13 Tweets Instead of a Syria Strategy

  1. RT @rmslim: By far this is one of z best, if not z best analysis, of unfolding devepts in the Arab region penned by Yezid Sayigh http://t.co/zMW7oGUsKZ 09:52:10, 2014-08-29
  2. #prt among most interesting aspects the piece is brief alternative history asserted in 1st para on idea of US strike last year after Ghouta 09:59:59, 2014-08-29
  3. #pt it was the deep content of the Prez’s “conclusion” US “should” have struck Assad… he and we operate thoroughly in the “instead” of it 10:04:48, 2014-08-29
  4. #pt thus the difficulties of formulating “a strategy” re Syria: WE decided WE could not have one, foreclosed any attempt to implement one 10:09:20, 2014-08-29

  1. @hxhassan proper objective is separation of Assad and Alawite self-interest 11:09:06, 2014-08-23
  2. @liberalfish maybe question is determining level of responsible intervention required to turn Assad into clear worse choice for Alawites 16:03:34, 2014-08-25
  3. @liberalfish also I didnt specify intervention against Assad – tho is perhaps implicit, as in yr initial tweet 16:10:09, 2014-08-25
  4. @liberalfish this actually gets at true contradiction re Syria imo 16:14:05, 2014-08-25
  5. @liberalfish IS is intolerable – Assad regime also intolerable from one perspective, but objectively tolerated/recognized as actual “state” 16:18:42, 2014-08-25
  6. @liberalfish a “responsible intervention” would be an intervention substantial enough actually to replace Assad-state with better state 16:19:30, 2014-08-25
  7. @liberalfish but that level of intervention not contemplated, except perhaps by Hof AFAIK – so are left with “irresponsible” options 16:20:44, 2014-08-25
  8. [tweet by @abumuqawama]There’s a reason we don’t yet have an ISIS strategy, and that’s because most strategies are regional/country-specific. 2014-08-29
  9. in part because intl and domestic law, including what we claim to uphold, is “country-specific” 12:56:44, 2014-08-29

Home Page  Public Email  Twitter  Facebook  YouTube  Github   

Writing since ancient times, blogging, e-commercing, and site installing-designing-maintaining since 2001; WordPress theme and plugin configuring and developing since 2004 or so; a lifelong freelancer, not associated nor to be associated with any company, publication, party, university, church, or other institution.

Posts in this series

Commenter Ignore Button by CK's Plug-Ins

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *



Noted & Quoted

TV pundits and op-ed writers of every major newspaper epitomize how the Democratic establishment has already reached a consensus: the 2020 nominee must be a centrist, a Joe Biden, Cory Booker or Kamala Harris–type, preferably. They say that Joe Biden should "run because [his] populist image fits the Democrats’ most successful political strategy of the past generation" (David Leonhardt, New York Times), and though Biden "would be far from an ideal president," he "looks most like the person who could beat Trump" (David Ignatius, Washington Post). Likewise, the same elite pundit class is working overtime to torpedo left-Democratic candidates like Sanders.

For someone who was not acquainted with Piketty's paper, the argument for a centrist Democrat might sound compelling. If the country has tilted to the right, should we elect a candidate closer to the middle than the fringe? If the electorate resembles a left-to-right line, and each voter has a bracketed range of acceptability in which they vote, this would make perfect sense. The only problem is that it doesn't work like that, as Piketty shows.

The reason is that nominating centrist Democrats who don't speak to class issues will result in a great swathe of voters simply not voting. Conversely, right-wing candidates who speak to class issues, but who do so by harnessing a false consciousness — i.e. blaming immigrants and minorities for capitalism's ills, rather than capitalists — will win those same voters who would have voted for a more class-conscious left candidate. Piketty calls this a "bifurcated" voting situation, meaning many voters will connect either with far-right xenophobic nationalists or left-egalitarian internationalists, but perhaps nothing in-between.

Comment →

Understanding Trump’s charisma offers important clues to understanding the problems that the Democrats need to address. Most important, the Democratic candidate must convey a sense that he or she will fulfil the promise of 2008: not piecemeal reform but a genuine, full-scale change in America’s way of thinking. It’s also crucial to recognise that, like Britain, America is at a turning point and must go in one direction or another. Finally, the candidate must speak to Americans’ sense of self-respect linked to social justice and inclusion. While Weber’s analysis of charisma arose from the German situation, it has special relevance to the United States of America, the first mass democracy, whose Constitution invented the institution of the presidency as a recognition of the indispensable role that unique individuals play in history.

Comment →

[E]ven Fox didn’t tout Bartiromo’s big scoops on Trump’s legislative agenda, because 10 months into the Trump presidency, nobody is so foolish as to believe that him saying, “We’re doing a big infrastructure bill,” means that the Trump administration is, in fact, doing a big infrastructure bill. The president just mouths off at turns ignorantly and dishonestly, and nobody pays much attention to it unless he says something unusually inflammatory.On some level, it’s a little bit funny. On another level, Puerto Rico is still languishing in the dark without power (and in many cases without safe drinking water) with no end in sight. Trump is less popular at this point in his administration than any previous president despite a generally benign economic climate, and shows no sign of changing course. Perhaps it will all work out for the best, and someday we’ll look back and chuckle about the time when we had a president who didn’t know anything about anything that was happening and could never be counted on to make coherent, factual statements on any subject. But traditionally, we haven’t elected presidents like that — for what have always seemed like pretty good reasons — and the risks of compounding disaster are still very much out there.

Comment →
CK's WP Plugins


Extraordinary Comments

CK's WP Plugins