wally1 wrote on Mar 4^th, 2014 at 8:07am:


Actually, Afghanistan was about September 11 and the US's Cold War history of covert action there. Fair enough.

Iraq was about the oil and establishing a new US military base in the Middle East. Iraq had nothing to do with September 11 - "regime change" was just something on the neo-cons to-do list.

The problem is, regime change to what? The neo-cons never thought that one through. In so doing, they created a power vacuum in the Middle East, and allowed a majority Shi'a population to be influenced by forces from Iran.

This is the problem with the old boy carpet-bombing strategy, a strategy taken from the Nazis' blitzkriegs, and "conventional" war between nation states.

The Middle East, like Indochine in the 1960s/70s, is not a collection of strong nation states. The borders of the Middle East were mapped out by the League of Nations along colonial lines. The French and British were granted the spoils of war, absorbing the former Ottoman Empire. When they pulled out after WWII, the US stepped in to secure the oil.

With the exception of US-funded armies in Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia, Pan Arabism, OPEC and a few royal families were the only local sources of power in the region in he 1960s, 70s and 80s respectively. Even with US funds and influence, the states themselves were weak, the borders porous and ever-shifting through various wars and civil wars.

In this environment, conventional military tactics can only fail. It is impossible to defeat an amalgam of guerilla insurgencies in the long-term. The Nazis would have ultimately failed against the partisans, the KMT failed against the Communists in China, the US failed against the Viet Cong in Indochine, and the Soviets failed in Afghanistan.

In this setting, all military responses will do is exacerbate a conflict. The bombing of Cambodia led to the rise of the Khmer Rouge. The invasion of Afghanistan led to the rise of the Mujahadin and the Taliban. As Mao said, borrowing from classical Chinese texts and Marxist theory, the weak shall overcome the strong. This is the dynamic of guerilla war, and it holds true to this day. In modern times, big armies have never prevailed in an insurgency.

The problem with old boys is they refuse to learn from history. The US is now left to dealing with the Taliban - a strategy they should have used 13 years ago. In Iraq, they've stopped dealing, it's all too much trouble.

Tomorrow, and tomorrow, and tomorrow. If you fail to learn from history, you'll end up like Macbeth. The ultimate end of the old boys' kill-em-all strategy is Hitler's bunker.

Carry on, old boys. You're the future.

Soren wrote on Mar 4^th, 2014 at 12:32pm:


They were dragged kicking and screaming into that one, old boy. The "special relationship" between Blair and Clinton, innit.

Blair joined the dark side when he made friends with Bush. Bush Jnr's military experience was the Texan Air Guard. He should have listened more to his daddy. The US's security role in Serbia was a dangerous precedent for the War on Terror. It was, essentially, the false dawn of Amerikka's post-Cold War supremacy.

Yugoslavia's an interesting example, however, of a failed state. Without the Austrio-Hungarian Empire and the Soviet Union, it dissolved. This shows that empires can contain small nationalist insurgencies like the Serbs (who inadvertently started WWI), but there has to be an economic incentive for those in the empire's influence.

Many of the conflicts in the world today come down to the dissolution of the USSR and the bi-polar global system of the Cold War. With the rise of China - and now Russia in the Ukraine - we may see a restoration of this kind of "order".

wally1 wrote on Mar 4^th, 2014 at 1:06pm:


It was NATO, and it wasn't about oil or gas, Wally.

Serbia/Bosnia was the first post-Cold War test of Europe attempting to hold itself together. It wasn't about resources. For Europe, it was an existential problem.

The questions posed were along the lines of, how can we tolerate such atrocities on our doorstep? If Serbia/Bosnia had been in Africa, nothing would have happened.

Until Rwanda, which the US was also dragged into.

And that wasn't about resources either.

Karnal wrote on Mar 4^th, 2014 at 1:36pm:





Yes, how can we stop large salt-water crocodiles [i.e. human predators] from behaving like large salt-water crocodiles  [i.e. human predators] ???

Yes, it is an intractable problem!

Perhaps we need to apply a zoological management solution to such a problem ?

e.g.
Perhaps seek to keep 'large salt-water crocodiles' segregated from other animals in the 'zoo' ?





THE MOSLEM CULTURAL IMPERATIVE, EXPOSED.....


"And fight with them until.....religion should be only for Allah,..."
Koran 2.193


"....Lo! Allah is an enemy to those who reject Faith."
Koran 2.98


"....those who reject Allah have no protector."
Koran 47.008
v. 8-11


"Fighting [against unbelievers] is prescribed for you, and [if] ye dislike it.....Allah knoweth, and ye know not."
Koran 2.216


"O ye who believe! Fight those of the disbelievers who are near to you, and let them find harshness in you, and know that Allah is with those who keep their duty (unto Him)."
Koran 9.123


"Allah hath purchased of the believers their persons and their goods; for theirs (in return) is the garden (of Paradise): they fight in His cause, and slay and are slain:...."
Koran 9.111


"Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued. "
Koran 9.29

Lord Herbert wrote on Mar 4^th, 2014 at 2:50pm:


But I'm on your ignore list, Herbie. Are you saying you don't want to ignore me anymore?

I'm touched. Ask me a question and I promise to reply. Any question at all.

A question about cheese would be nice.

Miam miam.

It's those excerpts from the Koran that caught my eye.

My interest in the Koran only goes so far as wanting to know how many in the West's Muslim communities take note of the anti-social bits in the Koran, and how many don't.

I think it's high time a new Koran was published for the consumption of Muslim children growing up in Western countries. A Koran with the nasty bits left out for the good of us all.

Same with the bible if there's to be a quid pro quo

Agreed?

And I haven't received an answer yet from anyone to the question: In what way is Islam superior to Christianity as a book of instruction on how to be a decent human being.

I like the Koran's instruction not to drink alcohol. That's a good one. And not to gamble.

Come on, gentlemen! Islam and Christianity MUST come to an accommodation with one another if we are to live in peace.

Stratos wrote on Mar 4^th, 2014 at 4:52pm:


The Koran and Bible need to be rendered Politically Correct.

There. I've said it.