Re: Post-Withdrawal Iraq
Posted: Mon Jan 06, 2020 6:46 am
That is not dead which can eternal lie, and with strange aeons bring us some web forums whereupon we can gather
https://octopusoverlords.com/forum/
This particular statement made me wonder what kind of contractors are being killed. Are we talking IT Vendors, building contractors, aid workers - or are we talking Mercenaries who happen to be American?
Not all military contractors are like Blackwater. Could have been an ex-military person training Iraqi troops.Paingod wrote:This particular statement made me wonder what kind of contractors are being killed. Are we talking IT Vendors, building contractors, aid workers - or are we talking Mercenaries who happen to be American?
I keep hearing the word "contractors" and thinking "poor innocent people just trying to work" but it dawned on me that companies like Blackwater can be considered "contractors" too, but they're not exactly innocent; they're engaged in military-style work that involves exchange of gunfire with hostiles. I feel a lot less bad about someone with a gun getting killed than I do someone who goes over with a toolbox.
Trump went on to say "The Hague Convention is a VERY bad deal for the US. We are the best at War. Nobody knows war like I do. We are being taken advantage of. We are withdrawing."
It's usually armed private military or truck drivers.Paingod wrote: ↑Mon Jan 06, 2020 9:19 amThis particular statement made me wonder what kind of contractors are being killed. Are we talking IT Vendors, building contractors, aid workers - or are we talking Mercenaries who happen to be American?
I keep hearing the word "contractors" and thinking "poor innocent people just trying to work" but it dawned on me that companies like Blackwater can be considered "contractors" too, but they're not exactly innocent; they're engaged in military-style work that involves exchange of gunfire with hostiles. I feel a lot less bad about someone with a gun getting killed than I do someone who goes over with a toolbox.
"Fun fact" - more 'contractors' died in Afghanistan and Iraq than US military. Like all things relating to the United States Federal government the wars heavily used contracting. The three letter agencies heavily do this as well. We stretched out our capacity by taking non-front line activity and farmed it to the private sector. Another benefit is that often members of the media would only report on actual US armed forces casualties. That was the basis of my 'all the time' remark. US armed force deaths have been down dramatically but that is because it has mostly been shifted 'off the books'.LawBeefaroni wrote: ↑Mon Jan 06, 2020 10:00 amIt's usually armed private military or truck drivers.Paingod wrote: ↑Mon Jan 06, 2020 9:19 amThis particular statement made me wonder what kind of contractors are being killed. Are we talking IT Vendors, building contractors, aid workers - or are we talking Mercenaries who happen to be American?
I keep hearing the word "contractors" and thinking "poor innocent people just trying to work" but it dawned on me that companies like Blackwater can be considered "contractors" too, but they're not exactly innocent; they're engaged in military-style work that involves exchange of gunfire with hostiles. I feel a lot less bad about someone with a gun getting killed than I do someone who goes over with a toolbox.
The two contractors just killed in Kenya were "DOD contractors" so possibly intelligence.
Europe, Japan, and SK aren't "former allies" yet, because they're just looking the other way while we rampage. One hopes that if we come to our senses next year we'll be invited to play nicely with our friends again. They'll never trust us the same way, but we're still the biggest kid in the sandbox.Lagom Lite wrote: ↑Mon Jan 06, 2020 6:46 amAllies? Oh, you mean the Saudis. I think the others already left.
Bet they never thought they'd have to put that in their Terms of Use.
That's how I read it. "Expect a lot of activity as we move our pieces about the board..."malchior wrote: ↑Mon Jan 06, 2020 4:58 pm I don't understand the disconnect here considering the meltdown from Trump last night and today. Is Iraq paying for that base?
More importantly who made the call? This is a massive shift. Big picture this may essentially cede Iraq to Iran and restrict access to Syria for ISIS containment. #winning
Edit: The below says this isn't about leaving Iraq....the language is vague enough to cover moving troops around. Possibly as a show to placate the Iraqi public. Yet other organizations are saying we are leaving. Verdict: No one knows what the fuck is going on because our nation is clown shoes.
Amateur-hour is 24-7 with this Administration.malchior wrote: ↑Mon Jan 06, 2020 6:47 pm Forgetting the occupying power part. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs doesn't know the status of a major combat force in a conflict zone. We also sent a "draft letter" to a foreign government promising to obey their order to leave. I half expect a fortress america style invasion as people realize we are probably completely undefended.
BTW - I looked at the image - nothing about it says draft. Every draft government document I've seen is marked draft. Often with big diagonal text (watermark style). My guess is that this is a product of chaos.
“Sen. Marsha Blackburn” wrote:This is what happens when you’re given the choice of attending or being killed.
To wit:
WASHINGTON — Defense Secretary Mark T. Esper sought to douse an international outcry on Monday by ruling out military attacks on cultural sites in Iran if the conflict with Tehran escalates further, despite President Trump’s threat to destroy some of the country’s treasured icons.
Mr. Esper acknowledged that striking cultural sites with no military value would be a war crime, putting him at odds with the president, who insisted such places would be legitimate targets. Mr. Trump’s threats generated condemnation at home and abroad while deeply discomfiting American military leaders who have made a career of upholding the laws of war.
Well, I disagree that it doesn't pass the basic logic test, though it is speculative. Obviously this funeral was a big deal to the Iranian regime, as a venue for showing strength and unity. If the funeral was poorly attended or (even worse) if there were protests of some type, that would be deeply embarrassing. Every Iranian would know that this funeral is important to the Iranian regime, and would also know that the regime is often not shy about beating people up who dissent or who otherwise cause problems for the regime. So one issue with using the attendance at the funeral as a measure of Iranian popular support for the regime / Soleimani / what have you is that there is at least an implicit threat of violence around this, as well as around everything that is important to the regime.
This is not the time nor place for measured, nuanced thought.El Guapo wrote: ↑Tue Jan 07, 2020 10:39 amWell, I disagree that it doesn't pass the basic logic test, though it is speculative. Obviously this funeral was a big deal to the Iranian regime, as a venue for showing strength and unity. If the funeral was poorly attended or (even worse) if there were protests of some type, that would be deeply embarrassing. Every Iranian would know that this funeral is important to the Iranian regime, and would also know that the regime is often not shy about beating people up who dissent or who otherwise cause problems for the regime. So one issue with using the attendance at the funeral as a measure of Iranian popular support for the regime / Soleimani / what have you is that there is at least an implicit threat of violence around this, as well as around everything that is important to the regime.
I think it's reasonable to assume that the Soleimani strike is helpful to the regime domestically in terms of rallying nationalist support. It's also reasonable to assume that many / most of the people at the funeral were there voluntarily. But assessing popular support in authoritarian regimes is always complicated.
Soleimani is seen as something of a war hero in Iran, as someone who fought and defeated ISIS (who is a threat to and wants to genocide Shia muslims). Brutal, yes, but a hero all the same.El Guapo wrote: ↑Tue Jan 07, 2020 10:39 amWell, I disagree that it doesn't pass the basic logic test, though it is speculative. Obviously this funeral was a big deal to the Iranian regime, as a venue for showing strength and unity. If the funeral was poorly attended or (even worse) if there were protests of some type, that would be deeply embarrassing. Every Iranian would know that this funeral is important to the Iranian regime, and would also know that the regime is often not shy about beating people up who dissent or who otherwise cause problems for the regime. So one issue with using the attendance at the funeral as a measure of Iranian popular support for the regime / Soleimani / what have you is that there is at least an implicit threat of violence around this, as well as around everything that is important to the regime.
I think it's reasonable to assume that the Soleimani strike is helpful to the regime domestically in terms of rallying nationalist support. It's also reasonable to assume that many / most of the people at the funeral were there voluntarily. But assessing popular support in authoritarian regimes is always complicated.
Oh yeah? How do they know if individuals attended? Do they just carpet bomb towns if they don't turn out? Millions showed up. All of them or many of them feared death or physical violence? Come on - be reasonable.
Really? Sure it is a brutal regime but this is a stretch to say that millions turned out because of the implicit fear in the regime. It is way more likely they actually revered him because they were fed propaganda for years about him.Obviously this funeral was a big deal to the Iranian regime, as a venue for showing strength and unity. If the funeral was poorly attended or (even worse) if there were protests of some type, that would be deeply embarrassing. Every Iranian would know that this funeral is important to the Iranian regime, and would also know that the regime is often not shy about beating people up who dissent or who otherwise cause problems for the regime. So one issue with using the attendance at the funeral as a measure of Iranian popular support for the regime / Soleimani / what have you is that there is at least an implicit threat of violence around this, as well as around everything that is important to the regime.
No doubt but her point was bullshit. She knows it is bullshit. Getting into nuances about the popularity of authoritarian regimes is a side show.I think it's reasonable to assume that the Soleimani strike is helpful to the regime domestically in terms of rallying nationalist support. It's also reasonable to assume that many / most of the people at the funeral were there voluntarily. But assessing popular support in authoritarian regimes is always complicated.
No, obviously I'm not saying that all of them turned up because of compulsion. Obviously that's ridiculous. Obviously there's no individual attendance list or the like. HOWEVER, there are various government-affiliated gangs / militias / thugs. Lots of people are going to the funeral. I would expect that most people would not feel super comfortable saying "nah, I'm good" about going to the funeral. It's not that the regime is going to arrest you or execute you or the like. The fear would be that some regime-affiliated gang gets word that you / your family / etc. didn't show. Obviously you don't want to get on the radar of those gangs or government apparatchiks as someone who may not be fully enthusiastic about the regime.malchior wrote: ↑Tue Jan 07, 2020 11:20 amOh yeah? How do you know if individuals attended? Do they just carpet bomb towns if they don't turn out? Millions showed up. All of them feared death or physical violence? Come on - be reasonable.
Really? Sure it is a brutal regime but this is a stretch to say that millions turned out because of the implicit fear in the regime. It is way more likely they actually revered him because they were fed propaganda for years about him.Obviously this funeral was a big deal to the Iranian regime, as a venue for showing strength and unity. If the funeral was poorly attended or (even worse) if there were protests of some type, that would be deeply embarrassing. Every Iranian would know that this funeral is important to the Iranian regime, and would also know that the regime is often not shy about beating people up who dissent or who otherwise cause problems for the regime. So one issue with using the attendance at the funeral as a measure of Iranian popular support for the regime / Soleimani / what have you is that there is at least an implicit threat of violence around this, as well as around everything that is important to the regime.
No doubt but her point was bullshit. She knows it is bullshit. Getting into nuances about the popularity of authoritarian regimes is a side show.I think it's reasonable to assume that the Soleimani strike is helpful to the regime domestically in terms of rallying nationalist support. It's also reasonable to assume that many / most of the people at the funeral were there voluntarily. But assessing popular support in authoritarian regimes is always complicated.
Soleimani was also deeply involved in the brutal crackdown on mass Iranian protests earlier this year, right? I would assume that there would also be some ill will domestically about that.Lagom Lite wrote: ↑Tue Jan 07, 2020 11:17 amSoleimani is seen as something of a war hero in Iran, as someone who fought and defeated ISIS (who is a threat to and wants to genocide Shia muslims). Brutal, yes, but a hero all the same.El Guapo wrote: ↑Tue Jan 07, 2020 10:39 amWell, I disagree that it doesn't pass the basic logic test, though it is speculative. Obviously this funeral was a big deal to the Iranian regime, as a venue for showing strength and unity. If the funeral was poorly attended or (even worse) if there were protests of some type, that would be deeply embarrassing. Every Iranian would know that this funeral is important to the Iranian regime, and would also know that the regime is often not shy about beating people up who dissent or who otherwise cause problems for the regime. So one issue with using the attendance at the funeral as a measure of Iranian popular support for the regime / Soleimani / what have you is that there is at least an implicit threat of violence around this, as well as around everything that is important to the regime.
I think it's reasonable to assume that the Soleimani strike is helpful to the regime domestically in terms of rallying nationalist support. It's also reasonable to assume that many / most of the people at the funeral were there voluntarily. But assessing popular support in authoritarian regimes is always complicated.
It's like the Russian view of Stalin. Many Russians to this day consider him a hero for protecting them from the Nazis, even with his less than stellar record on reigns of terror and whatnot.
Authoritarian cultures and subcultures tend to do this. I don't see why those mourners wouldn't be genuine. Heck, you only need to look at your own authoritarians in America to get a sense of the sort of psychology of accepting cruelty that emerges when loyalty for country and leader is trumped up as the supreme virtue above all else.
This last sentence is the crux of it. With the numbers of people involved the only ones at risk are the people *already on the radar* and those people are absolutely being compelled. Is that a lot of people? I don't know but I doubt it. This regime has been in power a long time now.El Guapo wrote: ↑Tue Jan 07, 2020 11:32 amNo, obviously I'm not saying that all of them turned up because of compulsion. Obviously that's ridiculous. Obviously there's no individual attendance list or the like. HOWEVER, there are various government-affiliated gangs / militias / thugs. Lots of people are going to the funeral. I would expect that most people would not feel super comfortable saying "nah, I'm good" about going to the funeral. It's not that the regime is going to arrest you or execute you or the like. The fear would be that some regime-affiliated gang gets word that you / your family / etc. didn't show. Obviously you don't want to get on the radar of those gangs or government apparatchiks as someone who may not be fully enthusiastic about the regime.
I don't disagree but again the point the Senator made was bullshit. 'Attend or die'. Again to follow her logic - I guess Iran is killing 75 million people then? (Just matching hyperbole with hyperbole).So the idea that everyone at the protest was compelled to be there is absurd. But the general power dynamic around the regime means that there would be an implicit threat involved in the decision to attend / not attend the funeral. All of which just complicates using the funeral attendance as a barometer of popular support for Suleimani / the regime.
See: Jackson, AndrewLagom Lite wrote: ↑Tue Jan 07, 2020 11:17 am Authoritarian cultures and subcultures tend to do this. I don't see why those mourners wouldn't be genuine. Heck, you only need to look at your own authoritarians in America to get a sense of the sort of psychology of accepting cruelty that emerges when loyalty for country and leader is trumped up as the supreme virtue above all else.
Or Eddie Gallagher at a Trump rally.noxiousdog wrote: ↑Tue Jan 07, 2020 1:04 pmSee: Jackson, AndrewLagom Lite wrote: ↑Tue Jan 07, 2020 11:17 am Authoritarian cultures and subcultures tend to do this. I don't see why those mourners wouldn't be genuine. Heck, you only need to look at your own authoritarians in America to get a sense of the sort of psychology of accepting cruelty that emerges when loyalty for country and leader is trumped up as the supreme virtue above all else.
Actually, there's some truth to the senator's post:LawBeefaroni wrote: ↑Tue Jan 07, 2020 9:49 amPro-jec-tion. And it's why they're expecting actual record crowds for Trump's coronation second inauguration.
That's paywalled, and my WaPo subscription has run out. Would you post the gist of it?Grifman wrote: ↑Tue Jan 07, 2020 2:01 pmActually, there's some truth to the senator's post:LawBeefaroni wrote: ↑Tue Jan 07, 2020 9:49 amPro-jec-tion. And it's why they're expecting actual record crowds for Trump's coronation second inauguration.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... soleimani/
Not everyone in Iran loved the general, many hated him.
Not everyone in Iran loved the general, many hated him.
The media in the Islamic Republic is heavily controlled. Public gatherings are allowed only if they are pro-regime. Critics are jailed or shot. (Even I, living outside the country, have received a death threat on Iranian national TV for my coverage of Soleimani’s killing.) So it’s not hard to use all the tools and resources of the state to stage a funeral procession.
. . .
There are many Iranian voices who think Soleimani was a war criminal, but Western journalists rarely reach out to them. Ironically, the Western media is more skeptical of such state-organized events in other countries, such as Russia or North Korea, but seems to leave its critical sense at the border when it comes to the Islamic Republic. While it’s true that Western correspondents face daunting conditions when it comes to reporting the truth from Iran, that shouldn’t excuse the many times they’ve shown unwarranted gullibility toward the official version of events.
Paywalled op-ed but my point was that they are projecting their own ambitions regardless of what is or isn't actually happening on Iran.Grifman wrote: ↑Tue Jan 07, 2020 2:01 pmActually, there's some truth to the senator's post:LawBeefaroni wrote: ↑Tue Jan 07, 2020 9:49 amPro-jec-tion. And it's why they're expecting actual record crowds for Trump's coronation second inauguration.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... soleimani/
Not everyone in Iran loved the general, many hated him.
Also because it appears to be "attend and possibly be killed."gilraen wrote: ↑Tue Jan 07, 2020 2:30 pm Mourning or otherwise, at least 56 people are confirmed dead in the crush at the funeral procession in Soleimani's home town.
The whole "attend or be killed" statement is ridiculous not because anyone is going to argue that Iranians all loved this guy, but because who the hell would take attendance in a crowd like this:
Bet Trump wishes he had inauguration crowds like this...