Fifth Generation of Warfare (5GW) is "indistinguishable from magic"

[Woodsman]

Re: Remembering the Past

I suggested before that maybe Chile and Pinochet might be a break some eggs and make an omelet model to consider

Really? Do you suggest this happens under some color of law or do we create semi-private death squads to do the work?

And who should we kidnap, torture and kill first? Is there a kill list or some other means of identifying the usual suspects? And do folks get on the list via some means of due process, or is that not part of the recipe for this omelet? What happens when a fly gets jammed in the printer and poor old cobbler Archibald Buttle gets tortured to death while arch terrorist and freelance HVAC repairman Archibald Tuttle walks free. Break more eggs and rely on secrecy and plausible deniability?

I mean, if doubling down on Operation Condor and Phoenix Program is considered a serious policy option by folks in your line work, then anything goes. If it's just another arrow in the quiver, well then I think you've already answered the question you posed earlier:

How do you defend yourself from something you despise, without becoming that very thing you despise?

If torture, murder, kidnapping, assassination and the like are mere policy options, it seems to me that your suspicion is correct - one becomes a monster, the very thing we were defending against.

But then again, who are we kidding? This isn't conjecture or speculation, is it really? Otherwise how should we account for the liberty gentlemen like Mr. Mike Townley, Mr. Orlando Bosch, and Mr. Jose Posada Carriles enjoyed?

[aaron]

Re: Remembering the Past

George Bush: Not the ******* moron he appeared to be.

Hydrogen economy: Not a bad idea.
Middle East: Fuck, for thousands of years they have been killing each other. Why not try democracy?
Domestic: Drill baby drill. Now there are more jobs, the U.S. dollar is not confetti, and we might make it.
For thousands of years, revenge was expected when you attack a foreign leader. To not remove Satan (Saddam) would endanger every future America President. ME people understand history and strength. While i used to think that removing Saddam was just to get back for attacking daddy, I see now that we were not just dealing justice, we were also preventing it from happening again. The next time somebody thinks about attacking the United States (or its President), they will remember that the U.S will crush you.

[don]

Re: What magic, what technology?

Boyz will be boyz . . . .

Three years after US troops left Iraq, Washington is considering reintroducing ground troops to fight the Islamic State (IS). Not advisers, not beefed up embassy details; regular infantry and special forces battalions.

The Islamic State's bold victories contrast with the tired proclamations of aging al-Qaeda leaders and with the dismal defeats suffered by Arab armies over the years. IS may reap a huge crop of recruits and win the allegiance of kindred Islamist groups across the Muslim world. It may also win the allegiance of local populations who will reluctantly prefer harsh rule to no rule at all - or to the rule of vengeful Shi'ites.

Compelling as the arguments for the deployment of US troops may be, caution is in order. The quick defeat of the Iraqi army in 2003 was followed by immense and unmanageable problems. The same may happen with a new round of US intervention.

IS forces and the war against them

It might be said that US troops have been less than successful against insurgents in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Vietnam. That may give rise to the conclusion that an Iraq redux will fare no better.

However, IS forces are not insurgents. As a putative state, they fight in the open in large units, rely upon routine logistical systems, use armor and artillery, and maneuver as would conventional units. The most important characteristic of an insurgency is substantial support from local populations, and IS has little if any. Indeed, it is widely despised for imposing an austere form of Islam of dubious provenance on the hapless inhabitants of towns and villages it captures.

If put into Iraq again, US troops will face conventional forces against which they are well trained. Hence, a more useful comparison will be the US fight against Iraq's army in 1991 and 2003 - wars in which US maneuverability, firepower, and unit cohesion overwhelmed the enemy in a shockingly short period of time. Regardless of one's perspective on the desirability of American intervention, their effectiveness in conventional operations is unmistakable.

Ground operations

American forces may be used in several ways. Operations will of course include some indigenous troops whose contributions will be prominent in Iraqi and American public affairs presentations.

Conventional land operations: First, troops can be deployed on the long front with IS. The militants are badly outnumbered and overstretched; US and allied troops can mass overwhelming numbers at several points. These may be on main roads, around key towns, and near assets such as dams and power stations.

Such drives will force IS to withdraw rapidly or concentrate troops for a major battle. Whether in retreating convoys or defensive positions, IS troops will be vulnerable to airpower. These operations will seek to replicate the battles of Baiji and Kobane, where IS troop concentrations were hit hard by from the air.

Commando operations: Quick insertions by air-mobile or airborne units, perhaps no more than a few hundred, can attack IS command and control centers, logistical hubs, training bases, and economic assets well behind the lines and even in Syria. These strikes would be of short duration and designed to maximize IS casualties and the destruction of its assets. The threat of such operations will force IS to keep more troops off the lines with adversaries, making regular ground operations against IS more effective.

Large-scale insertions: There may be a bolder effort to force IS into large-scale battles by inserting thousands of troops into key towns along the Syrian-Iraqi border, again either by airmobile or airborne landings. This would confront IS with the dilemma of fighting large-scale battles - even larger than Kobane and Baiji - or seeing their forces divided in two.

There are risks for US troops as well. They would be isolated and would have to supplied by air. However, owing to the US's airpower and ground force, large-scale battles will not favor IS.

Any of these operations will be designed to inflict serious and perhaps unsustainable casualties and break the aura of invincibility and inevitable victory that IS enjoys with Islamic youth. Simultaneously, the attacks will bolster the confidence and aggressiveness of Iraqi and Kurdish forces. However, a complete victory over IS will prove elusive as it has options in both Syria and Iraq.

Risks and problems

It should be apparent to policymakers in Washington that their plans in the region have not always worked out. Some potential problems readily occur and might diminish any promise of a short-term operation that may be circulating in the corridors of national security bureaus.

Islamist recruitment : Reintroduction of ground troops will underscore prevalent narratives in the region proclaiming that the US is trying to humiliate and subjugate the Islamic world. This can boost recruitment for IS and kindred militant groups throughout the region. It is already widely believed that IS and al-Qaeda were created by the US and Israel to weaken existing states. Renewed ground operations will be interpreted as an obvious followup in the grand scheme.

Reluctant allies : Instead of strengthening the resolve of Iraqi and Kurdish troops, American ground troops may have the opposite effect. Indigenous forces, content to let American troops and airpower assume the burden of the fighting and casualties, will be tempted to be less aggressive. Their reluctance to fight will be supported by the calculation that Iraqi and Kurdish troops may well fight each other in the near future as issues of autonomy return to the fore.

Involvement in Iraqi politics : US troops will almost certainly find themselves enmeshed in sectarian hostilities once more. This was the case in 2003 when the fall of Saddam Hussein's Sunni regime brought a Shia majority to power, which then pushed their former oppressors into the margins. The Sunnis are now seeking autonomy from their sectarian foes and will press for US support.

The US will be inserting itself into the conflict between the Kurds and the Baghdad government. The Kurds already have their own army, flag, constitution, and oil pipelines, and they now seek greater autonomy, if not independence. There is the further problem of Sunni land and oil infrastructure seized last summer as the army retreated from the IS offensive.

Advancing Kurdish and Iraqi army units are destroying the dwellings of Sunnis and pushing residents into Anbar province. Amid increasingly intense ethnic and sectarian politics, the US mission could find that intervention will become an open-ended peacekeeping mission - or worse, US troops will face the wrath of one or more of the antagonistic groups.

IS responses

Faced with superior ground troops, and powerless against airstrikes, IS may abandon conventional warfare operations in Iraq. This will not come easily to an organization that sees itself ordained to conquer and rule the region.

IS may retreat into urban hideouts and wage a bombing campaign against US troops and the Shi'ites. This would be done with the help of extant Ba'ath party and army networks, which have helped IS and its al-Qaeda predecessors since the 2003 invasion. IS may also benefit from the support of Sunni tribes whose efforts to get support from Baghdad and the US have thus far brought little.

IS in Syria : Efforts to find reliable troops in Syria to carry on the war against IS have not met with success. Some Free Syrian Army leaders, fearing that they will be seen as US proxies, have even rebuffed Washington's appeals. American success in Iraq, then, may set the stage for a protracted war with IS in Syria. This in turn may tempt Washington to launch ground offensives into Syria.

Iran

An increased US presence in Iraq will set off alarms in Iran - despite the fact that the US and Iran are on the same side regarding IS in Iraq. Combined with Republican gains in the US Congress and the growing possibility of a Republican president, Iranians will look warily to their west and rethink the diplomatic opening with the US.

However, US-Iranian cooperation against IS in Iraq, limited and unheralded though it is, may prove useful to Iran. The same can be said of US-Iranian cooperation to the east in Afghanistan, where Tehran's support for northern peoples' fight with the Taliban predates the US entry in 2001. This makes Iran important in limiting Taliban efforts to regain much of the country as International Security Assistance Force troop levels dwindle. A neoconservative-influenced White House in 2017 may find itself handcuffed in its dealings with Iran by ongoing events in Iraq.

Brian M Downing is a political-military analyst, author of The Military Revolution and Political Change and The Paths of Glory: Social Change in America from the Great War to Vietnam. He is and co-author with Danny Rittman of The Samson Heuristic. He can be reached at brianmdowning@gmail.com.

[don]

Re: What magic, what technology?

Questions seldom (never?) asked :

For decades following WW2 the US used a bribed elite to run things locally in countries with usually extraction economies.

Today that no longer seems the case.

Has it become too expensive?

Or has the re-shuffle at home being played out abroad?

The British model of open-ended colonial rule was trumped by the US new model of faux independence. Are chronic re-invasions becoming the new normal mode of rule?

[don]

Re: What magic, what technology?

“When we target a nation-state, we’ve typically been looking at their capability for decades, and have extensive target sets.”

“But these guys are moving around. They can be in one place, and then a week later, they’re gone.”

Maj. Sonny Alberdeston

[Woodsman]

Re: Remembering the Past

George Bush: Not the ******* moron he appeared to be.

Hydrogen economy: Not a bad idea.
Middle East: Fuck, for thousands of years they have been killing each other. Why not try democracy?
Domestic: Drill baby drill. Now there are more jobs, the U.S. dollar is not confetti, and we might make it.
For thousands of years, revenge was expected when you attack a foreign leader. To not remove Satan (Saddam) would endanger every future America President. ME people understand history and strength. While i used to think that removing Saddam was just to get back for attacking daddy, I see now that we were not just dealing justice, we were also preventing it from happening again. The next time somebody thinks about attacking the United States (or its President), they will remember that the U.S will crush you.

Aaron, now that the vodka has worn off; tell us, was this post intended as satire? It had me chuckling.

[don]

Re: Remembering the Past

Aaron, now that the vodka has worn off; tell us, was this post intended as satire? It had me chuckling.

+1

[lektrode]

Re: Remembering the Past

Originally Posted by Woodsman Aaron, now that the vodka has worn off; tell us, was this post intended as satire? It had me chuckling.

+1

+2
but not for same same reasons...
compared to the current bunch? - who abandon iraq for a 're-doubling' of the futililty known as the afghan farce?
where The US has precisely WHAT for 'vital interests' at stake? (should've been outa there after kickin butt the first time)
then proceed to invade/inflame most of the ME, while iraq's oil (the ONLY true vital interest we have in that wasteland that 'progress' passed by a 1000 years ago) goes WHERE?

only to have to GO BACK IN - so now we have HOW MANY 'mideast fronts' GOING?

nope - the waffler n chief and his merry bunch of academic dweebs are going to make geedubya&co look like HEROES yet

and this is CAFFEINE talkin, baybee!!

;)

[don]

Re: Remembering the Past

+2
but not for same same reasons...
compared to the current bunch? - who abandon iraq for a 're-doubling' of the futililty known as the afghan farce?
where The US has precisely WHAT for 'vital interests' at stake? (should've been outa there after kickin butt the first time)
then proceed to invade/inflame most of the ME, while iraq's oil (the ONLY true vital interest we have in that wasteland that 'progress' passed by a 1000 years ago) goes WHERE?

only to have to GO BACK IN - so now we have HOW MANY 'mideast fronts' GOING?

nope - the waffler n chief and his merry bunch of academic dweebs are going to make geedubya&co look like HEROES yet

and this is CAFFEINE talkin, baybee!!

;)

Questions seldom (never?) asked :

For decades following WW2 the US used local, bribed elites to run things in countries with usually extraction economies. When they attempted to cut the strings, then off came the velvet glove.

Today that no longer seems the case.

Has it become too expensive?

Or has the re-shuffle at home - outsourcing production, financialization - altered as well the playing fields abroad?

The British model of open-ended, forever colonial rule was trumped by the US New Model of faux independence. Are chronic re-invasions becoming the New Normal mode of control?

[lektrode]

Re: Remembering the Past

Questions seldom (never?) asked :

For decades following WW2 the US used local, bribed elites to run things in countries with usually extraction economies. When they attempted to cut the strings, then off came the velvet glove.

Today that no longer seems the case.

Has it become too expensive?

Or has the re-shuffle at home - outsourcing production, financialization - altered as well the playing fields abroad?

The British model of open-ended, forever colonial rule was trumped by the US New Model of faux independence. Are chronic re-invasions becoming the New Normal mode of control?

never mind answered...

of course its become too expensive - kinda the way 'marching powder' does - with the same disastrous results.

ya needs more and more of it to 'achieve' the same results.

then there's the fact that 'colonialism' is no longer politically acceptable here in the ever-moreso-by-the-day Politically Korrect US (never mind unacceptable to those so colonized, as they now get to read all about how The US 'gets/got things done' via wikileaks, the nytimes, the rest of the lamerstream media hellbent on exposing EVERY/ANY inconvenient truth, unless it advances 'the(ir) agenda' by ignoring it....)

never mind that the entire concept of war has gone from 'winning, by any means necessary' - to practically impossible to even conduct 'the ole fashioned way' - whereby now zero-zilch-nada in the way of 'collateral damage' can even be tolerated - which results in the cost of even the 'video game' version skyrocketing - and gawd help us if even ONE 'innocent bystander' gets hit.

why i say that The US mights well just close all the bases that arent strategically necessary to maintaining access and shipping to REAL VITAL interests (hint: libya, afghanistan and syria esp are NOT) - tell the rest of the 'free world' that if they want a US .mil base that THEY have to pay for it and BRING THE REST OF THE TROOPS HOME - and give em REAL JOBS the way FDR did with the CCC and WPA - REBUILDING THE INFRASTRUCTURE THAT BUILT THE US IN THE FIRST PLACE

along with creation of a US Medical Corps that would be the 'provider of last resort' - that would encourage the voluntary enlistment of those who wish to work in the medical field that would be trained and then OWE THE REST OF US an equal amount of time in SERVICE to The Rest of US - instead of trillions in student loans and even more TRILLIONS in UNAFFORDABLE 'affordable care act' med insurance EXTORTION payments to the FIreM brigade!

in short - re-purpose the .mil-industrial complex to REBUILDING AMERICA vs being the worlds beat cop

i'd go on here, but have made this point repeatedly (to the sound of crickets...)

[photon555]

Re: Remembering the Past

never mind answered...

of course its become too expensive - kinda the way 'marching powder' does - with the same disastrous results.

ya needs more and more of it to 'achieve' the same results.

then there's the fact that 'colonialism' is no longer politically acceptable here in the ever-moreso-by-the-day Politically Korrect US (never mind unacceptable to those so colonized, as they now get to read all about how The US 'gets/got things done' via wikileaks, the nytimes, the rest of the lamerstream media hellbent on exposing EVERY/ANY inconvenient truth, unless it advances 'the(ir) agenda' by ignoring it....)

never mind that the entire concept of war has gone from 'winning, by any means necessary' - to practically impossible to even conduct 'the ole fashioned way' - whereby now zero-zilch-nada in the way of 'collateral damage' can even be tolerated - which results in the cost of even the 'video game' version skyrocketing - and gawd help us if even ONE 'innocent bystander' gets hit.

why i say that The US mights well just close all the bases that arent strategically necessary to maintaining access and shipping to REAL VITAL interests (hint: libya, afghanistan and syria esp are NOT) - tell the rest of the 'free world' that if they want a US .mil base that THEY have to pay for it and BRING THE REST OF THE TROOPS HOME - and give em REAL JOBS the way FDR did with the CCC and WPA - REBUILDING THE INFRASTRUCTURE THAT BUILT THE US IN THE FIRST PLACE

along with creation of a US Medical Corps that would be the 'provider of last resort' - that would encourage the voluntary enlistment of those who wish to work in the medical field that would be trained and then OWE THE REST OF US an equal amount of time in SERVICE to The Rest of US - instead of trillions in student loans and even more TRILLIONS in UNAFFORDABLE 'affordable care act' med insurance EXTORTION payments to the FIreM brigade!

in short - re-purpose the .mil-industrial complex to REBUILDING AMERICA vs being the worlds beat cop

i'd go on here, but have made this point repeatedly (to the sound of crickets...)

+100

There... I just stepped on that cricket. But really, your ideas would stop the continued transfer of wealth and power to the elites, so it ain't gonna happen. We the People have been, and continue to be Fracked, so that our "betters" can be enriched at our expense. The fiat will continue until morale improves.

[photon555]

Re: Fifth Generation of Warfare (5GW) is "indistinguishable from magic"

We have to understand that the US is an addict when it comes to these endless wars, interventions, and operations. It would be nice if the US could be persuaded to become a recovering addict. And leaving the ME alone would be a good start. Maybe just start by leaving IS alone. Well, maybe start tapering off by giving the Kurds a few billion USD worth of things that go bang. But then just let the people there deal with their disagreements. The world isn't going to end because one sect gains territory and another loses some. They've been fighting for a long time now, and there's nothing we can do to stop them from fighting. Really, they like it! Let them keep fighting until they get tired of it.

As far as advanced tech being like magic, its only magic to people who don't understand the advanced tech. To everyone else its just moar war war war. So let's dial it back because if we don't there's going to be a very painful intervention, and everyone is going to have to go cold turkey, and I've had enough of that the last few days.

[lakedaemonian]

Re: Remembering the Past

Really? Do you suggest this happens under some color of law or do we create semi-private death squads to do the work?

What I'm suggesting is that humans do things that humans do. Many of the things humans do to each other can be quite horrible.

And who should we kidnap, torture and kill first?

Maybe first it would make sense to have a look throughout history, even just the 20th century, and come up with two lists.

The left hand list can include all of the countries where political violence and constriction of civil liberties and human/property rights were used by government to achieve its aims.

The right hand list can include all the countries not on the left hand list.

So which countries that are outside of the 1st world would be on this list?

Is there a kill list or some other means of identifying the usual suspects?

And do folks get on the list via some means of due process, or is that not part of the recipe for this omelet?

Please see the list above, specifically the very short right side list, and have a think about it before continuing on your condescending and patronising tirade.

What happens when a fly gets jammed in the printer and poor old cobbler Archibald Buttle gets tortured to death while arch terrorist and freelance HVAC repairman Archibald Tuttle walks free. Break more eggs and rely on secrecy and plausible deniability?

I'm a fan of Brazil. I just prefer more realistic and gritty portrayals like Jack Lemon in Missing.

Or the far more real, recent, and incredibly frightening "The Act of Killing".

Maybe watch that film and you might find the condescension and desire to patronise slip away a bit. Especially when you catch a glimpse of real and natural human behaviour where one human looks at another human like no more than a cockroach with no threat of mental PTSD consequence in murdering your neighbour.

Please get back to me with your solution on how to remedy this very real and incredibly frightening human characteristic that so many in the 1st world seem to think was extinguished with the rotary dial telephone.

I mean, if doubling down on Operation Condor and Phoenix Program is considered a serious policy option by folks in your line work, then anything goes. If it's just another arrow in the quiver, well then I think you've already answered the question you posed earlier:



If torture, murder, kidnapping, assassination and the like are mere policy options, it seems to me that your suspicion is correct - one becomes a monster, the very thing we were defending against.

But then again, who are we kidding? This isn't conjecture or speculation, is it really? Otherwise how should we account for the liberty gentlemen like Mr. Mike Townley, Mr. Orlando Bosch, and Mr. Jose Posada Carriles enjoyed?

I think it comes down to genuine realpolitik.

Not in the Kissinger(ian) sense.

But in the sense from having seen one human from one tribe treat another from another tribe with less sympathy than shown to a cockroach.

It's a shame you only included one side of the equation, rather than the other(s).

Hard to blame the horrific suffering in Zimbabwe on the US or the horrific mistakes and waste caused by competing networks then and now.

Maybe it might be worth having a read about US efforts in El Salvador in the 80's/90's.

55+ people on the ground in El Salvador spent 15+ years trying to shape the countries choices for the better with a fair bit of success despite the inability to control the horror show.

I think your worldview is either too black/white or naive.

I've visited 3 genocide sites in 3 disparate locations. The horror of what happened is still palpable.

I don't condone any of it.

But like the movie "Act of Killing" portrays(at least from my perception of it) how all I think we can do is break the fewest eggs possible.

Believing recipes that don't require eggs can be concocted or leaving the "kitchen" in protest rather than trying to develop healthier recipes with the fewest eggs used is nothing short of naive.

We can only influence, we can't control.

[astonas]

Re: the war on terror

What I haven't figured out is how to discuss this without demeaning the soldiers. If you say the truth, you are taking away the rationale for the suffering and injury they have experienced. But if you don't say the truth, there will be more suffering and injury.

Who demeans soldiers?

The cowards who, from a position of personal safety at home, demand that soldiers should be sent into pointless and unwinnable combats abroad?

Or those who point out the futile nature of such conflicts, and in so doing, seek to end the waste of soldier's lives?

I argue it is the former:


I should emphasize first that I am not a pacifist. There are some wars that are indeed necessary, and to avoid fighting at those crucial moments is neither a moral nor an ethical act. To stand aside, for example, while genocide rolls forward is to be a party to it. But before a war may be considered just, one must first be clear and honest about its motivation.


I have come to find this yardstick to be a telling one: "A war is intrinsically a crime, that can be justified only when it averts an even greater crime." In other words, a war can only be justified if the brutality it prevents (genocide, exploitation, etc.) can credibly be held up as greater than the brutality of the war itself. And there is no use pretending that a war of drones is less brutal because most of the casualties are on the other side, or entirely uncounted.

(Asymmetry of combat may make wars more politically palatable, but extrapolating that to also mean "more justified" is a terrible and ethically untenable position.)


I use the word crime deliberately above. I also want to be clear that this is NOT to denigrate soldiers to the level of criminals, but to force harsher questioning of their leaders, who I believe can and often do operate at precisely that level, thereby proving themselves unworthy of the soldiery under their command. I have come to believe that rather than being the exception, this state of affairs now constitutes the rule.


For a military to function, it is necessary that orders must be followed swiftly, and unquestioningly. The soldier is not, and arguably can never be, in a position to protest that his life is being spent to no desirable end. A necessary consequence of this is that responsibility for trading the lives of our troops for the aversion of a greater brutality must lie at the top. It is there that the decision is made, and it is there and there alone that derision should be focused. It is the heavy responsibility of the commander-in-chief to be certain that the military is deployed only when it is absolutely necessary.


Unfortunately, the initiation of the most recent spate of U.S. wars does not appear to have met this condition.


I have great respect for the soldiers who we send to fight. The sacrifice they are making is tremendous, and their willingness to make it is extraordinarily noble.

But I have very little respect for the (usually civilian) leaders who start wars to score domestic political points, abate irrational fears of terrorism in the populace, or advance the personally hallucinated agenda of their favorite deity. And even less respect when, after starting such a crusade, they invite the enemy to "bring it on" and to attack the troops they themselves have placed in harm's way. Sadly, such certainty-deluded people exist in all nations and creeds. Very often, it is exactly these people who seem to have the arrogance to believe that they deserve to lead a nation, and thereby a military.


This, then, appears to me to be the more fundamental problem. The only people who have the humility required to lead a nation's military as commander-in-chief, could never have the arrogance to seek to lead. Those who are legitimately able to balance such terrible calculus are also wise enough to avoid the task. It should come as no surprise that most who claim the responsibility are unworthy of it.


Perhaps that is the truest weakness of any government. Only those with the (intrinsically irrational) confidence that they have all the answers they'll ever need can wind up seizing the helm.


Call me crazy, but I'd rather have a leader who still has a capacity for a little self-doubt. I'm not an expert on presidential history, but the last one I can think of who was known for his doubts was Lincoln. I'm not asking for a Diocletian melon-farmer's reluctance to serve. But a little self-reflection wouldn't exactly hurt at this point either.


But just imagine trying to elect such a person today! I'm having a hard time even picturing it. We live in an era in which "often wrong, never in doubt" is actually taught, even venerated, as a way of conducting business! And for that reason, it is not only the failure of the elected, but also more importantly of the electorate, that brings us to this damnable state of affairs.

Perhaps the worst part of all this seems to be the sad fact that as much as we like to complain about our leaders, we probably are getting exactly the leadership that we the people (in aggregate) deserve. This isn't just about the failure of the American system, it is also about the failures of the American people that permitted it.

Ignorance. Irrationality. Identity politics. These are things that politicians could not play on without the tacit consent of the majority. Some part of it is indeed that the electorate is cynically manipulated by adds.


The rest, though, is that the people allow themselves to be manipulated. For some, I daresay that they even want themselves to be. It provides such a warming sense of belonging to unthinkingly rant, and point fingers.


We should strive not only to elect better, but to deserve better leaders. Without the latter, there is little-to-no hope for the former.

[astonas]

Re: Remembering the Past

I think it comes down to genuine realpolitik.

Not in the Kissinger(ian) sense.

It's a shame you only included one side of the equation, rather than the other(s).

Hard to blame the horrific suffering in Zimbabwe on the US or the horrific mistakes and waste caused by competing networks then and now.

Maybe it might be worth having a read about US efforts in El Salvador in the 80's/90's.

55+ people on the ground in El Salvador spent 15+ years trying to shape the countries choices for the better with a fair bit of success despite the inability to control the horror show.

I think your worldview is either too black/white or naive.

I've visited 3 genocide sites in 3 disparate locations. The horror of what happened is still palpable.

I don't condone any of it.

But like the movie "Act of Killing" portrays(at least from my perception of it) how all I think we can do is break the fewest eggs possible.

Believing recipes that don't require eggs can be concocted or leaving the "kitchen" in protest rather than trying to develop healthier recipes with the fewest eggs used is nothing short of naive.

We can only influence, we can't control.

Thanks for sharing your experience with us here, lakedaemonian. I always learn when I read your posts.

I was working on a reply to Polish's response, when I saw this one, and thought that my response might fit even better here. Rather than re-writing it, though, I'll just post this link.