US Politics Thread

Federberg

The GOAT
Joined
Apr 22, 2013
Messages
15,542
Reactions
5,607
Points
113
This is a bit naughty of me, but I'm going to copy this in here. We often have this discussion. Here are George Friedman's thoughts...

Islam and Terrorism

Nov 21, 2016

The United States has been at war for 15 years. There is still a debate over whom the United States is waging war against. Some say we are fighting terrorism. Others say we are fighting Islamic terrorism. The debate is between those who regard the wave of terrorism undertaken by al-Qaida and the Islamic State as linked significantly to Islam and those who want to distinguish between Islam and these groups in order not to tar an entire religion with the actions of a few.

This would normally be an academic argument but given the fact that US forces are engaged in combat, a disagreement over whom they are fighting is significant. This is particularly the case since retired Army Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, former head of military intelligence in Afghanistan and former director of the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), has been appointed President-elect Donald Trump’s national security adviser. Flynn was a strong advocate of using the Islamic terrorism label and was forced out as head of the DIA at least partly over this dispute. President Barack Obama vigorously fought against mentioning Islam in naming America’s opponents in this war.

Defining the Enemy
Clarity in defining the enemy is essential to waging war. If the enemy is terrorism, then the enemy is not a political movement but a method of waging war, regardless of who used the method. It was actually President George W. Bush who first made this argument when he referred to the “axis of evil”: Iraq, Iran and North Korea.

All of them might have been engaged in terrorism, but none of their governments was directly involved in theSept. 11attacks. If they were, then the US would have to go to war with all three, but Bush did not immediately go to war with any of them. In 2003, he ordered an invasion of Iraq but never got around to Iran and North Korea.

It is important to understand why Bush included North Korea in the group. It was precisely because it was not an Islamic state. The US could not wage war against al-Qaida without the support of some Islamic states’ militaries and especially their intelligence apparatuses. If the war seemed focused entirely against Islam, their willingness to help, even if they were inclined to, would disappear. And the US lacked detailed intelligence on its enemy, al-Qaida.

Obama and Bush used an identical strategy of refusing to define this as a war between the US and Islam. Yet, for 15 years, US troops have waged an ongoing war almost exclusively against Muslims. Not all Muslims were the enemy, but all of the enemies were Muslim. But a pretense was maintained that the enemies were only incidentally Muslim. Whatever the political utility in the region of keeping up this pretense, it undermined warfighting effectiveness by focusing on the forces being fought and not on the matrix from which they arose.

Calling the Enemy by Its Name
However the US identifies the enemies, the enemies identify themselves as Muslim, as the term Islamic State would indicate. Indeed, IS regards itself as the heart of Islam, fighting to restore the caliphate that history and the Christians stole from it.

True, they are suspicious of other Muslims, believing they are hypocrites for speaking one way and acting another. And other Muslims are appalled by what al-Qaida, the Taliban and IS have done. Nevertheless, eliminating Islam as a fundamental and self-defined characteristic of these groups leads not only to conceptual confusion, but also to military failure. I would argue that part of the failure of US operations in the past 15 years has to do with the failure to understand the enemy.

The US has treated al-Qaida and IS as self-contained organizations. The theory has been that if the organizations were destroyed, their military capabilities would disappear. This hasn’t happened in spite of successful operations against individuals and groups. The drone war has focused on locating important members of these groups and eliminating them. The expectation was that with enough levels of command eliminated, the organization would collapse.

In fact, al-Qaida did weaken dramatically under this assault. The dramatically improved intelligence capabilities and precision-guided munitions were successful in identifying key personnel and killing them.

The problem was that as al-Qaida declined, IS rose to take its place. As factions of the Taliban were weakened, other elements replaced them. In other words, although the operations were extremely successful, the war was not won. And this arose from a basic misunderstanding of whom the US was fighting.

Confronting a Movement
Al-Qaida was not an isolated organization. It was a manifestation of a powerful stream of Muslim thought and the Muslim people. By not accepting al-Qaida’s claim that it was the Muslim jihadist warfighting tradition incarnate, there was no chance of defeating it.

The reason was simple. Al-Qaida was not operationally a small, sparse and diffuse organization. With intelligence and weapons, it could be destroyed. But that was only the operational part. It had a significant base of support that was capable and willing to provide personnel in large amounts to sustain and, if necessary, replace it.

Beneath all this was a movement, and destroying the current operational structure of the movement only set it back for a time. The movement was robust and could generate another operational structure such as IS.

The hard truth was that the US was fighting and winning the wrong battles for 15 years. The organizations it was destroying were not the real challenger. The real challenger was the movement underlying the organizations. Without engaging that movement, and either destroying it or making peace with it, the war would be interminable. For the US, it would be a war of endless success leading to endless war.

However, to engage the movement, it was necessary to acknowledge that al-Qaida, IS and the Taliban are not stand-alone entities, but entities that arose from and were part of a much broader movement. And in thinking about how to deal with that movement, understanding that it was an Islamic movement was indispensable.

This would make it a harder war to fight. Defeating a religious movement is much harder than killing individual men. In many ways, it is not a military operation at all.

Whatever it is, and however you confront a movement that believes itself to be holy and death to be redemption, success is vague and far away. It is easier to refuse to recognize that the terrorists are part of a more significant social and political movement or that the movement is part of a particular religion. It makes it possible for the US to focus on counting its successful operations, while ignoring whether the war is being won.

The Key to Winning the War
Islam is a religion of about 1.7 billion people. If all Muslims in the world support jihad, then the war is lost. Defeating the force that 1.7 billion people could field is not possible. This problem is solved by the fact that Islam has many strands, as do most religions. The US is fighting one strand.

This poses two problems for the US The groups’ operational strength is that they can blend into the general Muslim population, beyond the movement. Because of this, identifying terror threats is enormously difficult. Second, doing things that enrage those Muslims who are not part of this movement or are hostile to it is foolish. Defeating 1.7 billion people is not going to happen.

Driving them into the movement that has given rise to US enemies is equally irrational. The overriding strategic necessity is to split the Islamic world, and keep Muslims hostile to the movement that underlays al-Qaida and other jihadist groups from joining it.

There are those who say that all Muslims are the same. If this is true, then the war has been hopeless from the beginning. But it is not true, and the grand strategy must be to use the tensions within the Muslim world to contain the underlying jihadist movement.

To do this, the US must first avoid alienating all Muslims, and second face the obvious – that the terrorism being fought is Islamic. Without understanding the enemy, it cannot be defeated. But the only hope of some type of victory is that all Muslims do not belong to this movement. Denying that Islamic terrorism exists will cost the war. Arguing that all Muslims are Islamic terrorists means accepting the war can’t be won at all.
 

Asmodeus

Futures Player
Joined
Apr 15, 2013
Messages
147
Reactions
10
Points
8
Location
Somewhere on the edge of society.

Talk about being select on the facts. Here's a few observations:

1. While the article make a big deal about Republicans redrawing congressional district lines unfairly, the reality is both parties use this method. Democrats have been redrawing CA, NY, IL, and most New England states to their advantage for years. Ask yourself this question, why is it that a Republican nominee for president can win 33% of the popular vote in CA yet Republicans control only 26% of House seats?

2. I get the impression that some are assuming that redrawing congressional districts would change presidential outcomes. It won't. The two are mostly separate. All redistricting does is set the geographic boundaries of House districts.

3. The current ratio for House members per voter is 1:700,000 (I believe). For our foreign posters, the US Constitution requires that the state legislatures conduct a census every 10 years in order to accurately redraw districts to reflect the current ratio. Until 1929, the ratio was 1:30,000, as it was in 1789. But because the size of the House was growing too large, Congress decided to cap membership at 435 members. So, rather than the size of the chamber increasing over time as the population increases, we now increase the ratio between elected official and their constituents.

4. I've seen some wild re-mappings. Detroit was particularly funny. For example, you could live at 10 Dickhead Street and your next door neighbor live at number 12 and you could both be in entirely different congressional districts. Manhattan does a bit of this as well.

Hope this helps the international readers who are not familiar with our electoral system.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mrzz

calitennis127

Multiple Major Winner
Joined
Apr 14, 2013
Messages
4,947
Reactions
459
Points
83
This is a bit naughty of me, but I'm going to copy this in here. We often have this discussion. Here are George Friedman's thoughts...

This article was pretty solid, up until the last section, which I will address here.

The Key to Winning the War
Islam is a religion of about 1.7 billion people. If all Muslims in the world support jihad, then the war is lost. Defeating the force that 1.7 billion people could field is not possible.

This is a straw man argument. No one is talking about defeating "Islam" per se or eradicating it from the planet. The problem with Islamic terrorism stems from two sources: 1) the presence of large numbers of Muslim immigrants in the West, and 2) provocative, destabilizing policies by Western governments, particularly the U.S., in the Middle East. You solve the problem by addressing these two problems.

Also, I must say that this line one hears ad nauseam that there are "over 1 billion Muslims in the world" is a great example of egalitarian frenzy causing the suspension of rationality. People need to calm down and think instead of sounding like they just got high on crack while listening to an Obama speech. If someone says that there is a rational, factual basis within the Islamic tradition for what ISIS and other groups do, that is not to say that Islam solely equals terrorism or war or hatred. If you look at the Islamic sources (the hadiths, the biographies of Muhammad written by Muslim historians, etc.) you see that there is a clear justification for terrorist groups to do what they do. However, that is not to say that there isn't more to Islam than that or that our perception of Islam needs to be 100% "it is war."

My view of Islam is this: if you look at moderate Muslim countries like Indonesia or Iraq before Saddam was deposed, you see millions of regular, decent people living their lives. That is undoubtedly a reflection of Islam's normal and universal aspects. However, when you evaluate how Muslims throughout the world politically engage with non-Muslim societies, you see paranoia, hysteria, subversion, and antagonism. Muslims are a political nuisance almost anywhere you find them engaging with a broader non-Muslim society. They create security concerns and ceaselessly whine about how poorly they are treated.

So what is the dumbest thing you can possibly do? What the modern U.S. political class has done: militarily intervene in the Middle East to piss everyone off, and then bring in millions of Muslim immigrants who are encouraged to set up shop and bring their ways into the host societies. The result is billions and billions of dollars spent on useless military interventions and liberty-constricting government policies like spying and phone-tapping.

This problem is solved by the fact that Islam has many strands, as do most religions.

Irrelevant point when you are talking about how Islamic people politically engage with non-Muslim societies. Islam has different strands but there are commonalities between all of them. One of those commonalities is reverence for Muhammad and his words.

This poses two problems for the US The groups’ operational strength is that they can blend into the general Muslim population, beyond the movement. Because of this, identifying terror threats is enormously difficult.

Exactly right, which is why allowing large-scale Muslim immigration is insane and bound to lead to billions of dollars spent and widespread unpleasantness.

Second, doing things that enrage those Muslims who are not part of this movement or are hostile to it is foolish. Defeating 1.7 billion people is not going to happen.

True to a point. I agree when it comes to military intervention, but not immigration policy. There is no need to poke the beehive with unnecessary bombings and drone strikes. At the same time, Muslims are not blameless when they go to the West. There is a faction of them that will stir up trouble no matter what, and if pointing this out or acting to prevent it bothers some Muslims, then so be it. You have to protect yourself and take measures that in the end will provide permanent effectiveness.

Driving them into the movement that has given rise to US enemies is equally irrational.

Again, true for foreign policy, not for immigration policy. Once Muslims are in the West, they should not be offended by criticism of Islamic jihadists if they are truly assimilated.


The overriding strategic necessity is to split the Islamic world, and keep Muslims hostile to the movement that underlays al-Qaida and other jihadist groups from joining it.

This is completely silly. It is not the business of Westerners to tell Muslims in the Middle East how they should feel about anything. That is for them to decide. All we should care about is how our actions make them respond to the extent that they can threaten us. Beyond that, nothing else matters.


There are those who say that all Muslims are the same. If this is true, then the war has been hopeless from the beginning.

Silly strawman argument coming out of egalitarian frenzy. It is leftists in the West who cannot conceive of any shades of gray that violate their conception of equality. Either someone must see all Muslims as Osama Bin Laden (in which case they are Islamophobic bigots) or someone must see Islam as equally peaceful to any other religion, without any uniquely violent aspects (in which case they are supposedly enlightened and kind-hearted). Both conceptions are nonsense, but the left must prop up this straw man to maintain credibility in the argument.

But it is not true, and the grand strategy must be to use the tensions within the Muslim world to contain the underlying jihadist movement.

No. Fundamentally the West needs to put itself in a position where those who adhere to jihadism are not in a position to hurt it.


To do this, the US must first avoid alienating all Muslims,

Again, leftist presumptuousness at work. Leftists think that Muslims must conceive of reality like they do or that they will respond with the same feelings.

But the only hope of some type of victory is that all Muslims do not belong to this movement. Denying that Islamic terrorism exists will cost the war. Arguing that all Muslims are Islamic terrorists means accepting the war can’t be won at all.

This final quote indicates that the poor fellow who wrote it is terribly confused and doesn't know what the solution is.
 

Tennis Fan

Major Winner
Joined
Dec 14, 2013
Messages
1,171
Reactions
429
Points
83
The fact that the Supreme Court is now looking at gerrymandering is interesting mate, by any stretch of the imagination..

They should've done that a long time ago. It's ridiculous that they haven't.
 

britbox

Multiple Major Winner
Joined
Apr 14, 2013
Messages
27,403
Reactions
6,211
Points
113
Location
Gold Coast, Australia
^ Not surprisingly the agenda is being driven by academics and activists.

The last segment was interesting reading for me. Podesta was hacked using a basic phishing scam - not some elaborate crack. These are the sort of scams that tell you to login to an account on a fake page that grabs your email. Rumour has it Podesta's password was "Pa55word"...
 

Federberg

The GOAT
Joined
Apr 22, 2013
Messages
15,542
Reactions
5,607
Points
113
^ Not surprisingly the agenda is being driven by academics and activists.

The last segment was interesting reading for me. Podesta was hacked using a basic phishing scam - not some elaborate crack. These are the sort of scams that tell you to login to an account on a fake page that grabs your email. Rumour has it Podesta's password was "Pa55word"...
:nono::facepalm::lol3:
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tennis Fan

britbox

Multiple Major Winner
Joined
Apr 14, 2013
Messages
27,403
Reactions
6,211
Points
113
Location
Gold Coast, Australia
One of the biggest losers out of the whole US election process must be CNN. The once-proud news portal founded by Ted Turner has basically embarrassed itself and lost a ton of credibility.
 

mrzz

Hater
Joined
Apr 14, 2013
Messages
6,171
Reactions
2,993
Points
113
One of the biggest losers out of the whole US election process must be CNN. The once-proud news portal founded by Ted Turner has basically embarrassed itself and lost a ton of credibility.

Yesterday I happen to turn on the TV (it does not happen much when there´s no tennis or F1 around) and saw a bit of CNN. Then I saw that reporter, Amanpour (sorry for possible misspell) loudly advocating for control of (what she called) fake news sites and news on internet, saying that only them (mainstream media, as she herself put it) have credibility to inform the public.

I might be misquoting one or another word here (and I now this is important), so I encourage people to check for themselves. Believe me the spirit was exactly this. She was explicitly advocating for information control.
 

Billie

Nole fan
Joined
Apr 21, 2013
Messages
5,330
Reactions
850
Points
113
Location
Canada
Yesterday I happen to turn on the TV (it does not happen much when there´s no tennis or F1 around) and saw a bit of CNN. Then I saw that reporter, Amanpour (sorry for possible misspell) loudly advocating for control of (what she called) fake news sites and news on internet, saying that only them (mainstream media, as she herself put it) have credibility to inform the public.

I might be misquoting one or another word here (and I now this is important), so I encourage people to check for themselves. Believe me the spirit was exactly this. She was explicitly advocating for information control.

She is known for that. We had to deal with her in our own troubled times. I just sometimes wonder where these people come off and if they have any trace of conscience. But in order to do what they set to, the politicians have to control the mainstream media. That is the first goal. Anything to achieve it. I sometimes think that repeating some things over and over again does make it to be truth for most people. I don't know.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tennis Fan

Billie

Nole fan
Joined
Apr 21, 2013
Messages
5,330
Reactions
850
Points
113
Location
Canada


Misguided beliefs. Yeah, we know things are not right in the world but how to determine what is wrong and how to deal with it, it's another thing. Burning and not allowing American flags, that's it. Blaming police and military, yeah, that should be the solution.

So much has been made of what Trump said, guess what: words really don't harm, actions do. Somebody might not like me, but as long as they don't actually harm me, I really shouldn't care. On the other hand, saying: I love you, I'll protect you....but not DOING it, it's just stupid to believe that love and protection. It's a simplistic view, but truthful nevertheless, and can be applied to a lot of things in life.
 

Federberg

The GOAT
Joined
Apr 22, 2013
Messages
15,542
Reactions
5,607
Points
113
One of the biggest losers out of the whole US election process must be CNN. The once-proud news portal founded by Ted Turner has basically embarrassed itself and lost a ton of credibility.

Ok, I'm going to play devils advocate here. What specifically lost CNN their credibility? And were there any parts of the media that came out of this election cycle well?
 

Federberg

The GOAT
Joined
Apr 22, 2013
Messages
15,542
Reactions
5,607
Points
113


I can never understand students like this. They seem to miss the fact that they could redefine what it means to be patriotic and pro-America. They cede the idea of love of country to the other side without setting out their case for what it means to be American. Not smart at all! Instead they lose the majority of people who will simply not be able to look past their dislike of the flag. The Kapaernick error...
 

Tennis Fan

Major Winner
Joined
Dec 14, 2013
Messages
1,171
Reactions
429
Points
83

I read about that. Votes were being thrown out. They used paper ballots (prone to error) in Hillary's districts and electronic for Trump. There are still votes out that haven't been counted, as if gerrymandering isn't enough. They will do anything. How they get people to sign on for these shenanigans is beyond me.

Mainstream media, Hillary's "helper" is not covering this story. No, they're still talking about her emails that she has been cleared on twice, while Pence sneaks into court to have his emails deleted. This is crazier than fiction. You can't make this crap up.
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
mrzz World Affairs 2449
T World Affairs 13
britbox World Affairs 82
britbox World Affairs 1004
britbox World Affairs 46