As Palmyra Falls to ISIS, What Are the Syrian Government’s Prospects?

I dunno. I certainly agree that intervention is almost always wrong….immoral, illegal and not even in the self interest of the intervening country (as opposed to the interests of various politicians, defense contractors, jingoist warmongering media, etc, within that country).

But this post sounds a little too quick to dismiss everybody in the ME, barring those he has come into personal contact with, as “bastards.” Saddam was a “bastard,” Assad is a “horrible” torture lover, IS is no good, the rest of the Syrian rebels are “dubious.” And so on.

More likely, I think, is that leaders and leadership factions represent real interests and beliefs in the societies they arise in. IS has been successful because they are well organized and brave and uncorrupted, but also because, apparently, a lot of Sunni folk in Syria and Iraq agree with their overall policies. Something similar could be said about Saddam and Assad and Ba’athism. It represented a real syncretic Arab/Modernist tendency in Iraq and Syria and elsewhere. Same with Hezbollah and the rulers of Iran. Even the darlings of the West, the “liberals,” in Syria, Iraq, Libya, Lebanon, Iran, etc, actually do comprise a real, if small, and grossly overrated, portion of those societies.

Easy enough to just dismiss everyone as a “bastard” or a “horrible man.” Certainly, folks in the ME could easily dismiss American presidents, including ones not named Bush, in much the same way.

One of the reasons why intervention is wrong is precisely because the societies under consideration are not exactly like ours, and folks there actually, hard as it may be for some in the West to believe, do, at least to some extent, conform to the same ideologies as their leaders.

I like what Ian said about “Leave people alone.” That’s pretty good advice.

We pick on M.E. leaders for being “bastards,” but could anyone other than a “strong man” hold a country together in the present Middle East?

I suspect Assad will survive, but Syria as we know it will not. It will be broken up into sectarian regions, and there will be ethnic cleansing. Ditto Iraq. That’s what the sectarian leaders want, that’s what the U.S. wants, and that’s what Israel wants.

The Syrians and IIS traded for this, the Syrians got a living city, and IIS gets a pile of bricks to transform. One will note this is not the first time this policy has been pursued. ( if they agree with the profit then there dispensable, because everything in the Qu’an is already in them. if they disagree than they are heretical.)

When one googles “Syrian government and torture,” one gets the usual story from the usual suspects. The Human Rights Industry, public and private, which is now bought and paid for by the Western Establishment, claims this, that, and the other. Just as it did about Iraq under Saddam. Even the claims about the personal involvement of Assad mirror those made about Saddam (remember the “plastic shredder?” remember the claims that Saddam personally tortured children in front of their parents?). Leaders who defy the hegemon and stay in power are subject to a full court press, and slander and lurid exaggeration viz a viz “human rights” is one part of the hegemon’s arsenal. And is specifically directed to the “left,” to the putative supporters of “humanitarian intervention.”

That said, I don’t really know whether Assad or Syria are unusual in their torture quota, or not. I do know that torture has been practiced by the USA. And by Israel. And by the French and so on.

Moreover, even if we grant the accuracy of the label “evil,” one still wonders about its salience. Assad is evil. Saddam was evil. Bush was evil. As is Putin. Obama is presiding over some “evil” stuff too, no? As is Netanyahu. And the IS leadership. And so on. If everyone in power is evil, the label no longer really matters much.

Finally, in my view, the world is a hellhole for a lot of people mainly because of systemic reasons that go well beyond the moral character of particular leaders. As I see it, the focus on the individual leader and his morality is misplaced. And that is particularly true of Third World leaders, and even more so when the Third World leader is opposed by the hegemon.

So the advocated position is that everyone in power is evil, but it should never, ever be acknowledged? How… curious.

I’m thinking that it would be entirely entertaining to see the effects on UNSC resolutions (J.K. Rowling’s new career? “Remaining seized of that which cannot be named…”) but beyond that it has little to recommend it.

Rumor going around that Assad’s wife Asma and her kids applied to the UK for Asylum. If true, combined with the destruction of Tiger Force and its MIA commander, the Snake’s force of Druze cut off in Deir Ezzor and sending cell phone vids showing declining food supplies and asking for food, the string of towns south and west of Palmyra that have fallen, the destruction of an Armor Battalion and the Desert Falcons Brigade at Palmyra which was an utter route filmed by ISA forces who were just laughing as Assad’s troops ran out of a fortified position parallel to them and were gunned down mercilessly.

I think Assad is done. His wife knows it and trying to return home to UK where she was born with the kids to protect them from the inevitable palace coup.

@Lisa

IS is its own actor. It was AQI in the Iraqi Insurgency and became ISIS when Syria exploded, IS when it took Mosul and announced the Caliphate.

It is under no one’s control and is playing everyone off of each other and manipulated Obama to strike to shore up its street cred and expose Obama’s hypocrisy which skyrocketed their popular support.

IS is NVA level and uses the Rashidun and Muhammad’s playbook. Everything they have done was done by the Rashidun Caliphs and Muhammad before them in their conquests. They are truthfully saying they are following the prophetic methodology and everything they do is backed up by the Quran, the Hadiths, and Muhammad’s actions which their scholarly opponents can’t counter, hence why IS support is growing.

Their message is one faith for everyone, one leader for everyone, one law for everyone. If you are Muslim and obey the law, they will take care of you and find you work in what you are good at, and help you to get married if you desire so. There is no racism, if you are Sunni Muslim, you are accepted wholeheartedly and many IS commanders are Blacks who have proven themselves. Note: Many Blacks live in Iraq and Syria and have done so for centuries, one of the Prophet’s companions was an Abyssinian slave who was freed.

Under IS law, it doesn’t matter your rank. Break the rules you get punished and publicly with your crime read out loud in public. US much less Assad doesn’t do that despite the blatant breaking of their own laws by their Heads of State much less lower officials.

And yes Muhammad owned slaves who he had sex with, had a 9 year old wife, ordered prisoners beheaded, mercilessly destroyed two Jewish Villages that had broken their oaths to him and fought him, and fought in the ranks of his army.

However, if his foes came to him in peace and sincere repentance, he forgave them and sheltered them. IS does the same with those from the Regime who defect to them and even released a video of two SAA defectors from Deir Ezzor who “repented.” IS forgave them, fed them and helped them reunite with their families who they haven’t seen in three years. One of the former soldiers even met his daughter for the first time. The same is true in Iraq.

IS makes clear in all their videos and announcements that if Regime, Rebel, ect troops defect with sincere repentance, they will be forgiven even if they killed a million people and allowed to go home and return to society. Its even open to Assad, though if he does take IS up on it, then I’ve seen everything.

Just a couple of comments, not really related to the main thread.

First of all, who would have expected Ireland to be the first country to popular elect equal marriage. Everybody else has done so with help from the judiciary branch. Think on that a moment.

Second, you do realize that ( in the sense of all you all) you’re the ones who put people on Wikipedia. Why isn’t Ian Welsh ?

And an update only three constuencies out of forty three left to declare Cork North West, Cork South West and Cork East and they’re not large enough to affect the outcome much.

The Irish Times have a detailed table here:

Referendum 2015 Results | The Irish Times

mfi

Final update referendum: The three Cork constituencies have now declared. Ireland is now the first country to grant equal right to marriage to same-sex couples in the constitution by popular vote:

1,201,607 votes for to 734,300 against. 62.1% for to 37.9% against on a turnout of 60.5% of the electorate.

mfi

Great news about Ireland. A stunning positive result that will hopefully set a precedent for others to follow.

The fate of the anti-Assad liberals is not dissimilar to that of the Egyptians, which is to say, that events surpassed their ability to cope. I have to wonder if this is because they operate within a human rights/legal framework. They are used to operating in the space of moral arguments, as opposed to tactics and raw power. Unfortunately, bringing down a government opens up the realm of direct struggle for power. Perhaps it might be simpler to say that they were led by lawyers when what they really needed was engineers.

I suspect that this is a generalizable truth for any organizations/groups in similar situations.

VietnamVet : Oh yes and let’s not forget the 2+ million Christians there, with their heads on the chopping block as well. Amazing how all those US ‘Christian’ politicians and leaders never mention them, too busy attacking GLBTI people, writing anti TG ‘bathroom laws’ and sexually abusing children I suppose.

But it is interesting that the US/UK/NATO have now become ‘anti-State’ actors, destroying one State after another, leaving chaos, oligarchs and warlords in charge. The list just goes on and on.

In a very true sense this is a logical outcome of the dominant western neo-liberal and neo-conservative ideologies, the death of functioning States. Even within those countries there are concerted actions to destroy themselves as functioning social, political and economic entities. Things like the TPP, where vast amounts of political and economic power are to be transferred to multinational corporations, are just another symptom of this. The future they seem to desire is one of chaos, 90% of the population in poverty, with corporations, oligarchs, warlords, militias and all the rest in charge fighting amongst themselves for power and for the proceeds of looting.

Even so called ‘advanced’ societies are on the chopping block, if they don’t (as per Greece) want to self destruct, then they will inevitably be destoryed by external forces. I mean lets face it, how long until there is an EU sponsered military coup in Greece with mass fighting and deaths on the street, warmly welcomed by EU leaders (especially German ones).

The only good news at the moment is that the US seems to have thrown in the towel on the Ukraine, at least for the moment, as they concentrate on a building military confrontation with China…. which is not such good news.

@ T May 23, 2015

“anti-Assad liberals”

All two of them.

Perhaps it might be simpler to say that they were led by lawyers when what they really needed was engineers.

It might be simpler but it would also be inaccurate. In Egypt they were led middle class students and middle class business people and executives. Wael Ghonim worked as a marketing executive for Google. A marketing executive working for an American company and who was himself married to an American. Remember that? Not an engineer not a lawyer. A salesman. A salesman leading students and western oriented middle class business people and executives.

In both Syria and Egypt the anti-regime “liberals” are a statistically and politically miniscule group. They were and remain socially and politically impotent firstly because they are utterly unrepresentative of anything and anybody other than themselves and secondly because they do not have the resources to challenge the state’s monopoly of violence.

The ones doing that are radicals but by no stretch of the imagination can they be described as liberal. They do however have quite a few engineers and lawyers amonst their numbers. More importantly though they have military resources the will to use them and people proficient in using those resources.

mfi

Tom May 23, 2015

Oh you read them alright but you don’t produce evidence to back up your assertions when challenged because you can’t.

And I have posted sources, you ignored them.

That statement is wholly false and you know it. What you did on every occasion you’ve been challenged to provide some evidence to back up your assertions is what you’ve just done now.

On every occasion you’ve been challenged your SOP is to make further assertions do some further name dropping and then demand that I and everyone else who’ve challenged your bullshit do your work for you.

You’re the one making wild statements, you’re the one writing the hysteria-laden “analyis”, you’re the one who needs to back up his statements and “analyis” with facts. You’ve never done that all you’ve done is to bluster further and to bullshit further. Really you’re wasted here and on other reputable fora. Have you considered going professional? – I’m told that World Nut Daily pay quite well.

mfi

@ Lisa May 23, 2015

You’ll have to wait to sell them that bridge until after I’ve taught them a game called “poker”.

(Poker is a game played with bits of cardboard and people make money doing it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!).

mfi

JPD:

The Security Council passes binding Resolutions, not the Special Rapporteur, the Human Rights Council, or the General Assembly. And the SC is run by the Permanent Members, and, in practice, the Western permanent members, mostly led by the USA, almost always get their way. And it was specifically UNSC Resolutions that you, who were the first to bring up the UN, mentioned, and the only UN institution that I named, at all. So, you have not in the least shown that my claims about the UN are anything other than accurate. Let me know when one of those UNSC Resolutions condemns the USA for its torture, and other human rights violations, and I will eat my words!

Interesting to watch the ‘big picture’ being played out while the US and its satraps flail around causing havok while self destructing economcially.

The economic and military integration of Russia, China and the rest. The alternative financial system being set up. There is a lot going on behind the scenes at the moment as many players are positioning themselves for the end of the US empire.

Even Germany ‘loyal to the core to the US’ (nice to see my statements before about the German national security state being totally owned by the US be steadily confirmed with each new revelation).

Interesting speculation by Emmanual Todd recently about how he thinks Germany is positioning itself for a post US time, which ran along the lines of Germany intending to dominate the EU totally, reducing EU countries (even more) to German satrapies, rejecting closer integration with Russia (etc).

Interesting and because it is Todd worth a think about. Makes a bit of sense if you follow my theory of Germans being tactical geniuses and strategic morons and of course places the current Greek fiasco into context. If this is the case then crushing Greek oppostion to German imposed ‘austerity’ and economic control makes sense, sending a clear message to others who might be thinking the same way. Makes the German ‘strategy’ on the Ukraine appear to make sense as well, if you see it in terms of Germany wanting domination of eastern Europe (at last) and keeping Russian influence well out.

How Merkal responds to the US ‘throwing in the towel’ (at least temporarily) in the Ukraine will be very telling.

Of course there is the minor issue of how long the EU will survive….. without which Germany just doesn’t have the economic and political firepower to achieve and maintain this new ‘Lebensraum’. With no EU and Euro the German economic ‘export machine’ hasn’t a hope in hell of surviving for very long, a new DM at a conservative valuation of at least 50% higher than the current Euro level will put paid to that very quickly, no matter how much more German wages are crushed.

Interesting times indeed.

“Interesting to watch the ‘big picture’ being played out while the US and its satraps flail around causing havok while self destructing economcially.”

The rich do not care, and the older poor want too die quietly.

mfi

Since we are predicting the future all we can go on is the past. When armies have momentum and morale they are hard to stop. South Vietnam stopped the NVA offensive in 1972 although the communists retook the valley where I spent a year. But, ARVN collapsed in 1975 without American air support. The USA is pushing the Iraq government to make an attempt to retake Ramadi. But it will stop its air support once the Iraqi government forces vanish. But, for sure, the Islamic State will attack Baghdad. Sunnis once controlled it and all of Iraq. They quelled the Shiite revolt after Desert Storm. Iran is under intense pressure to help their fellow Shiites. The same as Russia has to support ethnic Russians in Ukraine. Even if Baghdad doesn’t fall, with Iranian Quds Force involved in the fighting; the Shiite Sunni Holy War now stretches from Pakistan in the east through Yemen in the south to Lebanon in the west with Iraq and Syria right in the middle.

JPD:

“Philadelphia, got it some nice neat little boxes, eh? UN’s all about the SC, SC’s all about the western powers, etc. Funny how there’s that big complex down by the East River. Sure seems like there’s a whole whack of activity for an organization that could be run out of a phone booth.”

Whatever. You made a pretty flippant remark about the UN, and I responded to it. Apparently, you have no real counter to my response. Furthermore, you don’t really have any substantive argument to make about my overall characterization of the UN, and who runs it. I say the US pretty much runs the joint, despite all the claims to the exact contrary by die hard US ultra nationalists. And I think the record bears out my take. But I can’t really respond effectively to a post that more or less just says, “Oh yeah?!”

“From where I’m standing all this hoopla about how stacked the UN is, the professional human rights industry cracks, etc. is just more of the crap people who have never and will never have the slightest bit of skin in the game bring forth in support of their personal domestic politics. I used to be in and out of Syria a bit back in the day, and me, I’m not so blind as to draw a 1:1 equivalency between Syria and any western power. The experience that folks who take the ‘same:same’ line lack is what it’s like to live and work in places like that. Once you’ve tasted it, you’d never stoop to appropriating voice to ‘win’ some pointless argument on the Internet.”

I don’t claim to have any insider information. I can only deal in what is public knowledge. And I don’t claim any expertise, either, or that I have skin in the game viz a viz Syria.

I do know a few things, though. And one of them is that the USA uses torture. And that it hypocritically makes a big deal out of allegations, allegations that it does help generate, and that usually turn out to be exaggerated, about its designated “Axis of Evil” enemies du jour, and their leaders’, use of the same thing.

Another thing I know is that you, who started this exchange, who is the one who came after me, not vice versa, are more or less accusing me of being full of crap, without any basis other than your say so, and you are attempting to pull rank in the completely anonymous anybody-can-say-that-they-have-been-to Syria-or-anywhere-else, if they want to (not that that is really a valid argument anyway), internet. And, ironically, at the same time, as you “stoop” to do so, you also accuse me of being all about “winning” the blog comment argument.

OK, now we’ve finally gotten past the cutesy-poo remarks and claims of inside knowledge.

Let’s look at the facts. The way the UN is set up, the Big Five never have to answer to the only body that actually has authority, namely the SC. Permanent veto means never having to face the music. And the US uses that veto more than any other permanent member. Beyond that, the US bribes and bullies and berates and blackmails most of the rest of the SC members into doing its bidding. Sure, once, the SC balked, over Iraq II. But, even then, the US was never condemned for its aggressive, unsanctioned war. Nor was it sanctioned for its equally aggressive, unsanctioned war against Serbia. Quite the contrary, as the SC, after the fact, more or less, in both cases, ratified the USA’s moves by granting UN administration in the wake of the US aggression.

As for the so called “Non” governmental organizations, and their funding, one need look further than the wiki on Amnesty International to find this:

“[AI self righteously claims this, that and the other]…However, AI did receive grants from the UK Department for International Development, the European Commission, the United States State Department and other governments…..”

Beyond the question of funding, their “reports” most certainly do figure prominently in interventionist propaganda, and particularly that propaganda aimed at potential, liberal supporters of so called “humanitarian intervention.” If I have to hear one more time from a Rice, Power or Slaughter that AI or HRC said this that or the other about which ever regime they, seeking to rival McCain in their bellicosity, want to topple this week, I think I will scream!

I’m sorry if you don’t like that, but that’s how it is. And Franz Fanon pointed this out decades ago. Sure, the war mongers sell their goods to the yahoos in terms of “kill ’em all,” but they also sell their goods to well meaning Western liberals through their crocodile tears about women’s rights, human rights, torture and so on. “We” have to intervene, to keep Muslim women from being killed by their Muslim countrymen. To keep Muslim men from torturing each other. To keep the girls’ schools open. To put Saddam’s plastic shredder out of business and stop him from personally killing children in front of their parents’ eyes, etc.

JPD:

“Again, your view on this appears to be that one shouldn’t acknowledge torture for fear that it will fuel the fire for intervention. I get how that can look that way to you, but frankly I think one gets there only with the help of a metric ass load of post facto selection bias.”

Now we’re back to cutesy poo, meaningless phrases. As a simple matter of fact, the misdeeds of the selected target regimes, and their leaders, most certainly are exaggerated, and any “acknowledgement” of them does add fuel to the fire. No “selection bias,” “post facto” or otherwise. If you go around repeating State Dept/Amnesty International claims about Assad and Saddam, you are helping them sell the interventionists’ case. Why is it the responsibility of Americans to prattle on about human rights violations, real or imagined, or both, in Syria and Iraq. What good actually comes of that? Why not focus on the logs in on our own eyes? It seems to me, whether “equivalent” or not (and one wonders about how to create “metrics” here, that are not self valorizing), that the latter provide more than enough to keep us busy.

“One looks objectively at this stuff and it’s clear the players are firing in all directions. For every Hussein or Assad there’s about 20 other guys that aren’t in the firing line (to the contrary, not an insignificant number are considered allies).”

And who ever said otherwise? Indeed, that’s part of the point, and the hypocrisy. Beheadings in Saudi Arabia, so what? Beheadings by IS? Why, that’s a human rights violation! Oh the horror! Torture by Israel? Well, that (like the USA’s own torture) depends on nuanced definitions, and we must not be hasty and we need full documentation, and we must be proportionate in our response, and so on and so forth. Torture by Iraq or Syria? Send in the Marines!

And so, if one feels compelled to focus on the misdeeds of foreign governments and leaders, wouldn’t it make more sense to focus on those who receive US aid and support, rather than on those whom the US wants to topple, for reasons completely extraneous to genuine human rights concerns?

“Me, I don’t get your approach. You want to stop torture, first step is calling it out. You want to make intervention unattractive, you don’t fart about the edges like this – you seek to give your government effective assets that aren’t kinetic (and make the kinetic assets harder to use). A really important step in that direction would be ceasing to undercut multilateral international bodies like the UN. The more the pols think your view predominates in the electorate, the lower the domestic political bill they think they have to pay for running roughshod over them.”

Again, you entirely misread me. Do you think I like torture? Of course not. But, no actually, I don’t want to give my government to have “effective assets.” I want my government to (1) clean up its own house and (2) to mind its own business. But beyond that, yes, I would like there to be some sort of actually fair, non biased, international bodies and institutions to police the worst excesses of all nations (including my own). But that is not what we have at the moment. We have international bodies, yes, the UNSC, the IAEA, the ICC, etc. But they are all dominated by the West, particularly the USA, and only Third World countries, and their leaders, ever seem to stand in the dock, and of them, as you yourself intimate, only the ones who are not our “allies,” clients, bought and paid for lackeys and so on, and have already been targeted for overthrow.

And the pols in the USA have no intention of ever changing the structure and practices of these bodies. And so, no, I will not bend over backwards to refrain from criticizing them. Moreover, my criticism of them is 180 degrees opposite of the type of criticism that the pols actually seek to whip up, ie the false claims that these bodies (and the private “human rights” industry too, I might add) are actually unfair to the USA and its allies, clients, etc. The reality is that it is not a question of “running roughshod” over these bodies, but that they are pretty much wholly owned subsidiaries as it is.

Lisa, the DIA analysis/report was released under a FOIA request not leaked and it was a report not a position or policy paper which would come from a much higher level of the government.

Levant Report immediately spins its story to ‘prove’ that the US was supporting the ISIS missing one small fact the ISIS did not exist until eight months later. Al-Nusra had just recently become active in Syria at the time of this report but it does predict that some Islamist group or groups could do what the IS has done and it might be advantageous to the US. That this outcome was predictable is interesting but the US and a number other countries wouldn’t be flying daily bombing raids against the IS in Syria if they thought that now or even when the report was made. In fact within a few months al-Nusra was declared a Terrorist Organization by the US,

The tweets from Amb. Robert Ford don’t prove what is clamed in the LR story either all he does is state an already known fact that the FSA, a US supported group, was cooperating with al-Nusra, a soon to be designated terrorist group and that support for the FSA should stop and it was for some time. Ford is also showing his hawk feathers by calling for US ground troops to invade Syria to remove Assad and anyone else he dislikes.

Again, curious. You say you want impartial international bodies to curb excess, yet you seek to throw the institutions that have the only hope of producing such an outcome under the bus on the basis of very limited understanding of how they actually work.

From where I’m sitting, vocally arranging a chosen small subset of facts to validate your worldview is far more important to you than acting in ways that could actually, if minutely, increase the possibility of the outcomes you *say* you want. Classic no skin in the game behaviour and classic “dependent progressive” political thinking (only entirely unrealistic, magical solutions – preferably referencing some external power – are good enough). This is why it does so amuse me to watch the coddled middle class muse aloud about revolution—pick up paving stones? shit, most of us won’t even pick up the telephone.

Monster from the Id
May 24, 2015

Big LOL…

I mean, *so* sorry to take space away from the terribly well informed discussions that otherwise flourish.

I think I will not hold my breath for that.

JPD:

“Again, curious. You say you want impartial international bodies to curb excess, yet you seek to throw the institutions that have the only hope of producing such an outcome under the bus on the basis of very limited understanding of how they actually work.”

No, I am simply judging them on how they actually work, as opposed to the noise and propaganda that surrounds them. And, again, you have yet to show that my take, which is that the West in general and the USA in particular dominates them, and that they are biased against Third World regimes, particularly those in disfavor in the West, is in any way mistaken.

“From where I’m sitting, vocally arranging a chosen small subset of facts to validate your worldview is far more important to you than acting in ways that could actually, if minutely, increase the possibility of the outcomes you *say* you want.”

Again, I am waiting for you to actually show that my facts are in error. Merely claiming that I am wrong doesn’t really cut it. And we are both us just sharing our ideas, and both merely “saying” what we want. Because you “say” you are against torture more loudly and indiscriminately than I do, does that make your verbiage any more efficacious than mine?

“Classic no skin in the game behaviour and classic ‘dependent progressive’ political thinking (only entirely unrealistic, magical solutions – preferably referencing some external power – are good enough). This is why it does so amuse me to watch the coddled middle class muse aloud about revolution—pick up paving stones? shit, most of us won’t even pick up the telephone.”

Oh boy, back to this now, is it? Somehow, you are on the front lines, fighting the good fight? Yeah, not seeing it. As far as I can tell, you are here with me, commenting on a blog. And, indeed, you seem to admit as much yourself, with that “us” reference. Well then, that being the case, what makes my opinion any worse than yours? You’re running your mouth, aren’t you, from a no doubt equally “coddled middle class” perspective, no?

MID:

Gotta agree with JPD here. If you don’t like our discussion, just leave it alone. I fail to see how it harms you in any way.

Even the Guardian has got in on the act:
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/may/24/syria-iran-isis-battle-arab-world

Japan is another country that needs to amend its constitution to pass SSM, though IIRC the post-war occupation effectively “broke” the amending procedure and no-one is really sure just how to go about it now.

Support for SSM there polls low at around 30%, but interestingly opposition polls even lower at 9%, lower than most Western countries, with a very large plurality of fence-sitters and a smaller number of “civil union” supporters making up the difference.

I do not think that anyone here will say that there has been a uniform application of the laws that govern some people, as opposed to others.

Yes, it’s OT, but relevant to the bigger picture: Spain just had an election that (unsurprisingly) weakened the major “traditional” parties. That’s not the really interesting part. The interesting part is that while Podemos did on the whole really well, some of the wind has been taken out of its sails not by the “traditional” parties, but by the sudden appearance of another party, the Ciudadanos (Citizens) party. Looking around, it looks like it’s a party certainly friendlier to neoliberalism-lite than Podemos. It appears that part of Podemos’ earlier support consisted of people who were primarily fed up with the traditional parties, but not fed up with union-busting neoliberalism.

This has been my experience reading European media, including Greek commentators. In Greece, there is (and always has been) a nontrivial group of people — not a majority, but nontrivial — who would vote for a “Troika Party”, if the Troika officials themselves were to run as parliamentary candidates somehow, a frustrated petit bourgeois of people who think that they would be the “Uber” caste if only the unions and bureaucrats would get out of the way, and for whom the punishing austerity is merely the price to be paid to transform into an export techno-powerhouse.

” Spain just had an election that (unsurprisingly) weakened the major “traditional” parties. ”

Read, the common electorate doesn’t want money to change without giving the electorate some of the dough.

JPD:

“If the UN is such a SC dominated institution, why does the ICC exist at all? Both China and the US voted against the Rome Statute, yet there the institution is. You’re complaining because it doesn’t meet your ideas of perfection. Oh well. Welcome to multilateralism in a world where states are sovereign – it has real, significant limitations, but it’s still the best we’ve got. ”

LOL! The US and perhaps China voted against the ICC because they don’t want to be bound by it! The notion of American citizens, military personnel and government officials having to answer to an international tribunal is anathema to Americans. They could hardly vote for the treaty and then reject ratifying it. The ICC “exists,” just as I said it did, to investigate, arrest, indict, convict and punish Africans. In its entire history no one but Africans have been indicted by the ICC. American nationals, as nationals of a non signatory nation, are immune from ICC actions (although, notice that Sudanese, even though Sudan did not sign, are not).

African nations are also strongarmed into agreeing to the court’s jurisdiction. Private lenders and international aid and finance organizations (I wonder who controls them?) often insist that an African nation ratify the Rome Statute in order to receive aid or loans.

Scholars have found a direct correlation between dependency on foreign aid and loans and ratification.

http://www.iar.ac.kr/file/14-2/14-2-2.pdf

Notice too that neither the US nor China used its SC veto prevent the Council from “referring” the case of Sudan to the ICC, despite the Sudan’s lack of ratification.

http://www.un.org/press/en/2005/sc8351.doc.htm

The US also voted to refer Gaddafi to the ICC.

http://www.hrw.org/news/2011/02/27/un-security-council-refers-libya-icc

(As an aside, notice that the wonderful Human Rights Watch was cheering on that particular piece of neo colonialist hypocrisy from the sidelines…)

And last year the US voted to refer Syria to the court.

http://www.un.org/press/en/2014/sc11407.doc.htm

So, the message is clear. The position of the USA is that the ICC is good for thee (especially if thee is Third World leader it doesn’t like), but not for me.

There is a lot of daylight between the current state of affair, and “perfection.”

As for State sovereignty, it sure looks like a one way street! I would actually be happier with a pure, Westphalian conception of State sovereignty than the hybrid of convenience that the West currently imposes on the rest of the world.

“Someone who really wants institutions like this to work better doesn’t keep ceaselessly throwing them under the bus. That person accentuates both the strengths and the weaknesses, in hopes of buttressing the former. You say you’re exposing how institutions such as this really work, piercing the propaganda veil. Me, I see someone who is simply retransmitting propaganda that they happen to agree with throwing stuff at the wall hoping that enough of it will stick well enough to work in the lowest common denominator environment of an Internet debate. Probably it will, but that’s not going to make it any more perceptive or balanced.”

First the notion was that I didn’t know what I was talking about. Now, after I cite factual, documented, unchallenged news reports, as well as scholars, jurists, statesmen and so on, I am merely “retransmitting propaganda.” I would also point out that profound skepticism about institutional institutions, and recognition of their domination by the Great Powers, particular the Western ones and even more particularly the USA, is not exactly some wildly eccentric theory of mine. Their are whole libraries on the subject out there. While you, on the other hand, are relying merely on your alleged personal experience (which, to my mind, is the classic “lowest common denominator” in an internet debate…”I was there, buddy boy, so don’t try to tell me, and don’t cite any pointed ear ‘expert’ to me either….”

My “wanting” the institution to “work” doesn’t make it so. Same with you. And I am still waiting for an explanation of how my criticizing these institutions, not from the standard US perspective of seeing them as “anti American,” but from a leftist-internationalist-anti colonialist perspective somehow has the effect of destroying them. The US Establishment likes the international institutions just as they are, thank you very much, and while it lets the Yahoos rail against them from an ignorant, jingoist POV, it has no intention of allowing them to go “under the bus”. On the other hand, the US Establishment does not want to see these international bodies reformed, made more fair and even handed, or free from Western/US domination. The need for reform and independence is what I am advocating. And I fail to see how that is a bad thing.

Funny, the notion that excessive criticism of Third World nations and leader already in the US gun sights is something that liberals and lefties should avoid, which was my original point, doesn’t seem to appeal to you. But, in your view, lefties and liberals should refrain from criticizing the UN, the IAEA, the ICC, etc, not because the criticisms are not valid, but because, in some mysterious, unexplained way, that is going to undermine the institutions rather than help reform them.

consider Chad, and get back to me. I didn’t say that unexpected was good unexpected.

There is a large difference between requesting, and going after them. Requesting does nothing, indicting them does a great deal more. consider Rwanda and Burundi, the were much more serious then. again, ICC is being less, not more, hostile in Chads case. This has been noted by several actors who are deciding how far they can go. Remember, ICC is not unified, but contentious, and some of their actors one more force used on the ground, while most do not.

And back to Syria.

I have an interesting speculation, what is the true role of the US(+5)/Iran negotiations?
Is this the US trying to get Iran back into the fold and Obama leaving a ‘legacy behind’?

But this makes no sense. 2 countries with tremendous domestic US political power (Israel and Saudi Arabia) are dead set against it. Because of past western action Iran is more or less firmly into the whole SCO (etc) block and wll remain so even if the sanctions end.
Iran to be used as an alternative EU gas supplier to shaft Russia? Even more unrealistic. Economic gains? The US will make nothing out of it as Germany, France and even more China pickup the gains.

So why is the US doing it?

One theory that does fit the facts (high explantory power) is that it is a distraction, to keep Iran out of interferring in what happens wth Syria. While negotiations interminably go on Iran is constrained in aiding Syria letting the CoM have a clear field.

There is a sidebar of evidence for this, Kerry’s meeting with Putin. Apparently Kerry has thrown in the towel in the Ukraine and the talks, apparently, were 90% about Iran. Is the US also trying to neutralise Russia interfering in Syria by waving the Iran flag and throw a (I suspect temporary) Ukraine bone?

The problem is that this makes a sick sort of sense.

As a theory it seems to have high explanatory power (more so than what is commonly stated), what about its predictive power?

The first prediction is that there will be no nuclear settlement with Iran, or at least it will continue to be delayed for the foreseeable future. France is always useful in playing the spoiler in this (I think we can discount totally the possibility of France acting independently in this). At the very least some other objections will come up which will mean yet another round of talks with more months going by, giving the CoM more time.

The other predicton from this theory is that Kiev will hold off in another attack in the coming months, though it will still continue its military build up and the US ‘trainers’ there will train the Kiev forces in all those shiny new US weapons.

End game would be, if Syria collapses then the Iranian talks will be ended on some pretext and Kiev will attack again.

“Israel and SA “…agree. Israel and SA and Turkey (with at least tacit support from the US) do.

Don’t underestimate the Turks. They are the single largest supply line (of everything) to AN & IS. They are one of the biggest funders of IS (guess who buys their oil).

And, if they want, can bring a heck of a lot of firepower into this, even just at the ‘special forces’ level (which is rumoured they have already done).
Does their air force have the clout to do an ‘exclusion zone’? Probably not, but allied and coordinated with Israel probably yes if they are prepared to take the initial losses.
Both would prefer the US to do that of course.

Would they do an actual invasion with their regular armed forces? Maybe, maybe not. They seemed to do a trial run recently with a huge force heading in to that memorial site they have in Syria. Telling that IS&AN did nothng against them.

Their motivations are the murkiest of all and make even less sense than the others in the CoM. But they are probably the single most decisive player in this whole game. If they closed those supply lines AN&IS would whither on the vine very quickly (their alternative route through Jorden is too small and geographically badly postioned).

If I was Russia and Iran I’d be working very hard to have Edrogen overthrown, because he seems to be the main motivation in all this. Reporting from there is murky indeed, but it does seem that this is some sort of personal crusade by him.

Does anyone else see the contradiction in Lisa’s rumorous rant? Condemning US and other countries for intervention in Syria to overthrow Assad is defendable but to then posit that Russia/Iran should, if they were under her royal rule, overthrow/assassinate the elected head of a NATO member nation to save that Autocrat is a dangerous exercise in relativism.

Luckily for all of us autocrats such as Putin and Khamenei are not prone to insane adventures that could lead to WW3.

The point is that the convening authority for the Rome Statute was the General Assembly. At least two of the permanent SC members were opposed to the formation of the ICC, as can be seen by their voting against it (Russia is also suspected by many observers to have voted against it as well, but has never publicly acknowledged its position). Since the treaty came into force and the ICC began to function, the UN continues to have an ongoing codified relationship with it. If the UN is so dominated by the SC, why did both of these things occur? Clearly, while SC members have significantly disproportionate power it is bounded in some way.

[Just as an aside, in the event ,the US did actually sign the treaty but they failed to ratify it (and have given notice that they intend to never ratify it).]

And, yeah, I’ll stand pat with characterizing your commentary as regurgitating propaganda. You didn’t quote scholars – you cut and pasted an article that originally appeared under the hed “ICC, A Tool to Recolonize Africa”. Not exactly the most neutral of heds. If one looks at the sources the article draws on, there’s clearly not a small amount of slanting going on.

As an example, they condemn the ICC’s non-involvement in the Nisour Square shootings, but fail to mention that this is because those involved were already facing criminal charges in the United States – charges that they were ultimately convicted of. Similarly, the report condemns the court for ignoring Iraq, Afghanistan and Palestine. In fact, when one looks at the current activities of the court, active investigations are going on in both Iraq and Afghanistan, targeting US and UK actions and the only reason that one isn’t ongoing in Palestine is that it does not yet meet the technical definition of a state and cannot accede to the treaty. I could go on, but I sense that my time would be wasted.

The central challenge here is that if you want to see international bodies reformed and operate more even handedly, they need to reform from within. That’s the only way it’s going to work in an great power dominated system. By extension, that means they need to be strengthened and empowered – which notably does not happen when their public support in the great powers is undercut on all sides by lazy rhetoric.

I have to say, I was previously unfamiliar with the source of your cognomen. Live and learn:

Philadelphia Lawyer: A colloquial term that was initially a compliment to the legal expertise and competence of an attorney due to the outstanding reputation of the Philadelphia bar during colonial times. More recently the term has become a disparaging label for an attorney who is skillful in the manipulation of the technicalities and intricacies of the law to the advantage of his or her client, although the spirit of the law might be violated.

And what is your game plan for creating international institutions “from scratch”?

You’re saying they should be multilateral to build multilateral institutions. That’s not really a plan. NAM has been around for a long time, yet hasn’t tended to produce institutions like the types we’re discussing. Again, what’s your game plan for producing institutions from a very low level? How do you advocate them overcoming the barriers?

JPD:

Again, what is your “plan?”

No kidding that it won’t be easy to build real, international, democratic, egalitarian institutions, free from superpower economic, political, diplomatic and military domination. That doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be the goal, or that we should all just sit on our hands and keep our mouths shut, while we wait patiently for your “rhetoric” free and “balanced” approach to produce them by magic. Co operation among Third World nations, as opposed to Western-imposed institutions designed to police them, under the veneer of doing good (“human rights,” “non proliferation,” etc), is the place to start.

Anyway, I never claimed to have a fully developed action “plan.” But that hardly means I am not entitled to criticize the current state of international organizations.

Typically American solution. You don’t have a plan for building new institutions, but you’re sure that the solution is smashing what exists.

Here’s my big plan – you guys sit on the sidelines for twenty minutes or so and try not to break anything *for a change*. Let us middle powers have a go at it. We certainly can’t fuck it up any worse than you have. Cripes, even when you people think you mean well the only tool in the kit is a hammer.

More. Salmon. Mousse.

There is a thing known as timing, I’m sorry you have heard of it.

@ JustPlainDave May 27, 2015

Yes to all that. But there is a snag.

One of the truly distressing things about the current situation is that so many of those middle powers are no longer seen as honest brokers. Three examples:

The Danish passport used to be a good one to travel on in the Middle East – not any more. Denmark is now seen as just another NATO nation in the American chorus.

The Canadian reputation has taken a similar battering.

The same is happening to Ireland’s reputation.

I don’t think that this is irrecoverable, not yet, but I’m not optimistic.

mfi

JPD:

In other words, you have no plan.

I really don’t get you. I am not for smashing anything. I am for building up fair international institutions.

I really don’t get you. I didn’t ask for your input. I gave my opinion of our current international institutions, which you took issue with. I tried to explain my position, and defend it, and have cited sources when you claimed I didn’t know what I was talking about. Then, after all that, with nothing from you except snide comments, and no sources for anything but your own exalted opinion of yourself, buttressed by nothing but your BS claims of personal experience, and holier than thou protestations of street cred, you demanded that I present a detailed “plan,” refused to acknowledge it when I did so, then said it was not specific enough, and now you, ironically, accuse me of being destructive when my plan is clearly constructive, and when you have nothing constructive to offer at all. And, of course, you refuse to present even the vaguest outline of a “plan” yourself. And on top of it, it seems, you attack me for my nationality as well (“you people” indeed!).

We just have different opinions. Is that OK? Can you live with that, or do you feel the need to respond to everything I say with more and more vitriol and sarcasm? Over on the other thread, you claim you are all about treating people with respect. How about showing a little of that here, my fine, “middle power” dwelling friend?

pd

You want other people to agree with you, while not giving the same things to them.

Peter: Nope. I am speculating as to motives and ‘possible’ actons. It would suit many players for an assassination, coup or Govt collapse in Turkey. And there will no doubt be some that are, at least, examining their options, weighing up the costs and benefits.

Correct that Iran and Russia tend to be cautious and conservative in their actions, but both have shown decisiveness when required, the big Russan Navy and USN showdown a couple of years ago over Syria being the poster child for that.’
There are a lot of Turkish people (and powerful people) unhappy at the Turkish Govt going ‘all in’ with Saudi Arabia and Wahabbi extremism and would prefer it going back to its secular roots and the (very successful) ‘friend to everyone’ diplomatic approach. The smarter ones being horrified at having a broken extremist nutjob ‘state’ right on the border and (correctly) wondering how long it would be before the Saudis start funding attacks on Turkey.

Incoherence in Turkish ‘strategy’ seems to be endemic at the moment. Is Turkey going to put its good relations with Iran on the block over this? Is it going to kick its close ally Russia in the guts by joining the NATO ‘Rapidly Dead Force’ (sorry Rapid Reaction) force? And so on.

JPD:

Still at it, I see. Accusing others of “laziness,” while they provide cite, quotes and links to back up their opinions, while you do nothing but rely on your own exalted view of yourself. Claim that are others are know-it-alls, while you sit back in smug condescension, even after all of your claims have been refuted, talk about “reasoning,” but then rely on ad homonym sarcasm and mockery, prattle on self righteously about others not having “to pay the butcher’s bill,” when you don’t have to pay it either, and sit nice and comfortably somewhere in Europe, criticizing others merely for being Americans, as if you were less “warm and comfortable” than they are.

I don’t expect you to agree with me. On the other hand, it is not my job to be “interesting” in my disagreement with you, merely because that is what you “want.” Whether that “torques” you or not.

I read everything you wrote, and more than once. As far as I can tell, we both think that the international institutions are overly dominated by the great powers, particularly the Western ones, and particularly the USA. And we only disagree on what to do about that. So, yes, our positions are not all that far apart. And, if you were to read what I wrote more carefully, particularly my last post, you will find that it is not your position, which is actually quite defensible but which I happen to disagree with, is not my main complaint about you. Rather, it is your manner, which is an odd combination of “to the manner born” smug self satisfaction combined with a peculiarly, under the circumstances, pugnacious brand of make-believe “street fighter” attitude.

That being the case, perhaps you should engage less in pretending to pull rank (hint: you don’t have any), posturing as someone with “skin in the game” (hint: you don’t have any), claiming to rely on your insider knowledge (hint: you don’t have any, and it doesn’t matter anyway), and engaging in ad homonym attacks (hint: there is no basis for them, and, in any case, they are illogical and add nothing to the discussion).

Again, we have a simple disagreement of opinion about the preferred course of future action. Neither position, therefore, yours or mine, is a matter of fact. And I would also point out, once again, that my position, far from being some sort of “lazy American” take, is actually one hundred eighty degrees removed from the typical American view, and has been promulgated, for decades, by respected leftist thinkers and commentators and Third World leaders and activists. I have also attempted to buttress my opinion, with factual statements backed by credible sources and by expert opinion, and you have done whatever it is that you have done, both of us over the course of multiple posts. Can’t we just leave it at that?

Ad homonym till the end. Whatevs.

Update: I hit “refresh” on the first-comment-only page and the first 100 loaded.