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”:
- #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
- #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
- #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
- #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
- #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”:
- RT @peterpburns: The #ISIS magazine absolutely blows me away. http://t.co/dhIKbzeYiI 00:06:39, 2014-09-07
- …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”
- 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
- 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
- #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
- #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
- #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
- #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
- @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
- @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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- RT @LobeLog: America vs. ISIS: Be Careful What You Wish For http://t.co/YlsNm7KS3u #Obama #Syria 08:22:38, 2014-09-10
- 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
- #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
- #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
Thank God– something to read that doesn’t have much (anything?) to do with ISIS: Lena Dunham. http://t.co/rAnI2YCTAa
— Shadi Hamid (@shadihamid) September 10, 2014
Not my feeling, but there we are.
