skip to main |
skip to sidebar
WoW - the Watchers Council - it's the oldest, longest running cyber comte d'guere ensembe in existence - started online in 1912 by Sirs Jacky Fisher and Winston Churchill themselves - an eclective collective of cats both cruel and benign with their ability to put steel on target (figuratively - natch) on a wide variety of topictry across American, Allied, Frenemy and Enemy concerns, memes, delights and discourse.
Every week these cats hook up each other with hot hits and big phazed cookies to peruse and then vote on their individual fancy catchers.
Thusly sans further adieu (or a don"t)
Council Winners
Non-Council Winners
See you next week! And don’t forget to follow us on Facebook and Twitter
Perhaps the only true delight in witnessing semi cerebral hissy fits and inappropriate handwringing are when cats who worry about the wrong thing stumble across the correct answer yet fail to realise it - in lieu of sump sump that may sound great in a climate controlled environment like a classroom surrounded by smart ppl - yet totally sucks in Literalville.
Like Drones Gone Wild?
Yessir! Check it - for eons all the cool kids have been subjected to extra girthy yet LOLable unfilling worries and frets that drone strikes are exponentially crafting more future Great Satan hating terrorists than doing Iraq's largest Arab army in history in 20 days, fighting during Ramadan, Lady Gaga gigs, something something Palestine and wonderbra - combined.
It's an ancient tale. Every since the Ex and K NYT'd the fun, easy to read (and delightfully silly) meme 'bout "Death From Above - Outrage From Below"
- inappropriate handwringers continue to worry about the wrong thing.
Tho - to be fair - they don't always answer their own fakebelieve concerns as well as Sir Skippy McElhaney (not his real name)
It is easy to understand why. First of all, they can be deadly accurate.
Tribal Afghans have been amazed not just that the car a Taliban leader was
travelling in was precisely targeted – but that the missile went in through
the door on the side he was sitting. Great Satan claims that drones have proved
very effective at targeting and killing Taliban or al-Qaeda leaders, but
with the very minimum of civilian casualties.
Second, soldiers and airmen are not placed in harm’s way. This is very
important in a democracy. In America, the killing of a dozen military
personnel is a political event. The death of a dozen Afghan or Pakistani
villagers in a remote part of what used to be called the north‑west frontier
does not register, unless a military spokesmen labels them “militants”,
in which case it becomes a victory.
As best understood - Land of the Pure is sooo distresed about their Nat'l Sovereignty. Evidently it is a single edged blade. Little outrage about terrorists hanging out in those famously unAdministered Tribal Agencies violatng Nat"l Sov - yet fear and hatred about Great Satan intervening to do theWrit of State gig - that for for whatever reasons - Pakistan cannot.
Sir Sherard
Cowper-Coles, Britain’s former special representative to Afghanistan and
Pakistan, is equally adamant that drone attacks are horribly counter-productive because of the hatred they have started to generate:
according to a recent poll, more than two thirds of Pakistanis regard the
United States as an enemy. Britain used to be popular and respected in this
part of the world for our wisdom and decency. Now, thanks to our refusal to
challenge American military doctrine, Britain is hated too.
Bloody L! Hated for killing head chopping, girl beating creeps?
Don't get dissed mate! Be bloody proud, luv!
Besides - as Uncle Leon LOLs risible nonprofit jawflappers -
First and foremost, this is one of the most precise weapons that
we have in our arsenal. Number two, what is our responsibility here?
Our responsibility is to defend and protect Great Satan.
And using the operations that we have, using the systems that we have,
using the weapons that we have, is absolutely essential to our ability
to defend Americans.
That’s what counts, and that’s what we’re doing.
Preacher Command's drive for Regional Puissance via Sate and non state acter outers gets some hards looks in a hot new PDFing hook up betwixt the cool kids at ISW and AEI
Too many money shots that decorum prohibs sharing yet here's a wicked tease to whet appetites subtle and more bigger
Since 2008, the Islamic Republic of Iran has continued to pursue a coordinated soft-power
strategy throughout its sphere of influence, using political, economic, and military tools to
promote its agenda. Unlike the period of the early 2000s, however, Iran’s payoff for that
strategy is in doubt. The Arab Spring has presented Tehran with new opportunities but also
new challenges in the Middle East. In general, it has brought a growing Sunni-Shi’a sectarian
tinge to regional conflict, and Iran finds itself on the wrong side of that fight in most countries
in the region. As that sectarian conflict spreads, Iran will have more difficulty presenting itself
as a pan-Islamist regional leader—and Saudi Arabia, and possibly Turkey, likely will emerge as
the obvious and natural Sunni Arab resistance to the Persian Shi’a.
As long as Bashar al Assad remains in Damascus, the Syrian alliance with Tehran is likely to
remain strong. Should the predominantly Sunni insurgency oust Assad and take power in some
form, however, the Iran-Syria relationship would very likely fracture. However, the depth of
that relationship would make unwinding it no easy matter for Syria and those states that support
its new rulers. Understanding the full scope and scale of the Tehran-Damascus alliance will be
essential for policymakers regardless of the outcome of the current Syrian insurgency.
The ascension of Hezbollah to a position of dominance in Lebanese politics in 2011 has
allowed Tehran to establish much more direct relationships in Beirut without the mediation of
Syria. This development could not have come at a better time for Iran, as it suggests that Iran’s
interests in the Levant can be protected and advanced even with a greatly weakened Syrian
regime.
Of all Iran’s proxy relationships in the region, its entente with Hamas is likely to be the most
difficult to retain in the face of growing sectarianism in Iraq, Syria, and the Persian Gulf. A
formal split with Iran and the loss of Hamas headquarters in Damascus in early 2012 promises
more turmoil for both Hamas and the Palestinians it governs. Overall, Iranian support to
regional allied and proxy militaries, however, has remained very strong and quite possibly has
increased.
The revolution in Egypt has thus far delivered little by way of practical results for Tehran.
Cairo, likely under some additional pressure from the Persian Gulf states and from Washington,
DC, has made only miniscule steps in the direction of renewed relations with Iran.
In Iraq, Tehran’s policies have been largely successful, giving Iran an unprecedented degree
of influence there at the expense of the United States and of Baghdad’s Arab neighbors. A
friendly Iraq is not only an important part of the Iranian-led “axis of resistance” but also serves
as an opportunity for Iran to evade the increasingly harsh international sanctions regime and to
continue financing regional groups.Iranian influence in the levant, Egypt, Iraq, and Afghanistan
Iranian efforts to influence events in Afghanistan have been largely unsuccessful, as Afghan
president Hamid Karzai pursues a strategic partnership with the United States and North Atlantic
Treaty Organization (NATO) despite Iranian pressure not to do so. Although ideologically
opposed to the Taliban, Tehran continues to provide calculated support to the radical Sunni
movement as a way to accelerate the withdrawal of US forces from its eastern neighbor.
We began our study of Iran’s regional influence in 2007 because we saw an emerging Iranian
strategy to apply both hard- and soft-power tools to improve and consolidate Tehran’s position
in the region.
The pattern of Iranian economic, social, political, and diplomatic activity seemed
to possess a unity that US policy—stove-piped into separate US concerns such as the war in
Iraq, the Israel-Palestinian peace process, the Iranian nuclear program, and, subsequently, the
Arab Spring—often seemed to miss. This study makes clear that Iran does, indeed, pursue such
a coherent smart-power approach to the region, although not always with success.
Nothing about the ongoing struggle in the region is inevitable. The most important conclusion
this study can offer is the growing importance of evaluating Iranian strategy in any one area
within the context of Iranian strategy as a whole. One of the greatest mistakes the United
States can make is to imagine that Iranian activities in a given arena—the nuclear program, for
example—are isolated from Iranian undertakings in another.
The United States and its allies and partners in the region and beyond must not only understand
Iran’s regional strategy and influence but also develop a coherent strategy of their own with
which to confront them. Considering the relative economic, political, and diplomatic power of
the two sides, it is simply unacceptable for the United States and its allies to allow Iran even
such progress as it has made in these realms. To the extent that soft power can substitute for or
enhance and support the effectiveness of hard power, developing a coherent influence strategy
for the Middle East is imperative for US national security.
Pic - " Take advantage of Syria NOW!"
UN"s Law Of the Sea Treaty is more than a wicked plot to bind Great Satan and her one of a kind seaborne hyperpuissance - it's also a short cut to a lo down ho down with Collectivist china!
Check it out, check it outers
UNCLOS is deeply flawed. The U.S. Senate should be deeply skeptical
of claims that, because it’s an international agreement, we should
therefore accede as a matter of course. One can be all for the rule of
law, yet conclude that United Nations Convention on the Law of the Seas
has complicated rather than simplified maritime law and security.
UNCLOS enshrined customary maritime law, but it also contradicted it by
extending national claims far to sea, well beyond traditional claims, in
the form of sui generis Exclusive Economic Zones. By fiat,
this creation of EEZs established new claims and conflicts that never
before existed. A bad idea.
Somewhere along the line, proponents of UNCLOS
have adopted the argument that accession itself is the standard of
behavior, and that having a seat at the table is of paramount
importance. This becomes particularly problematic where the United
Nations is concerned.
Further, China has espoused the doctrine of strict enforcement of its
self-perceived UNCLOS rights through military and political
intimidation. Moreover, China has, based upon its unitary interpretation
of UNCLOS, assumed rights in the EEZs that not only weren’t intended by
the framers, but which are troubling in their implications. These
rights would extend security as well as economic rights to the limits of
the EEZ, and in so doing preclude even routine military surveillance.
The widespread recognition of these fabricated rights would be the death
knell of freedom of the seas, not its enablement. Furthermore, raising
the ante of EEZ rights isn’t just problematic, but threatening in the
old-fashioned sense – especially because, while the Chinese have
prudently toned down their rhetoric in international fora, their
aggressive operations in the maritime commons belie any notions that
Beijing has moderated its opinions or policies regarding Chinese rights.
The particular issue of China within the UNCLOS accession debate has
emerged only lately. I would suggest that earlier American endorsements
of UNCLOS – every Chief of Naval Operations (CNO), for instance – are
obsolete, and have been negated by new circumstances unimagined at the
time of the convention's framing.
The trouble is that bad law drives out good law. My bottom line is
first, that law is not always the answer; and second, that this isn’t
the time to call for UNCLOS accession. It is time, instead, for a
clear-eyed debate on the merits and demerits of UNCLOS, in the wider perspective of the rise of China, where we are headed with Beijing, and the role of international law in affecting the ambitions of rising powers.
Pic - "Great Powers who fail the sea power test - inevitably fail the longevity quiz too"
Suriya al- Kubra!
Syria"s illegit Allawitious regime led by Dr General President For Life Bashar Bay Bee may have acted out a litttle too flamboyantly.
As best understood - children are hardly a match for a highly motivated squad of panzers -
"The UN observer mission has this week confirmed finding the bodies, some bearing signs of having been killed by tank shells. Among them were 32 children under the age of 10."
Hard on the heels of NATO"s LOL about doing Syria - the Memorial Weekend Massacre may have the op to be a game changer for Syria phobic non interventionists. Check it
b>Way back in the last millennium, a similiar sitch occured in Balkania. Wicked stuff happening with in an 8 hour panzer ride from NATO member Kasernes and the nodobby seemed to mind in the least. Till a demented despotic 'General" named Mladic led Serbians to do a horrific massacre on a Hitlerian scale.
Baby stepping with 'safe zones,' air strikes alone and Dayton Peace Accords did little except drag out the misery
"The long, harrowing conflict in the former Yugoslavia served as a powerful reminder of 2 that aggressors and tyrants are still with us. 2nd, it showed that Great Satan"s leadership remains more important than ever. In the 1990's America's risk-avere leaders tried an arm's-length approach to a crisis that demanded decisive and forceful intervention. Genocide, concentration camps, murder, torture and mass displacements of peoples resulted, since no other nation stepped in to deal with the conflict"
Can such historical hellos be heralded with the Syrian Phobic?
"The strategic considerations against taking military action in Syria are well known. So are the power struggles between the Western powers and Russia and China, which have so far prevented military intervention. However, the United Nations has the authority and capability to employ peacekeeping forces not merely as observers but also as a military force able to intervene.
Face it - all the cool kids know Arab League couldn't intervene in a bikini car wash and the Ottomans are just as LOLable (which is so tarded - the Ottomans actually have semi robust military unlike Arab League - whose collective militaries are only good at civilian stomping and tormenting girls)
In order to put teeth into anything UN says NATO and/or/plus Australia and Commonwealth Russia would have to be involved with their combat boots on the ground.
Why Cause?
Because!
"The establishment of a robust mechanism for monitoring and investigating crimes against humanity, war crimes and other human rights abuses, which should be equipped with the powers and resources necessary to ensure that those responsible for committing and ordering such crimes will be held accountable, would send a clear message to those responsible for such crimes that they cannot count on perpetual impunity.
"The prospect of a possible forced retirement behind bars might just prompt some of those who are part of the system responsible for some of the worst excesses to rethink their options sooner rather than later.
Pic - "The Syrian Civil War"
Today is the day we put aside to remember fallen heroes and to pray
that no heroes will ever have to die for us again. It’s a day of thanks
for the valor of others, a day to remember the splendor of America and
those of her children who rest in this cemetery and others. It’s a day
to be with the family and remember.
I was thinking this morning
that across the country, children and their parents will be going to the
town parade, and the young ones will sit on the sidewalks and wave
their flags as the band goes by. Later, maybe, they’ll have a cookout or
a day at the beach. And that’s good, because today is a day to be with
the family and to remember.
Arlington, this place of so many
memories, is a fitting place for some remembering. So many wonderful men
and women rest here, men and women who led colorful, vivid and
passionate lives. … All of these men were different, but they shared
this in common: They loved America very much. There was nothing they
wouldn’t do for her. And they loved with the sureness of the young. It’s
hard not to think of the young in a place like this, for it’s the young
who do the fighting and dying when a peace fails and a war begins.
And
we owe them something, those boys. We owe them first a promise: That
just as they did not forget their missing comrades, neither, ever, will
we. And there are other promises. We must always remember that peace is a
fragile thing that needs constant vigilance. We owe them a promise to
look at the world with a steady gaze and, perhaps, a resigned toughness,
knowing that we have adversaries in the world and challenges and the
only way to meet them and maintain the peace is by staying strong.
…
If
we really care about peace, we must stay strong. If we really care
about peace, we must, through our strength, demonstrate our
unwillingness to accept an ending of the peace. We must be strong enough
to create peace where it does not exist and strong enough to protect it
where it does.
40 at Arlington
WoW - the Watchers Council - it's the oldest, longest running cyber comte d'guere ensembe in existence - started online in 1912 by Sirs Jacky Fisher and Winston Churchill themselves - an eclective collective of cats both cruel and benign with their ability to put steel on target (figuratively - natch) on a wide variety of topictry across American, Allied, Frenemy and Enemy concerns, memes, delights and discourse.
Every week these cats hook up each other with hot hits and big phazed cookies to peruse and then vote on their individual fancy catchers.
Council Winners
Non-Council Winners
See you next week! And don’t forget to follow us on Facebook and Twitter
