Army misdiagnosed and kicked out thousands of mentally ill vets

http://hereandnow.wbur.org/2015/12/09/discharged-soldiers-mental-health

Previous investigations revealed how the VA was underprepared to meet the medical needs of the War on Terror vets, and the backlog for mental health care was horrendous.

Not sure if it's related, but a new study found that the Army systematically under-diagnosed soldiers with "adjustment disorder" rather than PTSD/depression (a vague classification from the Vietnam era that suggests a soldier is *temporarily* experiencing poor emotional/behavioral symptoms after a deployment). The former implied that the soldier was unable to perform his/her duties stateside and should be dishonorably discharged (i.e. it's the soldier's fault). However, if they were diagnosed with PTSD/depression, that is considered a debilitation due to their military service (i.e. it's the war's fault), which is an honorable discharge that guarantees lifetime free medical care for themselves, spouse, and kids (equivalent to losing a leg or an eye).

That Vietnam vets site above suggested that the military "saved" $12B on medical/disability payments for Vietnam vets who were misdiagnosed.

In many cases, suffering vets got both civilian and Army psych evals. The civilian diagnosis was depression, but the Army diagnosis disagreed (even after reviewing the civilian diagnosis). It's possible that the civilian doctors were sometime wrong, but not to the tune of two thousand independent cases.

Since 2009, the Army has also kicked out 22,000 vets for various misconduct. But when a soldier has PTSD/depression, that increases the likelihood that they will fall into a misconduct situation (dereliction of duties, fighting, substance abuse, etc.). So we're not sure how many of the 22K were misdiagnosed, but I would bet it's at least a third. There is now a Congressional inquiry about this issue due to NPR's reporting.

You can't get a mortgage unless you can prove that you can afford it. We shouldn't go to war unless we can prove that we need to, we are likely to win, and our gov't can and will handle the costs.

Western reactions to the ISIS Paris attacks

And so we have to, each of us, do our part [for the refugee crisis]. And the United States has to step up and do its part. And when I hear folks say that, well, maybe we should just admit the Christians but not the Muslims; when I hear political leaders suggesting that there would be a religious test for which a person who’s fleeing from a war-torn country is admitted, when some of those folks themselves come from families who benefitted from protection when they were fleeing political persecution -- that’s shameful. That’s not American. That’s not who we are. We don’t have religious tests to our compassion. 


-President Obama


https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2015/11/16/press-conference-president-obama-antalya-turkey


http://www.thetakeaway.org/story/congress-fights-over-refugees-isis-strategy/


The predictable right wing knee-jerk reaction to the Paris attacks is still upsetting. Increase gov't surveillance powers, shut down mosques, close Schengen borders, block Muslims and/or Syrians from getting refugee status. And then there's all the discussion about how to crush ISIS.


Let's remember that MOST of the attackers from 11/13 were already on European security watch lists, because they went to the Middle East (allegedly to fight for ISIS) and then returned to Europe. That should have been a red flag, like "Bin Laden determined to strike the US." But like with 9/11, info was not shared effectively across nations and agencies. So while we do have to blame the attackers, we also shouldn't forget that the security infrastructure that was supposed to protect the French seemed to fail. They don't need extra powers and fewer Muslims, they just need to better monitor the high-risk persons that have already been flagged by normal methods.


Even "liberal" Senator Feinstein and others have called for tech companies to give the gov't backdoor keys into their encrypted systems. I thought Snowden convinced us that such access will not make us safer - many false positives and civil rights violation risks, and no evidence that attacks were prevented. Also, if the gov't warehouses backdoors into all major web services, then that is a huge gold mine for hackers to focus on (and the gov't doesn't have a great track record of preventing thefts). If we need a police-security state in order to be/feel "safe", then maybe we have to question whether this is the right society to live in.


But the worst reaction relates to the demonizing of refugees, IMO. Just because one major attack occurred directly from the Syrian and Iraq conflicts (which have gone on for over 10 years combined), now all of a sudden the refugees are the problem? The US has settled about 2K Syrian refugees in total. Even if they were all bad apples and killed 10 Americans each, that would still be less that the yearly pre-existing gun violence in America (or auto deaths). Where is the furor and urgency over the gun and car makers (and their lax regulators) - the real mass murderers?


So after one Paris attack (assuming other major attacks are not imminent or fairly mature in their planning), now the refugees are public enemy #1? But that is the bogeyman politics of xenophobia and intolerance. And let's remember that while the casualties in Paris were horrific, that number of people die at the hands of ISIS about every day in Iraq-Syria. Yet our outrage and hysteria are more muted (or nonexistent) when it's Mideast towns getting bombed and Muslims getting senselessly murdered.


Lastly, ISIS attacked Russian and French targets partly because those nations attacked them first. I'm fairly sure that Russian and NATO air strikes killed some ISIS "innocents" who were not combatants too (maybe the families of ISIS fighters, locals who unfortunately live in ISIS territory, or whatnot). ISIS is not attacking Burma or Chile. While we can't let them intimidate us into isolationism and denial of their threat, we have to acknowledge that if we choose to wage war on them, they will not appreciate that and try to hurt us back. If our societies don't want to pay that price, then we shouldn't get involved. Or do we expect that just because we're the "good guys" that we should be able to easily wipe our our enemies abroad and not incur any pains in the process?


Maybe since the Iranian Revolution, this "clash of civilizations" between "Jihadists and Crusaders" feels more and more like an irrational blood feud than a traditional strategic geopolitical conflict. As as we know from history, blood feuds are messier, protracted, and with more senseless losses on both sides.

"Why would ISIS attack Paris?"

http://www.vox.com/world/2015/11/14/9735512/paris-attacks-isis-why

Obviously the events in Paris are sickening, and our thoughts are with those affected.

If you happened to read this thread from Feb (wow, time flies and I think most Western leaders believed ISIS would be finished by now), G Woods felt that ISIS was not that concerned with attacking the West vs. solidifying their caliphate in the Mideast and carrying out their apocalyptic vision. However, recent events may have motivated ISIS to change their tune, or Woods was wrong from the start.

One factor could be ISIS' "competition" with Al-Qaeda for recruiting and waging violence against "the enemies of Islam". While many have come to Iraq/Syria for the allure of joining ISIS ranks and fighting enemies on Muslim lands, maybe it is a sexier recruiting tool if ISIS brazenly attacks the homelands of its enemies or other soft targets - to a lot of media coverage (they are recently implicated in the Russia plane bombing and suicide attacks in Lebanon). While their focus is still fighting enemies in Iraq and Syria, it seems plausible that they would allocate some attn/resources towards overseas plots.

Which leads to the second point - maybe ISIS has found that "victory" in Iraq-Syria is not within its grasp, and it's getting harder and harder to hold onto land and withstand constant coalition air attacks (especially with Russia now directly supporting Assad, although it has not targeted ISIS much if at all until the Egypt bombing). But now that ISIS has supposedly maddened the bear, they might be in for a tough slog with NATO and Russian air forces gunning for them. They are believed to desire a face-to-face showdown with Crusaders on their home turf (like the Mujahadeen/Taliban in Afghanistan), but it's possible that they bit off more than they can chew. Though as we already know from several past wars, bombing alone won't defeat a foreign army (but it might bring them to the bargaining table, as in the case of Serbia), and I doubt that we will see boots on the ground even after the Paris attack. Even if we do successfully invade a-la-9/11, it may not "defeat" ISIS. Their key members will melt into the populace, just like the Ba'athists and AQI leaders did last decade. We will eventually leave, the gov't we put in place will be a mess, and an ISIS-type movement will rise up again in the chaos. "Defeating ISIS" is just a GOP campaign slogan at this point, though of course I hope I am wrong.

The most tragic part of this is that one of the Paris attackers seems to have had a Syrian passport that was stamped in Greece as part of refugee asylum. Yes, there were concerns earlier that terrorists were infiltrating the West as refugees. But one known example out of millions of deserving refugees does not make the security junkies right. The majority of the 9/11 attackers were Saudis, but we didn't do anything to that country. We made immigration/visas tougher, and maybe that is a valid thing to do with Syrians now, but we didn't close our doors to them 100%. I hope we remember it is possible to be humane and give help to refugees, while also maintaining tight security re: who we grant asylum and how they are monitored once accepted.

Sure, conservative leaders on both sides of the pond are predictably "blaming" the EU's open door policy (it is hardly that), or the refugees themselves, for the Paris attacks, but they're missing the bigger point. ISIS wants Europe to close its doors, so that the masses have nowhere to flee to. It makes ISIS stronger and scarier - is that what we want to enable? I'm not saying we should accept our current policies and feel that everything is fine (e.g. better internal monitoring of at least fighting age male refugees is needed), but we shouldn't play into ISIS' hand either. Remember that 99.99% of the refugees hate ISIS and are fleeing from them. Do we want to cut them off, and force them into potentially serving or supporting ISIS against their will at home? Do we want to risk their families getting radicalized and recruited because they were unable to flee?

"Bubble boy" Bush visits NOLA for the 10th anniv. of Katrina

http://news.yahoo.com/bush-returns-orleans-10th-anniversary-katrina-110219105.html#

I refer to him as "bubble boy" because in the conservative dream world he continues to seek refuge in, he did a heck of a job during Katrina. How tone deaf and offensive; I wish the locals booed and egged him all the way to Louis Armstrong Airport. Of course he didn't visit the Superdome, Lower 9th, or his other "greatest hits". He didn't take press questions either. Maybe he still doesn't have a good answer for, "Did you make any mistakes during your presidency?"

What's next, he visits Baghdad as the conquering hero? I'm sure ISIS commanders would be happy to host him. Total a-hole. For the 5th anniv. of the Deepwater Horizons disaster this year, even BP leaders weren't dumb enough to visit the shrimping villages, not expecting the victims to shower them with appreciation for all their "restoration" work. 

Memorial Day reminder

As our leaders, media, and propagandists try to guilt trip us into remembering and appreciating veterans this season (they bled so we can BBQ - which is just a silly claim all around), let's also remember how stupid some of our leaders were in getting us into and mismanaging certain wars. Many paid the ultimate price for the mistakes of a few. Each year when the president lays a wreath at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier, they should also burn a past leader in effigy (plenty to choose from: Nixon, Bush, Cheney, Westmoreland, Custer, MacArthur, etc.).

In the vain pursuit of glory, power, legacy, etc., they eagerly put pen to paper (with little care about consequences and how to care for the wounded after the war), and changed the fates of millions of families - usually for the worse. At least in the olden days, the "best and brightest" would offer their sons to the military as noblesse oblige and expectations of their class. But with the advent of industrialized warfare where anyone could be killed suddenly (and en masse) by flying hot metal, all that changed. And with global capitalism, the powerful could grow their empires commercially, making physical conquest (and all its risks) obsolete. The 1% sent their kids to the Ivy League as the future champions of industry/politics, and the poor did the fighting and dying instead.

http://www.kqed.org/a/forum/R201505051000

"My younger brother, a Vietnam vet, recently died. He was haunted to the end by memories of what he witnessed in the war and of "well-meaning" friends and relatives who called him a baby killer when he returned.
Now, my grandson is fighting to recover from PTSD, hearing loss, and memories of what he witnessed during 3 tours in Iraq.
Will it never end?"

"What ISIS really wants"

http://www.kqed.org/a/forum/R201502251000

This Yale prof and Atlantic editor, Grame Woods, studied comms from ISIS and interviewed experts to try to understand the group better in order to recommend the best strategy to defeat them.

As before with the communists and the Axis of Evil, the US gov't and mainstream media (mostly FNC) have totally mischaracterized what ISIS is (and the actual threat they pose), which has led to some calls for stupid escalations. Fortunately we haven't gone off the deep end like with the 2003 Iraq invasion, but who knows what the future will hold?

I am not knowledgeable enough to really vet the author's conclusions, but from his interview he came off as extremely cogent and fair-minded on the issue. Basically, for Obama and some Muslim groups to dismiss ISIS as "un-Islamic" is a disservice to the cause of defeating them. In fact they are fanatically Islamic, and their playbook almost perfectly follows some Koranic verses about the end of times (or course they practice extremely militant/strict interpretations of Islam that most Muslims have eschewed). It's like if a fundamentalist Christian cult took over some land in Israel to try to bring about the events in Revelations. By trying to be PC and un-bigoted, these voices are ignoring a strategic opportunity that we can use against ISIS: if we know what they want and how they propose to get it according to their dogma, we can better deprive them of it.

It's also wrong to dismiss ISIS as just a bunch of murder and torture junkies who believe in nothing more than that. Yes they engage in those crimes, but that is not what motivates them (they are means to an end). Those atrocities are part of their larger vision for how to deal with the enemies of Islam (including "bad Muslims") and bring about the Apocalypse and afterlife rewards. Purge the Middle East, topple Rome, and bring about the end of days when the Crusaders fight back (and I guess Allah intervenes, vanquishes them, and rewards his loyal jihadists).

ISIS is not really a state (they don't care about land and political power), but more like a prolonged jihad (similar to the early days of Islam, historically). In fact they govern horribly (like most regimes in that region), and have promised recruits/residents a righteous welfare state that they can't possibly hope to deliver. The Taliban govern much better than them. They succeed through propaganda and battlefield exploits. As long as they are advancing, scaring the heretics, and struggling heroically, they look good. In fact the author compares them most similarly to the Nazis of the 1930s (the righteous chosen people are suffering due to the treachery of evil inferior oppressors, so they must rise up and settle the score). Western societies dangle the promise of freedom and a good life (but in order for some to have that life, many other poorer people in the world must suffer). Reactionary groups like the Nazis and ISIS sell the righteous struggle instead. They romanticize the hard life because it is worth it to fight the Crusaders/Zionists/apostates, and your reward for your sacrifice will be eternal glory. For marginalized, frustrated, and impoverished people in the Middle East (and some in the West), they are more likely to embrace that goal versus the democratic capitalist ideal that seems more foreign and unattainable to them than Star Trek.

So how do you beat them? Let their hollow and fragile marketing pitch blow up in their faces, and eventually their subjects and recruits will see through them and shun them. Take away their true strength, which is their propaganda built on their blitzkrieg victories and "mein kampf" narrative of righteous struggle against evil. "Contain, degrade, and wait it out" may be the best we can do. Halt their expansion, cut off their funding, and diminish their war capacity, similar to Obama's initial military response. It's even better if we help local moderate Muslim forces defeat them (well, if you can call the Syrian, Jordanian, and Iraqi regimes moderate). The worst thing we can do is fight conventionally, as that plays into their narrative of resistance against Crusader oppression. They can't wait to die fighting against Americans and Jews, as that could be used as glorious recruiting material.

America is not that good at waiting patiently, and unfortunately many innocents could die within ISIS lands while we wait for them to fail. But it is the least bad option of the ones we have in front of us. Or does anyone have a better idea? Clearly we could bomb their forces to the Stone Age if we wanted, but then what? We'd leave a vacuum in 2 nations facing civil war and lack of governance. The traces of ISIS would just return later, even more motivated because of our violent campaign against their predecessors. Remember that ISIS more or less emerged out of the ashes of the Ba'athists and Al-Qaeda in Iraq. They waited years for their chance, and they took it. We can't afford to give them another.

The foolish drumbeat for war against ISIS

ISIS is a problem for the US and many of our partners, that is obvious. But it is not an acute problem, nor the only problem facing our civilization (you wouldn't know it after listening to many in DC though). And let's be clear; Obama and company didn't decide to intervene militarily to save some poor religious minority stuck on a mountain (that very few of us even knew existed before the summer). ISIS was getting the upper hand against the best Kurdish troops, and the Kurds are the only reasonably trustworthy/capable/secular petro-ally we have left in Mesopotamia. So something had to be done.   

Just because we've pretty much marginalized groups like Al Qaeda (and its affiliates such as AQAP) through cyber warfare and drones, and we're washing our hands of the Taliban (pretty much raised the white flag there), we need a new Islamist bogeyman to fixate on. ISIS has shown some impressive strategy and execution (and atrocious behavior/beliefs) in seizing/holding Arab lands, but of course they exploited a lot of favorable conditions in the region to do so. It is a whole different matter to mount a major attack on a Western power. But that is exactly what everyone is predicting they are up to (and capable of). Heck, they could be already here!

This is what the former director of the Nat'l Counterterrorism Center (Matt Olson) said about ISIS' capability to attack the US: “There is no credible information that [Isis] is planning to attack the United States”. He added there was “no indication at this point of a cell of foreign fighters operating in the United States – full stop”. [Olson] said said it was “spot on” to conclude that Isis is significantly more limited than al-Qaida was, for example, in the run-up to 9/11, when it had underground cells across Europe and the US. “We certainly aren’t there,” Olsen said. “[Isis] is not al-Qaida pre-9/11”.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/03/isis-militants-al-qaida-911-intelligence-officials

Yet this is what Lindsey Graham, who is a senior member of the Senate Armed Svcs. Cmte., said about ISIS: "They are coming here. It is about our homeland."

http://theweek.com/speedreads/index/266144/speedreads-watch-sen-lindsey-graham-blast-obamas-response-to-isis

I can't begin to comment how grossly irresponsible and misleading this is from someone who has access to actual intel and expert opinion (and helps craft defense policy as well). And Boehner wants to try to impeach Obama for misconduct? Shitheads like Graham are just repeating the same garbage that led the public to believe Saddam had WMDs. Because when your family and your home are in perceived jeopardy, your better judgment weakens and you may become more susceptible to suggestion.

So why did Obama and company go from a "wait and see" approach with Syria to forming a "coalition" to "destroy" ISIS (without risking any US troops of course)? Cynics would say because public opinion rapidly shifted from 70% against intervention to 60% pro, but they have a point. Why did opinion shift so much? Because of 2 videos of journalists being executed. That shows you how stupid this country is (incl. Obama on down). While those deaths were barbaric and tragic, I'm sorry to say that worse shit is occurring every damn day in many places across the globe (ISIS is doing much worse stuff to non-Americans too - where are those videos?). But those are places that we don't care about (Central Africa, Latin America) or don't have the stomach/chutzpah to really intervene (China, Palestine). More Americans died in Benghazi, and while the GOP had a shitfit about it, no one was calling for war against the parties responsible. Islamic Jihad bombed and killed over 200 servicemen in 1983, and Reagan not only failed to respond, but pulled us out of Lebanon! Very rarely (if ever) do sound decisions result from vengeful, fearful sentiment.

Air power alone will not stop an insurgency - we've seen that in Vietnam, Afghanistan, and other places. Maybe it will slow ISIS down and take out some leaders (but of course it may also motivate them to try harder to attack our homeland - ironically the very threat that we're working to avoid). So what do we do about the inevitable escalation decision? Remember that Islamists have "home field advantage" and want to provoke the infidel powers into a protracted quagmire. Maybe that's why they released the videos? Will we take the bait again?

Plus, let's remember that hurting ISIS may help Assad and Iran - two regimes that we should probably be focusing on more. Lastly, if ISIS is such a concern, why aren't our Middle East "friends" helping us in this fight (or fighting them already without our participation)? Kerry is literally going door-to-door. Israel spent billions to level Gaza (again), but are they lifting a finger to assist with ISIS (which is on their doorstep)? The Saudis are offering to "train Syrian rebels" on their soil (mostly because they already hate Assad/Iran, and have been a source of anti-Assad Jihadists for years). Turkey may block the flow of money and fighters into Syria. Jordan may provide "intel". That's about it.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/05/us-core-coalition-fight-isis-militants-iraq-nato
http://www.cnn.com/2014/09/14/world/meast/isis-coalition-nations/

It's also an interesting coincidence (or more than that) that the neocon-leaning pundits and politicians, who are vociferously calling for military action, are also funded by America's major defense companies. As overall defense budgets are getting scrutinized and spending in Iraq/Afghanistan is winding down, the death dealers need a new conflict theater to peddle and exploit.

http://billmoyers.com/2014/09/17/whos-paying-the-pro-war-pundits/

PS - did you wonder why Obama and others in DC refer to ISIS as ISIL, and don't use the official name of Islamic State either? Obviously they don't want to use the word "Islamic" if they can avoid it, which suggests that this is another Crusade or anti-Islam conquest. But the ISIL acronym avoids the hot-button word of Syria. The US is more comfortable with bombing Iraq - we've been doing it for decades and we have relations with the various groups. But with Syria (the conflict that Obama has avoided for 3+ years), it's a total cluster F and we obviously can't tell a moderate rebel from a crazy one. So ISIL allows Obama and company the official excuse/cover to avoid the Syrian portion of the war. This is just a hypothesis of course.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/09/09/isis-vs-isil-vs-islamic-state-the-political-importance-of-a-much-debated-acronym/

Vets react to Ferguson police

http://www.pri.org/stories/2014-08-15/us-veteran-says-police-response-ferguson-isn-t-country-we-fought-protect (the tweets at the bottom are pretty good too)

This story is so idiotic and some of us discussed it already on FB, so I will try to be brief. I just thank heavens that the Ferguson cops didn't gravely injure and kill a lot of people in their frenzy. Apart from the actual shooting incident (details of which are still indeterminate), the police's "peacekeeping effort"s have been so off the deep end - almost rivaling Kent State territory, or the Occupied Territories.

This is similar to the gun issue, I think. some Americans may believe that tech/weapons/stuff can suffice as solutions to threats and problems (obviously the arms industry wants us to believe that). Maybe it's true that overwhelming force helps when you are trying to wipe out an enemy batallion or seize territory. But obviously the iron fist approach breaks down in occupations/insurgencies (too many examples to list), and should never be the goal of a police operation. Because unlike an army that can withdraw and go home after a victory (and the aftermath of their violence is not really a top concern), the next day the cops have to still live with the people they scared/harassed/hurt - and likely for many more days afterward. That's why managing relationships and de-escalating conflicts are better than "crushing your enemy", and no advanced weapons system can do that better than an intelligent, compassionate, well-trained peace officer (even if they're unarmed, like the UK and Norwegian cops). What happened to having a conversation, especially when many of the protesters were nonviolent and within their Constitutional rights?

As the vets who tweeted in that article said, a show of force can be counter-productive if the objective is to manage an angry population. Clearly the gear by itself is not enough to maintain order long-term, but such weaponry in the hands of undisciplined, untrained, and probably prejudiced/beligerent morons is even worse. "Petty force" by petty bullies, as David Brooks said recently. All that gear makes them feel like Rambo, and Rambo doesn't take no shit from no one (the whole SYG convo we had). If our occupying soldiers (with less gear and employing less heavy-handed tactics) could often coexist with Iraqis and Afghans, who were bigger threats and hated them more than black people may (justifiably) hate US cops, then what are police forces like Ferguson trying to achieve?

I thought the crackdowns on the WTO and OWS protesters were bad, but they look like Boy Scouts in comparison. I fear that episodes like Ferguson are going to happen again and again, because the underlying forces are unchanged or getting worse (us vs. them style policing, surplus wargear that someone wants to find a use for, community inequality/segregation, culture of fear/violence in America). What concerns me is who can/will step in if amateurish police depts like Ferguson go too far? Even with the media everywhere, they didn't care. The police were acting like fascists, as one vet said. I am pretty sure no one is going to lose their job over this though, which adds to the tragedy.

So in the future, if a dept. displays even worse judgment, who will step in to protect the citizenry? That is supposed to be the cops' job, but what happens when they become the threat? Will the governor deploy the National Guard in a timely manner? Courts and investigations happen after the dust has settled, but who will stand up to the cops in the moment? Unfortunately this may make citizens feel like they need to take matters into hands (a la Cliven Bundy and right-wing militias), which will only perpetuate the cycle of distrust/violence and feed the police's mania.

Other links:

Eric Garner case

Police misconduct costs communities hundreds of millions in lawsuits a year

Bill Maher even before Ferguson and Garner happened

Military compared to cops

"Israel's other war" by E Keret

"We are faced with the false, anti-democratic equation that argues that aggression, racism, and lack of empathy mean love of the homeland, while any other opinion—especially one that does not encourage the use of power and the loss of soldiers’ lives—is nothing less than an attempt to destroy Israel as we know it."

Another quality op-ed from Keret, questioning why some people expect others to show love for country with such extreme hatred for the "enemy", and intolerance for any other opinion besides total unwavering support for war. His article also reminded me of America after 9/11, and sadly Germany between the wars too: the terrible right-wing nationalist rhetoric that the country would prevail if it wasn't for "the enemy within" subverting their efforts. If Israel wants to level Gaza to the ground, nothing can stop them - not dissidents, liberals, traitors, or Arab-lovers. Same thing with America in Iraq - we can destroy the whole country if we wanted to. But the question is: will that make us safer? Will our unrestrained violent actions prevent the enemy from ever returning? Of course the answer to the second question is "no" (if the IDF could magically wipe out Hamas, another org would take its place), and the answer to the first question is still a source of debate.

And as Jon Stewart said, showing concern for the gratuitous murder of women and kids in Gaza is not the same as supporting Hamas and being anti-Semitic. I thought the person who killed kids (or condoned others doing it) was the asshole. Now in Israel (and sometime in the US), it seems that the real asshole is the person expressing regret over child killings. Sometime we have to step back, take a deep breath, and recognize the insanity of our prejudices.

Furthermore, the intolerance of dissent from ostensibly free societies is really troubling. Disasters occur when people don't speak up and allow biases people to make rash decisions. If the hawks are so certain of the righteousness of their cause and soundness of their strategy, then why squelch debate? If I know that 2+2=4, what do I have to fear from the person claiming that the answer is 5? Maybe the hawks are worried that the disloyal, subversive cowards will convince the gullible populace that the answer is actually 5, and support will turn against them. If that is the case, then that exposes the utter contempt that the hawks have for the intelligence of the citizenry that they claim to be protecting.

Some interesting links

Kinda sad, but by no means particular to the UK: http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/jun/08/police-fear-rise-domestic-violence-world-cup

Though I wonder if dom. violence rates are actually rising over time, or if reporting is just increasing (the latter being a positive change I suppose).

Hyundai has a different take on the emotional effects of a big football win on a culture: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L7v5pf0aN2Q 

And the narrative seems to be backed by some science at least! http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2526937/Sporting-success-DOES-trigger-baby-booms-Spains-birth-rate-rose-16-Barcelonas-2009-Champions-League-victory.html

---

Also about the ISIS stuff: the CIA has been training "non-extremist, non-jihadist" Syrian rebels in Jordan in unconventional war tactics to fight the Assad regime. Some folks (ironically both on the far left and far right) are accusing our gov't of not screening those folks very well (a hard task) and inadvertently training fighters who later joined ISIS, J. Al-Nusra, and other extremist groups.

Granted I couldn't find reputable news sources that covered this story, but I can imagine that it's been hard to verify claims and apply journalistic rigor. However, it wouldn't be the first time (Viet Minh, Mujahadeen, Contras, right wing Cubans, etc.).

http://rt.com/op-edge/168064-isis-terrorism-usa-cia-war/
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/mi6-the-cia-and-turkeys-rogue-game-in-syria-9256551.html

----

Yet another red flag associated with fracking: http://www.loe.org/shows/segments.html?programID=14-P13-00026&segmentID=2

In the Marcellus Shale in the East, fracking is surfacing radioactive rock material from deep underground, and wastewater is showing very high levels of radium-226 (associated with bone cancers, half-life of 5K years). Fortunately for the drillers, they got an environmental exception, because for everyone else - radioactive water needs special disposal. But in PA, it's treated the same as household sewage.

Cheney tries to blame the Iraq chaos on Obama

When FNC calls you out like you were a Democrat involved in Benghazi, you know you're a major tool, Cheney.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/06/19/megyn-kelly-dick-cheney-iraq_n_5510635.html

Tricky Dick 2.0 wrote a WSJ op-ed recently insinuating that the situation in Iraq now is Obama's fault. While I tend to agree that Obama's cabinet was a bit too eager to put Iraq in the rear view mirror without sufficient monitoring of the screwed up Maliki regime (easy to say in hindsight though), blaming Obama for what has recently transpired is like blaming the plumber for not fixing the toilet you clogged fast enough.

Obama never supported the Iraq invasion, when Dems like Hillary, Pelosi, and Biden caved to the post-9/11 mania. When he took office in 2008, the majority of his voters wanted us out of Iraq, especially because the Surge and Sunni Awakening seemed to put us on better footing to do so. Clearly we could have done more to ensure a better functioning state of Iraq, but I don't think it was feasible to have maintained a Korea-like long-term military presence there as McCain types claim that they advocated all along (even if that would have prevented the ISIS-led Sunni offensive).

For Cheney and other Bushies to tsk tsk Obama, while totally dismissing their past mistakes and role in the current mess, is a level of gall that I cannot possible hope to comprehend. Let's remember that the premise for the neocon War on Terror was basically: states that harbor terrorists are equivalent enemies to the terrorists themselves, and forcibly removing threatening regimes and replacing them with western democracy/freedom will make us safer. Well, Al Qaeda and Shia militias were not able to exist in Saddam's Iraq. Our flawed occupation allowed jihadists to congregate in Iraq, and enabled a state sponsor of terrorism, Iran, to indirectly kill Americans and gain more influence in the region. The regime change in Baghdad that we orchestrated has replaced a brutal, corrupt Sunni Ba'athist dictator with a less brutal but more corrupt and sectarian Shia gang. Well, at least the Kurds got semi-autonomy. So the Bushies' hubris and incompetence pretty much negated their own vision for national security, to the tune of over $1T in costs, tens of thousands of US troops killed/wounded, and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis dead.

While Cheney types never really acknowledge or apologize for the fact that there were no WMDs, they keep trying to twist the record by claiming that they made "the right call" at the time, given the facts. The whole world wanted Saddam gone and there was virtual consensus that he had weapons. Sure, Saddam had few international friends, but I think most of us would have preferred him in power a little longer vs. breaking int'l laws and condemning Iraq to civil war. And maybe there was near consensus among the ignorant Congress (after sufficient bribery and intimidation), but the UN and international community was far from convinced about Saddam's arsenal and collaborations with Osama. But rather than face up to the truth, it's easier for the Bushies to retreat to their self-righteous dream world and dump their garbage on the black Muslim socialist instead. I suppose I am not surprised with this behavior, but I am surprised that the MSM would continue to give these discredited, disgraceful failures a podium from which to white-wash their transgressions and disseminate more BS.

With all the Iraq stuff still fresh in the headlines in 2004 (but apparently unable to penetrate the Bush bubble), remember how infallible, god-anointed Dubya couldn't even cite a single mistake during his presidency when asked by the media? These are the people who bullied us into Iraq, who are mostly responsible for the current chaos (at least from the western side of the equation), and who have the nerve to criticize others about it now.

What to do about ISIS, Iraq, and Syria?

I thought this was a pretty good article about the Iraq crisis and what to do next: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/monkey-cage/wp/2014/06/17/getting-rid-of-maliki-wont-solve-iraqs-crisis/

----

I came across this article with a sort of summary of ISIS that i found interesting.  the writer's point is that Iraq was inevitably going to be a 3-state division.  Sunni, Shia, Kurds.  Baghdad has no chance of falling, Kurdish north has little chance of invasion, and ISIS was simply the first group to be able to tap the opportunity.   

----

Yeah I agree - the media and hawks always make any sort of new threat into super-villains (esp. if they're Muslim). Apparently ISIS or affiliates paid key commanders of the Iraqi Forces to defect/desert, and that encouraged the regular troops to flee as well. It's not on YT due to copyright, but Maher had a great monologue from his June 6 show about the 5 Taliban we traded for Bergdahl. Morons like McCain made those 5 out to be like the Legion of Doom or something, when really they are just marginal "terrorists" who have been out of the game for 12 years. Hardly an imminent threat to the US. But as your link said, hype hype hype. Plus, this offensive is not totally driven by ISIS. They are relatively small, but have the tacit or overt support of the Sunni tribes and paramilitaries in the area. Rolling into a vacated city is different than holding it vs. a modern gov't backed military.

I am not sure about our role in diffusing the civil/sectarian conflict in the Levant now. Rand Paul types advocate that we stay out, and just let the sects "have at it" like the Christians did in the 16th Century. It's their land and their problems that we are not qualified to solve for them. Short-sighted cynics would even say that it's great for Sunni and Shia militants to kill each other (but what about the innocents?). Maybe all this is a normal progression of major religions, and eventually they will mature into relatively peaceful coexistence.

Personally, I don't think that is feasible given America's tradition of global leadership and official stance on human rights (plus other nations' expectations of our leadership). Unfortunately there is no better alternative to broker a deal (Iran, Saudi, EU, China, Russia). However, the Syrian civil war is in its 4th year with over 200K dead and not much "concern" by western powers - which has caused us to lose more cred on the Arab Street. If we intervene in the region, it is going to be costly for us. But we should act when the long-term costs of inaction are worse (economic, reputation, safety of our local allies, etc.). The problem is it's really hard to estimate the costs of inaction. Maybe that is for the best, because once we commit, it can't be undone - as we've seen in Afghanistan and Iraq. Ideally, if we can somehow cut off support from rich Gulf Sunnis, Iran, and the inflow of foreign fighters, the Syria-Iraq conflicts may naturally simmer down without us having to put boots on the ground. If we can use our military resources to keep humanitarian corridors open, aid reaching the needy, and massacre prevention - it could buy some time for reasonable leaders to make a deal. But all of this is pie-in-the-sky and fraught with risks too.

You probably noticed that I said nothing about leadership change and nation building. We can't do that stuff competently so we shouldn't even try.

"What we left behind" when we pulled out of Iraq

http://www.npr.org/2014/04/29/307980657/exploring-what-we-left-behind-in-iraq
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2014/04/28/140428fa_fact_filkins?currentPage=all

This is a Dexter Filkins interview (few journalists have spent more time in Iraq). I know Obama campaigned on and promised to extricate us from the Iraq fiasco, and in 2011 no one in the US had the stomach to stay any longer (even if we were able to sign a security agreement with the Iraqi gov't). We were supposed to refocus on Afghanistan-Pakistan and Al Qaeda. But every decision has tradeoffs, and unfortunately here are the costs of leaving Iraq in the manner that we did.

The PM the Bushies tapped and currently remains in power, Nouri al-Maliki, is quite anti-American and sectarian (the CIA vetted that pick about as well as McCain did with Palin). Our presence there kept his Shia government from outright oppressing the Sunnis. So now he has free reign, and sectarian bloodshed has risen to the tune of 1,000 civilian deaths per month (at the height of their civil war, it was 2,000/month). He has also not only tolerated, but more or less absorbed into his regime, Shia militias responsible for hundreds of US deaths.

There likely can't be peace and progress with Maliki and his party in power, who are backed by Iran. So without our presence in the mix, the gov't has no incentive to stop marginalizing the Sunnis, and therefore the Sunnis have no incentive to stop fighting back with car bombs and such. Remember how we set up the Baghdad gov't to be a fairly representative mix of Sunni, Shia, and Kurd? Well that is out the window also, as Maliki has removed hundreds of Sunnis from their offices. His gov't has also removed billions of petro-dollars from the state to offshore personal accounts.

So maybe Iraq would be less dysfunctional now with different leaders in charge, but unfortunately their selection pool is pretty thin. They have no one who resembles a Mandela or Gandhi, much less a marginally competent non-ideologue. And so the show goes on. It seems that everything we sacrificed there (our national rep, thousands dead, decades of huge costs on the VA to name a few) was pretty much wasted, and the only positives we got out of it are Saddam was deposed, and we learned a lot of hard lessons on Mideast politics and counter-insurgency that we can hopefully apply to our benefit. Now we have basically no credibility or influence in Iraq and the greater Gulf, and Iran has a lot of influence, as we've seen in Syria. Iran doesn't seem to mind, but inter- and intranational social-sectarian tensions are at an alarming level, which could lead to even bigger problems and regional conflicts.

As a war critic, I don't know whether I would have advocated a long-term US presence in Iraq, but it wouldn't have been unjustifiable - after all we've had tens of thousands of Americans in Germany and the USSR is long gone. It's easy to see it now, but we could have mitigated/prevented a lot of these problems if we stayed - as the "adult supervision" and outside intermediary between the factions (of course we could have caused other problems too). The Obama admin. proposed to Maliki to keep a 5-10K residual force in Baghdad, mostly for training and advising. Maliki may have been OK with that (knowing we would be focused on Sunni insurgents), but he said Parliament wouldn't agree to immunity to local prosecution (a condition that US forces enjoy most everywhere they are stationed). Also some speculate that his Iranian handlers were against it too.

-----

since Iran had their revolution and deposed the shah, the country's been pretty stable.  They picked their own govt without American 'advisors'.  As I was told, when the shah was in power, you had social freedoms but free speech was not tolerated at all.  Now the social freedoms are minimal with regards to dress, but you can say whatever you want.  Political dissent is not discouraged.  There is a high literacy rate.  I'm not saying Iran is perfect, but it's their own government, not an american puppet government.

Regarding Iraq, we went in there and totally f'd up that country. We took a country, granted, that had it's problems, and turned it into a living nightmare with DU bombings, checkpoints and no normal life for anyone.  How do you propose the Iraqis feel about us?  Do you really think they would be 'grateful' to have us, any of us there?  The only thing we should be sending there is food, seeds(non-GMO, of course) and building materials.  They're an educated population.  They can rebuild and choose their own government.  

American advisors mold the country to benefit corporate interest and nothing else.  We assure their govt. is beholden to us, not its people.  I'm sure there are plenty of Gandhis or Mandelas in Iraq, but we call in a drone if anyone appears the least bit charismatic or uppity. 

------

Well, the Islamic Republic is not that democratic, with fanatical religious police, torturing secret police, and pseudo-elections where the popular vote winner still has to be approved by the Ayatollah. In that sense, I am amazed that they elected a reformer (Mousavi) currently. But hey, we thought we were getting a reformer in Obama too. Iranians must not be that happy with their gov't when they rose up en masse against Ahmadinejad's questionable re-election (green revolution). And of course gov't forces cracked down on them violently with possibly 72 deaths. Much worse than Kent State or Zuccotti Park.

I agree that our adventurism and pathetic attempt at nation-building in Iraq under Bush was an abject failure. For an ostensibly civilized superpower that "learned lessons" from Vietnam, we messed up about as badly as you can imagine. I assume Iraqi sentiment is fairly un-American, but I believe that many people would rather have us "in the picture" if it keeps the sectarian tensions under control. Sadly without us, things got more chaotic (bombings and killings are more frequent now vs. the months prior to our exit). I am not advocating a permanent meddling presence where we conduct daily raids and dictate policy to Baghdad. I would prefer more of a Bosnia-style peacekeeping force (preferably int'l, though understandably no one wants to join us) to prevent civil war and ethnic cleansing. And hopefully we could help broker agreements between the factions, call out corruption, and assist in development (forgive my naivete, but I believe we still have it in us to do things right). For all of America's faults, I would trust us in that role more than Russia, Iran, China, Saudi, etc.

Lastly, I think the most promising Iraqi leaders have fled long ago, and may prefer a better life in the First World vs. returning to a hornet's nest of problems and corruption. 

Refugee to native ratios

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_refugee_population

I thought this was interesting and disappointing. We've already discussed America's betrayal of Iraqi translators and their promised immigration, but this is an overall view. It's not a stretch to say that America is a nation of immigrants and became a superpower in no small part from recent immigrants' contributions. Not to mention that we were taught in school that the US upholds certain principles such as protecting the vulnerable and helping the needy (per capita we are still a very generous nation).

The wiki page above suggests that we are less welcoming of refugees than Armenia. And overall, Ethiopia and civil rights champion China have more foreign refugees than we do. What gives? Considering our defense budget (even with austerity, our share is 65% of global) and how much foreign military aid we give to allies, you'd think we could at least finance some refugee camps or relocation programs, if our DHS/State refuse to allow refugees within our borders for security reasons and red tape.

The shift from federal poverty programs to the states and private NGOs/churches in the US is fairly well documented, and I wonder if foreign aid is following a similar trend. Oxfam, MSF, and others have to pick up the slack for less generous G20 governments (and of course those orgs are funded by donations). In the Mideast and Central Africa (where many conflicts are occurring), neighboring nations are on the front lines of the refugee crisis and bursting at the seams. Over a million Iraqis fled the war and are living elsewhere, but Iraq now has to host some 200K refugees from Syria.

If you can believe, the native:refugee ratios for Jordan and Lebanon is under 10:1. You can imagine the social strains and risks (the US would probably collapse under those conditions, so I don't know how poorer states do it). The refugees may not speak the language, don't have work or school authorization, and if they can find low-wage work - that may cause resentment among the locals (who often are in precarious economic situations too). They are literally living in tents for years, waiting and hoping to return home some day when it's safer. Many fall prey to scamsters offering fake visas or promises to get to the west. A whole generation of youth are at risk of having little to no future. Sure, I understand that tax dollars flow from the rich nations to the UN and other orgs, who distribute it to the camps and local authorities. But it is not nearly enough. This is yet another facet of our broken immigration system. We can't even get enough skilled foreign workers from Asia, so I suppose there is no hope for refugees from insecure parts of the world. Distance can't be in issue, since SWE/NOR's ratio is about 100:1, while the US is 1,200:1.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refugees_of_the_Syrian_civil_war

Historically, the US has greatly benefited from harboring refugees from European states undergoing war/revolution, as well as from our allies in Asia. Persian-Americans and Jewish-Americans have flourished here after the 1979 revolution and WWII, respectively. Those who are given a chance here often become some of our most patriotic and productive citizens. They are highly motivated to make the most of this precious opportunity, succeed, and give back. They also bridge the diplomatic gap between the US and other states who may be on rocky terms with us. Humanitarian arguments aside, even from a selfish economic/strategic standpoint, it makes sense for us to take in more refugees.

-----

How is admittance of refugees different than other immigrants?  Are camps really the norm?  Are they expected to return at some point?

-----

I am not sure about the answers but here is some brief digging:

It seems that the majority of refugees do live in camps, maybe due to the host nation's infrastructure limitations and uncertainty over their immigration/assimilation policies. The conditions in the camps are pretty bad, like a prison, or like the first scene in Scarface (I guess the US loved to take in Cuban refugees in the '80s because that showed how much better the US was vs. Castro's Cuba). But still, it's better than facing shelling and starvation every day in Homs, or risking rape and murder in the Central Af. Republic. 

http://america.aljazeera.com/watch/shows/consider-this/Consider-This-blog/2014/2/4/photos-of-the-unknownrefugeecrisis.html

Re: the US law - I think refugees can apply for temporary protected status or full asylum here, but I imagine the process is slow and with a high rejection rate. Also, if many of the refugees have little education and access to US diplomatic personnel, how can they apply? I doubt they could afford their airfare to the US either. But in the Syria case, I don't think we have an embassy there, so maybe we could reach out to the refugees who already made it to Turkey, Jordan, etc. Interview them in the camps, grant some of them visas, and set them up with host families or relatives here?

http://www.uscis.gov/humanitarian/refugees-asylum

For the few who get refugee status for themselves and their families, I think they go through the regular green card process if they want to stay here permanently. Though I am not sure what happens if their app is rejected - maybe they get deported to another nation that will take them (but not their home country where they could still be at risk)? I guess we have deported 3,000 Cubans in the last 30 years, but not sure to where.

http://www.usimmigration.com/new-rule-cubans.html

And during the Bush years, it seems that refugee Cambodians convicted of a crime (not just violent acts, but in some cases merely driving drunk or possessing an unlicensed weapon) in the US faced deportation to Cambodia, even if they grew up here and know little about Cambodian culture. It is possible that jail and torture (and poverty at the very least) awaited them in Cambodia.

http://www.seattlepi.com/news/article/Refugees-with-a-record-face-shock-deportation-1089366.php

Lastly, this is somewhat related - but there is growing furor at the US Border Patrol for their record of using deadly force against Mexican nationals who weren't really a threat to anyone. In most cases, there was little to no investigation, disclosure, and punishment for the agents involved. Like most law enforcement agencies, there seems to be a circle-the-wagons and silent-treatment mentality regarding public oversight and accountability.

http://www.npr.org/2014/04/30/308220322/u-s-border-patrol-scrutinized-for-increasing-fatalities

With friends like these...

http://www.npr.org/2013/09/25/225858836/u-s-soldier-crusading-for-afghan-interpreter-who-saved-his-life

Maybe you have heard about this story. The US sometime has the rep for "burning" foreign allies during the Cold War when it made political sense. But in the asymmetrical War on Terror, we have the resource advantage and there's no reason to turn our backs on the people who risked everything to help us - because they actually believed that we would make their countries better.

We're not talking about hundreds of thousands of refugees like Syria here (though it would be principled to do more so poor Jordan and Turkey don't have to bear the whole burden). I doubt the total is higher than a thousand Afghan and Iraqi translators and their families. In some cases, they directly saved American lives, which is more than most US citizens can say about patriotism.

A few years ago, Congress passed a law to grant visas to these folks because they will be in mortal danger once US forces leave. This isn't exaggerated speculation, as many of them have already received death threats (it's no secret that they are "infidel sympathizers" as they stood with US forces in public view). And we know that Taliban and AQ in Iraq types know how to make people disappear in the night.

But years later, only 12% of approved Afghans and 22% of Iraqis have made it to the safety of US shores, mostly because of DHS and State Dept immigration BS that these folks could be potential security risks. Yes it is true that there has been plenty of "green on blue" violence in Afghanistan where infiltrators masked as allies have killed UN forces. But those were fresh recruits in a warzone without much vetting. It's another story for an infiltrator to masquerade as an embedded translator, risk life and limb for years, and then travel to America just hurt us. If any of you know immigrants, you have probably heard stories about what a pain in the ass the background check is. Just imagine how it is for people from unstable Muslim nations. In some cases, the Taliban found out that some translators were getting out, so they may have made false "anonymous tips" to the US embassy that those people were actually threats. And all of a sudden their visas are on hold again.

The problem with bureaucrats is they fixate on the letter of the law rather than the intent and the bigger picture. I am sure none of them wants to be responsible for giving a terrorist a visa, but is that worth condemning our friends? At least transport them to Gitmo or a midwest jail until they are fully cleared. But we can't just leave them behind. And we wonder why they hate us?

Similar to the story of Sydney Shanberg, one soldier (Capt. Zeller) has tried tirelessly to get his translator Shinwari out of Afghanistan, after that man saved his life in the field and they became "brothers". He went to the media, wrote Congressmen, and just when it looked like it was going to work out, more visa delays. Now Zeller has lost contact with Shinwari, and he hopes he just went into hiding with his family rather than something worse. 

The dangerous sectarian nature of the Syrian civil war

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/hezbollah-launching-offensive-profoundly-change-164121898.html

I haven't brought up Syria before because I am not well versed in the details, and frankly it's just depressing. But some recent turn of events have made things even more complicated and impactful.

- The civil war is about 2 years old, almost 100K Syrians (and some famous Western journalists) have died, and about 20% of the population is internally or externally displaced.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Syrian_civil_war

- Israel has bombed a supposed weapons shipment to Hezbollah near the border. They may have also bombed a weapons facility in Damascus last month. We are used to thinking that Jihadi groups are also anti-government because most dictators in the Muslim World are kind of secular. But in Hezbollah's case ("The Party of God" formed to oppose the first Israeli invasion of Lebanon), they are explicit allies of Iran (a Shia theocracy and Shia majority nation) and Syria (neither of those). But Hezbollah is Shia and they support Assad against the rebels who are majority Sunni. So things are taking a nasty sectarian turn.


http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/05/world/meast/syria-violence/

- The regime or the rebels may have used chemical weapons in combat, which would violate the "red line" established by Obama as a trigger for escalation. But it's doubtful. However, America's #1 concern there is probably the containment of those WMDs. Even if Assad is toppled, who will control and distribute his stockpile?

http://www.npr.org/2012/12/05/166580524/chemical-weapons-and-the-syrian-civil-war

- We know that Iran and Russia (and China sort-of) support Assad's regime because they are strategic/trade allies, and Assad as seen as a counter to Israel and US "domination" of the region. So they have blocked stronger EU-led actions against Assad in the UN, and continue to ship high tech weapons to Damascus in spite of global condemnation.

- The EU embargo on weapons trade with Syria just expired, so the UK and France are considering arming the rebels (but which rebels is a big question). The UN has opposed this, and the US doesn't want to go down that route for obvious reasons, but has likely provided advisers and non-lethal resources to some rebels. We are trying to prop up non-Jihadi, pro-Western rebels, because unfortunately some of the most powerful and effective rebel groups like Jabhat al-Nusra are Sunni extremists who have recently allied themselves with Al Qaeda (and therefore got on the global terror list and cut off from Western aid). So clearly we don't want to arm them and help them win, but we also want Assad to fall. Of course rebel groups are fighting each other too, as we saw in Libya. The West is caught in a terrible spot: Assad is a jerk and supported by orgs and nations we don't get along with. He is slaughtering his people, but he is also keeping Al Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood out of power there. It's like Egypt but compounded by WMD containment fears.


http://www.cnn.com/2013/04/10/opinion/bergen-al-qaeda-syria/

- As if that wasn't bad enough, the top link from Yahoo describes how Hezbollah is now actively sending in fighters to Syria to defend Assad, a noteworthy escalation (Muslim fighters flocking to Syria, like Afghanistan and Iraq before). This may help Assad cling to power but turn the populace against Islamic groups, though most of them have already picked sides. The Shia Alawites are the ruling minority; wealthier, urban, and aligned with Assad. So Iran, some of Iraq, and Hezbollah obviously support that side, and Saudi, Israel, and Al Qaeda oppose them (interesting "allies" indeed). Al Qaeda leaders have also urged other Muslims to go to Syria and topple Assad. The poorer, oppressed majority are Sunnis, who want Assad out either because they are pro-reform or hate Shia/Alawites or follow Salafi-Jihadi fundamentalist Sunni Islam like Al Qaeda. As we've seen in Iraq, both sides may think of the other as heretics, and both have a history of ethnic cleansing (BTW the Syria conflict is also inflaming sectarian tension in fragile Iraq now too). So Assad and the Shia see this as an existential struggle, because they fear that if the Sunnis take over, they will be slaughtered.

- So who should the West back and arm? It's a confusing mess. Some have said we should intervene on a humanitarian basis and protect civilians. Enforce a no-fly zone maybe. A few problems with that (that completely escape folks like McCain): Syria's air defenses are much better than Libya's or Serbia's. Syria has WMDs and delivery systems for them, unlike Libya or Serbia. Syria is next door to our allies in Iraq and Israel, unlike Libya or Serbia. You get the picture. I am not sure what the "right thing to do" is, but if we intervene militarily, it's going to be ugly with a lot of consequences. What I also fear is an escalating multi-nation sectarian war. We know that various groups are financially and militarily backing or opposing the various Syrian forces. And those backers don't like each other: Iran, Saudi, Israel, the EU, Russia, China, US, and NGOs connected to Jihadi terrorism. This proxy war may eventually evolve into an overt war. And if that happens, Iraq will look tame in comparison.

From Agent Orange to Gulf War Syndrome to this

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1255312/Birth-defects-Fallujah-rise-U-S-operation.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/dec/30/faulluja-birth-defects-iraq

We know the sad histories of Agent Orange, and Gulf War Syndrome during our first war with Iraq. It took the gov't decades to admit fault over highly toxic A.O. and compensate the affected US personnel (Vietnam is still waiting for its apology and reparations).

As far as I know, the US has not clearly acknowledged the causes of Gulf War Syndrome, or "a chronic multisymptom disorder affecting returning military veterans and civilian workers of the Persian Gulf War.^[1][2][3] A wide range of acute and chronic symptoms have been linked to it, including fatigue, muscle pain, cognitive problems, rashes and diarrhea.^[4] Suggested causes have included depleted uranium, sarin gas, smoke from burning oil wells, vaccinations, combat stress and psychological factors, though only pyridostigmine (an antitoxin for nerve agents) and organophosphate pesticides have been conclusively linked.^[6]" Compensation for G.W.S. wasn't approved until 2001, and it's not a lot of money.

http://www.veteransdisabilitylawyersite.com/gulf_war_veteran.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_War_syndrome#Depleted_uranium
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/6169318/Ex-soldier-died-of-cancer-caused-by-Gulf-War-uranium.html
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1127036/

Uranium is a very dense metal and if you put it on the tip of munitions, it penetrates armor better. Of course it's cheaper to use spent (aka depleted) uranium from used reactor fuel, even if it's toxic. So these shells hit Iraqi tanks, exploded, and the uranium vaporized and could be inhaled/ingested by nearby people. The incidence of rare cancers and respiratory diseases rose significantly among vets. The US performed "conclusive studies" that there were no adverse health effects from radioactive depleted uranium munitions that were used in the theater. But UK courts and medical research did find a link (British forces did not use uranium weapons). What gall for the US to claim that exposure to an unregulated radioactive weapon is totally safe. They just don't want to get sued. If it's so safe, then why don't generals and Congressmen go live near Yucca Mountain?

At least Gulf War I was mostly fought outside of population centers, so fewer people were exposed. But during Gulf War II, the fighting was heavily urban. Despite complaints about uranium weapons, they were used again. Uranium has a very long half-life and the material doesn't just disappear. It gets scattered everywhere, leeches into the soil and ground water, and may get into food too like Fukushima. Fallujah saw some of the most intense fighting of the war, and local hospitals have seen a spike in birth defects, as first reported in peer-reviewed scientific journals and the WHO in 2009-10. Iraq is a fragile state and their war-ravaged medical infrastructure can't handle this influx of new special-needs patients. Also, the families are unlikely to be able to afford the care that their kids need.

The US didn't need Agent Orange or uranium shells to win those wars (and we didn't win in VN anyway). We used them because we were lazy and the Pentagon buys whatever expensive new toys the military-industrial complex develops. And usually there are no accompanying toxicology studies. "Regular" shells can blast obsolete Iraqi targets just fine. Now that we have "left" Iraq, it's out of sight out of mind. Like yesterday's discussion about radical Islam, clearly the sick kids in Fallujah and elsewhere will be a source of resentment, anti-Americanism, and even Jihadi recruitment for years to come. Of course it's hard to prove that those kids got sick directly from US weapons (which is what we're counting on, just like big tobacco in the past), but the street has already made up its mind. However, wouldn't it be cheaper for us to accept fault and cover their health costs (meager by US standards), rather than shirk responsibility like cowards and inspire hatred for years? Not to mention it's a shame and a stain on our military and nation. Which is why even some upset vets are working on a "Justice for Fallujah" campaign.

http://thefallujahproject.org/home/node/2

Are US generals helping or hurting war efforts?

http://www.npr.org/2012/11/01/164096479/ricks-firing-generals-to-fight-better-wars

Ricks' recent book describes how less effective US generals are compromising our military and making our current ugly wars even harder to win. Bad managers are not confined to the private sector and politics - plenty of generals are incompetent, selfish, and foolish. It's nothing new - see WWI or the Napoleonic Wars.

In WWII, it was standard procedure to dismiss generals from command for even small battlefield failures, even if they had a track record of good performance. Maybe that policy was too harsh, but there were plenty of other officers to replace them. And often the relieved officer got a new command elsewhere after serving a short penance. 16 such generals were relieved during the 5 years of WWII. Since Vietnam, only one field general has been relieved for combat ineffectiveness. Theater commanders have been "fired" instead: Westmoreland, Casey, etc. - but those moves were more symbolic, from civilian leaders aware of the public's frustration with those wars. In addition, the average duration of American wars has increased, and with worse strategic outcomes. Apart from the Gulf War I anomaly, now the US is engaged in decade-long quagmires, versus less-formidable enemies than the Axis. There are several reasons for this that Ricks postulates:

WWII was a "traditional" war with a clear, existential threat to the US and our allies, with well-defined military objectives. For the nuclear-age Cold War, combat mostly became small and unconventional (keeping the lid on civil wars, counter-insurgencies, nation building, etc.) - situations that generals did not study and were not prepared for.

The relationship between civilian leaders, military leaders, and soldiers has changed. During WWII, in general the priority was to win the war with as little loss of American life as possible. Therefore there was little tolerance for inept generals who put troops under undue risk. As the military-industrial complex grew into its own "special interest", the military strayed from this and became more general-centric. Now war was more about career development for officers, rather than winning humbly and efficiently. Egotistical generals have always cared about their own glory since the dawn of organized battle, but it descended to new lows since Vietnam. Therefore, top brass were reluctant to fire battlefield commanders as a black mark on the fired officers' careers, and also their own. Civilian leaders were also hesitant to fire even inept military leaders, as that could be construed as an admission that the war was not going well or it was the wrong war to fight. So we "stay the course" with inept leaders. Again, US lives took the back seat to political concerns.

Relations between the White House and Pentagon have changed too. Lincoln and JFK's "team of rivals" concept was very much at play during WWII. FDR and George Marshall probably didn't like each other very much, but showed enough honesty, respect, and patriotism to listen to conflicting opinions when it was best for the nation. Most war failures result from incorrect information, improper assumptions, and other possibly preventable errors of judgment. FDR and Marshall did their best to make sure those mistakes were avoided. This isn't just nostalgia for the Greatest Generation, and the Allies made plenty of goofs during WWII too. But their "HR" system was more sound - contrast it to the Iraq War and Bush's team of yes-men neocons, total liar "expert advisers" like Chalabi, and sycophant generals. Now we go to war based on hunches and ideologies. It's the opposite of the dispassionate, data-driven, risk-averse decisions we should be making.

The decline started around Vietnam, and possibly coincides with the trend of US presidents being less and less likely to have served in the military. The relationship between LBJ and Westmoreland was a joke. The two kept info from each other, tried to avoid disagreements, and only told the other what they wanted to hear. I am not sure how Obama deals with the military today, but seeing how many of his policies are quite Bush-like (and definitely not worthy of a Nobel Peace Prize), I bet he is kowtowing more often than giving tough love - which is his job, his duty, and what the citizens expect of him. Part of this is due to the "cult of the military", where we overly venerate the institution. It's schizophrenic, because on one hand we skimp on veteran's care and don't want a draft, but on the other we have to "support the troops" no matter what, with nearly limitless funding. It's verboten to criticize the military, maybe even at the highest levels of government. Sometime criticism is the highest form of patriotism. Just ask Lincoln and FDR. Look how much of Romney's candidacy is about fellating the military. He wants to grow military spending to 4% GDP AFTER we have wound down two ground wars. Even at the peak of it's power, the British Empire didn't spend that much. Ricks finds this especially shocking from a former CEO who made his fortune cutting costs and giving tough love to struggling companies. We should always support our troops, but we have to stop coddling the generals and the institution if it's not serving the interests of the people.

Also there was the gradual phasing out of the draft. When the 1%'s kids were no longer in harm's way, US soldiers quickly became more expendable. All sorts of waivers were granted for the rich during Vietnam, so really the war was fought by the poor and uneducated. That trend continues today, as the volunteer military tends to attract those without much civilian career prospects. A volunteer army also concentrates war suffering on a minority of the citizenry (the segment of society that is already marginalized), so the rest of us are less inclined to care if the war is going poorly and led by bad generals. Tying into a previous point, the causes we are fighting for after Korea are more murky and controversial. Therefore it's hard to get the whole country behind the war effort and engaged with the daily progress enough to hold under-performing commanders accountable. Most of us can't even name an actual combat general serving in Iraq and Afghanistan now, and have no idea what they're doing. National security secrecy and lack of free press access aren't helping either.

Despite the fact that our current volunteer military is mostly comprised of the lower classes, they are actually some of the most professional and high-performing troops the US has ever had (on average). That is both a blessing and a curse. Like a high-performing department with a bad manager, it masks the incompetence of the manager. Bad generals in Iraq and Afghanistan "get away with" more incompetence because their troops sacrifice and struggle so much to accomplish objectives in spite of their leaders. And since the generals know their troops are quite good, they ask too much out of them. They subject them to more risk and strain instead of thinking harder and devising better strategies. Stop-loss is an obvious example. Lazy command, dereliction of duty, lack of concern for the men under your command.

Some other interesting facts about past wars and dispelling some myths:

- MacArthur may be the only general in human history who was insubordinate to 3 national leaders. And yet he had dreams of the White House. Some believe that we should have let MacArthur "finish off" North Korea when he had the chance (or even fight China), but if he had his way, it would have been a disaster. Just for that, Truman goes down as one of the great C-in-C's of US history. Chinese forces were waiting in ambush at the border to slaughter any Americans who pushed too deep. It would have escalated the war, and Mac wanted authorization to use "about 35" nuclear weapons to destroy China's military capability, and then let the Taiwanese come in for mop-up duty. Of course I don't have to explain what a moronic idea this is, but to humor you: the USSR clearly wouldn't just sit idly by while 2 major Asian communist nations got wiped out. They would have conquered Europe, and we probably couldn't have stopped them because we committed forces to the Pacific. It would have led to WWIII. And I don't think even the Taiwanese would have been comfortable with the task of occupying mainland China. As WWII hero General Bradley said, it was the wrong war at the wrong time with the wrong enemy. Unfortunately we repeated the blunder in Vietnam.

- Patton was actually a mediocre to poor battlefield commander, and obviously a very poor leader in terms of "people skills". But what he was really good at was getting a plodding armored fighting force to cover large distances quickly in pursuit of a retreating enemy, or to relieve a besieged position. So the brilliant foresight and talent management skills of Marshall and Ike knew that Patton wouldn't be really "useful" until the end of the war. They coddled him and tolerated many of his issues until they let him loose in , to do what he was best at.

- Ike was a fairly unproven, junior commander going into WWII, but Marshall picked him to be the combined Allies leader because he was diplomatic, patient, and knew how to work well with others (a rare trait for egotistical generals). Marshall and FDR realized that this was a new chapter of warfare, and the Allies would ultimately beat the Nazis, not just the Americans (and let's be honest, the USSR did most of the heavy lifting anyway).

------

A follow-up with Tom Ricks: http://www.kqed.org/a/forum/R201211140900

He had a good point on the sex scandal - for YEARS in Iraq, hundreds or even thousands of people were dying under incompetent generals, but none of them were fired, demoted, or even had to get chewed out by a civilian committee. But a general sends some flirting emails to a floozie socialite (after years of "drought" serving in combat zones in conservative Muslim nations) - HEADLINE NEWS!!!! NATIONAL OUTRAGE!!!! My only criticism of those generals is their HORRIBLE choice in mistresses. At least learn from Charlie Sheen and Tiger.

For the record, Ike had an affair with his female driver during WWII, and he later became president (I think that was Petraeus' ambition too). But that was the pre-Twitter, integrity in journalism era.

I'm not defending the generals' actions, but let's prioritize our criticism.

Problems with the Libya no-fly zone

Here's the problem with the UN's slow response to the Libyan civil war:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_theenvoy/20110321/ts_yblog_theenvoy/international-alliance-divided-over-libya-command

Air patrols and cruise missile strikes alone won't force a well-financed sociopathic dictator to step down, especially when he knows no foreign troops will come. The opposition has to topple him and seal the deal. If the international community acted 2 weeks ago, when the rebels had all the momentum and were at the outskirts of Tripoli, then maybe we could have had a relatively clean conclusion to this tough situation and a cessation of violence now. But as we dithered, Qaddafi's better armed and trained forces beat back the rebels, and we only started to attack this weekend when the tables had turned, and Qaddafi was about to deliver his death blow to the resistance at Benghazi. We lost the initiative, and now it's starting to look intractable like our police action in Korea in the 1950s.

I know it's hard to get the UN and NATO to act quickly on anything, and the Japan quake was another major concern to address. But that's why our fumbling in Iraq and Afghanistan is so costly and will hurt us for years more; no-drama Obama is so paranoid of getting embroiled in another Middle East quagmire that he is being too timid when America would have been justified to act weeks ago. If this uprising occurred in 1995, I think Clinton would have swiftly intervened. No one wants Qaddafi around. Unfortunately neither does Al Qaeda, so maybe in his power vacuum some Islamic forces would gain some power, but it's doubtful if they would be able to control the entire country. Qaddafi has survived for 40 years partly by beating down any traces of Islamic movements, like his neighbor Mubarak.

But we don't want another quagmire that ends up biting us in the ass, right? When we toppled Saddam, it was a big boon to Iran and Al Qaeda. We messed up there because we were following a foolish strategy of remaking the region into a "kinder, gentler" Middle East that would be safe for globalization and Israel. Many Iraqis hated Saddam, but his grip on power was strong and he was basically an integral part of the Iraqi society he built around himself and the Ba'ath party. The Saddam opposition movement was comprised of a handful of corrupt, decadent, unknown exiled chumps like Ahmed Chalabi. All that was a recipe for disaster, but Bush and the neocons had blinders on. In the Libyan case, a good portion of the country has already rejected him. We won't have to install any government like with Iraq, we can let the Libyans run the show. The rebels are organized and motivated and not radical Muslims like the Mujahadeen vs. the USSR. Libya is sparsely populated with only a few coastal urban centers, it does a lot of commerce with Europe, and maintains diplomatic relations with the outside world. It is a relatively easier case for post-dictatorship nation building. We could still horribly mess up with Libya, but it's a much easier challenge than Iraq or Afghanistan.

So what are our options now? Air-drop supplies and other assistance to the rebels? Freeze Qaddafi's assets, increase sanctions, and hope we stave him out? But that hurts the innocent population too, and as we've seen with Iran, we can't effectively embargo a country the size of Texas. The rebels will run out of steam before Qaddafi's side does, he's a survivor. Maybe at best we can hope for some sort of bargained truce where Qaddafi stays in power and the rebels get a section of the country, like with Sudan. But there are plenty of problems associated with that scenario too, it will take years to implement, and who says Qaddafi won't crush the other side in a surprise attack down the road when we're no longer concerned with Libya?

Here's an opposing view arguing that liberal interventionists are basically behaving like neocons in calling for Obama to intervene in the Libya situation that we have no business meddling in:

http://walt.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/03/21/what_intervention_in_libya_tells_us_about_the_neocon_liberal_alliance