https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/iran-backed-militia-supporters-converge-on-us-embassy-in-baghdad-shouting-death-to-america/2019/12/31/93f050b2-2bb1-11ea-bffe-020c88b3f120_story.html

Hundreds of angry supporters of an Iranian-backed militia shouting "Death to America" attempted to storm the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad on Tuesday, trapping diplomats inside in response to U.S. airstrikes that killed or wounded scores of militia fighters.

Glad I'm not there, it sounds like Hell!

These are Iranian-backed protestors. Their attack on the embassy is because of Sunday's U.S. air strikes on Iranian proxies in Syria.

Unfortunately, the proxy war in Syria/Iraq/Yemen is tending in a more 'direct' direction.

https://www.voanews.com/middle-east/iraqi-protesters-attack-us-embassy-compound-baghdad

Edit: I'm wondering if the Iranian Revolutionary Guards would want to take on the Jarheads. Probably too risky, diplomacy-wise. They'd send in the street thugs to get gunned down, then get outraged over their "martyrdom" by the infidel Devil Dogs.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/31/2019 01:27PM by caffiend.

> Edit: I'm wondering if the Iranian Revolutionary
> Guards would want to take on the Jarheads.
> Probably too risky, diplomacy-wise. They'd send in
> the street thugs to get gunned down. . .

Just as the US used the Kurds in northern Syria. Virtually all wars are fought, when possible, using proxy forces.

did they died OPie ? ~

I guess you could say the Shiites hitting the fan.

;+(

I see the pictures of devastation to the embassy on TV and have questions about how this happens. An embassy is literally the sovereign territory of the guest country until the guest country is asked by their hosts to leave. Given the extreme tensions in this area, why wasn't this place fortefied in advance? I am not a military expert but it seems like the US has access to machine guns that can take out any number of people in seconds. If they have to mow-down hundreds or even thousands of people coming over the walls in to the compound, it should take only one guy with such a machine gun to stop hundreds or even thousands of aggressors. When you're in a crowd of people attacking a compound and literally everyone in front of you is getting swiftly shot in to pieces, that should stop the aggression, without allowing any damages whar-so-ever to occur to the buildings and anything else of value within the compound. So why is the place looking like the US lost the battle at their embassy? Not to be cold but there should be (if necessary) hundreds of bodys of the aggressors pile-up in front of an embassy that doesn't have any messed-up flower beds or chipped paint to the embassy grounds.

I think that the US gave Iraq back their sovereignty after taking it away from them in the war that took out Sadam Houssain. If they can't protect their guests from their own people, they're just asking for trouble.

azsteve Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I see the pictures of devastation to the embassy

It looks worse than it is. "Pictures of devastation" are clickbait, and also advance a political agenda.

> Why wasn't this place fortified in advance?

It is. Benghazi was a painful and costly lesson. The Baghdad embassy campus is 100 acres, the largest we have, and is protected by multiple perimeters of increasing security. Damage so far is to a reception building and the periphery.

> If they have to mow down thousands of people coming over the walls in to the compound,...

Just think of the optics of Tienanmen-square type of carnage in front of the US embassy.

> ...it should take only one guy with
> such a machine gun to stop hundreds or even
> thousands of aggressors.

A machine gun is a three-man weapon: gunner, feeder, ammo humper. Rambo was never part of a Marine heavy-weapons squad.

When you're in a crowd of
> people attacking a compound and literally everyone
> in front of you is getting swiftly shot in to
> pieces...

Worth noting is that after Iran shot down a drone, the military had recommended and set in motion a retaliatory strike. Trump called it off at the last moment, noting that nobody died in the drone, but the counter-strike would kill a few dozen Iranians. OTH, he immediately launched cruise missiles against Syria following a credible poison-gas attack on civilians. So stay tuned--this should get interesting.

So why is the place looking like the US
> lost the battle at their embassy?

I think a reasonable conclusion is that Iran planned this for maximum propaganda value. The "Mad Mullahs" are hurting domestically, and badly need what looks like a victory against "the great Satan."

Not to be cold but there should be (if necessary) hundreds of
> bodys of the aggressors pile-up in front of an
> embassy

The Mad Mullahs would probably relish this number of "martyrs" to advance their fanatical agenda.
>
> If they can't protect their guests from their own people,
> they're just asking for trouble.

The "mourners" were let into the supposedly safe Green Zone by Iraqi gate keepers. Who told them to do so remains to be revealed--if it ever is. Islamist funerals are often opportunities for political violence.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/01/2020 03:02PM by caffiend.

It's hard to have too much sympathy for an aggressor who enters an armed embassy grounds intent on committing violence, knowing that they will be swiftly cut down. If a few thousand of them volunteer to do that, it's a tragic loss of life. But if they volunteer to do it, knowing in advance what is in store for them, I can't see how the US soldiers who are pulling the triggers are to blame. It's more like suicide by cop. If you're surrounded by the police and you then pull a gun out and point it at the police, what follows is quite predictable, tragic, but predictable by everyone, including the guy that chooses to go out that way.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/01/2020 08:56PM by azsteve.

azsteve Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It's hard to have too much sympathy for an
> aggressor who enters an armed embassy grounds
> intent on committing violence, knowing that they
> will be swiftly cut down.

Except that nobody was cut down, swiftly or otherwise. Well, not in Baghdad, but 25 were blown away out in the desert somewhere. What we see at the embassy in Baghdad is propaganda brinkmanship. The "rioters" or "mourners" are well organized and carefully led: they knew exactly how far they wanted to go, and their subordinates went no further.

One of the Hadi al-Amiri leaders observed at the embassy attack was a White House guest in 2011 when he served as Minister of Transportation in Teheran. Speaking of Teheran, one thing missing from the equation its the financial hardships and civil unrest throughout the Islamic "Republic." As noted in my previous post, the Mad Mullahs probably sought the distraction of a great victory against "the great Satan," especially after getting two dozen of their minions blown away.

I think you are being polite using the term "guests". What "guests" are in the US with thousands of their troops?

US troops are like missionaries. They don’t need an invitation.

Iran says, "Okay - we've made our point."

They go home.

Proxy wars are a bitch.

They won't go home.

The US withdrawal from Syria enabled Iran to expand its power to that country and to install bases near Israel and other strategic places. The US is now trying to curtail Teheran's influence there even as Washington tries to destabilize Iran. In what conceivable scenario would Iran draw back to its own borders to facilitate the US efforts to bring down the state? No, Teheran will lash out, attempting to increase the pressure on the US and its allies.

Giving Iran more opportunities to lash out against sanctions: that's the natural outcome of removing a few hundred American troops and betraying the Kurds in Syria.

The danger isn't over.

We. Were. Trolled.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/01/2020 09:16PM by Beth.

Yes, they probably did go home. But I doubt they were Iranians. I'd put my money on Iraqi Shiites who, fearing Sunni power, work as an extension of Iranian power.

So like Hezbollah in Lebanon and, previously for the Americans, the Kurds in Syria.

They were members of Iranian-backed militias, hence the proxy war business.

Iran said, "Okay guys - go home for now." Some stragglers hung out, and Iran was like, "Okay, y'all - get some discipline among your ranks. Message has been sent to the US."

They left victorious.

ETA: Yes, Shiite militias.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/01/2020 09:24PM by Beth.

Meanwhile the war in Yemen will intensify and the proxies in Syria will cause more trouble.

That tragedy hasn't received enough attention. Maybe we're inured to civilian suffering.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/01/2020 09:27PM by Beth.

Preoccupied by other dramas. Then there's Hong Kong, that bastion of Western values, rule of law, and free-market economics, abandoned by its US and UK guarantors and subjected to the unchecked ambitions of a tyranny.

When the pillars sustaining global democracy and security founder, all sorts of valuable institutions begin to sink.

All international agreements are tentative, based on the balance of power. It has always been in the interests of individual Chinese leaders to accelerate the subordination of HK (and Taiwan) to Chinese rule. That is particularly true of a nationalist like Xi Jinping.

So yes, One Country Two Systems was a "lie" in the sense that China was always going to try to assert its power well before the promised 100 years. It was up to the US and the UK to provide enough support to HK to prevent China from moving early.

So now Taiwan is at stake and we all know what policies it will now consider as a substitute for a credible American commitment.

All they had to do was play nice with the world while getting their population growth under control and working on infrastructure. Meanwhile, US companies salivated at the chance to sell deodorant for two billion underarms and willing exchanged proprietary information for market entrée.

We're still waiting for Infrastructure Week. They've had Infrastructure Decades and continue to do so. One Belt One Road. No more TPP.

We've been pwnd.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/01/2020 09:59PM by Beth.

China's a long way from being a global superpower. It's power will probably equal that of the US in four or five decades, assuming no major domestic economic or political crises, but China is today little more than a great regional power.

That said, US mistakes have accelerated China's rise by two or three decades and could contribute still further to that development. Hong Kong's submission would represent a huge success for China in that regard and, conversely, a willful reduction in US influence around the world.

I bet you $5 it doesn't take that long.

Western economic and foreign policy cooperation is going straight down the tubes and I don't think it will recover in 15 years. Maybe not even 30.

While the West tries to get its collective act together, China's just chugging along and the speed of its ascendency is underestimated.

Even by you, I fear. :P

Take the bet?

Beth, I'll always take a bet from you. Win or lose, I win.

China suffers from a few major constraints. First, its economy has grown fast historically but its current deceleration will cause lots of domestic political problems. (Hence the reduction in capital adequacy ratios this week.) One thing that today should be clear to all is that domestic dramas drain a country's international power.

Second, China's economy is vulnerable. Its financial sector is fundamentally broken and allocates resources badly. These are wounds that have festered for decades and will continue to do so unless Beijing decides to address them comprehensively, which process will undermine China's economic power for years. In either case the country is hamstrung.

Third, China's soft power--its cultural influence, its credibility as an ally, the appeal of its values--lags behind not just the US and Europe but even Japan and South Korea. While the suppression of HK would accrue to China's hard power, it would undermine its international prestige--and that matters a lot when you are trying to get other countries to cooperate with you.

Fourth, military hardware is only part of military power. The USSR had massive arsenals for decades but was in fact nowhere near as powerful as it appeared. China's building lots of impressive ships and fighters and other things, but those forces are not well tested let alone well integrated. Then there are alliances and joint exercises. Through stupid policy the US has encouraged Russia, China and Iran to announce coordinated drills, but this is far from the sort of relationships the US enjoys. So the ability of Beijing to exploit its hardware will be limited for decades.

So yes, on New Year's Day 2035 we'll see where we are. The one thing I'll quibble with, however, is "$5." In 15 years that won't suffice to buy a small french fries at McDonalds. So let's wager an inflation-hedged dinner!

Naw - I think they're the most common denomination in circulation. We should be good.

Yes, I know about the USSR and their true economic position behind the Iron Curtain. I also understand why we were afraid, and despite the fact that Russia is still incredibly poor, you can never underestimate nationalistic fervor. We're seeing this being played out in real time.

So, I agree with your distinction between soft and hard power in general, but I need to stress my point that China's market is its soft power. Its political influence stems from the vast availability of cheap labor as well as its need to import vast amounts of goods that it can't produce because of how it has prioritized spending. Infrastructure.

Hell, we can't get Google to stop collecting our info, but China can get a censorship filter with very little resistance. The market is more important than American values of freedom, and Google is fighting tooth and nail to get back into China's good graces.

Don't be evil.

China is squeezing the Industrial Revolution to the rise of AI into 50-75 years. They don't need soft power. They need access.

ETA: And of course they will steal what they can.



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 01/01/2020 11:37PM by Beth.

1) It is a dictatorship (oligarchy, to be precise). The political atmosphere impedes independent, critical, creative thinking. People focus on the low-risk "virtues" of obedience and conformity; few break out with new ideas.

2) Much of China's technological growth has been based on non-Chinese (often stolen) research and development. The US is (finally!) starting to enforce restrictions on Chinese access to our STEM strengths, and Chinese advances will stagnate.

3) China is especially corrupt. This puts a great deal more "drag" on economic growth.

4) China needs us more than we need them: They have made great progress using cheap (often slave) labor and highly advantageous trade to market their goods to the West. This is, slowly, changing, and as China becomes less essential to the international supply chain, they will have greater difficulty keeping those factories busy.

IOW, China needs to sell to us; we can make those goods ourselves, or buy them from other nations anxious to develop their industrial base.

5) Because of China's previous one-child policy, they face a growing elderly population to support with fewer workers producing in the economy. And they can't just open their borders like we have.

They're making up for the dearth of women. Their aging population problem is nothing compared to ours, and they are moving away from the idea that the wife moves in with the husband's family, etc. etc. That's no longer a retirement plan even in the hinterlands.

China is working on getting the people it needs.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/01/2020 10:57PM by Beth.

Let's talk later. I need to find out what happens to Pym now that he's about to be run by Axel.

I am SO disappointed! I thought that Magnus got to where he is because he's smart. Nope. Looks like he failed up and doesn't care one bit.

You have so much to learn, still, about our dear Magnus. Get ready to be impressed, and depressed, many more times!

And remember: he's perfect. He has all the right strengths, and weaknesses, for his role in life!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/01/2020 10:57PM by Lot's Wife.

I'm having problems again with the identity of the narrator. I'm trying to let it flow and glean what the change in narration and/or audience is indicating.

This is a very, very good book. You would love Infinite Jest - but you MUST read the endnotes. IIRC, the endnotes comprise approx. a quarter of the book



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/01/2020 11:06PM by Beth.

I've considered Iran, as the old song says, to be "A Must to Avoid."

And from what I've read about Yemen, it ranks a few notches below Hell in the travel guides.

Iran is a blast to travel in. The people hate the government and love the US--opinion polls really have found greater admiration for American than any other country--so it is most definitely not a "must to avoid."

The problem is that the Iranian government is a nasty, oppressive, and dangerous entity. So while Iran itself is a great tourist destination, places that the government dislikes like Israel are substantially more dangerous.

,,

Very few terrorists in Iran, too.

That's the point. Do the vicious stuff in someone else's home.

Terror (violent oppression applied by a government) is the domestic practice. Terrorism is the export product. Quite a few demonstrators have been locked up, tortured and raped.

"Same difference," as they say.

> Terror (violent oppression applied by a
> government) is the domestic practice. Terrorism is
> the export product.

So stable countries that enforce the rule of law domestically never employ terrorism abroad?

“Very few terrorists in Iran, too”

But plenty of crazy drivers. They have some of the worst traffic on Earth.

I would rather the operation had gone to the Devil Dogs (oh, how un-halal!), but the drone got the job done.

It's a hydra. I'm not shedding any tears for Soleimani. What happens now...I can't speculate. If Iran is anything like any other country that rallies around the flag when attacked, say goodbye to bottom-up protests of the current regime and hello to a hardening and emboldening of extremist positions.

I'm not optimistic.

And if I've strayed too far into the political, apologies. I'm not rah rah about this because the repercussions could be...IDK. Our act was symbolic more than anything else. Yes, an evil man is dead. The response to his death...we might rue the day.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/03/2020 12:06AM by Beth.

We are thinking the same Beth.

Let's think about the context.

US policy for a long time was to contain Iran and its ally, Syria, while using the Kurds to isolate and degrade ISIS. Washington then changed its policy to apply intense pressure to Iran. But what was the goal of that pressure? The American government has said that regime change is the goal, and Iran has no way out. So US policy is basically, "Iranian government, die." For some reason the Iranian government is unwilling to accede to that plan.

Meanwhile the US abandoned the Kurds, which can't contain Syria or the remnants of ISIS, and then withdrew most US forces from Syria. The effect of that was to hand that country to Iran and Russia. Iran followed up, predictably, by establishing bases in Syria from whence to attack US allies and US forces if and when it wants. Washington might find that upsetting, but one wonders what alternative Iran had given that the US doesn't want any deal short of the collapse of the government.

Then Washington attacks the bases in Syria that American policy had just handed to Iran. Would a government in Teheran that has its back to the wall tolerate that? Of course not. So Iran decided to deliver a message. It could have killed dozens of US troops or blown up the embassy (its agents were, after all, on the the embassy grounds) but chose a more moderate attack: break windows, burn stuff, but don't kill anyone. The message was, "hey, US, you have forces and diplomats in our neighborhood and we can hit them anytime we want." It was a warning.

Now the US has escalated the conflict sharply. Iran has already, through the message it conveyed with the embassy attack, explained what it will do: some form of attack on US interests somewhere in the Middle East, interests that are too numerous to be defended simultaneously. The US may well react aggressively, and war might ensue, but does Iran have any alternative given that US policy is to destroy the Iranian government?

A basic principle of geopolitics is that if you pressure an enemy, you must be prepared for war. The only way to avoid that is to offer the enemy a way out of its dilemma. But since the US has not offered an exit, Iran has no alternative but to fight for its survival. This fact is a direct result of US policy, a curious policy for a government that promised to withdraw US forces from the Middle East.

This is how wars start. It is how the US grows more deeply enmired in regional conflicts.