I’m not really seeing any commentary (left, right or center) about the Paris terrorist attacks that I don’t find stupid or naïve, or both. So, I’m going to continue to encourage folks to take some time, calm down, and evaluate whether their gut reaction is worth a warm bucket of spit. I’d also like to remind our political leaders, here and abroad, that their biggest challenge is to channel and respect the very destructive and foolish impulses of a scared and angry electorate without doing something really idiotic and completely immoral and self-defeating in response.
There are no easy solutions to a problem like this. But calm decisions are better decisions.
Take your time. Don’t panic. Others will follow your lead.
The response of leaders in Vienna is a good first response. I’m thinking that this holds more promise for good things by January 2017 that most any other foreign policy initiative.
The framing of France and Belgium in their statements opens the door to a French NATO Section 5 request. The question is who that NATO is not already fighting should they attack. Which NATO allies not already involved would get pulled in? A move to break Turkey from nod-nod-wink-wink at ISIS activities in Turkish territory? A harder line on Assad?
Other than upped attention – snap out of the watchman’s trance – I can’t think of much additional that the US is not already doing and in some cases doing badly by overdoing.
Who is buying the oil which is financing the Daesh?
Along the lines I was thinking. The French Prosecutor outlined the gist of what is being unraveled; the vests were identical, the AK’s all set up the same (and from the black market) the detonators all the same. There wasn’t the usual cheering ‘God is great’ that accompanies these attacks.
So the black market seems a good place to start, but it isn’t called black just for the poetry of the name.
Charlie Pierce also has a good piece
Brrr…. do we have any reason to believe that freezing assets wont cause political collapse? Saudis falling just screams of giving the caliphate a cjance to take over.
When Pierce is good — he’s a must read.
But the tough talk is needed for the voters.
A great read indeed
Private parties in Syria and Turkey, presumably. Anybody who’s buying it is buying it illegally, but the price is right.
Next time I’ll click your links first and comment later.
You’re pretty much correct excepting Assad and probably the sneaky Erdoğan; depending on whom you believe. Among regional actors, Kurd, Turk, Syrian or Iraqi, there seems no lack of those unable to resist this profitable trade.
I’m guessing that we are currently reconsidering the strategy of preserving infrastructure against future claims by former owners and partners, however.
Links on Daesh black-market oil.
Wouldn’t be surprised if it was Cheney and the rest of the Bush crime family.
For some time British media have been releasing stories linking Assad to ISIS in various ways. Please forgive me if I am sceptical. Assad has many enemies, but ISIS is certainly one of his worst enemies. So the idea that he is financing them sort of reminds me of the idea that Saddam Hussein was supporting al-Qaida (who were also among his worst enemies, and which was just Neocon nonsense).
As for the Oilprice.com piece, it strikes me as thoroughly objective, and notice, not a word about Assad. but the serious of the issue comes through, and I wonder why it hasn’t been paid more attention to here in the pond.
Finally, is oil the main issue? Usually, but not in this case, because if we wanted to, we could buy plenty of oil from ISIS, probably at a good discount. ISIS is a destabilizing factor in every way.
Regarding Assad. I think it made more sense a year ago; on the other hand I think Assad and Daesh have collaborated on operational projects where other rebel groups are concerned. Even the Russians seem more interested in bombing Assad’s other opponents than the Daesh.
But they’re selling their oil to somebody. The reason it feels important is that it seems to represent the bulk of their income.
So, you’re saying that Assad on occasion is in cahoots with IS (ISIS, ISIl)? Whereas the US and France oppose Daesh which is what John Kerry and Hollande call the militant radicals in Syria that also struck in Lebanon a few days ago.
That’s what makes me think all bets are off; the attack on Assad’s Hezbollah ally’s home turf. Not to mention the Russian airliner.
Still it seemed pretty clear last year that there was tacit willingness operationally to not engage each other when either was facing local third-party opposition.
Beware the “enemy of my enemy is my friend” interpretation of conflicts in the ME.
As if yet, we don’t know if the Russian airliner was downed and if it was, by whom. The immediate econo-politico loser is Egypt. Was that the intent? Was it the intent for the Luxor massacre? Fingers do seem to be pointing in the same direction for the perpetrators, but perhaps that’s just a lazy or uninformed interpretation.
Resource constraints and vested interest would explain what you are viewing as complicity.
Daesh has its own agenda, methods, and means which for various reasons other nations and groups have found this group of militants convenient enough to support but never officially. Hezbollah has not been sitting totally on the sidelines in the Syrian armed conflicts and they’ve been dealing with their own local version for a long time. So, not surprising that murderous thugs would strike in Lebanon.
From today’s WSJ:
It’s a rough neighbourhood.
“symbiotic” actors is diplomatese for having some enemy in common. In Lebanon and now Syria and Iraq, there are so many religious and political factions that it may be impossible that any two factions aren’t “symbiotic actors.” The term is probably a useful term to describe group interactions somewhere, but in this situation looks more like western propaganda.
A moving tribute by a pianist who had been at earlier protests in either Tahrir Square, Cairo or Gezi Park in Istanbul.
○ 29 Glimpses of Humanity Within Protests Bound to Touch Your Soul
Paris attacks could have been much worse, appears arms – eight AK-47s, grenades and explosives –
were intercepted from a Montenegrin in Bavaria on Nov. 5 … SatNav programmed for destination Paris.
○ Bayerische Polizei fasst möglichen Komplizen
○ Bavaria arrest raises suspicions about links to Paris attacks | Deutsche Welle |
This Vox piece gets to the heart of what I’ve been wondering.
goes to Tarheeldem’s comments
Excellent analysis, thanks:
This in the context of the loss of 25% territory, French strategy targeting oil production and refining and the recent attacks in Eqypt, Beirut and Paris. But are they at a tipping point where another six months of resolution or even escalation tightens the noose or are we being invited to wade into the ‘big muddy’?
See below as well. A settlement in Syria – talks started this week – may mean the end of ISIS.
That would be something. What I see, cynically, is Erdoğan bartering closing up the porous Turkish border for the desperate EU in exchange for Western assent to his aspiration to project Turkish military power into former Syrian territory; boots on the ground:
It seems the idea is that the refugees would be contained on former Syrian territory under the military protection of Turkey. Understand that the Turkish media is capricious and unusually prone to unsubstantiated rumour, disinformation and misdirection.
Aside from dabbling in Sunni jihadi extremism and longing for a resurgent Ottoman throne the urge to de facto annex some portion of the lightly claimed territory of Syria adjacent to Turkey’s border strikes me as having been a central obsession of Turkey’s current leadership for some time. That this aspiration is anathema to NATO ethos, doctrine and strategy seems a considerable problem for other members of the alliance which Putin’s looming presence does nothing to ameliorate.
I would be very interested for anyone else’s views on this, it strikes me as one of the essential difficulties of the moment.
Here’s a couple of disturbing accounts of Turkish ambivalence:
Bad enough? Now a critique of US-Turkish co-operation:
So, yeah… Headwinds.
Thanks for this link.
Will McCants makes the point that ISIL/ISIS/Daesh is functioning like a state with a military that can project force through special forces tactics at least to Paris, Beirut, the coast of Tunisia, and so on.
The wrinkle in this analysis is that this state is very much like the Norman conquest of Sicily or of England, maybe even smaller in the ratio of armed forces to occupied population. The population is essentially hostages and human shields. And this makes conventional state-on-state warfare problematic–as is its strategic intent on the part of the multi-national ISIL/ISIS/Daesh expeditionary force representing a caliphate in prospect.
That is preliminary to a “just go ahead and kill them anyway” scorched earth policy of military convenience. See it pitched under “tough decisions”.
A scorched earth policy pssibly justifiable from a “just war” rationale doesn’t fly very well, even with hardliners when used against a hostage population. Expect to hear some discussion in the near future about “Stockholm syndrome” in Raqaa, Aleppo, and Mosul.
If you must vow revenge do it inside where no one can see and you wont lose face. Plenty of stupid things have been done to avoid losing it so dont make it even worse by digging youself into a hole.
I agree with your points, but don’t make a typo you’ll regret later. i.e.:
“that they’re biggest challenge”
We, the USA, are incapable of fighting ISIS. Just a few days ago the right declared we should be worried about China fighting with the Russians in Syria. Or maybe we should be shooting down Chinese jets in the China sea. The GOP controlled congress wants to increase defense spending to the point where we can fight 2 separate wars at the same time with no specific enemy detailed. Until the right can decide or maybe have the debate they have openly avoided….ISIS is in charge. I can only hope Hillary, Sanders, and whats his name rip the GOP congress a new hole in the next debate.
Hillary will have to have a poll check first.
you don’t mean we, you mean the Rs
“we” the US, are fighting ISIS. read the comments upthread
Initial reactions aren’t worth anything – mine as well.
There was news this week Syria: the US is sending Tow missiles to rebels, and a conference is starting about the government of Syria. Tow missiles where a major factor in the resistance against the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, and the reports I read suggested the rebels are finding success against the Syrians as well.
A political settlement between those rebels and the Syrian Government would be bad news for ISIS.
In any event, I remember thinking after 9/11 that nothing you do is going to bring back the people that died, and that is true here.
Tow missiles – to shoot down more Russian airliners?
TOW missiles are anti-tank.
Tube-launched, optically guided, wire command link.
They have a maximum range of about 3,500 meters.
Ah! Yes, I had forgotten. Thank you for the reminder.
They’re used against armor, not aircraft.
I had drawn a mental blank. Thank you for the correction.
In an election year? ROTFLMAO!
Obama will be supporting the French. The French will have troops in S Turkey in 2 weeks. In 4 weeks, we will be supporting them with troops as well.
And who will they be fighting and how long until the first men of valor are flown back to France or the US to emphasize the cost of war? Mission creep unless they intend to do something dramatically more effective than what the locals are doing.
Last month’s Rolling Stone had a great article on the Dark Net. Today there seems to be a great deal of talk about the giant failure of France’s intelligence sector. But then that’s evolving into talk about how ISIL is using new encryption that intelligence hasn’t been able to crack just yet. But then it clicked that they’re likely using the untraceable Dark Net. Great article btw.
Here’s the Rolling Stone link
Dkos post well worth reading. link
yes. but the whole comment system is a nightmare on the new site, alas
I don’t have time to say much .. I’m packing to go to Paris (via Stockholm). See y’all around.