Curb Your Authoritarianism? The 2016 Conventional Wisdom Thread (Elections, Part 6)

The west iis already waging a war on Islam. And it's telling ppl pile all the factions and peoples of broken country Iraq together as 'Iraqi'. The country outside America American solderiers spent most time for for two decades, yet haven't a single clue about. It's depressing.

Also FYI none of the people involved in 9/11 (not the hijackers, not OBL, not Ayman Al-Zwahiri, etc.) were Afghans

A fair point, I didn't mean to imply that the invasion was just. Bin Laden famously received his military training from the CIA in Afghanistan, together with experience of what happens when a country isn't strategic to the US any more.

I'm kind of curious now, Shakey - what age were you on 9/11? I think of your whole fatalistic "things could only ever have happened as they happened" schtick as a product of the post-2001 era, but never really wondered whether your contemporary experience of politics went back much further than that.

Now, how old are you / Where is your harbor / Have many things to do / Open the door…

I presume anyone who qualifies for an Iraqi passport should be considered an Iraqi citizen. Just because a country is a poorly formed hodgepodge of often mutually hostile groups doesn't mean it has no citizens.

I def dont think 9/11 was inevitable nor do i think dubya handled it correctly - it was a disaster of epic proportions and he was the worst president in the history of the country.

I was 28 on 9-11. That night i said to my wife "well, i guess this means we'll be invading iraq in a little while."

Xp

Okay, I definitely didn't mean to imply you had warm feelings for GWB :)

We can't say weren't warned:

http://jungleofsmilez.com/wp-content/uploads/A-Fantastic-List-of-27-Great-Princess-Bride-Quotes-18.jpg

A few of my humble thoughts:

1. Sikes-Picot is one of many paternalistic/imperialist actions fueling middle eastern anger at the west. Afghanistan, though, is less a creation of Anglo-French capricious mapmaking than Iraq, Jordan, and ahem Israel are, right?

2. Vizzini aside, we only needed to look at the British and Soviet experiences in 'Stans to know going to war there would be quagmire in the extreme.

3. The self-promoting Charlie Wilson line is that once we'd aided resistance to the USSR there - which pretty directly helped end the Cold War - it would have been a good idea to also drop a few dollars on schools or bridges or something, to keep it from descending into the chaos it did in fact descend into. I'm not sure how true that is, but AFAICT no one even tried.

4. While OBL and crew were not from Afghanistan, there was a MARGINALLY better case to be made for the war in AFG because the Taliban had mos def harbored and encouraged Al-Q. Marginally better, that is, than the case for war in Iraq.

My guess is that turning all of Afghanistan into a modern state easily governable as a single unit would have required a Marshall plan kind of investment. A few bridges and schools would not have cut it.

I think that's probably right, fwiw. You're also quite right that "It's not like the west displaced a more benevolent empire though, it's always been bloody business."

Had Sikes and Picot not drawn those lines, it's not as if everything would be sunshine and rainbows.

Ken Burns shared some thoughts:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7F8zCQ4YnZ8

xp: Afghanistan is as it was for much of history. Local warlords and titular monarchs have used the intrigues of external Powers over this central Asian crossroads to win their local conflicts for centuries. It is the Asian nation arguably least dominated by European powers (or Ottomans), so while the Great Game contributed to Afghan sorrows, it looks like its progression to a modern state would have benefited from successful colonialism.

The progressive elements in Afghanistan, favoring female education, national (rather than tribal) identity, etc. largely favored the People's Democratic Party of Afghanistan in 1978. Unfortunately, the U.S. saw everything through the lens of containment of communism at the time, and sided with the most regressive elements. By 1992, Afghan intellectuals and much of the middle class had emigrated or was in hiding, and while winning Charlie Wilson's battle we lost the cultural war.

Bridges and schools won't fix the loss of these groups. It takes several generations to reconstitute what's lost.

The world would be a much better place had the CIA learned the word "blowback" in 1947. While intelligence is an necessity to a modern state, its difficult to identify any positive changes effected by their covert operations arm, a bunch of adventurous, ambitious but arrogant/culturally naive recent Ivy League grads since the early days. See Legacy of Ashes by Tim Wiener.

1. Sikes-Picot is one of many paternalistic/imperialist actions fueling middle eastern anger at the west. Afghanistan, though, is less a creation of Anglo-French capricious mapmaking than Iraq, Jordan, and ahem Israel are, right?

This is complex - in the wake of the fall of the Ottoman Empire it isn't like there were fully formed governments throughout the Middle East, each representing a particular ethnicity and with healthy state + social institutions ready to step up... oh if only those British and French didn't fuck it all up. The British overpromising the Levant to too many different groups I'm sure bred some animosity but what - if they had only promised it to the Arabs then the Jews wouldn't have tried to overthrow the mandate to reclaim their State? If they had only promised it to the Jews then the Arabs wouldn't have been furious about losing part of the historical ummah?

See Legacy of Ashes by Tim Wiener.

excellent book

Russian government hackers penetrated DNC, stole opposition research on Trump

christ

I know we're way off topic, but I think the alternate history of the middle east probably would have been various leaders competing to "unify" the ME, possibly leading to wars. There were a bunch of different pan-Arabist/pan-ME proposals put forward by various rulers, as well as competing plans for the treatment of Palestine.

The romantic in me likes the idea of TE Lawrence helping shape the Middle East after WWI. Not sure what effect that would have on WWII...

DNC thing seems more comical than scary

telling that they didn't hack RNC for oppo research cuz lol oh right there isn't any

cuz they've been studying HRC for over 20 years

The foregrounding of the Trump data doesn't make much sense given they had access to everything else for at least a year. I'd assume the RNC just hasn't noticed yet.

Who is this mysterious Donald Trump? What is he all about? If we only had a way to plumb the depths of this enigmatic private figure.

obama just about lost his shit, to the extent that he actually loses his shit.

about what?

his shit, location of

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jWK7eyxczgg

It's such a goddamn shame that broad swaths of the country that won't listen to a word he says just because he's the one saying it.

yes, that.

timestamp of shit-loss? I don't have time to watch 25 mins.

it's the whole thing. he doezn' like, start yelling and barking. it's just what he says.

here's a synopsis: http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/14/politics/obama-pushes-back-against-criticism-over-terrorism-rhetoric/index.html

"Dismissing the "yapping" from "politicians who tweet," Obama described Trump's suggestions as harmful to the country's national security.
"We are now seeing how dangerous this kind of mindset and this kind of thinking can be," he said. "We're starting to see where this kind of rhetoric and loose talk and sloppiness about who exactly we're fighting, where this can lead us."
Obama, sounding infuriated at critiques of his foreign policy, pushed back against criticism for not using the term "radical Islamic terrorism." And he accused Republicans of fostering resentment among Muslims that could generate further attacks.
"What exactly would using this language accomplish? What exactly would it change?" Obama asked during remarks at the Treasury Department. "Would it make ISIL less committed to try and kill Americans?" he continued, using a different acronym for ISIS.
"Would it bring in more allies? Is there a military strategy that is served by this? The answer is none of the above," he said. "Calling a threat by a different name does not make it go away.""

Full story: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/06/14/obama-lashes-out-on-loose-talk-on-terrorism-islam/?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-main_obama-115pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory

A lot of talk about how Trump's anti-Muslim rhetoric and proposed policies are fundamentally un-American and unconstitutional. Shit cannot be hammered home hard enough, particularly when his party is comprised of so many supposed strict constitutionalists.

I had sort of a related argument with a fb friend who was saying this isn't about guns, it's about "an ideology." And I was basically saying that it was pretty difficult to fight "an ideology" whatever that's supposed to mean and much easier to go after guns.

Gun nut on same fb thread was claiming I "didn't really understand the second amendment" and I pointed out that she didn't seem to understand the 14th amendment.

Guarantee 100% of gun nuts don't really understand the second amendment.

Does ANYONE really understand the second amendment? That "well-regulated" militia part means different things to different people (and unfettered access to any and all guns to many.)

Yeah, it's just funny how strict constructionists when it comes to the second amendment completely ignore other amendments wholesale. Uphold the constitution and ban muslims in the same breath.

I actually got curious and looked up the second amendment, hoping it wouldn't be too long. i had prepared myself mentally to just read bits and pieces and just become aware of it

i find one version and think oh this must be the summary or abridged version

i look it up on what i think is a reliable source, cornell uuniversity, and find that in its entirety it is 27 words

i don't understand what there is to "get" about it

don't totally agree with everything in this and it will never happen, but food for thought

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/why-its-time-to-repeal-the-second-amendment-right-bear-arms-20160613

xxpost Cognitive dissonance and bigotry are like chocolate and peanut butter.

the part that people disagree on is 'well regulated militia'. rightwingnuts think this means that it's ok to have citizen armies.

The problem is that the actual wording of the second amendment doesn't mean as much in material terms as the more recent SC interpretation of the second amendment: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller

Burn in hell, Scalia.

sick to death of this "it'll never happen" stuff. i am not impressed by anybody's self-defeating rhetoric.

one for the grammarians but

i read the second amendment as having one main clause and two subordinate/dependent/relative clauses

sick to death of this "it'll never happen" stuff

yup - aiming for the impossible goal pushes the boundary of what's achievable

It's why I back your full repeal position 100%, shakes. Land stubborn insistence on the complete reversal of the current state of affairs is the only way to gain ground.

I have no idea where that stray 'Land' came from.

how exactly does Trump think restricting press access is going to help him at all? anyone he restricts is going to go whole hog anti-Trump as a result.

we have a whole thread on it, but it's not so much that repeal "will never happen" as that repealing an amendment is among the most difficult feats to achieve in our political system and there are easier feats that would do almost equal good, such as getting a good case in front of a liberal majority Supreme Court to overturn Heller.