Terror Attack: 130 Dead in Paris

[Montmorency]

They would probably slaughter quite many people in the process, but not reform. It is not as if the Slaughtering millions reformed Nazi Germany either. No it was determined countries who defeated them and forced them into submission.

That's what I said, yes. You don't seem to understand the thrust of my statement, which is not that IS should get free reign but that the various competing factions of the Middle East, Central Asia and North Africa should be allowed to fight it out until they get tired of the devastation.

Without the backing of the West and East. IS will run over the middle East,North Africa and Arabian peninsula. You want to fight them at that point?

You're confused over what IS actually is. IS is just one more faction in the Muslim civil war, and it serves as a center of gravity around which all the smaller factions can consolidate with or against.

But IS is not the extent of Sunni Islamism - that's much wider. IS is just one iteration of an Islamist anti-Western state-unit, and in the course of any fraternal conflict where an organization exists or what it calls itself is not as important as the fact that it instigates bloody fighting to further its ideology.

Here's an outline of what has happened so far:

A. Economic/ecological instability and cultural frictions reach high point.
B. Maximalist religious ideologies organize to gain control over peoples and territories.
C. Ethno-religious civil war ensues over an extended period of time.

However, what we have seen for the most part has been low-level fighting and endemic violence. Only decisive violence on a massive scale can bring about change-from-within. For example, look at the moderating effect the catastrophic Iran-Iraq war (the last real interstate war of our age) on the Iranian nation and government.

Going by my suggestion for minimal interference from the West, at some point this will go on until several primary antagonists coalesce, i.e. allied front of Salafism/Wahaabism vs. nation-states like Egypt, Tunisia, Israel, Iran, Turkey, Kazahkhstan, Azerbaijan vs. local tribal polities in much of Central Asia, Libya, Algeria, and the Arabian peninsula. The best possible scenario is that the unified Islamists in whatever form take control of an extensive, contiguous, land territory which they govern as a state. Bonus points if they take over Saudi Arabia and try to organize a combined-arms military. This is the best case because it causes maximal death and suffering for local populations - now bear with me - and because it is the stage in which the Islamists leave themselves most vulnerable for systematic and decisive destruction. By explicitly forming a sprawling state, or "caliphate", they neuter their grassroots advantages. Remember that it is straightforward for a state to destroy another state, while we have seen just how difficult it is for a state or states to combat amorphous transnational movements.

In this broad scenario, most peninsular states would be permitted to collapse, and a strong naval presence maintained in the Southern Mediterranean. Before the end-stages, Egypt and Turkey would likely have to deal with their own civil wars and purges, but ultimately can be relied on to maintain national integrity and cooperate to destroy a unified Islamist front. Iran can handle itself, and will look out for its interests in the Gulf and in the Caucasus. Israel can also handle itself, and will be useful as a staging ground and logistical hub. Russia, India, and China can be expected to deal with the situation in Pakistan and Central Asia. When expedient, NATO or the UN (representing the West) could deploy massive conventional military force to assist in the destruction of the Islamist regular force and state structure.

The only real mystery is what role Islam in the Pacific Rim will play in the larger confrontation.

All I am saying is that things need to come to a head, and they are not nearly at that point yet. Is it easier to fish water out of a flushing toilet or to smash a block of ice? The West should stay out until at least the end-stages because of the risk of the West itself falling into fascism and civil war otherwise. If your criticism is that it doesn't get rid of "the bad guys", then rest assured that getting rid of the bad guys is exactly what I am describing here. The only real criticism is from a human-rights interventionist perspective that it would be immoral not to "DO SOMETHING", or from a global corporatist perspective that refuses to give up access to commodities and markets no matter what.

[Kagemusha]

That's what I said, yes. You don't seem to understand the thrust of my statement, which is not that IS should get free reign but that the various competing factions of the Middle East, Central Asia and North Africa should be allowed to fight it out until they get tired of the devastation.



You're confused over what IS actually is. IS is just one more faction in the Muslim civil war, and it serves as a center of gravity around which all the smaller factions can consolidate with or against.

But IS is not the extent of Sunni Islamism - that's much wider. IS is just one iteration of an Islamist anti-Western state-unit, and in the course of any fraternal conflict where an organization exists or what it calls itself is not as important as the fact that it instigates bloody fighting to further its ideology.

Here's an outline of what has happened so far:

A. Economic/ecological instability and cultural frictions reach high point.
B. Maximalist religious ideologies organize to gain control over peoples and territories.
C. Ethno-religious civil war ensues over an extended period of time.

However, what we have seen for the most part has been low-level fighting and endemic violence. Only decisive violence on a massive scale can bring about change-from-within. For example, look at the moderating effect the catastrophic Iran-Iraq war (the last real interstate war of our age) on the Iranian nation and government.

Going by my suggestion for minimal interference from the West, at some point this will go on until several primary antagonists coalesce, i.e. allied front of Salafism/Wahaabism vs. nation-states like Egypt, Tunisia, Israel, Iran, Turkey, Kazahkhstan, Azerbaijan vs. local tribal polities in much of Central Asia, Libya, Algeria, and the Arabian peninsula. The best possible scenario is that the unified Islamists in whatever form take control of an extensive, contiguous, land territory which they govern as a state. Bonus points if they take over Saudi Arabia and try to organize a combined-arms military. This is the best case because it causes maximal death and suffering for local populations - now bear with me - and because it is the stage in which the Islamists leave themselves most vulnerable for systematic and decisive destruction. By explicitly forming a sprawling state, or "caliphate", they neuter their grassroots advantages. Remember that it is straightforward for a state to destroy another state, while we have seen just how difficult it is for a state or states to combat amorphous transnational movements.

In this broad scenario, most peninsular states would be permitted to collapse, and a strong naval presence maintained in the Southern Mediterranean. Before the end-stages, Egypt and Turkey would likely have to deal with their own civil wars and purges, but ultimately can be relied on to maintain national integrity and cooperate to destroy a unified Islamist front. Iran can handle itself, and will look out for its interests in the Gulf and in the Caucasus. Israel can also handle itself, and will be useful as a staging ground and logistical hub. Russia, India, and China can be expected to deal with the situation in Pakistan and Central Asia. When expedient, NATO or the UN (representing the West) could deploy massive conventional military force to assist in the destruction of the Islamist regular force and state structure.

The only real mystery is what role Islam in the Pacific Rim will play in the larger confrontation.

All I am saying is that things need to come to a head, and they are not nearly at that point yet. Is it easier to fish water out of a flushing toilet or to smash a block of ice? The West should stay out until at least the end-stages because of the risk of the West itself falling into fascism and civil war otherwise. If your criticism is that it doesn't get rid of "the bad guys", then rest assured that getting rid of the bad guys is exactly what I am describing here. The only real criticism is from a human-rights interventionist perspective that it would be immoral not to "DO SOMETHING", or from a global corporatist perspective that refuses to give up access to commodities and markets no matter what.

I dont know which reality you dwell, but one does not kill the patient just to treat the symptoms. You seem to be dreaming of some sort of grand stand between Islamist and others. You know what? IS is dreaming of the similar event. You dont sacrifice 500 million people of Middle East in order to have a go with all the wahhabist at once. That is not strategy, but madness.