The Bishop and the Butterfly: Murder, Politics, and the End of the Jazz Age
    jollyroger's picture

    If John McCain thinks it's a good idea...

    By jollyroger on Wed, 05/29/2013 - 8:40am |

    Never one to leave a press release lacking his name, John McCain (R, Getoffmylawnville) is free lancing foreign policy again. As usual, he gives guidance to the thoughtful: "Caution, this way lies madness".

    McCain, last seen in a Baghdad market touting our prior venture into Sunni-Shia sectarianism ( that one went well...) now urges " arm the anti-Assad rebels...what could go wrong?"

    Hint: Think The Thirty Years War.

    In the split attendant upon the outcome at Kerbala where the grandson of Mohammed fell before the burgeoning Umayyid Caliphate, two strains of Islam continue in ( often deadly) struggle to this day. Accidents of British (Oil) Imperialism and reflexive anti-socialist cold war ideology have combined to place U.S. foreign policy solidly on the Sunni side of the scale, (with a slight distraction when we double-crossed our previously favored Sunni proxy (Saddam).

    Oddly, the Shia Theocrats in Iran notwithstanding, by favoring anti-mullah Sunnis we have aligned ourselves against the more secular Baath party manifestations growing out of the old Nasserite UAR.

    The latest turn in Iraq coupled with the disaster unfolding in Syria looks like the opening of the final struggle between the Mahdists and the adherants of the Tentmaker's successors As usual, we are uninformed, unsophisticated and unthinking in our policy.

    Come to think, John McCain is the perfect symbol for a clownish failure to grasp the subtleties of a sectarian split that may well be sounding the Armagedon tocsin so longed for by the (weird) Christian Zionists.

    In short ( ed note: too late...) it is far from clear that we have ever discerned, let alone effectively empowered, the "right" side in these intra-Islamic controversies.

    One thing, though, we know for sure. Blowback is a bitch.

    Comments

    I dont mean to endorse Assad--I just mean to disparage McCain.

    by jollyroger on Wed, 05/29/2013 - 10:24am

    Arm a geddon  tired of McCain.


    by Flavius on Wed, 05/29/2013 - 10:36pm

    Ba- da-bum...(don't forget to tip your servers.. thank you, I'll.be here all week...)

    by jollyroger on Thu, 05/30/2013 - 1:49am

    Putin is listening to McCain Russia has said it would deliver the missile system to the Syrian government over Western objections, saying the move would help stabilize the regional balance. . He's been bloviating about a no fly zone, so Putin is blocking that as an easy option. He's right, it WILL stabilize the region to back that maniac the fuck down...

    by jollyroger on Thu, 05/30/2013 - 5:41am

    "Ryabkov seems to have been signaling that Putin is determined to prevent Western or Israeli bombings of the regime," Juan Cole

    by jollyroger on Fri, 05/31/2013 - 2:52am

    McCain caught in pic hanging, around with kidnappers...That didn't take long, did it? .meanwhile he is fucking up the possibilities of a peace conference .


    by jollyroger on Wed, 03/02/2016 - 4:04pm

       McCain is the hawk of hawks. Me, I'm considering the option of abolishing the U.S. military.


    by Aaron Carine on Sat, 06/01/2013 - 12:19pm

    He's nostalgic for Vietnam cuz the Alzheimer's has made him think that the Hanoi Hlton was where he had the honeymoon suite with Cindy.

    by jollyroger on Sat, 06/01/2013 - 12:28pm

    'McCain didn't really make a freelance diplomatic trip to Syria...be just wandered off and ended up there." Blue Gal

    by jollyroger on Sat, 06/01/2013 - 2:56pm

    the Syrian war, with more than 80,000 dead, is inciting Sunnis and Shiites in other countries to attack one another. NY Times

    by jollyroger on Sun, 06/02/2013 - 5:48am

    China Is Reaping Biggest Benefits of Iraq Oil Boom... “We lost out,” said Michael Makovsky, a former Defense Department official in the Bush administration who worked on Iraq oil policy. “The Chinese had nothing to do with the war, but from an economic standpoint they are benefiting from it, and our Fifth Fleet and air forces are helping to assure their supply.” Lest we forget McCain's perspicacious prior contribution to the hegemonic project.

    by jollyroger on Mon, 06/03/2013 - 6:51am

    Shiite fighters from Lebanon and
    Iraq have also entered Syria to
    defend Shiite shrines and fight
    alongside a government they see
    as protecting their interests.     NY Times


    by jollyroger on Wed, 06/12/2013 - 5:32pm

    Also too: The anti-Erdogan protesters in Turkey have many grievances - but the prime minister's record of support for the Syrian rebels may turn out to be the most explosive. Democracy Lab @ ForeignPolicy.com


    by artappraiser on Wed, 06/12/2013 - 5:44pm

    Attaturk is spinning like a Mevlevi,( boy, there's an inapposite metaphor!)

    by jollyroger on Wed, 06/12/2013 - 7:27pm

    regional ferment has been stoked by Syria’s civil war as it spills across the border and ignites Sunnis and Shiites in neighboring states to also attack one another....Regardless of what happens in Syria, leaders in neighboring countries need to move quickly to reverse the sectarian slide. That means stating unequivocally that they are committed to the equal rights of all citizens and to ensuring that Shiites and other minorities can practice their religions without fear. Such principles are embedded in the United Nations Charter and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. NY TIMES When will the Times endorse a world government, so that the principles it cites may be actually vindicated?

    by jollyroger on Fri, 06/28/2013 - 11:20pm

    The very knowledgeable Phyllis Bennis weighs in here is a sectarian war that's underway. It didn't start that way, but it has become a thoroughly sectarian war between, on the regional side, Sunni and Shia, with the Alawite leadership in Syria on the Shia side. And that takes shape when you see Iraq and Syria and Iran on one side versus Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Jordan, Turkey on the other side.


    by jollyroger on Thu, 08/29/2013 - 9:14pm

    Utterly fascinating translated-from-Al-Watan interview with Ahmad Al Ibrahim, "Saudi expert in Saudi-US relations":

    http://arabist.net/blog/2013/8/29/saudi-thinking-on-egypt

    where, among other things, like elucidating their tribal position in the alignment of which your link speaks, it sounds like the Kingdom is just totally utterly fed up with the Obama helter-skelter approach to everything. Go figure, like most countries and leaders running the gamut from democratic to autocratic, sectarian or not, they've got actual goals in mind when they do stuff....


    by artappraiser on Thu, 08/29/2013 - 10:13pm

    great catch--parenthetically, the allegations of collusion between the Brotherhhood and Obama's administration make Louis Gohmert look like Mr. Insider...(!)

    by jollyroger on Fri, 08/30/2013 - 3:42am

    I loved this line on that, that KSA don't want to be part of that game:

    However, the Americans always say one thing do another. If we kept on playing along, the conspiracy will be on us next.

    Among other things Al Ibrahim clarified for me how they come at things long term--i.e., they are thinking a Gohmert or McCain type could be the next administration--so why should they even bother to play along with an Obama who can't make up his mind from one day to the next? He'll be gone in a flash while they are still there dealing with the mess left behind...

    Overall, it is getting real bizzarro how easily it is getting for so many different entities and groups in the world (including the Gohmert's and liberal Egyptian intelligentsia) to claim America is on now on the side of "the terrorists." (Just posted a news piece on Kurds saying the same, for example.)

    All of this got me thinking more nuanced about Obama's seeming desire (so far, we'll see if it is bluster or not) to lob a missile or something about the chemical weapons use. I wonder now if he is thinking it is important to make a "we are the most powerful state in the world and won't stand for it" statement that use of chem weapons is unacceptable because "the terrorists" could have more easy access to the same shortly. I am reminded what Bill Clinton once answered in a NYT interview (late in Monica period, so no one paid any attention to it,) about what keeps him up worrying at night, that it was the possibility of a chemical or biological attack on the U.S. by terrorist group. Remember, this was pre-9/11, so I was surprised by the answer and I remembered it.

    I don't want to make this sound an apologia by me for what the Obama admin is saying/doing right now, just trying to get my mind around it. I'm actually most sympathetic to the Yglesias argument.And one of the fascinating parts of the Al Watan piece for me is how it reinforces my continually growing fear that Obama is just a royal fuck up on foreign policy and always has been, just always doing "helter skelter." I think back to how early on he had to spend months agonizing over setting up an Afghanistan policy, and then he just backtracked on it pretty quick. That he has a tough time with the foreign policy stuff and would rather not do it. And how the exit from Iraq was not much more than following the Bush plan.  That even bratty kid Yglesias could do better, can sound like a more confident leader, at least....I am wondering what the heck is going on with John Kerry, too, maybe I was under an illusion there, too, that he was a smart cookie when he's not.


    by artappraiser on Fri, 08/30/2013 - 6:43am

    P.S. On the royal fuck up question, I can't think of a foreign leader that seems impressed by Obama any more. Can you?


    by artappraiser on Fri, 08/30/2013 - 6:47am

    more of the same:

    “He is seen as feckless and weak, and this will only give further rise to conspiracy theories that Obama doesn’t really want Assad out and it is all a big game,” said Salman Shaikh, director of the Brookings Doha Center and a former United Nations envoy in the region. “Many Arab leaders already think that Obama’s word cannot be trusted — I am talking about his friends and allies — and I am afraid this will reinforce that belief.”

    from

    http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/02/world/middleeast/saudi-arabia-syria-mi...


    by artappraiser on Sun, 09/01/2013 - 11:35pm

    “He is seen as feckless and weak, One wag, riffing off my imprecation " feckless putz", to describe Prez called it the best new name for a rock band since the passing of Iron Prostate...

    by jollyroger on Tue, 09/03/2013 - 4:32am

    As they used to say on American Bandstand, I would rate either name a 2, I'm sorry.wink


    by artappraiser on Tue, 09/03/2013 - 5:13am

    Under "it takes one to know one," that's "Professor Feckless Putz".


    by artappraiser on Tue, 09/03/2013 - 5:47am

    dead link. more broadly feckless may be operationally defined as one who casually inserts the concept of red lines to justify otherwise eschewing intervention thereby proviiding interested parties with a roadmap to boxing oneself in.

    by jollyroger on Tue, 09/03/2013 - 6:12am

    Link still works for me, sorry. (Maybe it's because I've become a subscriber?) It's a GOP "shadow opposition" column. so we'll just ignore the summary takeaway; here's the applicable excerpt that's spot on, mho:

    Why Professors Don't Make Good Presidents -- and Why Congress Should Support Obama on Syria Anyway
    Posted By Will Inboden, ForeignPolicy.com,  Sept. 2,  2013

    The unfolding fiasco of President Barack Obama's Syria policy shows why professors rarely make good presidents. With Obama having previously been a law professor for many years, some of his most debilitating characteristics come out when he lapses back into professorial mode. (As a professor myself, I recognize these things all too well.) This has been on painful display over the past few weeks, as the president seems to have been arguing with himself over his own Middle East policy, especially on Egypt and Syria. The vacillations, the hand-wringing, the endless second-guessing, the sanctimonious lecturing, the odd detachment from decisions of tremendous consequence --- all of these are worthy more of the faculty lounge than the commander in chief. (Note in contrast that one of Obama's signature successes came when he abandoned professor mode and acted decisively in ordering the bin Laden raid.)

    Just in the last two weeks we've seen Obama take both sides of multiple issues, including whether the United States will continue staying out of the Syrian conflict or will intervene; whether an attack needs to take place imminently or not; whether an attack needs U.N. Security Council endorsement or not; whether an attack needs the support of allied nations or not; whether an attack needs congressional support or not; whether American credibility is at stake in Syria or not, and so on.

    Graduate school seminars are appropriate places to talk endlessly about all sides of an issue while never making and implementing a decision; the Oval Office is not [....]
     


    by artappraiser on Tue, 09/03/2013 - 4:18pm

    what a relief! having somehow forgotten that Prez briefly taught Con Law, I thought the Prof in question might be your humble interlocutor who was an asst professor of history...

    by jollyroger on Thu, 09/05/2013 - 6:07pm

    I was planning on nominating him to run in 2016 until I read AA's article, but now? Fuggedaboutit.


    by Verified Atheist on Thu, 09/05/2013 - 8:50pm

    Sen. McCain Denounces ‘Symbolic’ Strike: Syria Strategy Must Threaten Assad

    http://www.mediaite.com/tv/sen-mccain-denounces-symbolic-strike-syria-st...

    Assad "euphoric" about Obama's decision on Syria strike, McCain says

    http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-3460_162-57600902/assad-euphoric-about-obama...


    by artappraiser on Sun, 09/01/2013 - 11:46pm

    SOLD! (that was fast, I fully expected him to hold out longer, arguing for much more intervention):

    McCain Urges Lawmakers to Back Obama’s Plan for Syria

    New York Times, Sept. 2/3, 2013

    [....] After an hourlong meeting with Mr. Obama at the White House, Mr. McCain emerged with Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina, to say that the two senators’ discussions with Mr. Obama in the Oval Office had been “encouraging.” He also urged Congress to support Mr. Obama in his plan for military action in Syria, saying that a no vote would be “catastrophic” for the United States and its credibility in the world [....]

    That means most of the conservative talk show hosts will be against it (on the basis of their grand moral principal of hating John McCain and sidekick Graham?)


    by artappraiser on Mon, 09/02/2013 - 8:36pm

    Obama, particularly with McCain and Graham on his side, will certainly receive authorization in the Senate.   I could be wrong, but my bellybutton senses that the president will also receive authorization to take military action in the Republican-controlled House, and without much difficulty.  

    In the House, I could envision a Republican bloc trying to make hay without "bucking the commander in chief" by insisting on more hardcore tough talk etc.  But there is no way, based on my understanding of how things work down yonder inside the Beltway, that the  Republican majority in the House is going to allow itself to be seen as the party that rejected a president's call for military action, and I also believe that the Democrats fully understand and fear that a loss by the president on an issue of this magnitude could make him a lame duck even before the midterms. 

    Post-script--After I wrote above I found this piece by Jonathan Allen in Politico, far more pessimistic, even taking  "support" by McCain into account (he wrote this before McCain's meeting with the president).   Allen writes:

     

    The prospects for passage of Obama’s war resolution are dim. Prominent Democratic allies of the president have said they won’t vote for it in its current form. Senate Judiciary Chairman Pat Leahy (D-Vt.) said Sunday that his aides are working on new language. But even a resolution that circumscribes the president’s authority to strike Syria more than the relatively open-ended version he sent to the Hill Saturday would face a tough vote in both chambers.

    Washington Rep. Adam Smith, the top Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee, said in an interview Sunday that he would not characterize how he planned to vote “out of respect” for the president’s ongoing effort to acquire support.

    I see but haven't read this follow-up article by Allen about Kerry's meeting with congressional Democrats in which he calls the vote a "Munich" moment.  That is raising the stakes, and deliberately I would suspect.
     
    Kerry's got quite a bit riding on this now too--he's really sticking his neck out on this one.  And, for what it's worth, I knew Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney were enemies of mine, and John Kerry is no Donald Rumsfeld or Dick Cheney.  Now, of course, we might compare him to then Sec. State Powell at the time, but I would say that Cheney's and Rumsfeld's roles were more akin to Kerry's here.  

     

     


    by Bruce Levine on Mon, 09/02/2013 - 9:16pm

    Several of the articles I read were much less pessimistic. Like what Peter King called "the isolationist wing of the GOP" would have to make a coalition with leftie Dems for it to fail, and that the Obama machine would figure out how to make that kind of coalition a fail easy.

    But I think it's too much up in the air to predict right now:

    1) It depends on whether the U.N. report is strong on their side, which will affect other countries and then the media discourse and then Congress & American public. Other things affecting could happen at the G-20 meeting.

    2) It also depends on whether what they want to do is clarified, i.e., if it becomes more clear that it's going to be a Clinton type missile punishment like on Saddam, or a Libya type thing with a few other countries, there would be changing reactions from constituents than the ones they are giving now. But if it remains a secretive open-ended thing that they can't talk about much, especially if they can't talk about how limited itis going tobe, which might be what they require, it will probably fail. Because of Bush II Iraq. (Iraq is defiinitely why it failed in UK; British people would not go for being Bush's fooled poodle again, they needed to know more.)


    by artappraiser on Tue, 09/03/2013 - 2:23am

    as I slowly recover from the excesses of the West Indiain Day Parade ( and let me say this about that: the guy in the float in the thong was Anthony Weiner, not me..) I will address seriatim the points above. that said, are we simply accepting without further peradventure, the stated origin of the chemical attack at issue here? Pepe Escobar ( my new Facebook friend) who knows more about this shit than do I points out the disturbing stank clinging to the crucial sigint intercept upon which much subsequent certainty is founded...


    by jollyroger on Tue, 09/03/2013 - 4:25am

    West Indiain Day Parade

    Thanks for inviting a large number of the neighbors over for the day, it waz quiet round here.

    are we simply accepting without further peradventure, the stated origin of the chemical attack at issue here?

    I actually don't believe that is the case at all. I see lots of evidence of congresscritters and just 'mercan people saying they want more data. If they don't get it, or don't like what they get, they are going to say no. But the admin seems willing to play some with that so far.

    As to Pepe, I stopped being a fan around 2005, too much ranting, not enough sticking to what he actually knows--and I will admit that he sometimes has a line to good factuals-- but always has to embellish it with rant and a much bigger narrative of grandiose Howard Zinn stylistics.

    Ya know,it's really hitting me of late, don't the guys that do that, don't they realize that they are doing exactly the same thing that bothers them so much about the gummint war sales team? Can we just all cut all the agitprop on all sides like 50%? Is that possible?


    by artappraiser on Tue, 09/03/2013 - 5:28am

    Lemme get this straight... you are using Howard Zinn as a perjorative??!! The sainted Howard Zinn?

    by jollyroger on Tue, 09/03/2013 - 6:05am

    Wrote good stories to use to teach children the difference between right and wrong, all depends on how you define perjorative, I guess.


    by artappraiser on Tue, 09/03/2013 - 4:17pm