After Mohamed Atta led a diabolical attack on our country using civilian aircraft, striking our Pentagon, bringing down the Twin Towers, and murdering nearly 3,000 people on our soil, not too many of us were interested in his master’s thesis in urban planning. Maybe he had some great ideas for how to revitalize Aleppo, Syria, but in practice he left us a smoldering lower tip of Manhattan and a gruesome clean up job.
Atta did aspire to be an urban planner, though, before he discovered that his degree from the Hamburg University of Technology in Germany wasn’t going to lead to rewarding employment.
The only copy of Atta’s thesis is apparently kept under lock and key by Atta’s thesis adviser, professor Dittmar Machule, who frets that publication will result in a lawsuit from Atta’s father who still maintains his son’s innocence. Back in 2009, Slate‘s Daniel Brooks traveled to Hamburg to read the thesis and try to get a sense for how Atta saw the world. Here’s a sample of what he learned about Atta’s plans for Aleppo.
The subject of the thesis is a section of Aleppo, Syria’s second city. Atta describes decades of meddling by Western urban planners, who rammed highways through the neighborhood’s historic urban fabric and replaced many of its once ubiquitous courtyard houses with modernist high-rises. Atta calls for rebuilding the area along traditional lines, all tiny shops and odd-angled cul-de-sacs. The highways and high-rises are to be removed —in the meticulous color-coded maps, they are all slated for demolition. Traditional courtyard homes and market stalls are to be rebuilt.
For Atta, the rebuilding of Aleppo’s traditional cityscape was part of a larger project to restore the Islamic culture of the neighborhood, a culture he sees as threatened by the West. “The traditional structures of the society in all areas should be re-erected,” Atta writes in the thesis, using architectural metaphors to describe his reactionary cultural project. In Atta’s Aleppo, women wouldn’t leave the house, and policies would be carefully crafted so as not to “engender emancipatory thoughts of any kind,” which he sees as “out of place in Islamic society.”
The subtitle of the thesis is Neighborhood Development in an Islamic-Oriental City, and the use of that anachronistic term—Islamic-Oriental city—is telling. The term denotes a concept rooted in 19th-century European Orientalism, according to which Islamic civilization and Western civilization are entirely distinct and opposite: The dynamic, rational West gallops toward the future while the backward East remains cut off from foreign influence, exclusively defined by Islam, and frozen in time. In his academic work, Atta takes the Orientalist conceit of two distinct civilizations, one superior, the other inferior, and simply flips the chauvinism from pro-Western to pro-Muslim.
Of course, Atta’s terroristic attack initiated a furious American response, led by a neoconservative cabal that had preexisting designs on and plans for the Middle East. It’s pretty much a straight line from Atta’s decision to board a plane in Boston on September 11, 2001, to the condition of urban Aleppo today.
There’s some kind of grim irony in all of this. If 9/11 was in some sense blowback for meddling American policies in the Middle East, there’s no question that the Dresden-esque destruction of Aleppo is in some sense blowback for attacking the United States. Had the Bush administration decided to exact revenge on Atta rather than launching a global war on terror, they might have done to Aleppo what Syrians have done to it with no help from Americans. There’s no need to worry about modernist high-rises or intrusive neighborhood-disrupting highways in Aleppo anymore. That dream of constructing “odd-angled cul-de-sacs” has been pulverized into dust.
There’s also something grim about an American commentariat that glibly elides the straight line between 9/11 and the present condition of Syria and asks questions like, “What would you do if you are elected about Aleppo?”
That’s what revitalized plagiarist Mike Barnicle asked Libertarian presidential candidate Gary Johnson on this morning’s edition of Morning Joe on MSNBC. And Gary Johnson’s response was also grim.
Barnicle: “What would you do if you are elected about Aleppo?”
Johnson: “And what is Aleppo?”
Barnicle: “You’re kidding.”
Johnson: “No.”
I’m not sure if I actually find the answer more offensive than the question. The American commentariat could not have been more disinterested in questions like “what are you going to do about Aleppo?” when they embedded themselves in Bush and Cheney’s Excellent Adventure in Iraq. They didn’t have the slightest inkling that they ought to ask a question like that. “What are you going to do when the majority Shi’a take over Iraq and force a massive Sunni diaspora into Syria?” “What are you going to do when the Sunnis react to the loss of Iraq by trying to take over Syria?”
Did the oh-so-smart Mike Barnicle ask those questions prior to the invasion of Iraq?
Of course not.
The only people asking those kinds of questions were academicians and solid analysts with real Middle Eastern experience. And they were completely dismissed by not only the Cheneys and Libbys and Rumsfelds and Wolfowitzes, but by the flag-waving codpiece worshipping knuckleheads at MSNBC.
But then there is Gary Johnson. He wants to run for president and he doesn’t know whether Aleppo is an African hemorrhagic fever or a guy with a long-nosed puppet. He’s popular enough that he just might make it into the debates, and his mere presence on our ballots could easily change the results in a handful of states, possibly even giving us a different winner and a different future.
But Gary Johnson doesn’t take himself seriously enough to even care about what he might need to know if he became president. “What to do about Syria?” That’s got nothing to do with smoking pot or throwing potshots at the two-party system, so Johnson hasn’t read an article about the country in any of the sixty-three years that he’s been alive.
But he wants your vote!
I swear, it’s at times like this that I understand the impulse to pour gasoline on everything and just burn it to the ground.
It could have been brain freeze. It happens when non-actors are televised.
I saw this exchange this morning. I confess that although I did identify Aleppo as a rather famous city in Syria, I haven’t been following current events in the Syrian dogfight. (Why should I? I have no control over events nor any ties to Syria.) Johnson should have but he gave a credible politician response once he was reminded.
As for the question, I regard it as more germane than the ten thousandth question about the Mexican wall or the e-mail server. While those issues are germane to the election, everyone knows there are not going to be any new info forthcoming from trump or Clinton, so it’s just a political statement masquerading as a question.
As a practical matter, the next President isn’t going to have Aleppo, Fallujah, or Timbuktu thrown in his face in a crisis. He (or she) will be informed by a Presidential Briefing that will include recommendations from the SoS, SecDef and CIA director, not to mention various White House aides.
I am objecting to the idea that Johnson is getting 100% of the abuse here when his questioner did know or care about Aleppo when it mattered. Or why it might matter. Or why he might care. Because he didn’t care.
And you’re not running for president and we have to get beyond this idea that candidates should be judged by what ordinary busy Americans know and not by what we have a right to expect our leaders to know.
If you don’t know what Aleppo is the second you hear the name, then you know NOTHING about what is going on in Syria except for some talking points you’ve memorized.
And a president like that, like Bush, is at the mercy of people like Cheney and Wolfowitz.
“The only people asking those kinds of questions were academicians and solid analysts with real Middle Eastern experience.”
Not quite: Images 2003 Anti-War Protests
(https://www.google.com/search?q=2003+anti+war+protest&biw=1600&bih=773&source=lnms&
tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiShdW-hoDPAhUDeT4KHevrAzwQ_AUIBigB)
But some did notice that bloggers went quiet about the subject of our ongoing Great Adventures in the MidEast around 2009.
Many Libertarian leaders WERE against the Bush Adventure back when it might have counted.
Funny, I did not see the segment and assumed Mr. Johnson’s reply was policy, not ignorance. As in: What is our national security interest in Aleppo?
And now we look poised to sell out the Kurds AGAIN!
Right, because it’s possible to follow a libertarian foreign policy line in Syria and Iraq while simultaneously protecting the Kurds from our NATO ally, Turkey, and the Arabs, Persians, and Turkmen who live in the region.
Er, you are contending that Iraq had NOTHING to do with Sunni payback all over the ME? And Israeli opportunism to weaken BOTH sides.
you are speaking a dialect of Greek I did not study in school.
Wesley Clark -seven countries[never denied by any USG official, on or off the record].
The agenda ran into a few problems that interfered with the time table, but efforts, if one knows what to look for and where, continued throughout the GWB administrations.
My prediction is Lebanon next. Hezbollah will be irresistible.
That’s a tough one because the multiple prior attempts have failed. Wouldn’t be surprising if some of those “think tank” “big brains” figured that taking out Assad and Syria would make the next assault on Lebanon easy. Likely underestimating the strength of Hezbollah once again.
My admitted small sampling of Johnson suggests he is simply a fool. He should go away. The ME has no easy solution. The Kurds too face an existential, crisis from their neighbors and ” friends”.
Turkey is bigger stronger richer and in NATO (at least for now). Kurds are actually allies. It’s realpolitik calculus.
I don’t particularly like it either but it’s too early to call out Turkey as no longer an ally.
Actually, prior to the Syrian debacle, Turks and her internal Kurds had reached a hopeful accommodation and were talking. This is all blown to smithereens, now.
I know. I found Ocalan’s political philosophy at the time very very intetesting and worthy of further study.I largely blame Erdogan.
Erdogan saw stoking Turkish nationalism and attacking Kurds as tactics to increase his power. He walked away from a peace deal.
As little as 2 yrs ago…
Kurdish Issue Key to Erdogan’s Success
http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2013/01/turkey-region-pkk-akp.html
Kurdish leader Ocalan hails Turkey’s ‘historic’ law
http://www.middleeasteye.net/news/kurdish-leader-ocalan-hails-turkeys-historic-law-1669243195
Now the Turks are inciting pogroms against their internal Kurds. Because of fears of Syrian Kurd/Iraqi Kurd successes in recapturing territory from ISIS outside Turkey’s borders. Turkey has invaded Syria and everyone is studiously ignoring it.
Not all bloggers. MOA does its best to cover the on-going war in Syria. Not easy given all the local and outside forces involved, many of which are covert.
One can’t be politically aware and not understand the impulse to want to burn everything to the ground. Politics has always been disgusting and press keeps falling to new lows. I’m grateful that so many, yourself included, have remained strong in the face of so much discouragement. The Iraq war gave rise to the blogosphere and that’s been a very healthy development. We’re on a very long road. Neither perfection nor anything remotely close to it will occur in our lifetimes.
“coverage” of them and of the theft by judicial coup of the Presidency had already given rise to the blogosphere even before the media’s enabling of the Iraq-invasion War Crime sparked additional outrage and additional entries into the blogosphere.
A little off topic, how in heavens name can anyone vote for the Orange Tart after last night? And Clinton took him apart at her news cnference this morning. I think I live in another universe when they tell me Trump is ahead of Clinton or within the margin of error.
That reference to MSNBC and Chris Matthews is no surprise. I recall that episode and felt offended at the time.
Ok Aleppo is not on the tip of everyone’s tongue but even I know about it and the continuing crisis there and for the Kurds, who may be about to be thrown to the wolfs again. I heard a replay of Johnson this morning. Sorry but that level of idiocy can’t be allowed anymore than the Orange Tart. But maybe Dr. Jill has it,covered, right?,
Beinart suggests a reason.
The reality is most people make emotional decisions and if you can’t connect with people on that level or don’t, things become difficult.
I think we can just stay with this tidbit without analyzing it much more: “On national security, he has an argument. Substantively, it’s ignorant and reckless, but to many Americans, it’s reassuring.” Sure, elect me and it will be amazing.
Not to take away from your frustration with the commentariat or candidate Johnson, but this:
Booman Tribune ~ A Progressive Community
Is not the whole truth when it comes to “with no help”. The US has provided weapons, training and organisation to one side in the conflict.
For example, here is Seymour Hersh on the topic:
Seymour M. Hersh · Military to Military · LRB 7 January 2016
Actually, that article is well worth reading as the rivalry between CIA and Pentagon explains quite a bit about the confusing lack of understandable US goals in Syria.
It has also been acknowledged by official leaks to main stream US media that the US arms the rebels. For example an article from 2012:
C.I.A. Said to Aid in Steering Arms to Syrian Rebels – The New York Times
So the US did help with destroying Aleppo (as did UK, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Turkey, Russia, Iran etc). But it was mostly Syrians who held the guns.
The reason I feel comfortable saying “no help for Americans” is because the destruction of Aleppo is really not the result of anything that the Americans did or supported. Do argue otherwise is really strained and not credible in my opinion.
It’s not to say that adding weapons and other support into a conflict doesn’t increase the level of violence, since that’s the most common and likely result.
But America did not start this fight and it did not take over Aleppo and it has not been trying to dislodge people from Aleppo.
The most you can say is that America has supported some of the folks who took Aleppo and that, maybe, without that support the rebellion in Aleppo would have been crushed by now.
But that’s unlikely and it would not have spared the city.
Translation:
And/or:
Do you really believe that the initiator of trouble is not as guilty as those that do the later fighting?
Please!!!
You are also saying “This is how he world works. Deal with it.”
And I am saying “This is how the world is working now. Change it before the whole thing blows up in a giant mushroom cloud!!!”
I’ll keep my position, thank you very much. You go support HRC.
AG
Actually, my entire article is about how the decision to attack America led to the decision to invade Iraq which led to the Shia takeover of Iraq which led to the Sunni exodus to Syria which led to the attempted Sunni takeover of Syria.
So, start where you want, including whatever provocations for 9/11 you want to consider.
But my argument here in this little comment thread is only that the U.S. did not support the side that destroyed Aleppo and that they really had very little at all to do with the side that seized Aleppo and the point in time in which they seized it. And, even then, they were allied only with one faction of the rebels.
So, it’s just wrong to suggest that Americans had much of a role in the destruction of Aleppo except in the sense that I raised, which is that this all flowed from the reckless reaction to 9/11.
That is not even mentioning the US-provided Libyan weapons that showed up in the hands of jihadists in Mali and Syria.
Oh mino, how dare you bring up Benghazi after everything has been cleared up to everyone’s satisfaction. Now, play fair.
To be fair — only the rightwing has been unhinged about the attack on the US State Dep outpost in Benghazi and it absolutely hasn’t been cleared to their satisfaction. Those people and their House GOP flacks have not shown any interest in the CIA Benghazi Annex or what they were doing there which in part appears to have been facilitating a weapons rat-line to Libya.
Solid damage control but not especially encouraging.
https://twitter.com/CNNJason/status/773886905830215680/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw
You write:
“…it’s at times like this that I understand the impulse to pour gasoline on everything and just burn it to the ground.”
Me too.
But then you’d be contributing to global warming, and we can’t have that, can we!!!
Oh.
What’s that you say?
The U.S. military’s carbon footprint is so big it can’t even be measured? While the government it supposedly serves admonishes us to drive tiny little electric cars that go very slowly and only have a range of about 100 miles and recycle all our toilet paper and stuff?
Oh.
Nevermind…
Yore freind…
Emily Litella
P.S. World’s Biggest Polluters Ratify Paris Agreement
But…DON’T FUCK WITH OUR MILITARY!!!
They pollute in our best interests!!!
(The real question being…as Tonto said to the Lone Ranger when under serious attack by indigenous North American peoples…”Who ‘we,’ white man?”)
You are immensely clueless.
In a time with a helpless and hopeless Congress, the U.S. Military has done more on Climate Change than any organization in the country.
The administration has made great strides (working with the Chinese, the Paris agreement), but their biggest progress has been through using the military to do research that Congress won’t otherwise authorize and in getting them to begin implementing changes that can later be implemented to great benefit in civilian and commercial fields.
Booman…
Really!!!
A single cargo jet flying even 100 miles fully loaded must emit more pollution than several thousand automobiles going the same distance. How many millions of miles do the various air forces of this country fly every day? Do they have catalytic converters on their engines? Of course not. Get real. Multiply that by the emissions of all military vehicles plus the utter chaos the environments of war zones must suffer and what do you have? A major, major polluter.
Cut down on unnecessary wars and unnecessary flights, drives and ship movements…eliminate them completely…and the global warming thing would be highly impacted for the better.
It’s just plain common sense. i don’t care how many position papers the military might process on their “conservation” efforts. Where combat is concerned…or even preparations for potential combat…”conservation” goes right out the fucking window. Can you imagine a commander trying to enforce speed limits on his troops in battle or battle exercises? Ludicrous on the face of it.
AG
The US Air Force is technologically in a bind when you order it to reduce its carbon footprint.
The Navy isn’t because of nuclear power, which has its own long-term ecological problems.
Nonetheless, the US military is still the largest consumer of fossil fuels in the world.
Thank you, Tarheel.
Precisely that.
AG
>>Where combat is concerned…”conservation” goes right out the fucking window.
I haven’t served either AG, but you don’t have to read much military history to know this is dead wrong. Especially in combat, every resource has to be managed according to what your supply line can deliver. If a general doesn’t know for sure when the next shipment of gas will arrive, conservation is a big part of his job.
There is “conservation” as it applies to preserving the environment and human life on earth and then there is the conservation of weaponry and manpower in order to win a given battle.
They have nothing to do with one another.
Duh.
AG
This is actually true. Could wish the motivation were less martial, but we take what we can get.
P.S. From your linked article:
“The Navy hopes to complete its Great Green Fleet by 2016, a strike group of nuclear-powered ships…”
Oh. Great. We’ll handle global warming by putting more nukes in danger. I am so relieved!!! Death by radiation poisoning rather than flooding.
Nice.
How about this?
Bring the troops home. Create a Fortress America and take care of business here!!!
But NOOOOoooo…blood for oil profits rule.
Why has the U.S. and other major NATO powers been involved in the inner working of oil-rich areas for so long?
In order to get cheap oil and stop others from getting it. DUH!!!
Transition away from that blood-for-oil policy and we could effectively downsize our whole military operation, freeing millions of hard working, well-trained people to work on the domestic infrastructure.
Again…but NOOOOooo!!! The electoral fix that I know you are seeing perfectly clearly is and has been for a number of years set up to eliminate any candidates with a clear view of the situation.
Maybe that’s Hillary’s breathing problem.
Too much time spent on dangerous, polluted runways and in the bad air of passenger planes.
I know.
I am so impractical!!!
Sue me.
AG
One strike group, at what cost, out of how many strike groups in the US Navy.
And the national security reason for the existence of naval strike groups is what? I’m not denying there is one. I just think the American people ought to understand why so much of their taxes is going to these expensive weapon systems.
There’s too much “because military” thinking going on.
Yes we should. Here’s what the last President who had never previously held a elected office had to say on the topic:
“Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed.
This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. The cost of one modern heavy bomber is this: a modern brick school in more than 30 cities. It is two electric power plants, each serving a town of 60,000 population. It is two fine, fully equipped hospitals. It is some fifty miles of concrete pavement. We pay for a single fighter with a half-million bushels of wheat. We pay for a single destroyer with new homes that could have housed more than 8,000 people. . . . This is not a way of life at all, in any true sense. Under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron.”
And he knew a thing or two about the military.
Coughing fit.
Nice job of repeating GOP conspiratorial talking points.
They are my “talking points” JDW, and I am not allied with the GOP in any way, shape, manner or form. If I say.,..as I have here numerous times…that Trump is dangerously unqualified to be president, is that to you some sort of DemRat talking point? Are you so lockstep two-dimensional that you cannot imagine that someone might come to their own conclusions?
WTFU.
AG
Electric are neither universally slow nor small and I’m not even talking about Teslas. The range, the range is a real issue however.
Blame Emily.
AG
Has any US foreign intervention of the past 15 years led to non-disastrous results? I’m sure there’ve been some that fall out of the news because nothing terrible happens, but I can’t bring a single one to mind.
Some have mentioned the stabilization of Sierra Leone after its dictatorship fell. I think that was mostly a UK operation. But on not being a disaster, YMMV.
On US operations, some go back to the Vietnam War to ask whether any have not been disaster. Others go back to World War II. The Good War seems to be the last consensus non-disaster.
Thanks. I didn’t even know that happened.
Someone get The Times a map, because they fucked up on their article about Johnson’s ignorance, twice, in print.
Billmon:
I’m going to go out on a limb and guess that “former US ambassador” is the guy that’s “with HER” and it eager to bomb the hell out of Syria.
Eliot Higgins:
And that’s precisely why this FP piece that is superficially measured in criticizing both Johnson and a reporter fails.
Yes and also, if you have two oranges and add a pear, you get three apples.
This guy?
I haven’t looked up his less recent work but this article suggests he’s thought a bit beyond just bombing the hell out of Syria.
Ben Norton:
Jeebus. The comments write themselves.
Sorry state when “hinky patrolistis” infects media that claims to be among the very serious and professional journalists.
For the record, I’m not defending Johnson who even if he merely flubbed on a gotcha question, he’s as lame and unqualified to be POTUS as the two leading candidates.
The problem here is that there are four candidates that on paper have a mathematical chance of becoming POTUS, but not a single one is morally or temperamentally qualified to be POTUS, or both! I might write a diary on the shortcomings of the four but I doubt anyone wants to read it. The best I can say about Johnson is “not any worse than W”. YMMV.
That’s not anything I can say. He could be much worse. I’d be willing to concede that he won’t be better than GWB and second time around is always worse than the first time because it builds on the damage already done. But we don’t really know how bad he’d be because the characters he’d bring with him are unknown, but the Koch’s have been sniffing around him and all the dregs of the GOP and Trump campaign would flock to him if he had a chance.
Kurt Schork Memorial Fund — finalists 2016 awards in international journalism nominees:
Winners:
Iona Craig for reporting on Yemen and Umer Ali for local reporting in Pakistant.
The Democrats — October 22, 2012 tweet:
Mitt should have waited another four years to run and then he’d have been on the same page with TPTB enemy identification.
Have these people no shame?
All of them are nothing but partisan wankers that will do/say anything to win and get the power that allows them to be the irresponsible ones in chief.
GG
Billmon:
EmptyWheel:
Oh, he realizes it alright.
He just doesn’t like it much.
AG
— heh — it was a tough call for him. Impatient greed paid off for Reagan and WJC, but there are precious few comebacks if one goes for it, gets the nomination, and then loses the general election. Politically, the most bites at that big apple anyone gets are two.
Marduk the coward strkes again.
Mar duck.
AG
So now we have two candidates disqualified as commander-in-chief because they fail to do their homework before running for an office that commands foreign policy and national security action, and only promotes domestic policy but commands its implementation.
Why has Jill Stein not been given the opportunity to likewise embarrass herself? She can’t even break into the media by getting arrested for vandalism in North Dakota.
Now ask Hillary Clinton the same question and see whether she is the wonk her campaign claims.
But that would require having a sentient media corps, wouldn’t it.
She either doesn’t realize that we already have ground troops in Syria or she is pretending that special forces don’t count for some reason.
Or DoD contract military trainers?
Please write a concise essay on how magic pixie dust and unicorn rainbow farts can magically protect your precious Kurds while all U.S. special forces and military contractors remain on a North Carolina couch watching NFL football.
Now THAT is a non sequitur! How does questioning her honesty OR her memory for wonky bits get transformed into US ground troops are necessary to save the Kurds??? As IF that would be our agenda anyway. Kurds have little geopolitical weight for our neocons.
Are you trying to prepare us for something? Will that be the emotional SELL? Save the Kurds! When they are already giving us the hairy eyeball? They are no fools.
This thread is getting as insane as Syria.
You seem concerned about the Kurds.
You seem to think the U.S. is preparing to betray them.
You seem to think the U.S. can keep their promises to the Kurds by handing out rainbow lollipops and frolicking in Easter Basket grass.
I don’t know.
Make up your mind. Do we have a role to play there or not?
What promises? I’d be very surprised if we promised them anything beyond tools to fight Daesh in certain areas of OUR interest, like Christian minority enclaves.
You have any confirmation of any promises we made to Iraqi OR Syrian Kurds? I’d be quite interested.
Well, it appears we may have ratf*cked one set of Kurds into upsetting the negotiating table in Geneva for us….
Syrian Kurds Risk Their Gains With New Federalization Demands
(http://www.moonofalabama.org/2016/03/syrian-kurds-risk-their-gains-with-new-federalization-demands.h
tml#c6a00d8341c640e53ef01b8d1b01187970c)
“I can think of no sound reason for the Syrian YPG Kurds to do this now. But it may well be that someone in Washington (or elsewhere?) thought that it would be funny to upset the playing board by pushing the Kurds to take these self-defeating steps. But why would the Kurds agree to do this?”
UPDATE: As speculated above the PYD Kurds where told by Washington to do this.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/17/world/middleeast/syria-kurds.html?ref=world&_r=2
“…And they strongly hinted that it was not their idea, but that it was being pushed by the Americans and other powers. A former senior administration official, Philip Gordon, and others recently floated a proposal to divide Syria into zones roughly corresponding to areas now held by the government, the Islamic State, Kurdish militias and other insurgents.
The Kurdish discussions about northern Syria are becoming public just as a new round of United Nations-sponsored peace talks, heavily promoted by the United States and Russia, begins in Geneva, aiming to broker a political solution to the Syrian civil war.
The Syrian Kurdish move — still under discussion by Kurdish and other parties in the area — would fall well short of declaring independence. But it is still likely to rile the Syrian government and the main Arab-led opposition group, the High Negotiation Committee. They have both declared opposition to federalism, seeing it as a step toward a permanent division of the nation.”
FOOLS to be suckered by us again.
I have to keep reminding myself not to talk to you.
You could cut diamonds with your density.
Or perhaps she understands that terminology matters, and the official, and correct, answer to that question isn’t the same as what everyday people assume it to be.
see the Juan Cole analysis-link
http://www.juancole.com/2016/09/clinton-ground-troops.html
“…a Faux Cable News that runs clips of only one side and pays out hush money to cover up how its blonde anchors were not so much hired as trafficked.”
Juan is getting cranky with the stupidity.
And he nails the lawyer-ly lies on the subject of “boots on the ground”.
An excellent piece.
yeh, I liked that he’s not holding back, forget the prof persona!
If? In some sense?
There is no ambiguity about this. The attack was made in pursuance of the 1998 fatwa. It said:
This isn’t complicated. Cause and effect. Stick your finger in an electrical socket and get shocked.
OK?
I especially like the bits about the “crusader-Zionist alliance” and “the aim is also to serve the Jews’ petty state”. Why can’t we get some pithy political commentary like that here?
Politico — Trump, Clinton stumble in debate dry run
“Style” is winning the early polling on this. (Not sure how Trump doesn’t nauseate most people, but good taste isn’t anything Americans are not for.)
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/09/hillary-fails-to-offer-a-foreign-policy-vision/4
99103/
Micro without an understanding and appreciation for the macro isn’t any better than macro without solid confirming knowledge of the micro. I’m generally in a small minority that have never viewed HRC as having a decent command of the micro. Memorizing a bunch of detailed odds and ends isn’t equal to the micro and may explain why she struggles with the macro.
And this about Politico
Excerpt:
[T]he Republican “insiders” who participate in Politico’s caucus spent months and months confidently (and wrongly) predicting that Donald Trump’s collapse was imminent. And even after Trump finished second in Iowa and blew away the field in New Hampshire, the “insiders” were still singing that same tune, despite the fact that Trump was only getting stronger with each passing day. These people who were supposed to have the inside track on Republican politics were completely wrong, and they stayed wrong for weeks on end because they wouldn’t allow the reality of what was happening intrude on their preferred understanding of how the party worked.
Now that Trump has been installed as the nominee, a different flavor of uselessness has emerged from the “insiders” in the Political Caucus. Instead of standing stubbornly behind incorrect takes on the status of the race, Politico’s Republican “insiders” are now just lurching wildly from one news cycle to the next, allowing the rapidly shifting conventional wisdom stand in for their assessment of the Trump campaign.
I had a brief flirtation with the Libertarian Party in the early 1980s. Then I attended a forum on a university campus and heard the Libertarian panelists calling for the US to leave NATO. That followed presentation of a film showing a number of folks declaring their conversion to the Libertarian cause; all of them said some variant of this: I’ve got mine, Jack, now you fuck off.
Thirty-some years later and the Libertarian Party is no different. Gary Johnson’s ignorance of what’s going on in Aleppo and in Syria more broadly is unsurprising.
Billmon:
Urban Dictionary definition:
Blobber. A big fat person who you could never ever be attracted to. Ever.
Merriam Webster says blobber is a variant of blubber.
****
Sorry, Marie3, I know I’m a popular culture illiterate, but is either of those what you mean? Somehow I don’t think so. Looking forward to your clarification.
Once told a class of English grammar students that they could spend a lot of time memorizing and practicing punctuation, sentence construction, definitions, etc. and still get it wrong most of the time. Or they could read The New Yorker, mostly cover to cover for two years and then unconsciously know the rules and the difference between clear and unclear writing. Their choice; only with The New Yorker option, they could learn all sort of other interesting and not so interesting stuff as well.
Taibbi and Billmon make up or redefine lots of words. Those who regularly read them understand exactly what they mean. Any translation by others would destroy the meaning.
So, you’re in Gary Johnson territory here. Good job.
Exactly how you got, So, you’re in Gary Johnson territory here. Good job. from my comment is mind boggling. How many times do I have to repeat that I’m not now and never have been a libertarian before that’s impinges on brains around here. Nobody with a social conscience could ever have been intrigued by or flirted with libertarians even when they young, dumb, and naive. The whole gaggle of them with dry up and blow away if they didn’t claim not to be interested in maintaining the war on drugs or engaging the US military in unilateral and unnecessary wars of choice. They live on because the Democratic Party continues to support those two un-/counterproductive positions and otherwise libertarians support Republicans because they’re closer to supporting laissez-faire economics (at least officially which is some distance from their real corporate protection and welfare position) than Democrats.
Does it make you feel good to make false accusations of others?
Lol.
She doesn’t even know what I’m talking about.
Good times.
For good reason.
Saw an interesting piece on the unconscious ranking of a string of adjectives that rather proves your point. It is almost never formally taught but is absorbed by familiarity.
I don’t think anyone answered your question so I’ll take a stab at it. Blobber seems to a reference to the foreign policy elite, both pundits and politicians.
The “Blob” is equivalent to what others refer to as the “Borg”. It’s not purely a left wing term of derision.
Now this was a different take.
Makes a good point, too:
“Gary Johnson, the Libertarian Party’s nominee for president of the United States, is being mercilessly ridiculed for asking what Aleppo was when Morning Joe host Mike Barnicle mentioned the Syrian city on Thursday morning. But I’m grateful to Johnson. Many politicians in that situation would pretend they were familiar with Aleppo and then pivot to a more comfortable topic. (“Aleppo is, of course, a very serious issue that as president I would seek to address. But I gotta say: My top priority would be stopping wasteful government spending. That’s really the greatest threat to our national security,” etc.)
As a candidate for America’s highest office, Johnson should know what Aleppo is. But he’s certainly not alone in not knowing. And had he not asked the question, #WhatIsAleppo wouldn’t be trending on Twitter. BuzzFeed wouldn’t be asking its readers to find Aleppo on a map. People might not be discussing how Matt Lauer barely brought up Syria during NBC’s Commander in Chief Forum on Wednesday. We wouldn’t be talking as much about something we should be talking about more: the epicenter of Syria’s civil war and humanitarian crisis.”
(http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2016/09/what-is-aleppo-syria/499142/)
I am going to gargle kerosene.
Wanna see his full answer when he recognized the frame of reference?
BARNICLE: Aleppo is in Syria. It’s the — it’s the epicenter of the refugee crisis.
JOHNSON: OK, got it, got it.
BARNICLE: OK.
JOHNSON: Well, with regard to Syria, I do think that it’s a mess. I think that the only way that we deal with Syria is to join hands with Russia to diplomatically bring that at an end. But when we’ve aligned ourselves with — when we’ve supported the opposition of the Free Syrian Army — the Free Syrian Army is also coupled with the Islamists.
And then the fact that we’re also supporting the Kurds and this is — it’s just — it’s just a mess. And that this is the result of regime change that we end up supporting. And, inevitably, these regime changes have led a less-safe world.
GEIST: So alliance with Russia is the solution to Syria. Do you think Vladimir Putin and Russia are good and a reliable partner?
JOHNSON: Well, I think diplomatically that that is the — that that has to be the solution, is joining hands with Russia to bring — to bring this civil war to an end
“….so Johnson hasn’t read an article about the country in any of the sixty-three years that he’s been alive.”
Is this a fair judgement of him, given his full answer? Sounds a lot like what Obama and Kerry are trying to accomplish, no?
I think his follow-up was a pretty good answer. Pretty much what the WH has been trying to do, lately.
Yes, it’s embarrassing for a Presidential candidate to be ignorant of an area that has seen the heaviest fighting in Syria over the last few years between the Syrian government and the rebels.
However, the exaggerated focus on this seems to be an effort to discredit him and shrink his support. Some of it could go to HRC and some to Trump so it makes sense.
his answer does read like CYA rather than knowledge
Didn’t Trump say as much during the forum? At least in the last couple of days.
And maybe the five corrections the New York Times had to make to their evisceration of his supposed ignorance? Due to THEIR ignorance.
Real late to the party, but the article is just flat wrong. The Syrian civil war came because of the Arab Spring and the outcome in Syria. First, Assad chose violent repression rather than a political solution. Second, the Gulf Arabs, Turkey, and the US provided support for the rebels, but not enough for them to win, resulting in the current stalemate.
9/11 had little to do with this. The grievances that led to the protests were domestic and unrelated. Turkey, the Gulf Arabs, and the US were all pursuing long-term opposition to Assad for varying reasons (support for Wahhabism by the Gulf Arabs; support for different fundamentalist Islamic strains by Turkey, and support for Israel by the US). For the Gulf Arabs and the US these goals pre-date 9/11 and weren’t changed much by it. Turkey has changed, but that’s due to the ascent of Erdogan and not related to 9/11.
On a side note, the destruction of Aleppo is not all as bad as that; many sections under constant government control have little damage, as most of the damage comes from indiscriminate bombing by the government (which has been really vile). In rebel-controlled areas it is indeed grim, but that’s not most of Aleppo.
Top leadership of ISIS were Iraqi Baathist military leaders, no?
Some of the military leadership of Daesh used to be in the Iraqi army. But Daesh is not significant in Aleppo and isn’t responsible for the destruction there. Aleppo is the result of a long war between Assad and the motley assortment of Islamicists trying to overthrow him.
True of Aleppo. But you have to attribute the overall WAR to the resources that Daesh has brought to bear, imo. Much bigger regional presence. And those go back to Iraq in many ways.
Remind me the next time there’s a major earthquake, flood, hurricane, etc. to use this:
Based on the size of Aleppo and the portion of the city that has been destroyed a little to a lot, doubt that it isn’t far more extensive than what NYC incurred on 9/11 and from that destruction, this entire country lost its marbles.
The article implied not just that Aleppo has has a lot of damage but that is has been destroyed like a number of cities in WW2 like Dresden. It hasn’t. Damage of the sort in the picture is confined to the rebel-controlled part of Aleppo (about 1/6 of the city by population) and has a very specific cause: deliberate bombing of civilian areas by the Assad government.
Gary Johnson isn’t smart/sane enough to be president. Jill Stein isn’t smart/sane enough to be president. Trump isn’t smart/sane enough to be the local dogcatcher. Clinton is smart and sane enough, but her major problem is that she refuses to speak down to the large number of Americans who aren’t.
Anyone complaining that she isn’t stylish or charming enough should shut up and let the adults make the decisions for a while.