Save Kobani, Remember Ibn Khaldun

Before the Syrian civil war, 400,000 people lived in, and around the Kurdish city of Kobani. The region is now mostly under Islamic State, aka “Caliphate”, ISIL, Daech, control. Hundreds of villages around have been evacuated. The Turkish border is along the city, just to the north. An estimated 180,000 from the region fled to Turkey in recent weeks. But many civilians are still stuck inside Kobani.

Defenders have only light weapons. The Islamists used bigger and better weapons, such as infantry hiding behind and around modern tanks.

Turkish tanks have been staying just outside, but have not intervened yet.

Erdogan, the new Turkish president (and strongman of Turkey) knows that its Western Allies, in Europe and NATO, wants him to order its tanks to roll inside Syria, and kill the Islamists.

Kurds inside Turkey have been furious against Erdogan’s inaction and demonstrated violently. More than a dozen died, just in one night. The Kurds know that Ankara fears and dislikes them: naturally Armenia and Kurdistan, nations which are several times older than Ottoman Turkey, ought to be made into free states recognized by the United Nations. Ankara, in that way, is similar to Putin’s Kremlin.

Thus Erdogan, all too happy to find an excuse to let a lot of Kurds die, does not want to intervene, he says, as long as its Western Allies do not formally establish a “No Fly” zone over Northern Syria. He claims to be afraid that Assad’s Air Force will intervene (Turkey has only heavy F16s not necessarily capable against more recent Russian fighters).

Hypocritically the USA claims that Erdogan is an hypocrite, because he should have noticed there is a de facto “No Fly” zone over Northern Syria. But, of course, Erdogan wins that one: he wants a FORMAL declaration, just to MAKE SURE.

For Erdogan to decide to use his army to help the Kurds is a huge decision, smacking of a near contradiction. For Washington, “No Fly” is just a signature on an order.

Erdogan is also peeved that he is asked to send ground forces officially and massively, into combat, while its Allies crow that they would not do such a thing, on a matter of principle (although the Western Allies do officially have “advisers” on the ground).

The question is this: If the USA and company are proud of refusing to fight on the ground, claiming that’s Politically Correct, why would they expect Turkey to do any differently?

The latest airstrikes were spectacular, they looked like mini nukes. And they may well work. And Kobani, were many Kurdish civilians are apparently still stuck, maybe saved. And it better be (although Erdogan announced it will fall, and so did some of its Allies).

However, moral superiority is where winning a war is at.

Moral superiority starts with moral coherence. So don’t ask the Turkish army to do the dirty work, while claiming urbi et orbi, that it is not Politically Correct, to do said dirty work.

The Tunisian born historian and philosopher Ibn Khaldun (1332-1406 CE), comes to the rescue here, to explain what is going on. Khaldun was from an upper class political and judicial Arab family who had just been expelled from Andalusia by the Reconquista.

This to say that his cultural background was rich, as is often the case with superior thinkers.

Ibn Khaldun explained his way, and correctly the growth of plutocracy (he nearly said what I said). He also disserted at length on the nature of (some) empires.

Basically Khaldun said empires were about peace (this is certainly true for the large empires which lasted long. Here is an example: before the Goths stormed the core of the Greco-Roman empire, around 250 CE, the region had known 300 years of Pax Romana).

Thus, says Ibn Khaldun, the empire becomes so peaceful inside, that it is forced to recruit barbarians, outside, to defend it. Certainly, the Greco-Roman empire switched to that model after Princeps Augustus decided he was best defended by devoted, and very well paid, German troops.

Ibn Khaldun no doubt had the vivid example of the Muslim plutocrats in Spain calling to the rescue savages from Africa such as the Almoravides; I mentioned in “Walls Of Common Lies” that the ferocity of the Almoravides explains much of the bad moods that arose later in Europe, against, well, Islamists.

Ibn Khaldun thought that the high point of a civilization entails a period of decay (from the growth of a luxury economy, something I rephrase as the growth of plutocracy). The next cohesive group that conquers the diminishing civilization comes from the barbarians who were asked to defend it.

Then Khaldun says the barbarians then become refined, repeating the cycle; this is no doubt the story of the Muslim empire.

However, Khaldun’s cycles do not apply to Europe. Yes, indeed, the Franks became more refined: some Roman lawyers wrote in Latin a law for the Franks, a Lex Sallica, and Roman generals (starting with Constantine), incorporated them as the elite of the Roman army.

Yet, the Franks did not repeat the cycle… As they have clung to power ever since: all the present Western regimes descend from the Frankish empire (except for Russia’s Putin, and it shows; right, he is not really Western).

How did the Franks not repeat the cycle? By staying sufficiently barbarian; by cutting regularly, by force, the growth of plutocracy (hence the French passion for revolution). Equality under inheritance and near-equality in gender (and thus near equality in the inheritance of women… Although not as much as in Sparta), led to constant wars among factions, and wealthy, powerful families, thus preventing the growth of full blown plutocracy (that took nearly a millennium to blossom… And was soon under threat of multiple revolutions).

By the Fourth Century, the Franks fought their wars by themselves, and for themselves (although the French used a majority of German and Polish forces in the ill fated attack on Moscow in 1812, and then again, more successfully, massive amounts of African troops in the Twentieth Century against Prussian racist fascism… Including my own dad).

What Ibn Khaldun did not say was that the peace inside a vast empire is not just a benefit (as it sure was in Rome, or China, or India). Torpor inside was also a plutocratic trick to put to sleep an increasingly subjugated population.

When the West asks Turkey to send ground troops while refusing to send its own, it is therefore engaged in a plutocratic trick so old, that Ibn Khaldun already had described it, black on white, more than 6 centuries ago. It’s already bad enough that the Kurds are asked to fight with inferior weapons.

There is nothing wrong, but everything good, to fight the Islamists to death. And if it causes dormant cells and sympathizers to engage in terrorism, so much the better: being terrorized of irking terrorists is exactly how terrorism works.

And if fighting plutocrats in the Middle Earth makes Western youth impatient to fight those plutocrats who rule at home, that will be an even more striking progress.

Wanting to crush infamy, is an absolute good. Infamous is the belief that it does not matter what happens to children who live a few hours away. Protecting children is an absolute good. Protecting children, even other people’s children, carries  primordial moral weight.

Patrice Ayme’

Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

17 Responses to “Save Kobani, Remember Ibn Khaldun”

  1. ianmillerblog Says:

    My view, which i have mentioned more than once elsewhere, is that while bombing is nice and safe, especially when you only bomb those who have no air defences, you cannot win that way against determined opposition. You can kill, you can destroy, but short of turning the area into glass, you merely make the opposition more determined. Only infantry can control ground areas, and if the US, Europe, whatever, are not going to send in infantry, it is asking too much to require someone else to do so.

    A minor point: from what we hear of Gnaeus Domitius Corbulo, the fabled Roman discipline was alive and well some time after Augustus, and the Roman army seemed to remain as effective during the Flavians. The rot did set in later when they had to hire barbarians, and with that went the discipline, and with the loss of discipline, so went the effectiveness of the legion.


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Augustus gave the bad example by hiring German bodyguards/soldiers around him. Suppose Obama hired a French Secret Service. Or better: Russian. Or like Deng Tsiao Ping, some Triads… More later, got to run


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Bombing worked very well for Hitler, 1936-1939. If nothing else, he perfected the art of bombing to great tactical and strategic advantage (Guernica terror, was, by itself, a strategic advantage!!!!!).

      If the British and French Air Force had been training playing tennis with Hitler, 1936-1939, they would not have been as surprised, disorganized, inappropriate and pathetic in May 1940. With a bit of training, they would have overwhelmed the Luftwaffe in 1940.

      Bombing in Syria and Iraq, if nothing else, prepares the Allied Air Forces to fight the slow world war Putin can’t resist 9although he may, now that he sees force rising… ;-)!)

      What the USA, France, UK, ought to do is to send Special Forces to Kobani’s hell, effective immediately, inform the world, and shut off Erdogan that way… The USA tried to recover hostages with Special Forces last summer, but they had moved.

      Announcing No Fly is just an announcement away.


      • ianmillerblog Says:

        Yes, bombing worked well for Hitler but in those periods it was tactical bombing, to support rapidly moving panzer units supported by infantry. The US bombing in Syria/Iraq is not comparable because the mechanised infantry and armour are missing.

        Part of the reason Augustus hired Germans as bodyguards is he did not trust those around him. Julius was a bad example, getting assassinated, and for that matter, quite a few other Princeps were too. There were at least four attempts on Gaius Julius Caesar II, and he only lasted four years. Tiberius apparently refused to have bodyguards near him at many times, believing they were more a risk than no bodyguards.


        • Patrice Ayme Says:

          I look at the ISIL/Caliphate propaganda videos, and I see infantry moving with tanks. The tanks are widely separated, because the bombs the US and French are using are gigantic (are they fuel explosive?)

          The guys outside are in Jihad garb (good black and white camouflage), the crews inside are old soldiers from Saddam’s army (it is said).

          The Rafales and the Americans have been picking on individual armor and vehicles, one by one.

          Agreed about the bodyguards. Tiberius stayed mainly in Capri, and did not show up in Rome for, like, ever. He let Sejanus poison his sons calmly, and discovered that, 15 years later, or so. Then he showed up.

          BTW, no more than 30 or so were executed under Tiberius (mostly on Senate orders, and mostly because of the Sejanus conspiracy, thus fully justified), showing that a horrid dictatorship does not need to be bloody.


  2. ianmillerblog Says:

    oops – forgot to click the “notify”.


  3. Patrice Ayme Says:

    [Sent to RSN]

    Yes Bush was a chief terrorist. Yes, it’s ridiculous to fear ISIS in the USA.

    It’s even collaborating with ISIS, to fear ISIS in the USA.

    However, yes, ISIS is a problem. There.

    Wanting to crush infamy, is an absolute good. Infamous is the belief that it does not matter what happens to children who live a few hours away. Protecting children is an absolute good. Protecting children, even other people’s children, carries primordial moral weight.


  4. dominique deux Says:

    The Turkish request for a NFZ is well justified on military grounds – and exposes how daft it is to rely on outdated US hardware.

    It should be recalled that the latest NFZ in the area hs been a criminal sham. Under US Gen Schwartzkopf and UK Gen De La Billière, it was engineered to allow full access to Turkish Air Force strikes on civilian Kurdish villages, AND Iraqi helicopters for the same purpose. Its only real purpose was to provoke Iraqi ground AA defences into reacting to Allied incursions (radar illumination), and flattening them forthwith in justification of the invasion to come, while allowing Saddam to slaughter Kurds. France left in disgust.

    “General Schwartzkopf, leading the coalition delegation [which met Iraqi commanders on 3 March], appeared to have little interest in the civil unrest engulfing southern Iraq. In fact he explicitly agreed, to the surprise of the Iraqi commanders, that Iraq could fly military helicopters – but not fighters or bombers – in areas where there were no coalition forces. This effectively allowed Iraq to use helicopter gunships, along with artillery and ground forces, to crush the rebellions.[11]

    General Sir Peter de la Billière, who commanded the British element of the coalition forces, defended the decision to allow Iraqi forces to use helicopters. Without a trace of irony he said: ‘The Iraqis were responsible for establishing law and order. You could not administer the country without using the helicopters”.”

    This should be kept in mind in drawing up a NFZ’s mandate and ROE, but is no excuse for further procrastination.


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Agreed to all you say Dominique. You know history well. I was disgusted to.
      Erdogan cannot afford to lose one plane or one tank in these conditions, I agree. For me to agree with Erdogan, the situation has got to be real abysmal!

      If Obama is smart he would send special forces in Kobani, establish an official NFZ, get Erdogan’s tanks to sweep around, and destroy lots of Jihadists.


  5. EugenR Says:

    you wrote; Ibn Khaldun thought that the high point of a civilization entails a period of decay (from the growth of a luxury economy, something I rephrase as the growth of plutocracy). The next cohesive group that conquers the diminishing civilization comes from the barbarians who were asked to defend it.

    Then Khaldun says the barbarians then become refined, repeating the cycle; this is no doubt the story of the Muslim empire.

    ………Then you say…..

    How did the Franks not repeat the cycle? By staying sufficiently barbarian; by cutting regularly, by force, the growth of plutocracy (hence the French passion for revolution).


    By the Fourth Century, the Franks fought their wars by themselves, and for themselves ….

    My question is, what about the Frankish (French) policy to import “barbarians” to make all the dirty jobs and and by doing so they created a whole new segment in society, that culturally seems to oppose all what has become “Frankish” after WWII, meaning, Democracy, Liberalism, freedom of thought and expression, etc. Add to it the culture of low economic productivity, this new cultural segments in the society are characterized with, that leave them on the pay-list of the Frank states, and you have on the political stage similar scenario to the barbarian invasion into the Roman empire.

    By the way The Franks were not the only barbarians invited to Rome to protect it. The Saxons were invited to Brittany, Vandals to Spain and then to North Africa, even the Visigoths were at first invited to Easter Roman territories, then starved and attacked by the the Romans in so fullish way that they lost an improbable but decisive battle. Then many other “tribes” came without to be invited. All this desperate African and Arab boat people, who as contrary to the “Franks” in Europe, have no peace, no luxury, and sometime not even food, don’t do the same to Europe, what the half starved barbarians did to the Roman Empire?


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Dear Eugen: First I embrace here the history of the Franks, and that’s, by including the directly descendant regimes, 18 centuries of history. Present day Germans, French, Italians, English, Dutch, even Austrians and Catalans, or even Poles and Hungarians, are all descendant regimes… Of the Franks. Just a fact. New Zealand is mostly Frankish in temperament, indeed.

      And the USA, of course. The USA used against the Natives methods invented under Charlemagne!

      That will come as a shock to most, but so it is. Germany, for centuries was just “Ost Frankreich”).

      France, after say 1750, with modern contraception from Condom, saw her birth rate collapse. Immigration is how France grew, until very recent times. For a while in the 2000s, ALL European demographic growth was due to France.

      “Low economic productivity”? Up to very recently the French were very productive, per hour, even above Americans. Even the EMPLOYMENT rate at peak productive years is superior to the USA. The problem is not enough hours.

      The similar scenario to the Roman empire is mostly due to the fear to criticize Islam, and confusing that superstition with a civilization, and, thus, an alternative to the Republic. It’s a philosophical, not economic, problem.

      None of the barbarians you quote were initially invited. The first massive, devastating attacks by the Franks (all the way to Africa!) and the Goths (all the way to Athens!) were around 250CE (about 120 years before Valens’s disastrous defeat at Adrianopolis, you are alluding to). The Franks were co-opted by Constantine, who had just fought them, in 310CE. The Vandals, barged in on the all-nations breakthrough of Christmas 406, galloping on the frozen Rhine, and through the Frankish defensive curtain.

      True later, Stilicho was half Vandal, and at top of the empire, but that’s another story.

      Those boat people have something in common with Goth boat people boating across the Danube. But earlier, and later entire Gothic armies had gone through.

      The present defense method of the West (destroying Qaddafi, Operation Serval, bombing ISIS/ISIL/Caliphate) is what the Romans ought to have been doing and did not: active forward defense.

      A solution is to re-establish the Western empire through Africa, even if it’s with the help of Cuba, as is presently happening in West Africa.


      • EugenR Says:

        Dear Patrice, thanks for adding details to my comment, which I couldn’t write myself due to lack of time. As to your last sentence, where you reclaim colonialism i ones years ago expressed similar opinion, viz;

        It happens ever and ever again, that whenever and whoever comes to write about the political social failure of the Arab-Muslim world instead to look inward to uncover the real obstacles preventing these countries to enter the road of modernization and creating decent social life and civil society, they look to blame someone else. The usual accused is of course the USA and Israel but never some internal political force, social reality or a despotic supporter like the formal USSR.
        Who is to be blamed that after decolonization in the fifties of last century Egypt, Syria, Iraq, Libya, Tunisia and all the rest become military dictatorships oriented on USSR. Who is to be blamed that G.A. Nasser, the most prestigious Arab leader since the times of Selahedine, the leader of Egypt, Arab world, one of the triumvirate of Third Word leaders, used his political prestige mainly to endorse international military conflicts, (and not only against Israel). Who is to be blamed that these dictators did not create some sort of liberal society that would at least educate its people and not bring Egypt to 21 century with 30% illiteracy? Who is to be blamed, that even after the collapse of USSR, when the failure of their centralized political, social and economic system of governance become so obvious that even some Sub-Saharan countries turned to democracy, in all the Arab countries the dictatorships continued as if nothing happened? Who is to be blamed that these dictatorships, let all the religious conservative political forces to be active beneath the official political leadership, while they strangled any secular God forbid liberal politically active civil society? Who is to be blamed, that to achieve political legitimacy, instead to loose their grip ofpolitical power, all these dictatorships turned to political Islam and by doing so, it even more postponed the adaptation of modern values in their countries, that are necessary to be able to run an effective political, social and economic system? Of course all the blame is on USA and its allies.

        To my opinion the Arab countries are about to divide economically into several categories.

        1.The oil reach countries like the Saudis and its satellites, will probably turn their wealth into creating a modern state. Their perspective of enjoying high income out of oil for the next 40 years, will give them enough time to make a change towards modernity. The only question is how they will be influenced by their “gast arbaiters”? (One third of the population in Saudia are foreign workers, mainly from other Muslim countries).

        2. Iraq will probably become a pro Iranian country. In the best case it will have the position of inter mediator between Iran and the rest of the world, (mainly USA).

        3. Syria, Jordan+Palestine and Egypt, due to their large population, no oil wealth and no capacity to secure descent standard of living on the short term have very limited options. The new Islamic leadership, that will emerge out of the revolution, has no tools to solve the economic misery of the population. Hard to predict to where these countries are heading to, but even harder is to believe that western style economic and political system will emerge out of this situation. Most probably they will end with some kind of dictatorship, with either military or Islamic government. The high rate of population growth in these countries, creates huge proportion of unsatisfied young population, which my turn to any ideological direction. They were already once disappointed by the military leadership of Nasser-ism, to my opinion Islam will not be more successful. Modern economy, that can secure decent standard of living for wide level of society is based on liberal values and education, the alternative to this is economic misery and political dissatisfaction. The only question is, to what direction will this boiling pot blow up.

        Since the decolonization of the third world countries, most of the Muslim and African countries got a self imposed dictator, causing only misery and grief . I wonder if to the citizens of these countries the decolonization was after all such a great idea.


        • Patrice Ayme Says:

          Dear Eugen: In my opinion, all the blame lays at the foot of Islam which imprints Arab children into the wrong moods, thoughts, ideas, ways, and means. All the pseudo-intellectuals, on their knees, offering their hands, celebrating Islam are accomplices.
          Islam is the religion, foremost of desert raiding. To know that, it’s enough to read the Qur’an. But how many have done so?

          For a compact version of this error:

          One has also to understand that, in the times of extreme power we are already into, the holocaust of most of those who live in error is not just entirely possible, but more likely than the extermination of smarties (contemplate germ warfare). So these are not small stakes.

          “Decolonization” was a disaster for most countries which were not outright rudely exploited. One all too often went from administration by a distant government to evisceration by plutocrats.

          Liked by 1 person

  6. Kevin Berger Says:

    FWIW, I’m really uncertain about what is going on with the Daesh/IS situation.
    Not about the movement itself and the need to fight it, or at the very least, contain and neutralize it so it harms the fewer people possible, but rather about the regional and international powerplays that surrounds it.
    Meaning that, AFAICT, it’s not a given that there really is any kind of serious intent to squash this nascent “islamic paradise”; this lack of will apparently is the case for Erdogan’s Turkey (much to gain from the IS, not much to loose in the immediate term), that seems to be valid with the oil theocracies as well (much to gain, though that may backfire spectacularly), and even might be true for the USA too (both for domestic and foreign policies reasons).

    So, while you’re essentially right, for the moment, I do not see a real effort to fight Daesh – the siege of Kobane being the prime example of that double-faced policy, the US and co. might indeed be impaired by the lack of ground advisers, but it looks a bit like the lackluster results of international support to the defenders may rather be an artefact of Turkish and Arab strategies, than of an actual lack of ressources.

    IE, IMHO, for the moment, too many players still see the ISIS/ISIL/IS/Daesh/whatever type of islamists as useful conduits for their particular schemes, for any actual war effort to be made against them. Am I being paranoid in thinking this?


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      No Kevin, you are not paranoid, it’s exactly what is going on, for all the reasons you said. Now you have some of the Arab plutocracies bombing those they financed a few months ago (and may still finance, in other ways). Erdogan, obviously is happy with Daesh/IS… As long as they kill and displace hundreds of thousands of Turks. And so on.

      However, it was important for France and the USA to intervene, and bomb, because this way, civilization got an advocate. Namely what happened is that now a vast coalition pretends, behind France and the USA, to care about the rule of human rights.

      It’s better than what happened in 1936 in Spain and the Rhineland (when no nation claiming to represent civilization moved: France declared she was intervening, and then did not as the Anglo-Saxons and spaghetti fascists screamed bloody murder).

      It’s also forcing Czar Putin to think twice, and the London plutocrats to think twice. If even the Qatari plutocrats are now defending Kurds… Allah knows where this will all stop. (Erdogan, BTW, likes Putin very much: they both use religion the same, and Erdogan went to Sochi to appreciate Putin and Medvedev’s palaces there.)

      So it’s a mess: we are ruled by plutocrats, but, to keep the appearance of plutocracy, they have to give us a bone: we can’t just watch as millions of Kurds get killed. Not that Daesh/IS really wants to kill millions of Kurds, but it will, if we don’t stop them. They expect us to stop them. It’s part of the negotiations. Negotiations at the level of moods. Finding out where the red lines are.


  7. Kevin Berger Says:

    Re France, there’s been a couple articles noting the very limited scopes of the bombing so far.
    France has admittedly committed its military assets with some measure of parcimony, but from what has been reported, the real issue was/is the USA running the show, and France being de facto subjected to their chain of command.
    Between the Armée de l’air not having had a deep involvement with Iraq since the mid 90’s (as per Dominique II’s reminder about the no-fly zones hypocrisy), with thus little operational knowledge of the area, and the US having the ultimate say on the choice of targets, most of the French actions apart from two bombing runs have been recon and the odd opportunity strike, with little effect.
    Not that the USA have had any serious effect neither, but that’s an another topic.

    Anyway, Iraq seems to still remain a sideshow for France, as compared to Syria…
    Being childish and petty-minded, I’d almost be tempted to say that the Anglos should clean up after themselves, what’s happening in Iraq is THEIR mess… ESPECIALLY since the “France = surrender/white flag” thing is alive and kicking, not going away for a few lifetimes, if it ever does, and that there’s been NO aggiornamento whatsoever about the why and how of Iraqi debacle; from what I read in the US internet, the mood would even rather be to revisionnism, I’d say, in the “Obama lost Iraq” or “ungrateful sandniggers” template.
    The “pot de pus” and main French preoccupation remains the Sahel and what radiates from the area IIUC, the Barkhane operation as a proof…one broad guess that I’ve seen from various online fana-milis is that the next (serious) French military move that may end up having to be made, will rather involve Lybia.
    There’s already been discreet French involvement in Southern Lybia (among Algerian and US ones too apparently), maybe the wild ass-guesses about the ultimate finality of the recent UK/France joint-amphibious manoeuvers will prove to be right after all, and there will be a “rescue Lybia” Franco-British force over there?


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Dear Kevin: Military action is much about psychology. In May 1940, a French reserve division confronted to the entire Wehrmacht broke, because of a rumor (although they had been submitted to an unnerving Hiroshima like assault of the entire Luftwaffe). At the same time, Guderians’ Nazis attacked… And would not have if they had realized they were within range of French heavy artillery which (for reasons unknown to me), did not fire. Guderian marveled at it the next day.

      Analyzing the May 1940 debacles shows that it could have turned around, several times… And did not for sheer bad luck. At some points super heavy French tanks arrived in the night, within a kilometer of the Nazi headquarters. If Guderian and company had been exterminated, the giant Nazi armored spearhead would have been decapitated. The night visitors did not detect the Nazi worthies, though, and left (the Nazis basically could not stop heavy French tanks).

      What the Rafales can do is patrol with lethal intent. They have advanced electronics to pick up individual vehicles (see Qaddafi’s demise). That disrupts completely Daesh/IS. There is no doubt individual vehicles are been picked up. I am surprised by the ineffectiveness of the US Air Force around Kobani. (Of course it could be a ruse: militarily, Kobani could become the burial ground of Daesh/IS, if Erdogan’s tanks were unleashed, while Western special forces intervened inside the city.)

      Libya’s story is very complex, as I have explained in the distant past. There are liberation movements of the original, pre-Islamist, pre-Roman, and even pre-Punic civilization (and I support them 100%). BTW, it’s not as bad as the media has it: the Libyan oil production is climbing back up (one of the causes of the downswing of oil futures: as the rise of USA oil production, plus 3 million barrels/day of new shale oil, since 2011, compensated for Libya, now there is the world is awash with too much oil…).

      Military effectiveness is best if only special forces are discreetly used (as the French just did in Kurdistan).


What do you think? Please join the debate! The simplest questions are often the deepest!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: