How to defeat ISIS? First, don't fall into the 9/11 trap

Maybe you saw Obama-Hollande's joint speech today about ISIS?

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/11/24/457224374/trying-to-build-robust-coalition-against-isis-hollande-arrives-in-washington

I think a recent poll showed that like 23% of Americans approve of how Obama has been handling ISIS so far. But his "don't do stupid shit" (aka don't make things worse) strategy takes a while to bear fruit, and most Americans lack the patience/long view to appreciate that. I think that's preferable to the alternative (the Bush way), and most in the media/politics never consider the lives and treasure saved (and diplomatic crises avoided) by Obama not engaging in a knee-jerk aggressive action. The French are all on board for whatever forceful response Hollande has in the works (they've already flown like 800 sorties against ISIS since 11/13), because like the US after 9/11, I guess people need the catharsis of knowing that you've swiftly hit back at the enemies who just surprised and hurt you.

Kerry seems optimistic that a "ceasefire" can be reached between the Assad gov't and the "moderate" resistance groups, if global powers can apply pressure on the Syrian players that they influence. NATO is reaching out to Russia to help, but I don't think Iran is at the table. If an agreement can be forged, then all parties can "unite" to take down ISIS. While that would be superior to the status quo, and would probably somewhat reduce suffering and the refugee crisis in the region, beating ISIS militarily is not the endgame. New ISIS'es will spring up even after we're all dead. It's just a matter of when/where the conditions are right for them to rise up (and it's in no short supply: corrupt gov'ts, wealth inequality, uneducated Muslim populace, marginalized Muslim immigrants, Islamophobia, provocative/aggressive Western foreign policies, etc.).

How about we consider other ways to beat ISIS? Whether or not it's true, there was an idea circulating that Osama wanted to use 9/11 to draw the US into a protracted Crusader-vs-Jihadist ground conflict in the Middle East that would serve as a great recruiting beacon and a means of sapping US power/influence in the region. Regardless of his grand plans, that is what happened anyway. Leaders like Bush and Blair fell into the trap - well "fell" sounds like an accident, they more like proudly leapt into the trap.

Terrorists can't beat conventional forces/gov'ts straight up - that's why they're terrorists. They win by provocation and propaganda: magnifying their influence/impact/perception from the victims' response to isolated terror attacks. Even 100 coordinated 9/11s would not bring down the US regime. It would be painful, but we would eventually recover. What Al Qaeda did on 9/11 had a huge multiplier effect for them. It triggered an increased dislike of Muslims by many Western peoples, which marginalized Muslim immigrants and drove thousands of them to militancy (more in Europe and Asia than the Americas). It triggered the US/NATO to invade or increase military presence in several Muslim nations, which upset the local populace and gave Jihadists the opportunity to launch thousands of new attacks on Crusader targets. We tortured and brutally killed thousands of Muslims (many innocent) - which was a gift-wrapped Xmas present to Osama.

So one historic terror attack (9/11) spawned thousands of other terror events, trillions of Western dollars wasted, and thousands of Westerners dead (and the creation of new terror groups like ISIS). Talk about ROI for Osama. Yes, Al Qaeda was decimated in the process, but that is compatible with their nihilist-martyr worldview, and their ranks will be replenished as long as the prevailing Crusader-Jihadist entrenched global hostility remains. It's now harder to execute new attacks against the US, but there are no shortage of Western soft targets to go after in less secure parts of the world like Africa and Turkey.

A successful terror movement depends on the terrorized power to freak out, overreact, and shoot themselves in the foot. We should learn from last decade and not grant ISIS the same benefit. ISIS wants us to be meaner to Muslims living in the West (pushing them away from our values and closer to ISIS types), to block the escape of moderate Muslims and desperate refugees from the Mideast, and of course to put vulnerable Crusader boots on the ground that they can launch new attacks against. Basically, ISIS loves the GOP agenda in response to the 11/13 attacks. This is when we need to think with our brains and not our balls (or our panic/fears). Yes, inaction is frustrating as ISIS gloats, but a short-term pain is worth a long-term victory - especially when you consider the alternative that I've just described.

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.

"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.

#MuslimLivesMatter

https://news.vice.com/article/three-muslim-students-shot-dead-in-north-carolina?utm_source=vicenewsfb

On Tues a lone gunman killed 3 Muslim university students in NC (all from the same family). Vice reported that the killings were possibly a hate crime because the alleged shooter had posted atheist, anti-religious commentary on social media. The shooter also turned himself in, so maybe we will get to hear his motives. FYI he was white and was not killed by the police.

There was some online criticism that major Western media outlets were not following this tragedy with as much concern (if at all) as they showed for the Charlie Hebdo massacre, or the ISIS executions. So the #MuslimLivesMatter theme emerged to counter this potential bias. And let's not forget that the vast majority of victims of Islamic terrorism (plus the innocents killed during Western anti-terror ops) have been Muslims.

It's not like the NC victims were vocally Islamic and critical of America. AFAIK, they were just dental students who actually helped a nonprofit that tries to provide dental care to the 100K's of Syrian refugees from their civil war. As usual, violent cowards target totally unconnected victims. This event is unusual though, because we haven't seen many incidents of "violent atheism" before. I am not sure if the shooter was opposed to Islam specifically, or all faiths.

Attack at Charlie Hebdo

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zATVidAh81g

I just don't get it, why does an almighty being and his prophet need you (the gunmen I mean) to avenge their honor? If he really didn't like their Muslim jokes, can't he just use his power to smite them? Why does he need to wait for a few young men to plot and execute a cowardly attack, years after the Danish cartoons? And of all the "threats to Islam", is Charlie Hebdo really the most pressing one? At least I give ISIS and Al Qaeda more credit for going after corrupt dictators and NATO, who have killed Muslims by the hundreds of thousands. Not that I am supporting those groups and their actions either.

I think that just demonstrates the logical bankruptcy of militant religiosity (Islamic or otherwise). So god needed some inbred, corrupt monarchs to spend a ton of resources (thereby neglecting the poor and sick) to amass armies of rapists, murderers, and pillagers to retake Jerusalem on his behalf? God delivered the Jews out of Egypt with a bunch of plagues/"miracles", yet now he is counting on the IDF to use its warplanes and bulldozers to make sure all of ancient Judea is under Jewish control? I don't think religious leaders ever take the time to question how utterly ridiculous these concepts sound. If an elected public official were to say such things (without draping himself in the flag of faith), he would be laughed off stage.

I suppose freedom of expression means that we must fight to the death to permit the most despicable among us to engage in the most ugly speech known to man, and damn the consequences. But that is like a 2nd Amendment supporter feeling compelled to defend the most perverse uses of guns possible. I think we can love freedom without making a travesty out of it.

Probably Charlie Hebdo was fairly tame in the grand scheme of things - they weren't that blasphemous and they definitely weren't hatemongers. But I really wish there was a way to defend freedom without protecting the most irresponsible beneficiaries of that freedom. Like we would oppose any sort of bigotry and persecution of course, but if a party "incites" anger/conflict from unwise behavior, well then - they made their bed and they can lay in it. We obviously don't want to see them killed, but we are not going to risk more lives to protect them. It's like if you violate the terms of your insurance, you void your policy and coverage.

I know it's not so simple, but I don't see the point in risking a lot to protect some fringe uses of freedom by a minority that may not represent the general interests and opinions of the public. I don't think Charlie Hebdo is a fringe case, but maybe "The Interview" was - a crappy film that added no value to society, and we have thousands of other films to take its place.

----

Regarding "what were they thinking?" type questions towards religious fanatics there is a quote "You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into" or something similar.  Logic has no place in a fanatical religious organization.  Sad but true.

The other thing is I REALLY REALLY don't like the idea you are pushing that annoying, inconvenient, ugly, etc uses of freedom of speech are somehow less worth protecting.  The ounce of legitimacy this brings to the crazy (as in literally crazy) people who think it is ok to kill someone bothers me but it also smells an awful lot like the first step on a slippery slope.  Look at abortion for example.  A legal right of women that, in some states, has walked its way back to practically illegal under the guise of women's health and safety.  That is how rights are taken from us, one step at a time, slowly.

So if we don't have people who stretch comfort in the other direction then the fanatics and the extremes of the viewpoints get to keep pushing the line.  Already no major network will show/print images of Mohammed (CNN took down the cartoon the Titanic showed earlier today, southpark episode still not shown on comedy central, etc etc).  

---

That is a pretty good quote, thx for sharing. How do we "unteach" religious extremism and fundamentalism then? They have some "Jihadi rehab" in Afghanistan - not sure how successful they've been. Sometime folks didn't volunteer for extremism, but were pushed in that direction by others. For some stories about NK defectors or Mormon cult escapists, what seemed to mentally "set them free" was the truth and asking questions. So logic has a part in that. Those folks were brainwashed at some point, but their experiences and thoughts got them out of it. It's probably not easy though.

I do feel that some speech is inherently more "valuable" than others. The Pentagon Papers and Declaration of Independence were subversive, maybe "illegal" publications. So are child porn and neo-Nazi materials (in some nations). I just think it's more reasonable to ask journalists and others to put their lives on the line to protect the ideas in documents like the DOI and PP (and make sure the world knows of them), rather than the other type. Think about the cop assigned to guard Charlie Hebdo who was murdered - is it much comfort to his family that he died protecting their right to make religious cartoons? I wouldn't want my loved ones to die protecting a porn peddler or neo-Nazi. But for the brave folks who risked/gave their lives for civil and labor rights, or for blowing the whistle on gov't/corporate crimes, at least their sacrifices led to greater justice and living conditions for all.

It's not like we have absolute freedom of speech now, and that Muslims, NK, and bleeding-heart liberals are slowly chipping away at it. We already can't threaten or slander people, we can't lie about some products, we can't pitch stocks without a license, etc. Maybe it's because the potential harm from speech like that outweighs the loss of freedom from prohibiting it. Societies make trade-offs all the time; I'm not saying that the status quo is perfect, but what degree of prohibited speech should we be comfortable with? I do think blasphemous speech should be legal. But if such speech has a high probability to elicit a violent reaction from extremists, maybe it is in the public interest to consider restrictions. Maybe that is the crazies holding us hostage and we cowardly agree to censorship, or maybe it's just prudence.

If we hold firm and protect free speech, are we prepared to also protect the people who may be at risk? Because we can't be everywhere at once; some terrorists are well trained, patient, and know how to exploit soft targets. So if we believe in free speech, we have an obligation to oppose extremism and dissuade people from using violence to express their anger and get even. But hate speech is still speech, so where does that leave us? Seems like a paradox. 

 

----

 

I don't want to get into semantics on how free "free speech" is wrt to slander and such.  I don't think there is any merit to the argument that because those aren't allowed blasphemous speech is on the table.  But we can go there if you choose.

As to dying for a dutch cartoonist, that seems silly to me.  Should be feel better or worse than the person who did for Pepsi as a trucker?  Or for Mott's as a farmhand?  Or for Exxon as a rig worker?  People die all the time for no reason, bad reasons, etc.  And they aren't in professions that expect to be in harms way.  So why should anyone feel extra bad given how he died?  Why should the cartoonist share any blame?  You think he enjoys requiring armed security?

And ultimately if we accept that extremists aren't logical, then what insult can we be sure won't become dangerous?  How can anyone shirt and say one is ok to die for and another is not?  Boko haram (sp?) Kills to stop women from being educated in the name of Islam, can we criticize them?  Are we only allowed to criticize them in word not picture?  

I guess I don't really believe we get any safer by restriction.  Do you really believe those terrorists exist only because of a dutch cartoonist?  Any contrivance will do to recruit and kill.  And REALLY don't believe the govt is good at choosing where that line is.  Think post 9/11 and how it has taken nearly 14 years and we still can't get rid of some of the bad decisions made as a result.

Oh yeah and I have no clue how to un-religious-ize fanatics. 

---

Thanks, I think this is a very nuanced and important issue (sorry that my responses are pretty long). Ideally, speech should be unrestricted and everyone is sufficiently civil to not get violent over disputes. And the courts exist to sort out matters of slander, deception, etc. So the threat of lawsuits or other punishment does deter some people from criticizing/lampooning certain people/entities - is that already too much censorship? I do think it is in the public interest to preempt some dangerous speech before it has a chance to cause widespread harm (overt fraud like claiming some poison is actually a miracle diet pill that thousands of people will want to try). Obviously the gov't is not the ideal decision maker in terms of judging speech, but unfortunately we don't have a better enforcer at this point.

Sorry, maybe it was a bad argument for me to claim that dying for certain forms of free speech would be more or less valiant. As you said, workers in most jobs expect to be safe as they perform their jobs. Sure, some crazy accidents happen, and those who perform explicitly hazardous work usually sign some waivers and are comped accordingly. It is possible (but unlikely) that an average worker at a gas station will be killed by an environmental fanatic, or a federal paper-pusher will be killed by an anti-gov't nut. I suppose there is always some reason why a violent, imbalanced person would want to kill us over our profession, and fortunately we live in a society where many people understand that it's unacceptable to use violence that way.

So I agree that speech is not inherently the problem, but instead we need to teach some people that violence is not an appropriate means of self expression. Maybe those terrorists would "still exist" if Charlie Hebdo didn't exist, but they would focus their hate on other targets (Assad, Israel, the US military, etc.). I do not think mere cartoons "created" those killers; maybe a range of factors created them - Jihadist brainwashing and military training, lack of civic education, socioeconomic marginalization. But the cartoons may have incited them to action, or at least gave their imam/mentor a straw man to blame and preach hate against.

It's like a raging bull - the animal is out of control and wanting to gore someone. There's a crowd of people nearby who see the bull coming for them. Many will run away and disperse, and the bull might eventually settle down or chase some other poor chap instead. But it would be pretty silly for some in the crowd to start waving red flags and taunting the bull, right? Especially if the bull might also gore innocent bystanders who happen to be next to the guy with the red flag.

Does our desire to exercise free speech entitle us to put associates in harm's way, when they may or may not agree with our actions? Some in France and all over the world are standing by Charlie Hebdo in solidarity, even making new cartoons mocking the killers and vowing that they will not be silenced. That is brave I suppose, and well within their rights. But now France is more of a target for Jihadis (they already were somewhat, for their actions against ISIS, treatment of immigrants, etc.). I am sure there are some in France who don't want this extra attention and would rather keep a lower profile. But since they are French, they are also targets because of the actions of their countrymen. Is that fair? Maybe some cartoonists are willing to put themselves at risk for their art and politics. But can/should they speak for their whole society, and condemn all of them to a higher level of danger? Even though these killers were born in France, it's possible that other angry killers in Muslim nations may now preferentially target French tourists, etc. France put its embassies on high alert. All I'm saying is that there are global repercussions; it's not just a simple cartoon and the exercise of free speech.

As you said, maybe restrictions are not the answer (I concede that censorship could be a knee-jerk reaction to our revulsion over violent incidents like what we just saw). We outlaw speech X, and some other crazies will get upset over speech Y. It's whack-a-mole, and I don't know where it ends. For people who are willing to engage in violent terrorism, they will always be able to find a target or someone that they disagree with if they want to look hard enough. We live in a fairly free speech society, but billions of other people don't. They may not agree with our values, they may not have good education systems and rule of law, and they have access to weapons and training. Some spiritual and political leaders fill their heads with misinformation, telling them that it's their duty to defend the faith and kill blasphemers. So we become targets, even though we really meant those people no harm.

How do we deal with that? We can't interfere in the affairs of so many other nations, and we can't force them to adopt our values. Maybe tolerance and rejection of violence are universal human values, but no one can enforce that globally, and violations abound. So until we figure all that out, we do our best to protect our freedoms and our people, and accept that sometime violent extremists will attack us? This is just the cost of our way of life? I know some people are more than willing to bear that cost, but others among us are not. I guess that is why we have civil debate and a gov't of the people, so we can collectively decide what degrees of risk and freedom we want for ourselves?

 

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.

We've already lost the war on terror

http://www.democracynow.org/2013/4/23/jeremy_scahill_the_secret_story_behind
http://dirtywars.org/
http://www.npr.org/2013/04/10/176778712/the-way-of-the-knife-soldiers-spies-and-shadow-wars

Let's be honest, even Al Qaeda + Saddam + Kim at the apexes of their power did not really constitute an existential threat to the US and our interests. They are vile and inconvenient and sometime lethal and would be better behind bars, but they can't end our way of life. The Soviets could have ended us at a moment's notice, and we lived under that cloud for over 30 years. We bulked up our military and engaged in plenty of proxy dirty wars to gain some leverage, but we didn't reinvent our entire security apparatus and turn our backs on what made us great to try to destroy communism everywhere it bred.

But that is exactly what we have done post-9/11. The CIA changed from an intelligence gathering outfit (that was Congressionally prohibited from assassinating or torturing anyone, although they probably did it from time to time) into a shadow parallel military. Both they and the Pentagon now have Presidential authority to kill anyone, anywhere. Obama's admin. claims that B.O. wants to be the last word on the decisions so he can personally make sure that we are only killing people that we really must kill. And he is the Chosen One, so we can trust that he is making the right call every time - even though the info that he is basing the decision on is pre-filtered and doctored by military handlers whose career progression is based on body counts. Hey Mr. ConLaw prof - that is why we have courts, juries, and trials to reduce the risk of bias and error (and our courts still get plenty of cases wrong too, even capital punishments, so how will you and your boys do better?). Now there is no due process, no evidence sharing, just a drone strike or a wetwork team kicking down a door in the middle of the night.

The terrorists know they could never end the USA, even if their dreams came true and they got a hold of fissile material and diplomat access to our homeland. The USA is a lot more than just our land, buildings, people, and money. The USA is an idea, and a set of values worth practicing and propagating (and in some cases fighting for). The American ideas of justice, human rights, and egalitarianism are almost unprecedented in history - and that is what we've lost. The terrorists didn't take it from us, we jettisoned it of our own accord. Ostensibly to make us safer, but it was ultimately our call. And a liberal president did a lot of the damage. As Jeremy Scahill said, Obama's sad legacy is selling undemocratic, un-American behaviors to the liberal base. Sure the economy is top on our minds, and no one cares of some nameless ragheads get whacked, so we are guilty too because we didn't protest when Obama betrayed America's values (at the very least, he rolled over when the military-intelligence community wanted to surpass the Bush years and cross the line). Scahill is legit and trustworthy - he is the guy who exposed Blackwater's BS in Iraq, and has taken on warlords for years (fighting the sword with the pen).

We crossed that line so far we can't even see it in the dust behind us. Some might say it's no big deal, and it's not like we set up death camps. But is the bar that low? Over a hundred human beings are being held indefinitely at Gitmo without charge and without disclosing evidence against them. If they are so dangerous, then put them on trial and prove it. We kidnapped and exported hundreds of terror "suspects" to repressive nations to be tortured (ironically Syria helped us with that during the Bush years, and the money we paid them for services rendered probably bought weapons that are now being used against the rebels). Our most elite soldiers have the authority to raid any private home in Afghanistan just because some shady informants claimed that a baddie lives there (when in fact they are just using the US to settle a blood feud). And with the Al-Awlaki case, our government has sanctioned the killing of a US citizen overseas in total violation of their civil rights and international law. And what was his crime? Hate speech. Similar speech that the KKK, redneck militias, and even some radio hosts routinely get away with. But they're not Muslims. What's worse is I just learned the US also drone killed Al-Awlaki's 16-year-old son and also US citizen (see Democracy Now link). What was his crime? As far as I know, he had the wrong father. He "may" become a threat some day. What the hell are we thinking? What happened to innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt? You can't be guilty of something you haven't done yet. It's pathetic that we even need to be having this discussion.

What kind of nation does those things? Red China - guilty on some counts but not all. Iran - ditto. Cuba - they're the Red Cross compared to us. Maybe the USSR and Nazi Germany are the only modern regimes that come close. If we have resorted to such tactics to "defend ourselves against radical Islam", then we have lost the war on terror. And now our jingoism and vengeance are coming down on Tsarnaev. He is going to get mob justice at best, and it's scary to hear the things that even some prominent politicians and media personalities are saying about what we should do to him.

Yes, I know that some of those outrageous tactics have "done some good" for us, killed "bad people", and maybe averted attacks (or maybe they didn't). But what about all the side effects? As I said, Gitmo, Abu Ghraib, and drones are some of the top reasons why Muslims hate us, and are powerful Jihadi recruiting tools. A US hit squad accidentally took out an Afghan police commander and his family (including 2 pregnant women), who was accused of being a Taliban from bad intel. When the soldiers realized it, they tried to sanitize the crime scene and told the town that the Taliban actually killed the family, but the truth got out. He and his family risked their lives for years to help the US fight the Taliban, but now after this tragedy and outrage, they are so mad they want to blow up Americans. We are losing the war on terror when we turn devoted friends into enraged enemies.

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/LG08Df01.html (another indication that we have lost: this story is totally absent in mainstream Western media, assuming it's true)

Maybe some are giving Osama too much credit, but accounts suggest that he knew Al Qaeda could never defeat America and establish a global Caliphate. But he wanted to execute some sufficiently shocking attacks to whip America into a panicked frenzy. We would bankrupt ourselves foolishly trying to defend every square inch of our land (remember how we even stationed troops at the Mall of America after 9/11?). And our hubris would lead us to invade Muslim lands like the Crusaders and imperialists who came before us. We would have to fight on their terms, and they knew they could outlast us as we sacrifice our brave young men to an unwinnable situation. Terrorism (and even guerrilla war to some extent) is not about destroying one's enemy. It's about generating enough shock and fear to get your enemy to make bad decisions and engage in detrimental behavior. Then you just sit back and let your enemy do the work for you. And we're doing a heckuva job with that. Muslim extremists have suffered heavy losses in this war, and Al Qaeda is barely what it was in 2001, but the America idea is the bigger loser.

The Boston bombers and radical Islam

 (post from April 19, before more info was made available)

http://news.yahoo.com/stories-2-brothers-suspected-bombing-124623274.html
http://www.theworld.org/2013/04/dzhokhar-tsarnaev-classmate/

Some clues are emerging about the bombers' motives, and unfortunately it is a familiar story with the older brother: devout Muslim, feeling alienated in America, etc. And the younger brother was about as American as it gets, with no signs of extremist tendencies (and all the features that we were told would dissuade people from radicalism: economic opportunities, education, freedoms, social life, etc.) - but I guess he was influenced by his brother. As Chechen immigrants, both had strong political views, but so do a lot of people and they know better than  to violently lash out.

A common liberal response after 9/11 was, "Let's not blame all of Islam for the evil that a few radicals commit. Islam is a peaceful faith. Jihadism is the logical response to Western imperialism and injustices. We need to reach out and give them an alternative positive message to counter the extremist Imams." While I still believe some of that, I think I have to come out and say that there is something really wrong with how Islam is practiced these days. Maybe that is obvious to others, but I guess I have been conditioned to feel ashamed to think it. 

Other religions are doing a lot of messed up things too, but I have to call a spade a spade and acknowledge that something is especially wrong and violent with Islam. Granted that it is a younger religion, and the Sunni-Shia conflict is similar to the Catholic-Protestant wars in Europe. It is a process, and an ugly, slow, violent one. In the past there have been better times and much worse times in Judeo-Christian-Muslim relations. So no need to get all apocalyptic now, though clearly we're not at a high point. Many people criticize the "peaceful Imams" for not coming out and denouncing the violent messages and behaviors of their peers. I agree with that. but they're not alone: "sane" Rabbis don't call out their radical Zionist counterparts, "good" priests were not that vocal to denounce the sex abusers. Religion is tricky. People inherently know right from wrong, but with competing priorities they often circle the wagons and irrationally cover for their beloved faith - even the most warped practitioners of it. But resistance like that prevents reforms and clean-ups from taking place, unless there is a major scandal (don't tell me Pope B resigned just because he was old and tired).

So getting back to Islam and the messages Imams are spreading to vulnerable young men - their scam is so ridiculous that it's inconceivable we are losing the idea war.

http://www.hbo.com/vice/index.html#/vice/talk/forums/item.html/eNrjcmbOYM5nLtQsy0xJzXfMS8ypLMlMds7PK0mtKFHPz0mBCQUkpqf6JeamcjIysiWWZqbYmhkZJZkYpqSqGrlYplgYAClDw1QjIGVhmAYSNDAwMjK0NEuxMEpNZWNkYwQA-fweVQ==

Vice TV was investigating how Taliban recruit suicide bombers, and in some cases they are 10 years old. These kids are illiterate, and their cultural norms encourage them to look up to their village elders/Imams, and reject foreign occupation and illegitimate central government authority. Prime "suckers" to be radicalized. They are devout Muslims, yet they have never read a page of the Koran. They live on $10 a day or less. They take the elders at their word when they claim that the Koran says it's good to kill infidels and you will be rewarded in heaven (doesn't say that of course). They also tell the kids that their bomb vests explode outwards and won't injure them during the attack. Unfortunately many kids fall for that. If those "holy men" are so devout, why do they lie to kids to get them to kill for them, while they hide in their Madrasas? And the vast majority of insurgent and bombing victims are other Muslims, which IS explicitly prohibited in the Koran.

Some kids can see through the BS and end up aborting their attacks, or turn themselves in to the authorities. The gov't tries to "re-educate" them and integrate them as peaceful members of society. But Taliban life is all they know, and unfortunately some of them end up returning to the Taliban, and get caught in another bombing attempt. It's the same as abused women getting rescued from a cult but returning to their sick leader later. We need to have a sense of belonging and purpose in our lives, even if we know it's bad for us.

So why can these depraved Imams convince otherwise peaceful, normal kids to be killers? They use the typical anti-American arguments. Sometime they don't even have to lie: American Crusaders raid Muslim lands, rape our women, steal our oil, mock the Prophet, and piss on the Koran. Unfortunately we are guilty of all of that. The #1 recruiting tool for Jihad is Abu Ghraib, and it's still salient today. Because of our hubris and disrespect, we are losing a very winnable idea war (partly because we are racist and religiously intolerant too). So for however messed up Islam, Christianity, and America are - we don't have to make it harder on ourselves.

There are always going to be a few violent extremists. But most of them just yell on the subway or in a cave with no audience, because people have better things to do. That should be our goal. Even though it apparently didn't work for the Boston bombers, we have to really invest in economic development and stop doing disrespectful things to Islam if we want to win. But even if we are 100% perfect from now on, we still have to deal with our past sins and blowback from the last generation of horrible Western-Muslim relations. A good reputation takes a long time to build, but can be destroyed in a moment. Then it takes even longer to repair. The idiotic older generation put us in this mess, and the Millennials will be cleaning it up their whole lives. But hopefully if they do right by people, we won't have to hear this debate over and over again, with innocents killed and families crying every year.

Middle East protests over video

What do you think of the Muhammad video causing an uproar? I know we've discussed this issue after the South Park episode and the Danish cartoons. I guess some Westerners can't get enough of provoking crazy Muslims, and some Muslims can't stop themselves from overreacting to a few Western a-holes.

http://news.yahoo.com/google-rejects-white-house-request-pull-mohammad-film-015300781--sector.html
http://worldaffairs-manwnoname.blogspot.com/search?q=muhammad+cartoons

Apparently Google/YouTube refuses to censor it unless it violates local laws. I find it interesting, because when copyrighted material appears on YouTube, and Viacom, HBO, or other big corporate entities protest (or threaten to sue), of course Google blocks the video. But now when "free speech" is causing violence and anti-Americanism, then they tolerate it and even defend it. I know it's part of their terms of use, company vision, and all. Money over lives again I guess.

I am not a fan of censorship, but I find it so stupid when people produce hate or slander speech designed just to offend others. It's not political, educational, or meant to sway opinions - it's just to provoke irrational people who are already overly-sensitive about their religion. And they don't care about the blowback to innocents (in fact they may have even anticipated this outcome and were apparently OK with it). Do I approve of the violent protests? Of course not, and you'd think that someone in those nations would stand up and remind the protesters that most Americans do not disrespect Islam, and burning a KFC won't make it better. In fact those retaliations make Muslims look even worse to the world, which sullies the reputation of their prophet whom they claim to defend.

We don't celebrate free speech if we use that freedom to disseminate the lowest, most vile, most worthless forms of speech. So when people don't treat their freedoms responsibly, we could consider taking them away (as we do with bad drivers, criminals, etc.).

And of course Romney has to put his foot in his mouth yet again over this. While Stevens' corpse was still warm he just had to take a cheap shot at Obama. No one on the right but the talk radio jerks are supporting Romney on this, so you know he went too far. Everything Obama does hurts America's standing abroad apparently. No one is "siding" with the protesters or condoning the killing of Americans who had nothing to do with the video. Shut the F up you moron. I wouldn't cry over taking away Romney's free speech rights. We should denounce the makers of that video, as well as those who committed violence in response to it. Romney and the Reps think that Obama just wants to take every opportunity possible to make America look weaker and "embolden" our enemies. For the first time in decades, the Dems are slightly stronger than the GOP in terms of voter perceptions on defense and foreign policy, so Romney is really grasping at straws to try to level the game. He claims that he will never apologize for America. Well Reagan apologized for Japanese internment, LBJ apologized for Vietnam, and W Bush apologized for Abu Ghraib and slavery (I guess better late than never). It's not just weak appeasers who apologize. Humble people who are in touch with REALITY apologize when it's warranted. Arrogant, delusional pricks don't.

--------

True (so far), but what is the value/point of such an image (apart from raunchy humor)? :) Just because we can do something doesn't mean we should. And by restraining ourselves from doing stupid (but legal) stuff, does that really make our lives worse? In fact it often makes us better. We could exercise "free speech" and tell off our boss, hit on hot girls (with unstable muscular BFs), and act offensively in public, but probably we will suffer for it. That is why we SELF-CENSOR about 60% of our speech (or 10% if you're lucky enough to be a comedian - these aren't official stats, just for argument's sake). But when we don't directly suffer for our speech (and others do), well that is the classic moral hazard, negative externalities problem. And we all know that causes dysfunction and makes some extremists embrace even riskier speech. So if only the perpetrators suffer, then by all means make speech universally free. But the perpetrators are cowards who hide behind their money, status, insanity, or human shields.

So most of us can handle our speech responsibilities, but for the few degenerates who don't have the ability to self-censor, how does society step in? There are some laws, like those banning hate speech. Does this video qualify? It's debatable. Hate speech laws are even stronger in Germany, and I don't think many Germans are complaining that they feel so restricted. And I guess the law may not even be necessary for most Germans because they don't see any value in denying the Holocaust or other crap.

Below are some comments from a Lebanese friend of mine who has seen a lot of stuff in the Middle East. He makes a very good point: now with instant viral info dissemination, what about speech that directly endangers the interests and people of the US (like when Ahmadinejad blurts out stupid stuff about Israel, it hurts Iranians)? Freedoms are supposed to make us stronger, not hurt us right? If people are exercising their freedoms too selfishly and detrimentally, then how do we deal with that? Again, the violent retaliations are clearly the bigger crime here. But if you knowingly provoke someone into committing a crime (and from history and common sense you know there is a high probability of them doing so), I think you bear some responsibility there. I'm fairly sure there are laws about that stuff. We should "fix" violent, fundamentalist Islam too, but for now the "easier" fix is censoring some rare, especially dangerous hate speech before it does harm.

The Arab Spring is sputtering out (and the most critical nations are still under tyrants, apart from Egypt). People living under dictators for decades are traumatized and unsure what to do now. Their economies are broken. There is a battle for the hearts and minds between Islamists, former regime elements, and democratic reformists. Islamists thrive at filling the chaotic vacuum, especially fueled by anti-Western sentiment to exploit as a scapegoat. When Westerners pull this stuff, it just makes it easier for the Islamists to win. The people who made that video are supposedly anti-Islam, yet their actions make the Islamists politically and socially stronger in those affected nations. What folly. Meanwhile, the US is trying to help rebuild and promote good governance over there at some risk (taking off my cynic hat for a moment). It's hard, delicate, slow work. Now all their efforts since 2011 are set back a lot, if not ruined. All so a few morons can exercise "free speech"? Unacceptable. There's a lot more going on here, but the ignorants and ideologues don't see beyond their narrow agendas (not calling anyone here ignorant of course).

-----

I find it ironic that the man behind it is an Egyptian American who just sent his home country back into chaos.

I thought Google and YouTube do not tolerate hate speech, and I would think this video falls under that. 

http://www.youtube.com/t/community_guidelines

"We encourage free speech and defend everyone's right to express unpopular points of view. But we don't permit hate speech (speech which attacks or demeans a group based on race or ethnic origin, religion, disability, gender, age, veteran status, and sexual orientation/gender identity)."

"Hate speech" refers to content that promotes hatred against members of a protected group. For instance, racist or sexist content may be considered hate speech. Sometimes there is a fine line between what is and what is not considered hate speech. For instance, it is generally okay to criticize a nation, but not okay to make insulting generalizations about people of a particular nationality.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/15/world/middleeast/google-wont-rethink-anti-islam-videos-status.html

"Google said it had already determined that the video did not violate its terms of service regarding hate speech, because it was against the Muslim religion but not Muslim people."

So the video was not against a group of people, but against the religion, which happens to have many groups of people following? Nice lawyering work. Regardless, I don't think Google and YouTube censoring or not censoring the video at this point will do anything, and blocking it from countries as the violence spreads is stupid, the people are and will still be able to view the video.I think it is time the government steps in and tries to find a way to punish the parties involved with making the video because it is hurting its foreign policy. 

I also assumed this would be contained in those countries that are not as well off. I wanted to rank muslim countries by GDP and see if the violence correlates with low GDP, but there are riots in richer nations too.
 
--------

I won't try to defend the onion since it is a known satire publication  but that picture is EXTREMELY graphic.  Has anyone seen the video in quesiton?  It is comically stupid.  I had a hard time understanding where the offense came from.  Did the middle east riot when indiana jones came out and made the middle east look bad?

Do you really think these riots have ANYTHING to do with this video?  I mean, at all.  The video is a scapegoat at best.  These are organized demonstrations.  Thousands of people.  The number of people showing up to these rallies and the demographic makes it near impossible for a significant number of them to even have seen the video let alone translated from English to their native language.  There is some central authority figure fomenting the masses.  Plain and simple.  

You could argue "why would he make the video, why don't we all go and turn off the internal filters" but we do not self censor out of fear for our lives.  We self censor to avoid social awkwardness, potential relationship damage, etc.  And the real reason I believe you argue to stop the film (or cartoon or fill in the blank) is because it is so simple to do so.  Would we make those arguments if people rioted and killed every time someone said the word Muhammad regardless of context?  Would you then suggest that we should avoid using it at all?  Why is it ok to censor something that is easier to avoid?  It isn't hard to say "the prophet" or whatever instead of Muhammad, is it still ok?  It feels a little like blaming the rape victim.  What was she wearing?  What was she doing alone at night in that area?  All of those things are valid in the sense they could have helped avoid the final outcome, but it is still completely and totally NOT the victims fault. 

--------

I think it's pretty unassailable that the video (or news of it) triggered the riots, and you don't need to see it to be offended by it. I think it has to do with the act of audacity to make such a film rather than the actual film content. And sure, like with Occupy, it started on a narrow, justifiable premise, but then when it got popular other wackos came out of the woodwork and polluted the movement. Supposedly in Egypt on the 2nd day of riots, the people didn't even care about the video anymore, but were protesting the police, economy, and government. But that's my point - those nations are barely hanging onto order as it is, why do we push them over the cliff for a frivolous reason? It's against reason. I doubt there is some "Islamic-industrial complex" pulling all the strings here. There is no authority figure in Libya or Egypt anymore, the dictators are gone. It's unclear who holds stable power, apart from the military. I mean, extremist Islam is organized, pervasive, and shouldn't be underestimated, but it's not like they were waiting for this trigger to strike like with 9/11. We saw from the Arab Spring that mobile phones and social media can mobilize people really effectively. I surmise the same happened here. It's "grassroots", but I'm sure the Islamists and other special interests are trying to fan the flames where it benefits them.

Well, we are lucky to live in a nation where it's highly unlikely to be murdered based on what you say. But in other placed, people definitely self-censor out of fear of their lives (in Iraq and Afghan. I'm sure some people didn't vote because of the threats). Sometime innocent speech can get you killed, but ill-advised speech can too - like in Northern Ireland in the '90s if a Protestant went into the wrong neighborhood and started talking crap. Yes, part of my argument is that if it's so easy to avoid these problems by censorship (that causes little pain to us), then we should. If a girl doesn't want to be raped, it's easier for her to dress conservatively and avoid bad neighborhoods than reform all the potential rapists. It's not fair, but I think most people would find that reasonable. And sure, if the Islamists and people offended by insults to Islam go too far (like Americans can't even say "prophet" without riots as you said), then of course we put our foot down. But so far and for the foreseeable future, the Islamic side hasn't become that intolerant, so I am not really worried about that possibility. They drew a pretty clear line in the sand: don't mock (or depict) their prophet, and it's all good. But some people keep trying to push it for no constructive reason.

My main argument is what to do about free speech that harms your country's interests and millions of people? America is TRYING to "reform the rapist". We're trying to spread democratic values, education, and other reforms so that people don't just let religious dogma (or phony religious zealots) dictate their beliefs and actions. We're trying to improve the rule of law and good governance so that people have peaceful, civil means of redress. We're trying to build economies so that people have a lot to live for and don't feel the need to riot desperately. If we do all those things, then no one will die when some wacko makes offensive media. Problem solved! It will be like the US then (no Muslims are rioting about the video here as far as I know, but my friend says it did happen in AUS which is wealthy and Western). But for now, when things are still volatile and it's a work in progress, offensive speech is setting all that back. 

In your rape analogy, I am not sure who the "victim" is here. The makers of the video? They got what they wanted and no harm has come to them (unlike Theo Van Gogh, who at least made a political movie to protest the mistreatment of Muslim women). Were the victims the consulate workers who died in Libya? Those people respected Islam and would condemn the video, so they did nothing to provoke the attackers except for being American. Is free speech the victim? It's not in any more danger today than a week ago. I really think the victims are everyone who practice free speech respectfully and responsibly, and the people who are working tirelessly to build a better Middle East (and US for that matter). The rest of us suffer and feel shame/sorrow because of the excesses of a few, and their violent, crazy "accomplices" overseas.

--------

I think it's pretty unassailable that the video (or news of it) triggered the riots, and you don't need to see it to be offended by it. I think it has to do with the act of audacity to make such a film rather than the actual film content. And sure, like with Occupy, it started on a narrow, justifiable premise, but then when it got popular other wackos came out of the woodwork and polluted the movement. Supposedly in Egypt on the 2nd day of riots, the people didn't even care about the video anymore, but were protesting the police, economy, and government. But that's my point - those nations are barely hanging onto order as it is, why do we push them over the cliff for a frivolous reason? It's against reason. I doubt there is some "Islamic-industrial complex" pulling all the strings here. There is no authority figure in Libya or Egypt anymore, the dictators are gone. It's unclear who holds stable power, apart from the military. I mean, extremist Islam is organized, pervasive, and shouldn't be underestimated, but it's not like they were waiting for this trigger to strike like with 9/11. We saw from the Arab Spring that mobile phones and social media can mobilize people really effectively. I surmise the same happened here. It's "grassroots", but I'm sure the Islamists and other special interests are trying to fan the flames where it benefits them.

Well, we are lucky to live in a nation where it's highly unlikely to be murdered based on what you say. But in other placed, people definitely self-censor out of fear of their lives (in Iraq and Afghan. I'm sure some people didn't vote because of the threats). Sometime innocent speech can get you killed, but ill-advised speech can too - like in Northern Ireland in the '90s if a Protestant went into the wrong neighborhood and started talking crap. Yes, part of my argument is that if it's so easy to avoid these problems by censorship (that causes little pain to us), then we should. If a girl doesn't want to be raped, it's easier for her to dress conservatively and avoid bad neighborhoods than reform all the potential rapists. It's not fair, but I think most people would find that reasonable. And sure, if the Islamists and people offended by insults to Islam go too far (like Americans can't even say "prophet" without riots as you said), then of course we put our foot down. But so far and for the foreseeable future, the Islamic side hasn't become that intolerant, so I am not really worried about that possibility. They drew a pretty clear line in the sand: don't mock (or depict) their prophet, and it's all good. But some people keep trying to push it for no constructive reason.

My main argument is what to do about free speech that harms your country's interests and millions of people? America is TRYING to "reform the rapist". We're trying to spread democratic values, education, and other reforms so that people don't just let religious dogma (or phony religious zealots) dictate their beliefs and actions. We're trying to improve the rule of law and good governance so that people have peaceful, civil means of redress. We're trying to build economies so that people have a lot to live for and don't feel the need to riot desperately. If we do all those things, then no one will die when some wacko makes offensive media. Problem solved! It will be like the US then (no Muslims are rioting about the video here as far as I know, but my friend says it did happen in AUS which is wealthy and Western). But for now, when things are still volatile and it's a work in progress, offensive speech is setting all that back. 

In your rape analogy, I am not sure who the "victim" is here. The makers of the video? They got what they wanted and no harm has come to them (unlike Theo Van Gogh, who at least made a political movie to protest the mistreatment of Muslim women). Were the victims the consulate workers who died in Libya? Those people respected Islam and would condemn the video, so they did nothing to provoke the attackers except for being American. Is free speech the victim? It's not in any more danger today than a week ago. I really think the victims are everyone who practice free speech respectfully and responsibly, and the people who are working tirelessly to build a better Middle East (and US for that matter). The rest of us suffer and feel shame/sorrow because of the excesses of a few, and their violent, crazy "accomplices" overseas.

--------

The victim in my analogy was the exercise of free speech.  Because the speech was unpopular and easy to avoid it is their fault.  No, it isn't.  And you say yourself that the riots became about something else and that and are barely hanging on to order.  When the straw breaks the camels back how do you blame the straw?  Why is it ok to go 1984 on free speech when it is a small loss or it is easy.  The road to hell is paved with good intentions.  Small compromises all the way to the police state.  I don't understand why your slippery slope arguments don't go for both sides.

Intelligence, as reported in the media, shows the deaths of the Benghazi riots were caused either by pre-planned units (in which case the video is completely unrelated) or opportunistic based on the riots.  Now i'm not saying riots are good but they are a whole different thing than killing.  And it appears, from what we know from the media reporting, that the deaths are NOT a direct result of the video but either an opportunistic response or a pre-planned attack.  

And do you honestly believe that if this video was never made nothing else would exist in the world to set these people off?  I mean seriously, watch the video.  There are things spoken on fox news regularly that are as offensive.  Additionally the anger is based on an incorrect premise that the US is backing the video in some way.  I just really really struggle to  blame the film for this.  

Back to your main point, where do we draw the line on free speech.  We will always struggle.  Fact of life.  But just because something is easy to avoid doesn't mean one SHOULD avoid it.  Should's are important and I try to be careful when discussing them.  And I haven't heard from you (or anyone) a reason that someone SHOULD limit their free speech because of an irrational and likely unrelated response.  If the response was rational, if it could  be predicted, there might be an argument.  But what about all the other anti-Mohammad material in between this video and 5 years ago?  What about the hateful videos in response to the Benghazi killings?  How many died from southpark?  There just isn't a causal link that one can draw.  

--------

Thx for your thoughts, and I can't find fault in anything you wrote. In a perfect world I wish we could all say whatever we wanted, and the worst that could happen is a few feelings hurt. There are forces out of our control that weakened the camel's back, but we actually control the straw. So yes, I do blame the straw because it is preventable. We can't turn back time and make these nations more functional. Maybe if we showed restraint here, another straw would have come along and broke it eventually, but at least by refraining this time, we bought the camel more time to hopefully heal. Wow I really milked that analogy to death.

I don't think censoring the video would ultimately lead to a police state, but I get your point. Remember that a lot more censorship takes place behind the scenes and society generally condones it (all the problems with for-profit news, special interests dictating what politicians say, PATRIOT Act stuff, etc.). I think we should fight those battles first as bigger challenges to democracy and freedom. The video arguably violates Google's terms of service as hate speech, so they have somewhat of a case to pull it. But maybe they figure if they relent now, the ACLU and free speech camp will raise even more hell (and those people are actually tied to customers than Google cares about, whereas angry poor Muslims don't buy ads with them).

Elements of violent Islam have infiltrated Arab Spring nations (again, Jihadists thrive in a power vacuum and chaos). To what extent I don't know. Maybe they were planning a hit on the US staff in Benghazi for a while. It's possible that they would have tried irrespective of the video. But now the video gave them cover, so they can say they're not the bad guys, the infidels are. And now maybe the locals tend to sympathize with them, while without the video they would have rejected their violent acts. You are right that other things may set the people off, and maybe they deserve to be mad given their situations. There could be riots, but at least they wouldn't be so anti-American. All those riots make the US more fearful and hostile to Muslims too, which erodes relations and leads to a downward spiral (revenge actions we may take in response to the US dead could lead to escalation). I wish Obama would make a statement saying that America rejects the video and respects the practitioners of Islam, but also condemns violence against Americans and the killers should be punished. There are wackos on both sides who love this and want a clash of cultures, but they do not represent the vast majority who just want to live in peace. They are the real enemy for the rest of us. I guess he could be concerned that the GOP would label him as a weak appeaser, when they want him to settle the score.

It's true that the right wing media say truly racist, prejudiced, anti-Islamic things almost every day. And mostly that goes unnoticed in Muslim nations - maybe either due to unfamiliarity or dismissal of the sources, or they're just used to it by now. But apart from free speech activities, Muslims have rioted after they learned US personnel (1) tortured-humiliated people at Abu Ghraib, (2) desecrated or did something bad to the Korans at Gitmo and elsewhere, (3) urinated on dead insurgents, (4) killed civilians in Pakistan, and other stuff. They don't take to the streets because they're bored - we've given them plenty of fodder over the years.

Yes I suppose censorship is a slippery slope. It's a matter of tolerance. Some feel we need to make a stand now, others are OK with letting their rights take a back seat to other priorities in this case. There's no way to know which path leads to a better net outcome, and better outcome for whom? You are right though, I should watch how I use the world should. I don't mean to be presumptuous. But my goal is to minimize suffering here. I am OK to sacrifice the rights of a few (who don't seem to be wielding those rights very responsibly) in order to preserve life and diplomacy for many. I don't mean I would throw them in the slammer, but if there has to be a victim, I guess I would choose their rights. But it's not my call, just an opinion. You would probably prefer to preserve their rights at the risk of some potential international hostility (and the size of the risk being unknown, but possibly nil as you argue). Though there is a track record of Muslim violence directly in response to certain Western "insults" to Islam, so it's not inconceivable. Yes not every offensive-to-Islam event has caused violence, but enough high-profile cases have occurred to warrant some belief in a causal relationship. But you may disagree, and it's hard to prove either way.

Michael Scheuer on Osama and the Mideast

This was one of the most refreshing foreign policy interviews I've heard in a while, from Prof. Michael Scheuer of G'Town who used to head up the CIA's Bin Laden group (nicknamed "The Manson Family" for how fanatically they performed their jobs). I guess you might think he was a failure for that, but he informed the Pentagon of OBL's precise location on 8 occasions (of course no way to know if they were right), and the Clinton admin. declined to give the green light for their own reasons. In 2007, Osama himself said that the two Americans who understood him the most were Noam Chomsky and Scheuer (make of that what you will).

http://www.kqed.org/a/forum/R201102231000
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Scheuer

Scheuer said that as early as 1997, Osama's grand strategy was to foment political discord in the US and alienate us from our allies over our foreign policy, stretch our military-intel apparatus thin trying to chase Al Qaeda, and bankrupt us in foreign quagmires. If that is true, then the self-proclaimed greatest nation in history strutted into a major bear trap set by a guy hiding in a cave. We're not on our last legs yet, but we're not winning either (especially when you consider the price we've paid so far for minor gains). He also said that Osama is more of a smart, dedicated "worthy enemy" like Robert E. Lee than a delusional lunatic like Kim Jong Il. Unfortunately the former is a lot harder to defeat.

Osama's top enemies are/were the non-Islamic dictators in the Mideast (especially the House of Saud, Saddam, Mubarak, and Qaddafi, so this has been a great month for him) and Israel. The US and the West are indirect enemies due to our support for said enemies. But one wonders whether our choice of allies could have prevented Osama from becoming militant. After all, he did fight with us at one time, so we must not have been such intolerable infidels. Just as our "trusted Iraqi sources" told the neo-cons exactly what they wanted to hear, that Iraq had WMD for their own interests, Israel and our dictator buddies in the Mideast (who view grassroots Islamic movements as their top threats to power) have fed us crap for years that Al Qaeda hates us because of our values, and won't stop until we're dead or converted. Well if that's the case then it's personal; we better hate them back and wage an endless, amorphous war against them. Good vs. evil, our civilization is at stake, yadda yadda.

Yes Al Qaeda may want a global caliphate, because that is what Muhammad instructed Muslims to do (not necessarily through violence). I want a new job, and even if I try very hard to get one there's no telling if and when it will happen. Some US evangelicals hope to bring about the conditions that unleash Armageddon - not just prepare for the return of the lord, but actively make it happen. Then the US and all nations will be destroyed, and everyone but the true believers die horrible deaths (including the Jews they profess to support). So should we imprison the evangelicals for conspiracy against the US, and send them to Gitmo as religious fanatics? There is no point fearing and defending against every extreme religious endgame. But hey, it makes for a great bogeyman for people like Bush and Beck to peddle on the ignorant and fearful.

All this masks the truths that are politically inconvenient for our leaders, and hinders their propaganda efforts inspiring us to sacrifice for this righteous conflict. We and our allies created Al Qaeda and Osama. Instead of diffusing the causes of their grievances, we have chosen to fight them head on, and on their terms. And we have taken this problematic path because we care more about propping up dictators in order to keep the Israelis happy, Muslims down, and oil exports up (an industry whose profits go to only a small subset of people), rather than forging true partnerships, cultural understanding, political reforms, and economic development. The region is still affected by the legacies of colonialism; they need a Marshall Plan, not Rendition and sanctions. If we took the higher path, maybe Exxon and Lockheed's coffers would be smaller, but the people over there would have a better quality of life and viable political channels of redress (precluding the need to embrace violent Islam), which ensures greater stability and security for our interests in the end.

-------

Scheuer also made pretty good comments about our precarious support of Israel. Any nation founded on the premise that a deity granted a chosen tribe exclusive rights to a patch of land in an unbreakable, eternal covenant (and much of their government is populated by leaders who espouse this belief) is probably not a great partner for rational, 21st Century diplomacy. The US supposedly trusts in god, but no one except Palin types would claim that god cares whether the US is around or not. Scheuer was the first person I've heard to say that Israel doesn't have a right to exist, contrary to most public statements. He of course believes that Israel has the right to defend itself from threats, but no nation has a "right" to exist, and that is an important distinction. It must be true, otherwise the USSR would still be around, and we couldn't have forced Nazi Germany to surrender. Nations exist as long as they can, but if they grow weak or piss off other nations enough, they're going down. That is the way of the world, so why the double-standard for Israel? Because god said so? And we call the Muslims crazy? This is important because it's much harder to think clearly when existential sentiments are always clouding one's judgment.

Regarding Libya, it's amazing that Obama hasn't publicly condemned Qaddafi's violence against his people and called for him to step down (the Arab League already has). Clinton spoke out a bit, and also previously called on the Iranian people to rise up against their murderous regime. That's easy for her to say 10,000 miles away in safety and comfort, but these are not light decisions for the people on the ground. If they want to revolt, they have to go all the way or it's their death and doom for their loved ones. Despots stay in power by paying for loyalty and crushing opponents, especially those who dare to speak out. There's no turning back, and if we realize that we should really salute the courageous young people who risked everything to defy the odds and topple dictators backed by thousands of gunmen and billions of petro-dollars. The typical American can't even be bothered to drive down the street and vote once a year. It's a real shame that decades of our foreign policy blunders have rendered us nearly impotent during this critical time in Mideast history.

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/02/22/too_little_not_yet_too_late

Why has the US put more heat on Mubarak, when he was responsible for far less bloodshed (at least Mubarak didn't send warplanes to bomb unarmed people in his own cities)? Libya cut a deal with Bush and others in the West to get UN sanctions lifted and to get off the terror blacklist. Qaddafi supposedly agreed to cease his WMD programs, pay reparations to the victims of the Pan Am bombing, and release some Western captives. He must have got a lot in return, including diplomatic cover. And when the EU buys 85% of Libya's substantial oil exports, that's a lot of capital to cash in during a crisis. That shows you how our foreign energy dependence can cripple our diplomatic options and stifle our principles. It's clear that Qaddafi is done; it just matters how much he will kill and destroy in the process. It's better for us and the region to limit Qaddafi's damage now. We enforced no-fly zones over Serbia and Iraq, why not with Libya? Our fleet is already over there. Many Libyan pilots bravely defected and refused to carry out missions to bomb protesters. But at least the US/NATO can embargo incoming shipments of resources and mercenaries from Qaddafi's African allies.

Why do Muslims hate us? Not because of our democracy, shopping malls, and women's rights (well not primarily). It's because we choose to befriend homicidal klepto-sociopaths over the millions of honest, poor people languishing under their boots. It's not just Obama but a long tradition.

Egypt unrest: does America stand up for the cause of liberty or not?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110127/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_egypt_protest

In the recent SoU speech, Obama did offer token support to the Tunisian reform movement (as if 30% of Americans could even find Tunisia on a map), and he delivered that famous address in Cairo trying to repair relations with the Muslim world and encourage democratic changes in repressive Mideast regimes. But now that the Mubarak dictatorship in Egypt is at its weakest state in decades, Washington is deathly silent. Heck even this AP article barely explains why Egyptians are protesting to begin with (tired of decades of martial law, repressed expression, huge wealth gap and unemployment, etc.), I suppose feeding more misunderstanding and the stereotype of the angry Arab. Mubarak is a former military officer who has been president since 1981, miraculously winning numerous landslide re-elections similar to the ousted Tunisian despot (and now Mubarak is grooming his son to take over as head of state, yeah very democratic). Maybe part of that is due to his thugs beating down opposition parties, even the deceptively named Muslim Brotherhood, which is mostly non-violent, advocates many Western-friendly reforms, and has nothing to do with extremist Islam. Mubarak outlaws public demonstrations and speaking out against the government too. Yet US leaders have supported this man for years, even selling him weapons and such. Well, after some deal-making Carter got Egypt to recognize Israel, and they do control the Suez Canal after all, so we have to buddy up to them, no matter what type of ruler they have.

America claims that it opposes tyranny, and we supposedly stood by the Iranian anti-government protests a few years ago, which is pretty much the same situation as Egypt except that their government is Islamic and pursuing nukes. We supported Kosovo against Serbia, and Bush even recognized Kosovo's independence a few years ago, much to the dismay of Serbia and Russia - diplomatic ties with those nations are much more critical than with Kosovo/Albania. Then recently a European report concluded that the current Kosovo regime is led by criminals. So we go out of our way to bomb and kill hundreds of Serbs to ostensibly defend the human rights of Kosovar Albanians, then legitimized the state of Kosovo, only to watch as a criminal regime develops. And yet we also tolerate regimes in Saudi Arabia, Israel, and Egypt that routinely commit abuses? How can we expect anyone to take our foreign policy seriously?

------

More on Egypt: http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2011/01/on_egypt_white_house_is_ignore.html

"If there is a democratic revolution, US-Egyptian relationships are in for a world of trouble... There will be some anti-US sentiment among the protesters because they believe the US has been trying to prop up the regime until the last moment."

Or is the US (irrationally) scared "that democracy would 'open up the flood gates' to Islamic revolution"?

-BBC

From Nobel laureate and Egyptian opposition leader Mohammed El-Baradei:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2011-01-26/mohamed-elbaradei-the-return-of-the-challenger/

"If you would like to know why the United States does not have credibility in the Middle East, [our handling of Egypt over the years] is precisely the answer... You reaffirmed their belief that you are applying a double standard for your friends, and siding with an authoritarian regime just because you think it represents your interests. We are staring at social disintegration, economic stagnation, political repression, and we do not hear anything from you, the Americans, or for that matter from the Europeans.

Of course, you in the West have been sold the idea that the only options in the Arab world are between authoritarian regimes and Islamic jihadists. That’s obviously bogus. If we are talking about Egypt, there is a whole rainbow variety of people who are secular, liberal, market-oriented, and if you give them a chance they will organize themselves to elect a government that is modern and moderate."

------------

I boycott most cable news, but part of me was curious as to how FOX may spin the events in Egypt into their worldview. I shouldn't have wondered. Warning: if you click the link to the Glenn Beck footage on YouTube, it's like "The Ring" and you will die in 3 days from a stroke (the brain can only handle so much idiocy), unless you show it to someone else first (pick someone you don't like).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PH7GPPpsw6g

http://news.yahoo.com/s/dailybeast/12199_glennbecksegyptfreakouthowtheuprisingsplitsusconservatives;_ylt=Ahl6zEsNcBy8S9ddBSa8g3Fg.3QA;_ylu=X3oDMTRtOWhxZDE0BGFzc2V0Ay9zL2RhaWx5YmVhc3QvMTIxOTlfZ2xlbm5iZWNrc2VneXB0ZnJlYWtvdXRob3d0aGV1cHJpc2luZ3NwbGl0c3VzY29uc2VydmF0aXZlcwRjY29kZQNtcF9lY184XzEwBGNwb3MDMgRwb3MDMgRzZWMDeW5fdG9wX3N0b3JpZXMEc2xrA3RoZXJpZ2h0c2VneQ--

Since the war in Iraq, it seems, Beck, like others on the right, has changed his mind about the desirability of Middle Eastern democracy. It was only a few years ago, you'll remember, that conservatives were crowing about a new birth of freedom in the Muslim world.

You couldn't make this stuff up: "We've shown you tonight that Hamas, Code Pink"—the feminist anti-war group—"and the Muslim Brotherhood are all linked together." With the future bleak, Beck called on his viewers to pray for "our way of life" and for Israel.

"The whole world starts to implode... This is coordinated."

It must be hilarious to watch Beck play Risk. So it's fine when a bunch of Anglo-Saxon slave-owning farmers demand independence from the tax-and-spend British Empire, but when brown-skinned Muslims take to the streets, tired of their president-for-life and 30% unemployment, it's a radical fundamentalist-progressive conspiracy (if you could get those two camps to conspire together, you would be a master negotiator). All his paranoid talk about the Islamist insurrection spreading across the Mideast and even penetrating Europe is basically McCarthyism 2.0. We later found out that Cold War commies had a really tough time getting along, much less unite and overthrow the capitalist pigs. Does Beck really think that a unified Muslim caliphate will suddenly form across dozens of nations, ethnic groups, sects, etc. in order to destroy us? Even the Muslims in tiny Palestine can't get along. Yes when you dare to let people determine their own destinies, sometimes the results are not to your liking. But that doesn't mean that the worst-case scenario will occur every damn time. This is not an easy situation for the US and other Western powers, and maybe inaction is better than intervention (even on the side of "liberty") and possible backlash from our perceived meddling.

I think El Baradei ruffled a lot of feathers at FOX when he compared the Muslim Brotherhood's influence in Egyptian politics to that of the Evangelicals in the US. I'd probably go further and say that the Evangelicals are more of a threat to Western democracy.

But it is interesting how the Egypt situation is creating a rift among conservatives:

It was never entirely clear how the right's support for political freedom in the Muslim world meshed with its overwhelming contempt for Muslim people... an interesting divide is opening up on the right. On one side are those who actually took all that democracy stuff seriously. On the other are those who see the Muslim world only as an enemy to be crushed and controlled. With a Republican primary approaching, it remains to be seen which view of Middle Eastern policy will triumph among conservatives. 


Not surprisingly, the politicians closest to the religious right have been the quickest to side with Mubarak... At least some neoconservatives, meanwhile, have shown an admirable consistency, urging support for Egypt's demonstrators. Michael Rubin of the AEI, for example, wrote a piece for Forbes.com headlined "The U.S. Should Not Fear Regime Change." 


This highlights an interesting difference of opinion between neoconservatives and conservative Israelis, who are often thought to move in lockstep. "Israelis aren't on board on the democracy game," says Rubin. "They'd much rather rely on aging dictators to keep things quiet. They're perfectly happy selling out Lebanon to Syria, and perfectly happy selling out the Egyptian people to Hosni Mubarak."

- Michelle Goldberg