Paris attacks

[Justinr]

Really? The military objective for that particular carrier battle group was defined before the operation, accomplished according to the operations plan, and when it was time for the group to rotate out (the first of the very large units to do so), the president flew out to acknowledge them. Bush clearly said in his speech on the deck that the first combat phase was over, but the long, hard work of stabilizing Iraq remained. That's an example of "making it up as you go along"?

Perhaps in the intervening years we've forgotten how dangerous that invasion was for the coalition forces. Iraq had some serious weapons. As it turned out, their soldiers were mostly unable or unwilling to use them effectively, but plenty of Americans still died removing the Hussein government from power. It might be easy to dismiss that now, but I'm sure the families of the people who were killed and wounded haven't forgotten.

An alternate explanation is that the president's critics, eager to twist anything he said to look dishonest or foolish, painted his statements with a far broader intent than he intended. They hoped to manufacture something to beat him with relentlessly. And their mission was accomplished.

Mmmm... Can't quite remember it being spun like that at the time but there you go.

[Misirlou]

Mmmm... Can't quite remember it being spun like that at the time but there you go.

Spun? Just go read what the man said.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Spun? Just go read what the man said.

Well, Wes, some things just lend themselves nicely to ridicule, when deliberately misinterpreted. Take, for example, the sign at the last Republican convention. "We Built It" was meant to respond to Obama's proclamation to small businessmen that they "didn't build it," meaning infrastructure, roads, etc. They also put the sign about the growing national debt. When the two signs are placed next to each other, however... 

[Robert Roaldi]

I find it interesting that one choice never comes up for debate, and that is for foreign powers to simply leave places in which they're not wanted, don't understand what's going on, and are not doing any good. I realize that "legitimate interest" is an elastic term that means whatever people want it to mean, but still. Of course now, since they have fired on "us" on "our" soil, we somehow feel it is our duty and obligation to stay and fight. Hard to comprehend after all this time why we're there in the first place.

[Alan Goldhammer]

I find it interesting that one choice never comes up for debate, and that is for foreign powers to simply leave places in which they're not wanted, don't understand what's going on, and are not doing any good. I realize that "legitimate interest" is an elastic term that means whatever people want it to mean, but still. Of course now, since they have fired on "us" on "our" soil, we somehow feel it is our duty and obligation to stay and fight. Hard to comprehend after all this time why we're there in the first place.

This is pretty much what the Swiss do and their army focuses only on the defense of Switzerland and not any proxy countries.  Perhaps the US should be more like the Swiss and not keep trying to be number one at everything.

[Misirlou]

Well, Wes, some things just lend themselves nicely to ridicule, when deliberately misinterpreted. Take, for example, the sign at the last Republican convention. "We Built It" was meant to respond to Obama's proclamation to small businessmen that they "didn't build it," meaning infrastructure, roads, etc. They also put the sign about the growing national debt. When the two signs are placed next to each other, however... 

Here's a story a guy told me back in 1974. Apparently, some local association decided to run a public awareness campaign about mental illness. So they put up a sign in town that said "One out of every 25 people is mentally ill." Someone else found a bumper sticker left over from the last presidential election, and placed in on the same sign: "Nixon's The One."

[Misirlou]

This is pretty much what the Swiss do and their army focuses only on the defense of Switzerland and not any proxy countries.  Perhaps the US should be more like the Swiss and not keep trying to be number one at everything.

I wonder how many US citizens live and work all over the world. Probably more than the entire combined population of Switzerland.

[Alan Goldhammer]

I wonder how many US citizens live and work all over the world. Probably more than the entire combined population of Switzerland.

I'm sure that is true but the question is whether the US has an obligation to protect its citizens who live outside the US because of their own choice related to work or otherwise.

[Misirlou]

I'm sure that is true but the question is whether the US has an obligation to protect its citizens who live outside the US because of their own choice related to work or otherwise.

I suppose that's up to the citizens in those situations. Hard to imagine that a majority of Americans would decide that we'd be better off if we simply abandoned all of our citizens abroad.

And, that wouldn't keep assorted enemies from coming here. One popular jihadi strategic theory holds that fundamentalist Islamic states can't succeed on their own, since those states are easy enough for the west to attack. So the jihadists seek to turn the entire non-Islamic world into a "wilderness," where everyone is at constant risk of terror attack. Then the Islamic states offer safety, in return for submission to Islamic rule.

I don't see a lot of evidence that they're completely wrong with that. We haven't had very many successful terror attacks here since 9/11 (the Boston marathon bombing being an exception), but they'll be harder and harder to prevent as we retreat within our own borders. Spain pretty much dropped out of the fight after their train attacks, right?

What happens to Europe as the percentage of Muslim citizens grows? Isn't France on the road to being a majority Muslim country within 50 years or so? Will Friday's attacks change that trajectory?

[amolitor]

I know the US has a strong presence from the Indian, Pakistani, Russian, and British armed forces here to protect their citizens working abroad, it seems only fair that we should return the favor.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

I know the US has a strong presence from the Indian, Pakistani, Russian, and British armed forces here to protect their citizens working abroad, it seems only fair that we should return the favor.

If our citizens there would enjoy the same level of protection as those you mention enjoy here, perhaps we would not need to return the favor.

But of course, you know perfectly well it is not just about citizen protection.

[landscapephoto]

Former ISIS hostage, French reporter tortured for 10 months: They *want* us to retaliate

In Syria I learned that Islamic State longs to provoke retaliation. We should not fall into the trap

As a proud Frenchman I am as distressed as anyone about the events in Paris. But I am not shocked or incredulous. I know Islamic State. I spent 10 months as an Isis hostage, and I know for sure that our pain, our grief, our hopes, our lives do not touch them. Theirs is a world apart.

Most people only know them from their propaganda material, but I have seen behind that. In my time as their captive, I met perhaps a dozen of them, including Mohammed Emwazi: Jihadi John was one of my jailers. He nicknamed me “Baldy”.

Even now I sometimes chat with them on social media, and can tell you that much of what you think of them results from their brand of marketing and public relations. They present themselves to the public as superheroes, but away from the camera are a bit pathetic in many ways: street kids drunk on ideology and power. In France we have a saying – stupid and evil. I found them more stupid than evil. That is not to understate the murderous potential of stupidity.

All of those beheaded last year were my cellmates, and my jailers would play childish games with us – mental torture – saying one day that we would be released and then two weeks later observing blithely, “Tomorrow we will kill one of you.” The first couple of times we believed them but after that we came to realise that for the most part they were bullshitters having fun with us.

They would play mock executions. Once they used chloroform with me. Another time it was a beheading scene. A bunch of French-speaking jihadis were shouting, “We’re going to cut your head off and put it on to your arse and upload it to YouTube.” They had a sword from an antique shop.

They were laughing and I played the game by screaming, but they just wanted fun. As soon as they left I turned to another of the French hostages and just laughed. It was so ridiculous.

It struck me forcefully how technologically connected they are; they follow the news obsessively, but everything they see goes through their own filter. They are totally indoctrinated, clinging to all manner of conspiracy theories, never acknowledging the contradictions.

After all that happened to me, I still don’t feel Isis is the priority. To my mind, Assad is the priority
Everything convinces them that they are on the right path and, specifically, that there is a kind of apocalyptic process under way that will lead to a confrontation between an army of Muslims from all over the world and others, the crusaders, the Romans. They see everything as moving us down that road. Consequently, everything is a blessing from Allah.

With their news and social media interest, they will be noting everything that follows their murderous assault on Paris, and my guess is that right now the chant among them will be “We are winning”. They will be heartened by every sign of overreaction, of division, of fear, of racism, of xenophobia; they will be drawn to any examples of ugliness on social media.

Central to their world view is the belief that communities cannot live together with Muslims, and every day their antennae will be tuned towards finding supporting evidence. The pictures from Germany of people welcoming migrants will have been particularly troubling to them. Cohesion, tolerance – it is not what they want to see.

[Justinr]

I find it interesting that one choice never comes up for debate, and that is for foreign powers to simply leave places in which they're not wanted, don't understand what's going on, and are not doing any good. I realize that "legitimate interest" is an elastic term that means whatever people want it to mean, but still. Of course now, since they have fired on "us" on "our" soil, we somehow feel it is our duty and obligation to stay and fight. Hard to comprehend after all this time why we're there in the first place.

Oil.

[Misirlou]

Oil.

That argument doesn't work. The US only gets about 11 or 12% of our oil from the Persian gulf. If that all went away, we could make up for it with fracking in a matter of months.

We do get about 9% of our oil from Venezuela, which is currently under the control of an inept dictator, very hostile to US interests. If we were so driven by concerns about oil, we'd have eliminated his predecessor years ago, much less this one.

[wmchauncey]

I was raised with the belief that god created man and was written in old testament style...
You'll might not subscribe to either belief system but if one reads about the coming apocalypse and what Nostradamus foretold...
it does lend credence to the possibility that the barbarians may have bitten off a whole lot more than they can handle.
Especially true if the Bear joins the Eagle ( Russia and NATO).

[Tarnash]

In response to Misirlou:
The significance of `oil' is not limited to or by US domestic consumption which, in fact, has barely any impact on the value of oil to the US economy.  The vast majority of all the worlds oil is traded (exclusively) in US dollars creating demand for US currency that, in turn, helps to bolster and maintain its value and thus, US `buying power' on world markets.  The economy of the US and indeed much of its influence in world affairs is heavily dependent on `oil' and its trade.

In response to comments about `national interests':  The term `national interests', is `wheeled out' routinely as a smoke screen for other, usually less honourable/savoury purposes/objectives.  Relatively few things can be shown to be, unarguably, in the interests of entire nations.  And, those which can, can usually be shown to be in the interest of virtually every nation on earth.  Peace perhaps?  But even peace is of arguable `value' to nations that produce and/or trade in the implements of war.  Much is currently made of `the global economy'.  Wouldn't it be great if we invested as much thought, time and effort in `the global citizenry'.   

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

In response to Misirlou:
The significance of `oil' is not limited to or by US domestic consumption which, in fact, has barely any impact on the value of oil to the US economy.  The vast majority of all the worlds oil is traded (exclusively) in US dollars creating demand for US currency that, in turn, helps to bolster and maintain its value and thus, US `buying power' on world markets.  The economy of the US and indeed much of its influence in world affairs is heavily dependent on `oil' and its trade...

Nice!

There is even a theory (conspiracy or not) that what ultimately sealed Saddam's fate was a rumor that he was contemplating switching to selling his oil for Euro, instead of dollars. The rumor further has it he was in talk with Russians and Venezuelans for a co-ordinated switch.

As for national interests, I think everyone understands what they are (i.e., less than unicorn-y). Maintaining the dollar as an oil and reserve currency could be easily seen as in the national interests of the U.S.

[BernardLanguillier]

Former ISIS hostage, French reporter tortured for 10 months: They *want* us to retaliate

Finally someone in this thread is adressing the core topic.

IS only targets one concrete result and that is the increase of civil unrest in France as a result of the opposition between the population of arab origins and the rest of the country. Killing innocents is just a means to that end.

This isn't the result of a pre-existing war btwn civilizations. On the contrary, this is the dangerous attempt of a group of smart outlaws to start a war btw civilization by spreading their nihilistic views of the world, their desire to end the world as we know it by making it explode from inside.

Any action likely to increase the hatred between people, including military retaliation, will serve their goal by generating more hatred and creating more terrorists, further worsening the vicious circle triggered, among other events, by the war in Irak.

When facing an enemy who is not afraid to die to generate more obscurantism, it is pointless to speak about the effectiveness of air strikes.

Cutting their sources of funding must obviously be done, but IMHO, the number one priority we should all be discussing, is how we can create more love for the populations of islamic origins in Western European countries.

The way I look at it, we have been forced into a tremendous opportunity to fix the many cracks in the theoretical model of "liberte, egalite, fraternite" since the social dimension of the story is central here. Either we succeed quickly to really provide equal opportunities to all the citizens of France and Belgium, regardless of their religions, communities, place of dwelling,... or many more people will die in similar attacks moving forward.

Cheers,
Bernard

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Dear Lord!

[Tarnash]

Maintaining the dollar as an oil and reserve currency could be easily seen as in the national interests of the U.S.

That's undoubtedly true Slobodan, particularly if you have an interest in the oil industry.  However, if your interests are in predominantly US based export manufacturing/production (including: owners/shareholders, employees, Federal & State revenue systems, etc., etc.) a high US dollar value makes it harder to compete in world markets and usually less profitable, even when you can.  Especially if your primary competitors are based in countries/economies that manipulate exchange rates to keep the value of their own currency artificially low as a means of making their goods `cheaper' and `more competitive' in the same market.  Witness what has been happening to US manufacturing industries over the last few decades.