The bad news is, a Washington Post blogger has been struck.
The Obama administration’s decision to close over two dozen U.S. diplomatic facilities initially struck me, like many, as equal parts security precaution and security theater; a reaction to both a legitimate terrorism threat, apparently originating from al-Qaeda’s Yemen-based branch, and to the political uproar in 2011 over a successful attack on a U.S. diplomatic outpost in Benghazi, Libya.The good news is, the Washington Post blogger almost immediately showed signs of recovery.
Putting the embassy and consulate closures down on a map, though, seems to elucidate some interesting trends, some which can be difficult to immediately explain. It helps to shed a light on the apparent U.S. thinking, but raises some questions as well.The problem is that the map doesn't explain what it says right away. Should the map be invited to explain what it says, the Washington Post blogger should make a full recovery.
 |
| Add your own caption |
Lets help a blogger recover, by elucidating a trend which is difficult to immediately explain.
110 comments:
The first trend I see is "Israel is screwed."
LOL Lem. Outta da park!
What difference, at this point, does it make? Stop worrying -- everything is going exactly according to plan. Obama's plan.
To be fair, though, the blogger does say this:
"I was most surprised by the closures in Rwanda and Burundi, two small, Central African countries with small Muslim minorities and little experience with Islamist extremism or terrorism."
That is interesting. Is it mainly because they're good places for terrorists to hide out in, or buy arms in, or..?
Good catch MH.
Although, its not clear if that is what struck the blogger.
The first trend I see is "Israel is screwed."
indeed....it looks like the penultimate move in a game of Risk.
Maps are misers, hoarding their secrets, Scrooge-like.
If only there were some way to connect all those dots!
Jeff Bezos just bought the Washington Post earlier today.
Meet the Map.
Same as the old map.
Don't get fooled again
No, no!
If only there were some way to connect all those dots!
Blue ribbon panel maybe.
So one way of thinking about this is that those people who created the hysterical over-reaction to the diplomatic deaths in Benghazi have in fact been aiding and abetting the enemy. Their reaction makes these targets a high priority for further attacks, since a successful attack on an embassy clearly gets a dramatic response, captures endless headlines and can tie the Congress in knots of recriminatory hearings for months. From a terrorists perspective, what's not to like.
Lydia:
"That is interesting. Is it mainly because they're good places for terrorists to hide out in, or buy arms in, or..?"
Maybe the NSA picked up suspicious communications patterns and they want to show off. This whole thing stinks of kabuki.
OK, let's see,
There doesn't seem to be a ton of reason to say why it would be happenning now, although Professor Jacobson is more credulous than I am. I think the Choom Gang's wagging the dog.
After all, who's called this mass closing?
None other than Susan Rice. Well, maybe she'll get her talking points right this time and be able to blame this on the Egyptian belly dancer video.
I just hope she consulted with the C In C. You know, ValJar.
AnUnreasonableTroll said...
So one way of thinking about this is that those people who created the hysterical over-reaction to the diplomatic deaths in Benghazi have in fact been aiding and abetting the enemy.
4 men left for dead and another 35, including 7 severely wounded, almost left to the tender clemencies of the Moslem enemy, and it's an hysterical over-reaction?
Troll's as big a fool here as he was at TOP.
Bigger, maybe. He still has to defend what he said.
ARM
"So one way of thinking about this is that those people who created the hysterical over-reaction to the diplomatic deaths in Benghazi have in fact been aiding and abetting the enemy."
You have that backward. The hysterical over-reaction was by the Obama administration, which led to the cover-up uproar.
AReasonableMan said...
So one way of thinking about this is that those people who created the hysterical over-reaction to the diplomatic deaths in Benghazi have in fact been aiding and abetting the enemy.
Yep, people who care about American deaths are traitors. Definitely belongs on the masthead.
If only Bezos had gone through Lem's Amazon affiliate link. You would be so golden dude.
It's not just the NSA stuff: Interpol issues global security alert linked to jailbreaks
And it might would have put an end to the third party preaching.
As I said earlier elsewhere, Eid al Iftr is this Thursday in most of the world on that map. Let's see how it is celebrated and go from there.
WC: 29
iPhone.
Rabel.
You good park.
Do you really think that the deaths in Benghazi were not important AReasonableMan? Do you hold American lives so cheaply? Do you really think that the Obama administration should not have to answer for what happened? Do you give them a blank check?
How is that reasonable?
Oh yeah surrrrre they want liberal voices here. Yup, just like at Althouse, Edutcher can't help himself.
Gallows humor time.
Which US embassy will be the first on to be burned or bombed?
Feeling lucky? Go for the trifecta: Name three embassies that will be burned or bombed.
Here's the list.
•Madagascar
•United Arab Emirates
•Jordan
•Burundi
•Egypt
•Djibouti
•Bangladesh
•Sudan
•Rwanda
•Kuwait
•Bahrain
•Oman
•Mauritius
•Saudi Arabia
•Yemen
•Libya
•Qatar
My bet: None of the above. I believe this is a wag the dog exercise - a false event to convince Americans that it's okay to give up all private communications. The US is being converted to a dictatorship; the government now has near-total control of all means of communications including our computers, software and cell phones, and can turn off the internet any time the president wishes.
It's 50-50 whether the next presidential election will be cancelled due to 'national emergency'.
Place your bets.
Lydia said...
It's not just the NSA stuff: Interpol issues global security alert linked to jailbreaks
I think the 2 really are unrelated.
The spectacular AQ jailbreaks are in reaction to the Choom Gang's feckless A-stan policy. Those people are probably not involved in the US alert, but a general BOLO for a lot of dangerous people.
The State Dept alert is in reaction to what seems to be a few recent attacks and an assumption a mass attack will be carried out across the Moslem world.
At least that's the way the Auntie Beeb piece seems to me.
YMMV
Is that the liberal position AreasonableMan? That Benghazi was no big deal? That to question the events that led to the murder of our ambassador is not important and Congress should not ask questions?
I would respectfully ask that explain what you mean.
Apparently the big worry is due to butt bombs.
Inga said...
Oh yeah surrrrre they want liberal voices here. Yup, just like at Althouse, Edutcher can't help himself.
Try again, sweetie.
First, I'm not one of the proprietors here and I have a right to my opinion.
Second, Troll would seem to be taking a position that would not stand close scrutiny, as was often the case at TOP, but one intended to reinforce the Choom Gang talking points about "phony" scandals.
Third, I seem to have company in that estimation.
Fourth, over the past couple of weeks, Troll and even Ritmo have said things that were reasonable and I haven't challenged them.
Seems like you're the one trying to get a lynch mob going.
Trooper York said...
Is that the liberal position AreasonableMan? That Benghazi was no big deal?
I think that is the liberal position. ARM's position is quite a bit further though: that objecting to those claiming it isn't a big deal is treason.
I don't think so Marshal. I think he is being too clever by half. Witness the fact that he said "One way to look at it." I bet he will say that it is not how he looks at it. That "reasonable" and "legitimate" questions are fine. Just that we had to wait until after the election to protect Obama. After all that was Mitt Romneys position. Right?
Trooper York said...
I don't think so Marshal.
Even worse..."others think you're traitors". If you have both the balls and poor judgment to make the accusation then own it.
Now that the election is over their position is that all the questions are answered and now we must all move on for the good of the country. That we should unite behind our brave President who is cutting and running from the threat of terrorism. Isn't that the Liberal position?
Ah whatever, not really worth pursuing.
----------------------
ARM, precisely.
Haz:
"Apparently the big worry is due to butt bombs."
Trooper's a Muslim?
Well he is just using the standard liberal ploy that the main stream media uses to smear conservatives.
Nothing new here.
Nice one Debs.
Marshal said...
Yep, people who care about American deaths are traitors.
The issue here is one of balance. Gaddafi was the one national leader in the region for which there was undisputed evidence that he was responsible for the deaths of innocent Americans through acts of terrorism. His removal and the resulting chaos of war resulted in the loss of four American lives, that is undeniable. What is also undeniable is that thousands of lives were lost in Iraq and trillions spent. Prior to that hundreds of American lives had been lost in Lebanon. Without the clouding perspective of partisan politics, any reasonable analysis would be that Gaddafi's removal was achieved relatively efficiently.
[Gaddafi's] removal and the resulting chaos of war resulted in the loss of four American lives, that is undeniable.
Nonsense, it's easily deniable; the civil war ended almost a full year before the incident. There wasn't turmoil in the street. The US wasn't at war with the Libyan government.
Without the clouding perspective of partisan politics, any reasonable analysis would be that Gaddafi's removal was achieved relatively efficiently.
No one is arguing this in relation to Benghazi. The question was why did the State Department claim the attack on Benghazi Ambassador was based on a video no one heard of prior to the attack? Heck, you don't even mention the video in your nonsense argument. Yet, the videographer is in jail, and the official story by Department of State was the video caused the riots that lead to the attack.
Is there a new video making fun of muhammed? Is that what the latest uproar is? Or is it something else, like Al Qaeda being rejuvenated?
ARM, you may be ignorant of history, but AQ used embassy bombings in Africa in the late 1990's as fundraisers to carry out much larger attacks which culminated in the 9/11 WTC attacks. It looks like they are trying the tactic again.
I don't get it. Why are we closing embassies where people are guided by the faith of peace? We hate peace now? I knew Obama was a bad man.
That is one way to look at it. Of course it is. You do want to look at any given situation from different angles. So yes, agreed, that is one way to look at it.
A stupid way.
That is easily dismissed, now that it is looked at that way. It felt stupid when I used those eyeballs. Partisan, cover my ass. It made all the lying okay. Outright. Straightup. In you face. There it is. Five times in a row. That kind of lying.
And we must, or must not forget Nicholas Nicholbee McNickles still in jail for a lousy YouTube video and yadda yadda yadda let's do that all over again. Is this the government you want? That is the reasonable question to ask. Is this the collective I care to join? Does belonging make those things okay?
Comparisons are good, go ahead and make them, but careful not to use your reading of them to excuse your own allegiances.
Yes, that is a one way to look at it. We notice the "people who make a big deal" locution. It's not a matter of "making a big deal" it's recognizing which deals are big, which deals are bullshit, and which deals are purely political, which deals are causing our government to lie to us repeatedly, which deals make us question the legitimacy of our government.
OK, riddle me this, batguys and batbroads,
TOTUS' mouthpiece is saying the threat is focused on the Arabian Peninsula.
So why do we need to close facilities in North Africa, black Africa, the Indian Ocean, and as far east as Pakistan?
AnUnreasonableTroll said...
Yep, people who care about American deaths are traitors.
The issue here is one of balance. Gaddafi was the one national leader in the region for which there was undisputed evidence that he was responsible for the deaths of innocent Americans through acts of terrorism. His removal and the resulting chaos of war resulted in the loss of four American lives, that is undeniable. What is also undeniable is that thousands of lives were lost in Iraq and trillions spent. Prior to that hundreds of American lives had been lost in Lebanon. Without the clouding perspective of partisan politics, any reasonable analysis would be that Gaddafi's removal was achieved relatively efficiently.
English translation:
At this point, what difference do 4 more lives make?
Oh, yeah, just like TOP.
I'm just glad that con man who produced the Mohammed video is locked up. He could REALLY cause some trouble now if he was still free.
Some speculation here about the embassy closings in the four sub-Saharan African countries:
...al-Qaida operatives remain in East Africa, and one Africa expert noted that Burundi and Rwanda each have an older U.S. Embassy building that is less secure than newer embassies, such as those built far off the road in Tanzania and Kenya.
The expert, J. Peter Pham, the director of the Africa Center at the Washington, D.C.-based Atlantic Council, also noted that Mohammed Jamal Khalifa – a brother-in-law to Osama bin Laden – was killed in Madagascar in 2007. Khalifa was known as an al-Qaida financier and was reportedly killed by U.S. special operations forces.
"So there was an al-Qaida presence in Madagascar as recently as six years ago," Pham said.
As for Mauritius, it is an offshore location for "all sorts of financing activities" in a loosely regulated atmosphere, Pham said, which could be used for nefarious activities. In addition, the island nation has a territorial dispute with the U.K. over its ownership of the island nation of Diego Garcia, which the U.S. military uses as a military base, including for operations in Afghanistan and formerly in Iraq, he said.
Complicated world.
Leland said...
the civil war ended almost a full year before the incident. There wasn't turmoil in the street. The US wasn't at war with the Libyan government.
But there was a continued insurgency by former Gaddafi loyalists. As in most civil wars, the combatants didn't suddenly disappear.
Again, it is a matter of perspective. Compared to the failure to maintain order in Iraq after the end of initial phase of the war, Libya was relatively pacific. Nonetheless, it was the site of a recent shooting war in which the US took one side against an opposition that still had a considerable presence in the country.
We never should have been involved in Libya just as we should not be involved in Syria.
It is just Obama helping his friends in the Muslim Brotherhood.
That is what they trying to cover up.
AnUnreasonableTroll said...
the civil war ended almost a full year before the incident. There wasn't turmoil in the street. The US wasn't at war with the Libyan government.
But there was a continued insurgency by former Gaddafi loyalists. As in most civil wars, the combatants didn't suddenly disappear.
Again, it is a matter of perspective. Compared to the failure to maintain order in Iraq after the end of initial phase of the war, Libya was relatively pacific. Nonetheless, it was the site of a recent shooting war in which the US took one side against an opposition that still had a considerable presence in the country.
So it was peaceful, except when it wasn't and that was because the people we supported attacked our consulate.
Or something.
Somebody's going to have to jog my memory, but I can't seem to recall Dubya, Darth, Rummy, and Condi leaving 4 men to die and another 30+ in extremis for 20 hours in Iraq.
Then again, I can't remember any other attacks on US posts in Labia besides the 9/11 one in Benghazi.
Trooper York said...
We never should have been involved in Libya just as we should not be involved in Syria.
It is just Obama helping his friends in the Muslim Brotherhood.
Including Egypt.
And now even the belly dancers hate us there.
Someone attacked our Labia?
I bet that was Hillary.
One other point, "When you're forced to close a record amount of embassies, your enemy isn't 'on the run,' you are".
Leland said...
AQ used embassy bombings in Africa in the late 1990's as fundraisers to carry out much larger attacks which culminated in the 9/11 WTC attacks. It looks like they are trying the tactic again.
But this is kind of the point. The bigger the reaction they get to any attack the more effective it is as a work of terrorism, and as a fund-raising and recruitment device. The constant repeated publicizing of the Benghazi attacks by partisans increases the probability of similar attacks.
And it reminds us the the Messiah should have been impeached about 10 months ago.
Can't have that, now can we?
ARM ... I'm going to say that you are entitled to your opinion. Now please hear mine.
As someone who has been on the receiving end of hostile terrorist fire, as a few others around here have been, I will tell you absolutely that when we, our government, makes excuses like they did about the video, the enemy is helped and encouraged far more than by any hysterics. They are laughing at us.
Worse, when they get away with it without severe physical sanction, the will do it again. And again. On the same subject I suggested others read the writings of Vo Nugyen Giap for the methodology, including media management.
You don't have to believe me. Until the next time it means nothing. My time deep in this stuff began in 1968. From my perspective we, as a government, have learned nearly nothing.
WC: 144
Remember that, boys and girls: pointing out Democratic fuckups = treason!
Trooper York said...
We never should have been involved in Libya just as we should not be involved in Syria.
It is just Obama helping his friends in the Muslim Brotherhood.
I agree on Syria. The europeans led the attack on Libya, we provided limited support as part of NATO. On balance I think it was good to get rid of Gaddafi. If democracy is going to take anywhere in the arab world it is in north africa, where they have close ties to europe.
The crack about the muslim brotherhood is inconsistent with the administrations tacit support of the coup removing said brotherhood.
Marshal said..
So your point is those arguing against the Iraq invasion were committing treason?
This doesn't make any sense. There were good reasons to oppose the Iraq invasion, in much the same way as there are now good reasons to oppose an invasion of Syria.
Aridog said...
Worse, when they get away with it without severe physical sanction, the will do it again.
But the removal of Gaddafi was a severe physical sanction for prior terrorist attacks. You can argue that it took too long to happen, but it was a pretty ugly way to go in the end.
Blogger AReasonableMan said...
This doesn't make any sense. There were good reasons to oppose the Iraq invasion, in much the same way as there are now good reasons to oppose an invasion of Syria.
(a) It makes the same sense your comment has: that those arguing against the Iraq invasion emboldened our enemies, which you defined as aiding and abetting them.
(b) I think there were good reasons not to leave our guys to die.
Marshal said...
(a) It makes the same sense your comment has: that those arguing against the Iraq invasion emboldened our enemies, which you defined as aiding and abetting them.
No. Terrorism is asymmetrical, it relies on creating the illusion of a much greater threat than actually exists. By enhancing that illusion some partisans were effectively enhancing the terrorist act. In the case of the Iraq invasion, as now with Syria, a genuine war was/is under discussion, with all the pros and cons that this entails. These are distinct situations.
I understand that some people believe that there is a double standard at work here and that the opposition to the Iraq war by the left has to now be matched to an equal attack on Obama's handling of Libya.
A lot of people opposed the Iraq war, including Bush's father and most of his former security advisors. The Iraq war required a vast investment of personnel and treasure. There is no equivalency with Libya.
All situations are different, but that is not meaningful. There's nothing magical about a war that makes opposition acceptable. You're just searching for something that allows you to call your opponents traitors while protecting yourself from the same charge.
Marshal said...
All situations are different, but that is not meaningful.
Much of the art of thinking is to make clear distinctions. If we cannot agree that there is a distinction between a low-level terrorist insurgency and a full scale war, what is the point?
Did Presidential aide Valerie Jarett (daughter of Iranians) give the order to stand down in Benghazi?
Very troubling, if true.
ARM, you realize that we had some of our people killed after Gaddafi was removed, don't you?
The right often seems to believe that it has a monopoly on anger. This is not always the case. The left are extremely angry about the hypocrisy in evidence over Libya.
The chasm between the debacle that was Iraq and the Libyan intervention is vast and unbridgeable. For the architects of Iraq, such as Kristol and Graham, to be now criticizing anyone for the operation that resulted in the relatively inexpensive and efficient removal of Gaddafi, a known sponsor of terrorism that cost a large number of US lives, appears insane. It's too soon. A little humility seems in order.
AllenS said...
ARM, you realize that we had some of our people killed after Gaddafi was removed, don't you?
Yes of course I do. As noted above, we took one side in a civil war, the losing combatants remain in the country. We lost thousands of men after the war in Iraq was announced to have been 'Mission Accomplished'.
AReasonableMan said...
Much of the art of thinking is to make clear distinctions. If we cannot agree that there is a distinction between a low-level terrorist insurgency and a full scale war, what is the point?
Despite your mention of clear thinking you continue trying to prove the distinction is meaningful by pointing out the distinction exists.
"Presidential aide Valerie Jarett (daughter of Iranians)"
Check your facts.
Michael Haz said...
Did Presidential aide Valerie Jarett (daughter of Iranians) give the order to stand down in Benghazi?
She's the one who kept nixing the bin Laden hit until Panetta took matters into his own hands.
AnUnreasonableTroll said...
So your point is those arguing against the Iraq invasion were committing treason?
This doesn't make any sense. There were good reasons to oppose the Iraq invasion, in much the same way as there are now good reasons to oppose an invasion of Syria
The only reason the Demos had for opposing the liberation of Iraq was Dubya's 90% approval.
And Troll only opposes Syria until it happens and then he will love it like he loves Labia.
The right often seems to believe that it has a monopoly on anger. This is not always the case. The left are extremely angry about the hypocrisy in evidence over Libya.
Gee whiz, all those Lefties marching in the street over it must be invisible.
The chasm between the debacle that was Iraq and the Libyan intervention is vast and unbridgeable. For the architects of Iraq, such as Kristol and Graham, to be now criticizing anyone for the operation that resulted in the relatively inexpensive and efficient removal of Gaddafi, a known sponsor of terrorism that cost a large number of US lives, appears insane. It's too soon. A little humility seems in order.
You won't see any from the Choom Gang. And Qadaffi was securely neutralized; Choom was pursuing his Arab Spring.
And much of the price of Iraq, like 'Nam, can be laid at the feet of the Lefty traitors who gave aid and comfort to the enemy, and encouraged them to fight on.
Humility, indeed.
Yes of course I do. As noted above, we took one side in a civil war
You and and your Messiah started a war to install an Islamic dictatorship because that's what he so clearly wants in the Middle East.
An aircraft carrier had a banner that said "Mission Accomplished", and from their perspective, they did.
ARM, You have an uncanny ability to see things backwards. It's almost magical.
The "overreaction" as you call it was about our nation's lack of a defense and response to the attack. It's the lack of a real response that encourages terrorism, not bitching about that failure.
This was a very rare loss of an embassy and ambassador, and even that didn't wake up the sleeping lion. The terrorists are thinking maybe the lion is dead. That's why we are in much more danger now.
Calling the dissatisfaction with what got us here an "overreaction" is just blindness.
What's amazing is that you are the same guy who thinks the reaction to the Zimmerman case was appropriate. That's what an "overreaction" looks like.
But this is kind of the point. The bigger the reaction they get to any attack the more effective it is as a work of terrorism, and as a fund-raising and recruitment device.
More ignorance of history. The 1990 embassy bombings were not well covered, yet they were very effective fundraisers. No matter how reasonable you think you are, you are ignorant of the actual events. Your comments are based on make believe.
bagoh20 said...
ARM, You have an uncanny ability to see things backwards.
But, as you know, I see things how the majority of the country does.
"But, as you know, I see things how the majority of the country does. "
I don't know about that, but it would explain why we are so screwed.
The bigger the reaction they get to any attack the more effective it is as a work of terrorism, and as a fund-raising and recruitment device. The constant repeated publicizing of the Benghazi attacks by partisans increases the probability of similar attacks.
Or perhaps loud opposition in the U.S. reminds al-Qaeda et al. that there's still some fight in this republic, and that the next administration may not be as supine as is the present one.
I'm not so sure I would brag of that fact.
AnUnreasonableTroll said...
ARM, You have an uncanny ability to see things backwards.
But, as you know, I see things how the majority of the country does.
Really?
Is that why Choom is at 41% approval and why the adventure in Labia was so unpopular?
Troll needs to stop making foolish statements or he'll have the same reputation here he had at TOP.
And the She Devil will cry.
Leland said...
More ignorance of history. The 1990 embassy bombings were not well covered, yet they were very effective fundraisers. .
For this to be a good argument it is necessary to believe that terrorist attacks that trigger a political shit storm is the US and consequently large amounts of world wide press are no more effective than ones that create a small amount of local press. This does not seem likely.
There could not be a bigger reaction and response than the one there was to 9/11/01, and what happened? We haven't been attacked since. All the attacks before that were responded to with the weakness that Benghazi was, and watch what happens now that we are again perceived as sleepy and weak.
The whole time that we were in their face, in their territory, and hunting them down for attacking, we were safe. Now we are giving mixed signals, and that's incredibly dangerous AGAIN. Obama and the people he's listening to are fools.
What's wrong with in your face drones?
Ed, be yourself. Carry on.
bagoh20 said...
There could not be a bigger reaction and response than the one there was to 9/11/01, and what happened?
Elements within the government panicked and initiated a war that provided no strategic advantage. It was a remarkable success for the terrorists, a self-inflicted wound costing trillions, at a time when we can least afford it.
bagoh20 said...
watch what happens now that we are again perceived as sleepy and weak.
The same people saying this are the ones complaining that we took out an actual known state sponsor of terrorism in Gaddafi. It doesn't make sense. There was a broad agreement to take out Gaddafi, both here and in europe. Everyone hated him. How did this make us look weak? We regularly encroach on the sovereignty of a nuclear power in Pakistan including raids to kill the architect of 9/11. How did this make us look weak?
The 'look weak' argument is a canard fostered by the military-industrial complex and the neo-cons. Only weak people give a toss how they look. What we should be worrying about is making sensible strategic decisions that provide long term advantages to our country. Not some macho posturing.
Terrific Bret Stephens piece in the WSJ, The Al Qaeda Obama Forgot. It's behind a paywall, but here's a key part:
...the president's May speech [at the National Defense University] contained all the required caveats about the abiding terrorist threat and the continued need for vigilance. But the gist of the address was clear, as was its purpose: to declare the war on terror won—or won well-enough—and go home. Facts and analysis were arranged to suit the policy goal. But the facts and analysis were wrong.
Specifically: Mr. Obama believed that killing Osama bin Laden was a strategic victory. In fact, it was mainly a symbolic one (further undercut by his use of it as a political prop). He thought that ending the war in Iraq would help refocus U.S. efforts on Afghanistan. In fact, it showcased America's lack of staying power and gave the Taliban additional motivation to hold out during the president's halfhearted Afghan surge. He thought that substituting the Bush administration's approach to detainees with an approach heavy on drones would earn America renewed goodwill on the Arab street. In fact, there was no goodwill to renew in the first place, and the U.S. is more unpopular in Pakistan and Egypt today than it was six years ago.
After ten years in Afghanistan Bret Stephens wanted us to stay on indefinitely. Apparently he cares neither about the US budget or its military.
AnUnreasonableTroll said...
The 'look weak' argument is a canard fostered by the military-industrial complex and the neo-cons. Only weak people give a toss how they look. What we should be worrying about is making sensible strategic decisions that provide long term advantages to our country. Not some macho posturing.
Troll relies on the Gospel According to William Ayers and Albert Shanker - If they don't know history, you can sell them anything.
Too bad most people here know all that drivel about "The 'look weak' argument is a canard fostered by the military-industrial complex and the neo-cons" is refuted by history.
Think Rome.
Think Athens and Sparta.
Elements within the government panicked and initiated a war that provided no strategic advantage.
Boxing in Iran provided no strategic advantage?
Where did Troll learn his geopolitics, Ding Dong School?
It was a remarkable success for the terrorists, a self-inflicted wound costing trillions, at a time when we can least afford it.
Kind of like ChoomCare and AmnestyCare.
Oh, that's right. Those are Zero's ideas, so it doesn't apply.
And, since we won it while Zarqawi provided a front for Al Qaeda to be both gutted and discredited, that's Troll's idea of a terrorist victory.
But Troll thinks it was the Choom Gang that "neutralized" AQ with its drone strikes, rather than giving it time to recover.
The same people saying this are the ones complaining that we took out an actual known state sponsor of terrorism in Gaddafi. It doesn't make sense.
Of course not, because Dubya had put Muammar in his box with the invasion of Iraq. He was a good little boy after that.
But, of course, Choom wanted the Moslem Brotherhood running Labia, just like he wanted them running Egypt, so Muammar had to go.
There was a broad agreement to take out Gaddafi, both here and in europe.
There was? The only agreement was in the Choom Gang.
And why were so many people against it?
Everyone hated him. How did this make us look weak?
Leading from Choom's behind ring a bell?
AnUnreasonableTroll said...
After ten years in Afghanistan Bret Stephens wanted us to stay on indefinitely. Apparently he cares neither about the US budget or its military.
No, that's how Troll and the Choom Gang see things.
Choom mishandled A-stan like he's mishandled everything else.
US casualties in his first 4 years are 3 times those of Dubya's 8.
"What we should be worrying about is making sensible strategic decisions that provide long term advantages to our country"
Those words sound good, and yet they seem to translate into "running away and cowering behind locked doors, then becoming very irate when this is pointed out".
ARM, It's not about how we look, it's about the cost to those who are taking the risks to attack us. They don't want us stepping all over their shit. They want us out. When it looks like attacking us accomplishes that, as it did in Benghazi, then that's what they do. You are missing the simple basic human motivations, because you are blinded by to silly old ideas like the "military industrial complex", which has nothing to do with tracking down people who attack an embassy and then go on Youtube to calibrate. And, no killing some one old fart who is not in the game anymore doesn't count.
As for drones, that's great, but these guys are more likely to be killed by their own bombs. What matters is whether they think attacking us increases the risk substantially to their operations or not. Right now they don't think it does.
AnUnreasonableTroll said.....
Ed,
You just couldn't resist, could you. Have you ever figured out how to strongly disagree without name-calling. Ironically, it diminishes your point(s).
There was no big reaction to Benghazi. The US didn't respond at all. And yet, there still seems to be this desire by certain elements in the Middle East to attack the US again, and if we are to believe the Obama Administration; those elements are capable of carrying out an attack. This is not ancient news, but rather just one year of information.
For this to be a good argument it is necessary to believe that terrorist attacks that trigger a political shit storm is the US and consequently large amounts of world wide press are no more effective than ones that create a small amount of local press.
I'm not sure I understand this comment. Are you saying that the 1998 embassy bombings were not effective fundraisers for Al Qaeda, because they could have been more effective? If so, it's a silly argument, and ignores the facts that those bombings helped raise the financing to carry out the 9/11WTC attacks.
You can claim the point is invalid by making ignorant claims; but that doesn't invalidate facts. It simply provides more evidence of your ignorance.
@ARM:
1. We can't base our policy, one way or another, on whether or not our adversaries can make good propaganda out of it. Do you agree?
2. The disconnect about a positive response to our participation in Ghaddafi's ousting and that of Saddam Hussein is this: that it became very clear in Iraq that the power vacuum left after a dictator is defeated in that part of the world will be filled by terrorists.
Edutcher ... what Phil 3:14 said. If I can drop the ad hominems, anyone can. You can too. Hardly perfect, I now reserve my verbal anger to dicks who actually hurt people I know and like, but after said schmuck has done the damage.
If face to face and truly angry I almost always say nothing, I just act to resolve the issue directly....which is getting harder as the years go by me, but there are ways. A sure way to lose a fight face to face is to be caught up in name calling and trash talking. That is a distraction for you that any opponent can and will take advantage of forthwith. Don't be that guy on the street corner yelling at the buildings and waving his arms about. [Er, that may be a "Detroit thing" ... only place I have ever had a yammering & pandering guy who I'd just given a cigarette to take a swing at me. Returning the favor just made no sense and besides my companions were falling down laughing at the whole affiar.]
ARM ... Thanks for partially responding to my remark a ways back there.
I think we have different concepts of what "severe physical sanction" is in fact. Being chased down by a mob of his own people and killed on instigation by others is severe, but not a sanction. A sanction is what the Reagan administration did in 1986 by bombing Libya and instilling fear in Qaddafi.
I'm not sure what you background is militarily, so I have speak in general terms. I am serious when I suggest, because you appear to have the interest and strong opinions, that you read the writings of Vo Nugyen Giap for the methodology, including media management. First General Giap has the bona fides for speaking on guerrilla/terrorist warfare and asymmetrical warfare dating back to the Viet Minh of the late 1940's. Al Qaeda is doing nothing new, just using new mediums of mayhem.
Now, as for the "Military Industrial Complex" [President Eisenhower's term], again we differ on our understanding of what is meant by it. I was a charter subscriber to Ramparts Magazine back in the day, and they had quite a "discussion" of the speech by several left leaning authors. Again I do not know your background, but mine is that I spent considerable time in and around DOD procurement activities, well in to this century before I retired. I assure you the "complex" Eisenhower warned us of is alive, growing constantly and flourishing, never more so than under Obama and Bush before him.
This "complex" doesn't advocate war, they are the penultimate of cronyism, of capital exploitation, which was Eisenhower's point...he knew how cabals can form between the military and industry. General Eisenhower had the bona fides for it, just as General Giap did. In my less than humble opinion, in 1962 and now, Eisenhower wasn't talking about the M/I Complex making war worse and more prevalent. He was talking about how we handle our resources wisely or not....literally Samuelson's "guns or butter" debate.
Finally, vis a vis "Benghazi"...I can't know for certain (I am retired, among other reasons) but I am highly suspicious that we were running an operation through there that would have made Robert "Blowtorch Bob" Komer very happy...similar to his wrong headed ignorant CORDS program. If and when you do this in a country the native population sees you as duplicitous and someone working both sides against a middle. In short, you lose trust. Then...when you also fail to vigorously respond to an attack by one of the myriad sides, you lose "face" as well, and are perceived as cowardly. You will be attacked again. And why not?
[Epistle finished , not even worth a word count. Ppfffbbbttt.]
C Stanley said...
1. We can't base our policy, one way or another, on whether or not our adversaries can make good propaganda out of it. Do you agree?
Of course I agree, but we are not talking about policy we are talking about partisan politics. I strongly favor free speech of any kind so I am not criticizing the press or pundits for the obsessive partisanship surrounding this particular issue but it is not unreasonable to point out one of the potential consequences.
If a particular terrorist attack seems to set factions within the country at each others throats that would seem to be a very good incentive to do it again. Maybe that is what we are now seeing. In the case of the diplomats this kind of controversy is particularly problematic because they are put in an impossible situation in these countries, where they have to both reach out to the people to advance the diplomatic mission and protect their own security.
It is not partisan to demand answers as to why Americans were left to die and no action was taken. It was partisan in the extreme for the questions to be muted and deferred until after the election. If it had been fully aired perhaps the election might have been effected in some more significant way.
But be assured that I do not lay the blame solely at the feet of the partisan main stream media. Mitt Romney is much more to blame because he did not have the balls to press Obama on behavior. You can't expect the liberal partisan main stream media to do your job for you.
Aridog said...
I think we have different concepts of what "severe physical sanction"
I think you would agree that this probably doesn't happen without NATO intervention.
you appear to have the interest and strong opinions
I am bamboozled by the US's constant need to interfere in the middle east. No one seems to be able to define any strategic interest other than the price of oil, which ME countries currently have no option other than to sell at market prices, because their economies are so dependent on cash flow from its sale. Our behavior seems neurotic, not strategic.
This "complex" doesn't advocate war
I think this questionable. Companies that gain financially from having the country on a constant war footing or from actual warfare clearly have an incentive for a more bellicose foreign policy. Think tanks, pundits, security conferences etc. all have to get their money from somewhere. Again this is a free speech issue, but considerable skepticism is reasonable when the financial incentives for some companies and individuals can deviate markedly from the best interests of the country.
With regard to Benghazi, It seems likely the CIA were involved, but that is their job. Whether it was a sane, rational use of US resources will no doubt turn out to be debatable years from now. Transparency from the CIA is outside their job description, not unreasonably given they are a spy agency.
I honestly do not think the US's biggest problem in the area is appearance of weakness. Too much dunderheaded interference seems a much bigger problem to me and certainly would be if I lived in one of these countries.
Trooper York said...
It is not partisan to demand answers as to why Americans were left to die and no action was taken. It was partisan in the extreme for the questions to be muted and deferred until after the election. If it had been fully aired perhaps the election might have been effected in some more significant way.
But be assured that I do not lay the blame solely at the feet of the partisan main stream media. Mitt Romney is much more to blame because he did not have the balls to press Obama on behavior.
I understand how you feel on this but I think the voters, to whom Romney was attempting to appeal, have a somewhat different view. Romney was a good politician in every way other than his background. I am sure they surveyed the shit out this and decided it wasn't a winner for them. Romney never seemed shy about pressing his advantage when there clearly was an advantage.
If a particular terrorist attack seems to set factions within the country at each others throats that would seem to be a very good incentive to do it again. Maybe that is what we are now seeing. In the case of the diplomats this kind of controversy is particularly problematic because they are put in an impossible situation in these countries, where they have to both reach out to the people to advance the diplomatic mission and protect their own security.
The diplomats in Libya were in an impossible situation because thier diplomatic mission was a cover operation for CIA gunrunning. It's not the rhetoric that created that problem, it's the policy itself.
It would follow that if you did not want the US to expend it's blood and treasure in the Middle East to secure the oil supply than you would fully support drilling and fracking in the United States itself to eliminate our dependence on foreign oil.
Of course Obama and the libs are against this because they want to send billions of dollars to their cronies in the pie in the sky clean energy companies like Soylynda Debacle. That makes Teapot Dome look like small potatoes.
Romney was a horrible politician. He was a gutless Rhino who coasted because he thought he had it won.
You know who he was. Thomas Dewey without the mustache.
Phil 3:14 said...
AnUnreasonableTroll said.....
Ed,
You just couldn't resist, could you. Have you ever figured out how to strongly disagree without name-calling. Ironically, it diminishes your point(s).
My God you're a scold.
It's just ed being ed. He is what he is.
CEO-MMP said...
My God you're a scold.
It's just ed being ed. He is what he is.
Nonetheless, it would be good if he acted like a normal person.
"Normal person" is a judgmental term that makes me feel uncomfortable.
CEO-MMP ... I don't think Phil or I were scolding Ed, just reminding him of something. Ed has good ideas and often presents them very well, and none of it is helped by up front demeaning someone by contriving their name. He loses impact that way, and isn't taken seriously by some people. I think he should be taken seriously.
Ed and I have had our differences, and as I have said, I was no where near perfect, not even a little bit. Soooo...if I can settle down, I think he can and we'll both be the better off for it.
Me? I will still go all Celtic-Anglo-Saxon on someone who has hurt another person, but it will be after the deed, not before. In those cases, it is cathartic for me...I know the schmuck I'm demeaning is in oblivious denial.
ndspinelli said...
"Normal person" is a judgmental term that makes me feel uncomfortable.
It takes more will power than you might imagine to not respond to ed at times. Still, I am trying.
AReasonableMan said...
Nonetheless, it would be good if he acted like a normal person.
What a strange comment from someone who calls those he has political disagreements with traitors.
Post a Comment