Kannafoot
I did read it when you first posted it, and I agree, there's nothing provocative about the post. While I don't agree with your assessment of the motives of these Islamic Extremists, I definitely agree and support the concept that the response must be unified. I'm sure you know that I believe war to be inevitable if we are to ever end this scourge. Conducting that as a unified effort that includes Russia and China, as it did in WWII, is highly desirable.
Note: 'it' refers to a previous blog article: If There Must Be War Then It Must Be United
Alan Fraser
If it must be done then united I can support. On one thing I must insist is the pursuit of this with reason rather than emotion and the things I have seen on Twitter are shocking.
Kannafoot
I fear that we will not agree on what it takes to pursue this. The lesson I take from WWII as opposed to all wars ether before or after is what it takes to ensure the atrocity never happens again. To truly end this, the response must be so overwhelmingly devastating that the enemy agrees to unconditional surrender. No peace treaty or armistice ever truly ended war. To end it, one of the parties must be beaten into total and absolute submission. We saw this successfully implemented in Japan and Germany, and we now see them as two of our strongest allies.
Alan Fraser
There is no way to accomplish that because, as we saw with Paris, they are already in position. In previous combat, killing the head will also kill the body but that's not true with such disparate distribution. The tactics of the last century cannot be applied to a situation in which the combat is of an entirely different nature. Much of what I see just now screams of the trench warfare of WWI when the generals had no idea of the technology of the time and insisted on ancient tactics, to the deaths of millions.
Kannafoot
There's a lot of truth to that. They do, however, still have training camps, primarily in Pakistan, Afghanistan, and now Iraq and parts of Syria. They also have concentrated command and control centers in Syria. There are towns that they've taken over in Syria. So there are places where they can be hit with overwhelming force. We do have the technical ability and military might to eliminate every known camp and every known terrorist stronghold in a single night. It wouldn't eliminate the pockets that have already infiltrated the West, but it does effectively end their current ability to plan, train, and expand. If it's done right - with enough force that the host countries feel it - it effectively makes the next generation homeless. We need local populations to fear our reprisal more than they fear the terrorist knocking on their door.
Alan Fraser
I'm not at all satisfied with 'credible intel' or Paris would have been known. I do think you're highly optimistic as to what that will accomplish because we have seen how they spread as widely as they can. Taking out command and control is the same problem the German troops had with taking out the French Resistance and they never successfully did it. I am not at all convinced the centralized thinking is effective, particularly after seeing fifteen years of it, prior history, etc.
Kannafoot
I wonder if the French Resistance would have survived had it not been supported by the US and Great Britain. In that sense, they still had centralized command and control.
What I can say for certain is that the current method of "surgical strikes" and trying to limit "collateral damage" is not working. I'm in favor of returning to what did work. As an example, ISIS recently took control of Maheen, in Syria. Coalition forces are now trying to take it back. I don't support taking it back. I'm advocating completely leveling it. Leave absolutely nothing but a very fine grained glass on the ground. We cannot defeat Radical Islam by trying to be surgical. We must return to the WWII methodology of the indiscriminate destruction of anything that my aid the enemy. It's harsh, and it kills innocent people, however when removing a cancer you must kill a large number of healthy cells with it.
Alan Fraser
It's not my purpose to be inflammatory but I haven't seen anything work as ISIS popped up the moment there was any relaxation. It worked in WWII only because Germany was highly-centralized but Islam and radicals are all over the world. I don't see any practical way nor any will to wipe out country after country to stop it (e.g. Philippines, multiple countries across the Middle East, etc, etc).
I do believe there needs to be serious evaluation and dispassionate reasoning to discover the best approach to the problem because I have not seen one yet.
Kannafoot
No, you're not being inflammatory. I understand that you and I will likely not agree on the methods, and I'm actually surprised that you're open to any form of military response. In this case, I'm on the extreme right of the issue, and I recognize that will not have much support a week after the attacks. (It would today, just as it would have on 9/11, but let a week pass and the support will wain.)
Nothing has worked as yet, I think we can all agree on that. Where I think we disagree, though, is I still see centralization in the organization of these terror cells. Their training camps are known, the source of their funding has been traced multiple times, and the countries that willingly harbor them are well known. That's a good starting point.
Alan Fraser
That these are a starting point is my concern on the matter as my most pointed question is what is the ending point because I have never heard one yet.
Maybe you have seen my poem as the situation brings tears and not rage and through them the determination not to contribute to anyone else's rage if at all possible. There is fury within me, make no mistake of it, but that fury drives the determination not to let it out. I need to be absolutely clear on where to direct it because I will be willing to bring down the fire of Hell on whomever is responsible for that ... IF ... there is no other way.
My compromise for this is based on WWII. Unless I am willing to go and do it myself, I will not support it. In that case, I would have hated but would have seen the necessity. It's an enormous philosophical conflict but, all the better, as it makes me go to electron microscopy for my thinking.
Kannafoot
Well, in that first sentence, you adequately describe the fundamental problem. "What does victory look like?" It's folly to think we can ever eliminate every extremist bent on doing harm. I've never read of any link between McVeigh and any organized group, which proves that the lone wolf will occasionally do great harm.
So victory for me is a world where no nation is willing to contain terror training cells. No nation is willing to be a conduit for funding to terror groups. All nations immediately move to arrest members of terror cells that occasionally spring up like a cancer.
To bring about that world, however, must must give rogue nations - Pakistan, Afghanistan, Syria, Iran, Iraq - a reason to fear any reprisal from the west. Not just their governments, mind you, but the people must fear it. We need the average Syrian willing to report terror suspects. We need Imams to turn them out of their mosques.
I don't believe that can happen until the world is reminded of just how much military might and destruction we can bring to bear if pushed beyond our tolerance.
Alan Fraser
That first requirement has been my fundamental problem throughout in terms of just what the hell are you trying to do. I have never heard a clear view of it as always it has seemed revenge with some nebulous idea of prevention, neither of which has obtained very much.
I greatly fear identifying the problem with 'rogue nations' because they can taint any government and we see Radical Islam in Philippines, Indonesia, all over Middle East, much of Africa. In this context, I do not see any way massive military force can meet the problem without sub-units remaining very much alive in many parts of the world.
Kannafoot
Unfortunately, I don't know of any way to solve the issue without also eliminating those rogue nations. You're right, they're all over the world. Between the US, Russia, and China, though, we do have the might to eliminate them. I wonder, though, if all three can be brought together to have the will at the same time.
Alan Fraser
It is my fervent hope that can happen and that is my primary focus to ask, plead, demand the Big Three approach this dispassionately and solve the problem rather than endlessly continuing it. In that situation, I will support it because it becomes the will of the free world at that point.
Alan Fraser
I don't consider England any more than a choir boy in this and I'm not interested in their thinking because the same thing comes from Washington and, more of than not, is the source of it. The Big Three are sufficient representation for the views of the largest proportion of the world, to my thinking.
Kannafoot
Yes, I assumed that was in part behind your thinking. Of course, it's also the great challenge, isn't it? China tends to remain aloof to anything outside of the small sphere that encompasses the Koreas, Japan, and Taiwan. Russia exerts broader influence, but neither of us will pretend that they and the US don't typically automatically assume opposite sides of an issue. I fear that neither will join a concerted effort until they are themselves attacked internally by the same terror groups.
Alan Fraser
I don't believe there is any effective isolation because, as we have seen with Mexico, if there is the will to do it then people will build tunnels if necessary.
That automatic assumption of polarity is grave weakness, in my view, because ... collaboration.
Russia has been actively attacked by Muslim extremists and we have seen it from Chechnya to exploding buses on the streets in Vladivostok (?), etc. I don't see there is immunity anywhere and what I seek is unity toward a solution, no matter what it may be.
It may well be the answer is not violent. Please bear with it as MLK needs to be represented. It may well be the best effort is a concerted drive to raise the standards of living elsewhere rather than exploiting impoverished nations for cheap labor. I do believe the only way to prevent refugees is when they do not have a reason to leave and, just now, there are many reasons to leave multiple countries. If this is addressed at an international level then it may be the workable answer. It has to be publicized widely that is the intention and there has to be clearly demonstrable progress with it quite quickly to have any effect. Unfortunately, elevating any society in that manner is not usually a fast process.
The reason I specifically do not mention the United Nations is because I do not want kibitzing from countries which really have no skin in it and the Big Three have the power to repair or destroy anywhere in the world as they will.
Kannafoot
Russia's definitely been attacked multiple times. I've never understood why they have been unwilling to - at least publicly - acknowledge that the extremists attacking them are the same as those attacking the West.
I don't dismiss your "elevate the standard of living" solution out of hand because, if it were done, it would likely work. The challenge, though, is in many areas that would not have the support of the local powerful but extremely corrupt governments. Look at Somalia as the prime example? Raising the standard of living for the people - which would effectively end the piracy in that region - yet doing so requires an all out confrontation with the warlords. The same is true in most of Africa. It's their own corrupt governments keeping the people in poverty.
Alan Fraser
I see zero difference and perhaps I am naive but I see little differentiating extremism anywhere and all are willing to obtain misdirected violence to achieve it in a range from blowing up abortion clinics to blowing up city buses to to blowing up tall buildings to blowing up crowded stadia. This events have been all over the world and I see not one iota of difference in behavior.
Yes, I am aware of the corruption and that's a huge part of the problem in addressing it. Somalia is an excellent example because that government serves for not much more purpose than taking bribes and warming seats.
The next step beyond that is to occupy them but ... geez ... that's perilous close to Fourth Reich thinking. In the case of a united effort it may ... may ... be valid in extreme cases. Somalia is the perfect example of one.
It's conceivable a nation such as Somalia could serve as the example to others. You will clean it up or we will move stepwise to each one. We will not stay there because who in hell wants to live in Somalia so the purpose is strictly to begin the growth and actively support it. The problem is that approach previously has usually wound up creating puppet governments with no real strength of will, resolve, etc.
Alan Fraser
Note: the abortion clinics are a bad example because it's a different motivation with the similar but not quite so extreme tactics.
Kannafoot
Occupation can work and it has in the past. People forget how long the Allies occupied Japan, the Philippines, and Germany after WWII, and that occupation was necessary to restore stability to the region. I would certainly support taking that approach with Somalia as a starting point. I suspect it would take several examples before the rest got the message, but that could work.
Alan Fraser
I can support it in the context you have mentioned because the purpose was to rebuild and get out.
I said I would transplant this to the blog when it's appropriate and I believe you already know I will not change a word or it makes anything I say a lie (i.e. no soundbites).
Alan Fraser
Your thoughts have great value and I'm most pleased to see we can talk rationally on the matter. For the sake of everyone, I hope our leaders can do it.
Kannafoot
Yes, I'm completely comfortable with transplanting it to the blog. It's a shame that forum isn't better suited for this type of discussion. The larger audience would be beneficial.
Alan Fraser
It's amusing to me to see Facebook actually doing something better than somewhere else.
So, if I may, I think this sets a good precedent and also a good foundation for subsequent discussion. The debate starts in a few and I'll need to check out some of it to get a feel for where they want to go.
Kannafoot
Yeah, I need to watch that as well. CBS is refocusing it on foreign policy, not surprisingly.
Alan Fraser
It's a deal. Thanks and respect.
I did read it when you first posted it, and I agree, there's nothing provocative about the post. While I don't agree with your assessment of the motives of these Islamic Extremists, I definitely agree and support the concept that the response must be unified. I'm sure you know that I believe war to be inevitable if we are to ever end this scourge. Conducting that as a unified effort that includes Russia and China, as it did in WWII, is highly desirable.
Note: 'it' refers to a previous blog article: If There Must Be War Then It Must Be United
Alan Fraser
If it must be done then united I can support. On one thing I must insist is the pursuit of this with reason rather than emotion and the things I have seen on Twitter are shocking.
Kannafoot
I fear that we will not agree on what it takes to pursue this. The lesson I take from WWII as opposed to all wars ether before or after is what it takes to ensure the atrocity never happens again. To truly end this, the response must be so overwhelmingly devastating that the enemy agrees to unconditional surrender. No peace treaty or armistice ever truly ended war. To end it, one of the parties must be beaten into total and absolute submission. We saw this successfully implemented in Japan and Germany, and we now see them as two of our strongest allies.
Alan Fraser
There is no way to accomplish that because, as we saw with Paris, they are already in position. In previous combat, killing the head will also kill the body but that's not true with such disparate distribution. The tactics of the last century cannot be applied to a situation in which the combat is of an entirely different nature. Much of what I see just now screams of the trench warfare of WWI when the generals had no idea of the technology of the time and insisted on ancient tactics, to the deaths of millions.
Kannafoot
There's a lot of truth to that. They do, however, still have training camps, primarily in Pakistan, Afghanistan, and now Iraq and parts of Syria. They also have concentrated command and control centers in Syria. There are towns that they've taken over in Syria. So there are places where they can be hit with overwhelming force. We do have the technical ability and military might to eliminate every known camp and every known terrorist stronghold in a single night. It wouldn't eliminate the pockets that have already infiltrated the West, but it does effectively end their current ability to plan, train, and expand. If it's done right - with enough force that the host countries feel it - it effectively makes the next generation homeless. We need local populations to fear our reprisal more than they fear the terrorist knocking on their door.
Alan Fraser
I'm not at all satisfied with 'credible intel' or Paris would have been known. I do think you're highly optimistic as to what that will accomplish because we have seen how they spread as widely as they can. Taking out command and control is the same problem the German troops had with taking out the French Resistance and they never successfully did it. I am not at all convinced the centralized thinking is effective, particularly after seeing fifteen years of it, prior history, etc.
Kannafoot
I wonder if the French Resistance would have survived had it not been supported by the US and Great Britain. In that sense, they still had centralized command and control.
What I can say for certain is that the current method of "surgical strikes" and trying to limit "collateral damage" is not working. I'm in favor of returning to what did work. As an example, ISIS recently took control of Maheen, in Syria. Coalition forces are now trying to take it back. I don't support taking it back. I'm advocating completely leveling it. Leave absolutely nothing but a very fine grained glass on the ground. We cannot defeat Radical Islam by trying to be surgical. We must return to the WWII methodology of the indiscriminate destruction of anything that my aid the enemy. It's harsh, and it kills innocent people, however when removing a cancer you must kill a large number of healthy cells with it.
Alan Fraser
It's not my purpose to be inflammatory but I haven't seen anything work as ISIS popped up the moment there was any relaxation. It worked in WWII only because Germany was highly-centralized but Islam and radicals are all over the world. I don't see any practical way nor any will to wipe out country after country to stop it (e.g. Philippines, multiple countries across the Middle East, etc, etc).
I do believe there needs to be serious evaluation and dispassionate reasoning to discover the best approach to the problem because I have not seen one yet.
Kannafoot
No, you're not being inflammatory. I understand that you and I will likely not agree on the methods, and I'm actually surprised that you're open to any form of military response. In this case, I'm on the extreme right of the issue, and I recognize that will not have much support a week after the attacks. (It would today, just as it would have on 9/11, but let a week pass and the support will wain.)
Nothing has worked as yet, I think we can all agree on that. Where I think we disagree, though, is I still see centralization in the organization of these terror cells. Their training camps are known, the source of their funding has been traced multiple times, and the countries that willingly harbor them are well known. That's a good starting point.
Alan Fraser
That these are a starting point is my concern on the matter as my most pointed question is what is the ending point because I have never heard one yet.
Maybe you have seen my poem as the situation brings tears and not rage and through them the determination not to contribute to anyone else's rage if at all possible. There is fury within me, make no mistake of it, but that fury drives the determination not to let it out. I need to be absolutely clear on where to direct it because I will be willing to bring down the fire of Hell on whomever is responsible for that ... IF ... there is no other way.
My compromise for this is based on WWII. Unless I am willing to go and do it myself, I will not support it. In that case, I would have hated but would have seen the necessity. It's an enormous philosophical conflict but, all the better, as it makes me go to electron microscopy for my thinking.
Kannafoot
Well, in that first sentence, you adequately describe the fundamental problem. "What does victory look like?" It's folly to think we can ever eliminate every extremist bent on doing harm. I've never read of any link between McVeigh and any organized group, which proves that the lone wolf will occasionally do great harm.
So victory for me is a world where no nation is willing to contain terror training cells. No nation is willing to be a conduit for funding to terror groups. All nations immediately move to arrest members of terror cells that occasionally spring up like a cancer.
To bring about that world, however, must must give rogue nations - Pakistan, Afghanistan, Syria, Iran, Iraq - a reason to fear any reprisal from the west. Not just their governments, mind you, but the people must fear it. We need the average Syrian willing to report terror suspects. We need Imams to turn them out of their mosques.
I don't believe that can happen until the world is reminded of just how much military might and destruction we can bring to bear if pushed beyond our tolerance.
Alan Fraser
That first requirement has been my fundamental problem throughout in terms of just what the hell are you trying to do. I have never heard a clear view of it as always it has seemed revenge with some nebulous idea of prevention, neither of which has obtained very much.
I greatly fear identifying the problem with 'rogue nations' because they can taint any government and we see Radical Islam in Philippines, Indonesia, all over Middle East, much of Africa. In this context, I do not see any way massive military force can meet the problem without sub-units remaining very much alive in many parts of the world.
Kannafoot
Unfortunately, I don't know of any way to solve the issue without also eliminating those rogue nations. You're right, they're all over the world. Between the US, Russia, and China, though, we do have the might to eliminate them. I wonder, though, if all three can be brought together to have the will at the same time.
Alan Fraser
It is my fervent hope that can happen and that is my primary focus to ask, plead, demand the Big Three approach this dispassionately and solve the problem rather than endlessly continuing it. In that situation, I will support it because it becomes the will of the free world at that point.
Alan Fraser
I don't consider England any more than a choir boy in this and I'm not interested in their thinking because the same thing comes from Washington and, more of than not, is the source of it. The Big Three are sufficient representation for the views of the largest proportion of the world, to my thinking.
Kannafoot
Yes, I assumed that was in part behind your thinking. Of course, it's also the great challenge, isn't it? China tends to remain aloof to anything outside of the small sphere that encompasses the Koreas, Japan, and Taiwan. Russia exerts broader influence, but neither of us will pretend that they and the US don't typically automatically assume opposite sides of an issue. I fear that neither will join a concerted effort until they are themselves attacked internally by the same terror groups.
Alan Fraser
I don't believe there is any effective isolation because, as we have seen with Mexico, if there is the will to do it then people will build tunnels if necessary.
That automatic assumption of polarity is grave weakness, in my view, because ... collaboration.
Russia has been actively attacked by Muslim extremists and we have seen it from Chechnya to exploding buses on the streets in Vladivostok (?), etc. I don't see there is immunity anywhere and what I seek is unity toward a solution, no matter what it may be.
It may well be the answer is not violent. Please bear with it as MLK needs to be represented. It may well be the best effort is a concerted drive to raise the standards of living elsewhere rather than exploiting impoverished nations for cheap labor. I do believe the only way to prevent refugees is when they do not have a reason to leave and, just now, there are many reasons to leave multiple countries. If this is addressed at an international level then it may be the workable answer. It has to be publicized widely that is the intention and there has to be clearly demonstrable progress with it quite quickly to have any effect. Unfortunately, elevating any society in that manner is not usually a fast process.
The reason I specifically do not mention the United Nations is because I do not want kibitzing from countries which really have no skin in it and the Big Three have the power to repair or destroy anywhere in the world as they will.
Kannafoot
Russia's definitely been attacked multiple times. I've never understood why they have been unwilling to - at least publicly - acknowledge that the extremists attacking them are the same as those attacking the West.
I don't dismiss your "elevate the standard of living" solution out of hand because, if it were done, it would likely work. The challenge, though, is in many areas that would not have the support of the local powerful but extremely corrupt governments. Look at Somalia as the prime example? Raising the standard of living for the people - which would effectively end the piracy in that region - yet doing so requires an all out confrontation with the warlords. The same is true in most of Africa. It's their own corrupt governments keeping the people in poverty.
Alan Fraser
I see zero difference and perhaps I am naive but I see little differentiating extremism anywhere and all are willing to obtain misdirected violence to achieve it in a range from blowing up abortion clinics to blowing up city buses to to blowing up tall buildings to blowing up crowded stadia. This events have been all over the world and I see not one iota of difference in behavior.
Yes, I am aware of the corruption and that's a huge part of the problem in addressing it. Somalia is an excellent example because that government serves for not much more purpose than taking bribes and warming seats.
The next step beyond that is to occupy them but ... geez ... that's perilous close to Fourth Reich thinking. In the case of a united effort it may ... may ... be valid in extreme cases. Somalia is the perfect example of one.
It's conceivable a nation such as Somalia could serve as the example to others. You will clean it up or we will move stepwise to each one. We will not stay there because who in hell wants to live in Somalia so the purpose is strictly to begin the growth and actively support it. The problem is that approach previously has usually wound up creating puppet governments with no real strength of will, resolve, etc.
Alan Fraser
Note: the abortion clinics are a bad example because it's a different motivation with the similar but not quite so extreme tactics.
Kannafoot
Occupation can work and it has in the past. People forget how long the Allies occupied Japan, the Philippines, and Germany after WWII, and that occupation was necessary to restore stability to the region. I would certainly support taking that approach with Somalia as a starting point. I suspect it would take several examples before the rest got the message, but that could work.
Alan Fraser
I can support it in the context you have mentioned because the purpose was to rebuild and get out.
I said I would transplant this to the blog when it's appropriate and I believe you already know I will not change a word or it makes anything I say a lie (i.e. no soundbites).
Alan Fraser
Your thoughts have great value and I'm most pleased to see we can talk rationally on the matter. For the sake of everyone, I hope our leaders can do it.
Kannafoot
Yes, I'm completely comfortable with transplanting it to the blog. It's a shame that forum isn't better suited for this type of discussion. The larger audience would be beneficial.
Alan Fraser
It's amusing to me to see Facebook actually doing something better than somewhere else.
So, if I may, I think this sets a good precedent and also a good foundation for subsequent discussion. The debate starts in a few and I'll need to check out some of it to get a feel for where they want to go.
Kannafoot
Yeah, I need to watch that as well. CBS is refocusing it on foreign policy, not surprisingly.
Alan Fraser
It's a deal. Thanks and respect.
3 comments:
If you can not cut off the head to kill the body, would not eliminating the funding do just as well. If your United Front actually froze assets and shut down the refineries of countries that fund the camps. Just maybe
Hell the price of oil is too low from an inventory glut anyway
That may well be a possibility because it violates the tenets of Islam to have any truck with banks and there is an amusing irony in that as we see how this where Jewish people made tremendous amounts of early money in banking because early Christians did not want to do it either.
Rather than impounding their money, my thinking is to take it with no thought to refunding and give all of it to victims of terrorism. I'll not call them martyrs anymore even though it is my preference and that due to the possible confusion regarding whether I mean the terrorists and I emphatically do not mean them.
In fact, I'm loving that idea quite a bit. Take the terrorist finance money and give it to the victims. I'm diggin' that one more and more. The result is a possible shell game but the intelligence units can get a chance to demonstrate competence in something by tracking it and taking it.
I mean 'early' regarding Europe as that was somewhere after the Middle Ages but not too close to modern. Unclear on the exact century but definitely that period.
Post a Comment