I have to confess that I was very, very conflicted when I heard the news last night. On the one hand, Erdogan is a megalomaniac who has inflicted major harm on Turkish institutions. HIs departure, IMHO, can't come soon enough. On the other hand, coups are simply out of bounds and anti-democratic. If Erodogan survives the challenge, he'll likely clamp down even more on dissent and aggregate even more power domestically.
I don't know who wins but it's clear who the big lose is in either case: Turkey
As much as Iraqi nationalists bemoan the prospect of their country fragmenting, would the majority of Kurds, Sunnis and Shiites ultimately be better off by themselves. As you suggest, maintaining the status quo translates into a "sullen, cold-shoulder unit," though it's often repeatedly punctuated by major bloodletting. As messy as a split-up might be, how much worse could it be than a continuation of the status quo? I'm an optimist by nature but Iraqis' deep hatred for each other makes me a pessimist about its ability to survive intact.
Best riposte would be for the English to vote to remain in the EU when the nation goes to the polls next week. Sadly, that won't bring Cox back to life but it would honor her memory by doing the right thing
One of the best speeches Obama has ever given. Hit the right tone, hit the right points. Of course, it won't make a damned bit of difference to the wingnuts, but it frames the debate clearly.
My point, Juan, was was to challenge the notion that serious terrorism targets military targets. It's still too early to know exactly what Mateen's agenda was. (There's a piece in today's British Independent reporting that he frequently visited the club and had was grappling with homosexual feelings. Yet at the same time, he committed publicly to ISIS) In either case, blind expressions of violence are indeed manifestations of terror. The attack on the Tel Aviv restaurant - was it really intended to drive out European-born Jews? Most Israelis are native born. I would frame the murder of civilians within a larger framework of Israeli-Palestinian nationalist frictions dating back decades. But this particular attack is not the sort of thing that rolls back history to the time of the British Mandate. It was designed to inflict pain and express rage - similar to Orlando.
I'm going to push back on one point: It's not necessarily true that terror always is underpinned by tactics or strategy and carried out against military/political targets. The recent bus bombing in Turkey and the attack on the restaurant in Tel Aviv were not military targets. But these were, indeed, terror attacks.
I disagree. None of the apocalyptic scenarios will come to pass. The Cabinet member who decides military policy in Israel is the Prime Minister, not the Defense Minister. And if the DM orders an action that's opposed by the Chief of Staff, it goes nowhere. That's not the problem. The big problem is that the Defense Minister needs to have an understanding of military issues in order to understand future potential threats and Lieberman is entirely unsuited for the task. I'm leaving out of the conversation his particular political ideas, which I find distasteful. But from a purely professional military POV, Lieberman is not qualified to take over the post. Replace a general with a corporal? Brilliant move, Bibi. Can't wait to see your next brainstorm.
I have to confess that I was very, very conflicted when I heard the news last night. On the one hand, Erdogan is a megalomaniac who has inflicted major harm on Turkish institutions. HIs departure, IMHO, can't come soon enough. On the other hand, coups are simply out of bounds and anti-democratic. If Erodogan survives the challenge, he'll likely clamp down even more on dissent and aggregate even more power domestically.
I don't know who wins but it's clear who the big lose is in either case: Turkey
As much as Iraqi nationalists bemoan the prospect of their country fragmenting, would the majority of Kurds, Sunnis and Shiites ultimately be better off by themselves. As you suggest, maintaining the status quo translates into a "sullen, cold-shoulder unit," though it's often repeatedly punctuated by major bloodletting. As messy as a split-up might be, how much worse could it be than a continuation of the status quo? I'm an optimist by nature but Iraqis' deep hatred for each other makes me a pessimist about its ability to survive intact.
Best riposte would be for the English to vote to remain in the EU when the nation goes to the polls next week. Sadly, that won't bring Cox back to life but it would honor her memory by doing the right thing
One of the best speeches Obama has ever given. Hit the right tone, hit the right points. Of course, it won't make a damned bit of difference to the wingnuts, but it frames the debate clearly.
My point, Juan, was was to challenge the notion that serious terrorism targets military targets. It's still too early to know exactly what Mateen's agenda was. (There's a piece in today's British Independent reporting that he frequently visited the club and had was grappling with homosexual feelings. Yet at the same time, he committed publicly to ISIS) In either case, blind expressions of violence are indeed manifestations of terror. The attack on the Tel Aviv restaurant - was it really intended to drive out European-born Jews? Most Israelis are native born. I would frame the murder of civilians within a larger framework of Israeli-Palestinian nationalist frictions dating back decades. But this particular attack is not the sort of thing that rolls back history to the time of the British Mandate. It was designed to inflict pain and express rage - similar to Orlando.
I'm going to push back on one point: It's not necessarily true that terror always is underpinned by tactics or strategy and carried out against military/political targets. The recent bus bombing in Turkey and the attack on the restaurant in Tel Aviv were not military targets. But these were, indeed, terror attacks.
I disagree. None of the apocalyptic scenarios will come to pass. The Cabinet member who decides military policy in Israel is the Prime Minister, not the Defense Minister. And if the DM orders an action that's opposed by the Chief of Staff, it goes nowhere. That's not the problem. The big problem is that the Defense Minister needs to have an understanding of military issues in order to understand future potential threats and Lieberman is entirely unsuited for the task. I'm leaving out of the conversation his particular political ideas, which I find distasteful. But from a purely professional military POV, Lieberman is not qualified to take over the post. Replace a general with a corporal? Brilliant move, Bibi. Can't wait to see your next brainstorm.