Massassi Forums Logo

This is the static archive of the Massassi Forums. The forums are closed indefinitely. Thanks for all the memories!

You can also download Super Old Archived Message Boards from when Massassi first started.

"View" counts are as of the day the forums were archived, and will no longer increase.

☖ Forums → Discussion Forum → Permanant destabilization of the Middle East by Cheney, Bush, et.al. finally here
Permanant destabilization of the Middle East by Cheney, Bush, et.al. finally here
2014-09-07, 9:02 PM #1
Two articles by Patrick Cockburn, via MetaFilter:

http://www.metafilter.com/142251/A-new-and-terrifying-state-has-been-born

So, America gets a black eye on 9/11, but reacts by pouring gasoline on the fire. Just be sure to avoid doing anything to offend or confront our "allies" in the region (Saudi Arabia + Pakistan).

Is it any surprise that the combination of:
a.) failing to confront your real enemies due to political alliances

and:
b.) launching a sprawling military campaign against an ill-defined and unbeatable foe

in a region known for its sectarian conflict is a recipe for metastatic instability?

I guess it's all fine if the world burns, though, since believing your own lies can only help you in Washington politics when you cut off access of inside information to journalists who question your bull****, and in any case, the more instability, the more sales for your military contractor buddies.

One interesting thing about the second article is that Bin Laden is just another guy, in the grand scheme of things, post-Bush. There are now probably a bunch of unnamed Bin Ladens, and any posturing and preening by Washington about taking out so-and-so is just that.
2014-09-07, 9:05 PM #2
If anybody is around to write history books about geopolitics circa 2000, I would be greatly amused to read it, if only to see how drastically the ultimate practicalities of the situation ends up diverging from Washington talking points.
2014-09-07, 9:36 PM #3
Somebody on MeFi linked to this article, which is meant to describe ISIS*, but also works as a fairly devastating indictment of the American Raj in Iraq.

*Apparently, from the POV of a retired U.S. Marines Colonel.
2014-09-07, 10:12 PM #4
In a way, the recent turn of events can be traced directly back to U.S. policy to prop up corrupt dictators who did little to improve economic conditions of their citizenry:

U.S. props up various dictators in Bahrain (and a bunch of other places I can't recall) --> Bouazizi sets himself on fire in Tunisia, setting off the Arab Spring --> youth revolutions in Syria (and Ukraine, although there are plenty of other precedents for Eastern European revolution before the Arab Spring) --> U.S. sides with rebels in Syria --> same rebels precipitate destabilization of Shia-controlled status quo in post-invasion Iraq --> radical Sunni ISIS fills the vacuum, hellbent on murdering Shias in its path.

Not to mention that Ambassador Chris Stevens was probably killed by people belonging to the same movement as those the US government supported in rebellion against Assad.
2014-09-07, 10:18 PM #5
Bewildering tidbit from the first article:

[QUOTE=Former Iraq Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki]I wonder what on earth happened to the 140 helicopters the Iraqi state has bought in recent years?[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Patrick Cockburn]Probably the money for the missing 139 helicopters was simply stolen. There are other wholly corrupt states in the world but few of them have oil revenues of $100 billion a year to steal from. The sole aim of many officials has long been to get the largest kickback possible and they did not much care if jihadi groups did the same.[/QUOTE]
2014-09-08, 7:35 AM #6
This reminds me of one of the best movies made this century.
Star Wars: TODOA | DXN - Deus Ex: Nihilum
2014-09-08, 9:39 AM #7
re: the missing Iraqi helicopters, it's just as likely that the money was stolen by an American defense contractor as by Iraqi or jihadist officials. Armored trucks delivered with no engines, anyone?

The cool thing about American aid money is that you usually stop getting it if you don't spend it on American guns.
2014-09-08, 10:29 AM #8
Quote:
The cool thing about American aid money is that you usually stop getting it if you don't spend it on American guns.


That's true only of military aid, and it's usually not a big cheque so much as it is heavily subsidized or free weapons purchase from American weapon manufactures. We'd be stupid not to do it this way. It at least sends the money back into our economy, and it helps us keep production lines open and fund support for old weapons systems that we aren't ready to retire.



I honestly think Bush thought he could to do Iraq and Afghanistan what we did to Japan and German post WWII. Thing is, Japan and Germany were already industrialized cultures, they just needed some help getting on their feet. Fixing a massively unstable society is much, much harder.
2014-09-08, 10:51 AM #9
Originally posted by Obi_Kwiet:
It at least sends the money back into our economy


And jihadists. But every terrorist attack further stimulates the economy--we need more 9/11s, in order to have more wars, in order to have more jobs.

Quote:
I honestly think Bush thought he could to do Iraq and Afghanistan what we did to Japan and German post WWII. Thing is, Japan and Germany were already industrialized cultures, they just needed some help getting on their feet. Fixing a massively unstable society is much, much harder.


A cursory review of hundreds of years of history on the region (not to mention the British experience in their attempts to rule Afghanistan) could have saved him the trouble of "accidentally" confusing Iraq for Japan. Of course, George W. Bush received a B.A. in history from Yale University, but I suppose that doesn't count for much when you're either
  1. too drunk to study
  2. didn't care in the first place, or are simply insufficiently introspective or intelligent to realize that securing your legacy as a good president is not the same thing as selecting and deferring to an inbred, arrogant, and corrupt cabinet
2014-09-09, 9:19 AM #10
Originally posted by Reverend Jones:
And jihadists. But every terrorist attack further stimulates the economy--we need more 9/11s, in order to have more wars, in order to have more jobs.


How to subsidized FMS sales of arms give jihadists money? I can see how in some cases it might end up giving the arms, but I don't follow how it gives them money. Also, it's a pretty crappy time to be a defense contractor. They are reported decent profits right now, but only because they have no where to invest R&D. Everything is always at risk for being canceled, and in order to win a contract you have to lie about schedule and cost, and take a loss in the hopes that you can recoup your investment down the road with follow on support.

Quote:
A cursory review of hundreds of years of history on the region (not to mention the British experience in their attempts to rule Afghanistan) could have saved him the trouble of "accidentally" confusing Iraq for Japan. Of course, George W. Bush received a B.A. in history from Yale University, but I suppose that doesn't count for much when you're either
  1. too drunk to study
  2. didn't care in the first place, or are simply insufficiently introspective or intelligent to realize that securing your legacy as a good president is not the same thing as selecting and deferring to an inbred, arrogant, and corrupt cabinet


I think it was more an overly optomisitc view of human nature an excessively egalitarian view of other cultures. People like to bash him, but he was apparently a pretty sharp guy.
2014-09-09, 9:29 AM #11
Originally posted by Obi_Kwiet:
It at least sends the money back into our economy.


Justifies everything.
Star Wars: TODOA | DXN - Deus Ex: Nihilum
2014-09-09, 10:35 AM #12
Originally posted by Obi_Kwiet:
How to subsidized FMS sales of arms give jihadists money?


Did I say that? I said that we'd be importing jihadists along with whatever ostensible economic benefits there are to military spending--i.e., "blowback".

Anyway, while I imagine there are many short to medium-term benefits to increased military spending, I hardly could conceive that this kind of resource allocation is healthy long term. My point was that this is further negated when our "economic stimulus" has the effect of provoking further terrorist attacks.

Was the rebuilding of the world trade center a stimulus package? :huh: (Nevermind the post 9/11 recession!)

Quote:
People like to bash him, but he was apparently a pretty sharp guy.


I'd be very interested to learn about any evidence of this.
2014-09-09, 10:40 AM #13
Originally posted by Obi_Kwiet:
Everything is always at risk for being canceled, and in order to win a contract you have to lie about schedule and cost, and take a loss in the hopes that you can recoup your investment down the road with follow on support.


"lie about" is a funny way of spelling etc.

Recent big American R&D projects have gone over budget because they're being mismanaged to ****, the core of which is quite frankly a terminally defective business culture. This isn't just affecting those firms' military R&D projects, but their civilian ones as well (cf. the on-going 787 blunders), so it's not just a case of "government = infinity dollars".

A lot of the F-35's biggest mistakes, for example, involve Lockheed Martin actually trying to cut costs, but doing it in a way that is extremely hostile to sensible engineering. Things like settling on a final design based solely on computer simulation instead of constructing prototypes, trying to cut down on labour costs by starting construction before testing, not allocating anything to software testing ("we'll just have to make it right the first time").

It's not as interesting as a conspiracy to defraud the American taxpayers, but these are very typical project management failures and we see them errywhere.

Vista
Trespasser
Denver International Airport automated baggage system
Healthcare.gov
2014-09-09, 10:47 AM #14
US government actually had to set a budget limit on the JSF prototype phase because they were worried the apes running Boeing and Lockheed-Martin would actually bankrupt themselves while trying to win it. They know these companies are run by idiots.
2014-09-10, 10:18 AM #15
Originally posted by Jon`C:
"lie about" is a funny way of spelling etc.

Recent big American R&D projects have gone over budget because they're being mismanaged to ****, the core of which is quite frankly a terminally defective business culture. This isn't just affecting those firms' military R&D projects, but their civilian ones as well (cf. the on-going 787 blunders), so it's not just a case of "government = infinity dollars".


Well part of the issue is the government bidders are extremely gullible about selecting unrealistic bids. LM loves to promise the moon, but they can't deliver. But since they don't learn from this, if you want a contract, you have to out BS Lockheed, so everything is always late and over budget. Also the government has no budget, so good luck with that. I think overall the issue is that lying for short term gain is highly effective, and it's easy to diffuse the consequences of those lies on external factors.
2014-09-11, 4:33 PM #16
So, do the opinion articles address the current administration's culpability or just the previous one's? I find it interesting that given what we found in Iraq when we invaded that if you asked Bush he would have said he still would have made the same decisions given what was believed at the time but I really wonder if he would have known what actions the subsequent administration would take some eight and more years after 9/11 if he would have still taken the same actions. But, I guess it's all nothing more than a pointless intellectual exercise now and, LOL, Bush's fault. I wonder if Hillary will blame the former administration as much as this guy does.
"I would rather claim to be an uneducated man than be mal-educated and claim to be otherwise." - Wookie 03:16

2014-09-11, 6:47 PM #17
I know Bush never put his doctrine to paper (comedy answer: because he can't write lol) but are you really suggesting that permanent destabilization wasn't the cornerstone of it? Or that he didn't author the foreign policy Obama is executing?
2014-09-11, 7:19 PM #18
Originally posted by Wookie06:
I really wonder if he would have known what actions the subsequent administration would take some eight and more years after 9/11 if he would have still taken the same actions.


Yeah, you really have to wonder if a person would make the same decisions if they could predict the future. In all honesty, it's an interesting...

Quote:
it's all nothing more than a pointless intellectual exercise


Oh, ****. I forgot we don't think about things.
>>untie shoes
2014-09-11, 8:10 PM #19
If Bush could have predicted the future I imagine he wouldn't have ignored Clarke's warnings about al Qaeda.

Or maybe he would have picked a Secretary of Defense who didn't ignore all the generals by trying to conquer Iraq with a third as many troops as needed.



Or do you think these are the decisions he was talking about when he says he'd do it the same way even if he knew better?
2014-09-11, 8:21 PM #20
Bush, neoliberal, Harvard MBA, radical evangelist, the president of big business with a cabinet full of defense executives.


No, of course he didn't want a forever war against islam. Don't be silly.
2014-09-12, 6:15 PM #21
Jon, I appreciate your curiosity here. To paraphrase the great BJ Bill Jefferson Clinton, that depends on what the definition of "permanent destabilization" is. I doubt his desire was for the sort of destabilization Obama has encouraged. Of course I can't rule that out and considering the Muslim Brotherhood influence in our government while he was still in office actually contradicts my optimistic view of the man. I do find it hard to believe that his intentions were similar to our current president's, though. If his were the same, why would he have ordered the Surge?
"I would rather claim to be an uneducated man than be mal-educated and claim to be otherwise." - Wookie 03:16

2014-09-12, 11:54 PM #22
I'm not sure what Bush would have done. I'd be surprised if the man is giving it much thought at all.

What I do know is that giving away arms to radical muslims is a million-billion dollar 'gimmie' to American arms manufacturers. What I also know, and to be perfectly frank, is that regardless of reason or post facto justification the United States is the greatest threat to stability in the developing world and elsewhere, precipitating the overthrow of at least 30 governments because they were not sufficiently compliant, many of which were even democracies. (That's 15% of the world's governments, if you weren't keeping track.)

So I guess the most important question is, what has Obama done that isn't simply business as usual for the United States? Or Bush, for that matter?
2014-09-13, 3:51 AM #23
Originally posted by Wookie06:
considering the Muslim Brotherhood influence in our government


Wat?
>>untie shoes
2014-09-13, 9:06 AM #24
Originally posted by Antony:
Wat?


If you interested there's a lot of stuff out there but this seems like a good start.

Quote:
The first task was to maneuver Muslim Brothers into positions of trust with key U.S. government officials. One of the most successful Brotherhood placement and influence operations discovered to date involved Abdurahman Alamoudi, who penetrated the upper echelons of both Democratic and Republican presidential administrations. A naturalized American citizen who emigrated from Eritrea in 1979, Alamoudi parlayed his leadership roles with dozens of Muslim organizations all the way to the White House.[57] Despite being a member of the Muslim Brotherhood who openly had declared his support for HAMAS, he was accepted as a "moderate Muslim" and became an advisor to President Bill Clinton and then-First Lady Hillary Clinton. He was permitted to establish the Muslim Chaplain Program for the Department of Defense and then served as its nominating and certifying authority from 1993-98.[58] Deciding to hedge his bets by 1998, Alamoudi provided at least $20,000 in start-up funds to Republican activist Grover Norquist "to establish what would become a Muslim Brotherhood front organization" called the Islamic Free Market Institute, which aimed to penetrate Republican Party circles and the campaign of future President George W. Bush.[59] Along the way, Alamoudi inserted his long-time deputy, Khaled Saffuri, and eventually another prominent Ikhwan operative, Sami al-Arian, into the Bush presidential campaign. Alamoudi's moves paid off: after Bush's victory, another Alamoudi protégé with vast Brotherhood connections, Suhail Khan, was appointed to the White House Office of Public Liaison, from which key position he was able to manage the access of the U.S. Muslim community to the White House. This position gave the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood unprecedented opportunities to influence operations at the top levels of U.S. policymaking.[60] Grover Norquist himself escaped scrutiny for years thereafter as he continued operating within the conservative movement.[61]


http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/3672/muslim-brotherhood-us-government
"I would rather claim to be an uneducated man than be mal-educated and claim to be otherwise." - Wookie 03:16

2014-09-13, 9:30 AM #25
Seems legit
>>untie shoes
2014-09-13, 12:54 PM #26
Given how easily U.S. military intelligence was duped by the Soviets in quite a few occasions I would maybe believe it
2014-09-13, 1:35 PM #27
If it didn't stink of brownscare, I might believe it.
2014-09-13, 2:50 PM #28
Facts are facts even when they are not believed or are inconvenient.
"I would rather claim to be an uneducated man than be mal-educated and claim to be otherwise." - Wookie 03:16

2014-09-13, 5:01 PM #29
Originally posted by Wookie06:
Facts are facts even when they are not believed or are inconvenient.


Your story comes from a blog known for posting islamophobic bull****, and gets most of its exposure from being linked to by Glenn Beck.

I think we have a different definition of what a fact is.
>>untie shoes
2014-09-13, 5:19 PM #30
brownscare

"inconvenient"
2014-09-13, 9:03 PM #31
Originally posted by Antony:
Your story comes from a blog known for posting islamophobic bull****, and gets most of its exposure from being linked to by Glenn Beck.

I think we have a different definition of what a fact is.


Oh, so it doesn't seem legit anymore? I just googled and looked for the best link. I don't care whether or not you agree with it or even read it. I don't know, maybe you can find the same information on the Christian Science Monitor, BBC, or Al Jazeera. Then it would be credible.
"I would rather claim to be an uneducated man than be mal-educated and claim to be otherwise." - Wookie 03:16

2014-09-13, 9:06 PM #32
Also, makes me wonder, did people use to accuse others in the '30s of being naziphobic?
"I would rather claim to be an uneducated man than be mal-educated and claim to be otherwise." - Wookie 03:16

2014-09-13, 9:07 PM #33
Them damn naziphobes!
"I would rather claim to be an uneducated man than be mal-educated and claim to be otherwise." - Wookie 03:16

2014-09-13, 11:02 PM #34
Originally posted by Wookie06:
Also, makes me wonder, did people use to accuse others in the '30s of being naziphobic?


Yes.

But there is zero historical parallel between the American pro-war movement in the 1930s and your islamophobia, and I'm not even going to play devil's advocate by asking you for evidence of it. The anti-war movement was a product of American isolationism in res American conservatism of the day, which means, were we in the past, it would actually be you calling us germanophobic for wanting to rescue the jews.
2014-09-13, 11:03 PM #35
#notallmuslims

↑ Up to the top!