Jump to content

King of Jordan looks like Mickey Rooney but talks like Clint Eastwood.


Pong Messiah
 Share

Recommended Posts

Why hasn't somebody else already made a thread about this?

 

Kind of makes me sad that Obama doesn't talk about killing people's wives and burning their houses down. Another stark reminder that America needs a real leader.

 

:no:

 

Of course, the real hero vs. villain test here is if he personally leads today's airstrike rather than just talking about it. Ordering executions is easy, but it's not as cool as flying a fighter jet. Just like President Whitmore used to do.

 

:yes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We may end up looking back on today as the day ISIS began to crumble apart.

 

A guerrilla organization, for it to survive long term, eventually has to do two things- a) transition to a body that can actually govern its controlled territory without creating factions; and b) find a way to get support from allies, or at least countries that are sympathetic.

 

Up until now, ISIS had generally been doing a good job of walking that fine line between playing on public unrest and gaining supporters out of outright fear. But this may have crossed it- it is exceedingly rare that you see the entire Islamic world united on damn near anything, but ISIS managed to pull it off. There was a good article in the NY Times today about that point here:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/05/world/middleeast/arab-world-unites-in-anger-after-burning-of-jordanian-pilot.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest El Chalupacabra

Until Jordan and/or any other Arab/Islamic country takes an active and sustained roll in significant military offensives against ISIS, I remain skeptical anything by will be done to dismantle ISIS by moderate Muslim countries. There's a large gap between these half-assed bombing raids that has been going on, and actual victory. Likewise, there's a big difference between Jordan publicly executing 2 ISIS prisoners who were already convicted, and Jordan actually invading Syria and taking the fight to ISIS, which I think they don't have either the resolve for, or the military to do.

 

While I agree that its going to really take the Muslim countries to come together to clean ISIS' clock, I remain skeptical that they will actually do it, and it will still take the US to lead such a coalition. Especially when President Obama is refusing to provide UAV intel to Jordan, I don't have much hope of that happening until at least a different president is in office.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest El Chalupacabra

We may end up looking back on today as the day ISIS began to crumble apart.

 

A guerrilla organization, for it to survive long term, eventually has to do two things- a) transition to a body that can actually govern its controlled territory without creating factions; and b) find a way to get support from allies, or at least countries that are sympathetic.

 

Up until now, ISIS had generally been doing a good job of walking that fine line between playing on public unrest and gaining supporters out of outright fear. But this may have crossed it- it is exceedingly rare that you see the entire Islamic world united on damn near anything, but ISIS managed to pull it off. There was a good article in the NY Times today about that point here:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/05/world/middleeast/arab-world-unites-in-anger-after-burning-of-jordanian-pilot.html

So, I'm curious what you think of this article, CM. It suggests that the US coalition is crumbling.

 

http://www.debka.com/article/24379/US-coalition-against-ISIS-is-fraying-Gulf-Arab-partners-mull-withdrawal-over-Iran%E2%80%99s-involvement

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That article cites as evidence for the fraying, events that happened in December. It doesn't take into account attitudes post-burning. The article I posted from the NYT is, I think, a little more indicative of current attitudes.

 

Also, my argument wasn't that the other Islamic countries military aid is important. The US was always going to have to be the one to do the heavy lifting. 943 of the 1,022 airstrikes against ISIS so far were carried out by the US, and that ratio is probably never going to change. It's more about having political support and winning the battle of public perception in the Islamic world.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I generally like Krauthammer but the article is kinda meh. He starts off by saying ISIS intentionally drew Jordan into this, to destabilize the country, which is not implausible. If he ended there, I would say, good article. The problem though, is halfway through it he clumsily pivots to a critique of US foreign policy. Krauthammer is suggesting we take a more active role, either explicitly in the article (i.e. taking a hard-line on Assad to get Turkey involved) or implicitly (i.e. by perhaps the US just ramping up military action). But the problem is, neither of those is mutually exclusive with Jordan getting in it. It's not like Jordan increasing involvement is prohibiting Turkey from doing so. He basically sets up a strawman- he is suggesting that the US' plan is to sit back and let Jordan do the heavy lifting or something like that, which is preposterous and no one in the Administration ever argued for something along those lines. The problem is Krauthammer is trying to spin Jordan's reaction into a hit on Obama, and it just isn't there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i was more interested in his thing about jordanians potentially losing interest after a few minutes just like americans do

 

does that mean the thing about how ppl in that part of the world can hold onto grudges like no other (a generalization sometimes used with arab and/or jewish culture) is all a lie

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest El Chalupacabra

That article cites as evidence for the fraying, events that happened in December. It doesn't take into account attitudes post-burning. The article I posted from the NYT is, I think, a little more indicative of current attitudes.

 

Also, my argument wasn't that the other Islamic countries military aid is important. The US was always going to have to be the one to do the heavy lifting. 943 of the 1,022 airstrikes against ISIS so far were carried out by the US, and that ratio is probably never going to change. It's more about having political support and winning the battle of public perception in the Islamic world.

I don't disagree with anything you said there. The article, while posted on 2/5/15 was likely written before the burning of the pilot, and later executions. And Jordan has apparently stepped up its airstrikes, with ISIS claiming an American hostage was killed in one by the Jordanians.

 

But the rest of that article is still relevant too. I don't believe that this has united the Arab world. For the moment the Jordanians are pissed, but it WILL pass. The rest of the Muslim work reactions are platitudes.

 

Currently, the coalition against ISIS consists of mostly the US, along with NATO allies and other English speaking countries. As far as Muslim countries participating, you have Jordan (for all their bluster about the burning, isn't really a big player in this effort against ISIS), Morocco (militarily and politically irrelevant ), Iraqi and Syrian Kurds (who wants an independent state), Turkey (who opposes the Kurds getting their own state), Bahrain, Qatar,UAE (who suspended their ops), Saudi Arabia (their King just died, I believe this may end up straining US-Saud relations), Iran (who just wants to to expandd their influence over Eastern Iraq). The 3 biggest players in of those Muslim countries are Saudi Arabia and Iran, and they hate each other, and Turkey, which relations with the US are somewhat strained right now, too, mainly over the Kurds. Each is likely only participating, to keep the others in check more than actually taking the fight to ISIS itself. Then you have the political fall out of what essentially is a coup in Yemen, which almost certainly will become more hostile to the US.

 

CM, you may be arguing it is more about getting the political support of the Muslim countries (namely the governments of those countries) than getting them to participate militarily against ISIS. I am not saying you are incorrect, because from some angles, that is exactly what should be done. Indeed, during the days of the first Gulf War, that may have been sufficient. But I would argue that isn't enough anymore, especially in a Post Arab Spring Muslim world. What ARE the opinions of the people themselves, in those countries? I think it is unclear at the very least what the people of those countries think of ISIS. Worst case, they may actually look at ISIS can help them over through their governments too, but admittedly, that is just the pessimist in me. I think that is why countries like Turkey (who recently had their own problems with rebels) and Saudi Arabia ( currently in a state of transition from one king to the next) are walking a fine line between supporting the West against ISIS who are Muslims (albeit radicalized, but still Muslims), but not supporting the West too much and risking the anger of their people in their own countries, because they don't want to go the way of Yemen.

 

Finally, I'd argue the NYTimes piece is to an extent propaganda attempting to build the perception the Muslim world has had enough of ISIS and is rising up against them. THAT is a straw man, in my view. After all the terrorism, and all the wars that have taken place since 2001, where and when has there been a huge Muslim outcry against radical Muslim groups like the Taliban, Al Qaeda, and most recently ISIS? When have we seen massive protests of Muslims in any of the countries participating in the coalition against ISIS, at even a fraction of what we saw in France last month over the stupid Charlie Hebdo mess? We haven't seen it because my guess is the large percentage of the Muslim world really doesn't care that much about ISIS. The respective Muslim governments might see them as a threat to their own power, but the Muslim people of those countries probably feel that as long as ISIS stays contained in Iraq and Syria it's not their problem, and aren't motivated enough to denounce them, especially if it is something the West would like for them to do.

 

I think this whole time ISIS has been testing the waters to see what they can get away with, and with this pilot burning, they found the line they can't cross with the surrounding Muslim countries. I think as long as its westerners getting beheaded, Muslim countries could care less. The outcry in Jordan over the pilot was partly because he was a Muslim but I think mainly because he had connections to the royals in Jordan. I think it will be interesting to see if ISIS stops killing muslims (at least in the way they did with the Jordanian pilot), if the Muslim world's reaction to ISIS will wane or not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.