My son Jacob and I went "camping" last night. We set up the tent in the backyard, piled in a bunch of blankets and pillows, lit a fire, roasted some marshmallows, looked at the stars, then went to bed. We weren't roughing it by any stretch of the imagination, of course... he brought a laptop for a "scary movie" and I brought my phone and my Kindle. The battery crapped out in our camp light, so we "plugged in" a lamp from the house with the extension cord for the pool. It was a good time... a few hiccups but nothing big enough to get in our way.
Now, sitting here having coffee as the sun burns off the morning fog and the fire is just getting stirred back to life, I'm compelled to write about just how freaking cold it got last night!!!!
It is July 25th! We are in the middle of summer, literally... yet the temperature dropped to 47 degrees last night! Even now... at 7:20am, it is only 50! I'm no longer the "jackpine savage" that I was in my youth, but I have enough experience with camping to know that you should expect the dew to fall and collect on the tent walls if your fly isn't all the way to the ground. I know that fog can make things damp and sticky... but that wasn't the problem, either. It was the cold.
I'm sorry, people... I don't recall 50 degree is July, even from my youth on the shores of Lake Superior! It is beautifully clear and bright, now that the fog is burned off... and with breakfast under our belts (bacon, muffins, eggs, and pancakes) it is still only 55!
Perhaps the Holocene really is ending? Are the ice sheets going to march across continents?
I'd have sworn to it last night!
Friday, July 25, 2014
Friday, July 11, 2014
I don't love Tom Brady...
... but I get your point. I love his shows. Carlin, I mean... NOT Brady.
The long and short of this is simply put by saying that you (and I and all of the rest of America) are used to the mainstream manner in which opposing points of view are presented: Two people slugging it out in a 3 minute sound byte but accomplishing nothing and resorting to personal slights and slanders, OR two (or more) people in complete rapturous agreement bashing everyone that isn't agreeing with them. Even "alternative" news and commentary (i.e. Beck, or Wilkow, or Savage, or Mike Church) have stopped being objective and started presenting selected information to make their points, rather than to inform a broader public.
Carlin (and other podcasters... there are hundreds) follow a more old-school approach to political/historical commentary. Carlin's is the best, though... he poses a question, then finds a possible answer and expects YOU, the listener, to come to your own conclusions. He doesn't say his solutions/answers are the ONLY ones, or even the best ones... he simply presents as "devil's advocate" and starts the discussion. You don't have to buy his facts (although I have checked and checked, and his sources are solid)... but he can't be dismissed without counter facts, and if you can't find those... then you can't be right, right?
I do recall the episode where he spoke of a MAD deterrent for every state if every state had a nuke. It wasn't his contention that his idea was the only idea, or even the best idea... he said that at least twice. He was positing the proposition to change the perspective that has been the norm since 1948... that the nuclear club was CLOSED and everyone worried about being attacked by nukes had only to associate in one way or another with one of the two (later three) developing "umbrellas" of protection that the superpowers provided.
More to the point, I think the general question was "Is NATO valid now that the USSR is no longer a threat to regional and global peace?" Specifically, he was asking if the US public would support the expense of lives, treasure and prestige if Russia "invaded" a NATO member in the way that they sent troops into the Ukraine. I know Ukraine isn't a NATO ally... but it very nearly was. And Latvia is. As is Poland. If the time would ever come when Russia does (and we did nothing to stop them in the Crimea, or Georgia, or Chechnya, or Moldavia...), would we be willing to send the same weight of effort to defend them that we would have to save Western Europe from a Warsaw Pact invasion in 1985? I don't think we would have.
So perhaps your point is valid... Russia hasn't attacked a NATO ally, and possibly that is because they are NATO allies. NATO has not shown a "unified front" in every situation that has arisen since 1999, though... does that factor into your defense of the alliance? At least two did not endorse the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Two did not support (or allow their airspace to be utilized) when Reagan bombed Tripoli, either... and that was at the height of the Cold War, and in clear violation of treaty grounds. We were attacked in 2001... no one disputes that... yet only four nations in NATO vowed military support for operations in Afghanistan prior to the invasion in 2001. The rest simply said "good luck". Is the possibility that the US would be the ONLY nation defending Poland or Latvia if Russia moved in acceptable to you? Does it still validate the existence of the organization?
Again, I'm not saying he's right... or that he is wrong. I am simply saying that the fact he has gotten us talking about the question at all is a very good thing.
The long and short of this is simply put by saying that you (and I and all of the rest of America) are used to the mainstream manner in which opposing points of view are presented: Two people slugging it out in a 3 minute sound byte but accomplishing nothing and resorting to personal slights and slanders, OR two (or more) people in complete rapturous agreement bashing everyone that isn't agreeing with them. Even "alternative" news and commentary (i.e. Beck, or Wilkow, or Savage, or Mike Church) have stopped being objective and started presenting selected information to make their points, rather than to inform a broader public.
Carlin (and other podcasters... there are hundreds) follow a more old-school approach to political/historical commentary. Carlin's is the best, though... he poses a question, then finds a possible answer and expects YOU, the listener, to come to your own conclusions. He doesn't say his solutions/answers are the ONLY ones, or even the best ones... he simply presents as "devil's advocate" and starts the discussion. You don't have to buy his facts (although I have checked and checked, and his sources are solid)... but he can't be dismissed without counter facts, and if you can't find those... then you can't be right, right?
I do recall the episode where he spoke of a MAD deterrent for every state if every state had a nuke. It wasn't his contention that his idea was the only idea, or even the best idea... he said that at least twice. He was positing the proposition to change the perspective that has been the norm since 1948... that the nuclear club was CLOSED and everyone worried about being attacked by nukes had only to associate in one way or another with one of the two (later three) developing "umbrellas" of protection that the superpowers provided.
More to the point, I think the general question was "Is NATO valid now that the USSR is no longer a threat to regional and global peace?" Specifically, he was asking if the US public would support the expense of lives, treasure and prestige if Russia "invaded" a NATO member in the way that they sent troops into the Ukraine. I know Ukraine isn't a NATO ally... but it very nearly was. And Latvia is. As is Poland. If the time would ever come when Russia does (and we did nothing to stop them in the Crimea, or Georgia, or Chechnya, or Moldavia...), would we be willing to send the same weight of effort to defend them that we would have to save Western Europe from a Warsaw Pact invasion in 1985? I don't think we would have.
So perhaps your point is valid... Russia hasn't attacked a NATO ally, and possibly that is because they are NATO allies. NATO has not shown a "unified front" in every situation that has arisen since 1999, though... does that factor into your defense of the alliance? At least two did not endorse the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Two did not support (or allow their airspace to be utilized) when Reagan bombed Tripoli, either... and that was at the height of the Cold War, and in clear violation of treaty grounds. We were attacked in 2001... no one disputes that... yet only four nations in NATO vowed military support for operations in Afghanistan prior to the invasion in 2001. The rest simply said "good luck". Is the possibility that the US would be the ONLY nation defending Poland or Latvia if Russia moved in acceptable to you? Does it still validate the existence of the organization?
Again, I'm not saying he's right... or that he is wrong. I am simply saying that the fact he has gotten us talking about the question at all is a very good thing.
You "love" Dan Carlin?
Really?
As my New England Patriots loving son would tell you, the only time it's okay for one man to tell another man he loves him is when one of those men is Tom Brady.
Look, I know you're about one burrito away from seeing Carlin's image in a tortilla, but there are some serious flaws within the two Common Sense podcasts I've listened to thus far. Now don't fret, I am not at all commenting on Hardcore History, as I haven't listened to them yet, but respecting your standards for accuracy and detail for history as I do, I'm optimistic about that series.
Neither am I retracting my previous statements that I love the way he first frames every issue within their historical context. My problem is the conclusions he draws after that framework of historical context is set up. His "solutions" leave much to be desired in my estimation. In his defense he does often say that he's not saying point A or B is right or wrong, just that we should be asking ourselves these questions. But when he does make a finite statement I find we are in wild disagreement. I'll address the two to which I am referring.
1) Episode: Riding the Chaos to Stasis (the Mid East problem/solution podcast you recommended):
He takes two contrary points without realizing it, or at least without acknowledging it. First of all, neither I nor he said the large Pan-Arab State (or caliphate) was good for us because we could defeat that state militarily (although we could). What he and I said was we have a better track record out maneuvering, manipulating, or in his words "using a carrot and stick" to illicit preferable behavior from nation states, unlike our experience in quelling insurgents. But to my point - he made it very clear that "of course you end up with a Saddam using Stalinist tactics" in Iraq because the cobbling together of three very distinct vying groups into one nation post WWI was a mistake. He went on to say that an iron fist naturally follows such a cobbling because it's the only style of governance that could maintain peace and order in a country made up of so many distinct, vying factions.
He then goes on to say (which you echoed in your post) that a massive Pan-Arab state (or quasi caliphate) would be good for the US because (among other things) when you have so many different, vying factions being ruled by a single government that the government would have to moderate its' positions in order to maintain peace and order.
Wait, what?
I thought cobbling together groups that are have religious, ethnic and clan based differences required an iron fist to rule? And what's worse is he thinks that a US lead conference that sets this in motion could peacefully expedite what would otherwise occur in war. Isn't that sorta what the UK and France did after WWI that he so (rightfully) decries as unworkable?
My problem with his avocation is this episode is that on the one hand he's saying it's destructive to maintain the Iraqi borders as one single nation because with so many varying sects you either get a strong man or perpetual civil war, when on the other hand he says consolidating the various sects under one uber government's rule would result in moderate leadership and a chance for peace. I don't see how these two views can be held simultaneously.
2) Cashing The Doomsday Cheque:
This is a Common Sense episode I'm assuming you listened to, but if you didn't you should because it's right in your wheel house - Russia.
He flat our advocates that NATO should have been dissolved immediately following the fall of the Soviet Union.
I'm sorry.... WHAT? His reasoning is that "of course Russia feels threatened" because we keep slinging out NATO memberships in their neighborhood like a pitch dealer on a $3 snapper game. The problem here is two fold. One, Vladamir Putin's grand designs of a reemerging Russian Bear, if not Russian Empire, DO exist in a vacuum. They would not have been abated by a non existent NATO. Second, it is clear that a NATO membership is the only thing preventing you from getting invaded by the Federation. The Chechs, Ukranians and Georgians are not NATO members. Poland is. See any difference in the status of Russian troops within those three?
Carlin further points out that Americans won't initiate a WWIII over some nation they've never heard of like Latvia. Look, that may be true if you do a man on the street Q&A. However, it is clear that NATO is the line in the sand Vlad will not yet cross. I don't know if the Kremlin has a ball room, but they will build one to house the party that will be thrown if NATO suddenly dissolves. Oh, the Vodka will flow boys! Can you imagine the free reign to "annex" former satellite states Russia would feel if such a thing occurred?
And all of that is not half as bad as what he says - and he was being serious - he would replace NATO with, the "Carlin Solution" as he calls it. In a nut shell, post dissolution of NATO, he would give each of the former members (presumably we're talking about Eastern European nations) a nuke. This is so they would have the means to deter Russia - and their 2000 nukes - themselves. Uh huh, sure, that oughta do it. He then amended that to say that he would give them one nuke for every two nations and they'd have to both "turn the key" so to speak to use it, like some sort of nuke buddy system. Oh ya, that sounds workable. Everybody gets .5 nukes and Russia will stay home, everybody can relax now.
As an aside he thinks this is also the solution to world wide nonproliferation - every, and I mean EVERY nation (or every two) gets the bomb says he, including Iran because (he claims) our efforts at non proliferation among bad state actors has failed. Excuse me, no it hasn't. Nations that we don't want to have the bomb almost never get them. North Korea is the exception that proves the rule, and if you're screaming "Iran", believe me when I say Israel will never let that happen.
Back to my point - if you think that doling out NATO memberships has in essence provoked the "bear" to the point of an aggressive foreign policy, what do you think doling out nukes would do? Putin would go ballistic, maybe literally. The Ruskies flipped out when we wanted conventional missiles in Poland (which Bush advocated and Obama bailed on). Vlad might literally consider handing the Chechs a nuke, an act of war. And Carlin unequivocally advocated doing just that.
If it weren't so dangerous it would be silly.
Again, I do think he does an impressive job (better than any other pundit) of setting up the current event or geopolitical issue in a historical context prior to delving into "solutions." I like that contextual set up. It's detailed and serious, very solid work. But the solutions that then spring from that set up are thus far lacking, well.... common sense.
As my New England Patriots loving son would tell you, the only time it's okay for one man to tell another man he loves him is when one of those men is Tom Brady.
Look, I know you're about one burrito away from seeing Carlin's image in a tortilla, but there are some serious flaws within the two Common Sense podcasts I've listened to thus far. Now don't fret, I am not at all commenting on Hardcore History, as I haven't listened to them yet, but respecting your standards for accuracy and detail for history as I do, I'm optimistic about that series.
Neither am I retracting my previous statements that I love the way he first frames every issue within their historical context. My problem is the conclusions he draws after that framework of historical context is set up. His "solutions" leave much to be desired in my estimation. In his defense he does often say that he's not saying point A or B is right or wrong, just that we should be asking ourselves these questions. But when he does make a finite statement I find we are in wild disagreement. I'll address the two to which I am referring.
1) Episode: Riding the Chaos to Stasis (the Mid East problem/solution podcast you recommended):
He takes two contrary points without realizing it, or at least without acknowledging it. First of all, neither I nor he said the large Pan-Arab State (or caliphate) was good for us because we could defeat that state militarily (although we could). What he and I said was we have a better track record out maneuvering, manipulating, or in his words "using a carrot and stick" to illicit preferable behavior from nation states, unlike our experience in quelling insurgents. But to my point - he made it very clear that "of course you end up with a Saddam using Stalinist tactics" in Iraq because the cobbling together of three very distinct vying groups into one nation post WWI was a mistake. He went on to say that an iron fist naturally follows such a cobbling because it's the only style of governance that could maintain peace and order in a country made up of so many distinct, vying factions.
He then goes on to say (which you echoed in your post) that a massive Pan-Arab state (or quasi caliphate) would be good for the US because (among other things) when you have so many different, vying factions being ruled by a single government that the government would have to moderate its' positions in order to maintain peace and order.
Wait, what?
I thought cobbling together groups that are have religious, ethnic and clan based differences required an iron fist to rule? And what's worse is he thinks that a US lead conference that sets this in motion could peacefully expedite what would otherwise occur in war. Isn't that sorta what the UK and France did after WWI that he so (rightfully) decries as unworkable?
My problem with his avocation is this episode is that on the one hand he's saying it's destructive to maintain the Iraqi borders as one single nation because with so many varying sects you either get a strong man or perpetual civil war, when on the other hand he says consolidating the various sects under one uber government's rule would result in moderate leadership and a chance for peace. I don't see how these two views can be held simultaneously.
2) Cashing The Doomsday Cheque:
This is a Common Sense episode I'm assuming you listened to, but if you didn't you should because it's right in your wheel house - Russia.
He flat our advocates that NATO should have been dissolved immediately following the fall of the Soviet Union.
I'm sorry.... WHAT? His reasoning is that "of course Russia feels threatened" because we keep slinging out NATO memberships in their neighborhood like a pitch dealer on a $3 snapper game. The problem here is two fold. One, Vladamir Putin's grand designs of a reemerging Russian Bear, if not Russian Empire, DO exist in a vacuum. They would not have been abated by a non existent NATO. Second, it is clear that a NATO membership is the only thing preventing you from getting invaded by the Federation. The Chechs, Ukranians and Georgians are not NATO members. Poland is. See any difference in the status of Russian troops within those three?
Carlin further points out that Americans won't initiate a WWIII over some nation they've never heard of like Latvia. Look, that may be true if you do a man on the street Q&A. However, it is clear that NATO is the line in the sand Vlad will not yet cross. I don't know if the Kremlin has a ball room, but they will build one to house the party that will be thrown if NATO suddenly dissolves. Oh, the Vodka will flow boys! Can you imagine the free reign to "annex" former satellite states Russia would feel if such a thing occurred?
And all of that is not half as bad as what he says - and he was being serious - he would replace NATO with, the "Carlin Solution" as he calls it. In a nut shell, post dissolution of NATO, he would give each of the former members (presumably we're talking about Eastern European nations) a nuke. This is so they would have the means to deter Russia - and their 2000 nukes - themselves. Uh huh, sure, that oughta do it. He then amended that to say that he would give them one nuke for every two nations and they'd have to both "turn the key" so to speak to use it, like some sort of nuke buddy system. Oh ya, that sounds workable. Everybody gets .5 nukes and Russia will stay home, everybody can relax now.
As an aside he thinks this is also the solution to world wide nonproliferation - every, and I mean EVERY nation (or every two) gets the bomb says he, including Iran because (he claims) our efforts at non proliferation among bad state actors has failed. Excuse me, no it hasn't. Nations that we don't want to have the bomb almost never get them. North Korea is the exception that proves the rule, and if you're screaming "Iran", believe me when I say Israel will never let that happen.
Back to my point - if you think that doling out NATO memberships has in essence provoked the "bear" to the point of an aggressive foreign policy, what do you think doling out nukes would do? Putin would go ballistic, maybe literally. The Ruskies flipped out when we wanted conventional missiles in Poland (which Bush advocated and Obama bailed on). Vlad might literally consider handing the Chechs a nuke, an act of war. And Carlin unequivocally advocated doing just that.
If it weren't so dangerous it would be silly.
Again, I do think he does an impressive job (better than any other pundit) of setting up the current event or geopolitical issue in a historical context prior to delving into "solutions." I like that contextual set up. It's detailed and serious, very solid work. But the solutions that then spring from that set up are thus far lacking, well.... common sense.
On NATO...
I got a text from F Ryan saying he was not happy with the direction Mr. Carlin was going in a discussion on NATO. I'd like to hear more on this.
If I'm not mistaken (and I may very well be), there was a Common Sense episode where he discussed the crisis in the Ukraine earlier this year. Russia "invades" the Crimea, Kiev is in meltdown mode, protesters are being shot in the streets... it was very dramatic and painful to watch. Carlin's comments were that Ukraine was... literally... about six months from joining NATO. It wasn't until an election scandal derailed the process that the membership in NATO fell through. He was asking: What if Ukraine was a NATO member?
Would the US have committed troops and arms to the effort as its NATO membership required? To treat the attack on the Crimea as an attack on the US itself? Would it have been right to do so? Is there a purpose to expanding NATO now that the Soviet Union is gone? Russia is not the USSR, but it is still a major global power and still maintains a "sphere of influence" every bit as vital to herself as ours is to us. Most of the former Warsaw Pact nations are now in NATO (at least the biggest are), as are several of the former Soviet republics... but to what end? If Russia's next "grab" is for one or more of the Baltic states... will we commit 100% of our military and fiscal power to stop them? Will any other NATO member? If the answer is "No" then what is the purpose of the alliance? What is the reason to expand if adherence to the treaty isn't a priority?
More importantly, would the American people support such measures? Would they willingly support troops in places like Poland, Ukraine, Latvia or Slovakia? If the answer, again, is "No" then what good is NATO?
If I'm not mistaken (and I may very well be), there was a Common Sense episode where he discussed the crisis in the Ukraine earlier this year. Russia "invades" the Crimea, Kiev is in meltdown mode, protesters are being shot in the streets... it was very dramatic and painful to watch. Carlin's comments were that Ukraine was... literally... about six months from joining NATO. It wasn't until an election scandal derailed the process that the membership in NATO fell through. He was asking: What if Ukraine was a NATO member?
Would the US have committed troops and arms to the effort as its NATO membership required? To treat the attack on the Crimea as an attack on the US itself? Would it have been right to do so? Is there a purpose to expanding NATO now that the Soviet Union is gone? Russia is not the USSR, but it is still a major global power and still maintains a "sphere of influence" every bit as vital to herself as ours is to us. Most of the former Warsaw Pact nations are now in NATO (at least the biggest are), as are several of the former Soviet republics... but to what end? If Russia's next "grab" is for one or more of the Baltic states... will we commit 100% of our military and fiscal power to stop them? Will any other NATO member? If the answer is "No" then what is the purpose of the alliance? What is the reason to expand if adherence to the treaty isn't a priority?
More importantly, would the American people support such measures? Would they willingly support troops in places like Poland, Ukraine, Latvia or Slovakia? If the answer, again, is "No" then what good is NATO?
Thursday, July 10, 2014
I love Dan Carlin...
... and I'm damn glad you finally listened to him. Both formats are fantastic, but it is Hardcore History that has stolen my time completely. I will listen to his shows over and over again... seriously.
That said, I'm concerned that you and I listened to the same podcast... but came to completely different conclusions about what he was saying.
Why would a solution that presented the least problem for us to overcome militarily be the one you would advocate in regards to the crisis in Iraq and Syria?
His half-hearted endorsement of a modern "caliphate" was not because it was something we, as a superpower, are good at winning wars against. It was to show that one cannot govern THAT many people of THAT many varied ethnic and denominational differences and NOT be far, far more moderate than the extremists we are so afraid of now. Saddam would still be in power now, crushing the life out of 25 million Iraqis with nary a word of rebuke from the US, if he hadn't overplayed his hand and invaded a sovereign neighbor... Kuwait. Iran is still a thorn in the side of the US because they haven't overtly done anything to tip the scales against them in the ponderous but fluid game of international diplomacy.
One cannot successfully govern Sunni, Shi'ite, Kurd, Berber, Arab, Afghan, Turk, Somali and Pakistani without a degree of moderation and even-handedness that simply doesn't exist today... but it has existed in the past. His point, as far as I can tell, was that with a caliphate-like structure, there would be a central authority that simply doesn't exist now... and hasn't since the end of the Ottoman Empire in 1918.
More importantly, as you hear more of his podcasts, I think you will see that Mr. Carlin is a big fan of allowing people like the Iraqis (or anyone else we are desperately trying to manipulate) the freedom to determine their own form of government... something we should be behind 100%, regardless of what that form takes. This harkens back to the debate we had when Lebanon finally had "free" elections and elevated Hamas to the heights of power. You were outraged... incensed, even. Yet it was exactly what we had hoped they would do: elect a government that best represents their interests. I don't like Hamas any more than you do... but that is the price of the democratic process, isn't it? Hitler was elected, after all.
Putting aside the question of a caliphate, though...
The three-state solution could work. Worrying about ISIS overtaking the entire middle east seems a bit much. They have overrun most of northern Iraq and eastern Syria only because the Shi'ite minority of the area has chosen NOT to fight with any real effort. That is the reason we hear reports of 800 "terrorists" routing 12,000 US-trained Iraqi infantry. The ISIS groups have nearly full logistical support from the Sunni populous, but are risking intervention from Iran (if it hasn't come already) AND Hamas. They are living large on the reputation that the videos and pictures of street murders and mass killings provide them... but even a small bit of actual supported resistance could curb their gains very quickly.
There will come a time when the politics of the few will cost the majority so much in blood, fear and hunger that the support (voluntary or otherwise) will end, and you will see the REAL fruits of an Arab Spring. ISIS can instill fear and terror, as they have so clearly demonstrated. I am 100% confident that they will be even more incapable of actual rule than the Taliban, or the PLO, or Hamas.
Therein lies the problem, though, doesn't it? I am sure that F Ryan is NOT ready to wait for ISIS to fail any more than he was the Taliban, the PLO or Hamas. As you said, should an attack from Iraq (in any of its future forms) be made on America, then we respond with overwhelming force and total victory. Not before though... preemptive actions and operations do not allow for a clear strategic grand strategy, but defensive or retaliatory actions and operations do. That is the ingredient that we were missing since long before 2001... in fact, all the way back to the end of the First Gulf War.
Finally, now that you have discovered the wonder that is Dan Carlin... you simply MUST listen to the Wrath of the Khans. It is a four-part (I think) series that I have listened to at least four times. Utterly fascinating, and delivered in a manner that even my children have enjoyed... and that is saying something.
That said, I'm concerned that you and I listened to the same podcast... but came to completely different conclusions about what he was saying.
Why would a solution that presented the least problem for us to overcome militarily be the one you would advocate in regards to the crisis in Iraq and Syria?
His half-hearted endorsement of a modern "caliphate" was not because it was something we, as a superpower, are good at winning wars against. It was to show that one cannot govern THAT many people of THAT many varied ethnic and denominational differences and NOT be far, far more moderate than the extremists we are so afraid of now. Saddam would still be in power now, crushing the life out of 25 million Iraqis with nary a word of rebuke from the US, if he hadn't overplayed his hand and invaded a sovereign neighbor... Kuwait. Iran is still a thorn in the side of the US because they haven't overtly done anything to tip the scales against them in the ponderous but fluid game of international diplomacy.
One cannot successfully govern Sunni, Shi'ite, Kurd, Berber, Arab, Afghan, Turk, Somali and Pakistani without a degree of moderation and even-handedness that simply doesn't exist today... but it has existed in the past. His point, as far as I can tell, was that with a caliphate-like structure, there would be a central authority that simply doesn't exist now... and hasn't since the end of the Ottoman Empire in 1918.
More importantly, as you hear more of his podcasts, I think you will see that Mr. Carlin is a big fan of allowing people like the Iraqis (or anyone else we are desperately trying to manipulate) the freedom to determine their own form of government... something we should be behind 100%, regardless of what that form takes. This harkens back to the debate we had when Lebanon finally had "free" elections and elevated Hamas to the heights of power. You were outraged... incensed, even. Yet it was exactly what we had hoped they would do: elect a government that best represents their interests. I don't like Hamas any more than you do... but that is the price of the democratic process, isn't it? Hitler was elected, after all.
Putting aside the question of a caliphate, though...
The three-state solution could work. Worrying about ISIS overtaking the entire middle east seems a bit much. They have overrun most of northern Iraq and eastern Syria only because the Shi'ite minority of the area has chosen NOT to fight with any real effort. That is the reason we hear reports of 800 "terrorists" routing 12,000 US-trained Iraqi infantry. The ISIS groups have nearly full logistical support from the Sunni populous, but are risking intervention from Iran (if it hasn't come already) AND Hamas. They are living large on the reputation that the videos and pictures of street murders and mass killings provide them... but even a small bit of actual supported resistance could curb their gains very quickly.
There will come a time when the politics of the few will cost the majority so much in blood, fear and hunger that the support (voluntary or otherwise) will end, and you will see the REAL fruits of an Arab Spring. ISIS can instill fear and terror, as they have so clearly demonstrated. I am 100% confident that they will be even more incapable of actual rule than the Taliban, or the PLO, or Hamas.
Therein lies the problem, though, doesn't it? I am sure that F Ryan is NOT ready to wait for ISIS to fail any more than he was the Taliban, the PLO or Hamas. As you said, should an attack from Iraq (in any of its future forms) be made on America, then we respond with overwhelming force and total victory. Not before though... preemptive actions and operations do not allow for a clear strategic grand strategy, but defensive or retaliatory actions and operations do. That is the ingredient that we were missing since long before 2001... in fact, all the way back to the end of the First Gulf War.
Finally, now that you have discovered the wonder that is Dan Carlin... you simply MUST listen to the Wrath of the Khans. It is a four-part (I think) series that I have listened to at least four times. Utterly fascinating, and delivered in a manner that even my children have enjoyed... and that is saying something.
Wednesday, July 9, 2014
Pan-Arabia and my uncle Pat
I've been devouring national security style fiction novels at the
rate of about one every 10 days because for some reason I fancy myself a writer
and am in the process of arranging a book. So much of my "intellectual
time" (if you want to call it that) has been devoted to this endeavor.
However, setting my phone's home page to the Bund has had its’ intended effect,
and not only did I read your posts but I finally caved and download and listened to
your much touted Dan Carlin.
I have an uncle that works at NASA. I also
have a cousin, from the paternal side, that works for that same little outfit. Yes,
I have two honest to goodness rocket scientists sitting on the ol’
family tree. And I remember asking my uncle once, "Why do you love science
so much?" He responded, "I am fascinated by how stuff works."
To me history is a "how stuff
works" guide to politics. It is my favorite form of political discussion,
taking what is known about our past and applying it to what may be in our
future. It is exactly what the Glenn Beck radio program once was. Either Glenn
has spread himself too thin or he's choosing to dump that format into his daily
hour television show, but whatever the cause I find myself rolling my eyes as
he spends one radio broadcast minute after another discussing religious platitudes. There are few things that I loathe more than platitudes. Don't get me
wrong, I believe he is sincere; it's just that he is at a different place than
I am on our path of learning, and discussing religious solutions to specific
geopolitical or domestic problems doesn't appeal to me at present. To be honest
I think he's so fed up with both parties and the system in general that he's sort of
arrived at a forget it, only God can sort this out stage. Maybe he's right, I'm just
not there yet as discussion forums go.
Now this Carlin character seems to
be waste deep into the form of politics I (and by extension the Bund) most
favor. I've only listened to the one podcast, on the middle East, but if this
format is the rule and not the exception I may have found a new favorite
current events show. I also took the liberty and downloaded the free Hardcore
History episodes (13 of them, the others are labeled "classics" such
as Hitler vs. Alexander and cost $2.99), and a select handful of Common Sense
episodes. I see now why you listened to it twice. For one, there's a ton of
information in there, and second they're only released at a rate of once to twice a
month.
So thanks for the repeated recommendations,
I'm glad I finally caved. That being said, allow me to comment on the specifics
of that episode.
First, at one point Carlin stated flatly
the same thing I did a few posts ago - that the US is much better at dealing
with hostile nation states than small, rogue terrorist or insurgent groups. Although his proposed solutions varied from mine. My point in that post was
that if ISIS turns Iraq into another Iran, we will - from a strategic standpoint
- be able to deal with Iraq more effectively. Out maneuvering or fighting a
nation state is something we are well skilled at. Wading into a civil war to play referee,
we are not. He takes that sentiment much, MUCH further however.
He makes a solid argument that the arbitrary
lines of post WWI European design must not be placed on some sacred mantle to
be protected, that it takes a Saddam to enforce such boarders or direct Western
intervention, and as such are unnatural. I think we can all agree that the
European designed map of the Near East has failed. Now as to what will become
of these lines in a post US invasion/withdrawal of Iraq and Afghanistan... Essentially he is predicting
one of two outcomes. One, ISIS (or ISIL) fights within the borders of modern
Iraq until they receive sufficient push back from the Kurds in the North, and
the Shi'ites in the South, and the three state solution that Joe Biden was
laughed off the stage for will naturally form and stabilize. Second, ISIS or
some similar group, will not be stopped by Kurds or its' rival Islamic sect and
eventually a Pan-Arab super state will form, made up of perhaps four or five
smaller states. In essence, a caliphate.
Now his point is that either solution is preferable
to what we have now because if you increase the number of Arab states via Iraq
you'll have natural boundaries that create a stable stasis. If you decrease the
number of Arab states to four or five under the umbrella of a large Pan-Arab
government (that is undemocratic either through theocracy, monarchy, or
dictatorship) that you will have essentially created a Soviet or Chinese model
of statehood that we are well schooled in dealing with. We have either defeated
or contained such large, top heavy, oppressive regimes in our past whereas we
have a poor record dealing with insurgents. In addition, he notes that in such
a regime the youth and the otherwise oppressed will eventually rise up and
throw off their oppressors. And that this revolution will either be a hard
landing, as with the Soviets, or a soft landing, as with the Chinese in which
the Communist Party is trying to manage the transition to capitalism; or as
they describe it “Communism with Chinese characteristics.” Yeah, and Kim Jung
Un can talk to dolphins… you’re not
fooling anybody there chairman.
I found the entire diatribe fascinating. Especially the ideas on a
Pan-Arab state. He's equating fundamentalist Islam's style of rule (and a
theocracy is the most likely outcome in this scenario) with communism, in
essence noting they are both unsustainable because they run contrary to natural
human desires. So he's asking why not let them form, take their shot at rule,
and watch them topple naturally from within?
I read the man's bio on Wikipedia, and
while I'm reluctant to take that site's information as gospel, I do hope they
got one quote right. He said (and I'm paraphrasing) that the only two
politicians he thinks could honestly address our problems are Dennis Kucinich
and Ron Paul. These are two diametrically opposed ideologs, but they at least
say what they mean and mean what they say, and aren't afraid to challenge the
status quo or be called nut bags because of their bold proposals. Now what I
hope is he admires them based on that, and not because he embraces them fully, especially
Kucinich (although I don't know how that would be possible,
ideologically).
My point for bringing that up in relation
to his Mid East proposals is that these proposals are unique, and sure to be labeled as nutty by some. But they are also bold, and historically based, so I do not dismiss them out of hand. However, we should bear in mind how much death and
destruction was wrought by the Bolsheviks and the Great Leap Forward. In other
words, I agree that we are much better at managing, containing, and ultimately
defeating large oppressive nation states than we are at fighting small oppressive
bands of militants, and I also agree that eventually - like communism - a large
oppressive theocracy (as represented in a Pan-Arab state) would crumble providing the best chance for an organic
democratic revolution to spring up. However, the "in between" time
could make the Great Leap Forward and the Bolsheviks (respectively) look like
pikers. They were committed to a political ideology and loyal to Party. The
presumed rulers in this instance would be zealots committed to religion and
loyal to God. I see that as a much tougher bond to break. The Soviets killed
what, 20, 30 million of their own to establish and maintain order? Mao killed
easily more than double that. So we have to be careful what we wish for. And
that's before getting into the threat of an aggressive foreign policy of a
grand caliphate that mimics the Soviets.
Now in his defense, he points out how
awful this in between time could be. That no one would want to live in this
time of the European "bandaid" being ripped off, and admits it may
not be the right solution. He advocated a US foreign policy that calls a summit
and tries to establish by peaceful treaty what would be the presumed resulting boarders
of a three-way Iraqi civil war, or even a future Pan-Arab state, so he's
certainly not blind as to what this thing could devolve into while it's
transitioning into a peaceful "stasis", if left to its own devices. As for myself I am inclined to believe
that despite our best intentions any "peace conference" in which we
draw up what our best guess would be of natural boarders, things would still descend
into civil war. In other words, it may be true that ISIS will be stopped in the
north by the Kurds, but it may take the actual fight to convince ISIS of this,
rather than a piece of paper drawn up by outsiders.
The bottom line for me is one he
articulated well - we are now at a point where there is no path to peace that
doesn't involve war. There is no "good" way to untie the Gordian Knot
formed by the post WWI victors when they drew up the spoils of the Ottomans.
What we have found in Iraq - at least thus far - is what doesn't work. Namely,
a superior foreign power implanting democracy within the boarders of a nation
drawn up in a British sitting room. After all our blood and treasure it would
be indeed tragic to just leave. But isn't it more tragic to not learn from our
mistakes? To keep doing the same thing expecting a different result? I'm not
willing to risk one more Marine to enforce boarders that haven't worked for 100
years. I'd prefer to put them on our own boarders, but that's a different post.
The result of our withdrawal will be bloody, no question, but it won't be the
blood of our soldiers. It is time for them to come home, but with a very clear
parting message - no matter who wins their civil wars, no matter what "natural"
boarders are established by the indigenous populations, if any one of the new nations states that arise out of
Iraq, Syria, et al come at us, we will annihilate you, period. If we leave I want them all to be on
notice that nation states have boarders and capitals, parliament houses and
presidential homes, and every one of those will be on the B2 Stealth Bomber
targeting list if you decide to poke this eagle.
Sunday, July 6, 2014
Thinking like a Westerner...
In my on-going attempt to keep this blog alive, I'm going to revisit some of F Ryan's previous comments...
In F Ryan's last post, he states that there exists in the middle east a strain of 7th Century Islamic fundamentalism, and that this strain is the root of the problem. It is organized, committed and well supported by the population at large. I'm going to look at that view, and show that THIS is the Western view that is so dangerous to the United States as we learn how best to deal with the people of the region.
If we simply look at the "Arab world" as it is traditionally defined (populations of the member states of the Arab League), then we see a population composed of 55% or more between the ages of 18 and 26... and 60% of those are unemployed and suffering staggering levels of poverty. Formerly (before the Syrian revolt and the Arab Spring uprisings), states like Egypt and Syria and Libya required employment and some form of party affiliation to cast any kind of vote, even at a local level. I don't know if this is still true... but that means it is the status quo for societies that are trying to define themselves even now. States like the UAE and Saudi Arabia still refuse to allow 51% of their population to vote at all... women... and those votes are never for anything meaningful like political leadership or public referendums.
What prospects do young Arab-speaking men in places like Yemen, Libya, Syria, Iraq, Lebanon or Oman have if they are not born into wealth? In the past, these men joined (either voluntarily or otherwise) the army of their respective nation. A paycheck, food, shelter, clothing and a degree of prestige and pride were instilled... even if the purpose and drive for personal development was lacking. Now those military arms are all but non-existent. So they join the equivalent of local "gangs" now... we call them militias... which do the same thing... try to instill a sense of purpose and drive into an otherwise meaningless future for these young men.
Attention that is paid to those proposing a caliphate is simply large portions of the populations expressing an urge and desire to have their voices heard. Admittedly, that might mean having their voices heard over everyone else... I mean the Sunnis wanting to rule over Shi'ites, for example, and vice versa... but it is a fundamental need that isn't being met by any current or past regime in the region.
Let's look at Israel. Not Palestine, but Israel. Here, we see a society where ultra-conservative members of the Jewish faith live and work side-by-side with Israelis that consider themselves ethnically Jewish, but hold no faith with them in a religious sense. I don't speak of a fringe element, either... Haredi Jews compromise as much as 20% of all Jewish nationals in the country... equal to the number of non-religious secular Jewish citizens. This society, even with all its troubles and trials, is a growing society, and a prosperous one. There is no oil in Israel, very little in the way of conventional arable land, and no abundance of natural resources to offset the problems any growing society meets year-to-year.
What Israel has and the Arab world lacks is a sense of common purpose and shared pride. A sense of unity and community. It is our Western attitudes and biases that lead us to think that the troubles in the region can be blamed simply on a single strain of religious zealotry or fundamental views of religious laws only because they are so different from our own.
I do, however, agree with F Ryan in this: it was our Western attitudes and biases that caused the failure of the current and past efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan... but no good will come of future efforts if we continue to follow them, either.
In F Ryan's last post, he states that there exists in the middle east a strain of 7th Century Islamic fundamentalism, and that this strain is the root of the problem. It is organized, committed and well supported by the population at large. I'm going to look at that view, and show that THIS is the Western view that is so dangerous to the United States as we learn how best to deal with the people of the region.
If we simply look at the "Arab world" as it is traditionally defined (populations of the member states of the Arab League), then we see a population composed of 55% or more between the ages of 18 and 26... and 60% of those are unemployed and suffering staggering levels of poverty. Formerly (before the Syrian revolt and the Arab Spring uprisings), states like Egypt and Syria and Libya required employment and some form of party affiliation to cast any kind of vote, even at a local level. I don't know if this is still true... but that means it is the status quo for societies that are trying to define themselves even now. States like the UAE and Saudi Arabia still refuse to allow 51% of their population to vote at all... women... and those votes are never for anything meaningful like political leadership or public referendums.
What prospects do young Arab-speaking men in places like Yemen, Libya, Syria, Iraq, Lebanon or Oman have if they are not born into wealth? In the past, these men joined (either voluntarily or otherwise) the army of their respective nation. A paycheck, food, shelter, clothing and a degree of prestige and pride were instilled... even if the purpose and drive for personal development was lacking. Now those military arms are all but non-existent. So they join the equivalent of local "gangs" now... we call them militias... which do the same thing... try to instill a sense of purpose and drive into an otherwise meaningless future for these young men.
Attention that is paid to those proposing a caliphate is simply large portions of the populations expressing an urge and desire to have their voices heard. Admittedly, that might mean having their voices heard over everyone else... I mean the Sunnis wanting to rule over Shi'ites, for example, and vice versa... but it is a fundamental need that isn't being met by any current or past regime in the region.
Let's look at Israel. Not Palestine, but Israel. Here, we see a society where ultra-conservative members of the Jewish faith live and work side-by-side with Israelis that consider themselves ethnically Jewish, but hold no faith with them in a religious sense. I don't speak of a fringe element, either... Haredi Jews compromise as much as 20% of all Jewish nationals in the country... equal to the number of non-religious secular Jewish citizens. This society, even with all its troubles and trials, is a growing society, and a prosperous one. There is no oil in Israel, very little in the way of conventional arable land, and no abundance of natural resources to offset the problems any growing society meets year-to-year.
What Israel has and the Arab world lacks is a sense of common purpose and shared pride. A sense of unity and community. It is our Western attitudes and biases that lead us to think that the troubles in the region can be blamed simply on a single strain of religious zealotry or fundamental views of religious laws only because they are so different from our own.
I do, however, agree with F Ryan in this: it was our Western attitudes and biases that caused the failure of the current and past efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan... but no good will come of future efforts if we continue to follow them, either.
Wednesday, July 2, 2014
I hate being in a rut...
Ok, terrible pun in the title... still better than Bangles lyrics, though.
The rut I am referring to is a "road usage tax" and one has been implemented in Oregon just last week. On the promise that, once it is tested and vetted by "volunteers" across the great state of Oregon, the RUT will reduce (but not eliminate) the Oregon state gasoline tax as the primary revenue source for road and bridge upkeep.
Well, we all know how often a "tax" is ever reduced (let alone eliminated, case in point: PA's gaming revenue was supposed to eliminate retired state citizens' need to pay property taxes... yet every single person in PA is STILL paying property tax, 8 years after gaming has been established). We aren't looking at a PA RUT... yet, but I'm sure this is going to be the latest rage in state revenue grabs... with cars becoming more and more efficient, and people driving less and less due to the $3.60+ price of gas over the last year, what can you expect? Gasoline revenues are a public statistic in all 50 states, so its easy to see that the national average for gasoline consumption is down 6% over the last 3 years... which I assume means a 6% decrease in gasoline tax revenues, which means 6% less in monies for the repair, upkeep and maintenance of our roads, highways and interstates. Add that to the $55 billion the nation is short in infrastructure expense already, and yes, I do see the states jumping all over this.
I have a 114 mile daily commute... that's 27,360 miles annually just for my job. Add to that the running to and from town, schools, colleges, stores and my wife's miles (call in another 12,000 even) and I'm looking at roughly 40k a year... and the national "average" of miles driven annually is 18,000??? This is going to be a game changer for me. At more than twice the national average in miles (who came up with that average, by the way?), what is my bill going to be?
More importantly, I am REALLY not okay with the Government (state or federal) putting a GPS tracker in my car (which is how Oregon is doing things). Not only will they have data on how far I drive, but also how fast, what my destinations are, and when I am travelling. Aren't detailed records and recordings of my phone calls, texts and emails for the last 12 years enough? When is the info grab that this government is jumping into with both feet going to end?
Do I need to fear sounding like the "Tinfoil Hat Brigade" commander if I say that when I imagine what is at the bottom of THIS slippery slope, it keeps me awake at night? Because it really does...
The rut I am referring to is a "road usage tax" and one has been implemented in Oregon just last week. On the promise that, once it is tested and vetted by "volunteers" across the great state of Oregon, the RUT will reduce (but not eliminate) the Oregon state gasoline tax as the primary revenue source for road and bridge upkeep.
Well, we all know how often a "tax" is ever reduced (let alone eliminated, case in point: PA's gaming revenue was supposed to eliminate retired state citizens' need to pay property taxes... yet every single person in PA is STILL paying property tax, 8 years after gaming has been established). We aren't looking at a PA RUT... yet, but I'm sure this is going to be the latest rage in state revenue grabs... with cars becoming more and more efficient, and people driving less and less due to the $3.60+ price of gas over the last year, what can you expect? Gasoline revenues are a public statistic in all 50 states, so its easy to see that the national average for gasoline consumption is down 6% over the last 3 years... which I assume means a 6% decrease in gasoline tax revenues, which means 6% less in monies for the repair, upkeep and maintenance of our roads, highways and interstates. Add that to the $55 billion the nation is short in infrastructure expense already, and yes, I do see the states jumping all over this.
I have a 114 mile daily commute... that's 27,360 miles annually just for my job. Add to that the running to and from town, schools, colleges, stores and my wife's miles (call in another 12,000 even) and I'm looking at roughly 40k a year... and the national "average" of miles driven annually is 18,000??? This is going to be a game changer for me. At more than twice the national average in miles (who came up with that average, by the way?), what is my bill going to be?
More importantly, I am REALLY not okay with the Government (state or federal) putting a GPS tracker in my car (which is how Oregon is doing things). Not only will they have data on how far I drive, but also how fast, what my destinations are, and when I am travelling. Aren't detailed records and recordings of my phone calls, texts and emails for the last 12 years enough? When is the info grab that this government is jumping into with both feet going to end?
Do I need to fear sounding like the "Tinfoil Hat Brigade" commander if I say that when I imagine what is at the bottom of THIS slippery slope, it keeps me awake at night? Because it really does...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
