History News Network | Quicksand: Or How and Why the U.S. Created its Very Own Middle Eastern Quagmire

Another perceptive analysis of our current situation: “Americans are scared and whenever the next terrorist act occurs, temperatures will soar, and as our past bears out, bad things will surely happen as ambitious  politicians, goaded by the mass media, rush to avenge the criminals, guilty or not. Meanwhile, the morally and politically myopic men and women who  entrapped us in a no-win Greater Middle Eastern hornet’s nest will continue advising our leaders how to beat ISIS and finally win our never-ending wars.”

Source: History News Network | Quicksand: Or How and Why the U.S. Created its Very Own Middle Eastern Quagmire

“Should the U.S. “Reoccupy” Iraq and Invade Syria?” | History News Network

Definitely not! Brian Glyn Williams sums up the problem nicely: “The dangers of giving into ISIS’s baiting of our emotions are real and could lead to another Operation Iraqi Freedom-style quagmire in two countries this time, instead of just one. Should the U.S. once again repeat the ill-conceived adventurism of Bush Jr. (which got us into the bloody slog that created ISIS out of the secular Socialist Baathist regime that ruled Iraq up until the US invasion) and invade Syria and Iraq, it will play directly into the hands of the ISIS fanatics. They are deeply entrenched and have dug into the towns they dominate with tens of thousands of fanatical fighters. They control an area today that is much larger than their lands in Iraq where they were defeated back in 2007 only with 168,000 U.S surge-reinforced troops and with the crucial help of 103,000 Sunni Anbar Awakening fighters (who it should be stated are no longer with us, they are now primarily with ISIS).”

Read Williams’s well-reasoned case against sending in troops against ISIS: History News Network | Should the U.S. “Reoccupy” Iraq and Invade Syria?

“The Refugees & the New War by Michael Ignatieff “| The New York Review of Books

Another credible voice making the case against giving ISIS what it wants: “Strategists will tell you that it is a mistake to fight the battle your enemies want you to fight. You should impose your strategy on them, not let them impose theirs on you. These lessons apply to the struggle with the leaders of ISIS. We have applied pressure upon them in Syria; they have replied with atrocious attacks in Ankara, Beirut, and now Paris. They are trying to provoke an apocalyptic confrontation with the Crusader infidels. We should deny them this opportunity.”

Source: The Refugees & the New War by Michael Ignatieff | The New York Review of Books

“Paris: The War ISIS Wants by Scott Atran and Nafees Hamid” | NYR Daily | The New York Review of Books

“Following the Paris attacks, France, the United States, and our allies may opt for all-out war. But even if ISIS is destroyed, its message could still captivate many in coming generations.”

If we want to defeat ISIS we must understand them first. The desire for revenge in the aftermath of the attacks in Paris is understandable. However, this emotionally satisfying response will lead us right into the trap set by ISIS, and will most likely make things worse.

The article by Atran and Hamid go a long way in helping us understand ISIS and the motives to those who join the movement: Paris: The War ISIS Wants by Scott Atran and Nafees Hamid | NYR Daily | The New York Review of Books

“Kissinger, the Bombardier” | History News Network

Greg Grandin reviews the history of Kissinger’s legacy of endless war and diplomacy via bombs. Despite the clear failure of this strategy, there is no sign that we will abandon it. When will we learn?

Grandin concludes:  “Here, then, is a perfect expression of American militarism’s unbroken circle. Kissinger invokes today’s endless, open-ended wars to justify his diplomacy by air power in Cambodia and elsewhere nearly half a century ago. But what he did then created the conditions for today’s endless wars, both those started by Bush’s neocons and those waged by Obama’s war-fighting liberals like Samantha Power. So it goes in Washington.”

Read the entire piece here: History News Network | Kissinger, the Bombardier

Kissenger's shadow

“No, Carly Fiorina, a degree in medieval history doesn’t qualify you to fight Isis” | David M Perry | Comment is free | The Guardian

Last week Carly Fiorina stated that her “degree in medieval history and philosophy has come in handy, because what Isis wants to do is drive us back to the Middle Ages, literally.” Knowing the relevant history is helpful in understanding the current events in the Middle East, but it’s not enough, especially if your understanding comes from a single period of time and which you studied at the undergraduate level forty years ago! And as David M. Perry points out, “While the Middle Ages do in fact shape contemporary events all the time, Fiorina unfortunately almost always gets the lessons of history wrong.”

And what is more troubling in Fiorina’s statement is that she’s using “medieval” in a particular way that it not constructive in dealing with the present situation. As Perry explains, “When we use the word “medieval” to characterize something we don’t like, be it Isis, the Ferguson Police department or Russia’s driver’s license regulations, we are trying to impose chronological distance between ourselves and things we find unpleasant. Thinking of distasteful or evil aspects of the modern world as belonging to the past makes it harder, not easier, to understand their causes and fight them.”

Read the entire article here: No, Carly Fiorina, a degree in medieval history doesn’t qualify you to fight Isis | David M Perry | Comment is free | The Guardian

History News Network | These Are the Hard Steps that Must Be Taken to Resolve the Syrian Mess

“Russia and Iran are deeply embedded in Syria; they cannot be dislodged and will always remain a player in shaping Syria’s future. The US has little choice but to accept this simple reality.” As much as I hate the idea, I think that Alon Ben-Meir is right. Given the situation, our only option if we want to stop the conflict in Syria and defeat ISIS is to work with Russia and Iran (both of which have substantial interests in the region). What’s the alternative?

Read an overview of Ben-Meir’s solution here: History News Network | These Are the Hard Steps that Must Be Taken to Resolve the Syrian Mess

History News Network | Here Are One Dozen Reasons Why The Nuclear Agreement with Iran Is Better than the One with North Korea

This is an interesting comparison between the Iran nuclear agreement and the North Korean one: History News Network | Here Are One Dozen Reasons Why The Nuclear Agreement with Iran Is Better than the One with North Korea

“Barack Obama, Whatever His Faults, Shouldn’t Be Criticized for Showing Empathy toward Iran” |History News Network

Walter G. Moss challenges those who criticize the President for showing empathy toward Iran. “Rather than empathy clouding the president’s judgment, as Herf maintains, it is (as I have argued elsewhere) an important characteristic of political wisdom. Contrary to much of our macho political rhetoric, it is not a sign of weakness. It does not prevent a realistic assessment of the “enemy,” but can enhance it. And most importantly, the diplomacy it forwards can help prevent, as the president insists in his American University speech, “the drumbeat of war.”
barack-obama

A West Point Professor Accused other Law Professors of Treason in a Controversial Article

This is absolutely shocking! William C. Bradford, a West Point law professor, accused other law professors who disagreed with him of treason. He believes they are helping ISIS because their ideas would, in his mind, weaken the U.S.  “Why, you might ask, would these law professors betray their country? Bradford offers a variety of unconvincing explanations. Among the nefarious acts CLOACA scholars (that never gets less ridiculous to type) are guilty of are “skepticism of executive power,” “professional socialization,” “pernicious pacifism,” and “cosmopolitanism.” None of these are criminal acts or behaviors, of course. But that seems to be a technicality when Western civilization is at stake. “This radical development,” Bradford declares, “is celebrated in the Islamic world as a portent of U.S. weakness and the coming triumph of Islamism.” (He cites no source for this claim.)”

Matt Ford at The Atlantic, gives a good summary of Bradford’s ignorant article. He also does a great job pointing out the many flaws and lapses of logic. Unfortunately, the views expressed in the article are probably shared by many. Bradford resigned after The Guardian exposed his exaggerated credentials used to get his job.

Read the entire article at The Atlantic, you’ll be stunned at the fact that someone in his position could be so ignorant (and stupid!).