Timbuktu falls to al-Qaeda�s great African land grab

[pietillidie]

[David]

^ I think that gives people far too much credit for logical reasoning, apart from the small minority of seriously cynical, calculating or real estate agents amongst us. Most of us just swallow what we're fed, I think.

The main psychological tactics used to promote the wars were and are:

1) Terrorism is frightening, and could happen to you! We need to fight back wherever we can.

2) Saddam/The Taliban are evil. Look at what he/they have done to their own people! Let's get rid of them and install a peaceful democracy.

3) Saddam will attack us! (Hence the whole 'WMDs' thing).

4) We need to be avenged for 9/11 and Bali.

I think there were various appeals to Western military dominance, xenophobia, Islamophobia and so on, but I doubt housing prices were a major factor in what public support there was.

[pietillidie]

^I was actually talking about the recent ratcheting-up of rhetoric in the context of this thread. But generally it's not a stretch to imagine perceived self-benefit as a tacit psychological reason for people supporting such a thing and it doesn't really require complex econometrics to work ("Those bastards take our jobs", or to roughly quote Hitchens' version thereof from memory: "Saddam Hussein had his foot on the throat of the world economy", or some such garbage). The other elements just make it easier by providing "moral" cover. I was more expecting it to happen now because of the strains on the global economy, but thinking about that has also made me reassess the previous debate as well. Knowing our contractors are stealing their resources and procuring dodgy contracts clearly benefits you know who.

Keep it in mind and note the flow of conversations on the web or even in person. It could actually be seriously tested by "priming" people with some economic claim and then testing their attitude to such issues versus some control. Or better still, wait until people are drunk at the bar and see what they have to say; they'll often blurt that stuff out directly. Then again, it might just be misdirected superficial anger and they don't really mean it, or perhaps the work of a tiny minority.

It's a bit of a sneaking suspicion if not a hypothesis, I guess. Or maybe we're grossly underplaying it because something like that is too close for comfort to the baseline level of self-deception we generally work from as humans.

[David]

I think my issue with it is that it seems so coldly pragmatic � I just don't think the average person thinks that way about foreign affairs. I'm all for acknowledging the self-interest underlining our desires and actions, and I don't think most of us really care much on any real level for the peoples of far-off places, but I tend to think that voicing such a proposal (say, "What if a war in Iran made your house worth more?") would cause a backlash in the minds of most. We may act like ruthless pragmatists a lot of the time, but we certainly don't like feeling like ruthless pragmatists.

Wanting to feel morally righteous and consider oneself a 'good' person is a pervasive conceit, and I think Howard-voting demographics are a good place to discover those sentiments. And yeah, now I'm wondering: does that challenge your point, or support it? I think I may have confused myself a little.

Either way, it makes sense that Hitchens would bring up economic issues; it sort of seems like the higher you get up military, political and academic ranks the more important it would seem. Most ordinary war supporters reacted angrily to 'blood for oil' slogans, for example.

[sq3]

I think the big problem with fighting the Taliban is that they are not a coventional Army and do not fight in the normal manners that the Western Armed Forces leaders are trained for.

I still think that the Western Army leaders need to use uncoventional methods agains the Taliban - and Timbuktu would be the ideal place to start.

Use the drones as well but send in the mercenaries to just wipe out the main leaders - you must start to fight them in an unconventional manner - then you will see how many really want to go and meet Allah (I love the graffiti that says 'Allah loves Pork',)

[HAL]

Let me think. Or what?

[David]

I think the first step is to acknowledge that we don't live in a Steven Seagal movie.

[rocketronnie]

Personally my approach would be to freeze or put controls on the external assets of Wahabi banks, and strictly monitor all financial transfers out of Saudi, Jordan and the Gulf States. Do that and a good portion of Al Queda and related groups jihads and activities would be withered in a year or so. It sounds wacky but it would work. The real Jihadists are the Saudis etc that fund most of the activities of these groups. Hmmm sudden stream of consciousness idea.... Why not trace funding back to the Saudis etc who happily fund al Queda etc and knock them off surepticiously? Now unlike Jihadi foot soldiers they are, in their own minds NOT expendable, and after a few unexplained "accidents" they will get the message that their over-priveleged little existences could all end suddenly if they continue to be naughty little Wahabis and fund Al Queda etc. Funding sources would start to dry up once that idea hits home....

Im not one to advocate nothing get done on these issues. Left alone these Medievalists will not sit still but will continue to be expansionist. The military option never works because its never persecuted with sufficient vigor for that option to be effective (something that the West could quite rightly no longer stand to do), so for me correctly targetted assasinations are most likely the go.

[HAL]

In what way do I sound like that?

[sq3]

[pietillidie]

Yes, but are we bringing out the macho "blow the bastards to smithereens" talk because we have a good grasp of this matter, or in reality until half an hour ago did we think Timbuktu was simply a long way down the track from Kalamazoo?

RR, I know you had some very specific things to say, but it would be nice for someone to fill us in on the size of this problem and place it within the new geopolitical context of the region and the present status of these fanatical groups.

[Tannin]

No Kalamazoo is in Michigan. Either that or it's a sort of musical instrument.

[HAL]

Far out. What else is Kalamazoo in?

[stui magpie]

[watt price tully]

It needs to be dealt with on a number of levels:

Militarily: (just don't let George W anywhere near it or the neocons)
Politically - needs to guide the military, liaise with those on the ground etc & needs to work in parallel with leaders of oppositions groups etc
Legally (invoke UN security council if possible
Economically - as RR was saying

The Muslim extremists need to be alienated by other Muslim nation states that they have taken over. They have a large footprinit in Northern Africa including getting into northern & central Nigeria on the West Coast & setting up attacks in Kenya on the East Coast.

Personally I'd send in David Hicks

The Jihadists are causing issues for Hamas in Gaza & have been penetrating Egyptian Sinai launching attacks against Israel. Egyptian Military responses cannot go against the peace treaty with Israel (numbers of troops weapons etc & the native Bedoin of Sinai simply go to the highest bidder weho deal in arms, people trafficking & drugs) yet the flow of weapons from Libya goes unabated in many respects. This could make odd allies out of Hamas & Israel. .....