The last review of the situation I did was in my 2014 "ISIS - Do Something Stupid Now" post (see http://sigma5.blogspot.com/2014/09/isis-do-something-stupid-now.html). At that point we had little experience with ISIS (or ISIL or daesh). But almost two years have passed and ISIS is still with us. So what's changed and what has stayed the same?
The propensity for doing something stupid NOW, as in before thinking the ramifications through, has continued. And the Middle East continues to churn. I write this a few days after a failed Coup attempt in Turkey. Back then I certainly did not predict a Turkish Coup nor that it would fail. But a much overlooked attribute of the Middle East is the regularity with which unexpected things continue to happen.
When I wrote the previous post al Maliki was in charge of Iraq. Shortly afterward he was forced out and replaced by al Abadi. He seems to be doing a much better job of governing the country as opposed to just looking out for the interests of the Shiites. As a result of this more enlightened approach Iraqi forces have had considerable success in pushing ISIS out of large chunks of Anbar province. As is often the case, things have been going slowly, much more slowly than one would hope. I talked about things changing in "a year or so". Some things have changed but most things have stayed the same.
And unlike the change for the better that has happened in Iraq things have gotten worse in Turkey. (For the moment I am confining myself to the fight against ISIS.) An informal truce between the government and the Kurds lasted for a good long while. This truce was upheld by the Kurds. They wanted to focus on supporting the Kurdish sections of Iraq and Syria. But the Erdogan government of Turkey abruptly broke the truce. This has resulted in a number of tit-for-tat actions on both sides. The Turks have bombed and shelled Kurdish territory in Turkey. In retaliation the Kurds have staged a number of terrorist attacks on Turkish soil. The back and forth has remained at a relatively low level so far but who knows what the future will bring.
And it has become apparent that Turkey was using a policy of "benign neglect" when it came to ISIS. But there have recently been a number of ISIS terrorist attacks inside Turkey. The most recent one occurred in the main airport in Istanbul. It looks like the Turkish government is moving toward a more anti-ISIS stance. But Erdogan is using the failed Coup as an excuse to tighten his control of the country. Tens of thousands of people have been rounded up. So it is likely that he will step up his harassment of the Kurds but it is also likely he will step up his harassment of ISIS. What's the net? Who knows.
So the Turkish situation is complex and fraught with opportunities for the US to put a foot wrong. As is the situation with the Iraqis and, therefore, with the Kurds. We would like to support the Kurds much more actively as they have been the most effective in opposing ISIS. But this is likely to antagonize Turkey, Iraq, or both. And that's just three countries. Let's now widen our view.
I'll start with Iran because they are intimately connected with Iraq and ISIS. We have done a nuclear deal with Iran. This takes Iranian nukes off the table. This should universally be seen as a good thing. But the Republican position of "we're against anything Obama is for" means that this deal must be bad mouthed. The Obama Administration wants to improve relations with Iran and to nudge them away from bad behavior (supporting terrorists) and toward good behavior.
Iran has been helpful in our efforts to defeat ISIS. But they continue to generally support various terrorist factions in the Middle East. The Iranian street is strongly in favor of the nuclear deal and would like to go back to having normal relations with the rest of the world. The street believes that this would substantially improver the Iranian economy. An improved economy, it is thought, would improve the position of moderates in Iran. This will hopefully create a moderating force within Iran. It is way too soon to be able to predict success for this admittedly optimistic scenario.
Let's move on to Syria. The Civil War grinds on. It has hemorrhaged hundreds of thousands of refugees into Europe through Turkey. Just when Assad looked to be on the ropes the Russians swooped in and saved him. The result is that there is plenty of outside support available to fund the carnage and destruction the various sides want to inflict on each other. No side is strong enough to take the other sides out nor weak enough to be eliminated by the others. So there continues to be no end in sight.
The rest of the Middle East seems frozen in amber. The Saudis continue to maintain their support of the Wahhabi faction of Islam. The Wahhabis continue to provide religious cover (and lots of under the table money) to extremists. Egypt seems to have settled into the 2.0 version of a military dictatorship. Any US efforts to assist Libya in its efforts to get back on track have been sabotaged by Republican "get Hillary" actions so it continues to churn. The Israelis continue to build settlements and generally drift toward a "one state" solution. But the Palestinian population bomb guarantees this strategy will eventually fail. But in the mean time any possibility of a "two state" solution recedes into the distance.
A more distant component of the general churn is the Afghanistan/Pakistan situation. The Afghan government has turned over and the new crew seem to be doing a better job of governance. So there seems to be glacially slow progress in Afghanistan. I really don't know what is going on with Pakistan. The ISI secret service seems to be still in bed with the Taliban. But who controls what, and what the trends are is a total mystery to me. So here too things are more "same old - same old" than anything else.
There is a constant to all this. And that is there are a lot of moving pieces that all interact. Pushing one piece hard (i.e. "bombing [insert the location of your choice here] until the sand glows") is going to be good for defense contractors and bad for pretty much everyone else. And let me quote from my previous post here: "There is a near unanimous belief in the area [throughout the Arab world] that we [the US] have interfered too much in the area." Any kind of substantial unilateral US military action would generate large amounts of blow back.
We need to stick with a strategy of working through the locals. This is frustrating in the extreme. Each and every one of our local allies has important interests that conflict with the actions we would like to see taken. As a single example, Turkey has a large economic base, a large population, and a large well trained and equipped military. They could swoop in and wipe ISIS out without raising a sweat. But for a long list of reasons Turkey is not going to do that. They even think it is a good idea to put road blocks in our way. I could go to the next and the next and the next of our allies. The details vary but what is common is that they find reasons to not do what we would prefer.
But wait! It's worse. Say somebody, Turkey for instance, went ahead and did what we wanted. That would likely be viewed badly by others of our allies and that might result in them taking actions we really don't want them to take. So is the situation hopeless? No! There is actually a precedent for this kind of situation. It is of all things the Cold War.
The Cold War was the same sort of complicated mess. And there a serious misstep could have resulted in Global Nuclear War. So what did we do? We were slow, methodical, and persistent. And it eventually worked. But it did take fifty years. I think the Middle East situation can be worked out in less than fifty years. But it will take much longer than anyone wants it to. Remember that when it started, no one thought the Cold War would last as long as it did.
What got the USSR in the end was economics. They just couldn't get their economy to work very well. Eventually the western economy grew so far past the communist one that their side collapsed from the inside. The common problem in the Middle East is bad government. This results in stagnant economies. Oil has propped these economies up for a long time. These governments have succeeded in buying their populations off. But that is getting harder and harder to do. Even within just the Oil industry technology marches on. Things like Fracking require the kind of nimble response repressive regimes are bad at.
Technology also marches on and opens the populations of these countries up to what is going on in the rest of the world. This opening up was what kicked off the Arab Spring. At base it was a movement for better, more open government. That genie has temporarily been forced back into the bottle. The authoritarian regimes prevailed. But will they be able to next time? We want to be seen as the good guys the next time the lid comes off. The way to do this is to act like good guys. And that means, in the most simplistic terms, that we want the State Department not the Defense Department to be the lead agency.
Wednesday, July 20, 2016
Saturday, July 9, 2016
Guns
Quoting from my last post: '. . . the perspective I would bring is similar to one that many others are presenting. I try to avoid chiming in with a "me too" in these cases'. But in this case I can't help myself. Others have addressed this subject often and well. And they have said pretty much what I am about to say. But I find I can not remain silent. So . . .
Part 1
We didn't do anything when any number of black men and women were shot and killed.
We didn't do anything when a bunch of little white kids were shot and killed (Newtown, Connecticut).
We didn't do anything when a bunch of moviegoers were shot and killed (Aurora, Colorado).
We didn't do anything when a congresswoman (Gabby Giffords of Arizona) was shot and several of her constituents were killed.
We didn't do anything when a bunch of college kids were killed (San Bernardino, California).
We didn't do anything when a bunch of churchgoers were killed (Charleston, South Carolina).
We didn't do anything when a bunch of soldiers were killed (Fort Hood, Texas).
We didn't do anything when a bunch of gay night clubbers were killed (Orlando, Florida).
Are we now going to do something after five white cops were shot and killed (Dallas, Texas)?
Part 2
So how's that NRA "the only thing that can stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun" thing working out?
Since the NRA started its "arm everybody all the time" campaign a couple of decades ago millions of people have bought tens of millions of guns.
Large numbers of these people are now packing in public. Many are taking advantage of now widespread "open carry" laws to carry a gun out where everyone can see it. Others are taking advantage of less widespread but still common "concealed carry" laws to carry guns but not in an obvious way.
Laws have also been changed so that these guns can be legally carried in places like schools, parks, bars, and other places where concentrations of people can be found.
By now we should have seen many examples of good guys stopping bad guys. And we do see the odd example of a home owner shooting a burglar. But that's pretty much it. And homeowners have been shooting burglars since time immemorial.
Instead what we see is good guys with guns on the scene but not using the gun.
Consider:
In the Gabby Giffords case there was a good guy with a gun on site. But he joined other good guys in tackling the bad guy. He never even drew his gun.
In the San Bernardino case there were several good guys with guns on campus but none of them got anywhere near the shooter. They were specifically directed by the cops to stay out of the way.
In the two "cops shooting black guys" cases that immediately preceded the Dallas case both of the black guys were shot because the cop either knew or suspected that each guy had a gun. Certainly from the point of view of each black guy the NRA's logic would justify them shooting the cop. What would the NRA response be to a black civilian killing a cop apparently for no reason? Does the NRA even believe that it is possible for a black guy to be a good guy or a cop to be a bad guy?
In the Dallas case there was an innocent black guy legally carrying an assault rifle on site. He was immediately tagged as a suspect by the cops and a careful waltz was executed so that he could save his life by surrendering his gun to the Dallas cops. And this waltz took place as the actual mass shooting was continuing to unfold. Needless to say he was unable to do his "good guy with a gun" thing
It being Texas there undoubtedly were several other "good guys with guns" on site. But again it was not "good guys with guns" but cops that ultimately dealt with the bad guy. And the "good guys with guns" actually made it much harder for the cops to do their jobs. They diverted time, effort, and attention away from the their primary task of understanding the situation and dealing with the actual bad guy. "Good guys with guns" were definitely a hindrance rather than a help in this particular case.
It turns out, however, that there are two groups that have greatly benefitted from the NRA's oft repeated slogan. That would be gang bangers and drunks.
The movie "West Side Story" came out in 1961. It is a nice entertainment based on the 1957 Broadway show of the same name. But the contribution it makes to this discussion is that it accurately depicts the kind of armament typically deployed by gangs of the era. And, while the gang members in the movie were charming, handsome, and good dancers, the real life gang members the characters in the movie (and earlier show) were loosely based on were every bit as viscous as their modern day counterparts. But back then the weapon of choice of the typical gang member was a switchblade knife. Very few innocent civilians were killed inadvertently as a result of the many fights between gangs that happened during this period.
But modern gang members have massively increased the lethality of the weapons they now use. Their weapons of choice are now automatic pistols and assault rifles. And they routinely use them in "drive by" shootings instead of the back alley "rumble" of yore. They are aiming at people from other gangs or people who might be members of other gangs or people who are mistaken for members of other gangs. But their aim is often poor so they routinely kill or wound innocent bystanders who get caught in the line of fire. This is now such a routine occurrence that it never makes the national news and is not even guaranteed to make the local news.
Another routine occurrence is gunfire erupting as bars empty out at closing time. Somebody gets mad at somebody else. Someone, perhaps several someone's, pulls a gun and pops off a shot or two. Some people are so intent on being seen as suitably lethal that they even go to their cars, get a gun, and come back. These drunks have just as much sound judgement as you would expect. And they are just about as good at hitting what they aim at as you would expect. So a lot of innocents end up catching a bullet. And in some cases the innocent is actually the person the shooter was aiming at. By the time these clowns sober up enough to restore their judgment it is too late. The casualties are already in the emergency room or the morgue.
Then there is the case of someone packing without benefit of a proper holster. So the gun gets dislodged and somehow goes off. If a celebrity is involved this might make the national news but these events are now so routine that national coverage is rare and local coverage is usually but not always guaranteed. Back in the day a bar fight resulted in some skinned knuckles, the odd other minor damage, and a trip downtown to the drunk tank. And back in the day there were no fatalities and especially no innocent fatalities.
And back in the day you could go to a church or a school or a shopping mall and not have to worry about the personal safety of yourself or your loved ones. But these places are no longer safe. And what has changed is that the world is now much less like the bad old days (in the NRA's view) and much more like the good new days (again in the NRA's view).
Part 3
It is long past time to admit that the NRA "solution" is not the solution. There was saying when I was young: "If you are not part of the solution you are part of the problem". It is long past time to admit that the NRA is part of the problem. And, most importantly, the NRA "arm everybody all the time" plan is making things worse. And if something is making things worse it is time to stop doing it and start doing the opposite.
The one thing that now should be blindingly obvious is that IT IS TIME TO TAKE A LOT OF GUNS AWAY FROM A LOT OF PEOPLE.
There is another saw: "If you find yourself in a hole then stop digging". That means IT IS TIME TO MAKE IT A LOT HARDER FOR PEOPLE TO GET GUNS.
I note that Australia did this. After a massacre that would now be considered routine in the US they were so horrified that they changed their laws. They took a lot of guns out of circulation and they made it much harder for people to get guns. It worked. Their already low rate of gun deaths went even lower. And they have not had a single mass shooting in the many years since they changed the law.
It is also important to note that we have been playing a game of "whack a more" with gun laws for decades. A proposal is made to tighten the laws in one way or another. We are told that this law has a fata flaw and so should not be implemented. So another law is proposed that does not have this flaw. That too is fatally flawed, we are told. A mole (proposal for a law) pops up from one hole and the NRA whacks it down. Then a mole pops up in another hole and the NRA whacks it down. The result is that nothing is done about the mole problem.
Any law (the NRA strategy tells us) that is not perfect and complete should be opposed. And the result is that nothing gets passed at the Federal level. There has been some movement at the state level. But it mostly consists of NRA sponsored legislation loosening gun regulations getting passed. States that have done this have generally seen their gun fatalities go up. In very rare instances states have passed restrictive laws over the objections of the NRA. And the results have generally been modest but they have also been that gun deaths go down. Overall the result has been to make us less safe as more states have loosened laws than have tightened them.
The fact is that we have worked hard to get where we are (an obscene number of gun fatalities every year) and no single change will fix it. But there is a well tested method of getting to where we need to be. It is most closely associated with W. Edwards Deming. Deming championed a process of making many small improvements instead of trying to fix everything at once. You try something then you check to see if it works. If it doesn't you stop doing it. But if it does result in improvement then you keep it and look around for something else that has a good chance of improving things.
We have done this to some extent at the state level. We have tried various NRA approved approaches. For the most part they have made thing worse. We have tried things that the NRA opposes. For the most part they have made things better (fewer gun fatalities and, most importantly, fewer innocent gun fatalities). Have any of these completely fixed the problem? No! But Deming argues that we should not expect any one thing to fix everything. Instead you should expect to need to implement a number, perhaps a large number, of changes.
And there is another thing Deming was big on and that is measurement. You should study the results of a change to see if and how it improves things. The NRA is adamantly opposed to any research on guns or gun violence. Deming would say that as a result of this we should not be surprised that things are getting worse rather than better.
There are a long list of things we should do. If you want a "one shot" fix then adopt the Australian laws in their entirety. I would expect that this would be an improvement over the current situation but that it would also cause problems. The US is not Australia and failing to carefully study the situation (how the US is similar to Australia but also how it is different) and then to tailoring your approach to what you learn is not going to work as well as what Deming recommends.
So we should plan on making a lot of changes and we should expect that no single change will completely fix the problem. The first thing we should do is get rid of all the laws that block the ability of governments to collect information and for scientists to study it. And part of that study should be to look at what states have done and are doing. We are told that states are "the laboratories of democracy". We should carefully study what these lab results tell us and proceed from there.
Part 1
We didn't do anything when any number of black men and women were shot and killed.
We didn't do anything when a bunch of little white kids were shot and killed (Newtown, Connecticut).
We didn't do anything when a bunch of moviegoers were shot and killed (Aurora, Colorado).
We didn't do anything when a congresswoman (Gabby Giffords of Arizona) was shot and several of her constituents were killed.
We didn't do anything when a bunch of college kids were killed (San Bernardino, California).
We didn't do anything when a bunch of churchgoers were killed (Charleston, South Carolina).
We didn't do anything when a bunch of soldiers were killed (Fort Hood, Texas).
We didn't do anything when a bunch of gay night clubbers were killed (Orlando, Florida).
Are we now going to do something after five white cops were shot and killed (Dallas, Texas)?
Part 2
So how's that NRA "the only thing that can stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun" thing working out?
Since the NRA started its "arm everybody all the time" campaign a couple of decades ago millions of people have bought tens of millions of guns.
Large numbers of these people are now packing in public. Many are taking advantage of now widespread "open carry" laws to carry a gun out where everyone can see it. Others are taking advantage of less widespread but still common "concealed carry" laws to carry guns but not in an obvious way.
Laws have also been changed so that these guns can be legally carried in places like schools, parks, bars, and other places where concentrations of people can be found.
By now we should have seen many examples of good guys stopping bad guys. And we do see the odd example of a home owner shooting a burglar. But that's pretty much it. And homeowners have been shooting burglars since time immemorial.
Instead what we see is good guys with guns on the scene but not using the gun.
Consider:
In the Gabby Giffords case there was a good guy with a gun on site. But he joined other good guys in tackling the bad guy. He never even drew his gun.
In the San Bernardino case there were several good guys with guns on campus but none of them got anywhere near the shooter. They were specifically directed by the cops to stay out of the way.
In the two "cops shooting black guys" cases that immediately preceded the Dallas case both of the black guys were shot because the cop either knew or suspected that each guy had a gun. Certainly from the point of view of each black guy the NRA's logic would justify them shooting the cop. What would the NRA response be to a black civilian killing a cop apparently for no reason? Does the NRA even believe that it is possible for a black guy to be a good guy or a cop to be a bad guy?
In the Dallas case there was an innocent black guy legally carrying an assault rifle on site. He was immediately tagged as a suspect by the cops and a careful waltz was executed so that he could save his life by surrendering his gun to the Dallas cops. And this waltz took place as the actual mass shooting was continuing to unfold. Needless to say he was unable to do his "good guy with a gun" thing
It being Texas there undoubtedly were several other "good guys with guns" on site. But again it was not "good guys with guns" but cops that ultimately dealt with the bad guy. And the "good guys with guns" actually made it much harder for the cops to do their jobs. They diverted time, effort, and attention away from the their primary task of understanding the situation and dealing with the actual bad guy. "Good guys with guns" were definitely a hindrance rather than a help in this particular case.
It turns out, however, that there are two groups that have greatly benefitted from the NRA's oft repeated slogan. That would be gang bangers and drunks.
The movie "West Side Story" came out in 1961. It is a nice entertainment based on the 1957 Broadway show of the same name. But the contribution it makes to this discussion is that it accurately depicts the kind of armament typically deployed by gangs of the era. And, while the gang members in the movie were charming, handsome, and good dancers, the real life gang members the characters in the movie (and earlier show) were loosely based on were every bit as viscous as their modern day counterparts. But back then the weapon of choice of the typical gang member was a switchblade knife. Very few innocent civilians were killed inadvertently as a result of the many fights between gangs that happened during this period.
But modern gang members have massively increased the lethality of the weapons they now use. Their weapons of choice are now automatic pistols and assault rifles. And they routinely use them in "drive by" shootings instead of the back alley "rumble" of yore. They are aiming at people from other gangs or people who might be members of other gangs or people who are mistaken for members of other gangs. But their aim is often poor so they routinely kill or wound innocent bystanders who get caught in the line of fire. This is now such a routine occurrence that it never makes the national news and is not even guaranteed to make the local news.
Another routine occurrence is gunfire erupting as bars empty out at closing time. Somebody gets mad at somebody else. Someone, perhaps several someone's, pulls a gun and pops off a shot or two. Some people are so intent on being seen as suitably lethal that they even go to their cars, get a gun, and come back. These drunks have just as much sound judgement as you would expect. And they are just about as good at hitting what they aim at as you would expect. So a lot of innocents end up catching a bullet. And in some cases the innocent is actually the person the shooter was aiming at. By the time these clowns sober up enough to restore their judgment it is too late. The casualties are already in the emergency room or the morgue.
Then there is the case of someone packing without benefit of a proper holster. So the gun gets dislodged and somehow goes off. If a celebrity is involved this might make the national news but these events are now so routine that national coverage is rare and local coverage is usually but not always guaranteed. Back in the day a bar fight resulted in some skinned knuckles, the odd other minor damage, and a trip downtown to the drunk tank. And back in the day there were no fatalities and especially no innocent fatalities.
And back in the day you could go to a church or a school or a shopping mall and not have to worry about the personal safety of yourself or your loved ones. But these places are no longer safe. And what has changed is that the world is now much less like the bad old days (in the NRA's view) and much more like the good new days (again in the NRA's view).
Part 3
It is long past time to admit that the NRA "solution" is not the solution. There was saying when I was young: "If you are not part of the solution you are part of the problem". It is long past time to admit that the NRA is part of the problem. And, most importantly, the NRA "arm everybody all the time" plan is making things worse. And if something is making things worse it is time to stop doing it and start doing the opposite.
The one thing that now should be blindingly obvious is that IT IS TIME TO TAKE A LOT OF GUNS AWAY FROM A LOT OF PEOPLE.
There is another saw: "If you find yourself in a hole then stop digging". That means IT IS TIME TO MAKE IT A LOT HARDER FOR PEOPLE TO GET GUNS.
I note that Australia did this. After a massacre that would now be considered routine in the US they were so horrified that they changed their laws. They took a lot of guns out of circulation and they made it much harder for people to get guns. It worked. Their already low rate of gun deaths went even lower. And they have not had a single mass shooting in the many years since they changed the law.
It is also important to note that we have been playing a game of "whack a more" with gun laws for decades. A proposal is made to tighten the laws in one way or another. We are told that this law has a fata flaw and so should not be implemented. So another law is proposed that does not have this flaw. That too is fatally flawed, we are told. A mole (proposal for a law) pops up from one hole and the NRA whacks it down. Then a mole pops up in another hole and the NRA whacks it down. The result is that nothing is done about the mole problem.
Any law (the NRA strategy tells us) that is not perfect and complete should be opposed. And the result is that nothing gets passed at the Federal level. There has been some movement at the state level. But it mostly consists of NRA sponsored legislation loosening gun regulations getting passed. States that have done this have generally seen their gun fatalities go up. In very rare instances states have passed restrictive laws over the objections of the NRA. And the results have generally been modest but they have also been that gun deaths go down. Overall the result has been to make us less safe as more states have loosened laws than have tightened them.
The fact is that we have worked hard to get where we are (an obscene number of gun fatalities every year) and no single change will fix it. But there is a well tested method of getting to where we need to be. It is most closely associated with W. Edwards Deming. Deming championed a process of making many small improvements instead of trying to fix everything at once. You try something then you check to see if it works. If it doesn't you stop doing it. But if it does result in improvement then you keep it and look around for something else that has a good chance of improving things.
We have done this to some extent at the state level. We have tried various NRA approved approaches. For the most part they have made thing worse. We have tried things that the NRA opposes. For the most part they have made things better (fewer gun fatalities and, most importantly, fewer innocent gun fatalities). Have any of these completely fixed the problem? No! But Deming argues that we should not expect any one thing to fix everything. Instead you should expect to need to implement a number, perhaps a large number, of changes.
And there is another thing Deming was big on and that is measurement. You should study the results of a change to see if and how it improves things. The NRA is adamantly opposed to any research on guns or gun violence. Deming would say that as a result of this we should not be surprised that things are getting worse rather than better.
There are a long list of things we should do. If you want a "one shot" fix then adopt the Australian laws in their entirety. I would expect that this would be an improvement over the current situation but that it would also cause problems. The US is not Australia and failing to carefully study the situation (how the US is similar to Australia but also how it is different) and then to tailoring your approach to what you learn is not going to work as well as what Deming recommends.
So we should plan on making a lot of changes and we should expect that no single change will completely fix the problem. The first thing we should do is get rid of all the laws that block the ability of governments to collect information and for scientists to study it. And part of that study should be to look at what states have done and are doing. We are told that states are "the laboratories of democracy". We should carefully study what these lab results tell us and proceed from there.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)