SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Susan Page writes at USA Today that Leon Panetta, former head of the CIA and Secretary of the Department of Defense, says Americans should be braced for a long battle against the brutal terrorist group Islamic State that will test U.S. resolve. "I think we're looking at kind of a 30-year war," says Panetta, one that will have to extend beyond Islamic State to include emerging threats in Nigeria, Somalia, Yemen, Libya and elsewhere. Panetta also says that decisions made by President Obama over the past three years have made that battle more difficult — an explosive assessment by a respected policymaker of the president he served. Not pushing the Iraqi government harder to allow a residual US force to remain when troops withdrew in 2011, a deal he says could have been negotiated with more effort "created a vacuum in terms of the ability of that country to better protect itself, and it's out of that vacuum that ISIS began to breed." It is no surprise to Panetta that the assessment in his new book "Worthy Fights: A Memoir of Leadership in War and Peace" is drawing White House ire. "Look, I've been a guy who's always been honest," Panetta says. "I've been honest in politics, honest with the people that I deal with. I've been a straight talker. Some people like it; some people don't like it. But I wasn't going to write a book that kind of didn't express what I thought was the case."
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 06 2014, @10:39PM
While war involves technology, obviously, I don't really see the relevance of this purely political news here at SoylentNews.
This is the sort of news that we can easily find in mainstream media.
It just takes up a front page slot here, along with the corresponding delay until the next story, that could be used for something more relevant and interesting.
We should never forget that a vast increase in the number of purely political submissions was a big part of the downfall of Slashdot.
I see a number of more relevant submissions in the queue, so it's not like this was the only submission available or something like that.
This reminds me of that submission a while back about that black man in St Louis who got shot and died as a result of attacking a cashier and then a police officer. All that submission resulted in was pointless bickering, and a lot of racism directed at white people.
I don't think that these submissions are really the kind of thing that will build a strong community here. They divide more than they unite.
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Monday October 06 2014, @10:55PM
All these wars do finance a good chunk of the US tech sector (and UK, France, Israel, Russia...), but the submission should have been about particular tech consequences rather than a generic ZOMG 3-year war Obama-didn't-prevent statement...
(Score: 2) by Tramii on Monday October 06 2014, @10:59PM
According to the Soylent FAQ [http://soylentnews.org/faq.pl]:
Do you only want tech news?
We aim for around 70% technology and science stories with the remainder being a mix of content with general interest to our community.
I agree that it's most likely just going to be another flame war, but if people find it "interesting" enough to comment on it a lot, I don't see what we can really do to stop it.
(Score: 1) by tftp on Tuesday October 07 2014, @12:24AM
That is very much relevant, including the technology of it. For example, accept that 30 year war for a moment. How will it be waged, against who, and with what technology? Progress in military robots, for example, may result in fully autonomous battle tanks, if not even nuclear powered walkers from Star Wars.
(Score: 1) by anubi on Tuesday October 07 2014, @02:14AM
Like the robotic swarm boats the Navy is building? [cnn.com]
"Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." [KJV: I Thessalonians 5:21]
(Score: 1) by tftp on Tuesday October 07 2014, @02:34AM
There are many examples of autonomous vehicles that are used, or planned for use, in the military. Airplanes and boats are a bit easier, as they don't need to deal with terrain.
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Monday October 06 2014, @11:19PM
I think anyone would have a hard time arguing that the U.S. being in a 30-year war wouldn't impact them.
Stuff That Matters^W^W^WWhatever the Motto Was on That Other Site
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 3, Insightful) by bzipitidoo on Tuesday October 07 2014, @12:19AM
The good times for smart people wound down at the end of the Cold War. The best times were the 1960's push to reach the Moon. When an American won the World Chess Championship in 1972, it was front page news. Mao and Pol Pot showed what happens if you ignore or turn against your smartest people. We also had the then recent example of our own of what happens when stupidity is allowed free reign, in the House Un-American Activities Committee. Now, the people in charge today suffer from too many moments of anti-intellectualism.
I thought I could focus on purely technical matters and ignore and avoid politics, especially of the office variety. If a project goes well, you can get away with that attitude. It doesn't work when a project isn't going well. You will find yourself the easiest target to make into the scapegoat, because of your greater knowledge and intelligence which means you of all people should have known better, and because of your silence because you tried to stay out of politics. Because of your intelligence, you're also seen as the most dangerous competitor if it comes to downsizing. It doesn't matter how ridiculous or counterproductive it is to blame you because you had no authority and no choice but to follow orders, or that making you the fall guy will buy the rest of them only a little more time, they will do it. One way out is to find another job. Not an option when the problem is world wide. So although this is not a story about technical matters, I think we should pay some attention to it.
Leon Panetta's assertions are dangerous. He thinks as military careerists are wont to do. I bet the military industrial complex loves his book. The problem with his thinking is that military solutions are seldom appropriate. Climate Change is a much bigger threat than ISIS, and could be the reason Syria destabilized and ISIS emerged. They've been suffering from a terrible drought since 2008. The Assad government was stupid, first selling off surplus food as the drought was starting, then blaming the problems on the farmers, accusing them of treason for failing to grow enough food, as if they had purposely idled their farms.
The way our bought and sold media reports this, you would think that Muslims are fanatics seeking any excuse to attack the US because we're mostly Christian, or rich and powerful and they're just jealous, and that ISIS sprang straight out of their hatred for us. The Arab Spring didn't happen because the Arabs suddenly tired of their authoritarian regimes and just one day decided to revolt, no. Lack of food is what set them off. And that happened because of drought, which brings us back to Climate Change. As for their attitudes towards us, if you don't dig deeper, it seems totally unreasonable, like they're just making up reasons to hate us, as if merely being Christian isn't enough of a reason. Knowledge of recent history puts their attitudes in a much more rational light. We're there, for the oil. We have not been scrupulous in making sure we have oil, too readily casting aside our much vaunted principles. For oil, the West overthrew Iran's democratically elected government and inflicted the Shah on them. Because of oil, we're friendly to Saudi Arabia, despite all kinds of problems, like that most of the 9/11 attackers were their citizens.
We need some careful thinking brought to bear on our actual problems. The War of Choice was the product of, at best, very sloppy thinking. Our leaders were idiots. Just cunning enough to win office and stampede us into war. They got the problems and the solutions wrong, killed a lot of people, wasted trillions of dollars, and accomplished basically nothing good. Made us look very bad. Today, Iraq is not a stable democracy, nor is it likely to become one any time soon.
If we don't step up efforts to deal with the climate, we'll be fighting more wars. But we can't address the climate as long as scientific illiterates and fools control our wealth and power, and would rather bury their heads in the sand than face that problem. One of the most disappointing things about the Presidential debates last election between Obama and Romney was that the subject of Climate Change was never even brought up! What to do? Improve our education? Reduce inequality, on the idea that because most people are too busy scrapping and scrounging a living to look beyond the immediate, a bit more wealth would result in leisure to think more long term, more opportunity to educate ourselves?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 07 2014, @02:11AM
I had a helluva time on that last election. I had absolutely no respect for either. I saw one as someone completely ignorant of resource management, trying his best ( and succeeding ) in winning the election by buying welfare votes... I saw the other as an extremely greedy 1%-er all out for using power of government to wrangle the last drop of blood out of the workingman - and by workingman, I do not mean "work" to be crafty ways of indebting people into servitude by penmanship, knowing who to shake hands with that can grant one the power to issue money he doesn't have - then collecting usury on it.
As far as I was concerned, it was an election of having the three stooges or having a hungry and clever lion on the loose to be our leader. I chose the former as it least it would not be quite as destructive, but it was definitely a lose-lose situation for me...
I felt like I was given the choice between being gutpunched or losing a finger.
But as long as the whole world whores after the US Dollar, which we print at will, we can afford the military might to enforce the pens of the bankers. If there is one thing that last financial shock demonstrated... the bankers own us. They can print money, collecting usury on that which never was, and we can't... by order of our own government.
Its the same damned thing that enslaved the French 200 years ago.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Arik on Tuesday October 07 2014, @02:40AM
There is no need to rig the actual polls, you see. It's so much cleaner to rig it earlier.
Just make sure that the two idiots on the ballot are BOTH your men, then you can relax and it doesnt matter which one the cattle vote into office. That's how it's actually done. That's how the Chinese Communist Party intends to control the elections in Hong Kong, and the natives there are rioting in the streets over it, but here in the land of the free and the home of the brave we are too busy watching football to notice, let alone care.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 2) by Kell on Tuesday October 07 2014, @03:23AM
So why not vote for someone else? "You're throwing your vote away on a third party candidate" is only true if people believe it. If enough people stop accepting and start exerting their voting power, they might see change.
Scientists ask questions. Engineers solve problems.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 07 2014, @05:47AM
> I felt like I was given the choice between being gutpunched or losing a finger.
So you wasted your vote by choosing the status quo.
Vote your conscience even if they have no chance of winning because what matters is the long game. The more votes the big 2 lose to 3rd parties the more motivation they have to incorporate policies of those 3rd parties into their platforms the next time.
(Score: 2) by Bot on Tuesday October 07 2014, @03:38AM
> Leon Panetta's assertions are dangerous.
He said an honest man, himself, ran a secret service. That is, in the best case scenario, a secret service ran him.
Account abandoned.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Tuesday October 07 2014, @02:16PM
This is an excellent point and cuts to the heart of the matter for those of us who love technology. We all long, dream of being able to "just work the problem," because it's what we're good at and we hate the ambiguity and touchy-feely crap that comes with politics, writ large or small. Some people have begun to fantasize about the Singularity, because it's that same moment of liberation that drove the Marxists and democrats and Enlightenment thinkers.
But the rub is stupid people. Stupid people don't understand math or science or creativity. They understand very little. What they are good at is getting other stupid people to think and do as they do. Thus politicians are born, and smart people, overwhelmingly outnumbered by stupid people, are subjugated. The tragic irony is that smart people hold all the operative cards. Hell, if all the world's IT people got together and decided to switch off the microphones to the stupid politicians inciting the stupid people, that would well be the end of it. But they don't.
So until and unless they do work together, it will be impossible for us geeks to *not* have to deal with politics. As such, we live in a world run by stupid people doing stupid politics and it will always, always color every technical subject. Like it or not, it is.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 07 2014, @12:27AM
> While war involves technology, obviously, I don't really see the relevance of this purely political news here at SoylentNews.
Well, for one thing it is tantamount to saying that things like NSA spying are going to be necessary for 30 more years. That Real-ID and all the other forms of government imposition on civil liberties are justified in continuing. We seem to have pretty big contingent around here who care about security theater and its corrosive effects on society.
(Score: 2) by SlimmPickens on Tuesday October 07 2014, @12:43AM
While war involves technology, obviously, I don't really see the relevance of this purely political news here at SoylentNews
These political stories are getting a lot of comments. The best thing you can do to influence this site, if you're not going to submit, is to stimulate discussion in those articles you are interested in. Like positive reinforcement with children, saying "don't do that" is unlikely your best option.
I'd be very disappointed if we were to shy away from difficult subjects.
SoylentNews is people ;)
(Score: 1) by Zz9zZ on Tuesday October 07 2014, @01:51AM
My first inclination was to side with the AC, but then I realized that I like to read the thoughts of other soylentils because in general it is a more informed / polite discussion than you'll find elsewhere (without wading through piles of blah or outright garbage). Also, stuff like this opens the door for people to discuss or just contemplate technological solutions ;)
~Tilting at windmills~
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Tuesday October 07 2014, @03:51AM
Yes, I agree that the final solution is to not comment on articles like this. It only encourages them, you know. And how could a thirty years war be all that bad, since the last one (1618–1648) was so good and finally defeated those corrupt religious fundamentalists, the Catholic Church. Wait, Panetta, not perchance Italian? Opus Dei? OMG! It is the counter-reformation! And no one expects the Italian Counter-Reformation! Amongst their tools are fear, surprise, a Catholic majority on the US Supreme Court, and a ruthless efficiency and fanatical devotion to the Pope. Islamists are just a distraction, much as during the Crusades.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by mhajicek on Monday October 06 2014, @11:05PM
We've always been at war with Eurasia.
The spacelike surfaces of time foliations can have a cusp at the surface of discontinuity. - P. Hajicek
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 07 2014, @04:35AM
I'm only surprised that I had to get this far down in the thread to encounter a reference to Orwell.
aristarchus already said "distraction", so that was close.
E-F, below, said "divert". Again, insightful.
Zz9zZ, also below, said "seeding the mind-space".
It's good to discover folks who can see through the fog.
The GP doesn't seem to realize that life is politics.
Ignore that reality and you lose by forfeit.
...or perhaps he has an agenda and -wants- everyone to get his "information" from Lamestream Media--who do such a miserable job of telling the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
-- gewg_
(Score: 2) by tibman on Tuesday October 07 2014, @07:49AM
I've always thought of politics as history in the present. Most of it doesn't make the books though.
SN won't survive on lurkers alone. Write comments.
(Score: 2) by Alfred on Tuesday October 07 2014, @01:38PM
(Score: 2) by tibman on Tuesday October 07 2014, @03:47PM
haha, nice. Makes me wonder if there are some terrible history books out there. The Tory and Labour deliberated for 18 hours over the topic. Voices were raised, someone threw a napkin at a Tory speaker. In the end they tabled the discussion and left the nation without a policy regarding the official biscuit for tea-time. The Tory on the pointy end of the napkin throwing ran for re-election the following year on a platform for biscuit regulation and lost his seat.
SN won't survive on lurkers alone. Write comments.
(Score: 1) by novak on Tuesday October 07 2014, @05:43AM
I came here to post this. Not disappointed by the crowd here.
novak
(Score: 5, Insightful) by gallondr00nk on Monday October 06 2014, @11:16PM
I couldn't think of a title that more encapsulates the sort of mammalian shit throwing that is the basis of any good authoritarian such as himself.
I suspect that he doesn't know shit about ISIS, and is merely drawing on the media hysteria and fashioning a good old fashioned bogeyman in order to sell a book.
There was a brilliant documentary back in 2004 called The Power Of Nightmares, that explored the mythos and hysteria that had built up around Al-Qaeda. It pointed out that the shadowy global terror network didn't actually exist, it wasn't capable of the things we said it was, and it certainly wasn't worthy of the sheer amount of fear that we invested into it.
I suspect that the same is true here. That "The Islamic State" as a vast and co-ordinated army of fundamentalist radicals aiming to overpower the middle east and attack the west doesn't actually exist. Shit, they didn't manage to get as far as Baghdad, even when the west weren't bombing them.
The only clever thing they've done is change the name to The Islamic State. It implies that it's actually a state, for one, and that it's the sole correct interpretation of Islam. In reality, it's actually neither, but the name is perfectly suited to fuelling western media hysteria.
People in the middle east aren't from Mars. They're like us, they want peace and a stable life free from conflict and insane dogmas of all stripes. We consistently portray the middle east as some backwater where the incessant heat turns people into snarling, hate fueled monsters, and it's complete bullshit.
But I have no doubt that every media outlet in the western world will spend their whole time building them up as another Al-Quaeda, an organisation of infinite resources and cunning, capable of destroying us all. It's absolutely pathetic.
(Score: 1) by Ethanol-fueled on Monday October 06 2014, @11:24PM
What the doctrine of "permanent war" looks like is a military overthrow of the United States, happening in slow-motion. The U.S.' intelligence services had for decades drafted plans to attack American soil and blame the attacks on foreigners, but had to wait until an administration crooked enough to allow it was in place.
I'm also wondering if all this flurry in the news about Ebola, ISIS, and whatever else is a desperate effort to divert attention from any upcoming leaks which could be especially dangerous to the establishment (assassinating American citizens on American soil, for example).
As an anonymous online poster once said, "There's no need to worry about it if it's in the mainstream media."
(Score: 1) by wolfinator on Tuesday October 07 2014, @06:38PM
What's more pathetic is that almost all Americans will believe this, without even a stray counter-thought.
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Monday October 06 2014, @11:21PM
Considering the number of wars throughout history people have said would take "a year or two"/"back by Christmas", when even those in charge think it'll take 30, HELL NO.
We should just get the fuck out of that whole ass end of the world and let them stew in their own juices and kill each other. We've demonstrated a remarkable ability to not actually accomplish anything over there anyway.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 2) by WillR on Tuesday October 07 2014, @12:53AM
(Score: 1) by Zz9zZ on Tuesday October 07 2014, @02:03AM
This feels more like seeding the mind-space to accept protracted war as a given, with lots of semi-factual points to back it up. (And making money off an outrageous title!)
Even if he is a true believer, we, as a society, could realize a paradigm shift which would alter these preconceptions from "doomed to war" to "there is hope". I'm not politically savvy enough to know what to shift, but I can grasp vague possibilities all over the place :)
I don't know about this guy in particular, but someone similar would be a great person to have a "what if" discussion with. Not sure this is a great quote for this particular situation, but "if you can get the fire hot enough, and I'm talkin' about hotter than the blazes of hell and damnation itself... then yes, it might be possible to get her up that fast."
Just gotta hope we have people who know the right track to take!
~Tilting at windmills~