Breaking Up is Hard to Do

It's 2007, and we're surging ahead in Iraq, and our options are twofold: total victory-- liberal democracy, capitalism, multinational investment in Iraqi infrastructure (read: oil)--or utter defeat--cuttin' and runnin' ( kind of evokes a street thug snatching your grandmother's purse), theocracy, Muktada al-Sadr victorious, a Shia superstate with a hegemonic Iran sprinkled with Al-Qaeda Salafists in Sunni regions.

It's quite a dichotomy. Lucky for us, the reality, as it so often does, lays outside of the parameters presented to us by most in either major political party.

In The American Prospect, Flynt Leverett argues that the "best worst" option for Iraq is what he calls "soft partition". He notes that to Joe Biden's credit (and I rarely credit Biden for much except bloviating), Biden is the only Democratic presidential candidate to call for the wide degree of autonomy between the three separate regions in Iraq (that means regional control of oil resource), with the administration of Baghdad as a federal zone, policed, at least initially, by international forces, perhaps from the UN or the Arab League.

This seemingly traumatic thought---the breakup of a nation!--would in fact be the correction of a long and painful colonial misadventure by the British. It would give the Kurds the freedom they're going to take anyway. Furthermore, it would allow for the historically oppressed Shia to govern themselves, but also prevent them from exercising too much federal authority on Sunni areas, and thus oppressing their former oppressors.

Let's face it: the situation isn't getting any better, and we need to stop conforming our Iraq policy towards the creation of a fantasy state, begin pragmatically figuring out how to stem the execrable bloodletting, and begin constructing the least traumatic way towards a nominally functional Iraqi nation-state. Because it is going to be bloody, no matter what happens.

Perhaps, in an unintended irony, Condoleeza Rice was right when she called the war in Lebanon and the continued violence in Iraq the "birth pangs of a new Middle East." It looks like the Bush Administration has presided over the miscarriage of a nation.

A Message, From Hamas

From Salon:

The power struggle -- which a "government of national unity" under Hamas' prime
minister, Ismail Haniyeh, was meant to avert -- erupted with unprecedented
violence. Early in the week, Hamas militias abducted a cook from Abbas'
presidential guard and hurled him from the roof of a 15-story building. They
stormed the apartments of Fatah members with hand grenades and automatic
weapons, mowing down everyone in their path, including old women and small
children. More than 100 people were killed and 200 were wounded in the fighting.

There are a plethora of ostensibly mitigating circumstances to Hamas' belligerence, but ethics are universal, and this is haram.

The Umma and the Veil

Now, while I'm loathe to agree with Christopher Hitchens on much of anything these days, I'm hesitant to say that civilizational barriers seem to be very much in play regarding this uncomfortable news emanating from Pakistan today:

Pakistani Islamic scholars honoured Osama Bin Laden on Thursday in response to Britain's knighthood for Salman Rushdie, as a senior ruling party member said he would not hesitate to kill the novelist.

Meanwhile the country's religious affairs minister, who caused outrage by remarking that the award given to the "Satanic Verses" author justified suicide attacks, announced that he may visit Britain next month.

The Pakistani Ulema Council, a private body that claims to be the biggest of its kind in the country with 2,000 scholars, said it had given Bin Laden the title "Saifullah", or Sword of Allah, its top accolade.

So what is it: crass political retaliation for the knighting of Rushdie, or heartfelt sympathy for an indiscriminate serial murderer? Probably a little bit of both. Regardless, we should at least acknowledge that in some quarters of the Islamic world, Western notions of free speech carry little or no currency, subsumed as there are under the theological categories of what is Islamic or non-Islamic.

Thus it seems that we do, in fact, have a cultural--perhaps even civilizational--difference: a writer who ostensibly disparages Islam, and is thus handed a death sentence (a death sentence, by the way endorsed by Pakistan's Religious Affairs minister who said, in the Pakistani Parliament no less, that "I am a Muslim and then a politician and it is ordained in Islam that the punishment for a blasphemer is death. If this man comes in front of me I will definitely kill him,"), versus a murderous terrorist Salafist. Both are are handed accolades from important institutions within their own socio-cultural milieu. One traffics in ideas, the other in dead bodies.

While it is important to not stereotype a class of people according to a minorities views or actions, it is equally important to not ignore the real cultural differences that exist between some (very powerful) elements within the Islamic world and the fundamental tenets of liberal democracy.

The Bush Administration has discredited nation-building on both the Left and Right, and while the Iraq war cannot be regarded as anything but a catastrophic failure, and one that never should have occurred in the first place, the cultural differences between "the West" and the "Islamic world", are very real. It would be a great tragedy if the sophomoric, base, and militaristic approach of the Bush administration veiled the West to the world outside it.

A State of One's Own

What do we do now, in a post-Fatah Gaza Strip? In a brazenly realpolitik maneuver, the NY Times is now reporting that Israel and the United States are attempting to bolster Mahmoud Abbas and, Fatah, the same organization vilified under Yasser Arafat. This a day after that the European Union announced that, as Hamas was no longer represented in the Palestinian government, aid would resume being given to Fatah and the Palestinian Authority.

This is a strange legerdemain, given the history of Hamas. Hamas, it is well known, was funneled money by the Israeli government--Ariel Sharon himself initiated this tactic--in order to sow discord between Palestinians (commonly referred to in those days simply as "the Arabs" in order to deny them national aspirations) and prevent a cohesive national movement from forming from--and between--the Gaza Strip and the West Bank.

And now the Israeli's are victims of their own success, and Hamas has won itself a giant cage for 1 1/2 million people. The Palestinian national movement is now at a dangerous ebb, as they have turned inward, the gnawing pit of of frustration and deprivation, of roadblocks and blocked visas, turning them away from their paramount aim--statehood--to internecine blood lust.

Ironically, Hamas's takeover of Gaza has now empowered Fatah in ways that Yasser Arafat could only have dreamed of. If only he had created a shadow Islamist army first, negotiating with this kaffiyah-masked alternative lurking in the background, perhaps he would have lived to see Palestine. For the stereotype often cast upon Palestinians (and Arabs in general) that "they only understand force", seems to work doubly well on the Israeli political establishment.

Then again, the IDF could simply use the event as a security pretext for reentering Gaza and further isolating Palestinian cities in the West Bank.

It is a banality when discussing Israel and Palestine to assert how critical the present moment is. But it would be negligent for us, in this truly critical moment, to allow the shrieking invective that so often characterizes discourse on the topic to distract us from the exigencies of the situation. We need a fundamental change in U.S. policy in the region--and fast--because we may be witnessing the end of the idea of both Israel (as a democratic and Jewish state) and Palestine (as a viable state at all). And that would neither serve the fervent supporters of either, or those of us whose hearts ache for the peaceful coexistence between the two.

Bush's Unintended Doublespeak: Sad Lessons from Home and Abroad

Here's an excerpt from a speech Bush gave yesterday:

It's impossible to make sense of such violence and suffering. Those whose lives were taken did nothing to deserve their fate. They were simply in the wrong place at the wrong time. Now they're gone -- and they leave behind grieving families, and grieving classmates, and a grieving nation.

What is Bush talking about? The VA student shootings. In no way do I mean to diminish the horror of that event--we're all shocked, and that shock and anger transcends politics. But we should not let these events suspend the fact that horrors like these occur in Iraq everyday. Bush's statement applies perfectly to the daily horror that is Iraq. Not only that, but everyday these events occur, we are culpable, insofar as in democracy, a government purportedly represents the will of the people (and although we're far from a true democracy, we're still culpable in our relative laxity on the issue).

We need Bush--or someone from the American leadership, I truly don't care who, Republican or Democrat, all I want is someone to admit our role in Iraqi's suffering--that such events occur everyday there. Senseless violence. People simply in the wrong place at the wrong time. Bush admitted it when it came to a university. Now he needs to admit it when it pertains to a whole nation. America has been shocked at a single day of random horror--terror in its truest sense--now we need to admit that this terror is daily life for the Iraqi people, the vast majority of whom are innocents, and thus "It's impossible to make sense of such violence and suffering. Those whose lives were taken did nothing to deserve their fate. They were simply in the wrong place at the wrong time. Now they're gone -- and they leave behind grieving families, and grieving classmates, and a grieving nation."

Lie of the Day Award

“The bottom line is this,” Mr. Bush said. “Congress’s failure to fund our troops will mean that some of our military families could wait longer for their loved ones to return from the front lines. Others could see their loved ones headed back to war sooner than anticipated. This is unacceptable.”

Call me illogical, but isn't Congress trying to slowly end the war (too slowly for my own liking), and Bush trying to continue it in perpetuity? So how does this one work itself out?

A "Christian" Natural History

Read this. It gives new meaning to the phrase "old time religion."

Bush Suicide Bombs His Own Party

Gary Kamiya analyzes the newest Pew poll, and if I were a Republican, I'd be afraid. Or maybe I'd just start another war on false pretenses and drape everything in jingoistic hyper-patriotic language and curtail civil liberties and politicize the Justice Department hoping to extend a hegemony that was founded on divisive rhetoric and a pseudo-fascist State of Perpetual Alarm against an invisible enemy. Maybe.

Just a taste of the changing American political climate:

The most explosive statistic in the survey shows a mass exodus from the GOP -- a defection that can only be blamed on Bush and the Iraq war. In 2002, the number of people who identified as Republicans or Republican-leaning was the same as those who identified as Democrats or Democratic-leaning: 43 percent. But today, 50 percent of the public identify as Democrats or leaning that way, while only 35 percent identify as Republicans or Republican-leaning. In other words, in just five years Democrats have gone from being tied with the Republicans to holding a 15 percent lead.

You can (and should) read the whole article here.

Quote of the Day

"When you look beyond the wars initiated by the United States these past few years, and consider the suffering of people in Sudan, Rwanda, in Sierra Leone, in Cambodia, in Algeria, in Palestine, you find that neither our government nor the media pay much attention. Millions of people, many of them children, have died, or endured mutilation from land mines and cluster bombs. This is silent terrorism, but the United States has not declared war on that."

Howard Zinn, A Power Governments Cannot Suppress

Egyptian Blogger Gets 3 Year Prison Sentence

This is frightening. Even in George Bush's America, I remain thankful for the freedoms we do have:

An Egyptian appeals court on Monday confirmed a four-year jail sentence against a blogger convicted of insulting religion and defaming the president, his lawyer said.

The court in the Mediterranean city of Alexandria rejected the appeal by 22-year-old Abdel-Karim Suleiman who was sentenced last month, lawyer Gamal Eid told AFP.

"The verdict was not handed down on the basis of the law," said Eid, who is also the head of Arabic Network for Human Rights Information. "It is a religious verdict similar to those of the Inquisition."

Suleiman, who blogs under the name Karim Amer, was sentenced to three years in prison for insulting religion and a year for defaming President Hosni Mubarak after posting an entry on his blog lashing out at Cairo's Al-Azhar University - Sunni Islam's highest seat of learning.

"I say to Al-Azhar and its university and its professors and preachers who stand against anyone who thinks differently to them: 'You are destined for the rubbish bin of history, where you will find no one to cry for you, and your regime will end like others have," he wrote.

That's all it took for a three year sentence. You can read the whole article here.

'Liberal Media Bias' and 2008

Why is it that the fallacious narrative of liberal media bias persists to this day, even when the overwhelming evidence points to the opposite? A recent story in the Washington Post detailed the purported nastiness between the Obama and Hillary camps, focusing on Obama's vapid comment that Hillary is 'interesting" and Edwards is"kind of good-looking". This is the kind of vitriolic rhetoric that deserves an article? Meanwhile, a story that I haven't seen yet in the MSM is unearthed by Michael Scherer at Salon:

Unsigned e-mails have been sent to voters in South Carolina touting "dark
suspicions" about Mitt Romney's Mormon faith. Anonymous letters have shown up in mailboxes in the state calling Mike Huckabee a "Huckster" and Romney a "Say Anything" politician. A man-size dolphin, without a name or a face, appeared at a conservative conference in Washington, scoring inches of newsprint by mocking Romney. And at least one campaign has made a young woman cry. The tensions and the vitriol have appeared far earlier in the presidential cycle than in past elections, and have so far affected Republicans more than Democrats. The anonymous attacks peaked at last week's Spartanburg County Republican straw poll, an entirely unscientific sampling of party activists from South Carolina's textile country. The poll itself was little more than a gimmick to recruit precinct workers. But the proceedings became so chaotic and confrontational that Rick Beltram, the county's GOP chair,
is still fuming with frustration. "I actually told three campaigns that I have
lost your name on my Rolodex," Beltram said in a phone interview Tuesday. "Some
of the national campaigns took this whole straw poll operation way too
seriously."

So Democrats' politicking somehow shows itself as newsworthy, while Republicans are actually tearing each other to shreds, spreading--with particular irony for a party defined by the religiosity of its members--religious intolerance? GOP operatives in South Carolina have already tried to discredit Romney because of his Mormon background:

One e-mail, sent to party activists under the name "Martin W.," told voters
to "trust your instincts" about the Mormon faith because "Mitt Romney has a
family secret he doesn't want you to know." The secret, it turned out, was an
Associated Press story that described the polygamous relationships of Romney's
great-grandfather and great-great-grandfather.

Right. This is an issue of great import when choosing a presidential candidate? I am not surprised at the degraded level of discourse in the GOP primary. What I am livid about is how major media sources ignore stories that highlight the ignominy and bile in the Republican primary, but highlight whatever scraps of antagonism Hillary and Obama provide. Liberal media bias, indeed.

Marching Towards Civil War

I've grown numb to much of the news coming from Iraq, but today's events documented in the NY Times left me shocked--shocked at the rapidity of the deterioration there, at the brutal sectarianism, and at the gap between our perception of Iraq its horrifying reality. There were three distinct but interconnected events in the article that warrant discussion.

First, the attack on American forces:

In a coordinated assault on an American combat outpost north of Baghdad, suicide bombers drove three cars filled with explosives into the base today, killing two American soldiers and wounding at least 17 more, witnesses and the American military said.

The brazen and highly unusual attack, which was followed by fierce gun battles and a daring evacuation of the wounded Americans by helicopters, came on a day of violence across the country that left more than 40 people dead in shootings, suicide bombings, mortar attacks and roadside explosions.

Far from placing the roadside bombs or picking off American soldiers at night, the 'insurgents' have now graduated to plotting full-scale sieges of American Military bases. All caveats against Vietnam comparisons put aside, the insurgency we're engaged with now in Iraq is now closer to the Vietcong in terms of organization and sophistication than the picture painted to us by the Bush Administration for so many months.

The second notable piece of information in the article deals with the ongoing Balkanization of Iraq:

There is already evidence that Shiite militia leaders are either heading to strongholds in the south and, the officers said, Sunni militants are likely to adopt a similar strategy.

Military commanders believe that insurgents are congregating in ethnic strongholds across the country. But why? Because they believe that the dissipation of Iraq is occurring--not later, but now--and they are preparing for partition, much in the same way that the Indian Subcontinent saw mass migrations (some forced, some not) prior to the creation of independent India and Pakistan.

Finally, and perhaps most horrifying, is the description of mass execution of an entire family, a family plausibly fleeing towards safety:

A family of 13 was slaughtered on the road to Falluja, about 12 miles northwest of Baghdad, because they were from a tribe known to oppose the actions of Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, according to witnesses. The family, including an elderly woman and two small boys, was dragged out of an Akia minibus, lined up in the middle of the road and shot. The executions took place in full view of others on the road, where traffic was stopped, witnesses said.

The entire family was slaughtered simply because they came from a tribe that opposed Al Qaeda. They were killed in the middle of the highways. Their murderers stopped traffic so hundreds of people could watch them slaughter an entire family, including woman, children, and the elderly.

I am terrified for the innocent people in Iraq--of which there are too many to estimate--but while our presence there causes unnecessary death and suffering, there is such hatred, hatred that runs so deep, that our staying or leaving will do nothing to preclude the Tigris and Euphrates from turning red.

We should leave as soon as possible, before we compound the inevitable and unfolding atrocities of tomorrow.

Islamic Nationalism and the War on Terror

As with any rhetorical program whose ambiguity is its greatest asset, the "War On Terror" has managed to an create an imaginary homogeneous enemy through generalization (at least unto very recently, it appears that most members of Congress, let alone the general public, knew of the difference sects within Islam and the all-too-important history between them). Thus a monocultural 'Islamist' was created, as well as a worldwide Islamic community seeking to destroy our many freedoms, freedoms which are, for the most part, equally as ideological as the ones espoused by Islamism.

But then something happened: the rhetoric employed by the U.S. had the opposite of its intended effect. It served as a point of cohesion for Muslims worldwide, turning reification into reality.

Well, sort of. It wasn't a total reification. After all, a 'totalizing' concept does exist in Islam: that of the Umma, or worldwide Islamic community. But that concept's salience depends on how much national, political, economic, ethnic, and sectarian differences are emphasized at the expense of a categorical, undifferentiated Islam. as is clear from the examples of Iraq and Lebanon, the Umma is still an elusive concept. But it an idea that has nevertheless gained some currency recently:

Umma nationalism seems to be, currently, a dominant mode of thought for many Muslims, in the west as well as the Muslim world. It conceives the political world as one of confrontation between Muslims on the one side and hostile Christians, Jews and Hindus on the other. It is a variant of the "clash of civilizations". It is a totalising vision which eliminates actual politics. The complexities of Iraq or Afghanistan or Palestine/Israel, of the ethnic politics of Europe, of the struggles of Chechnya, all these are collapsed to a single dimension of religious/communal confrontation.

It faces the equally total and simplistic notion of the "war on terror". This discourse of umma nationalism seems to be widely held, not only by committed ideological or religious Muslims, but also casually by many nominal Muslims.

The great majority of Muslims probably holds these notions lightly and certainly doesn't act upon them, socially or politically. Would this, then, confirm the distinction between religion and ideology? It would in that many of those who partake of this ideology, whether casually or earnestly, may not be religiously observant. But few who are observant would eschew it.

Islamic religiosity, under current conditions, almost invariably entails an ideological vision. [my italics]

As Sami Zubaida notes, this tendency is a variant of Huntington's 'Clash of Civilizations' thesis, so in vogue in Neo/Conservative circles. I would only add, in addition to the conclusion that contemporary Islam necessary implies an ideology, that so does contemporary American Democracy--our State Religion--as interpreted by the Bush Administration. Thus these ideological perversions feed off one another, both annihilating moderation and rationality according to their own delusions, creating a conflagration that, by way off its own hunger, asphyxiates the rest of the world.

Mercenaries For Jesus

Apparently, Pat Robertson can out-huckster the best of 'em, and then threaten to ice your family:

A Texas bodybuilder suing Pat Robertson contends the religious broadcaster walked into federal court for a legal proceeding and told him: “I am going to kill you and your family.”

That's cold, Pat. Why would you say such a thing?

Busch is suing Robertson for what he says is misappropriation of his image to promote Robertson’s protein diet shake.

Robertson has been touting his “age-defying” weight-loss shake for five years on his Virginia Beach-based Christian Broadcasting Network talk show “The 700 Club,” offering the recipe free to any viewer who requested it.

Busch contacted the show in 2005, saying he had slimmed down from 400 to 200 pounds by drinking the shake. CBN showed his before-and-after photos 20 times in a promotional spot and flew Busch to Virginia Beach for a live TV interview with Robertson.

Busch says he didn’t know when he contacted CBN that Robertson recently had licensed his shake for commercial distribution by a nationwide health-food chain. He sued Robertson in September 2005, alleging that the broadcaster used his image for a commercial purpose without compensating him.

Oh, that 's why: you used someone's image illegally in order to push your silly little diet shake.

Apparently, in addition to offering a diet regime, CBN will also smite your enemies for you.

You can read the full story here.

The "War On Terrorism" Tax: Institutionalizing a Lie

Sen. Joe Lieberman has proposed that new tax be created to fund the "War on Terrorism":

Washington - An outspoken supporter of the Iraq war on Tuesday called for a new tax to pay for its astronomical cost as Congress opened a debate on President George W. Bush's $2.9 trillion budget plan for next year.Sen. Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut proposed a "war on terrorism tax" at a Senate hearing during which he said the Pentagon's $622 billion defense budget proposal for fiscal 2008 threatened to crowd out funds for domestic programs. (...) "I think we have to start thinking about a war on terrorism tax," Lieberman said during a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing on Bush's defense budget. "I mean, people keep saying we're not asking a sacrifice of anybody but our military in this war and some civilians who are working on it."

Lieberman did not provide details of his tax idea.

Let's take this very opportune moment to simply step back and ask ourselves: Is there such a thing as a "War on Terrorism"? Can wars against a tactic, a method, be fought?

I, for one, would argue no. The "War on Terrorism" is a farce, an ideological ploy, an apparition to be swatted at in lieu of Soviets. Now, before I'm dismissed as 'radical', (and therefore categorically discredited--for Chomsky is correct in saying that the 'space' of discourse in the U.S. unbelievably constricted) consider this:

(1). There is a very real threat by Islamist terrorists. These organizations are the co-production of their own domestic social/cultural/political environments, military-industrial involvement from the West, and the lingering wounds of European Imperalism. No one is blameless. Yet instead of taking a positive, but culturally self-conscious role in ameliorating the problems in the Islamic world, we have exacerbated the problem infinitely in Iraq, Israel, and Saudi Arabia (we should have never kept American soldiers in the land of Mecca and Medina).

(2). These threats are interconnected, but separate, and many times local. Islamism--the political ideology that is (are) Islamism(s)--manifests itself quite differently all over the Muslim world. Hezbollah does not equal Hamas does not equal Al Qaeda. This is quite obvious to the informed, but not so to most, as our own government has perpetrated a campaign to construct an Enemy, and make that enemy a monolith.

(3.) Al Qaeda is a serious threat to the American Republic. We know this. We knew it before 9/11. Why wasn't the response to 9/11 simply framed in these terms?

Because the Bush Administration knew that to maximize its control over the Republic, it had to frame the attacks in large-scale ideological terms, to constrict real debate in America. The American government has been doing this since the Alien and Sedition Act of 1798. Or perhaps you could ask the Rosenbergs, or Sacco and Vanzetti. Conservatives knew what a boon a shapeless, ineffable enemy could to remaking the country according to their design. So they choose themselves over the long-term health of the Republic.

But Democrats joined them in endlessly parroting the term 'War on Terror". And that parroting continues today. Shame on most of them for not having the courage--for I know many have the intellectual capacity--to challenge the term prima facie. There is no "War on Terror", and I anxiously await an elected officials admission of this.

This brings us back to Senator Lieberman's proposition for a "War on Terrorism Tax".
Taxes represent a basic component of any system of government; taxes can thus be equated with fundamental, and systemic, legitimization of whatever is being taxed. It would be to sear the "War on Terror" into the very fabric of the Republic, to turn a specious ideological device into a basic plank of the of the political system. It would be to systematize, in Gore Vidal's words, "perpetual war for perpetual peace."

No, Senator Lieberman, I not only reject your tax, but the very intangible ideological device you believe worthy of a tax. The "War on Terror" would be rotten to its very core, but it has none, for that would implicitly assume it actually exists.

Dinesh D'Souza's Heinous Thoughts

Dinesh D'Souza has released a new book entitled "The Enemy at Home: The Cultural Left and its Responsibility for 9/11." Yes, apparently it is the "cultural left" that created Islamist terrorism, not, for instance (1) dominant notions of Realpolitick wherein, say, Afghani Mujahadeen are armed and trained by President Reagan and the C.I.A. to resist the Soviets, or (2) European Imperialism that cut up the region in an often arbitrary, if not sometimes insidious fashion.

No, the Left caused 9/11. From Michiko Kakutani's evisceration of D'Souza in the NY Times:

Mr. D’Souza’s central thesis is an absurd one, constructed around two clashing arguments: 1) that the American left is allied to the Islamic radical movement to undermine the Bush White House and American foreign policy; and 2) that “the left is the primary reason for Islamic anti-Americanism as well as the anti-Americanism of other traditional cultures around the world” because “liberals defend and promote values that are controversial in America and deeply revolting to people in traditional societies, especially in the Muslim world.”

Indeed, the "Cultural Left's" beliefs of the universality of human rights, gender equality, etc., are what caused 9/11, because we project these beliefs upon others in, say, the marketplace of Ideas, instead of the through the barrel of a gun. Another gem from Kakutani:

To flesh out his theories, Mr. D’Souza tosses out lots of assertions based on false information, partial truths and unrepresentative anecdotes. For instance, he repeatedly asserts that Osama bin Laden hates America because “the cultural left has fostered a decadent American culture,” not because of United States foreign policy. He says Muslims couldn’t possibly have seen a threat to Islam in the presence of United States troops in Saudi Arabia, because the American base there “is more than five hundred miles from Islam’s holy sites”; nor could they be driven to suicide attacks by the Israeli-Palestinian situation because Israel is but “a small irritant within the vast expanse of Islamic territory.”

Talk about a state of denial. D'Souza is so blinded by ideology that he would rather blame the American Left for 9/11 than admit that an imperialist foreign policy is what largely contributed to it (but was not the sole cause) in the first place. Thus our championing of human rights causes ire in the Islamic world, not Israel/Palestine, or Abu Ghraib. Oh, and speaking of Abu Ghraib:

He writes that American prisons at Guantánamo Bay and Abu Ghraib “are comparable to the accommodations in midlevel Middle Eastern hotels” in terms of cleanliness, food and amenities, and argues that abuse at Abu Ghraib did not reflect a disregard for human rights, but rather “the sexual immodesty of liberal America.” (“Lynndie England and Charles Graner were two wretched individuals from red America who were trying to act out the fantasies of blue America.”)

It makes one wonder who's really acting out their fantasies. Oh, and as an aside--D'Souza is a visiting scholar at Stanford University. Conservative scholarship should be proud.

Congressional Hispanic Caucus Implodes

O.K., I'm enjoying the greater transparency in Government since the Democrats took over. But I'm already a little nostalgic for that Republican 'Red Wall of Silence', or at least hoped we could emulate them just a little bit in that matter. Witness this one:

Rep. Loretta Sanchez has quit the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, accusing the chairman, Rep. Joe Baca, of telling people she's a "whore."

Baca denied the charge.

In an interview with The Politico Wednesday, Sanchez, a California Democrat as is Baca, also cited concerns about whether Baca was properly elected Hispanic Caucus chairman in November and about his general attitude toward female lawmakers. The caucus represents 21 Hispanic Democrats in Congress.

"I'm not going to be a part of the CHC as long as Mr. Baca illegally holds the chair … I told them no. There's a big rift here," Sanchez said. "You treat the women like shit. I have no use for him."

Perhaps the Congressional Hispanic Caucus should get a new chairman. You can read the full story here.

Oh, and apparently its not an isolated case. Rep. Baca should really step down, or perhaps receive a healthy helping of verbal abuse from his mother.

On Alienation

Is the deep, gnawing disconnect that many of us feel a result of contemporary societal pressures, from our economic and political structures, or is it an innate feature of human experience?

It seems specious to rely on either to fully account for experience.

Buddhists claim that dukkha, which translates to suffering or dissatisfactoriness, best indicates the human condition. I would not hesitate to disagree with that analysis, but we should, for the moment, put aside metaphysics for, shall we say, an examination of our political reality. And it really is a reality of which I speak, because our structures of consciousness absorb political and economic ideologies, often subconsciously.

What is capitalism's effect on consciousness? What does consumerism do to the human animal? These are all questions that have been dealt with before, most notably by Marx, whose legitimate critiques of capitalism have been discredited by the failure of the Communist experiment. For one, it seems clear that we have truly reached an age of rabid commodification, where the value of an object is completely unrelated to it's intrinsic value, but where value and, more importantly, need is completely constructed by ubiquitous and insidious forces. Adam Smith's major axiom--find a need and fill it--has been replaced with create a need, a multiplicity of needs, and view human beings only in terms of what we can buy, and not who we are.

We are in such a state in the United States of 2007. The frightening paradox of our situation is this: while our options as consumers seems to multiply endlessly, our political options dwindle. The commodification of the economic has led, inversely, to the devaluation of the political. Our consumer choices are many, while our political options are few?

Why is that? If steadfast defenders of capitalism are so enamored with economic choice, why do so many seek to restrict political choice? They deny us fundamental choice while handing us what Rousseau called 'flower covered chains'. Contemporary America commodifies only superfluities, and not substance. It is an unthinkable inversion: human needs become wants, while wants become needs.

Which leads us back to our alienation. I cheer the recapturing of Congress by the Democratic Party, but only with a deep sense of context. It is with heaviness that I imagine a perpetual two party system with a political either/or, and, in contrast, an economics that gives nothing to life, and imagines us only in terms of our buying capacity.

This is, in the last analysis, the first step: consciousness of the ideas and ideologies that seep into our minds, and from here creativity may begin.

Jimmy Carter's True Friendship to Israel

Since the release of his book "Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid", Jimmy Carter has been called everything from ignorant and unscholastic to simply anti-Semitic.

His book is an indictment of Israel's policies towards Palestinians, but it done from the position of how to save the Jewish state, to ensure its legitimacy. If the Occupation continues, it will eventually lead to apartheid, i.e., the Jewish minority ruling a Palestinian majority in the West Bank and Gaza strip (Ariel Sharon's unilateral retreat from Gaza was done with this very salient but rarely discussed fact in mind).

In an editorial published today, prominent Israeli Knesset member Yossi Beilin dares to say what no major American politician will:

if we are to read Carter’s book for what it is, I think we would find in it an impassioned personal narrative of an American former president who is reflecting on the direction in which Israel and Palestine may be going if they fail to reach agreement soon. Somewhere down the line — and symbolically speaking, that line may be crossed the day that a minority of Jews will rule a majority of Palestinians west of the Jordan River — the destructive nature of occupation will turn Israel into a pariah state, not unlike South Africa under apartheid.

In this sense, “Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid” is a stark warning to both Israelis and Palestinians of the choice they must make. That choice is between peace and apartheid, for the absence of one may well mean the other. Carter’s choice is clearly peace, and, for all its disquieting language, the book he has written is sustained by the hope that we choose peace, as well.

America largely views itself as a Judeo-Christian nation--which is a specious claim in itself--and especially in a time where we feel highly threatened by the Muslim world (although, it should be noted, that we are self-perpetuating that threat), the Israeli/American bond remains strong. But it is a blood bond, not just one of shared roots, and while I for one would not deny Israel its pre-1967 borders, the current relationship between Israel and America is ultimately terrible for the safety of both, and the existence of Israel as a Jewish State.

Jimmy Carter has been pounded by the American press, his own Party, the Zionist Left, and the Christian Right. The intensity of the reaction to the elder statesman's book should be viewed as proportional to the task of truly 'fixing' Israel-Palestine.

For one, the powerful pro-Israel lobby in Washington categorically supports Israel's 'Right to Defend herself' which is, against all sense, carte blanche. They support Israel's right to suicide, and quite literally, as the Evangelical Christian Right supports Israel because they believe Jewish control of all of Palestine, including the West Bank and Gaza Strip, is a prerequisite for Armageddon, and the Second Coming of Jesus. When this time comes, only Christians are admitted into heaven. Thus the Zionist lobby's alliance with the pro-Israel Christian Right is, in all senses of the term, an unholy alliance. This alliance has enviable influence in both the Democratic and Republican parties.

The condemnation that Carter has received because of "Peace not Apartheid" is due to (1) his untouchability as an elder statesman, and (2) the fact that, against that claim that Carter is calling for the destruction of Israel and/or is an anti-Semite, President Carter is in fact the greatest friend the Jewish people have in America. He is trying to save Israel, just as a true friend lets you know when you've gone horribly off-track.

Do not let the hysterically uncritical masses sway you--they are hastening the end of Zionism as a historically legitimate enterprise, and it will partially be because the American people failed to hear an uncomfortable and necessary truth.

Saddam Hanging Spawns Copycats

Apparently, Saddam's hanging has spawned copycats all over the world, especially children. Is it a matter of Sunni pride? Wounded Arab Nationalism? Either way, it's not a story you're going to hear in the American press.

From Egypt's Daily Star:

CAIRO: A teenager has hanged himself in Alexandria in an apparent imitation of last month's execution of ousted Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, a security source said Saturday.

Abdullah Farag, 15, put a hood over his own head before hanging himself with a cord from one of the windows in his room on Friday, the source said.

His mother, Manal Abdullah, said she returned from a trip to the market to find her son hanging "like Saddam."

Farag was the ninth child around the world reported to have died after trying to reenact Saddam's execution. Most recently a 12-year-old died in southeastern Turkey on Jan. 8.

Saddam's hanging on Dec. 30 was broadcast by state television and a string of satellite channels around the world.

It saddens me that death always seems to spawn more of itself, perpetually.

Sen. Warner (R-VA) to Oppose Surge

What a difference in political climate a few months, and a new Majority, can make: Sen Warner is coming out in full scale opposition to the surge.

From Think Progress:

Sen. John Warner (R-VA) will introduce a resolution today "making clear that he does not support the President on increasing the troop levels in Iraq" and calling escalation "a mistake," CNN’s Dana Bash reports. Warner’s resolution will be cosponsored by Sens. Susan Collins (R-ME) and Ben Nelson (D-NE).

Warner, the former Armed Services Committee chairman, is a "very influential voice when it comes to military matters," Bash reports, and until this fall had been "whole-heartedly behind the president and the war." His new resolution "certainly...is not going to sit well with the White House." Watch it:

Warner said last week that Congress must move swiftly to address President Bush’s new strategy. "Each of us are pained by the casualties that we are taking. We cannot dither around on it." Warner’s bill is viewed as a less confrontational alternative to the Iraq resolution backed by Sens. Joe Biden (D-DE), Chuck Hagel (R-NE) and Carl Levin (D-MI).

As Think Progress mentions, Warner is an old-guard Republican, especially respected on his knowledge of military affairs. This is a big loss for the Bush Administration, because he provides a lot of cover for other Republicans to come out in public against the surge. Expect some fallout from this one.

Islamism and Bushism

While I would never claim that Islamism, the radically politicized version of Islamic ideology espoused by Osama Bin Laden and his followers, and Bushism, which in its foreign policy component commands forceful global intervention to advance U.S. interests, are anywhere near analogous--indeed, they are separated by vast socio-cultural and historical gulfs--there are some similarities that warrant analysis.

One similarity in particular demands our attention, and it derives from the theological presuppositions present for Bush as well as the Islamists. It is well known that Bush believes his position is God-given, and that he was chosen to lead the U.S. through Iraq. Indeed, Osama Bin Laden also believes his position is dictated by Allah, and thus both, although diametrically opposed, believe themselves to be in harmony with God, while the Other is fundamentally removed from God's abstruse wishes. It is as if one were a prism for other.

None of this is new; there have been enough discussions of the theological basis for both Bushism and Islamism. What I find edifying is an additional understanding derived from a category espoused by philosopher Soren Kierkegaard, that faith, true faith, requires a "teleological suspension of the ethical". By teleological he means the establishment of a pre-established purpose, a greater and final end.

For Kierkegaard, the Ethical is the Universal; that is, ethics has an objective basis, i.e., God, and we are required to follow an ethical imperative. What is difficult to comprehend, however, is that sometimes God requires, in an act of faith, for us to suspend what we know to be ethical for a Greater Good--a teleology. Thus, as Kierkegaard obsesses over, God's demand that Abraham sacrifice Isaac. Isaac had committed no crime, and Abraham was, by ethical standards, agreeing to murder his only child. This was an act antithetical to our ethical imperative.

But Abraham agreed anyhow; his faith in God was stronger than ethical objectivity--he underwent a teleological suspension of the Ethical for God. His faith was stronger than the universal prohibition against murder.

Thus we return to Bushism and Islamism. Both purport to represent a theological and political ideal, and both claim a teleological suspension of the ethical. Islamism perhaps commits the greater atrocity by its nonrecognition of the difference between soldiers and civilians in a so-called jihad, or 'Holy War". Then again, The Bush Doctrine has permitted the unnecessary death of tens of thousands of Iraqis for a strategic calculus that, in its most insidious subtlety, may include hastening the Rapture. Thus, while we should make strong distinctions between the two ideologies, we witness their similarity on the level of ideation and ontology.

We should, in fear, tremble at both.

Question and A.N.S.W.E.R.

Like many of you, I was, to say the least, shocked and awed by our president's decision--contrary to public opinion and private sense--to escalate the war in Iraq. So, with much anger and frustration, I decided that I would be among those publicly showing their hostility to the decision, and participate in a public march.

I left the march more dejected than when I arrived. My reasons for feeling ill were twofold: the first had to do with the organizers and the tone, the other had to do with city government and the state of free speech in America.

Across the Bay Area, where I currently reside, a plethora of protests were planned for yesterday--so many, in fact, that you had to wonder why all these grassroots groups couldn't simply hold one big protest anyway. But I digress. I decided to attend what seemed to be the largest of rallies, planned by ANSWER, in downtown San Francisco. The rally was forming on Market Street, our main artery downtown. There were banners. A lot of banners. There were irate citizens--about 400 hundred, not bad for a rapidly mobilized event.

But it all felt so old, so tired. The sloganeering, the predictable call-and-answers, the undirected anger. Worst off all was the muddling of the issues. I came to protest the escalation of the Iraq War, not for the freedom of Palestine or the removal of US troops from South Korea. ANSWER: don't use a more salient issue like the Iraq War to prove that public support exists for your whole ideological programme (and I use that Marxist language purposefully). The dishonest transition between a chant for the removal of US troops from Iraq and one of "Free Free Palestine" is highly discrediting.

But worse, indeed, much worse, than ANSWER's muddling of issues, was our treatment by the city of San Francisco. Imagine: the march begins, down Market Street, tall buildings everywhere, scores of people, a loud protest in the heart of the financial capital of the West coast, then a right turn, away from Market. Where was the SFPD directing us? Towards empty side streets, devoid of people, devoid of light, devoid of significance. We are chanting to nothingness. I am told curtly by a police officer to not cross the double yellow line to march on the other side of the street. The revolution will not be televised, because no one can find it.

I shuddered as I marched through the listless streets, the shouts of "Free Free Palestine" receding as we reapproached Market Street.

Either/Or: Krugman on Proponents of the Surge

In an excellent essay, Paul Krugman posits in today's NY Times an explanatory dichotomy for proponents of a surge in Iraq. Either proponents are cruelly cynical, or frighteningly delusional:

Senator Joseph Biden, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, thinks
they're cynical. He recently told The Washington Post that administration
officials are simply running out the clock, so that the next president will be
"the guy landing helicopters inside the Green Zone, taking people off the
roof.

And:

Daniel Kahneman, who won the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Science for his
research on irrationality in decision-making, thinks they're delusional. Mr.
Kahneman and Jonathan Renshon recently argued in Foreign Policy magazine that
the administration's unwillingness to face reality in Iraq reflects a basic
human aversion to cutting one's losses - the same instinct that makes gamblers
stay at the table, hoping to break even.

Thus Krugman presents us with two perhaps equally unappealing options: either we are dealing with men (and woman) cruel enough to place political calculation above the lives of American servicepeople, or, alternately, we are being governed by the dangerously irrational.I would assert, however, that such a dichotomy cannot be posited; that in fact, it is false: the president himself, I believe, is utterly delusional, while his advisers, adept politicos, are utterly cynical, and well versed in Machiavellian political theory. A combination that is more dangerous than either proposed by Krugman. I will, however, give Krugman the final word:

Mr. Bush is expected to announce his plan for escalation in the next few days.
According to the BBC, the theme of his speech will be "sacrifice." But sacrifice
for what? Not for the national interest, which would be best served by
withdrawing before the strain of the war breaks our ground forces. No, Iraq has
become a quagmire of the vanities - a place where America is spending blood and
treasure to protect the egos of men who won't admit that they were wrong.

You can read the full story here.

Notes From the Other Side: A Look at Arab Media and the U.S.

To dispel the sense of 'Otherness' that exists vis-a-vis us and the Arab world, this diary is dedicated to showcasing different streams of thought in the Arab news world.

"Wait", one might object, "I'm familiar with the ethnic breakdown in Iraq, and the history of the House of Saud. I don't need to read contemporary Arab editorialists!". To which I would reply: "Knowing the history or ethnic breakdown of a nation or peoples, although important, tells us little of that society, as it tangibly exists, as its own peoples know it, and by extension know the world". Thus this diary is dedicated to fostering a more complex understanding between what occurs 'over here' and how our actions are perceived 'over there'.

First, examine Abdullah Iskandar's sophisticated analysis in Dar Al-Hayat of the structural limitations of the US political system, even with Democratic takeover of congress:

The Democrats' leaders realize that, despite statements challenging the Republican administration, they will not be able to implement their electoral promises without seeking to find a common ground of understanding with the White House and fellow Republicans in Congress. They also know that their narrow majority in the House of Representatives (233 out of 434) and their unstable majority in the Senate (51 out of 100) will force them to back down from the ceiling they had set for the points of their electoral program, because they might need Republican votes in some cases.
...Although the Democrats are adhering to the Baker-Hamilton recommendations, particularly in terms of the general approach that links the Middle East crises with openness toward Syria and Iran, they will be forced to deal with the new plan for Iraq that Bush is expected to announce within days - even if this includes an increase in the number of troops, which is likely, and especially if the plan involves a new vote on additional funds to cover the expenses of the war. The Democrats cannot afford the accusation that they abandoned their soldiers in Iraq, with the start of preparations for a presidential campaign, or the charge of abandoning crucial US interests under the pretext of the rising costs of protecting these interests.

I wish a lot of people on the American Left were as dedicated analysts of our structural political biases as Iskandar.


Let us now turn to a much more fiery, Anti-American piece, also in Dar Al Hayat by Daoud Shirian, entitled 'The Americans Can Never Be Trusted":

The mendacious mutual recriminations between US officials and the rulers of Baghdad, regarding the way former President Saddam Hussein was executed, condemns and holds Washington culpable for the timing, the way the barbaric act was carried out, and the fact that it was shown to the people. Washington could have adhered to the implementation of the new Iraqi Constitution, which stipulates that three persons ratify the death sentence, and which prohibits the execution of the sentence during holidays, but it condoned the way the Constitution was adopted, in the sense that 'we did not order it and it does not harm us', and replaced the Constitution, justice and humanitarian senses with dependence on the opinion of the religious authorities and intolerance.

The hasty implementation of the death sentence against Saddam Hussein was an urgent US demand, just as it was a lust for sectarian revenge by the al-Maliki government, and evidence that what was reported as Washington's acquiescence to growing pressure from the ruling elite in Baghdad was a mere allegation.

...What is going on in this country is a dirty and premeditated scheme: Washington dissolved the Iraqi army, while we were busy finding excuses for US policy, which is ignorant of the region's history and the nature of the structure of the Iraqi people. The US allowed the adoption of a Constitution that cancels the Arabism of Iraq. We hailed this Constitution as an act of democracy. Then the execution of Saddam revealed Washington exercising an unprecedented savagery and its support for a handful of fanatic Shiites to replace the neo-conservatives for the implementation of the so-called 'New Iraq' project.

Although I cannot assign even the Bush Administration such insidious motives as Shirian, I must admit that reading an opinion piece such as this shows the limitations of discourse within our domestic media.

Finally, look at this scholarly, prescient, and biting article by Azmi Bishara in Egypt's Al-Ahram Weekly, entitled "End of the Neocons":

In 2006, American conservatives have scurried home to their bases having left many neoconservatives dead and wounded by the wayside on the return trip from the mad escapade into which the latter had led them, and after having reassured themselves on the welfare of Arab regimes which had been practically begging Israel to try to put some sense into the American administration that had been twisting their arms so determinedly. Now, in the wake of the interventionist adventure, it's back to issuing strong advice, giving subtle winks and not coming out in favour of those in Palestine and Lebanon who might support Israel because that would only work against them. Do they think everyone simply missed the point, as though 2006 was international brain-dead year and this part of the world the capital of brain-deadness?

...The current "internal" strife in Palestine, Iraq and Lebanon is a continuation of the clash with Washington's neoconservative administration by other means. In Palestine, the last of the neocons are to be found in the clique surrounding the Palestinian president, which refuses so much as a domestic compromise on the basis of the 4 June 1967 borders. This is the group that insists on meeting US-Israeli conditions, that frowned at the national reconciliation document because it could not serve as a basis for entering into negotiations with Israel, that prayed that the Israeli offensive against Lebanon would teach Hizbullah and all inspired by it a lesson and then lamented the victory of the Lebanese resistance, that wants Europe and the US not to lift the blockade against the elected Palestinian government so as to help it back into power. The remnants of the neoconservatives are still to be found among the 14 March group in Lebanon, who regard the Baker-Hamilton report as a defeat for them, who fear the very thought of a dialogue between the US and Syria and Iran, who rejected a ceasefire during the war on Lebanon before they could be assured that the country could not revert to its pre-12 July conditions, as though they had been the ones to have launched the assault to begin with. The last of the neocons are to be found among the Iraqi forces that restrict even those who could from reining in the militias, who obstruct any possible dialogue with the Baath Party, who have turned national reconciliation conferences into a façade that Bush can use to support his claim that something is moving forward in Iraq, into parleys that succeed in drafting closing statements only because the intent to follow through was never there to begin with, into the type of surgery that can be followed by the pronouncement, "The operation was a success, but the patient died."

That's a hard one to follow up on, so I'll leave it at that. And that is, of course, just a peek into the Arab Media world. It would be prudent of us to start looking more often.

Rep. Ellision's PR Coup; or, Thomas Jefferson's Koran.

You have to give Congressman Ellison's PR people a lot of credit. Talk about turning a ludicrous and xenophobic controversy into a history lesson on the roots of tolerance in the American Republic:

Rep. elect Keith Ellison, the first Muslim elected to Congress, found himself under attack last month when he announced he'd take his oath of office on the Koran - especially from Virginia Rep. Virgil Goode, who called it a threat to American values.
Yet the holy book at tomorrow's ceremony has an unassailably all-American provenance. We've learned that the new congressman - in a savvy bit of political symbolism - will hold the personal copy once owned by Thomas Jefferson.
"He wanted to use a Koran that was special," said Mark Dimunation, chief of the rare book and special collections division at the Library of Congress, who was contacted by the Minnesota Dem early in December. Dimunation, who grew up in Ellison's 5th District, was happy to help.

Take that, Dennis Prager and Rep. Goode (R-VA). It's the dictionary definition of a PR coup.

You can read the whole article here.