There's a backlash on Twitter with the hashtag #iwontridewithyou - as opposed to the lily-livered #Illridewithyou after the attack in Australia. About time!
Altogether I think maybe the terrorists have gone too far this time. They've attacked Jews and Jewish institutions for years now, to the extent that Jewish emigration from France to Israel has reached a 10 year high. And although the authorities have made the right noise, and even taken action occasionally, this hasn't resonated enough in the press.
But NOW, their own have been attacked. The French are sounding extremely angry now.
There's also a backlash developing in Germany with the Pegida movement, in Sweden, the UK with UKIP, and now this.
My first reaction to this tragedy/disaster is the commentary I've heard and read about who did what when, etc...as if separation of group "names" is of some consequence. My experience, albeit long ago, is that insurgent terrorist are all joined at the hip and the various names assigned are to confuse and confound the westerners. They are ALL the same and joined at the hip, only the head and waving arms are distinct...otherwise they are exactly the same, and physically and psychologically related. Al Qaeda (with its multiple & sundry affiliation names), ISIS, Taliban, et al are ALL the same entity in reality. The "name thing" is only a reflection of who is competing for the top dog spot.
We in the west need, our leadership especially, to quickly learn just what non-state asymmetrical warfare really is all about. The enemy of my enemy is my friend, among the terrorist clans, applies press down and running over...why is this so hard to understand?
My "solutions" are untenable due to their violence (resource reduction per se by obliterating all areas who even think about supporting, even merely abiding, even under threats, the terrorists) however nothing else will work in the short run, meaning the next decade.
I have no hope we will get it and do something. It just isn't politically correct or acceptable, especially in the newer defined "liberal" (progressive) circles. We remain the consummate "good guys" and thus the targets of all the rest. When you bow down, you have just set the scene for your own be-heading. Our Constitution does NOT protect these radicals, so why do we keep insisting that it somehow does?
Ari, your plan is a definite plan; one that all empires have in their back pocket.
It's plan 'B'.
Plan 'A' is to divide and co-opt - find a leader of theirs who is strong enough to make it stop, and smart enough to make it stop.
The British did this with the IRA, and it more or less worked. You'll note they never did shell Belfast and kill 50,000. It must have crossed their minds a few times.
The best terrorist leaders are smart enough to know when to let some of "their side" go unavenged, and strong enough to make it stick. Eventually history re-writes their role as "freedom fighters".
Weak, stupid terrorists just go for moar blood.
The jihadi exegesis of the Islamic canon undermines strong, smart leaders at every turn. They practically beg for plan 'B'.
Lewy...Plan B is unworkable today, regardless of what we did to the Germans and Japan in our past. We even refused to exercise Plan B against the North Vietnamese. Worse, many of my neighbors would lose family and friends under Plan B. So your co-option idea is a valid concept. It is the execution of it that is problematic. Frankly, although I have ideas how to accomplish your plan, based upon first hand personal experience, I am uncertain our institutionalized government can grasp it fully. It requires more than talk or political kissing up, it requires doing and establishing a common ground from which to proceed. Many of those I know who've returned from Afghanistan will say the same thing, in fact have said the same thing. In the midst of conflict & war it is difficult to "do" however, it is not impossible...in fact it is the first instinct of the average GI...but they don't get to make the strategic decisions.
Ari, we may or may not have enough institutional intelligence to pull off a plan 'A', but it doesn't matter - the jihadis don't have the strategic chops of an average gang banger, mobster or outlaw biker. There is nobody we can do business with, because every leader of their's that we could do business with gets killed, or is too weak to enforce the truce on his side.
Regardless, I'd like to see Jax Teller for SecState.
Perfect quote, and it captures the mood in a classy way...rather than saying "bring it MFer!"
ReplyDeleteThat is why the left is in for a shock, We may not say that, but that's what we will do.
DeleteThere's a backlash on Twitter with the hashtag #iwontridewithyou - as opposed to the lily-livered #Illridewithyou after the attack in Australia. About time!
ReplyDeleteAltogether I think maybe the terrorists have gone too far this time. They've attacked Jews and Jewish institutions for years now, to the extent that Jewish emigration from France to Israel has reached a 10 year high. And although the authorities have made the right noise, and even taken action occasionally, this hasn't resonated enough in the press.
But NOW, their own have been attacked. The French are sounding extremely angry now.
There's also a backlash developing in Germany with the Pegida movement, in Sweden, the UK with UKIP, and now this.
Interesting times.
I put this quote in the masthead. Unfortunately, I cannot seem to split the lines, so feel free to clean it up if you can.
ReplyDeleteAnyone up for posting the cartoons?
God damn Al Qaida for making me say what I swore I never would:
DeleteThree cheers for Vox.
[Matt - OK by me - there's a convenient source for the cartoons right there at the link.]
I'm proud of those on the right who have the courage to post some of the cartoons such as Weekly Standard and Bernie Goldberg.com.
DeleteOutstanding Matt! I LOVE adding the quote to the masthead!
DeleteHear, hear.
DeleteI'm not familiar with Vox, lewy, but yes - 3 cheers for them.
ReplyDeleteMy first reaction to this tragedy/disaster is the commentary I've heard and read about who did what when, etc...as if separation of group "names" is of some consequence. My experience, albeit long ago, is that insurgent terrorist are all joined at the hip and the various names assigned are to confuse and confound the westerners. They are ALL the same and joined at the hip, only the head and waving arms are distinct...otherwise they are exactly the same, and physically and psychologically related. Al Qaeda (with its multiple & sundry affiliation names), ISIS, Taliban, et al are ALL the same entity in reality. The "name thing" is only a reflection of who is competing for the top dog spot.
ReplyDeleteWe in the west need, our leadership especially, to quickly learn just what non-state asymmetrical warfare really is all about. The enemy of my enemy is my friend, among the terrorist clans, applies press down and running over...why is this so hard to understand?
My "solutions" are untenable due to their violence (resource reduction per se by obliterating all areas who even think about supporting, even merely abiding, even under threats, the terrorists) however nothing else will work in the short run, meaning the next decade.
I have no hope we will get it and do something. It just isn't politically correct or acceptable, especially in the newer defined "liberal" (progressive) circles. We remain the consummate "good guys" and thus the targets of all the rest. When you bow down, you have just set the scene for your own be-heading. Our Constitution does NOT protect these radicals, so why do we keep insisting that it somehow does?
Ari, your plan is a definite plan; one that all empires have in their back pocket.
DeleteIt's plan 'B'.
Plan 'A' is to divide and co-opt - find a leader of theirs who is strong enough to make it stop, and smart enough to make it stop.
The British did this with the IRA, and it more or less worked. You'll note they never did shell Belfast and kill 50,000. It must have crossed their minds a few times.
The best terrorist leaders are smart enough to know when to let some of "their side" go unavenged, and strong enough to make it stick. Eventually history re-writes their role as "freedom fighters".
Weak, stupid terrorists just go for moar blood.
The jihadi exegesis of the Islamic canon undermines strong, smart leaders at every turn. They practically beg for plan 'B'.
Lewy...Plan B is unworkable today, regardless of what we did to the Germans and Japan in our past. We even refused to exercise Plan B against the North Vietnamese. Worse, many of my neighbors would lose family and friends under Plan B. So your co-option idea is a valid concept. It is the execution of it that is problematic. Frankly, although I have ideas how to accomplish your plan, based upon first hand personal experience, I am uncertain our institutionalized government can grasp it fully. It requires more than talk or political kissing up, it requires doing and establishing a common ground from which to proceed. Many of those I know who've returned from Afghanistan will say the same thing, in fact have said the same thing. In the midst of conflict & war it is difficult to "do" however, it is not impossible...in fact it is the first instinct of the average GI...but they don't get to make the strategic decisions.
DeleteAri, we may or may not have enough institutional intelligence to pull off a plan 'A', but it doesn't matter - the jihadis don't have the strategic chops of an average gang banger, mobster or outlaw biker. There is nobody we can do business with, because every leader of their's that we could do business with gets killed, or is too weak to enforce the truce on his side.
DeleteRegardless, I'd like to see Jax Teller for SecState.