SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Pakistani attorney and author Rafia Zakaria wrote an op-ed in Al Jazeera America about the Islamic extremists' war on fun, including sports, music, even dining in a fine restaurant. Zakaria points out that this apparent obsession predates the existence of ISIS by several decades (at least); he suspects this is a big reason why the attackers chose Paris, renowned worldwide for its brilliant culture and joie de vivre.
Terrorism’s targeting of the merry is universal and indiscriminate, a division of the world between those who wish to live and laugh and hope and those who kill and destroy. The latter are deadly and relentless, and they have already squeezed out the mirth from too many of the world’s cities, from Karachi, Kabul and Baghdad to Nairobi and Beirut.
Zakaria experienced this aspect of terror firsthand. A high school friend had just passed a big exam, and was out celebrating with his family at a restaurant in Karachi, Pakistan, when terrorists struck.
Al Jazeera America provides a separate analysis warning that military action alone cannot defeat ISIS (aka ISIL), which of course is not a "nation" in the traditional sense, but more of a guerilla outfit like Al Qaeda, that opportunistically seized a stronghold in chaotic regions of Syria and Iraq. The piece's author, political scientist Rami G. Khouri, recommends that both the West and Muslim nations of the Middle East spend more resources on addressing economic and political problems facing impoverished youths who are potentially attracted by the ISIS' recruiting pitch:
If the underlying threats to ordinary citizens’ lives in autocratic Arab-Islamic societies remain unaddressed — from jobs, water and health insurance, to free elections, a credible justice system and corruption — the flow of recruits to movements like ISIL or something even worse will persist and even accelerate.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 17 2015, @01:06AM
??? You expressed a concern about collateral damage. I'm concerned too! We've actually done quite a bit to minimize collateral damage. Just a few short decades ago we would have had to level several city blocks to make sure we got one high value target. Now, we can localize the damage to one building but I gather that is just too much collateral damage for your taste. Actually, I agree. I would like to see no innocents get caught in the cross fire. So, how do you propose we do this? Unfortunately, bombs currently don't have the means to judge the intentions of those caught in the blast zone and kill accordingly. If you have any ideas on how to do this, I and my colleagues would be eager to hear them.
I specifically mentioned the Kurds because they are currently among the few willing to go to the front lines to fight Daesh, which is the subject of the story. This has nothing to do with the Kurds being any more deserving than others.
I largely agree with this, but I want to know how you propose that we do all of this without micromanaging their internal affairs or creating a puppet government that merely dances to the tune we choose to play. Stop the shia majority from "shitting all over the sunnis up north"? Fine. How do you intend to stop them from doing this? How do you propose we hold a newly formed Iraqi government accountable so that they spend that Marshall Plan money wisely? All too often that Marshall Plan money just ends up in the personal overseas bank account of yet another petty tinpot dictator. This needs to be done in such a way that the Iraqis learn how to be responsible and self-governing while respecting the rights of all their citizens. These details are largely out of our control. Also, helping with intelligence, supply lines, and medical facilities typically would require that we put American service members in harm's way (i.e., boots on the ground); there is no easy way to avoid that.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 17 2015, @01:51AM
> ??? You expressed a concern about collateral damage.
And you gave me a singular choice of a perfect answer or the status quo. That smacks way too much of a passive-aggressive "you can't handle the truth."
> This has nothing to do with the Kurds being any more deserving than others.
Of course it does. Because the question can be asked about any group that is suffering at the hands of another group. You think they are deserving, but there are lots of people who are deserving. Look, you tried to dismiss the idea that we just shouldn't be so ready to go to war. And I am pushing back on that. It's not binary. We make decisions about when to get involved and I am saying we are way too trigger happy.
> I want to know how you propose that we do all of this without micromanaging their internal affairs or creating a puppet government that merely dances to the tune we choose to play.
Yes micro-managing is part of it. We have a department of peace, its called the state department. They have groups that study local communities and liaison with them. That needs to be beefed up a thousand-fold. We can put in "military advisors" without a second thought, we can also put in political advisors. I'm not saying its easy, its a lot harder than dropping bombs. It takes cultural literacy, the kind of thing you get from sociologists and cultural anthropologists. It takes economists. It takes linguists. It takes political scientists. It takes trust-building and institution building. And it takes a lot of academic study to learn what works and what doesn't so that the next time we do it, we can do a better job. This isn't some "three cups of tea" superficial shit.
> Also, helping with intelligence, supply lines, and medical facilities typically would require that we put American service members in harm's way (i.e., boots on the ground); there is no easy way to avoid that.
Obviously. But these kinds of boots aren't about fighting first, they are about defending the process.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 17 2015, @05:57AM
Look, your original assertion was that we are "making choices we know will kill innocents". I think we both agree we want less collateral damage. Can you at least bring yourself to admit we agree on that much? The real question is when does the status quo become so unbearable that we feel compelled to act in spite of the fact that innocents will inevitably get caught in the cross fire? And, following on to that, how de we act in such a way as to minimize such collateral damage and achieve a just (or at least acceptable) outcome? In the case of Daesh I think we do have a compelling interest to act; they have repeatedly made it quite clear that they are at war with us. Ignoring that is suicidal. The tricky part is figuring out how to minimize innocents getting caught in the cross fire. Or, so it would seem to me. FWIW, I agree that too often our political leaders are trigger happy, mostly because they don't want to appear "weak" to their constituents; at least that is the way I read it.
And, if we really do try to micromanage them, we give up any pretence that we are there to liberate them; we are really there to impose our will on them. Also, you should consider that sometimes the locals just aren't interested in your notion of peace. You see, just like our political leaders, sometimes their leaders really are more interested in divide and conquer. Just like our political leaders, some of them are power hungry sociopaths. And sometimes the people really aren't interested in peace. It will take a lot of wisdom and patience to sort out who we can work with and who we can't; it will also take a lot of patience to cajole them into "doing the right thing". But in some (many?) cases, no amount of prodding is going to get them to do the right thing. Unfortunately, sometimes, the people on the other side of the negotiating table really aren't acting in good faith. And in the case of Daesh, they aren't making any pretence at negotiating, good faith or otherwise. They have really only offered us the option of converting to their brand of Islam or death. In that case, we really have only one choice: kill or be killed.
Tragically, they are also frequently considered "soft targets" by the enemy. It looks to my eye like you are really suggesting we trade one type of collateral damage for another. Our service members won't be too fond of that idea. How are you going to get them to go along with it? Also, do you really think it is sustainable for the long term to offer up such sacrificial lambs for the slaughter? Other than assuaging your conscience that we (they) gave it our (their) best shot, what do you hope to accomplish by this strategy?