Menage a Trois
--Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi,
ISIS leader
ISIS leader
Everything becomes and recurs eternally - escape is impossible!
Supposing we could judge value, what follows?
The idea of recurrence as a selective principle,
in the service of strength (and barbarism!!)
--F. Nietzche
(T)he power to cause pain is the only power that matters,
the power to kill and destroy,
because if you can't kill then you are always subject
to those who can, and nothing and no one
will ever save you
--Ender's Game, Orson Scott Card
Why the Egyptian, Arabic, Abyssinian, Choctaw?
Well, what tongue does the wind talk?
What nationality is a storm?
What country do rains come from?
What color is lightning?
Where does thunder go when it dies?”
* * *
You can't act if you don't know.
Acting without knowing takes you right off the cliff.
--Something Wicked This Way Comes,
Ray Bradbury
____________________
The idea of recurrence as a selective principle,
in the service of strength (and barbarism!!)
--F. Nietzche
(T)he power to cause pain is the only power that matters,
the power to kill and destroy,
because if you can't kill then you are always subject
to those who can, and nothing and no one
will ever save you
--Ender's Game, Orson Scott Card
Why the Egyptian, Arabic, Abyssinian, Choctaw?
Well, what tongue does the wind talk?
What nationality is a storm?
What country do rains come from?
What color is lightning?
Where does thunder go when it dies?”
* * *
You can't act if you don't know.
Acting without knowing takes you right off the cliff.
--Something Wicked This Way Comes,
Ray Bradbury
____________________
President Barack Obama is expected to ask Congress tonight to authorize $500 billion to bolster the moderate militants fighting the Syrian government. These supposed moderates will then be used to fight the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS). At least that's the plan.
But how does one gauge "moderation" in a civil war? Beyond the difficulty of deciding who to support, for the first time in United State's history, the nation is proposing a strategy based upon opposing both sides in a war.
For some reason, the U.S. is dedicated to the destruction of the Syrian dictator, Bashar al-Assad, while also opposing his major opponent, ISIS. This strategy ignores what happened the last three times the U.S. deposed dictators. The supposed unholy trinity of Libya, Iraq and Egypt are examples of this folly. Realpolitik would suggest the U.S. is better dealing with the devils it knows rather than those it does not.
Why is the U.S. opposed to Syria, anyway? What threat originates there that would endanger the U.S. homeland? While ISIS is a dangerous organization, what proof exists beyond emotion and hyperbole that this group is a danger to the U.S.?
The proposed new strategy lacks a clear objective (beyond smashing people and things from the sky), violating the Principles of War in a big way. The destruction of a government or a group is not a strategy, but at best, Phase #1 of a strategy.
The key point is: what is the purpose and objective to destroying Syria and ISIS? The U.S. strategy lacks a definable end game.
Meanwhile, a half gallon of milk has risen 20% in one week here in Florida. People are now audibly questioning the steep jack in their grocery bill. Most often heard: "Maybe they don't want us to eat."
But they will manage to find money for flyboys to kill more Arabs; hopefully, they will kill the right ones. But there is the rub -- WHO are the right ones, and by whose metric?
Ranger is more consumed with food prices in his hometown than with the mistaken notion of stopping violence and hatred on the far side of the moon.
Somewhere, General David Petraeus is asking with a wry smile, "So tell me: How does this end?"
But how does one gauge "moderation" in a civil war? Beyond the difficulty of deciding who to support, for the first time in United State's history, the nation is proposing a strategy based upon opposing both sides in a war.
For some reason, the U.S. is dedicated to the destruction of the Syrian dictator, Bashar al-Assad, while also opposing his major opponent, ISIS. This strategy ignores what happened the last three times the U.S. deposed dictators. The supposed unholy trinity of Libya, Iraq and Egypt are examples of this folly. Realpolitik would suggest the U.S. is better dealing with the devils it knows rather than those it does not.
Why is the U.S. opposed to Syria, anyway? What threat originates there that would endanger the U.S. homeland? While ISIS is a dangerous organization, what proof exists beyond emotion and hyperbole that this group is a danger to the U.S.?
The proposed new strategy lacks a clear objective (beyond smashing people and things from the sky), violating the Principles of War in a big way. The destruction of a government or a group is not a strategy, but at best, Phase #1 of a strategy.
The key point is: what is the purpose and objective to destroying Syria and ISIS? The U.S. strategy lacks a definable end game.
Meanwhile, a half gallon of milk has risen 20% in one week here in Florida. People are now audibly questioning the steep jack in their grocery bill. Most often heard: "Maybe they don't want us to eat."
But they will manage to find money for flyboys to kill more Arabs; hopefully, they will kill the right ones. But there is the rub -- WHO are the right ones, and by whose metric?
Ranger is more consumed with food prices in his hometown than with the mistaken notion of stopping violence and hatred on the far side of the moon.
Somewhere, General David Petraeus is asking with a wry smile, "So tell me: How does this end?"
Labels: . PWOT, advisers, air war, caliphate, IS, ISIL, ISIS, Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, jihad, phony war on terror, realpolitik, violating Rules of War











