Sugary excerpt from Justin Gest:
Islamophobia is inherently wrong. But if that is not persuasive enough, it is also an enormous strategic mistake in the struggle against Islamic extremism.
Sugary excerpt from Justin Gest:
Islamophobia is inherently wrong. But if that is not persuasive enough, it is also an enormous strategic mistake in the struggle against Islamic extremism.
Mocking Jordan's monarch is a criminal offence liable to prosecution in a military court, but when King Abdullah of Jordan (pictured above with the French president, François Hollande) attended the demonstration on January 11th in Paris to express support for free speech in the wake of the Paris attack, some found ridicule hard to suppress. How could he march in defence of freedom of expression abroad, they asked, when he is such a serial abuser of that freedom at home? Last June he expanded the remit of an anti-terrorism law to include public criticism of the king or his allies. His spooks trawl social media for dissenting Jordanians to arrest. On December 18th the deputy leader of Jordan's branch of the Muslim Brotherhood was tried before military judges for a colourful posting denouncing Jordan's allies in the Emirates on his Facebook page. Salafi preachers declining to opine in favour of coalition attacks on Islamic State are sent back to jail. "Everyone in Jordan is assumed to be a terrorist until proven innocent," says an embittered Islamist.
Ah enfin Shlomo Sand speaks on the attacks in Paris and as almost always adds much needed perspective to the debate:
Some of the caricatures I saw in Charlie Hebdo – long before the shooting – seemed to me to be in bad taste; only a minority made me laugh. But that’s not the problem. In the majority of the magazine’s cartoons about Islam that came to my attention over the last decade, what I saw was manipulative hatred, mainly designed to appeal to its (obviously, non-Muslim) readers. I thought Charlie’s reproduction of the cartoons from the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten was deplorable. In 2006 – yes, already back then – I thought that the drawing of Mohammed wearing a bomb as a turban was a pure provocation. It wasn’t so much a caricature attacking Islamists, as a stupid reduction of Islam to terrorism; it’s a bit like identifying Judaism with money!
Some say that Charlie took on all religions indiscriminately, but what does that really mean? Certainly it did mock Christians and sometimes Jews. All the same, neither the Danish paper nor Charlie would go so far – fortunately enough – to publish a caricature presenting the prophet Moses as a crafty usurer loitering on a street corner in a kippah and tassels. It’s a good thing, indeed, that in what people today call ‘Judaeo-Christian’ civilisation it’s no longer possible to spread anti-Jewish hatred in public, like it was in the distant past. I am for freedom of expression, but at the same time I’m against racist incitement. I’ll admit that I’m happy to go along with the ban on Dieudonné publicly expressing his ‘critique’ and his ‘banter’ about Jews. However, I am absolutely opposed to him being physically assaulted, and if by chance some idiot did attack him, I would be very shocked… but then again, I wouldn’t go as far as waving a placard around bearing the words ‘Je suis Dieudonné’.
This mistake in James D. le Sueur article's on the terrorist attacks,in Paris at the Walrus irks me because it isn't innocent:
French Muslim comedian Dieudonné M’bala M’bala—who already had established himself as a controversial figure—now faces up to seven years in prison for using Facebook to declare his apparent solidarity with the Kosher-market murderer (“Tonight, as far as I’m concerned, I feel like Charlie Coulibaly”). The arrest seemed hypocritical for a nation seeking to reaffirm its protection of speech—even highly irreverent speech.
Dieudonné isn't Muslin and is as French as Sarkozy. Thus, I wonder why his frenchness is always questioned when both his brand of 'humor' and his antisemitism are very French!
Great stuff from Alexander Stille's must-read on Free speech in France:
Although the French are in no mood for compromise at the moment, they might want to reflect on the fact that America’s Muslim minority, which is free to wear headscarves or not, is far more integrated into American life than France’s. The immediate response in France to the recent massacre has been more forcefully to push its “our way or the highway” form of assimilation, which has, frankly, not been working. This past week, when the French school system enforced a minute of silence for the victims of the Charlie Hebdo attack (generally under “Je Suis Charlie” signs), incidents were reported at some seventy French schools—mostly ones with large Muslim populations—where students resisted the observance. While many French see this as siding with the terrorists over the victims, this is not necessarily so. The French state was, in fact, forcing those students to pay homage to a publication that had, in their view, mocked their religion. If it is legitimate for Charlie Hebdo to publish offensive cartoons, it must be legitimate to object, peacefully, to its doing so.
Dark times are ahead and yes, I am afraid and not optimistic!
Hollow words from the POTUS used to grandstand:
Our biggest advantage is that our Muslim populations, they feel themselves to be Americans (...)There are parts of Europe in which that’s not the case. And that’s probably the greatest danger that Europe faces…It’s important for Europe not to simply respond with a hammer and law enforcement and military approaches to these problems.
Ah I can't believe that some still believe that Obama gets the world because he claimed to be a citizen of the world!
Sentence of the day from Jonathan Turley with whom I hate not to be able to disagree vehemently:
(...) the French government just rallied millions for liberty this weekend and then used the attacks to further deny free speech and privacy rights.
Hilarious stuff from Ingrid Robeyns:
In Baga, [Nigeria] world political leaders will soon gather to demonstrate in defense of freedom and against terrorism. They will mourn the loss of 20,000 Black Africans. It is expected that these events will lead to intense media exposure and public debates worldwide.
Que dire ? Aesthetics matters more than anything in politics and activism; black still isn't beautiful...enough...
I agree with Teju Cole on this:
Western societies are not, even now, the paradise of skepticism and rationalism that they believe themselves to be. The West is a variegated space, in which both freedom of thought and tightly regulated speech exist, and in which disavowals of deadly violence happen at the same time as clandestine torture. But, at moments when Western societies consider themselves under attack, the discourse is quickly dominated by an ahistorical fantasy of long-suffering serenity and fortitude in the face of provocation.
One if my core beliefs is that we are all Westerners now and that the West cannot separate itself from the rest. From that perspective, the attacks in Paris aren't solely about the ills of French society but rather a reminder that il n'y a plus de frontiéres ..
It is no longer possible for any country to behave as if the world doesn't matter. That's said they are all going to try and to act as if our age is still the one of Manifest Destiny.
Happy new year with a sugary excerpt from Tom Slater:
Art is no longer judged on its own terms. Instead it is an artist’s social responsibility, the pertinence of their work to the political and cultural concerns of the day, that matters. It’s what the novelist Howard Jacobson warned of in 2005, when, in the wake of 9/11, he was perturbed by the shallow art that was celebrated for, in some way, ‘dealing with’ the ‘war on terror’. ‘We are in a new dark age of the imagination’, he wrote. ‘(...) In 2014, the philistinism Jacobson warned of has gone a step further. Not only is socially irresponsible work ‘bad’ - apparently it’s dangerous. Fuelled by a growing contempt for the audience – a refusal to believe in their ability to grapple with nuanced, subversive or even exploitative subject matter – these cultural colonialists have decided to weaponise culture. If all people are blank slates, if we are so easily programmed by the ‘messages’ we receive, then someone should at least make sure we are getting the right kind of messages, or so the logic goes.
I agree with Paul Woodruff on this:
Torture is a sign of hubris–of the arrogant feeling that we have the power and knowledge to carry out torture properly. We don’t. The ancient Greeks knew that the antidote to hubris is reverence, a quality singularly missing in modern American life.
Provocative stuff from Judith Levine:
American campus feminists and the majority of people who write for mainstream websites are among the most privileged, the most protected, the freest people on the planet. It is unbecoming, and unproductive, to continue to cling to a sense of invincible unfreedom.
Feminism is not fragile. To borrow from Colonel Nathan R. Jessup, memorably portrayed by Jack Nicholson in A Few Good Men (1992), feminism can handle the truth, told straight. Sisterhood is powerful. Instead of devouring their own, feminists should use that power against the real enemies.
I agree with Juan Cole on this:
Criminals and gangsters should not be fetishized as “terrorists.” It is just a way for them to inflate their egos. People are violent and sadistic because they are violent and sadistic, not because they have any particular ideology.
I agree with Jonathan Hafetz on this:
(...) herein lies the Torture Report's central paradox. It is because the Senate report provides such devastating details into the Torture Program that the stakes for the rule of law are now so high. By demonstrating the depth and degree of America’s lawlessness, the Torture Program shines the light even more brightly on law’s absence in addressing the crimes of the past.
From James Meek:
The Taliban’s credibility had been low when they were driven out in 2001: they’d failed to deal with a drought, they’d mysteriously banned the cultivation of opium but not its sale, they’d built nothing for the people except madrasas, and they were operating an obnoxious system of conscription. It took the coming of the Americans and the return of the mujahedin commanders to make the Taliban look good by comparison.
Words of the day from the great Corey Robin:
There’s an entire generation of children, now grandchildren and great grandchildren, of Nazis and their fellow travelers, and they’ve all had to come to terms with the actions of their parents and grandparents.
Shallow thoughts from Ross Douthat:
Ferguson is turning into a poor exhibit for the policy causes that it’s being used to elevate. We will never know exactly what happened in the shooting of Michael Brown, but at this point the preponderance of the available evidence suggests that this case is at the very least too ambiguous, and quite possibly too exculpatory of the officer involved, to effectively illustrate a systemic indictment of police conduct. Meanwhile, while I continue to believe that the looting and vandalism in Ferguson do not, by their mere existence, prove that a full-metal-jacket police response to the protests was wise or productive — quite the reverse;
I am reminded of Donald Rumsfeld affirming during the looting in Baghdad and elsewhere during the 2003 Iraq war that freedom was untidy.
Sugary excerpt from last week's Ta-nehisi Coates must-read article on Obama and Ferguson:
Hope is what Barack Obama promised to bring, but he was promising something he could never bring. Hope is not the naiveté that would change the face on a racist system and then wash its hands of its heritage. Hope is not feel-goodism built on the belief in unicorns. Martin Luther King had hope, but it was rooted in years of study and struggle, not in looking the other way. Hope is not magical. Hope is earned.
From Jelani Cobb, one of the best thing I've read on what is happening in Ferguson, Missouri so far:
From the outset, the great difficulty has been discerning whether the authorities are driven by malevolence or incompetence. The Ferguson police let Brown’s body lie in the street for four and a half hours, an act that either reflected callous disregard for him as a human being or an inability to manage the situation. The release of Darren Wilson’s name was paired with the release of a video purportedly showing Brown stealing a box of cigarillos from a convenience store, although Ferguson police chief Tom Jackson later admitted that Wilson was unaware of the incident when he confronted the young man. (McCulloch contradicted this in his statement on the non-indictment.) Last night, McCulloch made the inscrutable choice to announce the grand jury’s decision after darkness had fallen and the crowds had amassed in the streets, factors that many felt could only increase the risk of violence. Despite the sizable police presence, few officers were positioned on the stretch of West Florissant Avenue where Brown was killed. The result was that damage to the area around the police station was sporadic and short-lived, but Brown’s neighborhood burned. This was either bad strategy or further confirmation of the unimportance of that community in the eyes of Ferguson’s authorities.
America has a central problem with race; yet, it is still waiting for a magician ( it used to be Obama) with easy solutions (beautiful slogans and speeches).
David Rothkoff on Chuck Hagel's 'resignatiom as Secretary of Defense:
But Hagel is not the problem. Sure he has been distant, spending much time on the road. But largely that was due to the fact that this administration has alienated its own Cabinet members more than any other in memory. To illustrate this, one need only recall Mark Landler's line in the New York Times about John Kerry being so disconnected from the White House that he resembled the George Clooney character from the movie Gravity, untethered and adrift. (...) No, Hagel's alienation, the tension between he and the White House, and the military leadership's burgeoning frustration with the false starts, half measures, and micro-management that have marked the administration's Iraq and Syria campaigns, are signs of much deeper problems that lie within the way the president himself operates and, from a process perspective, from the way that his National Security Council operates.
Putain, two more years!
Kudos to Fuse ODG for saying no to Bob Geldof and his silly Band Aid 30 n'importe quoi and for his stand explaining eloquently:
Let me be clear, I’m not disregarding the fact that Ebola is happening and that people need help. Since the start of the outbreak in March it has killed more than 5,000 people. But every human being deserves dignity in their suffering and the images flashed on our screens remove any remnants of this from Ebola sufferers, many in their dying moments, when they should have it the most.
I am not disputing Band Aid’s good intentions. But the shock-factor strategy they have used since the 1980s has sparked a whole wave of “good cause” organisations that have been irresponsible with regard to the images shown to the rest of the world. It’s been totally one-sided. That’s understandable in part, as they wouldn’t raise much money if they showed the affluence, wealth, and happy lifestyles that exist in the continent. But in the process of doing all this “good work” a huge imbalance has been created.
That image of poverty and famine is extremely powerful psychologically. With decades of such imagery being pumped out, the average westerner is likely to donate £2 a month or buy a charity single that gives them a nice warm fuzzy feeling; but they are much less likely to want to go on holiday to, or invest in, Africa. If you are reading this and haven’t been to Africa, ask yourself why.
From the beginning of Bonnie J. Dow's review of The Myth of Seneca Falls: Memory and the Women's Suffrage Movement, 1848-1898 by Lisa Tetrault:
When Susan B. Anthony died in 1906, so many obituaries mistakenly claimed that she had been present at the 1848 Seneca Falls Woman’s Rights Convention that the women’s columns of various newspapers later issued corrections. The Myth of Seneca Falls explains why such a widespread error was almost inevitable. Lisa Tetrault’s central argument is that the 1848 convention at Seneca Falls that Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Lucretia Mott helped to organize became “nineteenth century feminism’s watershed event” through Stanton’s and Susan B. Anthony’s retroactive decision to make it that. Their success meant that later generations of suffragists would not only come to honor Seneca Falls as the singular birthplace of woman suffrage but would assume Anthony had been there, although she and Stanton did not meet until 1851. This outcome makes clear that history differs from memory, a claim that underpins Tetrault’s investigation of the provenance of the conventional 1848-to-1920, first-wave chronology.
Another punch from Ta-nehisi Coates:
Black Republicans, with some exception, don't simply exist as people who believe in free markets and oppose abortion, but to assure white Republicans that racism no longer exists.
The problem, as always, with Coates isn't that he is right, but that he isn't wrong.
I have to say that I am more happy than ever not to be a race woman!
Sugary excerpt of Monday from Eduardo Sabrovsky:
The exploration of the idea—of the sole legitimate Kantian idea, the idea of Europe—has led us to this conclusion: albeit peculiar, this idea is a religion. We often react with scandal at the Islamic notion of Sharia, Islamic law. This is because we are blind to our own Sharia. In the best of possible worlds, we should be able to understand that our ways and mores may be, for the Islamic world, as scandalous an unacceptable as theirs usually are to us. They have their strict prohibitions, their strange bodily practices; though we may not perceive them, we surely do have ours; when we look at our bodies in the mirror, we see a human body as such; we do not perceive it as formed—and thus, de-formed—by our particular culture. So, in the best of possible worlds, we would live in our particularity and let live others live in theirs. Why don’t we?
Because 'we' disagree...
Question of the decade from Gerard N. Magliocca:
It is unprecedented in modern times for a two-term leader to be succeeded by a rival within his own party (as opposed to a loyal ally). Exactly what was the 2008 primary race about if Hillary Clinton is elected in 2016?
My answer, the 2008 democratic primary race was about guilt, cheap, empty, but incredibly savvy and commercial blackness. It made the personal political in the crassest way possible!
From Frank Furedi:
We live in a world in which children who play ‘Doctors and Nurses’ or six-year-olds who hug or kiss each other are often looked upon as sexual deviants worthy of punishment.
From Sandy Levinson:
There is no other way to read the election results than a repudiation of President Obama's style of leadership (not to mention campaign finance, etc.). Might we not be better off with at least a quasi-parliamentary system that would allow the Democrats to replace him with Biden? Cf the Tory's dismissal of Thatcher and Labour's forcing Blair out of office. Is this unfair to Obama?Sure. But politics, like life, is often unfair, and Obama has simply lost whatever charisma and mandate he once possessed. So sad, because in some ways he has been a fine president. But in too many other ways....
Ouch! Levinson is still being too nice. Obama ran for president too early. He knew how to be an outstanding presidential candidate ( à la Sarkozy) but never figured out how to be president because he was too much in love with campaigning.
What a shame! Oh well, it's almost over!
On the day of the American mid-term elections, a quote from Ian Bremmer on the American who cemented America's addiction to Hope and other sugary stimulants:
Bush is a leader who didn’t like to think (...) Obama is a thinker who doesn’t like to lead.
The sentence of Monday is from Ta-Nehisi Coates's must-read on the Charles Barkleys of the world and their need to blame 'blacks' for their own ills :
Respectability politics is, at its root, the inability to look into the cold dark void of history.
Hard to read but pertinent words from Soraya Nadia McDonald:
It wasn’t enough 13 different women accused Cosby of drugging, raping and violently assaulting them. It was only after a famous man, Buress, called him out that the possibility of Cosby becoming a television pariah became real.
I agree with Henry Farrell on this:
The truth is that not only are America’s overseas interventions problematic by themselves, but they are also increasingly undermining domestic liberties. Intelligence efforts that are supposed to be focused abroad turn out to have sweeping domestic consequences. It’s impossible to distinguish intelligence data on domestic and foreign actors. Security officials in various countries can work together across borders to circumvent and undermine domestic protections, actively helping each other to remake laws that restrict their freedom of operation. And at home, officials can use these new arrangements to work around and undermine civil rights. This commingling of domestic and international politics is complex and poorly understood.
A 'joke' from Senator Ted Cruz of Texas:
Three weeks ago a man was stopped climbing the fence of the White House (...) The Secret Service ran up to him and said ‘I’m sorry Mr President but you’ve got two more years!’
Clever and edgy but I can't bring myself to laugh...
From the Eternal Jean-Paul Sartre :
A writer who adopts political, social, or literary positions must act only with the means that are his own – that is, the written word. All the honours he may receive expose his readers to a pressure I do not consider desirable. If I sign myself “Jean-Paul Sartre” it is not the same thing as if I sign myself “Jean-Paul Sartre, Nobel Prizewinner”. The writer who accepts an honour of this kind involves as well as himself the association or institution which has honoured him. My sympathies for the Venezuelan revolutionists commit only myself, while if Jean-Paul Sartre the Nobel laureate champions the Venezuelan resistance, he also commits the entire Nobel Prize as an institution. The writer must therefore refuse to let himself be transformed into an institution, even if this occurs under the most honorable circumstances, as in the present case.
Africa, it’s said, is the mother of modern civilisation, but it’s probably more accurate to say that Congo is. Consider your mobile phone. Before it was assembled in a Chinese factory, the coltan in its capacitors may have been dug by miners in the Eastern Congo, where millions have died in a series of wars over ‘conflict minerals’, though we give this no more thought than previous generations of Westerners gave to the Congolese origins of the ivory in their piano keys, the rubber in their tyres, the copper in their bullet casings or the uranium in their bombs. The mobile phones and computers that connect us to the world also conceal our relationship to it. Some would say that’s just as well. ‘The conquest of the earth,’ Conrad wrote, ‘is not a pretty thing when you look into it too much.’
I almost agree wholeheartedly with Laura Poitras on this:
What I find disturbing and frightening about Obama is the extent to which he's advanced, normalized and institutionalized Bush policies. You have the expansion of surveillance, of course. Guantanamo's still open. We're bombing other countries. It's not that Bush responded in an emergency situation by overreaching and then we sort of dialed it back. As we know, in the second World War, we put in camps a lot of Japanese-Americans, but they were let out. We didn't keep those camps open. Yet Guantanamo's still open. There are some things that Bush put in motion that are really frightening in terms of executive power, which Obama hasn't dialed back. If he doesn't do it, that makes it harder for the next person because it becomes institutionalized.
Unlike Sierra Leone, Liberia and Guinea, the wealthier governments in Nigeria and Senegal were able quickly to impose strict measures to quarantine the ill and monitor contacts. Senegal’s response was so effective that it appears there was not a single transmission in the country, suggesting better infection controls in its hospitals than of those in America and Spain. In Nigeria, the government was quick to declare a national emergency and close schools. Health experts also highlight the fact that it channelled all resources through a single body—the Emergency Operation Centre for Ebola—which allowed for better co-ordination than that displayed in Liberia and Sierra Leone.
Sentence of the day from former director of the National Security Agency Michael Hayden:
The government needs to be strong enough to keep me safe but I don't want it so strong that it threatens my liberties.
Hayden is the new or rather old Obama. Non!
A good question from Marco d'Eramo:
The question is, how has it come about that young Europeans are no longer prepared to sacrifice themselves for humanitarian, patriotic or socialist reasons, but are for religious ones? What have we done to them to bring them to this point? What’s infuriating about the dominant discourse on Islamic fundamentalism, especially in Europe, is that it glides over structural causes and social alienation, and reduces everything to the implausible and useless category of ‘insanity and fanaticism’.
That Isis are far from insane is demonstrated by the fact that, with two public beheadings, this motley crew managed to get itself recognised as the main enemy of the world’s biggest superpower.
Great stuff as always from Chris Dillow:
(...) is it really a good idea to put power into the hands of people who are systematically irrational? Despite the fact that the collapse of the banking system in 2008 gave us a clear answer to this question, hierarchy persists. Which only confirms the success of the Establishment in creating a hyperreal economy in which evidence doesn't matter.
Sugary excerpt of the day from John Quiggin:
The trillions of dollars and thousands of lives the United States and its allies, including Australia, have spent trying to direct events in the Middle East have produced nothing but bloodshed and chaos. Rather than waiting for today’s allies to become, yet again, tomorrow’s enemies, it’s time to let the people of the region make what they can of it, with whatever assistance the usual forms of foreign aid may be able to provide. •
Good news from Philip N. Cohen:
Women’s increasing independence and men’s increasing insecurity don’t bode well for the traditional institution of marriage.
Thought-provoking and delicious stuff from Corey Robin on the Arendt/Eichmann wars :
In the beginning, when the battle first broke out after the publication of Eichmann, the main issue of contention was Arendt’s treatment of the Jewish Councils. But now that most of that generation of survivors is gone, that issue has died down.
Now the main fault line of the battle is Arendt’s treatment of Eichmann’s anti-Semitism: whether she minimized it or not. And that issue, it seems to me, is very much tied up with the fate of Israel.
After all, if the claim could be made, however vulgarly (for this was not in fact Arendt’s point at all), that Ground Zero of modern anti-Semitism was not in fact anti-Semitic, what does that tell us about the presence and persistence of anti-Semitism in the contemporary world? Again, that was not in fact Arendt’s argument, but it’s been taken that way, and I can’t help but think that one of the reasons why the focus on Eichmann’s anti-Semitism plays the role now that it does (as opposed to when the book was originally published) has something to do with the legitimation crisis that Israel is currently undergoing.
(...) it is somehow odd for a Western politician to be telling anybody, however horrible and unworthy of respect: "You don't understand your own religion, but I do..."
It is absurd to have a coalition against Isis that largely excludes those actually fighting Isis, such as the Syrian army, Iran, Hizbullah and the Syrian Kurds. Curious also that there was so little mention of Libya, where air intervention, supposedly used on humanitarian grounds, has led to a country torn apart by contending militias.
Via Jens David Ohlin, the US case for air strikes in Syria:
So the structure of the argument goes as follows. The right of response is originally Iraqi, and the U.S. right of intervention is parasitic upon the Iraqi claim. Iraq has been attacked by ISIS, thus triggering Iraq’s right of self-defense against ISIS. Furthermore, since Syria is apparently unable to adequately respond to the ISIS threat and prevent its forces from using Syria as a base of operations to launch attacks against Iraq, then Iraq is entitled to use military force against ISIS installations and forces in Syria, even without the consent of the Syrian government or authorization from the Security Council. In other words, this falls under the inherent right of self-defense that is carved out by Article 51 of the U.N. Charter as an exception to the general prohibition on the use of force contained in article 2 of the U.N. Charter. The U.S. is intervening militarily to vindicate Iraq’s self-defense interest as a case of individual or collective self-defense.
My prediction : dark times ahead for international law and more dubious and ineffective international interventions. Is it just me or isn't there more silence around Ukraine all of a sudden?
The sentence of the day is from Hannah Giorgis:
Humanity is a luxury routinely denied to black women both within media and outside it.
The issue when is comes to viewing black women as angry has more to do with the fact that they are considered to be dumb blonds no matter what they do. I wrote an article about that in 2012 titled la blondeur de la femme africaine so if you read French check it out!
I agree partly with Juan Cole on this:
The US was very good in the Cold War at containing Stalinism but very bad at defeating a guerrilla group like the Vietcong. It was the former that mattered in the end.
Unfortunately, the logic in Washington usually ratchets toward the macho and the simplistic. Obama at first admitted that the US could only degrade ISIL, not destroy it. But then on Wednesday the chorus of critics pushed him to say that his goal is eradication of the organization. But the tools he announced for his effort, including Yemen-style drone and fighter-jet attacks, were not sufficient to the task of eradication. Containment is doable. It isn’t clear that an air war is.
Obama wasn't pushed, he jumped!