The US has spent several trillion dollars waging war in the Middle East recently. If that same money had been invested in respective countries instead, would it be possible that there would today be thriving, vibrant trade partners that exported things other than terrorists there instead?Probably not. "Investing" in kleptocracies rarely improves the local economy.
I never said it would be better to simply hand out money. You would need some kind of presence, probably necessarily with military backup, and have a dedicated work against corruption locally. Whatever the method you choose, I still think the result would have been better with a civilian focus rather than a military.
I never said it would be better to simply hand out money. You would need some kind of presence, probably necessarily with military backup, and have a dedicated work against corruption locally.The US has spent several trillion dollars waging war in the Middle East recently. If that same money had been invested in respective countries instead, would it be possible that there would today be thriving, vibrant trade partners that exported things other than terrorists there instead?Probably not. "Investing" in kleptocracies rarely improves the local economy.
If you won't play by the local rules, there won't be any investment at all. The kleptocracy won't permit it if they don't control it.
The kind of social engineering you propose would weaken the kleptocracy's hold on power, and they know it. Ergo, it won't happen.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
They're cornered and given enough will from the EU, US and Russia, they'll be eradicated.
Except I'm not sure what "eradicated" is supposed to mean in this context, but I suspect that it will not be in any meaningful way the end of the threat they pose. Irontruth expressed it well: "We might destroy ISIS, but another group is just going to coalesce and cause problems, unless we also address the root causes." In fact, that other group might simply be the ISIS troops putting away their flags, but not their guns or their ideology.
By new I mean gathering several specific characteristics. They're relying to terrorism warfare, but also established on a territorial area they control more or less; they have access to large ressources; they try to structure themselves as a state.
That actually sounds rather like the early days of Israel to me. Or, for that matter, the early days of the United States.
"Terrorist warfare" (the preferred term is "asymmetric warfare," by the way) is actually a sensible tactic when there's a huge power and resource disparity between yourselves and your opponent. No one sensible brings a knife to a gunfight, but similarly, no one sensible wants to have a tank-to-tank armor duel when you don't have any tanks.
They don't actually rely on asymmetric warfare in their fights to control territory. When they're in a position where they can do a traditional zerg rush and take control of a town from the local militia, they do so. But they're smart enough and experienced enough to know that they can't use that tactic against airstrikes launched from Turkey or offshore carriers.
And, last but not least, DAESH tries to establish a fascist regime that has no other purpose but the extermination of all humans not supporting their believes, and the destruction of all material constructions and crafts they don't support.
You're not seriously suggesting that Daesh/ISIS invented religious genocide, are you? Look up Joshua 10:40-41 sometime.
It's a misrepresentation to suggest that they have no purpose but extermination. Like most theocrats, they are trying to establish a religious government that is an earthly extension of God's Law. In the areas that they actually control, they are providing a functioning government, including social services, infrastructure, law enforcement, and so forth. Of course, the laws that they are enforcing are by Western standards barbaric, but the level of service they're providing is not actually that bad by the standards of war-torn Middle East countries. They're building roads, distributing supplies, establishing and staffing hospitals, and restoring/creating a power grid for electricity.
It's this I name DAESH and this that should be eradicated.
Unfortunately, what you name "Daesh" is better described as "Mordor," and it doesn't even exist in nonfiction. Indeed, it doesn't even exist in Middle Earth, as Tolkien was at pains to point out. A truly nihilistic genocidal "organization" wouldn't be able to support the supply lines necessary to sustain itself.
But if we act smartly, dont bomb and shoot blindly, it'll be much more difficult for them to restart something.
Step one in "act smartly" is "understand your enemy." In this case, understand that the enemy is human, and not a bad parody of the Uruk-hai.
The best option would be to go to Afghanistan but it means having access to some teleportation technology...
More seriously DAESH is not strong enough to attack and has no road to retreat. They're cornered and given enough will from the EU, US and Russia, they'll be eradicated.Daesh already has a presence in Afghanistan. They're expanding there partly because they're paying fighters better than either the Taliban or the government - both higher wages and on time.:)
Just another point that they're not just relying on appeal to existing religious fanatics.
Libya IIRC as well. The truth is DAESH or DAESH-like groups can be found over a huge swath of North Africa and the Middle East. Should DAESH lose control of the Iraq-Syria territory, there are no shortage of other places for them to reform.
In the areas that they actually control, they are providing a functioning government, including social services, infrastructure, law...
Well, yeah. The Caliph is commanded by Allah to provide those things to the Muslims who live in the area under his control. It's all right there in black and white, and ISIS is more particular about following scripture to the letter than any other group of comparable size that I know of.
Complicating the matter of breaking DAESH is that doing so may functionally save Assad's regime, and most Western powers don't want to do that.
If I understand the matter correctly, part of why Europe's getting so many refugees is because the Syrians are in as much danger from their own government as they are from DAESH.
Assad has no qualms about slaughtering his citizens to get at opposition forces.
It's how the Taliban won support over the feuding warlords in Afghanistan after the Soviet war. It's how Hamas won support over Fatah in Palestine. From the outside we see the horrible terror attacks on outsiders, but we don't usually see the chaos and corruption they replace.
At the risk of Godwinning the thread, we have the apocryphal quote, "At least under Hitler, the trains run on time." The Weimar republic was in such sad shape that people were using the paper money as wallpaper, because that's all it was good for. It's pretty standard for a strong tyrant to take control with the people's blessing, after a few years of chaos.
That said, the providing of shelter, clean water, Sharia law, and so on to Muslims within the borders of the Caliphate is very explicitly commanded, so even if it weren't smart, I suspect they'd still be doing it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Libya IIRC as well. The truth is DAESH or DAESH-like groups can be found over a huge swath of North Africa and the Middle East. Should DAESH lose control of the Iraq-Syria territory, there are no shortage of other places for them to reform.
I don't think there are quite as many power vacuums as they have at the Iraq-Syria border that would allow them to take and hold territory.
If there's any feature of Daesh that's actualliy unique, it's that it's managed to establish it's "modern caliphate" to the point where it can start operating as a state, because the local authorities are unable or unwilling to deal with it effectively. If something similar tried to form within Tunisia, for example,.... well, the Tunisian government is still largely in control of its territory and for the most part enjoys the confidence and cooperation of a large percentage of its citizenry. Our hypothetical Islamic State In Tunisia (ISIT) would be very quickly crushed by the Tunisian army, supported, supplied, and trained by Western groups (such as both France and the United States).
No one's willing to support/supply Syria or Iraq. Because both countries are in a civil war, the armies aren't really able to be effective. And because they can play border crossing games, they can slip away from combat, cross the magic line in the style of the Dukes of Hazard, and regroup, knowing that Iraqi troops really don't want to get into a shooting war with Syria.
I'm not sure where else there are two failed states that are next to each other to permit this type of power vacuum to develop.
But the proper way to look at this is that the ideology and the terrorist organization came first. From its beginning as the JTJ, this group has wanted to establish an Islamic caliphate, and has had the capacity to establish such a state anywhere in the area where an opportunity presented itself. It just happened to present itself at the Syria/Iraq border.... but if we manage to shut that down, that will not make the group go away, nor will it change their desires, nor, fundamentally, their capacities.
I'm not sure where else there are two failed states that are next to each other to permit this type of power vacuum to develop.
Sudan/South Sudan/Central African Republic, maybe. (Add Chad and DROC to those, and you're looking at 5 of the top 6 indexed "Fragile Countries" all contiguously located.) Those countries don't have same the history of deep observance to one religion, however, so they would seem to be missing a vital ingredient for an ISIS-like organization to appear.
I'm not sure where else there are two failed states that are next to each other to permit this type of power vacuum to develop.Sudan/South Sudan/Central African Republic, maybe. Add Chad and DROC, and you're looking at 5 of the top 6 indexed "Fragile Countries" all contiguously located.
Perhaps, but both the CAR and South Sudan are largely Christian or follow traditional tribal religions. This makes them less than fertile grounds for creating an Islamic caliphate; not much popular support.
Perhaps, but both the CAR and South Sudan are largely Christian or follow traditional tribal religions. This makes them less than fertile grounds for creating an Islamic caliphate; not much popular support.
Noted -- you ninja'd my edit above.
Though most "asymmetric warfare" types use those tactics to win local battles. The "terrorist" part comes in when you start attacking civilians in foreign countries. As far as I recall, the colonists in what would become the US didn't go to Britain to blow up parts of London. Even the early Israelis tended to keep their attacks local to Palestine.
By new I mean gathering several specific characteristics. They're relying to terrorism warfare, but also established on a territorial area they control more or less; they have access to large ressources; they try to structure themselves as a state.That actually sounds rather like the early days of Israel to me. Or, for that matter, the early days of the United States.
"Terrorist warfare" (the preferred term is "asymmetric warfare," by the way) is actually a sensible tactic when there's a huge power and resource disparity between yourselves and your opponent.
Well, most battles, historically, have been local, so that's not surprising. If neither you nor your opponent has the ability to project power beyond the range of a crossbow, all battles will happen within crossbow range.
However, asymmetric warfare on the ocean has existed for as long as shipping has. State-sponsored terrorism in the form of piracy was around long before the term "privateer" was developed. Sir Henry "Bloody" Morgan won his knighthood and the Governorship of Jamaica largely by committing terrorist acts against Spanish civilians.
The US has spent several trillion dollars waging war in the Middle East recently. If that same money had been invested in respective countries instead, would it be possible that there would today be thriving, vibrant trade partners that exported things other than terrorists there instead?
Probably not getting involved would be enough
The US has spent several trillion dollars waging war in the Middle East recently. If that same money had been invested in respective countries instead, would it be possible that there would today be thriving, vibrant trade partners that exported things other than terrorists there instead?Probably not getting involved would be enough
Unfortunately, there's MONEY in 'getting involved' but not 'getting too involved'. And some industries that are needing a spot to showcase products and inventions in a real-time test environment are all over this very nicely provided opportunity to promote their market share and increase their sales parameters.
Industry interests seem to me to be a poor reason to send men and women to die. Just sayin'.
War is about, and always has been about, money. Taking it from others, making it by selling arms, whichever way you wanna look at it.
If they somehow removed the profit motive, war would cease to exist almost immediately.
@ CBDunkerson - Well, the Republican candidate response is pretty much exactly what DAESH is after.
The real kicker is that apparently none of the terrorists involved in the Paris attacks even came in with the refugees, but I doubt the Republican candidates will care about that.
Is it wrong that I hate them just as much as the terrorists?
Probably. Doesn't accomplish much.
Gotta love the statements of Christie Christie and Jeb "focus on Christian Syrian refugees" Bush and Ted "no meaningful risk of Christians committing acts of terror" Cruz. Given by people who claim to be Christian, so I presume they've read Matthew 25:40-45 in their own Bible.
Is it wrong that I hate them just as much as the terrorists?
Thank god these republican governors have no actual authority to block the refugees.
We've been meddling in middle eastern politics since WWII. Before then the rest of the European powers were. Before then, the Ottomans.
We've been meddling in middle eastern politics since before WWII.
*has newspaper clippings floating around the house about American oil companies attempting to work in the Middle East since the mid-1920s.*
The real kicker is that apparently none of the terrorists involved in the Paris attacks even came in with the refugees, but I doubt the Republican candidates will care about that.
Well, one apparently posed as a Syrian refugee.
He even conveniently brought his fake passport with him on his suicide mission. Almost like, you know, he wanted it to be found or something.
Orfamay Quest, you should read about DAESH a bit broadly, and not to try to make rhetoric.
I stand by my writings, and the sources I have provided. Perhaps you should do some reading yourself....
Huh. I stand corrected, then. Interesting.
(Apparently, a significant number of the refugees with forged Passports are from screwed-over countries that aren't Syria - the Afghani/Iraqi refugees are using forged Syrian passports because it's easier to get help if you pose as a Syrian.)
Huh. I stand corrected, then. Interesting.
(Apparently, a significant number of the refugees with forged Passports are from screwed-over countries that aren't Syria - the Afghani/Iraqi refugees are using forged Syrian passports because it's easier to get help if you pose as a Syrian.)
Yes, that's because countries are required to accept "refugees" but not "migrants."
The difference is whether you're fleeing to avoid death-by-firing-squad, or merely death-by-starvation.
Thank god these republican governors have no actual authority to block the refugees.No legal authority.
That hasn't stopped Jindal from ordering the state police to "monitor" refugees in Louisiana to "avert threats".
And if this actually happens the state is in for a huge 14th ammendment lawsuit
And if this actually happens the state is in for a huge 14th Amendment lawsuit
A couple of serious logic problems with this.
A. Knowing the law is required to file the suit.
B. Knowing a lawyer that can take the case is required to file the suit.
C. Knowing specific exact cases where this applies is required to file the suit.
Your average refugee probably does *not* have this information, as they more than likely fled from their home with scarce resources that have been expended upon their journey. Even with local outreach and legal support if there is any, odds are very slim that a victimized category will raise any sort of complaint for concern that they would be ejected from the apparent sanctuary they've found.
And if this actually happens the state is in for a huge 14th Amendment lawsuitA couple of serious logic problems with this.
A. Knowing the law is required to file the suit.
B. Knowing a lawyer that can take the case is required to file the suit.
C. Knowing specific exact cases where this applies is required to file the suit.
Your average refugee probably does *not* have this information, as they more than likely fled from their home with scarce resources that have been expended upon their journey. Even with local outreach and legal support if there is any, odds are very slim that a victimized category will raise any sort of complaint for concern that they would be ejected from the apparent sanctuary they've found.
True, but the lawsuit would likely be filed by the Feds against the states.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Though most "asymmetric warfare" types use those tactics to win local battles. The "terrorist" part comes in when you start attacking civilians in foreign countries. As far as I recall, the colonists in what would become the US didn't go to Britain to blow up parts of London. Even the early Israelis tended to keep their attacks local to Palestine.
By new I mean gathering several specific characteristics. They're relying to terrorism warfare, but also established on a territorial area they control more or less; they have access to large ressources; they try to structure themselves as a state.That actually sounds rather like the early days of Israel to me. Or, for that matter, the early days of the United States.
"Terrorist warfare" (the preferred term is "asymmetric warfare," by the way) is actually a sensible tactic when there's a huge power and resource disparity between yourselves and your opponent.
Well, most battles, historically, have been local, so that's not surprising. If neither you nor your opponent has the ability to project power beyond the range of a crossbow, all battles will happen within crossbow range.
However, asymmetric warfare on the ocean has existed for as long as shipping has. State-sponsored terrorism in the form of piracy was around long before the term "privateer" was developed. Sir Henry "Bloody" Morgan won his knighthood and the Governorship of Jamaica largely by committing terrorist acts against Spanish civilians.
A major difference between Daesh and US/Israel though is the scope of their ambitions and the root motivations of their respective terrorist-like activities.
With the U.S you had a straight up rebellion in search of achieving sovereignty over the territory by throwing away the empire that used to rule it.With Israel, even if a great deal of the surrounding circumstances were different, it was essentially the same thing - a group of people believed the piece of land they lived in is theirs by right and were willing to fight the empire that rules there for it.
With Daesh, the struggle isn't over a specific territory, the motivation has nothing to do with just becoming enough of a nuisance that the domination world power in their area would leave them alone. Instead, their goals are universal, their enemies everyone besides themselves, their strategy aggressive.
Honestly, I find it difficult to wrap my head around just how simplistically... evil Daesh is. It is essentially identical to an exaggerated army of bad guys from an action movie. Every single thing it stands for is destructive and wrong, it conducts nothing but atrocities and it's not even pretending to be anything else. On the contrary, it makes use of the internet to broadcast it's bloody intentions to as many people as possible. It all seems like a bit too much. Like someone is going to deliver a punch line soon.
The US has spent several trillion dollars waging war in the Middle East recently. If that same money had been invested in respective countries instead, would it be possible that there would today be thriving, vibrant trade partners that exported things other than terrorists there instead?
Yes, it would have. For one, the invasion of Iraq and how it was handled wouldn't have happened. The core of ISIS and it's initial power base stems from former Iraqi army members. During the US occupation of Iraq the army was disbanded. The problem was that in preparation for a US invasion the Iraqi army decentralized their weapon storage, officers and soldiers knew where the stuff was stashed, or even kept the weapons at home. We left these men unemployed and heavily armed.
Would that mean that Iraq would be a vibrant trading partner? No, but they weren't exporting terrorist prior to the US invasion either.
