The Case for Radical Non-intervention

The USA and coalition forces have been bombing Daesh/ISIL (which we prefer to call them so as not to inadvertently profane the name of the Goddess) for over two years now. And Russia has been bombing them for about a whole year now.  And yet they still seem to be spreading, even though they are clearly on the losing side in the long run.   After the first few weeks of bombing in August/September 2014, the fight basically became a stalemate which lasted until Russia started their airstrikes in Syria, tipping the balance against Daesh once more.  But the ongoing Syrian civil war unfortunately shows no signs of abating after five and a half years.  And the latest cease-fire has broken down within a week.

The hawks such as Donald Chump have been, unsurprisingly, repeatedly calling for an escalation of this war.   Clearly, we are already fighting fire with gasoline, and those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.  In fact, it was our very own own meddling and warmongering that caused Daesh to become a problem in the first place!  First, we invaded and destabilized Iraq in an unnecessary war for oil and empire based on false pretenses, creating a power vacuum when we removed Saddam Hussein.  Then we disbanded their military, leaving thousands of men who were programmed for war with nothing to do and nowhere to go.  Then, we installed a puppet dictator, Nouri al-Maliki, that further divided the already fractured country, alienating the Sunnis and driving them even further towards radicalism.  Then, when faced with the Arab Spring, we armed and funded questionable male "rebels" (who eventually turned traitor) in the hopes of removing Assad from power--kinda like we did with Gaddafi in Libya.  And as they say, the rest was history.  Gee, what did we think would happen?

But here is a better idea--let's NOT give Daesh the "holy war" they so desperately want.  In fact, Tom Englehardt (Tom Dispatch) and Peter van Buren have the best idea of all--quick withdrawal, after getting them where it really hurts by taking out their OIL.  Such targets--wellheads and oil trucks, and makeshift refineries--are not at all hard to find, and are fairly easy to take out from the air.  And put diplomatic and economic pressure on Turkey and other so-called "allies" to stem the flow of Daesh oil as well.  Because oil is their primary source of funding, and removing that will cause them to quickly collapse of their own weight, and when they are seen as a failure then few would want to join them.  And once we take it out, then GTFO and let Daesh fall on their own sword.

I and the TSAP agree with that idea, and we would also like to add to that.  Before withdrawing, we should give every *Woman* over there an AK-47 and tell them to take over their country and mow down anyone who stands in their way. Let Allah sort it out. Problem solved. But of course, the mostly-male powers that be would not be too keen on that idea. After all, they wouldn't want women in THIS country getting any ideas, now would they?  (Of course, I believe that women must take over the world in order to save it, so that wouldn't really be a bad idea)  Honestly, it is certainly a much better idea than arming questionable male "rebels" who end up turning traitor--something that America has learned the hard way.

And lest anyone raise the specter of the Rwanda genocide in 1994 when the issue of radical non-intervention is proposed, allow me to remind the reader that while that was a horrible atrocity to say the least, we should remember what happened afterwards.  After so many men killed each other, the country became 70% female.  And combined with the shock of what had happened, and resolving "never again", the Women there basically took over.  Today, they are the only country with a female majority in parliament, and they are well on their way to becoming a Matriarchy.  As for the ongoing civil war in Congo, which was instigated at least partly as revenge for the Rwanda genocide, the Women there might just wanna take a page from the history of Liberia in terms of how they ended their 14-year civil war over there, Lysistrata-style.  Vive la femme!  Vive le difference!

Would A Sex Strike Actually Work?

What do Liberia, South Sudan, Kenya, Colombia, the Philippines, and Ancient Greece have in common?  All of these societies contain at least one example in their history of Women going on sex strike (i.e. withholding sex from men until their collective demands are met) and typically achieving success as a result, often in a matter of weeks or less.   These actions were generally done to bring an end to otherwise intractable and prolonged wars and violence, most notably the Peloponnesian War in Ancient Greece as noted in the famous play Lysistrata.  In Liberia, a modern-day example, it brought an end to their country's 14-year long civil war and ushered in their first female president, Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf.

But what about the longest war in history, i.e. the War on Women?  Also known as "patriarchy" to make it sound nicer, this system is currently self-destructing as we speak, but can its demise be accelerated with a sex strike perhaps?  Would Women be able to take over the world more quickly and readily that way?   Pat Ravasio of Buckyworld seems to think so.  While I have long been rather skeptical of the idea myself, after suspending my disbelief I began to realize that this probably would have a chance at working wonders.  As the aformentioned historical examples have shown, men's demand for sex appears to be relatively "inelastic", that is, even a large increase in the "cost" of sex (which by definition would rise significantly during a massive shortage such as a sex strike) would not affect demand very much, at least in the short run.  While men don't have a higher sex drive than Women (if anything, Women have a higher sex drive), for men there is a much greater sense of urgency thanks to all of that testosterone, and thus men will typically "cave" first.  Thus, men would do whatever it takes to end the shortage/strike and regain easier access, including cleaning up their act and meeting the demands of the Women on strike.  (Women often forget just how much power they really have!)  And while the grand scale of the task of ending patriarchy may be more daunting than the historical examples of using sex strikes to end local conflicts, at this point in history it certainly appears to be worth the old college try.  Even with less than 100% participation, if enough Women go on strike (especially the wives of powerful men in high places), the effects would nonetheless be huge.

So the answer to the question is most likely yes.  That said, it usually takes an enormous amount of provocation to get a critical mass of Women on board for something like that, since Women clearly have needs as well.  But given how so many men are lashing out these days as the patriarchy is now in its death throes, it probably won't take all that much more provocation to end up crossing that critical threshold.  Thus, I would not be shocked if The Big One happens within a few years.