HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Topics » Foreign Affairs & National Security » Foreign Affairs (Group) » Caliphate puts men to the...

Tue Aug 12, 2014, 04:50 AM

Caliphate puts men to the meat-grinder

http://atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/MID-01-120814.html



Caliphate puts men to the meat-grinder
By Spengler
Aug 12, '14

General William Tecumseh Sherman burned the city of Atlanta in 1864. He warned: "I fear the world will jump to the wrong conclusion that because I am in Atlanta the work is done. Far from it. We must kill three hundred thousand I have told you of so often, and the further they run the harder for us to get them." Add a zero to calibrate the problem in the Levant today. War in the Middle East is less a strategic than a demographic phenomenon, whose resolution will come with the exhaustion of the pool of potential fighters.

The Middle East has plunged into a new Thirty Years War, allows Richard Haass, the president of the Council of Foreign Relations. "It is a region wracked by religious struggle between competing traditions of the faith. But the conflict is also between militants and moderates, fueled by neighboring rulers seeking to defend their interests and increase their influence. Conflicts take place within and between states; civil wars and proxy wars become impossible to distinguish. Governments often forfeit control to smaller groups - militias and the like - operating within and across borders. The loss of life is devastating, and millions are rendered homeless," he wrote on July 21.

Well and good: I predicted in 2006 that the George W Bush administration's blunder would provoke another Thirty Years War in the region, and repeated the diagnosis many times since. But I doubt that Mr Haass (or Walter Russell Mead, who cited the Haass article) has given sufficient thought to the implications.

How does one handle wars of this sort? In 2008 I argued for a "Richelovian" foreign policy, that is, emulation of the evil genius who guided France to victory at the conclusion of the Thirty Years War in 1648. Wars of this sort end when two generations of fighters are killed. They last for decades (as did the Peloponnesian War, the Napoleonic Wars and the two World Wars of the 20th century) because one kills off the fathers die in the first half of the war, and the sons in the second.

9 replies, 1856 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 9 replies Author Time Post
Reply Caliphate puts men to the meat-grinder (Original post)
unhappycamper Aug 2014 OP
CJCRANE Aug 2014 #1
Amonester Aug 2014 #4
DetlefK Aug 2014 #2
DonCoquixote Aug 2014 #3
bemildred Aug 2014 #6
DonCoquixote Aug 2014 #7
bemildred Aug 2014 #9
bemildred Aug 2014 #5
DonCoquixote Aug 2014 #8

Response to unhappycamper (Original post)

Tue Aug 12, 2014, 05:10 AM

1. I sense that the PTB want to move away from proxy wars and back to boots on the ground

and they are trying to gin up as much fear and hatred as possible.

It's possible also that the neocons wanted to occupy Iraq indefinitely and that Bush went against their wishes and now they want to do a mulligan and reoccupy the country.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CJCRANE (Reply #1)

Tue Aug 12, 2014, 11:00 AM

4. With what money?

Indefinite Printing?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to unhappycamper (Original post)

Tue Aug 12, 2014, 06:06 AM

2. Wow. That article is actively calling for slaughter as long as it doesn't threaten oil-production.

Read the second half. Obama is called mad for not invading Iran. "Everything would be fine in the Middle-East, if only Obama had invaded Iran."

And, verbatim quote:
"The grim task of regional security policy is to channel the butchery into areas that do not threaten oil production or transport."

The last argument is that the US has to bomb Iran to smithereens or Hamas will get modern rockets one day. For the sake of peace, America has to attack Iran.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to unhappycamper (Original post)

Tue Aug 12, 2014, 06:35 AM

3. given that asia times is pro china

it seems odd they would allow Spengler to actively cheer on attacking iran, which would do a LOT of damage to China.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonCoquixote (Reply #3)

Tue Aug 12, 2014, 12:09 PM

6. Asia Times is in Hong Kong, and they take their free press seriously there.

They generally avoid antagonizing the government in Beijing, but otherwise they do indeed speak freely.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bemildred (Reply #6)

Tue Aug 12, 2014, 05:10 PM

7. here is what I am saying

They post very pro Iran people like Pepe Escobar. For them to outright promotoe someone who, after years of hiding his identity, turns out to be a former CIA spook, and hwo says the solution is to attack iran, and do so in a manner which is brutal, is a shock. And consider how much of China'soilcomes from iran, yes, it is antagonizing Beijing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonCoquixote (Reply #7)

Tue Aug 12, 2014, 05:41 PM

9. He's been there a long time, I read him there ten years ago.

I remember the big deal it was when he came out. I've always considered him a Neocon. He has all the marks.

What I'm saying is that in Hong Kong they often antagonize Beijing.

Edit: it's like a little dance, where everybody knows where the boundaries are. They conform on some issues close to home, on others farther away they get to rebel. Hong Kong is rich, and ex-colonial, so it gets away with stuff. They are having an argument right now about who gets to select the leader of Hong Kong. That's why Snowden went there.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to unhappycamper (Original post)

Tue Aug 12, 2014, 11:05 AM

5. Reading Spengler always annoys me.

His otherwise often perceptive analysis is always corrupted when it comes to current events by his, hmmm, "pro-Western bias" I will call it, exemplified here by the notion that the Kings of Saudi Arabia and Jordan sit secure on their thrones, and the idea that attacking Iran would have been the way to restore stability. In other words he drinks the Neocon KoolAid in deep draughts while yet criticisizing the folly of those same parties in precipitating the present mess.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bemildred (Reply #5)

Tue Aug 12, 2014, 05:11 PM

8. BINGO BULLSEYE BRAVO

Especially since the guy made his fame by slamming America, and lo and behold, he is former CIA.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread