I have read that US and Iraqi generals estimate that the effort to take Mosul will take a year, based on the Ramadi experience. Some of this has to do with the fact that it seems that only the most elite Iraqi forces are able to go on the offensive, and there are tons of booby traps to slow down any large forces moving in. Also, for those of us paying attention, perhaps progress against ISIL would figure into our voting calculus, but I doubt that many Americans follow these things too closely. For most, "Islamic Extremism" is a vague, unchanging, ever-present, always growing threat. The political culture supports the notion that the Republicans are strong against it, because they are not so PC as to hide their Christian chauvinism, and the Democrats are weak coddlers. By election time, I predict that the narrative will still be that ISIL is a huge threat and Obama isn't doing anything about it. Likely 60% of people will agree with this, regardless of the protestations of the Democratic candidate, who will anyway also repeat that they are a huge threat and we need to move heaven and earth to stop them.
I've started wondering if the terrorism label is functional, i.e., if it is defined not by motive and means, but by how authorities are going to respond. Terrorism is considered an act of war, and the gloves come off. Otherwise, it's regular police work, a trial, and sentence.
I have read that US and Iraqi generals estimate that the effort to take Mosul will take a year, based on the Ramadi experience. Some of this has to do with the fact that it seems that only the most elite Iraqi forces are able to go on the offensive, and there are tons of booby traps to slow down any large forces moving in. Also, for those of us paying attention, perhaps progress against ISIL would figure into our voting calculus, but I doubt that many Americans follow these things too closely. For most, "Islamic Extremism" is a vague, unchanging, ever-present, always growing threat. The political culture supports the notion that the Republicans are strong against it, because they are not so PC as to hide their Christian chauvinism, and the Democrats are weak coddlers. By election time, I predict that the narrative will still be that ISIL is a huge threat and Obama isn't doing anything about it. Likely 60% of people will agree with this, regardless of the protestations of the Democratic candidate, who will anyway also repeat that they are a huge threat and we need to move heaven and earth to stop them.
I've started wondering if the terrorism label is functional, i.e., if it is defined not by motive and means, but by how authorities are going to respond. Terrorism is considered an act of war, and the gloves come off. Otherwise, it's regular police work, a trial, and sentence.
Wow. A surprising number of racists read the Juan Cole blog...