i just want to weigh in with an update on the iraq/syria thing. i've been focusing on recording and paying minimal attention, i'm more just updating the narrative.

it remains clear that isis is a saudi-backed group that is destabilizing the region for strategic purposes. so, why is america bombing them, then? it's a way into syria, and maybe you've already seen somebody suggest this.

the state narrative is hard to actually believe. first, the iraqi army abandons it's positions, conveniently allowing isis to take all the weapons. then, they turn the weapons on the heavily american-aligned kurds, which makes no sense at all. now the americans can intervene to save the kurds yet again...

i have no idea what the extent of the actual damage on the ground actually is, but i suspect it's probably fairly restricted. for the americans to actively bomb a group that is this close to the saudis would signal a historic severing of ties with a nation that has enormous leverage over them. if this were the actual truth, obama would be insane - and he is not insane, he is the public face of a very carefully planned military strategy that's had to make some adjustments due to failing to remove assad from office.

the americans continue to push for maliki's ouster, and i would expect instability with this group in iraq to continue until that goal is met. when this happens, the fighting will spill over the border into syria. it may also conveniently find it's way into iran. this is the pretext they're constructing to reverse public backlash.

this is the same narrative i've been explaining for a year, with the difference being that i did not think that obama would attack isis; i'm not at all convinced that he actually did....