The British on intelligence: a collection (SIS, MI5, GCHQ & more)

[Bob's World]

Bill, "tens of thousands of people fled" the US to Canada and other corners of the Empire to escape violence and oppression following our own revolution to throw off British government. Revolutions for self determination are never universal and are probably always very hard on those who are either comfortable with the status quo, or who see opportunity in jumping in bed with some powerful external actor coming in for reasons of their own.

It is not "revisionist history" to look at the same facts with a fresh perspective. It is revisionist history to change facts to fit the story you want to tell. Often the revisionist history is the one you defend, not the one that offends.

Pulitzer Prize winning historian James McPherson, writing for the American Historical Association, described the importance of revisionism:

The 14,000 members of this Association, however, know that revision is the lifeblood of historical scholarship. History is a continuing dialogue between the present and the past. Interpretations of the past are subject to change in response to new evidence, new questions asked of the evidence, new perspectives gained by the passage of time. There is no single, eternal, and immutable "truth" about past events and their meaning. The unending quest of historians for understanding the past—that is, "revisionism"—is what makes history vital and meaningful. Without revisionism, we might be stuck with the images of Reconstruction after the American Civil War that were conveyed by D. W. Griffith's The Birth of a Nation and Claude Bowers's The Tragic Era. Were the Gilded Age entrepreneurs "Captains of Industry" or "Robber Barons"? Without revisionist historians who have done research in new sources and asked new and nuanced questions, we would remain mired in one or another of these stereotypes. Supreme Court decisions often reflect a "revisionist" interpretation of history as well as of the Constitution.[1]

(lifted from Wikipedia, but original source here: http://www.historians.org/publicatio...ist-historians )

[Bill Moore]

Bill, "tens of thousands of people fled" the US to Canada and other corners of the Empire to escape violence and oppression following our own revolution to throw off British government. Revolutions for self determination are never universal and are probably always very hard on those who are either comfortable with the status quo, or who see opportunity in jumping in bed with some powerful external actor coming in for reasons of their own.

It is not "revisionist history" to look at the same facts with a fresh perspective. It is revisionist history to change facts to fit the story you want to tell. Often the revisionist history is the one you defend, not the one that offends.


(lifted from Wikipedia, but original source here: http://www.historians.org/publicatio...ist-historians )

I don't consider looking at facts from a different perspective revisionist history, nor do I consider the addition of new facts to existing history revisionist history.

I do consider ignoring the facts to support one's narrative as revisionist history, and ignoring the facts about the misdeeds of the communists would be an example. Even the Russians eventually rejected what Stalin stood for, and the Chinese rejected Mao (of course, due to CPC promoted revisionist history being promoted now, Mao's whitewashed image is making a come back).

The history of mankind is quite ugly. I'm not aware of any country's history that isn't stained with substantial sin. Still, if there is going to be hegemon, I suspect most people would prefer a U.S. hegemon compared to a Russian one. Keep cussing us, we're used to it, but while they cuss they still hide behind our coattails.

If we still think IS doesn't intend to harm the West, then I think we're engaging in a form of self-delusion for various reasons. We realize our missteps now during GWOT, but IS is a new breed of threat, and if we think we can mitigate it via standing off we'll be sorely disappointed. Again, the last war may have planted the seeds for the new one, but they are different wars. Ignoring it and hopes it doesn't threaten the West is appeasement. Its frustrating because there are good guys, but some bad guys are worse than others. Like we have throughout history, we'll have to make hard decisions that probably mean we'll work again with unsavory people because their the lesser of two equals. Same as it has ever been.

[OUTLAW 09]

Both Bill M and Robert while correct take different roads to the same point in the fork.

For me the fork in the road is that right now and for the first time in American foreign policy since 1946 I am as an American not exactly sure this White House and it's NSS really does understand the world around them and or far worse they are misinterpreting what they are seeing.

Example---first Murbarak, then the Arab Spring, then Morsi, then not accepting Sisi then leaving Egypt outside alliance against IS even when Egyptians are beheaded--so again exactly what is the US ME FP? First close ties to the KSA, then distance, then now basically at odds with the KSA and yet KSA is needed to counter and reign in IS---and the list just keeps going on and on and on.

For without a solid defined national strategy on anything ie IS and Russia you will never be able to support "values" "order" and or just about anything else one wants use for words.

This WH and NSS simply do not have a strategy other than riding it out till 1 Jan 2017 and after us the flood.

The Ukraine Humiliation - Putin marches over Merkel, Hollande and Obama.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-ukra...ion-1424390758 …

"high time that U.S. see the Iranian-backed Shiite militias for what they are: a supercharged, multi-headed hydra" https://foreignpolicy.com/2015/02/19...-amok-in-iraq/ …

In some aspects the ME has been at war with the US since the PLO, Black September, and PFLP days of the early 70s and actually one could go back to 1966---why does this WH not see that progression and include the IS as just part and parcel of that evolution which is slowing coming to a close for what it is--- civil society evolution nothing more nothing less and then ask the question what has the US been doing and or not doing to assist, guide or detour that "evolution".

What is telling is that when even SWJ carried the IS article what the Is Really Wants this week not much was commented on -why is that.

Why is it possible from two different media outlets with two different political mindsets to come to the same place in time and space complaining basically about the same thing.

No ideas and or strategies for just about anything---that in the 21st century is not good.

[OUTLAW 09]

Both Bill M and Robert while correct take different roads to the same point in the fork.

For me the fork in the road is that right now and for the first time in American foreign policy since 1946 I am as an American not exactly sure this White House and it's NSS really does understand the world around them and or far worse they are misinterpreting what they are seeing.

Example---first Murbarak, then the Arab Spring, then Morsi, then not accepting Sisi then leaving Egypt outside alliance against IS even when Egyptians are beheaded--so again exactly what is the US ME FP? First close ties to the KSA, then distance, then now basically at odds with the KSA and yet KSA is needed to counter and reign in IS---and the list just keeps going on and on and on.

For without a solid defined national strategy on anything ie IS and Russia you will never be able to support "values" "order" and or just about anything else one wants use for words.

This WH and NSS simply do not have a strategy other than riding it out till 1 Jan 2017 and after us the flood.

The Ukraine Humiliation - Putin marches over Merkel, Hollande and Obama.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-ukra...ion-1424390758 …

"high time that U.S. see the Iranian-backed Shiite militias for what they are: a supercharged, multi-headed hydra" https://foreignpolicy.com/2015/02/19...-amok-in-iraq/ …

In some aspects the ME has been at war with the US since the PLO, Black September, and PFLP days of the early 70s and actually one could go back to 1966---why does this WH not see that progression and include the IS as just part and parcel of that evolution which is slowing coming to a close for what it is--- civil society evolution nothing more nothing less and then ask the question what has the US been doing and or not doing to assist, guide or detour that "evolution".

What is telling is that when even SWJ carried the IS article what the Is Really Wants this week not much was commented on -why is that.

Why is it possible from two different media outlets with two different political mindsets to come to the same place in time and space complaining basically about the same thing.

No ideas and or strategies for just about anything---that in the 21st century is not good.

I have know of this individual for a number of years and while I disagree sometimes about some of this writing this time he makes some interesting points referencing IS and Russia.

Long but worth the read as it combines both problem areas and the rather weak FP of this WH.

http://20committee.com/2015/02/19/wh...est-is-losing/

[OUTLAW 09]

Part of the overall problem is the disconnect developing between the DoD and the WH/NSC.

When there is this sort of disconnect and no strategy we can argue all day over words---

NATO top military commander Breedlove did not think the truce had ever even begun. "It is a cease-fire in name only," http://www.rferl.org/content/russia-.../26858238.html …

.@Martin_Dempsey: Russia "lit a fire of ethnicity & nationalism that actually threatens to burn out of control" http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=128209 …

Chair @thejointstaff Gen. @Martin_Dempsey: Russia's actions "are threatening our NATO allies" http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=128209 … pic.twitter.com/yl5tZwHaRP

[Bob's World]

No argument that ISIS intends to do us harm. That is their express rhetoric. Death to Israel, Death to the US, etc. Of note, their express actions have been to the contrary, and have been completely focused on the creation of a Sunni Arab state out of Syria and Iraq.

I do not understand why we lose our minds over rhetoric. It has always taken the fusion of Intent, capability, capacity and opportunity for someone, or something to be a threat. So far ISIS has managed to turn a disorganized collection of revolutionary movements into a de facto state. That is impressive, but it is hardly a demonstration of the capability, capacity or opportunity to "do us harm" - at least not in a significant way.

It is not unlike if you one day stopped at a traffic light in your truck, and a small boy rolls up along side on his tricycle and yells at you to roll down your window. You do, and as you look down at this feisty character, he flips you the bird and proceeds to yell at you what a POS he thinks you are and how he is going to kick your Pu#*% A#@ if you had the sack to get out and fight him. Clearly express intent to do you harm. But I doubt you do more than mutter "whatever" and drive on. Currently as a nation we feel compelled to jump out and either engage in public chest bumping and yelling, or to actually rough the kid up. Being threatened is not the same as something being a threat.

ISIS is no longer a powerful insurgency, it is a weak state. Yes, ISIS is absolutely different than AQ in a few very important ways:

1. AQ has been, and remains a true Non-State Actor; and as such, with no infrastructure to hold at risk they are hard to target, other than in superficial ways of killing members; and they are impossible to deter. This is their greatest strength.

2. AQ is not an insurgency (other than in KSA) and they are not a state. They are a political action group that conducts a networked and distributed approach to UW. As such, they have no population and must leverage the populations of others to accomplish anything. But this also means that AQ has no duty or expectation to govern. anyone or anything.

What no one seems to be keying on, is that the "strength" that has separated ISIS from AQ is also their greatest point of vulnerability. ISIS is tied to a specific patch of dirt and a specific population. As such they are targetable and deterable. As such, they have a duty to actually govern. ISIS is vulnerable in ways that AQ has never been. But we don't take advantage of this fact.

ISIS has created a state, and they have made it a rogue state. But the population is not a rogue population, and they want that state very badly. I say recognize the state, and then bring the governance of that state into the rule of law. ISIS will need help to govern internally, and to develop effective relations externally. Quid pro quo.

As you noted, many states born of revolution start of ugly, but overtime back away from the extremes that were necessary to achieve victory. Israel is a great modern example of this, and I suspect our recognition of that terrorist state helped them to transform. Why would we not offer the Sunni Arabs of Syria and Iraq the same opportunity? We need to offer that population a politically viable option if we ever want to achieve stability in that region, and currently there is no politically viable option on the table, other than that which ISIS offers, of course.

Recognize the weak state, deal with the weak state, get on with being the US.