The Atlantic states what all liberals know
I’m picking on this article that appeared a few days ago in The Altantic not because it’s unusual but because it demonstrates a phenomenon that’s so common these days.
The piece piece is entitled “The Fragile French Republic: The country’s politics are beset by a unique anxiety that the entire system could collapse. Why?” In it the author, Scott Sayare, attempts to describe and explain France’s reaction to the Friday the 13th attacks. In the first paragraph, he offers the following claim, announced as though it expresses something so self-evident that the author assumes all of his discerning readers (and they all are discerning) must already know it to be true:
Among Parisians, one senses a quiet resolve to fall back into routines and social habits, not only because they must, but because they should, and can””because the so-called Islamic State is not, of course, an existential threat to Paris or to France, unless the French choose to give themselves over to hysteria, and to treat it as if it were.
Sayare goes on to describe the government’s action as at odds with this more confident stance, describing government as being “particularly alarmist,” as wel as “notably bellicose and notably heedless of civil rights.” Interesting that he terms the people’s alleged complacency as being based on a factual assessment of the dangers represented by ISIS to France, and the government’s reaction as “alarmist.” Although he concedes that there’s a possibility the government might be in possession of more information than the people, and therefore that their relative bellicosity might be warranted, he doesn’t give it much weight unless the government were to reveal its intelligence on this. And it’s here that Sayare writes what I’ve read in site after liberal site:
Perhaps these choices were truly necessary; unfortunately, unless the government chooses to reveal the intelligence information that motivated them, there will be no way to know. What is certain, however, is that such responses are of precisely the sort the Islamic State sought to provoke.
Whatever hard line is taken by those fighting ISIS, either verbally, domestically, or on foreign shores, is considered to be “precisely the sort the Islamic State sought to provoke.” To back up this claim, he quotes a “political scientist and specialist in jihadist thought.” Well, then, it must be so, and of course we can’t defend ourselves if it’s what ISIS wants.
But let me just say that nearly everything is precisely the sort of thing the Islamic State seeks to provoke. Action vs. inaction; anger vs. appeasement; hardline vs. tolerance; there’s really almost nothing that can’t be labeled an aim of ISIS. Our task should be to fight them and destroy them before they grow any larger. And if Sayare doesn’t think they threaten the stability of France—and if he thinks the current response mounted by France has been “notably bellicose”—then he has his head buried firmly in the desert sand.
A Hudson Institute alternative to the views of the Atlantic.
How about this? Liberals WEAKNESS encourages the Islamic radicals.
We don’t hit them back twice as hard.
Not vaporizing ISIS when it was coming out of Syria back in its jayvee phase was one of Obama’s stupidest decisions ever.
Libs have a death wish.
Cornhead,
At the time, President Obama’s assessment of ISIS as a “JV” was more or less correct.
Contra Sayare, the Bush administration War on Terror, including and especially the Iraq intervention, had devastated the al Qaeda movement.
President Bush set up his successor to win the War on Terror.
Instead, what happens to a JV squad when it’s given the conditions it needs to develop?
We have our answer. Instead of staying the course from Bush to win the War on Terror, Obama made course changes from Bush to leave Iraq prematurely and adopt a weak-horse ‘lead from behind’ approach as the Arab Spring disintegrated, thus enabling the JV to develop into the varsity.
My Facebook feed today has been full of my omniscient English friends telling all that we are giving ISIS exactly what they want. It has been driving me up the wall. Why would ISIS want random bombs falling on them from the sky? There is little chance of the clash of civilizations/apocalypse they desire coming from this. How does it further their cause? Maybe it does somehow, but I don’t know what my friends know that I don’t.
Speaking of “giving what [they] want”, what of ClownDisaster’s gifts to the Islamic Republic of Iran — a far more dangerous and capable foe than ISIS, despite the professional ignorance of former Secretary of Defense Hagel — or to Putin’s Russia, for that matter?
sdferr:
“A Hudson Institute alternative to the views of the Atlantic.”
For Atlantic readers and likeminded folks who favor an Ivy League perspective, this Columbia University Saltzman Institute of War and Peace Studies video of panel discussion “ISIS in Iraq, Syria, and the US” provides a succinct explanation of ISIS and its origin.
The Columbia professors emphasize the ‘strong horse’, ‘weak horse’ nature of the terrorists’ worldview. They highlight the turning point of the COIN “Surge” and Anbar Awakening in Iraq that established the US as the ‘strong horse’ and al Qaeda as the ‘weak horse’ … before, of course, the terrorists seized upon the Arab Spring and American regime change to improve their position.
Once again, the taboo that’s been bolted onto the ‘strong horse’ type of American leadership needed for the West to win the War on Terror must be broken. The taboo is premised on a stigma derived from a false narrative of Operation Iraqi Freedom. Breaking the taboo requires de-stigmatizing OIF by setting the record straight on OIF, then re-normalizing the paradigm of ‘strong horse’ American leadership that manifested with OIF. In the process, folks like Sayare who have constructed and maintained the taboo must be discredited.
The primary goal is not arrive at a solution, but to shore up one’s status as a sophisticate (or maybe just a sophist…)
Here in Israel the patriotic center-right urged the Left not to pursue Oslo, not to give our enemies rifles (which were then turned on us)…
And the response of the Leftist pundits, even after Oslo blew up in their faces, even after they were forced to concede that things weren’t working, was to say “you can be right, or smart” and insist smugly that they were playing a long game that the knuckle-dragging Right could not understand…. spinning away from those parts of reality that contradicted their view of themselves and the world, and eschewing the unsophisticated (even if factually correct) opinion of the hoi polloi.
We’re seeing the same navel-gazing nonsense now with the rash of stabbings and attacks – saw it even as Hamas rockets fell on theses asses’ Tel-Aviv watering holes…
Obvious conclusions are for plain folk – not such as us.
Because it’s not about getting it right, or solving the problem. It’s about signaling their own elite social status and intellectual preciousness.
The Hudson panel mostly seeks to grasp — even if it may fail — what’s up with France, and contextually, the EU. Hence my supposing it of some worth. Just so that’s straight.
Simon,
Explain the ‘strong horse’, ‘weak horse’ model to your friends.
The terrorists desire to compete against a ‘weak horse’ enemy that commits insufficiently, ie, Obama’s approach, or a ‘weak horse’ enemy that concedes and appeases instead of competes.
The terrorists fear a ‘strong horse’ enemy that commits to win, ie, Bush’s approach.
From the 16JAN09 Washington Post article, A Farewell Warning On Iraq, by David Ignatius:
“Crocker”, of course, is Ambassador Ryan Crocker.
sdferr,
The Hudson panel has good content, I didn’t mean to imply otherwise.
But for typical Atlantic readers, the label makes a difference irrespective of the content. The Columbia label is an approved label.
Stock market is tanking on Yellens comments… almost 300 points down on the dow… pensions are getting slammed… i bet she is doing it to keep bonds up for the state… she and her others have been big mouths thinking out loud and causing the market to tank, recover, tank, recover, tank, recover in an endless chain… bet they are making a fortune given its legal for them to inside trade…
How many typical Atlantic readers populate neo-neocon’s visitors, I wonder?
You know, not accepting 10,000 refugees from that region without being able to vet them whatsoever plays into ISIS hands…as well as not forcing a carbon tax….
Stay tuned or a list of items your government will soon submit plays into ISIS’s hands unless you comply with your government.
sdferr,
I used to like print Atlantic. It was much more centrist. The website went far to the left.
Eric,
Thanks for the link. I always thought the surge was a courageous decision of Bush’s. And I love this quote from the same article:
“Soon [this is 2009], Iraq will be Barack Obama’s problem. And I ask Crocker what mistakes the new administration could make. He answers that he thinks it will avoid these errors, but he lists them anyway: “Concluding that this was the Bush administration’s war, that it’s stable enough now, that we don’t want to inherit it, so we’re going to back away.”
Looks like a tar baby problem. We let Daesh decide what we do? Why not ignore their opinions and rely on our own? I would guess because the author of this article hasn’t the faintest effing clue what to do that doesn’t contradict his worldview. Meat puppet.
Crocker buys the lie. Consider rather Mike Ledeen’s suggestion.
Reading the discussion of what all liberals know made me think of the climate change true believers. Whether it is drought or flood, heat or cold, record snow or no snow, violent weather or no hurricanes, it’s all evidence of global warming.
No matter what the terrorists do, it’s our fault.
Simon:
What your friends know that you don’t is this—whatever the conservatives/right in the west propose to do, or try to do, is what ISIS wants.
It’s really very very simple.
sdferr: “How many typical Atlantic readers populate neo-neocon’s visitors, I wonder?”
How many of Neo’s visitors, such as Simon, would be equipped a bit better to compete in the Narrative contest for the zeitgeist beyond this enclave?
We should learn from the Hudson and Columbia panels, but as I said, for certain audiences that folks like Simon may wish to engage, sources with labels like Columbia University carry weight that other labels don’t, irrespective of the quality of the content.
roc scssrs: “Thanks for the link. I always thought the surge was a courageous decision of Bush’s.”
For more insight on the President’s decision for the COIN “Surge”, see Troop ‘Surge’ Took Place Amid Doubt and Debate (NY Times) and Bush’s Lonely Decision (WSJ).
It appears the COIN “Surge” was a hallmark of American presidential leadership.
Neo– You have an uncanny way of asking the important questions (which is why I love your blog). We know that Muslims (in general) hate individual freedom, and their leaders have vowed to end it in America (Death to America!) The Muslims I knew in school were all fatalists, meaning that they believed their lives were out of their control and in the hands of Allah. They wouldn’t study for tests, saying “If it’s the will of Allah, I will pass.” So until I am convinced otherwise, I think the concept of “free will” is foreign to Muslims.
Donald Trump has proposed that the government track Muslims and Mosques in America which, right now, is seeming like a tempting idea.
But there’s the rub. If we give them the power to track Muslims, they will take the power to track everybody. Do we really want our government tracking citizens based upon their political/religious views? I think not. But even if we approved such a program, would it be possible to identify potential terrorists? Again, I think not.
I tend to think it should be up to individual citizens to monitor suspicious behavior by their neighbors and co-workers. In this recent case, a neighbor saw a number of Muslim-looking men visiting the shooter, but didn’t say anything to authorities for fear of being branded a bigot. Obviously, Saed never invited his neighbors over for coffee. Was that suspicious?
So am I advocating a neo-KKK here? That’s what it might come to if the government refuses to acknowledge that Islam isn’t a “religion” as our founders knew it and crack down on people who would do us harm. Once the people realize that they’re on their own, who knows? My late grandfather told me that the Klan started out as an organization meant to enforce the rules of society by “talking to” wife beaters, drunks, and child abusers. He said in the early years it wasn’t racist, but it turned that way later on. (I’m sure Robert Byrd could tell us were he still alive.)
Well, I’m rambling, but it seems we’re going to have to decide how much freedom to give up in order for the government to “protect us”.
Bush was never under the illusion that a perfect democracy would be born quickly in Iraq. He knew that a strong horse was needed, but he hoped that eventually the people would appreciate their better lives and tone down their tribal strong horse tendencies. It’s only idiots like UN flunkies and lefties who think that agreements and treaties solve entrenched problems. Just look at Palestine and Israel.
When their daughters and granddaughters undergo forced genital mutilation and their sons and grandsons are beheaded for their white privilege, perhaps 20% of the left might reluctantly admit the craziness of their POV. The other 80% will refuse reality to the bitter end. Like the suicidal scorpion on the frog they would choose to drown rather than change their mind, its their nature.
expat:
“He knew that a strong horse was needed, but he hoped that eventually the people would appreciate their better lives and tone down their tribal strong horse tendencies.”
I had a discussion on another blog where a commenter, mindful of the troubles we faced with early ROK that exceeded the troubles we faced with Iraq in a similar timeframe, groused that the Koreans have a “civilizing gene” that Iraqis seem to lack.
I responded to him that we know all about the ROK’s ‘civilizing gene’: it’s called USFK, which has evolved over the decades along with the ROK but has continued steadfastly working with the ROK.
In Iraq, there was a like ‘civilizing gene’ called USFI doing like work as USFK has done with the ROK. With the COIN “Surge”, Iraq was evidently making like progress with USFI.
But then the USFI ‘civilizing gene’ was prematurely removed from Iraq at the 8 year mark. At the 8 year mark with the ROK (counting from the end of WW2), the USFK was still engaged in brutal pitched battles to secure the country, never mind working with the ROK as a ‘civilizing gene’ in stabilized conditions.
The difference is President Eisenhower, despite campaigning against the Korean War and inheriting a much more difficult situation with Korea than President Obama inherited with Iraq, stayed the course, reinforced the US position as a competitive ‘strong horse’, and set the long-term course for USFK to continue its ‘civilizing’ influence with the ROK.
Ok, the news is reporting now that Said Farook had an argument with a co-worker last week about whether or not Islam was a peaceful religion. The co-worker was one of the fatalities. Did Farook make his point or what?
Ben David perfectly describes the motivation of the typical useful idiot, liberal/leftist; “Because it’s not about getting it right, or solving the problem. It’s about signaling their own elite social status and intellectual preciousness.” i.e. egoistic compensation
While parker nails the refusal to admit error, “perhaps 20% of the left might reluctantly admit the craziness of their POV. The other 80% will refuse reality to the bitter end. Like the suicidal scorpion on the frog they would choose to drown rather than change their mind, its their nature.” that suicidal denial is to avoid acknowledging the destruction of their world-view, which would in turn lead to the collapse of their self-worth.
Self-worth based in ideological identity is entirely dependent upon the survival of that ideology.
Tom sings Fight Fiercely Harvard
To be honest, they do want us to drop bombs on them. We’re talking about a murderous suicide cult here, who traveled around the world just for a chance to show up there and kill people until America comes in and kills them. They think they’re going to trigger the end of the world.
So, who cares if killing them is what they want? It’s also what we want. We want to send them to Judgment as badly as they want us to. If we killed half of them, the other half would say, “Nice start, but there are plenty of us left, and we’re going to keep killing people until you send everything you’ve got at us”.
Maybe State Department people look at that as a bad negotiating position. Maybe they see it as a cynical ploy on ISIS’s part. It’s not. There’s nothing cynical about it. It’s what they want. We don’t get to choose our opponents, and we definitely don’t get to choose the way our opponents think. If ISIS thought like State Department people, they’d be opening women’s health clinics. Instead, they’re killing, and will keep killing until we kill them.
If the Islamic State wants to provoke us to nuke them, I’m cool with that.
Somebody said that virtue-signaling isn’t a policy. Wish I could take credit for that.
rickl,
🙂
Richard Aubrey,
To the left their hash tag/twitter storm troopers and their fleeting paper thin sympathy are more powerful and persuasive than rickl’s nukes. Personally, I am inclined to the nuke side of persuasion.
In one of my favorite books, “Watership Down,” the rabbits find another warren where they realize something is wrong. It ends up that there are traps everywhere and the warren rabbits decided to just ignore the threat. They would attack any talking about the threat. If they addressed or even thought about it then they would have to confront it. Since they wouldn’t do this, anyone who did was the enemy, putting a spotlight on their own fears and cowardice. Not addressing this real threat means they have to demonize those who really see who the enemy truly is. They make-believe the evil is climate change, education and poverty not the death-cult right in front of their faces.
They make-believe the evil is climate change, education and poverty not the death-cult right in front of their faces.
All according to plans.
Not that we weren’t warned!
TWICE!
Nick: “To be honest, they do want us to drop bombs on them.”
They know bombs alone won’t beat them and the West limiting action to bombing is characteristic of a ‘weak horse’. This point is addressed in the Columbia panel I linked upthread in my December 3rd, 2015 at 2:36 pm comment.
We have a proven model for at least a baseline plan to defeat ISIS. It’s the OIF COIN “Surge”.
Eric:
Ultimately, I don’t care what happens “over there”, but the enemy is Islam itself, and it needs to be removed from Western society “by any means necessary”.
Deport all Muslims in the West, and put an electrified fence around the Ummah in the Middle East. Shoot anyone who attempts to leave.
French police don’t hesitate to use broad new emergency powers
http://www.latimes.com/world/europe/la-fg-french-police-emergency-powers-20151203-story.html
Pseudo police state actions, now ok…
what is the next stage, and isnt it convenient that the socalist liberals of france (and other western nations) have imported people who will justify a (communist) police state…
hard to think that that wasnt the purpose for it all, even more so when you read the quotes of leaders all over the world over the past 70 years (from the left, especially the largest army of the left!!!)
Obama says shooting was ‘workplace related’ Giuliani: ‘you’re a moron’
of course, this way the left liberals can claim there were no terrorist attacks under his watch…
be better if there were actiually NO terrorist attacks, but thats not possible given that that is what they want (under hegel).
ie. game the reports by putting the numbers into a different column on the report.
it was key to the soviet rulers methods…
A little bit off topic, but I’m going to ask a favor from other commenters.
Please. If you must use acronyms, (I know, it’s easier to type an acronym than the entire phrase), at least give those of us who don’t speak acronymese a clue.
I finally figured out that “ROK” was South Korea, but I still don’t know what “USFI” and “USFK” mean.
I was in the Navy, so I should be able to speak acronymese, but it’s been a long time. If I started tossing around things like SUBRON4 and ACINT, would anyone else have a clue if I didn’t spell it out at least once. (Back then “POV” meant “Privately owned vehicle” not “Point of View”.)
Just saying…
“Among Parisians, one senses a quiet resolve to fall back into routines and social habits, not only because they must, but because they should, and can–because the so-called Islamic State is not, of course, an existential threat to Paris or to France, unless the French choose to give themselves over to hysteria, and to treat it as if it were”
Sounds like what they did in 1940.
Wow, if a Navy guy complains about overuse of acronyms….
🙂
(Nick)
Yeah, I know. Ironic isn’t it.
(…and I work for a company that is even worse than the Navy ever was. I once stood up in a meeting and in exasperation stated: “What in bloody hell does ?unknown acronym? mean!” That was met by total silence, followed by laughter. Apparently, half the folks in the meeting didn’t know either, but were afraid to ask.)
Of course, if it’s spelled out at least once at the very beginning, then we all know what it is. That’s all I was asking for.
“Nuke the Kaaba, Nuke the Kaaba”
Sounds like a song.
(Bloody YouTube. Their commercials make the site almost worthless.)
Roy,
Sorry about that.
USFK: United States Forces – Korea.
USFI: United States Forces – Iraq.
They’re historically analogous missions. Indeed, the Korea mission was Secretary Rumsfeld’s go-to reference for the Iraq mission.
Roy – I was in a meeting recently with a few old-timers and a new person. We were talking about the VPW. The new guy asked what a VPW is. Someone answered, “‘it’s the SPT that we get from YLD”, and I tell you, he thought he’d explained it well.