Slashdot Mirror
Former Department of Defense Chief Expects "30 Year War"
HughPickens.com writes Susan Page writes at USA Today that Leon Panetta, former head of the CIA and Secretary of the Department of Defense, says Americans should be braced for a long battle against the brutal terrorist group Islamic State that will test U.S. resolve. "I think we're looking at kind of a 30-year war," says Panetta, one that will have to extend beyond Islamic State to include emerging threats in Nigeria, Somalia, Yemen, Libya and elsewhere. Panetta also says that decisions made by President Obama over the past three years have made that battle more difficult — an explosive assessment by a respected policymaker of the president he served. Not pushing the Iraqi government harder to allow a residual US force to remain when troops withdrew in 2011, a deal he says could have been negotiated with more effort "created a vacuum in terms of the ability of that country to better protect itself, and it's out of that vacuum that ISIS began to breed." It is no surprise to Panetta that the assessment in his new book "Worthy Fights: A Memoir of Leadership in War and Peace" is drawing White House ire. "Look, I've been a guy who's always been honest," Panetta says. "I've been honest in politics, honest with the people that I deal with. I've been a straight talker. Some people like it; some people don't like it. But I wasn't going to write a book that kind of didn't express what I thought was the case."
ISIL is both financed and given logistics support from primarily three countries that are "supposedly" allies of the US UK etc.
Turkey.
UAE
and Saudi Arabia.
Nuke those and ISIL dies.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
Now isn't that convenient to the business of war?
Your both wrong the democrats and the republicans are exactly the same. They are just two sides of a authoritarian expansionist kleptocratic coin.
---Saying gnome 3 is better than windows 8 not so much a compliment as it is damning with light praise.
Is this a technology site or some kind of political blog. What has happened?
authoritarian expansionist kleptocratic coin.
Is that like a cryto-currency that's going to finally replace USD?
We need less fiat currency, not more.
SJWs are the new boogeyman. -Me
It's easy for him to bash the current Regime, especially that crack about pushing harder to keep troops in Iraq. They wanted us GONE. Hell, WE wanted us GONE.
Awful damned easy to be a Monday morning quarterback. Where was HE when the shit was getting ready to pile up?
Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
Reagan was a moderate Republican. People don't remember those much because just like the moderate Democrat they're pretty much extinct. Everything is extremism now.
God damn it. Why the fuck did the US invade Iraq in 2003?. Hussein was a madman but he kept a lid on things.
BTW I'm not American so my kids aren't going to be fighting in Iraq, its the US young service men and women I feel sorry for.
So.... like drugs?
I think he's referring to the Thirty Years' War.
(T>t && O(n)--) == sqrt(666)
is there any difference? this is iS, formerly known as syrian freedom fighters, remember? the pattern is old, already.
TFA is bullshit, it is only sort of correct about the 30-year war ... which has been already going on for 15. it's all the same war, the war US needs to keep its declining influence. 15 more til it rots, she prophesies? could be. anyway that's a lot of mayhem still to unleash ...
but it just could be another instance of the "magical three months syndrome". remember, when every month some random moron from defense projected that the current kill and destroy operation would be resolved in the next three months? well, three months have passed many many times and we're still on the same spot. it's probably because there is no intention whatsoever to move away from that spot.
Pull out.
We've bankrupted our nation to pay for a war that was waged on false pretenses, bankrupted our nation, and corrupted our spirit. What more do we need to pay for a complete failure to accomplish anything other than creating political instability in both nations we invaded?
The bubonic plague was an important factor in the Thirty Years' War. Not exactly a good omen these days...
Obama is behaving like a politician unable to get his head out of the political dogma of the 2003 left. Unable to see the world has changed and the 2003 dogma obsolete. See http://news.slashdot.org/comme... for an explanation.
Your both wrong the democrats and the republicans are exactly the same. They are just two sides of a authoritarian expansionist kleptocratic coin.
Well the Democrats want it to be a gay authoritarian expansionist kleptocratic coin.
So that's a small difference.
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
Reagan was a moderate Republican. People don't remember those much because just like the moderate Democrat they're pretty much extinct. Everything is extremism now.
True Reagan negotiated, compromised and made deals with Democrats. For example he made a compromise with Democrats on the budget, that new spending would be followed by budget cuts. Reagan got his new spending but the Democrats never got around to the budget cuts. And then the Democrats attacked Reagan for a growing deficit. Its things like this that contributed to the modern era of mistrust and extremism. Whether it was a trick by the Democratic leadership or simply a leadership that was ineffective and couldn't fulfill its promises I don't know.
Raygun's beliefs would put him solidly a Democrat
Yeah, I miss the days of staunchly pro-life, tax cutting, communist hating Democrats that aggressively expanded military spending during peacetime, appointed moderates like Rehnquist and Scalia, outlawed hiring of illegal immigrants and causally joked about nuking the Soviets on live radio.
Where did those Democrats go, anyhow?
Maw! Fire up the karma burner!
How about a Renault currency? Or a Datsun dollar?
Kongbucks anyone?
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
No the problem is the USA is targeted the wrong target. You can't stop ISIS with bombs. You can't stop Al queada with bombs.
You can't stop them with guns or bullets. you can't kill them all.
It is like Afgahanistan in the 1980's the CIA got the Afghan's to fight the Soviets. then the USA left which let an entire generation become jihadists. You are fighting Ideas. You are trying to prevent the Sunni- Shitte war that has been brewing for Centuries.
The USA needs to step up and develop alternative energy sources so we don't need middle east oil and let them kill each other. Once the Middle east begins to use up their oil reserves(and that is many decades away) the fighting will stop. Actually it will get far worse for a while, but it will eventually stop.
However once the USA and Europe doesn't need their oil anymore they will stop caring and let the idiots slaughter each other.(any group fighting over religion is automatically an idiot)
i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
Wrong. We have the ability to eliminate absolutely every living thing in the middle east fairly easily. The few that are here would be easily dealt with after that. Libcucks are the only reason this is still going on.
'Leon Panetta .. says .. "I think we're looking at kind of a 30-year war," says Panetta, one that will have to extend beyond Islamic State to include emerging threats in Nigeria, Somalia, Yemen, Libya and elsewhere.'
Does Leon Panetta or anyone else in the US administration, not realize that everything they attempt in the Mid-East is bringing about the exact opposite of what they want. Every drone strike is recuiting a whole streetfull of 'terrorists'. It's called the law of unintended consequences.
Underestimating ISIS: An Indictment of Decades of Failed US Policy in the Middle East
All meaningless crap.
Saddam did not violate any ceasefire agreements in anyway that mattered to US interests.
Yeah, the US hates dictators. You have to got to be fucking kidding.
"The fault, however, is not in invading in the first place,"
Killing thousands upon thousands of people using a bunch of lies as the justification pretty much dooms the operation to failure from the beginning. Nobody is going to like that, and if nobody likes an invasion, it's going to fail. Also, killing innocent people is wrong all by itself. There's a reason starting wars is considered a criminal act.
Play Command HQ online
Well that's like saying the Crusades weren't wars.
Right and the slaughter of 100's of millions by the Muslims for centuries preceding the Christian crusades were not crusades? Maybe they weren't, after all the crusades were about taking territory back whereas what the muslims did were about converting others to islam or killing them if they refused. The Caliphate was the ISIL of that day.
Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
While the Republicans want it to be a wide stance authoritarian expansionist kleptocratic coin.
Not so much of a difference to me...
This is a sig. This is only a sig. Had this been an actual sig you would have been informed where to tune for more sigs.
Funny, that's exactly what created ISIS, and every other renegade group that hates the US. Why would the exact same tactic that has never worked in 60 years suddenly work now?
You can't kill them all.
Sure we could, it would be pretty straightforward to use a combination of Nuclear weapons and Chemical agents to depopulate the entire area and then follow up with drones to catch any remnants. It wouldn't be ethical and we wouldn't do something like that, but don't mistake won't for can't.
For as long as Winston can recall, Oceania has been in a constant state of war – with whom it was at war is of neither importance nor consequence.
This and no other is the root from which a tyrant springs; when first he appears as a protector - Plato (423 to 327 BC)
Well he sure didn't decline it...
Yes it's an anecdote! Were you expecting original research in a Slashdot comment?
The battle against overly authoritarian shitheads is not a 30-year battle. It is likely an eternal battle (for moderate values of the concepts of "battle" and "eternity").
(There is no Islamic State in the west, but there are other examples one could name. For example: despite mountains of evidence to the contrary there are still hundreds of millions of people in the western world who think that sending drug addicts to prison is a great idea.)
It is also not a battle that can be successfully fought by anyone who does not picture themselves having their great grandchildren live in the region, because only those who do will have the stamina to keep fighting forever. Americans or Europeans can't be responsible for fighting the battle for a Middle east free of The Islamic State, or whatever other pretentious banner these guys will be fighting under next year.
There's a false dichotemy. Everyone's moved to the right to the point that Mitt Romney's quite successful healthcare program is considered "socialist" if you attach Obama's name to it (actual socialized medicine is quite different)
There is no left any more. Obama's continued warmongering is the best evidence.
-- Political fascism requires a Fuhrer.
I like to think of it as a square. The top half of the square is the authoritarian, war is peace, big government, power hungry thieves. Those people are in it for personal power, and everyone else be damned. The bottom half of the square are the idealists who genuinely want to do what's best for the country and the people.
Somehow, the media has managed to slice this square though, not into top and bottom halves, but into left and right halves. As a result, regular people who identify themselves as Democrat, point to the upper right corner of the square and see authoritarian, power hungry scoundrels, and yell: "Evil Republicans!". Meanwhile, regular people who identify themselves as Republican, look at the top left and identify the authoritarian, power hungry scoundrels they see as: "Evil Democrats!". Each unable to see that the "misguided people in their party who are wrong on *some* issues" are just as bad the set of scoundrels they criticize.
Just notice how often big controversial issues are brought up (and their often suspicious timing - like trying to fast track immigration reform the week after the Snowden leaks), and how often those issues are actually solved (hint: never - they're far too convenient for demagogueing the other side ["we wanted to pass Issue A, but the other side wouldn't let us" vs. "Issue A be damned, but they included issue B in the bill which they wont budge on which will end America as we know it!"]).
Saddest part is that because the battle lines are so clearly (mis-)drawn in people minds, they don't listen to the people they "hate". Thus almost all information they get about the people they "hate" they find out from non-neutral 3rd parties. These 3rd parties, use their role to aide the authoritarian scumbags in painting the idealists in the opposing parties as the anti-christ (effectively flipping top and bottom of the other side in their follower's minds).
A coalition government containing: Ralph Nader, Bernie Sander, Ron Wyden, Sarah Palin, Justin Amash and Glenn Beck would oddly be more unified in purpose, more functional, and more for the people than one composed of "moderate centrists" like John McCain, John Kerry, George Bush, and Barack Obama.
The problem with the USA right now is the square is very top heavy.
Planning a 30 year war with Eastasia now is only the authoritarians following Orwell's 1984 instruction manual.
You assume the rest of the world would sit idly by as you did that. It would not. The only thing you would reach is that every single nation would overnight become the best friend with Russia and China. The next day, interesting things would start to happen in North America.
If programs would be read like poetry, most programmers would be Vogons.
Bzzz! Lying substitution #1: I said nothing about "mattered to US interests". Only that he did violate the agreement. This is an important distinction, because we can spend years arguing, what the "US interests are" exactly, whereas the fact of violation of agreements stands.
Bzzz! Lying substitution #2: I sad mad dictators. Pinochet — our kind of dictator — for example, not only stepped down voluntarily (what sort of tyrant does that?), but also left his country as the South America's top economy.
Bzzz! Lie #3. We did not kill "thousands upon thousands". The vast majority of deaths of Iraqis were — and continue to be — at the hands of other Iraqis. We killed very few, taking thousands of POWs — and releasing them promptly after we prevailed. The various counters deliberately omit this important distinction — either because it makes their efforts look silly, or because they sincerely can not. Either way, the fact remains — we took the country over very swiftly and shed relatively little blood.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Saddam did not violate any ceasefire agreements in anyway that mattered to US interests.
Oh yeah, shooting at American aircraft is like totally not a big deal.
I should try that line of defence in court though. "Your honour, it's true that I violated my parole conditions, but I didn't do it in any way that matters to your interests. Ya gonna let me go, right?"
Your both wrong the democrats and the republicans are exactly the same. They are just two sides of a authoritarian expansionist kleptocratic coin.
Only on slashdot could this be modded "insightful" and not "funny"
Obama already admitted that there was a US intelligence failure in understanding the fast rise of ISIS. Maybe if the US So Called Intelligence community spent less time spying on Americans, Germans, Australians, British, etc, they might have some time and money left over to look out for trouble in the rest of the world. Of course that might reduce the amount of Homeland Pork, so clearly it's not going to happen.
Why is Snark Required?
The US military industrial complex created them, the US military industrial complex fights them and the US military industrial complex keeps them going. It has spent years goading Russia to try and kick over the cold war again and is now poking China as well. The US military industrial complex runs around the war trying to put out fires with a flame thrower and then blaming everyone else when they fail at it.
Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
The no-fly zones enforced by those aircraft were part of the cease-fire agreement.
Nope. Not until we promise Russia to not fly over certain areas ourselves and agree (however grudgingly) to allow them to enforce it.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Russia and China would very likely not object to it. Israel would very likely object to being wiped with the rest of Muslim world. Europe would object to the worst genocide in planet's history. The rest of the would would see US using Nuclear weapons at will and rise up in arms. The only alternative to US nuclear arsenal is Russia and China, so the rest of the world would turn toward them. They would immediately cease the opportunity, build a world coalition against US. Half of US citizens would raise in arms against its own government as well. In either case, whatever would the day after look like in North America, it would be interesting.
If programs would be read like poetry, most programmers would be Vogons.
Every time I hear that I think the same thing:
"Hey look, another knucklehead who doesn't actually pay attention to politics but says what ever group think crap he pulls out of his ass so he can feel important."
Really both sides want ongoing endless war in the middle east, both sides want to increases surveillance and move toward a police state, both parties side with big media, both sides want internet censorship,... need I go on. Its not crap when its true. Look at the debates what gets argued, abortion which has been in an endless stalemate since the 60s the. health care well some movement but not in a direction that anyone other than the insurance companies wanted, they argue about war in the middleast but both sides do the same thing go arm extremist topple government then go fight extremists that we armed earlier, controll/access has made no real movement either way. where is the real difference?
---Saying gnome 3 is better than windows 8 not so much a compliment as it is damning with light praise.
or somewhere where people know what they are talking about go look at political compass and tell me I am wrong
http://www.politicalcompass.or...
---Saying gnome 3 is better than windows 8 not so much a compliment as it is damning with light praise.
but here in America we have a distinct dislike for mad dictators
You mean, like Rafael Trujillo, Fulgencio Batista, Ferdinand Marcos, Augusto Pinochet, Mobutu Seso Seko, Islam Karimov, or King Abdullah?
Are you ESR's subconsciousness, by chance? I can't believe that another asshole so big and so deluded could possibly exist in this world without it collapsing on itself.
Petro Poroshenko was elected by free elections. He got 57% of the vote. There was no "coup d'etat", and you forgot to provide links proving American financing of whatever happened.
Kremlin much?
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
I find it ironic that you cite figures for Stalin (the one from Solzhenitsyn at that, long since discredited as accurate data) and Khmer Rouge, but not the actual figures for Vietnam. Given that communists did take over, surely that would be the numbers to compare, no?
It's also funny that you have to bring up Khmer Rouge, given that ultimately it was the communist Vietnam that reigned them in. So how many people did those Vietnamese commies kill in Cambodia?
And you still haven't answered the question. How many people slaughtered and villages burned do you consider acceptable to expunge a hostile ideology or hold it at bay? Are you in agreement with Mao on the methods here, that if killing half of the entire humanity would mean total eradication of communist and the eternal victory of capitalism, it would be a price well paid?
Hey, you are right. Russia had every reason to steal part of Georgia. And Crimea, they were told to that by the U.S. military industrial complex, they've long been known to take orders from it. Ukraine? Same story, there's no history. And Taiwan? The U.S. m.i.c. moved Chaing there after the war just to give China a foil. The S. China Sea? China has long been taking orders direct from the U.S. to steal it. Islamo-Fascism? Why that's just another CIA plot, nothing home grown about it. Gee, now that I get to look at the world through your eyes, there's just nothing for which the U.S. is not responsible.
A coalition government containing: Ralph Nader, Bernie Sander, Ron Wyden, Sarah Palin, Justin Amash and Glenn Beck would oddly be more unified in purpose, more functional, and more for the people than one composed of "moderate centrists" like John McCain, John Kerry, George Bush, and Barack Obama.
The best part is that it'd be a real life political version of the game "Clue." The entire US population could play, guessing which of the above bludgeoned Ron Wyden to death with a candlestick in the library.