In reaction to the terrorist attack in Copenhagen over the weekend, the editors of the Wall Street Journal declaim:
Stopping terrorism from becoming normal will also require describing accurately the jihadist threat. The Obama Administration in the U.S. has refused to identify Islamism—or even “Islamic extremismâ€â€”as the ideology behind the recent attacks on the Continent and the horrors in Syria and Iraq. Such obfuscation doesn’t help moderate and reformist Muslims, whose cooperation is essential to defeating jihadists. Copenhagen can set a counterterror example by calling the enemy by its name.
It’s not just terrorism our European cousins need worry about. violent crime, generally, has risen rapidly there over the last forty years even as it has declined here.
I’ll repeat what I’ve said before: the traditionally ethnic states of Europe need to decide what sort of countries they wish to be and take the steps to insure that’s what they become. One size won’t fit all and the various countries will need to make their own decisions. It’s up to them. It’s none of my business.
Now that Turkey is moving somewhat pro-Russian and refusing to cooperate on other problems, many/most of which the US created, I wonder if the American Elite is still bent on de-Christianizing Europe by pushing for Turkey’s EU membership.
Having clarity about what is happening to one’s global neighbors is not necessarily getting into their business, IMO. Furthermore, the “political dancing” which the current administration is engaged in, delivering benign, vague descriptions of who is primarily carrying out these acts of terrorism, is frankly bizarre.
After all, outbreaks of Islamic-owned violence is happening all around the world — Australia, Paris, Belgium, Copenhagen. At the same time ISIS/ISIL/DAESH affiliated groups seem to not only be infiltrating into more ME regions but also accelerating their behavior creating even greater heinous acts.
Sophisticated countries like Germany react to the spread of violence by canceling a parade, fearing an untoward backlash. Our President, though, reacts indifferently, continuing to play golf over the long weekend as 21 Coptic Christians are beheaded in Libya. It’s troubling to me that such gross cruelty, indecency, and aggression is treated so casually by this country. In fact the main reflexive counterpunch seems to be aggrieved words over other countries terror attacks and human losses, followed by fighting words to discuss countering violent extremism at a summit.
In the meantime, chaos and crisis builds around the planet as we contemplate nothing more than agreeing that it’s “their” problem. ….until when it, quite unexpectedly, becomes “our” problem. Then who knows what the plan of action will be. Do any of you?
@jan
… Then who knows what the plan of action will be. Do any of you?
If you are offered a plan of action will you reject it out of hand? Even if your previous assumptions have fallen apart? If the solution is a bitter pill, will you swallow it?
Is Libya better off with or without Gaddafi? Is Syria better off ruled by Assad or ISIS? Was Egypt better off with the Muslim Brotherhood or the Egyptian Military? Would Afghanistan be better off run by drug warlords or the Taliban?
Today, the UK seem to be a nice and peaceful, but it took around 1,000 years of violence to achieve this level of peace. There are numerous groups that have been purged or have assimilated for survival. The Irish may survive if they have given up on their resistance. English history is bloody, and we only know the survivors.
Many places in the world are not getting the opportunity to slaughter each other. They will become peaceful once the strongest, smartest, or most cunning have purged, enslaved, or assimilated the other factions. It is harsh, but it is the way of nature.
The way to keep the spill over out of US affairs is through espionage and clandestine methods, and these include covert military operations. Large scale military operations would be limited, but there would need to be strategic bases. This means host countries with long term leases. Also, you need port access to get materials in and out.
If you work on a plan for 8 years and the next guy screws it up in 2 years, it was not a very good plan to start. A robust plan can withstand the worst idiot in charge. A robust plan is designed to be idiot proof. Otherwise, it was designed by an idiot.
This does not prove that the second idiot’s plan is any better, but because the second idiot’s acolytes cannot reason past medieval logic, they are amazed by his brilliance.
“If you are offered a plan of action will you reject it out of hand? Even if your previous assumptions have fallen apart? If the solution is a bitter pill, will you swallow it?”
Tasty, one can’t answer those questions truthfully until they know what the “plan” is. If it encompasses political ploys, and nothing else, then it’s an empty plan, IMO. There has to be some meaningful, long-term strategy involved which take as many scenarios as possible into consideration, deploying the one that makes the most sense and involves having the best possible results. If your “bitter pill” involves some kind of personal deprivation or risk — I’ve done that most of my life, as long as the proposed ends justify the less-than-enjoyable means in getting there.
Getting rid of the various tyrants around the world is also enacted by a moral conscience that regrettably produces by-products that were not anticipated. For instance, Saddam’s tortured regime, for all it’s crimes to humanity, did keep Iran in check. This also applies to Gaddafi, and maybe even Assad. However, I do believe that violence, elsewhere around the globe, can be managed better, if not diminished, if a stronger world presence is in place providing a line, that if crossed, assures a consequence will be rendered with decisive authority.
The U.S. has the sophisticated technology, manpower, and armaments to fulfill that role. Instead it vacillates, obfuscates and oscillates so that it’s credibility and powerful position as an arbitrator has all but vanished. In it’s place are various brutal players — small and large in their power and intimidation — who want to rule the world by instilling fear by any means possible. I don’t see them as minor irritants. But, rather they present themselves as a persistent threat to the stability of this highly diverse planet we all occupy.
I’m not going to pretend I have the answer to this complex problem. However, I am growing more perplexed and uneasy with what we’re both doing and not doing as events seem to be exploding around us. I’ll repeat a saying used before: “What you permit you encourage.” And, I see us as being a part of the problem, in our dismissive attitudes and ultimately “do nothing” stances.
@jan
I doubt you are willing to do what it takes to not permit the world to fall into chaos. Turmoil is the natural state. The Cold War was unnatural, and it was based upon a few strong powers influencing the rest of the world. If you want that stability, you need a stabilizing partner.
The dictators that keep getting knocked off are keeping their area under control, and when they are gone, all hell breaks loose. If you want these places to become orderly and peaceful, the US will need to provide the money and manpower to make them orderly and peaceful.
This will not be cheap or quick. Add zeros to the existing dollar amounts and change years to decades or centuries. The other alternative is to pick a winner and to purge the rest. If you do not want to do the dirty work, pay somebody to do it. It is a lot cheaper, but your hands will be a lot bloodier.
I stated before that the good rebels in Syria would be beaten, and the Iraqi army is proof. They were a professional army trained by the US for years, and they could not withstand ISIS attacks. If by some miracle, the good Syrian rebels were to overthrow Assad, they would never be able to hold or run Syria.
The US would need to station troops there for decades, and there would need to be trillions of dollars pumped into there. Iraq was never going to be ready for many decades, and it should never have been left without a long term plan. Afghanistan will fall apart as soon as the US leaves.
These are all foreseeable, but there are people who refuse to see reality. The fact that they also claim to be experts is beside the point. Being consistently wrong should be a sign that they are probably not an expert, but apparently, that is not the case.
The bad guys do not operate the same way you do nor do they think the same way. Trying to outthink bad guys using a US living room mindset is not going to work. Bad guys do not pay attention to words. They pay attention to actions.
If I punch you and you call the cops, you just told me something. If I punch your child and you call the cops, you just told me something more. I know that I am going to have to push you really hard to get you to shoot me. I can give you a loaded gun and point it at my head, and you will not pull the trigger.
You are now powerless against me, and it is all because you did not punch me back. This is how bad guys think. They do not care about the cops. The cops are a job hazard.
A certain fiction writer tried to tell me that Putin was just a little thug who craved world attention. I stated otherwise, and it looks like I am more correct. I will also state that Russia is not going to go past the Baltics. There are historic and practical reasons.
ISIS is a mish-mash of several different things at the moment. They are a traditional terrorist organization, but they also have a state organizational structure. This could morph into something similar to the Taliban. There are also franchises popping up, and some of these may want to attack the US.
To protect the US, you would use clandestine, espionage, financial, technological, covert, drones, etc. against them. In the areas of Iraq, Syria, Libya, Yemen, Afghanistan, etc. under local control, you partner with the locals (pay them off) to work against ISIS or any other terrorist. Sometimes, you want the groups to feel as safe as possible.
Making the world safe is not going to be cheap, and you are not going to fool the bad guys. You are going to need to punch a lot of bad guys, and then, you will need to sit on top of the population to keep the peace.
Good analysis Tasty. There’s not much there I can dispute.
It’s a safe bet “Jan” didn’t object one iota to W Bush’s complete unconcern about the fate of the entire Iraqi Christian community
as the US waged its immoral war based on purposefully told lies
overthrowing a regime which protected them.
“Jan” is the type which chided Obama for allowing the authentic Christian Putin to checkmate him from his intention to overthrow Assad, another Arab Christian-protecting government.
@jan
On the positive side, the childish notion that “if we are just nice to our enemies, they will be nice to us” is about totally discredited. There will always be hardcore holdouts, but they are useful for mocking.
The delusional hawks are still a problem because they do not fully understand how bad guys work, but at least they do understand that the bad guys are not really good guys yearning to get out.
Sometimes a snake is a snake, but it might be a really mean and nasty snake. Killing the snake will make your barn safer for you, but it will also increase your rat population. Now you have a much larger and fluid rat population, and the rats are not necessarily going to stay in the barn. They will now begin to spread into your house.
I am a warmonger. As long as it is done competently, I do not care about killing people and blowing up stuff, but it rarely is. Kill the snakes, and burn down the barn. Poison the soil. Just do not do a half-assed job, but if that is not possible, do not start. You will only make it worse.
My prediction is that President Obama will have done more damage to his ideology than any of his opponents, but we shall see. This does not mean that the opposition will win by default, and this is where they can be defeated.