Eve of Containment

Summary: A year ago, Americans were being asked to kill non-enemies because it was abstractly right; now are being asked to kill enemies at war with us.

A – ISIS and “excess males”:
  1. #prt @holland_tom Olivier Roy among others diagnosed appeal of Islamism in relation to useless male syndrome in highly patriarchal culture in reply to holland_tom 11:30:08, 2014-09-06
  2. #pt so a hyper-masculine reaction to a sense of emasculation, or ISIS a “fraternity” on limitless Spring Break @holland_tom in reply to CK_MacLeod 11:35:24, 2014-09-06
  3. #pt same pattern, of course in much less extreme form, is found across the West – merely denouncing its manifestations tends to feed it 11:41:30, 2014-09-06
  4. #pt Seems we resist old solutions for “excess males/masculinity” only up to the moment we find ourselves embracing them, and it, again… 11:47:13, 2014-09-06
  5. #pt …converting the problem into its own solution, so no longer a problem at all, but a resource and vital necessity 11:49:10, 2014-09-06
B – ISIS as “going concern”:
  1. RT @peterpburns: The #ISIS magazine absolutely blows me away. http://t.co/dhIKbzeYiI 00:06:39, 2014-09-07
  2. …Only ISIS Can Destroy ISIS – The Unfortunate Merits of the “Let Them Rot” Strategy @selectedwisdom http://t.co/q2UL2Zyaze 08:29:26, 2014-09-08
C – “Strategy”
  1. RT @wpreview: .@NewYorker editor David Remnick on Obama’s no stupid stuff doctrine, “not a mantra to be derided or dismissed.” http://t.co/4uX14He6hC 10:03:46, 2014-09-08
  2. RT @Max_Fisher: This is the speech Obama would give on ISIS if he were brutally honest http://t.co/MoNREmrOLA via @voxdotcom 09:25:55, 2014-09-09
  3. #prt good but leaves out one thing, post-Foley/Sotloff: “Blood will have blood.” See also Gen 9:6 @Max_Fisher @voxdotcom @zackbeauchamp in reply to Max_Fisher 09:31:58, 2014-09-09
  4. #pt can also be expressed prudentially, as a real “interest” to demonstrate that murder of Americans will not go unpunished by America 09:35:16, 2014-09-09
  5. #pt in that context, this by @sullydish seems profoundly blind to requirements and reality of national community: http://t.co/HpZRag2nl0 09:38:12, 2014-09-09
  6. #pt @sullydish “awaits the proof of ISIS’ threat to America” as though we did not just see ISIS murdering Americans and threatening America 09:40:26, 2014-09-09
  7. @wk344407 a panicky-fearful polemic against (supposed) panic and fear from a notoriously panicky-fearful polemicist @sullydish in reply to wk344407 09:50:12, 2014-09-09
D – Blood will have blood – twitter talk

annoying black/@bpsycho1[ab]: They were there though. That matters.

me: you mean that ISIS was “there” as in “not here”?

ab: Sotloff & Foley were there. There’s a difference between threats to Americans in Iraq & Syria & threats to the US.

me: a “difference” of a kind – but an America satisfied with a world where Americans can be murdered for “crime” of traveling…

me: American citizens, and presidents especially, are not permitted indifference to aggression against Americans wherever they are

ab: an area being dangerous for US journalists is one odd cause for war…

me: ISIS didn’t send out a travel advisory – it sent and reiterated a direct threat and challenge signed vividly in American blood

ab A trap, more like.

me: life is a trap

ab: Jumping in further would turn the perceived threat into a self fulfilling prophecy.

me: prophecy already fulfilled, already “in” – the “perceived threat” is already a “felt injury”

me: see earlier tweets + x years of blog posts: objective of intervention likely not narrowly instrumental or merely “rational”

ab: Wounded pride of politicians at rejection of global jurisdiction doesn’t = another 9/11…

ab: Response to it on the other hand surely would encourage such an attempt

me: “another 9/11” is Sully’s overwrought claim – tho continuation within larger history that includes 9/11 seems obvious

me: that’s speculation – “non-response to it,” if even conceivable, would “surely” have a political/security meaning as well

ab: as long as the meaning wasn’t to create larger danger it’d be a better result than the response is likely to draw.

me: since it’s inconceivable, may not be worth discussing – but “larger danger” – largest conceivable danger – would be “sure”

ab: Of course it’s not rational. It’s *ridiculous*, it rests on a pile of falsehoods & machismo.

me: “that’s just like your opinion, man”

me: was it just “ridiculous” “machismo” for people to take the killing of Michael Brown seriously, as a communal affront?

ab: we’re at risk of that type of shit every day. No claim of outside authority or proxy fighters is involved.

me: obviously substantively different, but in form identical: one identifies with the group, acknowledges a “vital” connection >>

me: >> proceeds according to moral/ethical concepts under an assertion that “this must not stand” for sake of life worth living, >>

ab: The US has the option of not meddling in other countries. Blacks don’t have the option of not existing.

me: “The US” does not in fact have the option of launching itself into outer space intact and setting up shop somewhere else.

ab: “This must not stand” is a formulation used on the other side too, btw. Towards what the US does.

me: so, reporting on events overseas is “meddling”? Sotloff and Foley were to blame for what happened to them and should be forgotten?

ab: Withdrawal from hegemony isn’t ejection from the planet.

ab: Sotloff & Foley caught crossfire from conditions the US gov’t had a hand in creating.

ab: clearly IS still holds OBLs oddball view of responsibility.

me: and responding to the murder of citizens is not “hegemony” (and hegemony is not “meddling” either)

ab: its claim of authority & responsibility over the rest of the world, and actions in that vein.

me: “its” (our) claim of an interest in the lives and deaths of “its” (our fellow) citizens – we have specifically not claimed >>

me: “authority & responsibility” over events in Iraq and Syria, much to the chagrin of some who think we clearly should accept more

ab: why should the US have any responsibilities towards or authority over Iraq at all?

me: could be answered in many ways, but not initially in question here

E – Strategy 2: Eve of Containment, Eye for an ISIS
  1. @Aelkus @LawDavF @NuisanceValue You’ve been mentioned in my #Storify story “The Strategist’s Melancholy” http://t.co/UfCBoOAWps 13:00:11, 2014-09-09
  2. RT @JeffreyGoldberg: Obama’s Syrian chemical weapons deal turns out to have been a good thing, especially considering what’s coming: http://t.co/7rZ6HXbRKK 15:50:32, 2014-09-09
  3. RT @mmurraypolitics: Poll finds that the beheadings of 2 Americans had the highest penetration of any news event in NBC/WSJ poll over past 5 yrs 15:50:47, 2014-09-09
  4. RT @abuaardvark: ISIS has created a unique opportunity to forge regional accord on Syria, but it won’t last – my new essay http://t.co/54BrS2VGQI 15:59:03, 2014-09-09
  5. RT @LobeLog: America vs. ISIS: Be Careful What You Wish For http://t.co/YlsNm7KS3u #Obama #Syria 08:22:38, 2014-09-10
  6. RT @wrightr: After #Obama speaks tonight, what are risks US faces in a 3rd Iraq war? Truly daunting. My piece in @NewYorker. http://t.co/JKiwY343pi 08:46:27, 2014-09-10
  7. #prt informative, but attaches objectives to campaign plan not actually as far as we know a part of it @wrightr @NewYorker in reply to wrightr 08:50:50, 2014-09-10
  8. #pt problem begins with framing as “3rd Iraq War,” thus assumption that Iraqi state as such must be primary concern @wrightr @NewYorker in reply to CK_MacLeod 08:57:43, 2014-09-10

Though I understand that Iraqi state – its constitution and integrity – will continue to be made a part of American strategy, I think that the primary goal is a negative one: containment-equivalent-to-destruction, destruction-equivalent-to-containment, destruction-and-containment equivalent to satisfactorily exemplary punishment of ISIS and collaborators.

F – Lena Dunham

Not my feeling, but there we are.


WordPresser
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 *

*

Related

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

Categories

Extraordinary Comments

CK's WP Plugins