Main

March 28, 2005

CHAIN MAIL

Not sure where or why this idea originated, but there's some sort of quickie lit-quiz bouncing around the blogosphere, and evidently 'tis my turn to reply.  Since I've been "tagged" by superblogger Arthur Chrenkoff, I shan't question the particulars nor tarry long ere I respond.    Besides, I'm a sucker for surveys.

You're stuck inside Fahrenheit 451, which book do you want to be?

Since Tim Blair beat me to Michael Moore--and I figure time and historical neglect will justly consume the collected wisdom of Ted Rall--I should be mature about this and answer something like Protocol of the Elders of Zion or Mein Kampf or The Turner Diaries.  But the childish part of me wants to say James Joyce's Ulysses, just to spare future generations of undergrads the horrors of reading that inexplicably overrated novel. 

Unless this question means which book do I want to memorize.   In that case, the Odyssey--Homer's Ulysses.

Have you ever had a crush on a fictional character?

Sure.  Mary Jane Watson.  I mean John Romita's Mary Jane, going back to the "Face it, tiger, you just hit the jackpot!" era all the way to today.  Forget that pale washed-out Kirsten Dunst.  She couldn't even hold a candle to Gwen, let alone the real MJ.  Oh wait, this question was about a fictional character, wasn't it...?

The last book you bought is:

Edwin Black's Banking on Baghdad, as I prepare for my next trip to Iraq.  Other than Middle East-oriented tomes, I think my latest purchase was George Marsden's biography of Puritan minister Jonathan Edwards.

The last book you read:

The Edwards bio and a 1992 history of Shiite revolutionary movements in Iraq, the name of which escapes me.  And yes, I think there are thematic connections between the two.

What are you currently reading?

I have a terrible habit of serial-reading.  At the moment, I am immersed in Shakespeare's King Henry VI, Part I, Ross King's novel Domino, Gavin Young's Return to the Marshes, Gibbon's Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, and one or two other books about Arab and Islamic history.  Usually I finish everything, given enough time.

Five books you would take to a desert island.

Besides wilderness survival guides, textbooks on hut- and ship-building, a first aid manual and Signal Flares for Dummies?  Besides, as well, the Encyclopedia Britannica (1968 version), Shakespeare's collected works and the Bible?  My quintet would be:

Thomas Pynchon's Gravity's Rainbow
Virgil's Aenead (+ my Latin dictionary, is that cheating?)
Nietzsche's Beyond Good and Evil
The I Ching
and a collected volume of Marvel's Silver Age comics, preferably selections from Ditko's Spider-Man and Kirby's Thor and FF--especially FF 48-50, the Galactus trilogy.

Who are you going to pass this stick to (3 persons) and why?

Chester, because he's been kind enough to allow me to contribute to his blog;
Jeff Harrell because he did a bang-up interview with me for ITRZ (as did Arthur); and
Solomon, because I like his site's graphics almost as much as his viewpoint.  Have fun, guys.

March 26, 2005

IN MEMORIAM

More than just a physiological function, memory has its moral injunctions, as well.  To remember--the word is derived from the Latin word rememorari, "to be mindful of"--enjoins us not to forget, not to let slip into oblivion, but to maintain a space in our thoughts for the presence of something, or someone.  This space can range from celebrating the 4th of July to solemnly vowing before the gates of Auschwitz, "Never again."  At the same time, the word connotes the opposite of dis-member, implying that the act of memory is also an act of reconstruction, of piecing together again, of making what is now broken, or perhaps dissipated, whole again.

Traditionally, war memorials serve this purpose.  Not the celebrations of victory--the Iwo Jima statue, for example, or Brooklyn's Grand Army Plaza--but rather the more somber monuments, like the Vietnam Memorial in Washington, or photographs of Khmer Rouge victims displayed in the former detention center of Tuol Sleng in Cambodia.  These momuments in particular combine the injunctions not to forget, of "Never again," with a yearning to somehow conjure the missing, imagine their presence, be cognizant of their names, or at least their human form.  In short, to put together, re-create, re-cognize and re-member the dead.

How to do this in our current war?  How do we memorialize not the soldiers fallen in battles from Kandahar to Mosul, but the estimated 20,000 civilians a year murdered in airliners, skycrapers, buses, nightclubs, train stations, in their homes, in traffic, on the street?  As I wrote in In the Red Zone, one of the most obscene aspects of terrorism is that it induces us to turn our face from mourning the victims for fear of confronting the depravity that killed them.  We comfort ourselves with the belief that terrorism is not evil but a reasonable, if extreme, response to the evil we have inflicted upon others.  At the same time, we mourn the loss of our soldiers through a morose and psychologically suspect obsession with mortality counts--while the death toll of civilians slaughtered by terrorist continues to mount, untallied.

Some people want to change this.  In the March 20th New York Times, Glenn Collins writes of how many families of those killed on 9-11 are reaching out "to make common cause with thousands of other international victims, not only to foster mutual support, but also to discredit global terrorism itself."  Through this communal act of remembering, of "being mindful of" the dead, "they hope to challenge the terrorists' attempts to stereotype vicims as infidels, capitalist tools or ciphers lacking humanity" and make it "more embarrassing, or even impossible, to romanticize or legitimize terrorist acts."  Or, as Mr. Collins writes,

Some in victims' groups said they hoped they could help stop what they see as the news media's fascination with terrorists, who, they charged, are rewarded with attention for their attacks.

Last February, the second International Congress of Victims of Terrorism met in Bogota, Colombia.  Here, Collins tells us, four member of 9-11 Families groups, in addition to representatives from Oklahoma City bombing victims organizations--spoke at a conference "attended by those who experienced terrorist attacks in Colombia, Indonesia, Israel, Spain, Northern Ireland, Chile, Argentina and Beslan, Russia."

"There is no good terrorism or bad terrorism," Collins quotes William Frazier, director of the Northern Ireland-based Families Acting for Innocent Relatives.  "The activity itself must be labelled despicable; it is only about death."

A movement to de-legitimize terrorism by focusing on the identities of those extinguished by its obscenity will take time to develop, of course, and will follow whatever organic channels and internal structures of growth such a meme requires.  The internet, this powerful tool of global consciousness, can help, however---if in no other way than insuring that marches, such as the one which took place on March 24 in Baghdad receive more than this paltry notice.  Like all evil, terrorism thrives by turning human beings into objects, things, devoid of individuality and soul.  Memory is but a consolation for the presence of loved ones who have been lost, but it can, at least, insure that the terrorists will not have the final claim on their legacy.  Memory re-claims, as well. 

I write this on Holy Saturday.  For Muslims, especially Shia Muslims, this day falls close to their commemoration of divine sacrifice, Ashura.  In both cases, men obedient to God were mutilated by ignorance and moral blindness.  Centuries later, we still re-member these men, performing in our minds the miracle of re-creation that Muslims see manifested in the living power of their faith and that Christians believe actually occurred in Jerusalem over 2,000 years ago.  The lesson is the same, either way:  to remember is to re-claim, re-store, make whole again.  It is the path not of insurrection, but--at least in the realm of the spirit--re-surrection.

March 18, 2005

MEME WATCH

Present at the Creation

We are witnessing the genesis of two momentous memes.  The first is women + eroticism + sexual freedom = democracy.  This was one of the daemons that infused rock and roll (before Sgt. Pepper killed it) with such infernal energy and exploded into the Sexual Revolution 40 years ago.  Message to the Middle East:  hold on tight, folks. You're on the edge of something deep and wild. 

The other is the end of the Iraq War.  I know I'm anticipating, and there are certain to be disappointments to come.  But a meme is not a prediction.  It is in part the formulation of a general consensus--ijma', for you Islamic scholars out there--that, if adopted, germinates, spreads, infects and inspires, eventually forming the way we view reality.  Does the way we view reality determine reality?  I'll leave that to better minds than mine to hash out.  I should add, though, that meme-wise, not only is the Iraq War ending--but, Juan Cole and Daily Kos and Moveon and CODEPINK notwithstanding, the good guys evidently won.

The meme to push now:  Islamofascism is ludicrous, pathetic, contemptible and worse, no fun.  It's so, like, yesterday, so looo-ser.  Why follow the teachings of some bearded boogeyman who looks like his face would crack if he laughed, when you can party in downtown Beirut with the "Babes of Democracy"?  Perhaps we should break out the old slogans and offer them to the Middle East - you know:  "Make love, not war" and "War is not good for children and other living things"?  How about:  "Make a World at Peace, not a World in Pieces?"  Just a thought.

But really, you have to ask yourself, how can your basic theocratic regime run by sexually repressed and repressive mujtahids survive when it faces problems like these acts of widespread sinfulness taking place at Iranian celebrations of Ashura?  Doesn't anyone recall that Mohammad maintained at least 14 wives and innumerable slave girls (at least one of whom he "visited" each night)--and that beautiful women and perfume were the Prophet's (pbuh) particular passions?  And doesn't the situation in Iran today seem like America in, oh, say, 1954?  (Having been in Iran in 2000, I vouch for that observation.)  Yes, yes! I see him now!  Striding across the plains of Persepolis, oud in one hand, a copy of Rumi in the other, curling that insouciant lip and swiveling them slender hips--ladies and gentlemen, the Persian Elvis! 

Update:  What would The King, er, Shah (Caliph?) think of this legislative proposal?

Update II:  Apparently, dissatisfaction with the turban-heads is not restricted to the young and restless.  (The news is a little old, but have we heard about this?)  Oh, and Happy Noruz to you Persians out there.

March 11, 2005

No Sympathy for the

No Sympathy for the Devil

So you're thinking of a career in magic?  Better read first what yesterday's Gulf Times has to say about what it takes to sell your soul to Satan.   

And if that didn't persuade you, read the rest here.

*

"How cool would it be to gain 'trusted user' status on a CIA blog?"

Pretty cool, I'd say.  During the Cold War, American intelligence agencies subsidized works by writers, poets and artists that advanced for a world audience such democratic values as freedom of expression.  I've never understood the scandal this government funding caused when it came to light during the 1960s, and why the artists and periodicals which received it were so stigmatized.  What's wrong with using art to help topple dictatorships?

Well, maybe the notion of the government enlisting the aid of creative types is beginning to revive, at least among certain internet-savvy segments of the public.  This essay from Wired makes a good pitch for "spy blogs."  Not only that, but I never thought I'd see the post-COINTELPRO day when working for the CIA would once again be considered "cool."  Times they certainly are a-changin'...

(Thanks to reader Ron G.)

February 25, 2005

THE ART OF WAR

Readers of ITRZ know about my good friend Steve Mumford, the New York artist who inspired me to travel to Iraq by going there himself in April, 2003--and returned on three subsequent occasions.  This month's Harper's magazine (no link, sorry) features an eight page portfolio of his superb drawings and watercolors.  Short of actually going there, you can get no better idea of what Iraq looks and feels like, especially from the military side of things, than from Steve's work.

For a short profile I wrote of Steve for American Enterprise magazine, go here.  For Steve's experiences in Iraq, recorded in his highly-acclaimed series "Baghdad Journal," go here.

February 23, 2005

HOLLYWOOD CANTEEN

The Wall Street Journal's John Lippman related the bad news last Friday:  Hollywood is preparing Iraq war movies.

Now, don't get me wrong, I love war flicks (although, since I returned from Iraq, I can no longer endure violent or overly-suspenseful movies)--preferably along the lines of John Wayne's Sands of Iwo Jima, or, more recently, Mel Gibson's We Were Soldiers.  Still, the thought of the same industry that gave Michael Moore an academy award filming the liberation of Iraq causes my heart to sink faster than Halle Berry's career after Catwoman

And indeed, since this is Hollywood, we can probably figure out the plots of most of these movies beforehand.  Let's see... White House officials will always be portrayed as obtuse or corrupt or both--while Our Hero will invariably be an outsider who Knows The Truth but can't get anyone to pay attention until it is too late...but wait!  That is the plot of Richard Clark's Against All Enemies, the screenplay for which is being written even as we speak...

Lippman notes that the best-selling Jarhead is in production (but wait, wasn't that Gulf War I?), along with something called Syriana, about how the "U.S. underestimated the terrorist threat before 9/11." (Hmmm, will the terrorists be Islamic, or pony-tailed white guys with vague central European accents?)  George Clooney plays a CIA agent, and Matt Damon an--oh Lord--oil company executive.  Do I detect the tar-pit smell of a conspiracy theory?

And landing like a laser-guided smart bomb in the "Oh God, Please Spare Me" category is "The Tiger and the Snow."  According to Lippman, this will star Roberto Benigni as--oh the humanity!--a "love-struck Italian poet stranded in Iraq at the beginning of the U.S. invasion."  Perhaps I'm too hasty, and this will be okay.  If so, I will gladly eat my copy of Orlando Furioso.

There is one possible bright spot in the Hollywood gloom, or glitz, as the case may be:  "Fallujah."  Based on a book by Reagan-era assistant secretary of defense Bing West, the story focuses on the Marines' involvement in the city from its liberation in April, 2003 to its re-liberation in December, 2004.  Harrison Ford is contemplating the project.  No production date has been set.  And that's okay:  if they wait long enough, maybe the movie will have a happy ending

February 21, 2005

PRESIDENT'S DAY

For a New Yorker, Washington, D.C. is an odd town.  Instead of the mercantile hustle of Manhattan, you sense the hum of a massive bureacratic machine going about its business.  Cabs pick up more than one fare, few people wear black; conversation in restaurants does not revolve around the perennial New York topics of media, fashion and rent, but is peppered with names likes McCain, Greenspan, Dean, and some new phenomenon called the "Nationals."  If Manhattan is all about money and power, a cynic might say that D.C. is all about the power that money can buy. 

I emerged from the Metroliner at Union Station on February 16, just in time to catch a cab to the headquarters of that neo-conservative think-tank the American Enterprise Institute.  I'd received an invitation to attend an AEI conference addressing the Center for Religious Freedom's recent report on Saudia Arabian hate literature promulgated in U.S. mosques.  Members on the panel included former CIA director James Woolsey and CRF director Nina Shea.  In the audience were numerous AEI and Hudson Institute scholars, in addition to journalists, a few clerics and several Muslim women. 

If you haven't read the CRF report, I suggest you remedy that oversight at once.  The conference discussed the report, the depth of Wahhabi infiltration into U.S. mosques and how America should respond.  "We don't need to accept claims by the Saudis or Wahhabis that they represent Islam, any more than we should accept that Torquemada represented medieval Catholicism," said Woolsey. 

For me the most interesting moment of the conference came immediately afterwards, as people approached the panelists for further discussion.  Three Muslim women and a cleric from a local mosque accused of displaying Saudi "hate" literature confronted Shea and demanded to know why the CFR report seemed to go out of its way to brand Islam as an extremist religion.  Shea tried to explain that the group's finding implicated Saudi Arabia, not Islam, but the four Muslims would have none of it.  "This gives the impression that all American mosques distribute extremist literature," one woman said. "I can assure you that my mosque in Washington does not."   If that's true, her congregation is an exception:  according to Sheik Hashem Khabbani, perhaps the country's leading moderate Muslim cleric, 80% of the mosques in the U.S. are under Wahhabi control.

In New York, we would have adjourned to an after-party in some cavernous Flatiron District bar.  This being Washington, I fell under the wing of a military journalist named Paula who took me to a well-known bookstore where the seminal Egyptian writer Bat Ye'or was reading from her latest book Eurabia:  The Euro-Arab Axis.  In this work, Ye'or traces what she sees as a series of "informal alliances" in the 1970s between the European community and Mediterranean Arab states, which resulted in the 1974 Euro-Arab Dialogue.  According to Ye'or, the EAD seeks to tie Arab and European foreign and economic policies together under an anti-American, anti-Israeli banner.  The result, she says, will be "Eurabia," or the Arabization of Europe and the destruction of the continent as a Christian-oriented civilization.

I haven't read the book, and although I have great respect for Ye'or, her position--and the proof she adduced to support it--smacked a little too much of conspiracy-thinking.  I made the mistake of venturing this opinion to a journalist named Andrew who glared at me in disbelief.  "What will it take to wake you up?" he cried, causing people to glance up from their book browsing.  "We're talking a MASSIVE EFFORT to launch JIHAD in Europe!  Can't you see it?"  Coming on top of the AEI conference and the complaints from the Muslims about the CFR slandering their religion, this outburst of Islamophobia took me aback.  I managed to extricate myself and caught a cab back to my hotel.

The next morning I rose early and jogged, listening to C-Span on my Walkman. The Syrian ambassador to the U.S., Imad Mustafa, was assuring listeners that his country was doing "everything it could" to cooperate in the War on Terror with America; moreover, he informed us, Damascus had "nothing to do" with Rafik Hariri's assassination.  After showering, I caught a cab for the Washington Mall, and more particularly what I knew would cleanse my spirit of such diplomatic mis-information, the Lincoln Memorial.

Climbing the steps of Daniel Chester French's masterpiece, I was immediately surrounded by a flock of schoolkids pouring down from the memorial--giddy, screaming, laughing kids, of all shades and ethnic groups, the best testimony I could think of to Lincoln's dream.  The magnificent statue itself caused, as it always does, the breath to lodge in my throat and tears to well in my eyes:  the flowing clothes, the majestic visage with the calm, but determined look in his eye, the left hand clenched as if the President were about to rise from his seat to annouce some profound resolution.  And, of course, the Gettysburg Address and Second Inaugural Speeches engraved on each marbled side of the neo-classical building.  Flowers and wreaths from various groups festooned the feet of the 16th president; his birthday had been four days earlier, although to save time and expedite vacations, we celebrate it today, along with George Washington's.

Washington's monument lies directly in front of Lincoln's, across a pool adopted by geese, and surrounded by churned-up dirt, buidling material and construction equipment.  No matter.  The soaring majesty of the unadorned column transcends the mundane grit of a restoration project to remind us of Washington's own simple majesty--one of the few men in history, as one scholar has remarked, "Whom the more we learn about, the greater he seems."

After spending some time contemplating the debt we owe to men like Washington and Lincoln, I walked to the Vietnam War memorial.  Here, I contemplated in a different way the name etched in the wall of a brother of a childhood friend, who died in combat on April, 1969.  I then went to my second meeting of my trip--a State Department conference on import restrictions for Chinese antiquities (my other life is an art journalist).  On the way I passed by the Capitol.  The noon sunlight gleamed off the upper windows of the dome, causing the whole edifice to shine like an image of Jonathan Winthrop's "City on a Hill."  Romantic and idealistic, I know, but at that moment the skeptical journalist in me faded away, replaced by someone gazing at a wonder of history: a government of the people, by the people, for the people.  May such miracles never perish from the earth.

January 25, 2005

FATWA ON WISTERIA LANE

Desperate Dunno what predicament Desperate Housewives' Terri Hatcher has got herself in here, but I do know that this image from an early episode contains at least two elements that supposedly did not sit well with the Prophet Mohammad:  dogs and women who aren't swaddled in clothing.  What's the connection between Islam's founder and ABC's hit TV show?  Nothing--unless you're a puritanical-minded British Muslim. 

According to Agence France-Presse, (credit: Chrenkoff) a Birmingham-based group calling itself Muslims Against Advertising (MAAD) have taken to defacing "ads for perfume, hair dye, bras and television programs"--including a poster for Desperate Housewives which apparently showed "two scantily-clad actresses."  MAAD, the article continues,

gives an index of defaced ads in the city, including Levis, Wonderbra, PaddyPower, a radio station and a strip club.

The group said on its website that it believed in "direct action" and "has paint and isn't afraid to use it ... there is no longer any need to cringe as you walk past a sleazy poster, well improve it".

Interesting use of the word "cringe."  In any case, the campaign, which has also defaced ads in Glasgow, Bradford and Luton, has had some success:  advertisers are now placing "few such billboards close to mosques."

Is this a problem?  Many of us, I wager, possess no love for inane, exploitative and generally insulting billboard advertising.  And yes, there are Christian groups which also object to licentious imagery--just try to buy a Playboy at a 7-11.  But let's not excuse the cultural critics of MAAD just yet.  As I argued in an earlier post discussing a plot by radical Muslims in Amsterdam to blow up the city's Red Light district (as well as the Dutch Parliament--interesting combination) there is a worrisome trajectory to Islamic ire.  The standard definition of jihad is to defend Islam from attack, based largely on this Koranic verse:

Permission to take up arms is hereby given to those who are attacked, because they have been wronged. (22:39)

Increasingly, it seems, Muslims' sense of being "wronged" is expanding into areas which have no direct connection with Islam.  Or, as I wrote last December,

it matters not if an outrage perpetrated by unbelievers has a connection with Islam at all--if some local mutawwa'in find it offends their morality, it deserves destruction.  Logically, this potential jihad-list can now include anything that Western cultures do that affronts Muslim sensibilities--which is another way of saying just about anything we do.  Drink alcohol?  Walk about with your "finery" exposed?  Fly the American flag?  Watch Desperate Housewives? 

And here I thought I was exaggerating to make a point.  On the other hand, radical Islam had its own long-running version of Desperate Housewives, directed and produced by Afghanistan's Taliban regime.  It was canceled in 2002.

UPDATE:  Far less amusing is this London Times Online report about Brit Muslims boycotting Holocaust remembrances.  (credit:  Andrew Sullivan)

FATWA ON WISTERIA LANE

Desperate Dunno what predicament Desperate Housewives' Terri Hatcher has got herself in here, but I do know that this image from an early episode contains at least two elements that supposedly did not sit well with the Prophet Mohammad:  dogs and women who aren't swaddled in clothing.  What's the connection between Islam's founder and ABC's hit TV show?  Nothing--unless you're a puritanical-minded British Muslim. 

According to Agence France-Presse, (credit: Chrenkoff) a Birmingham-based group calling itself Muslims Against Advertising (MAAD) have taken to defacing "ads for perfume, hair dye, bras and television programs"--including a poster for Desperate Housewives which apparently showed "two scantily-clad actresses."  MAAD, the article continues,

gives an index of defaced ads in the city, including Levis, Wonderbra, PaddyPower, a radio station and a strip club.

The group said on its website that it believed in "direct action" and "has paint and isn't afraid to use it ... there is no longer any need to cringe as you walk past a sleazy poster, well improve it".

Interesting use of the word "cringe."  In any case, the campaign, which has also defaced ads in Glasgow, Bradford and Luton, has had some success:  advertisers are now placing "few such billboards close to mosques."

Is this a problem?  Many of us, I wager, possess no love for inane, exploitative and generally insulting billboard advertising.  And yes, there are Christian groups which also object to licentious imagery--just try to buy a Playboy at a 7-11.  But let's not excuse the cultural critics of MAAD just yet.  As I argued in an earlier post discussing a plot by radical Muslims in Amsterdam to blow up the city's Red Light district (as well as the Dutch Parliament--interesting combination) there is a worrisome trajectory to Islamic ire.  The standard definition of jihad is to defend Islam from attack, based largely on this Koranic verse:

Permission to take up arms is hereby given to those who are attacked, because they have been wronged. (22:39)

Increasingly, it seems, Muslims' sense of being "wronged" is expanding into areas which have no direct connection with Islam.  Or, as I wrote last December,

it matters not if an outrage perpetrated by unbelievers has a connection with Islam at all--if some local mutawwa'in find it offends their morality, it deserves destruction.  Logically, this potential jihad-list can now include anything that Western cultures do that affronts Muslim sensibilities--which is another way of saying just about anything we do.  Drink alcohol?  Walk about with your "finery" exposed?  Fly the American flag?  Watch Desperate Housewives? 

And here I thought I was exaggerating to make a point.  On the other hand, radical Islam had its own long-running version of Desperate Housewives, directed and produced by Afghanistan's Taliban regime.  It was canceled in 2002.

UPDATE:  Far less amusing is this London Times Online report about Brit Muslims boycotting Holocaust remembrances.  (credit:  Andrew Sullivan)

January 24, 2005

TERMS OF ENGAGEMENT VII

January 22:  headline and first two grafs of a Guardian story by Ewen MacAskill, Richard Norton-Taylor and Rory McCarthy

US and UK look for early way out of Iraq

Private memos are circulating in Washington, Baghdad and London setting out detailed scenarios for withdrawal of US and British forces from Iraq as early as possible, a Foreign Office source said yesterday.

The policy papers have added urgency because a new Iraq government, to be elected next week if the election goes ahead on January 30 as planned, could set a target date for withdrawal.

Well, that's it then.  Game's over.  Reading the insurgents' handwriting on the wall, Bush and Blair obviously realize Iraq's a lost cause--and soon it'll be helicopter time off the roof of the U.S. embassy.   So sorry about the civil war, the fresh mass graves, bin Laden's declaration of Baghdad as the capital of his newly-restored caliphate...

But wait.  As the story progresses we read:

from American Ambassador John Negroponte:  We have not been approached [by Iraqi leaders]  on this issue;

from  Britain's Foreign Office:  Of course we think about leaving Iraq...There are continually plans in Whitehall, Washington and Baghdad to leave when we can..But there is no document saying we will leave in July 2005 or any such date;

from a source in the British defense department:  We are not there by a long chalk; and .

from the writers themselves:  Senior British military figures want to reduce the number of troops in Iraq as quickly as possible.  But they also recognize that substantial numbers are likely to be there well into next year, and possibly longer.

Nor are there any quotes or facts supporting the writers' contention that the U.S. and England are in any "urgent" hurry to withdraw from the country.

Bias is one thing.  But when a story's facts contradict not only its headline (from which most newspaper readers derive their news) but the very premise of the story itself, we are beyond mere journalistic bias and into the realm of journalistic... irresponsibility. 

TERMS OF ENGAGEMENT VII

January 22:  headline and first two grafs of a Guardian story by Ewen MacAskill, Richard Norton-Taylor and Rory McCarthy

US and UK look for early way out of Iraq

Private memos are circulating in Washington, Baghdad and London setting out detailed scenarios for withdrawal of US and British forces from Iraq as early as possible, a Foreign Office source said yesterday.

The policy papers have added urgency because a new Iraq government, to be elected next week if the election goes ahead on January 30 as planned, could set a target date for withdrawal.

Well, that's it then.  Game's over.  Reading the insurgents' handwriting on the wall, Bush and Blair obviously realize Iraq's a lost cause--and soon it'll be helicopter time off the roof of the U.S. embassy.   So sorry about the civil war, the fresh mass graves, bin Laden's declaration of Baghdad as the capital of his newly-restored caliphate...

But wait.  As the story progresses we read:

from American Ambassador John Negroponte:  We have not been approached [by Iraqi leaders]  on this issue;

from  Britain's Foreign Office:  Of course we think about leaving Iraq...There are continually plans in Whitehall, Washington and Baghdad to leave when we can..But there is no document saying we will leave in July 2005 or any such date;

from a source in the British defense department:  We are not there by a long chalk; and .

from the writers themselves:  Senior British military figures want to reduce the number of troops in Iraq as quickly as possible.  But they also recognize that substantial numbers are likely to be there well into next year, and possibly longer.

Nor are there any quotes or facts supporting the writers' contention that the U.S. and England are in any "urgent" hurry to withdraw from the country.

Bias is one thing.  But when a story's facts contradict not only its headline (from which most newspaper readers derive their news) but the very premise of the story itself, we are beyond mere journalistic bias and into the realm of journalistic... irresponsibility. 

January 19, 2005

UNCIVIL RITES

This is how it starts.

According to the New York Times' Andrea Elliott, 20 clergymen dressed in white robes and crashing cymbals led a procession through the streets of Jersey City, as Bishop David, the main Coptic leader in the northeast United States, chanted a dirge asking for God's mercy.  Behind them poured hundreds of wailing mourners, many holding signs depicting black crosses, others slapping their faces or the sides of the four copper coffins, each casket bearing a photograph of the victim inside.  "Even the pallbearers wept," Elliott wrote.

The funeral was for Hossam Armanious, 46; his wife, Amal Gargas, 36; and their daughters Sylvia, 15, and Monica, 8.  On January 15, the Egyptian Christians were found in their Jersey City home bound and gagged, their throats and heads bearing multiple stab wounds.  Local police, joined by the FBI, have stressed that robbery may have motivated the killers:  according to some press report, the house was so stripped of cash and valuables, that authorities found only one penny.

Not everyone believed mere criminals murdered the Coptic family.  Rumors spread that Armanious' anti-Islamic comments on an Internet chat room may have enraged some religious fundamentalists.  Others speculated the murderers had targeted the family because a distant relative served as a government translator in the case of lawyer Lynne F. Stewart, accused of aiding terrorists.  Others noted the problems that have long existed between Egypt's Christian--or Coptic--community and its Muslim majority (see my post, Did the Priest's Wife Convert?).  Although sectarian tensions have largely not spilled over into the U.S., it soon became apparent that they exist beneath the surface. 

As AP's Wayne Parry reported, skirmishes broke out between Copts carrying anti-Muslim signs and chanting anti-Islamic slogans and mourners who demanded more respect for the dead.  As Parry notes,

One sign, above a photograph of the smiling family, read, "American Family Beheaded on American Soil.  Welcome bin Laden."  Another read, "Terrorists Reach Our Home."

He goes on to quote mourner Ashaf Baul.  "Muslims as a group kill people." 

Around 2,000 people attended the funeral held at St. George and St. Shenouda Coptic Orthodox Church.  Among the mourners were Sheik Tarek Yousef Saleh, the imam of Brooklyn's Oulei Albab Mosque, and around 10 other Muslims, including the editor of a local Arabic-speaking paper and Ahmed Sheded, president of the Islamic Center for Jersey City.  When the cleric--who was wearing a distinctive white abayya--entered the church, people shouted "Out!  Out!"  A man screamed "Muslim is the killer!  Muslim is the killer!" before police dragged him away.  One of the victim's brothers cried out in Arabic for calm, followed by Bishop David's plea to the crowd to "show the teachings of Christ, of love."

Upon leaving the service, however, angry mourners again accosted the Muslims, who by now were under police guard.  One woman, Elliott wrote, cried out "Animals!  Animals!"  Another shouted "Those are the killers!  We don't want them in the church!"  Others yelled, "Bring a stick to his head.  Beat him, take him away!"  Elliott quotes one Nadia Sourrial, "echoing a sentiment expressed by numerous other people,

We tell the Muslim people, 'Don't come here.'  We don't like them and they come.  They like to show us we're dead."

"I didn't come to hurt anyone, I came to support them," Sheik Saleh told Elliott.  His presence, in fact, came as a response to an editorial in an Arabic newspaper to attend the funeral and show support for the grieving Coptic community.  "I don't blame any one of them," the Sheik added.  "Emotionally, they are not happy right now."

We can sympathize.  Grief, fear, anger are powerful emotions, especially when stoked by particularly gruesome murders, the horror which merges with centuries of sectarian tensions in Egypt and the Middle East.   We can sympathize and --like Sheik Saleh--understand.  But we must not excuse.  For this is America, the New World, where every person has an opportunity to start his or her life afresh, unburdened by debilitating antagonisms of the past.  It doesn't work out that way in practice, of course--one only has to look at the Metro section of any newspaper.  But the ideal is one of the greatest gifts America has given the world, one worth stressing and, when necessary, defending.

As the Armanious family is laid to rest, it's that last point that needs emphasizing now, I think.  The anti-Muslim sentiments of the Copts--whether it represented a majority of the mourners or not--clearly comes from the experience of newcomers to this country, for whose hearts the alembic of American life has yet to distill ancient hatreds.  But how many of us are free from such reactions, especially when under stress?  A friend of mine who spent time in jail once told me, "You can get along fine with everyone in the prison, but as soon as trouble breaks out--you run to your color for protection."

As trouble breaks out around the world, people are increasingly running for protection to religion, rather than ethnicity (or, in the case of many Arab Salafists, both).  And indeed, the murder of the Armanious family put pressure on a wound many immigrants Copts still bear, resulting in yesterday's spasm of anti-Muslim bigotry.  Credit must go to those Copts who attempted to calm the mourners, but the point is clear:  we as Americans, as conscientious people, must take pains to differentiate, when we can, between Muslims and religious extremists.  They are not the same.  It should be self-evident to everyone that the vast majority of Muslims are not terrorists, nor are all terrorists Muslim.

Anyone reading these words knows this already.  And we pride ourselves in our own open mindedness and tolerance, our ability to judge between friend and foe.  But what happens if--and, should our experts prove correct--when Al Qaeda launches a successful attack on the U.S.?  An attack, we can be sure, will come with the banners of Islam unfurled and proud of whatever devastation has ensued.  Will we still engage in the same kind of lucid thinking and unemotional judgments regarding Muslims--or will we run to our religion, our nationalism, our fears?  Will the spasm of anti-Islamic feeling we saw in New Jersey turn into a blind, reflexive blow against millions of innocent people?

This is not to say that there are not Salafists in this country who bear us ill will.  There are.  Nor am I engaging in the kind of empty "peace and tolerance" talk exhibited by naive civil liberties advocates and multiculturalists.  America's future as the nation we know and admire is at stake.  In this month's Atlantic Monthly, Richard Clarke depicts the consequences of a U.S. defeat in the War against Islamofascism.  Perhaps the most troubling aspect of Clarke's scenario is the siege state of fear such a defeat would entail and the inexorable shrinking of our constitutional freedoms (a possibility underscored by the Patriot missile batteries currently stationed in Washington).  Our enemy does not have to occupy our cities and towns to destroy the Republic.  Rather, he only need frighten us into occupying ourselves with the atavistic impulses of ethnic and religious tribalism and undermining our own civil liberties. And this is how it starts--in the streets, amidst the cries of an angry, grieving, terrified people.   It ends when, by our own actions, our own lack of nerve, fortitude and faith, the slogan ceases to become inflammatory rhetoric but rather a sad statement of fact.

Terrorism has reached our homes.  Welcome bin Laden.

UNCIVIL RITES

This is how it starts.

According to the New York Times' Andrea Elliott, 20 clergymen dressed in white robes and crashing cymbals led a procession through the streets of Jersey City, as Bishop David, the main Coptic leader in the northeast United States, chanted a dirge asking for God's mercy.  Behind them poured hundreds of wailing mourners, many holding signs depicting black crosses, others slapping their faces or the sides of the four copper coffins, each casket bearing a photograph of the victim inside.  "Even the pallbearers wept," Elliott wrote.

The funeral was for Hossam Armanious, 46; his wife, Amal Gargas, 36; and their daughters Sylvia, 15, and Monica, 8.  On January 15, the Egyptian Christians were found in their Jersey City home bound and gagged, their throats and heads bearing multiple stab wounds.  Local police, joined by the FBI, have stressed that robbery may have motivated the killers:  according to some press report, the house was so stripped of cash and valuables, that authorities found only one penny.

Not everyone believed mere criminals murdered the Coptic family.  Rumors spread that Armanious' anti-Islamic comments on an Internet chat room may have enraged some religious fundamentalists.  Others speculated the murderers had targeted the family because a distant relative served as a government translator in the case of lawyer Lynne F. Stewart, accused of aiding terrorists.  Others noted the problems that have long existed between Egypt's Christian--or Coptic--community and its Muslim majority (see my post, Did the Priest's Wife Convert?).  Although sectarian tensions have largely not spilled over into the U.S., it soon became apparent that they exist beneath the surface. 

As AP's Wayne Parry reported, skirmishes broke out between Copts carrying anti-Muslim signs and chanting anti-Islamic slogans and mourners who demanded more respect for the dead.  As Parry notes,

One sign, above a photograph of the smiling family, read, "American Family Beheaded on American Soil.  Welcome bin Laden."  Another read, "Terrorists Reach Our Home."

He goes on to quote mourner Ashaf Baul.  "Muslims as a group kill people." 

Around 2,000 people attended the funeral held at St. George and St. Shenouda Coptic Orthodox Church.  Among the mourners were Sheik Tarek Yousef Saleh, the imam of Brooklyn's Oulei Albab Mosque, and around 10 other Muslims, including the editor of a local Arabic-speaking paper and Ahmed Sheded, president of the Islamic Center for Jersey City.  When the cleric--who was wearing a distinctive white abayya--entered the church, people shouted "Out!  Out!"  A man screamed "Muslim is the killer!  Muslim is the killer!" before police dragged him away.  One of the victim's brothers cried out in Arabic for calm, followed by Bishop David's plea to the crowd to "show the teachings of Christ, of love."

Upon leaving the service, however, angry mourners again accosted the Muslims, who by now were under police guard.  One woman, Elliott wrote, cried out "Animals!  Animals!"  Another shouted "Those are the killers!  We don't want them in the church!"  Others yelled, "Bring a stick to his head.  Beat him, take him away!"  Elliott quotes one Nadia Sourrial, "echoing a sentiment expressed by numerous other people,

We tell the Muslim people, 'Don't come here.'  We don't like them and they come.  They like to show us we're dead."

"I didn't come to hurt anyone, I came to support them," Sheik Saleh told Elliott.  His presence, in fact, came as a response to an editorial in an Arabic newspaper to attend the funeral and show support for the grieving Coptic community.  "I don't blame any one of them," the Sheik added.  "Emotionally, they are not happy right now."

We can sympathize.  Grief, fear, anger are powerful emotions, especially when stoked by particularly gruesome murders, the horror which merges with centuries of sectarian tensions in Egypt and the Middle East.   We can sympathize and --like Sheik Saleh--understand.  But we must not excuse.  For this is America, the New World, where every person has an opportunity to start his or her life afresh, unburdened by debilitating antagonisms of the past.  It doesn't work out that way in practice, of course--one only has to look at the Metro section of any newspaper.  But the ideal is one of the greatest gifts America has given the world, one worth stressing and, when necessary, defending.

As the Armanious family is laid to rest, it's that last point that needs emphasizing now, I think.  The anti-Muslim sentiments of the Copts--whether it represented a majority of the mourners or not--clearly comes from the experience of newcomers to this country, for whose hearts the alembic of American life has yet to distill ancient hatreds.  But how many of us are free from such reactions, especially when under stress?  A friend of mine who spent time in jail once told me, "You can get along fine with everyone in the prison, but as soon as trouble breaks out--you run to your color for protection."

As trouble breaks out around the world, people are increasingly running for protection to religion, rather than ethnicity (or, in the case of many Arab Salafists, both).  And indeed, the murder of the Armanious family put pressure on a wound many immigrants Copts still bear, resulting in yesterday's spasm of anti-Muslim bigotry.  Credit must go to those Copts who attempted to calm the mourners, but the point is clear:  we as Americans, as conscientious people, must take pains to differentiate, when we can, between Muslims and religious extremists.  They are not the same.  It should be self-evident to everyone that the vast majority of Muslims are not terrorists, nor are all terrorists Muslim.

Anyone reading these words knows this already.  And we pride ourselves in our own open mindedness and tolerance, our ability to judge between friend and foe.  But what happens if--and, should our experts prove correct--when Al Qaeda launches a successful attack on the U.S.?  An attack, we can be sure, will come with the banners of Islam unfurled and proud of whatever devastation has ensued.  Will we still engage in the same kind of lucid thinking and unemotional judgments regarding Muslims--or will we run to our religion, our nationalism, our fears?  Will the spasm of anti-Islamic feeling we saw in New Jersey turn into a blind, reflexive blow against millions of innocent people?

This is not to say that there are not Salafists in this country who bear us ill will.  There are.  Nor am I engaging in the kind of empty "peace and tolerance" talk exhibited by naive civil liberties advocates and multiculturalists.  America's future as the nation we know and admire is at stake.  In this month's Atlantic Monthly, Richard Clarke depicts the consequences of a U.S. defeat in the War against Islamofascism.  Perhaps the most troubling aspect of Clarke's scenario is the siege state of fear such a defeat would entail and the inexorable shrinking of our constitutional freedoms (a possibility underscored by the Patriot missile batteries currently stationed in Washington).  Our enemy does not have to occupy our cities and towns to destroy the Republic.  Rather, he only need frighten us into occupying ourselves with the atavistic impulses of ethnic and religious tribalism and undermining our own civil liberties. And this is how it starts--in the streets, amidst the cries of an angry, grieving, terrified people.   It ends when, by our own actions, our own lack of nerve, fortitude and faith, the slogan ceases to become inflammatory rhetoric but rather a sad statement of fact.

Terrorism has reached our homes.  Welcome bin Laden.

January 11, 2005

TERMS OF ENGAGEMENT V

January 11:  "Faced with a losing war against Salvadorian rebels," Newsweek's Michael Hersh and John Barry remind us,

the U.S. funded or supported "nationalist" forces that allegedly included so-called death-squads directed to hunt down and kill rebel leaders and sympathizers.

Once again, the same media phenomenon:  take a "nationalist" gunman, put a mask on him and set him in some Spanish speaking country and he becomes a "paramilitary"--or, as Newsweek has it, a member of a "death-squad."  Take the same masked killer, place him in Iraq and he becomes an "insurgent," a "guerrilla," a "Minuteman."  Which of the two sets of terms has a better claim on our sympathies?

Now we have a new wrinkle.  If ex-Baathists, or Syria, or Iran, or Al Qaeda or Abu Musab al-Zarqawi trains men to target leaders for assassination, they create insurgents.  If the United States does the same--we unleash death-squads.   The first description evokes assistance to some heroic anti-colonial guerrilla struggle; the second, support for terror in the name of some reactionary regime.  Which stands the best chances of winning people's hearts and minds?

Fascists, hiding in the plain view of the media spotlight--how did it come to this?

(Credit:  Instapundit)

January 07, 2005

TERMS OF ENGAGEMENT IV

No pretext

Sometime this fall, I realized John Kerry was in trouble when I heard an NPR  report about a pro-Bush rally somewhere in the midwest.  During the course of the rally, Kerry supporters began shouting at the crowd, causing the Republicans to chant--not "FOUR MORE YEARS" or "GEORGE W. BUSH," like you might expect--but "USA!  USA!  USA!"  I tried to imagine the situation reversed:  would Democrats at a Kerry rally attempt to drown out hecklers by booming "USA!  USA!"?  The idea seemed oddly ridiculous--like a Belgian street-gang--and therein lay the problem.  Bush supporters felt comfortable identifying their man with a gut-level sense of America; Kerry people did not.  (Remember "nuance?")  This, in turn, energized Republicans to claim the patriotic high-ground and frame the campaign so that, in their own minds, an attack on Bush was an attack on America itself.  In warfare, politics and rhetoric, such esprit and belief in the cause means the difference between victory and defeat.

I thought of this incident yesterday as I read Thomas Friedman's column in the New York Times.  As usual succinct, informal and dead-on the money, Friedman laid out the importance of Iraq's January elections.  The current war, he wrote, pits

Sunni and Islamic militants against the U.S. and its Iraqi allies, many of whom do not seem comfortable fighting with, and seemingly for, the U.S.  America cannot win that war...That is a civil war in which the murderous insurgents appear to be on the side of ending the U.S. "occupation of Iraq" and the U.S. and its allies appear to be about sustaining that occupation.

Rather, Friedman continues, we want a situation where the terms of engagement are more favorable to us--in short, a war that ranges

a democratically elected Iraqi government against the Baathist and Islamist militants.  It needs to be clear that these so-called insurgents are not fighting to liberate Iraq from America, but rather to reassert the tyranny of a Sunni-Baathist minority over the majority there.  The insurgents are clearly desperate that they not be cast as fighting a democratically elected Iraqi government--which is why they are desperately trying to scuttle the elections. 

It comes down to legitimacy and justification. At this point in the conflict, the paramilitaries feel they can still make a valid claim--to their followers, the Arab world and "useful idiots" like Michael "Minuteman" Moore and Ted "Collaborator" Rall--that they are the true Iraqi patriots.  God willing, after the elections their lie will prove impossible to maintain.  They will appear to the world--and increasingly themselves--for what they are:  paramilitary gunmen seeking to launch a fascist coup against an elected government.

Of course, that is how many of us saw them from the first day of the war.  Nothing has changed, except which each moment, the hope of democracy in Iraq comes closer to some realization.  Sharing our understanding of the significance of this possibility is none other than Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.  In February, Coalition authorities intercepted a letter that the terror-master wrote to unknown confederates where, among other topics, he addressed the biggest danger facing the terrorist cause.

How can we kill [Iraqi] cousins and sons and under what pretext, after the American start withdrawing?  The Americans will continue to control from their bases, but the sons of this land will be the authority.  This is the democracy, we will have no pretext.

Pretext.  In other words, a legitimization, a plausible reason, a fig-leaf of morality to justify the unjustifiable slaughter of American soldiers and Iraqi civilians.  That pretext is nonexistent.  Surely he doesn't think Allah will provide it for him? 

Moqtada al-Sadr does--or at least wants to appear so.  Braying from the other side of the terrorist junkyard, the renegade Shia cleric has been issuing futile declarations attempting to brand the elections as part of the "occupation"--and unIslamic, to boot. 

The elections aim to separate the Iraqi from his religion.  When people vote for politicians, secularists, those who cooperate with the occupation -- they will not think of God.

Unfortunately for him, Ayatollah Sistani has proclaimed the opposite:  that Allah demands each of the 16 million Shia go to the polls, with refusal bringing eternal damnation.

This voting is still weeks away, but already its effects are visible in the ethereal realm of memes.  Slowly, the notion of an "Iraqi government" is taking root in public awareness.  Press reports now speak of the "guerrillas"--not, as before, "resisting the occupation"--but  "trying to derail upcoming elections."  With each suicide bomb or IED, increasing numbers of people are beginning to ask themselves--if they haven't already--why are the Sunnis doing this?  What do they hope to gain?  Why do they fear democracy?  In the answers to those questions lies the ruin of the so-called "insurgency."

Assuming the elections take place and are perceived as reasonably legitimate, this ruin, this moral bankruptcy, will be all but apparent.  Only in the hotels and villas of Amman and Damascus will ex-Baathist leaders continue to view their drugged-up mercenaries as "resistance" fighters ("resisting" what?  Peace? A decent future for Iraqi families?).  Only in the backstreets of Ramadi or the caves of Waziristan will jihadists laud Zarqawi as a hero.  And when bin Laden's "emir" is caught--as he will be, betrayed by an Iraqi who has lost faith in the "cause"--we can hang this sign around his neck: 

This is democracy.  You have no pretext.

Lastly, after the elections, the Left will no longer escape the dilemma that has confronted them from the moment the U.N. Security Council passed Resolution 1441:  in opposing the war, they have opposed the fight of democratic forces against fascism.  No longer will they be able to justify their unwillingness to act, their desire to remain cocooned in apathy, ignorance and self-reinforcing Bush-hatred by claiming that the war and "occupation" are "immoral."  A question will haunt their actions, as it has from the onset of this conflict:  if you do not support democracy in Iraq, where will you support it?

None of this means we are winning this war.  In fact, we--the U.S. and the Iraqis--are perilously close to losing.  As Reuel Marc Gerecht points out in this week's Weekly Standard, how can we claim momentum toward victory when our forces cannot even keep the road from the Baghdad airport free of terrorist ambushes? 

No, the tide has not yet turned.  We have horrific weeks to endure before ballots are cast.  And even after the elections, the bloodletting will not stop, Iraq will not become a democratic-minded polity overnight--nor will American mistakes and crimes find magic absolution.  The war will continue.  But if events on January 30 go reasonably well, the difference could be stark:  the enemy, finally, will have exhausted the lies they have used to justify their nihilistic murders.  At the same time, the Iraqis who have sided with the future will find their morale boosted, their courage fortified.  They will be fighting for their homeland, a legitimate democracy.  And that is a moral high-ground from where few dedicated combatants have ever failed.

January 06, 2005

TERMS OF ENGAGEMENT III

Headline:  London Times Online, January 4, 2005: 

Iraq insurgents now outnumber Coalition forces

Headline:  Fox News, January 5, 2005:

Iraqi Intel Head Sees End to Violence

Same story, opposite slants.  Once again, we detect the presence of two axioms of today's war reporting:

Truth is not found in Iraq, it is made.  And:  facts are facts--but perceptions are reality.  (thanks to antimedia)

UPDATE:  Via Iraqi Bloggers Central, I'll let Michael Totten do the talking on this one.  But check out the photo of the "insurgent" caught planting a bomb under civillian vehicles.  Contempt hardly expresses one's reaction.   

January 01, 2005

TERMS OF ENGAGEMENT

January 2:  The New York Times magazine has an interesting article today about Al Arabiya, the Arab news channel that is attempting to compete with Al Jazeera--a.k.a., Air Al Qaeda--by adopting a more moderate tone, particularly when it comes to the United States.  For example, writes author Stephanie Shapiro, the network refers to Coalition troops forces in Iraq as "multinational" rather than "occupying" forces.  If an Arab news channel avoids the word "occupation," do you think the West's MSM  can bring itself to follow suit?  No, I don't think so, either. 

January 1:  the New Year started with latest atrocity carried out Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.  Osama's amir is reportedly behind the execution of five security offiers in the streets of Ramadi.  As shown on the snuff-film released by the courageous terrorist, the Iraqis are lined up, hands bound behind them, and shot in the back.  In the video, one of the men identifies himself as Lt. Bashar Latif Jassim and states that his mission was to "prevent terrorists from entering Iraq."  When asked whom he defined as "terrorists," Lt. Jassim replied, "Those who sabotage the country."

Question:  in this act of wanton murder, who comprised the "Iraqi Resistance:"  a) the five masked paramilitaries of "Al Qaeda in Iraq;" or b) the five security officers?  If you answered "a," you number among a group which includes al-Jazeera,  MIchael "Minuteman" Moore, the  Financial Times and, sometimes, the New York Times.  If you answered "b"--you were right.  (Thanks to Will at Globalstuff)

December 31:  from an AP news story headlined "Top Colombian Official Extradited to the US":

Analysts say Uribe's ultimatum to the FARC was unrealistic and part of an effort by the president to deflect criticism over his uncompromising attitude toward the rebels even as he shows leniency toward right-wing paramilitary militias, which are pursuing peace talks.

When reactionary gunmen operate in Latin America, they are called "right wing paramilitary militias. When they do their dirty work in Iraq, they are "guerrillas." Same killers, different designations. Why?

December 27, 2004

IN OSAMA'S FACE

Capamr1IntroDon't it just make you yearn for the good old days?  Now, lest you think you've linked to James Lileks by mistake, I thought I'd make a point by posting these images of Cap punchin' Adolph's schnozzola (interestingly enough, this comic book came out in February 1941--10 months before Pearl Harbor) and Bugs doing a short-arm inspection of Hermann GoeringGiven that an older generation had no trouble lampooning their fascist enemies, we have to ask ourselves, Where are the similar yucks today? 

Surely you'd think that people who plot terrorist attacks in caves, declare anyone who votes in Iraq's elections to be an "infidel", force women to walk around in polyester bags and chain the imaginations of millions to a code of law and behavior already out of date 10 centuries ago are ripe for ridicule and satire. Yeah, you'd think. But except for Team America, you'd be wrong.

Here's the Koran on the proper Islamic attitude toward those giving the religion a tickle in the ribs:

If you question them, they will say:  "We were only jesting and making merry."  Say:  "Would you mock God, His revelations, and His apostle?  Make no excuses.  You have renounced the faith after embracing it. " (9:65-66)

Whoops.  Since the penalty for leaving the faith--apostasy--is death, no wonder Muslim humor doesn't quite have 'em rolling in the aisles on the Hajj.

Actually, Islamic lore contains a warm tradition of tweaking the religion's collective beard.  Here's one hilarious example.  Seems that fun-loving 7th-century tribal leader and poet Abu Shadier once "satirized" Islam with this side-splitting bit of verse directed at various Muslim bigwigs: 

My spear shall play havoc with the regiments of Khalid, and I trust thereafter to crush Abu Bakr and Umar.

The laughter had barely died down when Abu Shadier was captured and brought in chains to Medina, whereupon the madcap Muslim repented and was spared an agonizing death and eternal damnation.  Allah knows best!

In the inimitable tradition of Abu Shadier are today's folks at the Muslim Youth Web, who assure us that "Humor and joking is permitted in Islam. However it must be done in a good, clean manner."  To show us just how darn funny the Prophet could be, the website directs us to this uproarious anecdote narrated by none other than Islam's "It" gal and Mohammad's favorite child-wife, Aisha:

Some young men from the Quraysh visited Aisha as she was in Mina and they (the audience) were laughing. She said: What makes you laugh? They said: Such and such person stumbled against the rope of the tent and he was about to break his neck or lose his eyes. She said: Don't laugh for I heard Allah's Apostle (peace be upon him) saying: If a Muslim runs a thorn or (gets into trouble) more severe than this, there is assured for him (a higher) rank and his sins are obliterated. [Sahih Muslim, #6237]

(In truth, there is at least one pretty funny site dedicated to satirizing Islam--Islamic Humor Unhinged.  Still, scroll down and read the disclaimer.  While we're at it, does anyone else have sites we could check out?)

As for non-Muslims, our multi-culti mullahs have become so humorless they make Ayatollah Sistani look like Jon Stewart on Comedy Central.  The problem, of course, is that Islamofascism combines two sacred cows (to mix faiths):  religion and ethnicity.  Oh, yeah, and since Osama is probably dragging around a dialysis machine from cave to cave, he's also disabled.  And homeless, too...?

Still, when you have "analysts" like Michael Scheuer, a.k.a. "Anonymous" describing the lanky mass-murderer as a

genuinely pious Muslim; a devoted family man...and an individual of conviction, intellectual honesty, compassion, humility, and physical bravery

it's no wonder we're not seeing too many metaphorical whoopie-cushions slipped under the Saudi's robes  ("Oh, Osama--not in the cave, for Allah's sake!").  We can only look with envy on the World War II generation and such classics as Disney's "Der Fuehrer's Face," to which Sean Fitzpatrick at Logomachon kindly links us. 

As I've written before--and Team America's Trey Parker and Matt Stone clearly understand--laughter is an essential weapon in our war against Islamofascism.  But more than that:  these imams and clerics and sheiks with their grim, self-important puritanism, medieval shari'a code, and bizarre conspiracy theories--Lo! By Aisha's camel!--they are just so damn funny...

UPDATE:  Perhaps this is one reason why we're not lampooning Islamic pretentiousness--and this doesn't come from politically-correct Canada or Berkeley, but Australia.  (Thanks to Cella's Review.)

UPDATE II:  Seems there are humorous Islamic websites out there, at least in a manner of speaking.  Check out Sean Fitzpatrick's comments to this post for a small list.  Meanwhile, an imam, a camel and a halal butcher walk into a bar...

December 24, 2004

LIBERTY BONDS

Ww164614 A late-night post on this, the eve of our second wartime Christmas.  After the buying and the decorating of the tree, the flurry of shopping and wrapping of presents, the eggnog and cards and parties, Warrior Woman and I found time to sit by the glow of a candle-lit creche and reflect on the passing year. And while my wife prefers medieval Christmas music, I go for the Bing Crosby/Frank Sinatra style of holiday cheer; so it was this night that the voices of the early Kings of Pop filled our Manhattan apartment. 

One particular CD featured a 1942 recording of Crosby singing "White Christmas" on his radio program. After the final note of Irving Berlin's classic tune, he closes out the show by urging his listeners to remember that

the greatest gift we can give to our soldiers are War Bonds.  They're fighting for the day when Christmas dawns in a world of peace--so let's let them know we're behind them with everything we've got.

It's not the only recording I have like that--another has Der Bingle opening a version of "Silent Night" by telling the listening troops, Next year, pray God, all of you will be singing this at your own fireplaces, around your own trees.  At the end of the song, we hear ringing bells, and Bob Hope comes on. Hear that? he asks.

The bells of Christmas ring out clear and free around the world to you.  Listen to them. Their message is coming from the hearts of 132 million grateful Americans, peace on earth, good will to men--and Merry Christmas to all of you.

Different time, different war, different celebrities.  Still, there's not much one can add to those sentiments.  Despite sixty years and twice the population, what Bing and Bob said to the troops fighting across the globe holds true today, for soldiers ranging from Kabul to Baghdad and beyond.  The bells of Christmas are indeed ringing for these men and women, and a message is coming from the hearts of the American people.  Merry Christmas, God bless, stay safe, come home.

MEMO FROM MALIBU

Although its efforts have proven maladroit in the past, the United States is determined to provide Iraqis with entertaining "alternative" media to counter the effects of Al-Jazeera and Al-Arabia.  What follows is a State Department memo, given to this site by an anonymous source, detailing America's latest effort.  WARNING:  this is highly confidential, so those of you who cannot be trusted with state secrets, keep on scrolling.

Barry--

Hope you and the family are okay, and you're doing well after the gall bladder thing.

Just wanted to shoot the team at PDPA [Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs - ed.] an update on Operation Infinite Ratings.  We finally got a favorable ruling from Sheikh Raq-n Raul at the Brentwood Mosque--something about TV sitcoms being permissable as long as they remain "Islamically instructive," which Legal tells me should cover our tuchuses with any fatwa difficulties.

The Pentagon has green-lighted the first series, and the gang in Creative couldn't be more excited.  It's called "My Son the Shia," and the basic premise is this:  Abu Dulaimy, head imam at an ultra-orthodox Wahhabi mosque in Falluja, sends his son Ahmed off to engineering school in Basra, and after two years, Ahmed comes back home with Layla--his beautiful, but ditzy wife.  Problem is, Layla is Shia--and Ahmed has converted in order to marry her, driving Abu crazy!  Think "All in the Family" with Muslims.

In the pilot episode, it's just before Ramadan, and Layla hopes to impress her new in-laws by cooking her sure-fire mazgouf recipe, only she forgets that the Shia start the holiday later than the Sunnis.  Hilarity ensues as old Abu and his four wives try to maintain their fast, while trying to keep the city's religious police from dynamiting their house.  Marketing tested this with Shia viewers in Detroit and the approval rating was off the charts!

In future episodes, Ahmed gets so angry at Abu for telling his Wahhabi congregation that Shiism is a Jewish plot to undermine Islam that he tells the local American commander about the RPG stash hidden under the mosque.  Another has Layla baking cookies to celebrate Mohammad's birthday--Creative tells me the scene where she gets chased down the street by an angry mob threatening to stone her to death is a classic!

Over time we'll introduce characters like Abu's freeloading Bedouin relatives;  Sa'ad, the village drunk--who gets 80 lashes in the town square whenever he goes on a bender--and Abdul and his local insurgents:  think Sgt. Bilko and the gang in stocking masks.  We're also going to break out an American character--Major Bart Reynolds, a bumbling Psy-Ops officer who tries to "get down" with the locals, but speaks only classical Arabic and regularly gets his equipment stolen by Abdul's cut-ups.  (The Pentagon is going out on a limb for us on this one, but Marketing tells me the Iraqis will eat it up.)

You probably heard about the snafus.  True, we had to move production from Baghdad to Burbank after someone e-mailed the production crew an anonymous warning--something about the "gates of Hell" and "endless geysers of blood."  That means SAG headaches and union costs up the wazoo.  Anyway, we're hoping to sign Eddie Olmos for Abu Dulaimy and Whoopi's committed to 15 weeks to play one of his wives.  We're thinking Ashley Simpson for Layla and that guy from American Idol, whatzisname--Clay Aiken--for Ahmed (I know, I know, but make-up can do wonders).

I can't say we haven't had disappointments. Ayatollah Sistani's people have DEFINITELY ruled out a guest appearance for next month's shooting; too busy with the upcoming elections.  Too bad, because we need a fill-in for Layla's father.  Anyone know what Omar Sharif is doing these days?

Also, we got orders from Rumsfeld's boys to scratch the episode where Ahmed and Layla take a trip near the Syrian border and accidentally uncover a buried Electromagnetic Isotope Separator and 150 al-Hussein missiles armed with Botulinum toxin and Bacillus anthracis spores.  Something about an on-going investigation.

We being rolling next week and hope to debut just before Ashura.  When does the festival start again?  I can never figure out that damn lunar calendar.

Hope to see you soon.  Malibu is great this time of year and the wife and kids all miss you.  We'll do lunch.

Happy holidays,

Sid

December 16, 2004

VOICES FROM THE RED ZONE

I've asked my friends and acquaintances in Iraq to e-mail me stories and anecdotes about their lives.  This is a short post from Zena, a housewife and mother of three.  She tells us what it's like to attempt to fill one's car with gasoline in today's Baghdad.

The queue for petrol runs fives around the block.  There was one station here whose owners always observed "respect" for the female population of Baghdad who own and drive cars.  As in most Muslim countries, Iraq doesn't allow men and women to queue side by side together, so to our advantage, we women usually get ushered to the front of the line and fill up in less than five minutes.

But what happened?  The pressure was so intense among men waiting in line for hours, that they forgot the Islamic principle on which this understanding was founded and refused us entry to fill up.  I pleaded and explained that I have as much right to fill up my car as anyone else, and I don't mind waiting an hour so, but I will not sleep in the street overnight.  It didn't matter.  I was sadly turned away.  So what could I do but queue up at six that morning and hope they will let me in?  At the same gas station, we were told to line up in one street, and then after an hour told to go to the other street to line up.  But this caused all the people at the end of the first line to become the front of the second line, and at this point, you guessed it, I just gave up and went home.

Like the Iraqis say, "We live on a sea of oil.  How can this happen?"  How indeed?

December 13, 2004

DRAWING FIRE

Readers of In the Red Zone know that New York artist--and my friend--Steve Mumford did much to inspire my trips to Iraq.  Now you can see why. Todays' New York Times (registration required) profiles Steve and offers selections of his front-line drawings and watercolors.  After checking out the article, go to Steve's "Baghdad Journal" on artnet.com for a fascinating, utterly original view of Iraq and the challenges faced by our troops.  Better yet, it's illustrated.

December 02, 2004

WAR BLOGS

In late winter, 2003, as Coalition forces fought their way toward Baghdad, I heard my local NPR station--WNYC--broadcast a BBC radio report about a new phenomenon:  war blogs.  The report interested me, for during the early days of the invasion, I spent hours online, checking and re-checking Sgt. Stryker, Command Post, Debka and other sites for news--any news--about our troops' progress.  I was startled, however, to hear the UK reporter highlight only three blogs, each opposed to the conflict.  Where were the numerous pro-war sites I visited?   Call me naive, but the Beeb's deliberate omission was my first experience with its anti-war bias--an augury of the oleaginous anti-Americanism I found oozing from the organization when I actually traveled to Iraq. 

Today, of course, from Andrew Sullivan, Instapundit and Belmont Club to countless smaller sites (such as this one) bloggers worldwide are supporting Coalition efforts to bring democracy to Iraq.  This is a phenomenon, but not what the BBC imagined, and it leads me to wonder:  what if blogs had existed during the Vietnam War?  What if hundreds, thousands of Internet voices had argued in favor of "staying the course" against the Viet Cong and NVA?  What if America's Silent Majority had not been so--silent?  Perhaps the course of the war would have been different.

I'm not suggesting it should have been different (although visiting Cambodia's Killing Fields makes one wonder)--rather, I posit the question as a way to grasp the power of the Internet in this conflict.  Back in the `60s and `70s, we lacked any means to check the biases of the mainstream press, challenge the narrative spun by the media overclass or compete with the anti-war counter-culture.  (Nowadays, of course, bloggers are the counter-culture.)  There was no "Spirit of America" around which we could rally logistical--if not political support--for our troops.  While we knew of American atrocities in Southeast Asia, we were less knowledgeable about those committed by the communists--unlike the tales of horror emanating from  re-liberated Falluja.  More importantly, we had no view of the South Vietnamese people similar to that offered by such Iraqi blogs as "Healing Iraq" or "Baghdad Burning." Kurds and Arabs may be little more than ciphers to most Americans, but compared to our conception of the Vietnamese, they are practically Shakespearean.

Yes, without the Internet, it was easier for distracted Americans to withdraw from Southeast Asia, leaving those nameless, faceless people to the mercies of their enemies.  It was easier for the anti-war crowd to register its opposition by spitting on returning veterans for the babies they bayoneted "in country."  It was easier for us just to forget the whole damn thing. 

But Iraq is not Vietnam.  For many reasons:  the people, the terrain, the rightness of our endeavor.  And not the least because of bloggers--whose Argus-eyed attention rivets the public to the war and gives them an unprecedented role in shaping public opinion.  Because of the `net's enormous power, America is not likely to abandon the Iraq.  Not any time soon, at least--and not without a fight.