The Troubles Reignite

The problem isn't that Johnny can't read. 
The problem isn't even that Johnny can't think.
The problem is that Johnny doesn't know
what thinking is;
he confuses it with feeling
--Thomas Sowell 

The problem with leaderless uprisings taking over 
is that you don't always know what you get 
at the other end. 
 If you are not careful you could 
replace a bad government with one much worse! 

*   *   *  

The only thing we have learnt from experience
is that we learn nothing from experience
--Chinua Achebe
______________________________

Subtitle: Read the Problem.

Sometimes it s necessary to step back from a problem and to evaluate what is actually happening, rather than reacting to what you think is happening. This is doubly important when the assumptions diverge from observable reality. In order to reify our behavior we need to look clearly and interpret the flow of events, from origin (cause and effect) to the present.

As we walk down the lane in the Middle East, it is clear that the center is not holding. It is not even clear if there is a center. The situation is reminiscent of the acrobatic plate spinners of yore: each hand spins the plate around his own center, and there a lot of plates spinning in the air at the same time. Eventually, the motion of all will stop.

The quagmire in the Middle East as we are told will be solved when a power-sharing accord can be reached, but this concept is easier said than done. Terrorism is the bee in the bonnet, but this it is far from exclusively a Mid-East tactic. Let us look at the recent flame-up of the revanchist sentiment in Ireland.

While they have their moments of detente, the internecine violence British in Northern Ireland and Irish Republican Army has resurged recently; the1998 Good Friday Agreement did not hold.

These entities have not achieved a lasting truce in Northern Ireland because the quiet times are actually consolidation and reorganization periods, time to retrain and establish networks. In light of this ongoing and intractable conflict, what are the implications for the Middle East?

If two Christian entities cannot peaceably  resolve their differences, then how much less likely is it for the Sunnis  and Shiites to do so? The Northern Ireland conflict between two civilized societies (Ireland is often seen as the savior of civilization for its monastic academic efforts in the Dark Ages) is centuries old, reaching back to the Battle of the Boyne in 1690. The end game is elusive.

Ranger Simple Question of the Day:

Why think that the Islamists can achieve a peace that still eludes Christian players?

Useful Idiots

Peace and love is here to stay and
Now I can wake up and face the day 
 --Gimme Gimme Shock Treatment, 
The Ramones

So, c'mon you Moslems and you Jews
We got big news for all of yous
You better change your point of views today
'Cause the Inquistion's here and it's here to stay 
--The Inquisition,
Mel Brooks

 (T)he main emphasis of the KGB is ideological subversion,
or psychological warfare.
What it basically means is: to change the perception
of reality of every American that despite
of the abundance of information
no one is able to come to sensible conclusions
in the interest of defending
themselves, their families, their community, and their country
--Yuri Bezmenov
__________________

I wonder how the mainstream media continues to peddle its lies. Are people just naive, gullible, uninformed, lazy, prejudiced? Maybe the whole lot.

In the 3.18.15 New York Times, token Jewish liberal shill Op-Ed columnist Thomas ("Friedman Unit") Friedman's post links Israel, Iran and ISIS as being all entities that offer the United States "only bad choices":

OP-ED COLUMNIST Go Ahead, Ruin My Day By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN In looking at Israel, Iran and ISIS, why does it seem as though we have only bad choices, and nothing ever works?

Why do few Democrats wish to recognizes Israel as the U.S.'s only solid Western ally in the sump that is the Middle East? If they are a problem, it is only to the radicalized Palestinians who continue to have no honest broker but not to us.

Today, the same paper suggests that President Obama may be unable to deal with Israel's newly-elected Prime Minister Netanyahu and may have to carry out an future communications via a mediator, as though P.M. Netanyahu is incapable of talking to a Western leader. The reason for the acrimony is not mentioned: the fact that our President refused to meet this leader of a sovereign nation on two separate visits to our country -- unheard of behavior.

Yet the U.S. routinely deals with the leaders of our "friends" like Egypt, Saudi Arabia, etc., dictators who routinely oppress and murder their own Western-leaning dissidents. (In the same 3.18 paper was a piece on a policeman who is being tried in Egypt for the murder of an outspoken female poet  -- Egypt to Charge Officer in Killing of Shaimaa el-Sabbagh.)

For that matter, the U.S. had cordial relations with both Saddam Hussein and Muammar Qaddafi, late leaders of Iraq and Libya, respectively. Friendly, that is, until they were no longer useful. All U.S. Presidents have glad-handed those we later called "monsters" and tossed to the dogs.

The Shiites are killing Sunnis in mass numbers now that the lid is off the pressure cooker, and we don't seem too bothered by this; at least, not bothered enough to cease communication with the "elected" leaders of these countries.

As though it were a news flash, Slate reports "a new report from Human Rights Watch details serious abuses by the U.S.-supported, pro-government Iraqi Shiite militias fighting ISIS" (Are America’s Allies Committing Ethnic Cleansing in the Fight Against ISIS?). Shocked, in a very Captain Renault sort of way.

KGB defector Yuri Bezmenov saw a parallel to the USSR in the way our leaders, educational institutions and the media were shaping our nation's mindset. We behaved like Bezmenov's useful idiots when we swaggered into Iraq, deposing the strongman needed to hold these roiling entities together. Then the inhabitants came after each other and us, and we act surprised.

We continue to be idiots when always for the underdog and not for our obvious ally. Idiots when we are always for change in the M.E., imagining that these newly-sprung people will yearn for a Western lifestyle like that enjoyed in the U.S. or Israel. We refuse to see the facts because we have an inculcated guilt to overcome.

In this case, we think if we favor the Palestinians over the Israelis, they will not turn their aggression upon us, but where is the logic? Why favor an unknown quantity over a known one? Nations have interests -- not friends -- and it is in the U.S.'s interest to maintain an alliance with any reliable partner in the M.E, for there are not many.

Friedman's piece goes so far as to suggest that the U.S. arm ISIS. While he agrees they're pretty repugnant, he argues that it is in our best interests. A sad coda to the misbegotten group-think many in the U.S. shared regarding M.E. violence as ushering in some sort of "Arab Spring".

Moreover, why do we care to continue hitting our heads against the wall? How does this focus help us along?

It's Sociology 101: You help the underdog, he's not going to lick your feet because you've uncovered the fact that he is an underdog (via the need for your assistance.) The only way to save face is to attack back. It's not very appreciative, but there it is.

When the U.S. was dealing in slavery and liquidation of its Native American population, other sovereigns did not withhold negotiating with the U.S. We found our way. Israel is less than 70 years old, and it is trying to find a path to existence against a sworn enemy within in its borders which has as its stated mission the non-recognition and extermination of said country. It is not a hard row to hoe; it is a row that refuses to be hoed.

Why don't people see this hypocrisy? Maybe we just want something easy around which to glom on with our fellows, or distract us, or to Tweet about.

Mission and Objective

 

--War, Agony in Death, Hans Burkhardt (1939)

 Chaos, control. Chaos, control. 
You like, you like? 
--Six Degrees of Separation (1993) 

Sometimes you're better off dead 
There's gun in your hand and it's pointing at your head
You think you're mad, too unstable
Kicking in chairs and knocking down tables 
--West End Girls, Pet Shop Boys

War is the spectacular and bloody projection
of our everyday life, is it not?
--Think on These Things,
J. Krishnamurti
_____________________

The terms "mission" and "objective" are easily confused, especially since the military uses them interchangeably. But they are different words, y'know, with different meanings.

The common reaction to the Islamic State (IS) in the Middle East is emotional and unfocused. If the United States intervenes with a greater military air campaign, then this would be the mission. However, the objective of the mission remains unstated.

Since 1898 the U.S. has used violence in the objective of winning wars. Today, we have substituted generalized violence as an objective, sans mission. We use violence and bombs to force our will upon the enemy, but the bombing campaign has no significance or national purpose without a quantifiable and reasonable objective.

Today violence is both mission and objective, sans any achievable and delineated objective. However, reactive vindictiveness is neither a military concept nor an objective.

Assuming that following the bombing campaign these countries roll over -- then what? Have we not learned in 120 years that, while violence can force people to bend to our will, the effect is always short-lived? Violence does not necessarily produce long-term stability (unless that is a desire of the subdued people.) So is the resultant temporary cessation of violence worth the outlay (in manpower, lives and money)?

If U.S. national policy now relies on bombing campaigns, that is somewhat akin to using assassination as a political tool. Without a plan, we have become the violence, and are merely a participant in the relentless destruction. 

We live in a violent and troubled world, and should ask how our actions are helping to mitigate or contribute that violence.

Violence is a dead-end unless a greater good is the mission.

[NOTE: Neither we nor Krishnamurti are saying "the West is to blame for all of this." The burden of the violence within is harbored by all. The only difference is in the outward wealth accumulated by the players.]

Moderate Thinking

 --Broken Chains, anonymous 

Gonna pass me a brand new resolution 
Gonna fight me a one man revolution, someway 
Gonna start my rebellion today 
But here come the people in grey To take me away

 People in grey have gone and taken away 
My right to voice my complaint 
Her majesty's government 
have sent me a form
 I must complete it today 
--The People in Grey, The Kinks

 The only way to mobilize popular support 
for secret armies of resistance fighters during the war 
was to stage such dramatic acts of terrorism 
versus the German occupying forces 
--Winston Churchill, fr. Nihilist Monthly (Feb, 2012)
 _____________________

The stated United States' policy is to support moderates in the Syrian Civil War. What does this mean? Following are some questions regarding moderation in the Civil War business:

• Does a moderate person engage in a Civil War?  
• How does the State Department define "moderate"?
• Why are we spending money encouraging Moderates in Syria, while Moderates in the states are becoming a vanishing breed?
• What are we buying when we fund these Moderates?
• What do we lose if we do nothing to support the Syrian revels?
• Are the rebels legitimate?  
• Do they represent the will of their people?  
• Are the moderates foreign Jihadists?

Now for the money question:

Does anyone recall any revolution that was won by a moderate force?  "Moderate People of the World Unite" ... somehow that lacks the revolutionary zeal required by such a project.

Answer: Moderation is never the hallmark of a revolution.

Being John Kerry

  I've been very lonely in my isolated tower 
of indecipherable speech
 --Being John Malkovich (1999) 

Show me the Money! 
--Jerry McGuire (1996) 

The best is yet to come 
And babe won't it be fine 
The best is yet to come 
Come the day your mine 
--The Best is Yet to Come,
Frank Sinatra
_____________________

[NOTE: Robert Fisk addresses this well in his 7 Mar 13 piece, Which Rebels Should We Support?]

It is hard for Ranger to formulate a clear understanding of the Syrian revolt and the rules for supporting or not supporting such events.

Why would the United States support any revolution?  Why did we rearrange the societies of Iraq and Afghanistan, and what was the result?

In Afghanistan, the Taliban is supported by Saudi Sunni sectarians. Initially, the U.S. invasion pitted the Northern Alliance (NA) against the Sunni alliance.  The NA were and are allied with the Iranian "bad guys". So who are the good guys in Afghanistan?  If the Afghan government and its forces are the good guys, then the definition of "good" and "bad" must be a fungible construct.

In Iraq we imposed a tyranny of democracy on a country which imposes a Shiite, American-backed majority -- one which marginalized the Sunnis. (As for the Kurds, not much can be said other than they are the Kurds.) The present government of Iraq is largely Shiite; Iran is a Shia power -- so who benefited from the Afghani and Iraq shake-ups?

The Syrian government is supported by the Hizbollah, associated with the Iranian Shiites.  So is our current policy in Syria simply a slap at Iran?  If so are we now allied with the Sunni forces that we once fought in Afghanistan and Iraq?

If Syria is overthrown, to whom will the power transfer?  A Syrian government defeat will be a Sunni victory, no?  If Syria falls, who will benefit?

Why does the U.S. support the anti-Sunnis in Afghanistan and Iraq, while supporting the Sunnis in Syria?  The entire Middle East - Southwest Asia gambit eludes Ranger; what is America hoping to gain by throwing in our chips with the Syrian opposition?

Jihadists in Libya and Syria got their combat experience fighting U.S. military in Afghanistan and Iraq.  They are the Islamic equivalent of the Lincoln Brigade of the War on Terror; they are mercenary insurrectionists. In Iraq and Afghanistan they were trying to protect the existing order; now, they are trying to overthrow the existing order.

Where do their loyalties lie and who pays them?  There are linkages to Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Bahrain. Why do Americans arrogantly presume all rebels are looking for a freedom day like that of 1776?

Ranger is hoping someone of a higher pay grade can clarify his thinking here.

Bad Dogs

--Arend van Dam 

what have we to do
but stand with empty hands and palms turned upwards
In an age which advances progressively backwards? 
--The Rock, T.S. Eliot

As I feel the world watching I try not to care. 
My deepest emotions are best left unsaid. 
Let others show grief like a garment they wear, 
but the loss that I feel will not leave my head. 
--Guard of Honour, Paul Hansford

And the seasons they go round and round
And the painted ponies go up and down
We're captive on the carousel of time
We can't return, we can only look behind 
--The Circle Game, Joni Mitchell

______________________

Do we lack the good sense that even a small puppy possesses?

Witness the behavior of the United States vis-a-vis its Middle East fellow democracy, Israel, and her new missile defense system dubbed Iron Dome.  This system, paid for in large part by U.S. tax dollars, is reminiscent of President Reagan's proposed Star Wars defensive strategy except it will shoot down tactical rockets and missiles.  It appears to be a theatre-oriented customization of the Patriot missile system.

The first interesting aspect of the system is the asymmetry of the outlay.  Israel recently spent $25-35 million to shoot down 1,500 cheap and unsophisticated rockets fired upon them from Gaza.  When does such a defense outlay become infeasible for a small nation?

Second, since the rockets are fired from the Gaza strip it is a good bet they were smuggled in from Egypt, another friend of the U.S., with the full support of the new Egyptian government. The same Egyptian government that receives $1.5 Billion in U.S. foreign aid each year -- the government which will soon receive 200 U.S. M1 tanks, the most advanced main battle tank in the world.  Like Israel, Egypt is a country armed and equipped by the U.S.

So here is the deadly do-si-do the U.S. brokers:

• We equip the Egyptians

• The Egyptians equip Hamas in Gaza

• Hamas fires their Egyptian-obtained rockets at Israel (as Hamas & Egypt share a brotherhood of hatred towards Israel)

• The U.S. funds Israeli missile systems so that Israel may counter the Hamas missile threat

How long can our leaders facilitate this absurd spectacle and have us believe it is a logical foreign policy?  What does the U.S. achieve by implementing such a Kafaka-esque foreign policy?  How do the U.S. citizens benefit by our government playing both sides against the middle?

When will we ever learn?

Qua Daffy

[People] don't want to be trapped
into a condition that the level of support
for war is equated with patriotism
--Dennis Kucinich

I will let you down
I will make you hurt
--Hurt, Nine Inch nails

I went down to the demonstration
To get my fair share of abuse
Singing, "We're gonna vent our frustration
If we don't we're gonna blow a 50-amp fuse"
--You Can't Always Get What You Want,
The Rolling Stones
__________________

One factoid is noticeably missing from news reports of recent happening in the Middle East, yet it is instrumental in understanding the flow of events. It is simply this: The majority of the Middle East is batshit crazy, and we fail when we cast the disruptive events as an inexorable march toward democracy. Maybe not!

Let us begin with Muammar Qaddafy, Libya's long-time leader. Muammar has never been sane, yet we have recently concluded that Brother Colonel must go. However, the reality we are ignoring is that the Libyans have embraced his brand of crazy for the last 42 years. He did not turn batshit crazy yesterday, so why is everyone noting this rather egregious and obvious fact now? Ditto Egypt.

For some historical perspective, when the Russian Czar fired on the crowds in the early 1900's, the crowds had legitimate concerns that were democratic in nature. While the czarist stance was autocratic and conservative, was it ultimately beneficial to have the monarchy overthrown? This action put Russia into a crisis mode which still has not been satisfactorily resolved.

There are numerous interpretations to all historical events. The U.S. sent the Wolfhound Regiment (27th Infantry) to fight the Bolsheviks, indicating that democracy (or eliminating a monarchy) was not a strategic interest of the U.S. in 1918. Democracy is not always a desirable US export if it engenders destabilization of a region.

The Russian Revolution may share some commonalities with the (possible) ones in Egypt and Libya. Still, does the revolutionary impulse arise from within the population, or is it the result of outsider agitation? The concept of such outside parachustists is a theme central in unconventional and guerrilla warfare (UW/GW), and Qaddafy may be correct in his assertions that the people's restiveness has been stoked by outsiders interested in destabilizing the region further (thank you, United States).

And who shall benefit? Batshit crazy Iran (but to paraphrase Condoleeza Rice in the wake of the 9-11-01 attacks -- who could have known?). Does this credulousness irk anyone else out there?

One can imagine a mob to represent an impulse to democracy, but what if it is not? Is change always positive?

The reason we tolerate the Qadaffis and Mubareks of the world is because we never know if his successor will be worse. The U.S. is so pumped up with HOPE and CHANGE that we ignore the ugly realities on the ground. Such gullibilty is to our detriment. The Tunisian fruit vendor's offense is their Rosa Parks moment but as we all know, Ms. Parks was a contrived mascot, for the true work of the Civil Rights movement was borne by countless behind-the-scenes agitators, lawyers and organizers.

A cell phone photo of a riot does not equate to positive change, and the guy taking the shot is as crazy as the dude he may be trying to depose.