Readers Notes -- Geography is Destiny

In comments to my previous notes I mentioned that reader Arthur's comments provided me with a segue to my next post. Which this is.

I believe I saw Tim Marshall's book Prisoners of Geography: Ten Maps That Explain Everything About the World (Amazon link) linked in an Instapundit post.

It should come as no surprise to anyone that has studied military tactics that geography has a controlling factor on what you do, and how you do it. It therefore follows that geography has an impact on your application of Operational Art, and of your strategy, not to mention of what used to be referred to a your "Grand Strategy", but in this less-poetically inclined age we simply refer to as "Foreign Policy"; in other words, "geo-politics" is more than just a word.

British journalist Tim Marshall attempts in this book to lay out the geographic causes behind how nations have developed, and fallen.  As the sub-title says, he lays out 10 maps of significant nations or regions to be studied, one chapter each. This analysis addresses current issues in international geopolitics as well as "how we got here."

He starts with China, then moves on to Russia and the USA; he then looks at regions: Europe, the Middle East, Africa, South America, the Indian sub-continent, northeast Asia, and finally, the Arctic.

He describes, for example, how geography (including climate, topography and hydrology) impacted the development of Mexico as contrasted to the United States.

There are few earth-shattering (heh) revelations here for the student of history, especially of military history, at least, not when examining well-studied eras and campaigns. But few westerners have an appreciation of how, for example, African geography constrained the development of civilizations and societies beyond the tribal/village level, and even now prevents most nations there from taking full advantage of the potential available to them.

So I believe that this book will have some useful information to anyone, and might serve as a primer for students with an interest in why nations make the decisions they do, but it is far from an in-depth study.

I will note, on the other hand, that at a certain level it is typical of books that address current events in that in only 3 years, some (much?) of the commentary is already obsolete. For example, he mentions that Obama's Iran deal has dissolved fears of an Iranian nuclear attack.

On the gripping hand, I did see some examples where the author's reasoning was a bit, well, facile. As an American, I am used to the subtle sneers and jibes of Europeans who shrug off anything we do in a sort of  "Well, you know, Americans. AmIright?" way. But Marshal spends a lot of time explaining why Mexico did not grow into the socio-economic powerhouse that the USA did, implying that the United States sort of fell into the jackpot, easily and undeservedly, while poor Mexico got stuck with the North American booby prize.

But the only reason Mexico did not inherit an empire that covered all of North America is that the Spanish Empire's interest in the New World was primarily as a source for the gold that would allow Spain to conquer and maintain a European empire: All that gold was pissed away in the Netherlands, the English Channel, and Italy.

Consider an alternate universe, where Spain saw the Great Plains as an opportunity for colonization for more than just extractive reasons. Where Spanish trappers paid Native Americans for furs, instead of complaining impotently while gringos took them directly, trapping the mountains almost bare of beaver in the process. Where instead of inviting American settlement in Texas as a buffer between Mexico and Comancheria, Spain found loyal subjects who would take on that challenge. But Spain didn't find any subjects who were interested in settling on the frontier, they were interested either in milking the New World for all they could get, or in converting the natives -- and it is questionable just how serious they were about saving native souls.

Whereas Americans were not just interested in settling on the frontier, they were downright insistent that they had a right to and would do so even when their own government said they didn't and couldn't. And, oh by the way, it wasn't all that easy. Europeans, amiright?

In other words, while geography shapes strategy and policy, so does culture. Geography also has an impact on culture, but culture has an impact beyond just "a people who arise in such-and-such terrain will be characterized thus-and-so."

Having spotted these issues in the chapter on the United States, I couldn't help wonder if I was missing similar issues in the other chapters.

Mind you, I'm not saying it ruined the book for me; far from it. The analyses of how geography has and will continue to impact national-level policy and strategy were, IMHO, spot on.

So this book is recommended, just be prepared for an occasional jolt as you think "Did he really write that?" or "THAT statement didn't age well!"


Here is the Amazon blurb:

Maps have a mysterious hold over us. Whether ancient, crumbling parchments or generated by Google, maps tell us things we want to know, not only about our current location or where we are going but about the world in general. And yet, when it comes to geo-politics, much of what we are told is generated by analysts and other experts who have neglected to refer to a map of the place in question.

All leaders of nations are constrained by geography. In “one of the best books about geopolitics” (The Evening Standard), now updated to include 2016 geopolitical developments, journalist Tim Marshall examines Russia, China, the US, Latin America, the Middle East, Africa, Europe, Japan, Korea, and Greenland and the Arctic—their weather, seas, mountains, rivers, deserts, and borders—to provide a context often missing from our political reportage: how the physical characteristics of these countries affect their strengths and vulnerabilities and the decisions made by their leaders.

Offering “a fresh way of looking at maps” (The New York Times Book Review), Marshall explains the complex geo-political strategies that shape the globe. Why is Putin so obsessed with Crimea? Why was the US destined to become a global superpower? Why does China’s power base continue to expand? Why is Tibet destined to lose its autonomy? Why will Europe never be united? The answers are geographical. “In an ever more complex, chaotic, and interlinked world, Prisoners of Geography is a concise and useful primer on geopolitics” (Newsweek) and a critical guide to one of the major determining factors in world affairs.

Free To Choose...

Friedman would be laughing his ass off, or taking up arms, one or the other...

How does removing a requirement to purchase a thing, "or else", deprive people who WANT to purchase the thing, of the thing?
Doesn't matter whether you replace "thing" with "widget", "candy bar", or "health insurance", people who WANT TO can still purchase it.

— Drang (@DWDrang) November 19, 2017

I mean, I get that progressives are too invested in their ideology to even acknowledge the question.*

And socialists of all stripes would probably say that asking the question is racist, classist, sexist, and a dozen other "ists" I can't even think of right now.

But the fact remains that no one has proposed banning health insurance, nor even  repealing the law that makes it a crime to refuse someone emergency care because they can't afford to pay for it.

They're just proposing that the government cease forcing people to spend money on something they don't want.

Remember, ultimately, any government requirement is backed up by someone with a gun.

BTW, if Obamacare was so great,

• Why does anyone have to be forced to buy it?
• Why do I know so many people with serious medical conditions and no health care?

* Ignoring the obvious question, how many of them are smart enough to even recognize the logical fallacy?

James Comey Should Resign

That is all.

Who thought that anyway?

Lately I've been perusing items on the website of Foreign Policy magazine. Sure, there's a lot of furriners and commies there, but think of it as my version of Tamara watching the Sunday morning talk shows. Living on the Left Coast as I do, especially now when I get home from work after midnight, pressure testing my cardio-vascular system watching the talking heads pontificate is i practical, to say the least.

So when I saw an article called Foreign Policy: Obama Was Not a Realist President, subtitled "If he had been, he might have avoided some of his biggest foreign-policy mistakes", my first thought was "No shit, Sherlock."

Realist? Abandoning Iraq, ditto Afghanistan, sucking up to Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood and Putin, bowing to royalty all over the place, insulting long-standing allies and friends to play footsie with enemies...

Who the hell could think Obama is a realist, foreign policy or otherwise?

Well, it turns out paragraph four givs us a clue: The kind of guy who can write about Obama in these terms:

But first, what will Obama’s legacy likely be? My view, for what it’s worth, is that future historians will rate Obama highly. He will be remembered for being America’s first nonwhite president, of course, and for conducting his office with dignity, grace, and diligence. His administration was blissfully scandal-free, and he didn’t make a lot of hasty decisions that turned out badly. He was admirably thick-skinned and charitable toward most of his critics, despite the abuse and thinly veiled racism he faced from some of them. And no matter who wins in November, he is likely to look mighty good by comparison.

 "Dignity, grace, and diligence"? It is to laugh! (And of course, the item is replete with cheap shots at Republicans in Congress...)

My guess is that Stephen M. Walt's business cards read

Stephen M. Walt

Partisan Hack

Toady

Sycophancy A Specialty!

"We don't let reality effect our views!"

It'll totally work this time, now the right people are in charge!

Obama administration pushes banks to make home loans to people with weaker credit - The Washington Post


h/t Tam 

This has to be The Onion, right? Right?

Obama's gun control executive order directs Pentagon to make firearms safer, not more lethal - Washington Times

{I}n President Obama’s first foray into small-arms procurement for the armed forces, his Jan. 4 executive order on gun control directs the Pentagon to find ways to make not so much more lethal firearms, but safer ones.

Noting that Abraham Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt, and John F. Kennedy all expressed personal interest in the Army's issue rifles, Retired Major General Robert Scales told the Washington Times that

“Presidential involvement in small arms has been strategic and game-changing in our history,” said Mr. Scales, a former commandant of the U.S. Army War College. “Obama comes along and tells the Army that, in this administration, money is going into small arms to build — not a deadly weapon, not an effective weapon, not a dominant weapon, not a lifesaving weapon, not a technological cutting-edge weapon — but a weapon that prevents accidental discharge. Give me a break.”

Mr. Obama, who has made reducing gun violence and increasing gun control a top priority, signed a Jan. 4 order that directs the Defense Department, as well as the Departments of Justice and Homeland Security, to “Increase research and development efforts.”

A White House fact sheet states: “The Presidential Memorandum directs the departments to conduct or sponsor research into gun safety technology that would reduce the frequency of accidental discharge or unauthorized use of firearms, and improve the tracing of lost or stolen guns. Within 90 days, these agencies must prepare a report outlining a research-and-development strategy designed to expedite the real-world deployment of such technology for use in practice.”

 Because "smart gun" technology is obviously of primary interest to the war fighters. 

Actually, a smart gun would be great for a solider -- as long as it was used to automatically calculate range, hold-over, cross-winds, maybe selection of proper ammunition...

One would think...

...that the owner's manual for an automobile would include information like what replacement windshield wipers it takes, and how to replace them, would one not?

If one drives a hand-me-down* Dodge product, one would be wrong.

Thanks, Obamamobile!

***
*I expressed my distaste for buying an Obamamobile, but Mrs. Drang was convinced she needed a car that size.
Note that several years later she went to a Ford Fiesta.
That reminds me, I think I'll check out the owner's manual on that thing...

"Andrew Jackson is mad as hell, and he’s not going to take it anymore."

(Minor edits for typos.)
Walter Russel Mead on Jacksonianism in today's politics: Andrew Jackson, Revenant - The American Interest.

It's no surprise that Obama hates Jacksonians; this is the clearest explanation of that. Maybe it took the guy who first wrote about Jacksonianism* to state it so clearly.

The hate and the disdain don’t spring from anything as trivial as pique. Historically, Jacksonian America has been the enemy of many of what President Obama, rightly, sees as some of America’s most important advances. Jacksonian sentiment embraces a concept of the United States as a folk community and, over time, that folk community was generally construed as whites only. Lynch law and Jim Crow were manifestations of Jacksonian communalism, and there are few examples of race, religious or ethnic prejudice in which Jacksonian America hasn’t indulged. Jacksonians have come a long way on race, but they will never move far enough and fast enough for liberal opinion; liberals are moving too, and are becoming angrier and more exacting regardless of Jacksonian progress.

Just as bad, in the view of the President and his allies, Jacksonians don’t have much respect for the educated and the credentialed. Like William F. Buckley, they would rather be governed by the first 100 names in the phonebook than by the Harvard faculty. They loathe the interfering busybodies of the progressive state, believe that government (except for the police and the military) is a necessary evil, think most ‘experts’ and university professors are no smarter or wiser than other people. and feel only contempt for the gender theorists and the social justice warriors of the contemporary classroom.

Virtually everything about progressive politics today is about liquidating the Jacksonian influence in American life. From immigration policy, touted as ending the era when American whites were the population of the United States, to gun policy and to regulatory policy, President Obama and his coalition aim to crush what Jacksonians love, empower what they fear, and exalt what they hate.

*And the other schools of American political philosophy, Jeffersonianism, Hamiltonianism, and Wilsonians, in Special Providence.

Mike Rowe Speaks

He does that a lot, of course, because that's what he gets paid for.

Mike Rowe on expanded/universal background checks for firearms purchases.

• #‎When‬There’sAHoleInYourNet, you don’t need a bigger net; you need a smaller hole.
• #WhenYourFoundationIsShaky, you don’t keep building on top of it, you knock it down and start over.

The "Separation of Powers Restoration and Second Amendment Protection" acts

Full Title

A bill to provide that any executive action that infringes on the powers and duties of Congress under section 8 of article I of the Constitution of the United States or on the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States has no force or effect, and to prohibit the use of funds for certain purposes.

Separation of Powers Restoration and Second Amendment Protection Act (H.R. 4321) - GovTrack.us
and
Separation of Powers Restoration and Second Amendment Protection Act (S. 2434) - GovTrack.us

GovTrack says the two bills are identical.

It also says that HR4321 has a 1% chance of being enacted, and that S2434 has a 20% chance. These percentages are based strictly on "how many bill that made it 'that far' in the process were passed." (I.e, S2434 has been "reported out of committee", and about 1 in 4 bills that reach that stage are passed.)

S2434 is sponsored by Rand Paul and only has one co-sponsor; HR4321 is sponsored by Marlin Stutzman (R, IN-3) and has two co-sponsors. Generally speaking, the more co-sponsors the better the chances.

Write your congressional representatives. I say that knowing that writing my own legiscritters* is an exercise composition, and most likely will only result in my getting a letter from an aide on another issue entirely (assuming the aide hs been trained not to explain to the silly proles why they should let the adults talk), but if you don't play, etc., etc.


*Somewhat unfair, actually, as my Representative, Adam Smith, has gotten decent grades from NRA in the past. Not A+s, to be sure, but not too bad for a D from an urban area.

An interesting -- and scary -- read (Times two)

The Intelligence Lessons of San Bernardino | | Observer

While the importance of metadata to American counterterrorism will continue to be a hot-button topic, the disastrous effect of the Snowden affair and its political aftershocks on our intelligence agencies is not up for debate. Neither is the fact, as attested to by several Western intelligence chiefs, that Snowden’s leaks have made terrorists more careful in their communications, and therefore more difficult to intercept. Just as bad, several top secret NSA programs, beyond metadata, that assisted counterterrorism have been downscaled since 2013 out of fears they may “look bad” if leaked.

“Before Snowden we had a definite bias for action,” explained a senior NSA official with extensive experience in counterterrorism. “But now we all wonder how the White House will react if this winds up in the newspapers.” “It’s all legal,” the official added, “the lawyers have approved, and boy do we have lots of lawyers – but will Obama throw us under the bus again?”

That concern is widespread in American counterterrorism circles, where the Obama administration’s worries about appearing “Islamophobic” are well known. This White House early on warned intelligence personnel about using the term “Islamic terrorism” even in classified reports that would never be released to the public. “Since 2009 we’ve opened investigations of groups we knew to be harmless,” explained a Pentagon counterterrorism official, “they weren’t Muslims, and we needed some ‘balance’ in case the White House asked if we were ‘profiling’ potential terrorists.”

 Edited to add: Administration nixed probe into Southern California jihadists | TheHill

We had these two groups in our sights; if the investigation had continued and additional links been identified and dots connected, we might have given advance warning of the terrorist attack in San Bernardino. The combination of Farook’s involvement with the Dar Al Uloom Al Islamiyah Mosque and Malik’s attendance at al-Huda would have indicated, at minimum, an urgent need for comprehensive screening. It could also have led to denial of Malik’s K-1 visa or possibly gotten Farook placed on the No Fly list.

But after more than six months of research and tracking; over 1,200 law enforcement actions and more than 300 terrorists identified; and a commendation for our efforts; DHS shut down the investigation at the request of the Department of State and DHS’ own Civil Rights and Civil Liberties Division. They claimed that since the Islamist groups in question were not Specially Designated Terrorist Organizations (SDTOs) tracking individuals related to these groups was a violation of the travelers’ civil liberties. These were almost exclusively foreign nationals: When were they granted the civil rights and liberties of American citizens?

Worse still, the administration then went back and erased the dots we were diligently connecting. Even as DHS closed my investigation, I knew that data I was looking at could prove significant to future counterterror efforts and tried to prevent the information from being lost to law enforcement. In 2013, I met with the DHS Inspector General in coordination with several members of Congress to attempt to warn the American people’s elected representatives about the threat.

In retaliation, DHS and the Department of Justice subjected me to a series of investigations and adverse actions, including one by that same Inspector General. None of them showed any wrongdoing; they seemed aimed at stopping me from blowing the whistle on this problem. Earlier this year, I was finally able to honorably retire from government and I’m now taking my story to the American people as a warning.

Point Of Order!

People keep saying that the San Bernardino terrorists' AR15s were purchased legally, and then illegally modified.

The modifications WERE illegal, but the ARs were pruchased as part of a starw sale:
San Bernardino shooter used friend to dodge gun check, may have planned larger attack, sources say - LA Times

...one of the shooters in last week’s massacre at a San Bernardino social services center, asked a friend to buy two rifles used in the attack so he could dodge a federal background check and also may have been planning an even larger assault, according to government sources familiar with the ever-widening investigation.

One of the sources said Thursday that {dirtbag who's name I will not repeat} wanted to make sure “the guns were not tied back to him” when he asked Enrique Marquez to make the purchases at a Southern California gun store in 2011 or 2012. {DwnIwnr} feared he “wouldn’t pass a background check” if he attempted to acquire the military-style rifles on his own, the source said.

Gee, illegal activity facilitated terrorism.Who'd'u thunk it?

Not that I expect this fact to penetrate the hate-filled, bigoted skulls of those engaged in the "Let's Ban Guns!" blooddance.

WSJ OpEd: "The Liberal Theology of Gun Control"

The Liberal Theology of Gun Control - WSJ, (by William McGurn.)

...while the critiques of the president’s antigun pitch are correct, they are also beside the point. Because liberal calls for gun control aren’t about keeping guns from bad guys. It’s what you talk about so you don’t have to talk about the reality of Islamist terror. And focusing on the weaponry is part of a liberal argument that dates to the Cold War, when calls for arms control were likewise used to avoid addressing the ugly reality of communism.

Understand this, and you understand why Senate Democrats reacted to San Bernardino by putting forth antigun legislation. Why the New York Times ran a gun control editorial on its front page, and the Daily News used its own cover to feature the National Rifle Association’s Wayne LaPierre underneath San Bernardino killer Syed Farook—labeling them both terrorists. And why President Obama used Sunday night’s address to whine about those resisting his call for gun measures that would not have stopped any of the shooters.

Put simply, today’s liberalism cannot deal with the reality of evil. So liberals inveigh against the instruments the evil use rather than the evil that motivates them.

As always, you can get to a Wall Street Journal article without paying to go behind the paywall by Googling the article title: The Liberal Theology of Gun Control.

NRA Responds to The Emperor's Speech

The Emperor's Speech

So, I looked at the transcript of His Imperial Majesty, Barack Hussein Obama's speech.

For anyone else who couldn't be bothered to tune in his blather -- unless they were waiting to see if he was going to pull a Heidi on Sunday Night Football -- I herewith provide the TL;DR version:

1. We shall continue our current, highly successful strategy in the war on terror.
2. The No Fly List we all hated 10 years ago for it's secretive nature and lack of due process would be just dandy if we added "can't lawfully own a gun" to "can't take a commercial flight."
3. If Congress doesn't act to restrict the right of law-abiding Americans to own certain guns we think are icky then they're a bunch of poopy-heads.

The Blood Dance

Or: What Do Progressives Do When The Narrative Collapses?

QOTD worthy, from Tamara:

Today show is wall-to-wall "workplace violence mass shooting"as they cut off the legs of jihad to fit it into the Procrustean bed of the gun control narrative.

Meanwhile, as Tamara and Bobbi both also address, the definition of "mass shooting" has been redefined again, to now mean "four people shot, not necessarily killed." Because now they can claim "more mass shootings than days in 2015!" Ignoring the reality that most of these involve gang bangers, usually of the same (non-European) ethnic background, and quite frequently many are winged but few are killed.

Naturally, His Imperial Majesty Barack Hussein Obama, in Paris to deal with the number one existential threat to modern civilization(anthropogenic climate change, in case you missed it) got up on his hind legs, ran his suck, and once again made the claim that "these things don"t happen in other coutnries." 

In Paris.

Three weeks after ISIS slaughtered over a hundred.

The French press, apparently, called him an asshole. (Although I'm not as confident of that translation as the person reporting it is. Then again, insults and swear words often just sound silly, not insulting, in translation...)

Meanwhile, this seems to have been planned: Couple Kept Tight Lid on Plans for San Bernardino Shooting - The New York Times, although the Noo Yawk Slimes still insists a motive is unknown...

A good article: Obama’s inconsistent claim on the ‘frequency’ of mass shootings in the U.S. compared to other countries - The Washington Post

Blood dance in 3, 2...

Obama denounces gun violence after latest deadly shooting - Yahoo News

Of course he did. Apparently, in a news conference with his daughters.

He also claims that the shooter was armed with an "assault rifle", although no other sources have said so, and renewed claims of a "national epidemic of gun violence", even though violent crime is lower than it's been in decades.

Also, I suppose another guns and ammo drouth is about to his the gun stores.

Defense Authorization bill was signed Wednesday

I can't help thinking it's a trap.

S. 1356, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 (Opens a .pdf, all 584 pages of it.)

Military.com reports that they have finally passed a "blended" retirement program. When I was getting ready to retire, it was being reported that the Pentagon was resisting calls to include the Uniformed Services in the government's IRA program, because it would lead to reductions in retirement pay. OTOH, this looks like it will result in some sort of payout for those who leave with less than 20 years. You get a lot of time-servers after about the 12 year mark, not sayin' I would have left earlier if I had the prospect of getting paid, but...

It also includes "language designed to stop Obama from closing the detention facilities at Naval Station Guantanamo Bay, Cuba."

Plus:

Allowing personal firearms on stateside bases — Lawmakers are requiring Defense Secretary Ash Carter to develop a plan by the end of this year that would allow stateside base commanders to decide whether to allow their service members to carry personal firearms on duty, or in areas where that is currently restricted by the military. Any such plan would not supercede local laws.

Per the NRA-ILA (which incorrectly refers to the bill as the Defense Appropriations Bill"*) also

...clarifies an exception in the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) that pertains to ammunition. Although TSCA clearly exempts “cartridges” and “shells” from the Act’s jurisdiction, radical environmental groups like the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) have for years been trying to force the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to regulate lead projectiles under the Act. ...

Section 315 of the NDAA makes explicit the clear intent of the exception, which was to conclusively remove ammunition from the scope of the TSCA. Thus, the exception now includes not just shells and cartridges but “components of shot shells and cartridges.”

 Finally, Section 1087. The NRA again:

Rounding out the list of pro-gun provisions is section 1087, which restores authorization to the Secretary of Defense to transfer to the Civilian Marksmanship Program surplus M1911 and M1911A1 .45 ACP pistols for sale to the public. The component of the CMP that dispenses the pistols would be required to obtain a federal firearms license and abide by all requirements of the Gun Control Act pertaining to licensed sales and transfers. Currently, the military has some 100,000 such pistols that it no longer needs and that are being stored as taxpayer expense. These historically-significant firearms can now be transferred to law-abiding owners at a net gain to the government’s heavily-indebted balance sheet.

 I'll take two, please.

***

*From the Military.Com article: "The legislation is only half the annual budget process for Congress. Lawmakers still need to pass a defense appropriations bill for fiscal 2016 to start new programs and acquisition plans. Congressional leaders are hopeful that can be done before Dec. 11, when a short-term budget extension expires."

Surprise, surprise

Seen on Drudge: Obama says gun control to be top issue of final year - Washington Times

President Obama hopes to make gun control the top issue of his final year in office, saying Americans aren’t more violent than other people but they “have more deadly weapons to act out their rage.”

In an interview published Tuesday in GQ magazine, Mr. Obama said easy access to guns is “the only variable” between the U.S. and other developed countries.

“The main thing that I’ve been trying to communicate over the last several of these horrific episodes is that, contrary to popular belief, Americans are not more violent than people in other developed countries,” Mr. Obama said. “But they have more deadly weapons to act out their rage.”

Later in the article, just to show how utterly clueless he is:

Mr. Obama said in his seventh year in office, he feels “looser” and more confident.

“There’s no doubt that the longer I’m in this job, the more confident I am about the decisions I’m making and more knowledgeable about the responses I can expect,” he said. “And as a consequence, you end up being looser. There’s not much I have not seen at this point, and I know what to expect, and I can anticipate more than I did before.”

#Paris, more

Mostly courtesy Instapundit, again.
The jihadis’ master plan to break us | New York Post
Good stuff there.

The Islamic State’s message is stark: Western civilization is doomed. Its last bastion, America, lacks the will for war. The infidel loves life and treats it as an endless feast. Jihadis have to ruin that feast and persuade the “infidel” to abandon this world in exchange for greater rewards in the next.

ISIS calling | Power Line
Ditto.

One {thing that stood out} was that the attacks in Paris were coordinated by a cell operating from a neighboring country*. The attackers were divided into two groups, one that was assigned to suicide missions and one that was assigned to escape. That’s not the normal M.O. and the cops are asking why the change. Several did escape. At least one got to a neighboring country. The logical conclusion is that the escapees were being saved for “the next big thing.”

‘Anonymous’ Hackers Declare War on ISIS in Video Message.
Good for them.

Lots of speculation along these lines: Next Big Future: France could commit the foreign legion to Syria and could invoke NATO Article 5 requiring joint NATO action
Which would be real interesting when Turkey has to fish or cut bait...

Also, from that article:

The revelations that at least four French citizens were involved in the attacks — three brothers and a man who lived around Chartres, about 60 miles southwest of Paris — seemed destined to exacerbate longstanding fears in France about the place of Muslim immigrants and converts in French society. 

A France-U.S. Anti-Islamist Alliance - WSJ
(To read a WSJ article without subscribing, Google the title.)

{I}magine if Paris had joined the Americans in the invasion of Iraq; the now-dominant Western narrative of that conflict might have been very different. Because of the attacks Friday, the narrative will change. The soft-power-heavy, somewhat guilty Western analysis of Islamic militancy—where the progressive-minded avoid referring to Islam in describing an antipathy that sanctifies killing—is now dead in Europe and will soon be irretrievably embarrassing across the Atlantic.

President Obama’s inability to have an adult conversation about Islam’s manifest problems with modernity, which also tore Christianity apart, have kept the West’s loudest bully pulpit from provoking contentious and entirely appropriate debates among Muslims. The advancement in the Middle East of grand modern causes—the abolition of slavery, the slow march of women’s social and political rights, the expansion of education, the brutal tug of war between secularism and religion—has always been stirred by Western thought and actions.

Having the French more vigorously in this game will help compensate for the politically correct, ahistoric timidity that has seized much of the intelligentsia in the U.S. and Britain. Trailblazers in analyzing modern Islamic fundamentalism, the French could well rescue the American left from its fixation on Islamophobia. They could provide encouragement and cover to American liberals to reflect and act without fear of being labeled Islamophobes (who are a dime a dozen on the American right and, as handmaidens of isolationism, don’t matter).

 How comforting: ISIS Has Help Desk for Terrorists Staffed Around the Clock - NBC News
I can't help but think this represents an exploitable weakness...

When you've lost Diane Feinstein: Paris attacks: Dianne Feinstein breaks with Obama, says 'ISIL is not contained' - POLITICO

***

*Belgium.