contradictory. First you complain that “The rise of the ISIS is not based on the US invasion of Iraq”, then you blame it on the Maliki government. But surely you understand that, without the US invasion, there would never have been a Maliki government? Saddam Hussein’s Baath regime was Sunni, whereas Maliki is Shia and persecuted the Sunni. Under the Baath regime, Maliki would have been doing well to stay alive, let alone rule the country.
It is not contradictory at all. The conflict between Sunnis and Shias go back to almost 2000 years ago. Saddam Hussein was always involved in bloody conflicts with the majority Shia. The reality is that when US troops left ISIS was not in Iraq massacring civilians. You cannot blame the US for the inability of an elected government to have policies that are beneficial to the country.
Islam is only a ~1400 year old religion. Go figure.
You’ve drunk the kool-aid, haven’t you. That ought to work out well for ya – kinda like the superior(!) outcome in Iraq post 2003 invasion.
” … Finally, the ISIS is a zero threat to the US, but the US was right to intervene on behalf of the Yazidis … ”
Well, if the US should intervene to prevent religious massacres, why didn’t — or why shouldn’t — the US intervene on behalf of the Tamils in Sri Lanka, or the Rohingyas in Burma, or the Uighurs or Tibetans under Chinese rule, or the Christians and/or the Muslims massacred in the Central African Republic, or the non-Muslims in Nigeria, among others? Is that the criterion? Because if it is, the United States is being very selective. And here’s a fun fact: all the examples I named took place under Obama’s watch.
Obama may have reasons of state to intervene in Iraq and Syria but let’s stop pretending it’s part of a consistent humanitarian policy. Hypocrisy is good propaganda, but not good statecraft.
Or . . . how about the Israeli attacks on Palestinians. I mean, he did say that he was not in favor of people being run out of their homelands. Of course, this particular atrocity has only transpired over the the last 66 years or so, but apparently has gone unrecognized by the likes of Obama. The man can’t open his mouth on National Security issues without immediately contradicting the values to which he claims to feel strongly about.
The reason so called “liberals” hold their noses in the air is to try to avoid the stench pf death that surrounds them.
That is an easy question.
1) Humanitarian interventions are very rare. Even WWII was not fought for humanitarian reasons. However, there are cases when interventions for economic or political reasons meet the interests of those who have humanitarian needs. I think the Jews and the Yazidis would agree.
2) It would be too expensive.
3) You are discounting the influence of other powers such as China and Russia that could prevent interventions even if it is for humanitarian reasons.
Finally France did intervene in the Central African Republic.
Beautifully played. Pavlovian in its simplicity. Elegant in its execution. In 20 minutes, and after years of conditioning, he has all his foes into baying for peace. Obama Derangement Syndrome knee jerks the entire GOP into demanding America stay out of another war for oil. Applause!!
never give a cracker an even break.
Oh, did I get memeorandum in error?
Food for thought:
“Why has the expansion and intensification of communication networks, the proliferation of the very tools of democracy, coincided with the collapse of democratic deliberation and, indeed, struggle? These are the questions the idea of communicative capitalism helps us answer.
Communicative Capitalism
http://commonconf.files.wordpress.com/2010/09/proofs-of-tech-fetish.pdf
Why didn’t all these newspaper critics voice these concerns BEFORE Obama announced his war plan and made a commitment to it?
Too late now.
And after they beat the war propaganda drums and scared americans to death.
Shameful
Probably because they didn’t know what his plan was; they were waiting for his speech.
He’s operating on politics, not strategy or principles. He saw the polls which said he was perceived as weak by a majority of citizens. His speech was a way to boost his numbers. He’ll launch a some airstrikes and that’ll be it.
As for the press questioning his “plan,” read the comments of readers on the NYT comment sections. The Obama loyalists there (and for some reason they’re numerous) support his actions–whatever he does or will do or doesn’t do. It’s depressing.
The pundits are convinced that ISIS can be defeated in a matter of months if we would only put boots on the ground. I wonder where we have heard the basic outlines of that argument before. My guess is that Barry will get in deep and continue to send more boots to “finally “defeat ISIS. Addicted they are to War. “I’ve seen the needle and the damage done.” Since we are going in for a second taste of defeat at the hands of the unscrupulous Middle Easterners, it would be good to get the Hawks on record about how this new war will affect their approach to cutting the Social Safety Net. After all, “we’re out of money!” Maybe we can get a lone from the weapons and security corporations to keep us a float for a couple of more years. For they are the “Masters of War.”
Ryan Devereaux and Jeremy Scahill will be on Radio Dispatch with John and Molly Knefel, live. Not sure yet when the date of airing will. Go to Radio Dispatch website or twitter or listen to their next program(s) to find out. Probably next Wednesday. I’ll post when I know for those who don’t dig in hard to find out.
Molly tweeted that the live show will be recorded on September 24th, so she thinks it will air on Radio Dispatch on the 26th. Not sure about the air date yet.
Thanks, Kitt, I saved their site.
Marcy Wheeler has a post up that relates to Froomkin’s points about media, except the target of Marcy’s post is polls, most specifically Pew’s polls. How polls are answered does of course rely a lot on how the text of the poll frames the subject that the respondents are attempting to address. And of course what people have been seeing and reading in media effects the responses to those polls.
are comments so the disordered why
follow thread a to hard too it’s
You have to click that “Load More Comments” thing at the bottom of the comments. Dumb set up. Many hope they’ll fricking improve it someday.
That’s right; I’m not sure what the first page of comments is supposed to be. Maybe in recent order received, with no nesting — maybe. I hit “load more comments” as a matter of course.
Once again, American politicians, panic-stricken and many with hidden agendas, are stampeding the American public into another war. You might think they would be too embarrassed by what their previous prescriptions for the Middle East didn’t accomplish to offer still another policy prescription. America’s policies in the region are an incoherent jumble. America invaded Iraq to topple Saddam Hussein and ended up empowering Shia politicians with close ties to Iran. America provided assistance to the Syrian rebels trying to topple President Assad and ended up arming and training troops for the new boogeyman, ISIS. America toppled Col. Qaddafi in Libya only to see him replaced by hundreds of ungovernable militias. Meanwhile, the real boogeyman from 9/11, Saudi Arabia, has been left alone to continue its mischief in the region. Until recently I used to engage in conversation a young Hazara immigrant working as a security guard on my way to the grocery store. He had emigrated to America from Afghanistan to escape the hell that has consumed his country in recent decades. A Muslim of the Shia sect, he always used to tell me in broken English that he didn’t understand why the Americans couldn’t see that the number one problem in the region was Saudi Arabia and Wahhabism. Unfortunately, his answer didn’t take into account the agendas of the oil companies or Israel, both of whom have shown more interest in overthrowing the Iranian government than in stopping terrorism. Obama’s strategy of bombing ISIS into submission was tried in America’s war with North Vietnam and didn’t work. All he will accomplish is piss off the Sunni tribesmen below when their villages are bombed and innocent women and children are killed. However, I can easily envision ISIS using the havoc of the bombing campaign as part of a recruitment drive in the region.
America provided assistance to the Syrian rebels…and ended up arming and training troops for the new boogeyman, ISIS
Got a source that the U.S. intentionally armed and trained ISIS?
With your logic, America is the “real boogeyman” with the rise of the Islamic State. Some of the mental gymnastics you all go through to deflect blame away from the actual perpetrators is exhausting.
Many would argue that at deserving of equal blame or perhaps more than Saudi Arabia, is Pakistan and the ISI. After all, they’re the main enablers of the Taliban in the 1990s. However, Pakistan doesn’t hold the same sway over the Taliban that they used to and Saudi Arabia (and Qatar which is rumored to have provided funding) clearly hold no sway over the Islamic State. So, while it is interesting to know about the history of what brought us ISIS, that doesn’t address the reality of what is happening now, that ISIS is conquesting through a sovereign nation, forcing conversion to their imaginary version of Islam via force.
I think this is a legitimate complaint. I personally believe ISIS must be confronted but not with the U.S. in the lead like always. Middle East stakeholders should be leading the charge with us in the backseat providing air support. That may be the Administration’s ultimate goal but I’m just not seeing it. But I must ask you this: what would be your ideal plan of action? No intervention, limited?
This is unavoidable in my opinion. But it can at least be mitigated if you have a coalition so broad that potential recruits could not avoid recognizing that it was “the world against the islamic state.” Wishful thinking on my behalf…
Maybe it’s time for more news analysis. This “meeting of minds” is made possible by the Jefferson and Varina Davis Charitable Trust; by Crédit Mobilier, new investments for the 19th Century; by the Central Pacific Railroad, moving the Nation; and viewers like you. Thank you!
– – –
GWEN IFILL: …with more on the President’s speech promising military action against Indian militants, we have the analysis of retired General George Pickett of the Plato Institute and retired General Ambrose P. Burnside of the Bland Corporation. Welcome, gentlemen.
GEN. BURNSIDE: Thank you, Gwen.
GWEN: So, this week, the President announces that, because of the recent scalpings of settlers in the Powder River country, he will begin limited military action against ISIL – the Indian Sioux in Lakota.
Gen. BURNSIDE: Well, he had to do something. Those daguerrotypes of the scalped settlers weren’t very pretty. And Congress wants action: Sen. Bill Nelson even said they want to fly their flag over the White House.
Gen. PICKETT: The Lakota don’t have a flag. They don’t have much land, either. Wasn’t the Powder River their territory?
GEN. BURNSIDE: Be that as it may, we have American citizens in harm’s way there, now, and the President can’t afford to look weak.
GEN. PICKETT: Ahead of the 1878 elections, you mean.
GWEN: What about the “allies” the President alluded to in his speech?
GEN. BURNSIDE: Um, well, maybe the Crows and Shoshones. They have some fighters in the area as well.
GEN. PICKETT: He was pretty vague about that.
GEN. BURNSIDE: Well, he has a definite plan: “Our objective is clear: We will degrade, and ultimately destroy, ISIL through a comprehensive and sustained counter-terrorism strategy.”
GEN. PICKETT: I believe the late Gen. Custer tried that.
GEN. BURNSIDE: (cough) Well, anyway, the President swore up and down he wouldn’t have boots on the ground this time.
GEN. PICKETT: Just hooves, maybe. But there’s only so much you can do with artillery, and only so many arms you can give the native people nearby. Before they turn up in the hands of the enemy. Where do you think ISIL got all those Winchester rifles, anyway?
GWEN: Horace Greeley of the New York Herald wrote this: “For a president criticized as overly cautious and reluctant to lead, Barack Obama is taking a huge risk. He is thrusting U.S. fighting forces into a growing military operation with clear dangers, unknown costs, an indefinite length and unpredictable consequences.”
GEN. PICKETT: I told Robert E. Lee that before Operation Pennsylvania Victory.
GEN. BURNSIDE: We still have numbers, technology, and moral superiority. The President even said, “In a region that has known so much bloodshed, these terrorists are unique in their brutality. They execute captured prisoners. They kill children. They enslave, rape, and force women into marriage. They threatened a religious minority with genocide.”
GEN. PICKETT: Funny. We’ve done all that, just in this century. Genocide included. What do you think the Trail of Tears was about?
GEN. BURNSIDE: That’s not what our news media are saying. And not what the public is talking about.
GEN. PICKETT: They got a short memory.
GWEN: This isn’t the first time the US has debated before going into a conflict, was it?
GEN. BURNSIDE: That’s right, Gwen. We did in 1812.
GEN. PICKETT: Ha. We thought we could grab Canada and wound up defending Baltimore harbor – wound up playing on our own five-yard line in that game and came out with an unsingable national anthem. To an English melody. And in a world war where our – “ally” — was the bloody conqueror Bonaparte. And if I can look forward in history, we’re going to find out the USS Maine blew up by accident, not sabotage. Coal dust. That came out 75 years after we picked that fight. Want to discuss the Gulf of Tonkin incident, while we’re at it, General?
GEN. BURNSIDE: (cough, cough)
GWEN: Thank you, gentlemen. We turn now to the commemoration of the Little Big Horn massacre. For that story we have Judy Woodruff in New York City. Judy?…
Two thumbs up and wishing I had more, coram. :-)
Sometimes it almost seems that lessons might be learned from history, if one had the time to peruse it. There is something to be said for having an interlude between wars, where people could analyze those sort of things in order to better prepare for the next war. I don’t know what you’d call that sort of interlude though.
It’s called Peace time… *and I wouldn’t pursue history too much, iykwim Benitoe.
According to historians,
Now you don’t even have to be state (e.g. ISIS) to go to war. In the not so distant future, wars will be sold from vending machines. I tested a prototype, selected my strategic goals (control critical natural resources, contain radical extremists, and project global power) and for five minutes was given control of a fleet drones for attacking Iraq. It was a bit pricey, at $40 per minute, but still less than what the Pentagon charges (closer to $400,000 per minute).
Vending machine? No, no, Duce, wars will soon be available as downloads or apps. You’ll be able to play Call of Duty: Drone Strike with real drones, and first-person shooters with real Samsung combat robots. For the turn-based strategy games, you’ll have city-builders like SimBananaRepublic or Civilization: Small World After All with real third-world countries. $50/min. might get you Swaziland or Transdnestria and you can build an empire from there. Just remember that if your kids play it, NSA will be watching — who knows, if they spot new talent they might give you a rebate.
“Sometimes it almost seems that lessons might be learned from history, if one had the time to peruse it. There is something to be said for having an interlude between wars, where people could analyze those sort of things in order to better prepare for the next war. …”
I believe, Duce, the Great Powers did that, in one form or another, after the first World War. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn’t: the UK decided it had better work on homeland air defense, while the French concluded they needed to emphasize defensive war and fortifications. Sometimes it doesn’t work even if it’s correct: Italy’s Commando Supremo concluded that it might be best to stay neutral in another World War, while the US Navy’s war games for Plan Orange — a potential war with Japan — often featured a surprise attack on Pearl Harbor as a scenario.
Funny how it all works out.
Tip of the hat, my good coram, and thank you!
For some reason last night I actually visualized a US base set up in the center of ISIS’ Levant territory – to intentionally draw enemy fighters for years to come. Endless enemies and war for the MIC…
After your post I’m calling that notion “Camp Custer.”
My problem with this and many other articles critical of US military intervention is that it implies or assumes that US military and foreign policy is “rudderless” and without a “compass” (to borrow from professor Bacevich’s piece) And that, sadly, is a fundamental miscalculation. On the contrary, the “big buffoon that means well” meme is just a media driven cover for the purposeful machinations of the alliance between Western and Israeli economic and political interests around the globe. Sure, if you want to look at the last ten years in isolation, you can make the case that the US govt got things wrong again, like the Three Stooges trying to set up a ladder. Silly us. But if you look all the way back to the yrs immediately following WW2, you begin to see patterns and signs of consistent behavior. Behavior purposely designed to destabilize the Middle East while consolidating Israel’s hold, while at the same time providing the Western public with one boogey man after another. There’s a reason that President Carter was consistently undermined and lambasted in the press, politics and elsewhere. He was the last and perhaps only American President that sincerely attempted to bring some sort of peace and stability to the Middle East. But since that was against the prevailing agenda, he was marginalized and replaced with a much more pliable and easily distracted leader in Reagan. What has happened ever since?
So good to have you back in action, Mr Froomkin.
“Mark Mazzetti, Eric Schmitt and Mark Landler (with contributions from Matt Apuzzo and James Risen) start by pointing out the essential but often overlooked fact that “American intelligence agencies have concluded that [the Islamic State] poses no immediate threat to the United States.””
Would that be the same Mark Mazzetti who leaked a collegues column to his CIA “friend” to assure them that there’s nothing to worry about?
This Mark Mazzetti? http://rt.com/usa/cia-new-obama-dowd-862/
James Risen’s name is also associated with that piece.
This James Risen.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-administration-should-not-press-reporter-james-risen-to-reveal-a-source/2014/08/21/8dfeb868-28a3-11e4-8593-da634b334390_story.html
To whom is Obama listening if not the military? Dick Cheney it seems. I suppose he believes that this is what most Americans want, and, perhaps it is after all the bullshit propaganda we’ve been fed. Is it too late now for the MSM to pull the curtain back? I sincerely hope not.
I don’t believe the beheading of an American citizen was staged. Looked like a wake up call to me. Burying our heads in the sand could bring us more of what happened on the other 9/11.
hunnee ther nuthink qwite liek berryin sumwun els haid inna san insted uv ur own.
butt it efen buttur ef u berry it sumwear it culd maek luv an knot war don u no.
boogeemenz heer. boogeemenz ther. boogeemenz effurwear.
iz almos holloweenie hunnee.
OK, then, how about a “show execution”? Both are genuine, and are deliberately timed to hook the lip of Western fascists. Mission Accomplished!
I’d like to know why it is our job to settle this issue. How many effing fighter jets have we sold to Saudi Arabia, Jordan, etc.? Why can’t they police their own area?
Our job to settle the issue, when it’s not on in our region? Of course not. Where’s Turkey and Iran in all this, esp. if it’s a war of religion against secularism, which should concern the former, or a religious war of Sunni against Shiite, which should concern the latter. And you’d think that if anybody’s going to play the Caliph, it’d be the King of Saudi Arabia and not some bandit usurper. Sure, we can give the Iraqis and “moderate” Syrian rebels more weapons. Which may be the same as giving them to ISIL or the next bunch of cutthroats. Meantime, if you want to worry about vicious thugs who cut heads off and display them, we’ve got the Zetas on our own border.
First we had George W., who liberated Baghdad — and lost New Orleans. Now we’ve got Barack Obama, who’ll save Baghdad again, and maybe lose El Paso. Or New York City, if he doesn’t get those levees built.
Not enough…the Western war profiteers want to sell MORE, and MORE…
love those PC rants that do nothing else but beating about the bush: Bomb Saudi Arabia back to the stone age and you’re rid of your problem once for all, Hiroshima like. Wanna shock and awe ? There you go.
My compliments Mr. Froomkin.
This addresses the lack of evidence provided by the US government to justify US aggression against against their new bogeyman ISIS to promote the “War on Terror” which can never be won.
It is wise to remember that all wars and conflicts, regardless of purported reason, are planned and conducted for profit motivation which involves the procurement of land and land resources and results in further control of human assets (slaves). Of course, these war games result in profits only for the few “elites” that devise them; not the many that must fight and finance them with taxpayer dollars. For those many on Earth, the price is always the same; death or maiming, and destruction both of land and human spirit.
More on the heart of the issue which is how the US Government continues to fabricate “terror” to promote wars:
“9/11: The Mother of All Big Lies”
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2014/09/10/911-the-mother-of-all-big-lies/
“They’re an American tradition. They date from the republic’s inception. Notable ones began in the mid-19th century.
They facilitated annexing Texas. Half of Mexico followed. America became Cuba’s colonial power.
Controlling the Philippines, Guam, Samoa, Hawaii, Haiti, the Dominican Republic, Canal Zone, Puerto Rico and other territories followed.
In 1917, Woodrow Wilson manipulated public sentiment. He did so with Big Lies.
They turned most Americans into raging German haters. Big Lies work this way. Wilson got the war he wanted.
FDR manipulated Japan to attack Pearl Harbor. Doing so let him wage war.
He had to convince Congress and a pacifist public to go along.
What better way than by manufacturing terror….”
Those dissenting PC rants are doing nothing but beating around the bush: Bomb Saudi Arabia back to the stone age and you are rid of your problem. No other oil monarchy will dare supporting terrorism after that. Hiroshima was the last US military successful achievement. Wanna shock and awe, there you go.
It took me 60 years to wake up to the fact that all the USA knows with any kind of competency is bomb, bomb, and more bombing. That is no mistake and can partly be attributed to a relentless indoctrination campaign by our government mind masters. The fact it took 60 years can partly be laid at my feet for not questioning the “facts” being fed to me. There are times when I wish I hadn’t woke up because you find yourself in a diminutive minority. Even though, we must speak out wherever and whenever we can. It’s good to see some people with the gravitas needed finally speaking out or perhaps they were all along and I just woke up to that fact. NO MORE WAR! Cut the strings from our puppet masters.
Mr Froomkin..
Twas wondering if you are being nourished from the same *teat as Jeremy Scahill and Murtaza Hussain, with respect to Assad’s professed murderous/thuggish behavior?
Much appreciated..
“In the absence of a coherent opposition party or movement, it’s the Fourth Estate’s duty to ask those questions, and demand not just answers, but evidence to back up those answers.”
*The Syrian Observatory For Human Rights
The Administration’s response is being ginned up by our “news”media, and associated Beltway opinion-makers. They know Obama can’t afford to “look weak” going into the campaigning season. Just this morning, I had the bad fortune to hear an NPR interview with Rubio on this topic. It was — even by their abysmal standards — a tour de farce of softball questions & predictably hysteria-laced “answers”. Rubio trotted out the “They’re coming over here to kill us in our beds!!!!!” argument at least once.
I hope someone at First Look/The Intercept can get the audio of that interview and give it a listen. The gross, manipulative tone was so distinctive & blatant, it could serve as training example for a short course………. in the art of propaganda.
It’s (seemingly) hard for our media mavens to remember that the Alawites and Shi’ites were the ones being groomed as the Monsters-to-end-all-Monsters just ~6 weeks ago. A quick mashup review of some representative audio, print and video from the early summer would make for an amusing counterpoint to much of this week’s “news” about the region.
`Fluffy..
http://uneditedpolitics.com/marco-rubio-interview-with-nprs-steve-inskeep-responds-to-obamas-strategy-to-defeat-isis-91114/
Thanks. My timing is off. Like Mr. Narins indicated, it’s been more like ~4 months since we were being told to fear the might of the crazed and dangerous Shi’ites. My bad.
The media, including the NY Times, has been painting a one-sided, pro-war painting for weeks now.
The day _after_ Obama decides to act, they begin criticizing that view.
It’s spineless behavior on their part (and, certainly, poor judgment on Obama’s part to have listened).
For a similar example, I always believed that part of the Palin choice, by the McCain team, was led by a daily string of stories that millions of Democrats were going to vote against the party because Obama beat Hilary, the PUMA effect. It turned out to be about 50K, and pretty much only in Arkansas.
Timing is everything.
>”Timing is everything”
I thought it was location(?) … in any case, I’m sure the NYT will print an op-ed by McCain & Graham any day now.
At some point, the US may (at least tacitly) concede that letting Saddam Hussein be would have been most prudent.
ther mus bee consumkwenses wen owr pooputs shedd tehm stringz don u no.
I’m sure they are thrilled to have achieved Froomkin-like enlightenment.
In reality, many “newspapers of record” and other traditional sources have been critical and skeptical this whole time. I know because I read a lot of them and have reached similar conclusions. My guess is that Dan just didn’t realize it because your style of journalism selectively focuses on illuminating and exaggerating views you oppose and then characterizing them as some mainstream consensus.
So you harp on and on about the failures of the elite media but when the reality is so starkly different than your imaginings, now the news organizations “finally realize” what is going on. Talk about having your cake and eating it too.
Also, I find it ironic that while you scorn the elite media, your articles are filled to the brim with their reporting. Are you TI’s Howard Kurtz or do you have your own original thoughts to share?
Nate has been so busy reading all of the “critical and skeptical this whole time” articles that he missed all of the hyperbole articles that Froomkin has been pointing out. Kind of brings this to mind:
Goodell Assures Fans He Was Too Busy Dismissing Other Players’ Assaults To Watch Ray Rice Tape
Another valueless post from Kitt.
Pointing out “hyperbole articles” in today’s media landscape is incredibly easy. Give me a subject and I can find ones from the left and right. Froomkin’s ability to do so is not novel. The irony is that TI resorts to hyperbolic titles itself, most recently: https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/08/12/nprs-dina-temple-raston-passed-cia-funded-nsa-contractor-independent-fear-monger-snowden-reporting/
You’re avoiding the point. But you must know that. But since you’re going to pretend that Froomkin simply did a quick search of hyperbolic articles and then posted about it, I’ll give you a subject to keep you busy pointing out hyperbolic articles: “Dancing With the Stars.” You can keep yourself busy playing with google or the search engine of your choice looking for those. No need to return here to let us in on your findings though, since it will be as relevant to Froomkin’s post as all the other bull shit you’ve posted.
What point was that?
And I am not saying that Froomkin did a quick search (maybe it took a couple hours). I am saying that hyperbolic titles and content in today’s outrage-based media are a dime a dozen.
Depending on whether you are liberal, conservative, libertarian, whatever, there is an absolute wealth of outrageous articles out there to read, collect, and if you wish to do so – present them as the views of the ambiguously and chronically undefined “mainstream media.” It happens all the time on both sides of the aisle. Fox News and its acolytes call stuff they disagree with mainstream, lamestream, special interest media, and progressive media with its dastardly liberal bias.
Then you move over to the more liberal side and big surprise, they also distrust the mainstream media but for different and often opposing reasons. They are “elites” as Froomkin always says or because they are controlled by “corporate interests” or are government shills as Glenn often accuses everyone and their mom of being.
None of that has a god damned thing to do with Froomkin or his post. This is a case of when I couldn’t make you look any more foolish than your own words quoted above my comment make you look.
P.S. I want to up vote all of them so far.
The article states “In Syria, officials have repeatedly raised the problem of adequately vetting rebels to ensure the people trained and armed by the U.S. don’t join the ranks of Islamic State. In Iraq, the U.S. believes that many of the Shiite-dominated military forces have been penetrated by Iranian agents”
I’d rather point out this preceding is both shortsighted and hindsighted, with Iranian agents the least of the problem. Consider how it is the USA morphs its enemies into the equals of the Incredible Hulk, when the American trained personnel go rogue:
“Los Zetas’ training as a local version of the Green Berets constitutes their foremost asset. In cooperation with their U.S. counterparts, the Mexican military created the Gafes in mid-1990s. Foreign specialists, including Americans, French, and Israelis, instructed members of this elite unit in rapid deployment, aerial assaults, marksmanship, ambushes, intelligence collection, counter-surveillance techniques, prisoner rescues, sophisticated communications, and the art of intimidation” -George Greyson, Foreign Policy Research Institute (2008)
We’ve seen what these programs have done in Mexico, with Zetas drug cartel decapitations aplenty. Funny that hasn’t drawn the same amount of fear-mongering, it’s much closer to home.
A lesson the USA hasn’t learned:
“The secretive program, financed in part with millions of dollars in classified Pentagon spending and carried out by trainers, including members of the Army’s Green Berets and Delta Force, was begun last year to instruct and equip hundreds of handpicked commandos in Libya, Niger, Mauritania and Mali” -Eric Schmitt, NYT 26 May 2014
Now, having turned Libya into a smoking, inextinguishable fire, the Pentagon’s AFRICOM is pursuing what backfired in in grand style in Mexico and Syria.
What happens when the vetting fails as has happened in the case of numerous American trained commandos in the ranks of Salafist militia via the efforts to overthrow Assad? You have that commando training passed on to a next generation of fighters who are turn vetted by the Islamic State. Small wonder the Islamic State is outsized with its capacity to fight in relation to its numbers, when the CIA, DGSE & MOSSAD, examples given, are providing clandestine training, it’s not conventional training but elite training. This training is provided by special operations forces in concert with intelligence agencies, I know, having at one time been assigned to a Special Forces operations department. Expect Africa to come apart at the seams next.
http://ronaldthomaswest.com/2014/05/26/counterfeit-coin/
^ This really is worth a read. Americans live in a detached reality and the thing with detached reality is, sooner or later another, larger reality comes crashing down on it. The longer the detached reality goes on, the more rude the crash will be.
An afterthought would be, Obama’s soaring rhetoric substituting for hands on courage, his inability to think on his feet or take hard, calculated decisions, all, have played to the hands that most desire to see him fail, not least personalities at the Pentagon. But at the end of the day, he was the one who sought the job and has no one but himself to blame-
“Americans live in a detached reality and the thing with detached reality is, sooner or later another, larger reality comes crashing down on it. The longer the detached reality goes on, the more rude the crash will be.”
I am one of those Americans who had reality come crashing down. One day the facts just washed over me and I was awake. The fact that we are now in a global, perpetual, illegal, and immoral war is abundantly clear to me now. I can only hope that an awakening happens to enough people that we can pull back from the precipice. Wake up, people. Please.
Can the Intercept please provide an up vote option on the comments, so I can agree with the good ones without logging in?
+1
Maybe not the best idea to provide a vote option to people who don’t log in:
http://www.dailydot.com/society/ron-paul-liberty-downvote-bot-reddit/
^ They’re called ‘down vote bots’, the Intercept would be a premium target, as well these can be reversed, patent bs can be up-voted, probably a headache The Intercept doesn’t need-
OK
Nate confirmed your point.
This referring to me?
You think I’d waste my time blanket-downvoting TI user comments!? That’s interesting because I think you’ve got it all wrong. Having a minority viewpoint, it would be me who would be at much greater risk of being silenced by downvotes. Have you never been on Reddit’s partisan subreddits!?
You grossly overstate your importance or relevance. Most of your posts are either nonsense or word salads — which are about the same thing but with slight differences in tone or coherence. They don’t warrant “down-votes,” just ridicule.
Actually I’m not referring specifically to the Reddit down vote system. I’m more specifically referring to the system used at The Guardian where ‘recommends’ are easily and monumentally manipulated. You could really have a time with that.
This is the exact attitude of redditors who go around twiddling their grubby, downvote-clicking fingers. As the mods often plea to people in /r/politics, “don’t downvote just because you don’t like what others have to say!” You clearly don’t like what I have to say and that’s fine, but ask yourself this: who is initiating these often hostile and counterproductive arguments between you and I? It’s you. No “ifs,” “ands,” or “buts.” So don’t pretend that I have some motive to downvote you and other commenters. If you think I am yearning for vengeance against you, you’ve seriously misdjudged me!
Also, something to consider: Lyra and I don’t share common views and in the past battled it out to no avail. At some point, we both agreed that it was pointless and have since learned to co-exist. We don’t engage one another unless we are thanking eachother for an interesting article or link. I respect Lyra a lot for doing that; it tells me that he or she does not take all this too seriously or personally. Perhaps it is time you do the same since in your view all my posts are such “nonsense” and “word salad”? I honestly don’t mind some of your retorts, as I enjoy discussing this stuff, but my perception is that the feeling is not mutual. I feel like your comments don’t even try to further the topic at hand; instead it seems like you pick and choose a disparate and often inconsequential sentence here or there and attack or twist it.
Going back to our original point, I believe the commenters most likely to downvote people into oblivion are the ones who are the most invested in the author and feel inclined to defend their honor. Other candidates are people who are so self-righteous that they cannot tolerate disagreement, and also people who are only equipped to hit the downvote button because they cannot articulate their disagreement.
Your suggestion that I’d resort to such tactics is baseless and you know it.
PS: I would expect the tone of my posts to be the same. Also, I’d love to see some examples of my supposedly incoherent posts. What have you got!?
“……You grossly overstate your importance or relevance. Most of your posts are either nonsense or word salads…..”
Isn’t it great when this is the best that can be offered to counter your posts? Obviously, they respond out of frustration – and generally without a coherent rebuttal.
@Craig: Agreed! A lot of the time when this occurs, there is some serious psychological projection going on.
Such originality. Especially since your complaint or comment was supposed be about demanding specifics or substance in a comment reply.
I couldn’t care less what you and lyra have agreed to.
You wrote a bunch of stuff that you are basing your opinion on, and then you’ve attributed *your opinion to *me, as though I had written your opinion as though it were my own, and then telling me that my opinion — that you made up — is “baseless and you know it.” How obvious is that? That is an example comment from you of the incoherence I was referring to.
Media, politicians and oligarchs are masters at changing the subject.
Have not yet digested the constitutional and political issues from the Snowden documents, and now this article
“Welcome to the post-Edward Snowden era” in the WA Post. Dan’s old paper. A quotation and a link.
While the Snowden revelations led to a lot of American soul-searching when it came to just how much of our civil liberties we want to yield in the name of protecting ourselves from terrorism, the soul-searching has largely come to an end, according to a new poll.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/09/11/welcome-to-the-post-edward-snowden-era/
The purpose of our Government, in function and structure, is to SECURE our RIGHTS, period, nothing more! The question we should ask ouselves is does this (anything a politician says we need to do) secure our rights? What Edward Snowden, Glen Greenwald and now The Intercept have done is exactly that, they were and are securing our rights! The press and our government (every branch and every level) have worked together against our interests since the civil war but most noticeably since September 11, 2001. Yes, President Lincoln was a corrupt SOB but he gets a pass for ending that slavery thing, as he should. Except for The Intercept the press will continue to fail…. I disagree with you Mr Froomkin but I still like the report.
Has nobody in Washington read Uncle Remus recently ?
For weeks, TV & news media have displayed near hysterical coverage of ISIS and beheadings, practically goading the president into taking a avenging the deaths of the two journalists by declaring war on ISIS to subvert another 911. “What do you think?” Wolf Blitzer asks Van Jones. Who cares what either of them think, and whatever they do think is just total speculation in any case with no thread linking it to reality anywhere. TV news entertainers have been hosting their panels of experts like they are preparing for a super bowl game. For weeks, the fear mongering and goading propaganda has been nonstop and achieved its result, apparently, having moved up the “Americans want war on ISIS” on the national polls. I am sad that once again, Americans have been bamboozled into forking over another trillion dollar war game.
“Americans have been bamboozled into forking over another trillion dollar war game.”
Amen. Follow the money.
Good piece. Wow what a powerful quote of Andrew J. Bacevich! He pretty much summed it up right there. You cant argue with what he said. This government, our government are on the wrong side of history here. They need to take a step back and stop warmongering before public opinion in the middle east gets so bad that we are without allies and friends. We need to stop killing people and calling it justice!