[cherdano]

blackshoe, on 2015-December-10, 18:46, said:

Or when criminals are shooting at you.

Since you have such strong opinions about this, I am sure you can point to data to back this up. Say, in countries with lax firearm regulations, there are fewer people killed by criminals with guns?

[hrothgar]

cherdano, on 2015-December-11, 08:01, said:

Since you have such strong opinions about this, I am sure you can point to data to back this up. Say, in countries with lax firearm regulations, there are fewer people killed by criminals with guns?

At the very least, I expect that Ed will reference any numbers of science fiction stories from the 1950s...

[Winstonm]

mike777, on 2015-December-03, 23:16, said:

If you accept there is a true war on terror as I mentioned years years ago...this is a 60 year fight.

I accept many forum posters do not think we are at war.

If you think this is just a police action ok ok ok.


Many ask what does victory look like.

victory = a significantly better political outcome than what we have now.

War=politics

Mike,
You make this a binary choice when it is multi-faceted. I agree that it will take years to alter the course of events that lead to terrorism - maybe 60 years. But a country cannot make "war" on a tactic and an ideology - there are limits to military power. If North Korea invaded South Korea, we would and should go to "war" with that country's military and political power to remove them from occupied territories - but when a band of disaffected people from all over the globe create a network of anger and self-sacrifice there is not much a country can do but to try to alter the reason for the disaffection.

Starving people do no become terrorists, mainly because they are too concerned with survival. Terrorism is an ailment of the dismal non-starved, who are persuaded that the ideology of self-sacfirice is greater than the worth of any one individual, that either the past or the future offers the "perfect society" but conditions of "today" must be destroyed.

Terrorism at its heart is an issue of magical thinking. Changing the thinking of those who believe that nothing is right with the present cannot be done with military might.

(See column by David Brooks, How Radicals Are Made, New York Times, 12-8-15, page A29)

So, to conclude, even assuming you are right that it will take 60 years to end the present terrorism, that does not mean that there is a "war", only that there is a need to offer hope for personal growth and fulfillment. Once that need is fulfilled with better outcomes, the terror will die from within. To think there can be "victory" against an ideology re-enforced by cultural inadequacies is as much "magical thinking" as is the thinking of the terrorists.

[kenberg]

The cited column by Brooks refers to The True Believer, from 1951. I remember when this was a popular discussion. No doubt it is worth reading as we try to understand, but each case is different. Here is what Brooks has to say at the end:

Quote

The correct response is still the same, however. First, try to heal the social disintegration that is the seedbed of these movements. Second, offer positive inspiring causes to replace the suicidal ones. Third, mass movements are conquered when their charisma is destroyed, when they are defeated militarily and humiliated. Then they can no longer offer hope, inspiration or a plausible way out for the disaffected.

Of these three, it is difficult for us to heal social disintegration in a far away region of the world and I am not so sure how we could accomplish the second goal either. That leaves the third.

Of course this is me quoting Brooks who is in turn giving his thoughts on Hoffer's book of a half century plus ago, so we should, as always, be restrained. However I do think the psychology is important. It is surely true that it is easier to get converts to a cause that is seen as succeeding than it is to get converts to a cause that is seen as failing.

[barmar]

kenberg, on 2015-December-11, 09:52, said:

It is surely true that it is easier to get converts to a cause that is seen as succeeding than it is to get converts to a cause that is seen as failing.

Probably, although the notion of "if only we had more help we could turn the tide" can also be very attractive. As long as the movement has occasional successes (like the Paris and San Bernardino attacks), it won't be seen as hopeless.

And killing the leaders of the movement is likely to help only temporarily (while the organization regroups), and their martyrdom will probably energize the followers.

This is a VERY difficult problem -- very few traditional warfare methods apply.

[kenberg]

barmar, on 2015-December-11, 14:04, said:

Probably, although the notion of "if only we had more help we could turn the tide" can also be very attractive. As long as the movement has occasional successes (like the Paris and San Bernardino attacks), it won't be seen as hopeless.

And killing the leaders of the movement is likely to help only temporarily (while the organization regroups), and their martyrdom will probably energize the followers.

This is a VERY difficult problem -- very few traditional warfare methods apply.

I agree entirely

[hrothgar]

FWIW, if I were unlucky enough to be asked to deal with the situation in Iraq / Syria, here's what I'd do:

1. Start a serious diplomatic discussion with the Turks and explain to them that there is going to be an independent Kurdish state on the Turkish Southern border. Tell the Turks that the US is willing to assist Turkey with (voluntary) populations exchanges and other direct investment to smooth over the transition, however, Kurdistan (or whatever they want to call it) is happening.

2. Start similar discussions with the Iranians around partitioning Iraq into a Sunni state and a Shia state. I personally think that Iraq needs to be partitioned regardless, however, it might be possible to use the emergence of a Shia rump state in Iraq as a bargaining chip to get them to cut Assad loose.

Why go through all this? It's quite simple...

I don't thing that you can create genuine stability unless both the Sunni and the Shia have the opportunity to create their own destinies and, sadly, I don't think that this is possible within a multi-sectarian state. I think that the best chance for a lasting peace is giving the various sides room to build in.

In the mean time, whatever does collesque out of the Sunni regions of Iraq and Syria will have a strong Shia state to the East, a strong Kurish state to the North, and the Turks to the North West. We'll need to spend a bunch of money to support Jordan, however, that's far cheaper than another land war in Iraq.

[PassedOut]

Thanks to Trump, fringe news enters the mainstream

Quote

Alex Jones may be America’s most successful conspiracy theorist. On his website, Infowars.com, and his daily radio program heard on more than 100 stations nationwide, Jones regularly promotes a variety of ­beyond-the- fringe ideas: alleged government conspiracies in the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995 and the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001; fluoride-in-the-water health scares; suspicions that the moon landings were faked; doubts about President Obama’s place of birth and birth certificate.

Jones, in short, may be Donald Trump’s kind of guy.

The ranting radio host and the leading Republican candidate shared a microphone, and some common ground, last week in what may have been a dubious first — the first time a leading presidential candidate has been interviewed by a media figure from the far extremes. “Your reputation is amazing,” Trump assured Jones, after Jones assured Trump that most of his listeners supported his candidacy. “I will not let you down.”

I remember rolling my eyes when Karl Rove famously dismissed the "reality-based community" this way: "We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality." I shouldn't have...

[kenberg]

It is time for the Republican leadership to make two statements.

1. If Mr. Trump does not become the nominee, we release Mr. Trump from his pledge to support the party nominee. In fact we prefer that he does not.
2. If Mr. Trump should become the party nominee, we take no position on whether party members are expected to endorse him.


They could add a third statement:
3. At some point, enough is enough.

[Winstonm]

I think it is important to realize that all this national "Republican crazies" news is being created by a small fraction of the general public who are polled - voters who are registered Republican and expect to vote in the primaries - and of that small group right now 35% favor Trump. That is not a significant number of people. Why is this minority creating such special consideration when we turn on the t.v. or radio?

While the Republican Party has painted itself into a corner by having a significant wingnut base that must be mollified, the reporting of the primaries is more than an indictment of the Republican Party. I see it more of an indictment of modern journalism - passing off he said/she said contradiction as actual news, and showing poll numbers as if they were meaningful to a national election. There have always been crazies within parties, both Republican and Democratic - George Wallace comes immediately to mind - although there may be more support for crazy now than 40 years ago due to the decrease in educational standards in the US and the drop in those who can afford college. Still, the crazies are the minority.

I actually hope someone truly nutty wins the Republican nomination, as I think it would be by witnessing the results of a national election between say, Clinton vs Cruz, a good indication of how deeply goes the trouble within the U.S. I would expect a landslide akin to the demolition of Barry Goldwater by LBJ in 1964 as I still believe that the vast majority of Americans are rational beings who reject extremism, even the current crop of fanatical Republican Taliban.

[cherdano]

Winstonm, on 2015-December-12, 10:55, said:

I think it is important to realize that all this national "Republican crazies" news is being created by a small fraction of the general public who are polled - voters who are registered Republican and expect to vote in the primaries - and of that small group right now 35% favor Trump. That is not a significant number of people. Why is this minority creating such special consideration when we turn on the t.v. or radio?

Also, Europeans who sniff their nose at US democracy since someone like Trump can get this! much! support!, should be reminded of the vote share of far-right wing parties across Europe, whose appeal is similarly based mostly on anti-immigrant rhetoric (and many of whose leaders would look similar ridiculous if they were under similar scrutiny as US presidential candidates).

[barmar]

Trump's 35% is still way ahead of any of the other Republican candidates -- I think he has about a 20% lead against the next highest. So while it may not be a big number in absolute terms, that's not what matters. It's like the old joke about two hunters being chased by a bear -- to stay alive you don't have to be faster than the bear, just faster than the other hunter.

[Winstonm]

barmar, on 2015-December-12, 21:39, said:

Trump's 35% is still way ahead of any of the other Republican candidates -- I think he has about a 20% lead against the next highest. So while it may not be a big number in absolute terms, that's not what matters. It's like the old joke about two hunters being chased by a bear -- to stay alive you don't have to be faster than the bear, just faster than the other hunter.

I sincerely hope Trump is the Republican candidate as that would all but guarantee a Democratic victory.

[cherdano]

cherdano, on 2015-December-12, 13:18, said:

Also, Europeans who sniff their nose at US democracy since someone like Trump can get this! much! support!, should be reminded of the vote share of far-right wing parties across Europe, whose appeal is similarly based mostly on anti-immigrant rhetoric (and many of whose leaders would look similar ridiculous if they were under similar scrutiny as US presidential candidates).

To argue against my own point, what I find scary is not the support for Trump alone, but the support for Trump, Cruz and Carson combined.

[cherdano]

Winstonm, on 2015-December-12, 23:29, said:

I sincerely hope Trump is the Republican candidate as that would all but guarantee a Democratic victory.

I am afraid, there is little evidence for that.
http://www.realclear...inton-5491.html

[akwoo]

barmar, on 2015-December-12, 21:39, said:

Trump's 35% is still way ahead of any of the other Republican candidates -- I think he has about a 20% lead against the next highest. So while it may not be a big number in absolute terms, that's not what matters. It's like the old joke about two hunters being chased by a bear -- to stay alive you don't have to be faster than the bear, just faster than the other hunter.

This isn't true because the primaries are NOT run on a plurality system. Each congressional district elects delegates (plus there are some statewide delegates), and these delegates are proportionally allocated among the vote getters above some threshold, with a bonus going to first (and sometimes second and third) place according to some formula. If no one gets a MAJORITY of the delegates, the delegates continue to vote over and over again at the convention until someone secures a majority. While delegates are required to vote for whomever they were elected to vote for on the first ballot, they can change their minds (usually according to various deals made) afterwards.

I don't know the formula (and the Republicans and Democrats use different formulas), but my impression is that first place at 35% across all congressional districts is just barely enough to get you a majority of the delegates. Needless to say, Trump's support is not that even; no one's is.

Given there is no way Trump would win the nomination in a brokered convention, he would have to pick up significant support as candidates drop out in order to win the Republican nomination.

[hrothgar]

akwoo, on 2015-December-13, 04:33, said:

This isn't true because the primaries are NOT run on a plurality system. Each congressional district elects delegates (plus there are some statewide delegates), and these delegates are proportionally allocated among the vote getters above some threshold, with a bonus going to first (and sometimes second and third) place according to some formula.

Many states do use "winner take all" primaries.

I believe that there is a relationship between the date of the primary and the option to use a winner takes all format.
(Early primaries need to use proportional allocations. Later ones do no)

[Winstonm]

cherdano, on 2015-December-13, 03:07, said:

To argue against my own point, what I find scary is not the support for Trump alone, but the support for Trump, Cruz and Carson combined.

Yes, I find that chilling myself. The most moderate of the candidates in my estimation is John Kasich, and his candidacy is going nowhere.

[awm]

Only about 25% of American votes participate in Republican primaries. Even the total vote for Cruz + Carson + Trump is only around 15% of total US voters right now. This is less than the share of the vote that far right parties get in a lot of European parliamentary systems.

The one thing that's a bit scary in US politics is that we're a two-party system and party allegiance and tribalism run very strong these days. So if Trump gets the nomination, it's likely that he will receive most of the Republican vote in the general (i.e. "sane" Republicans who vote against Trump in the primary will still fall in line behind him for the general). This gets him close enough to winning that a last-minute scandal for the democratic candidate or a minor economic downturn (often blamed, rightly or wrongly, on the president's party) could win him the presidency.

[kenberg]

Brought to mind by Adam's post:

I have been thinking a bit about people who are not all that fond of Trump, but voting for him if he is the nominee. Let's take a person who does not much care about Mexicans or Syrian refugees one way or the other. He is not adamantly opposed to immigration, he simply does not see why he should much worry about what happens to a Syrian who is in conflict with other Syrians. He is not out there screaming for Trump. Democrats need to be thinking of how to persuade this person to vote their way. Looking at the make up of the House and the Senate, I would say the plan needs some work.

My gut reaction to Trump is that I find him repulsive. If he totally changed his political views, as I gather he does from time to time, I would still find him repulsive. But that's a different matter.