While it may not be getting major play in the mainstream media right now, Pakistan still faces an array of challenges, even after the military has beat back the Taliban offensive. Foreign Policy Magazine has two good recent pieces on this state's uncertain future, including:
Shuja Nawaz on the continuing battle between the government and Taliban and secessionist elements in the country:
ather than melting away, the Taliban began snatching up territory closer and closer to the Pakistani heartland, and outrage among locals and the larger Pakistani population pushed the administration and the Army to react. Their tactic of choice was a full-fledged assault. The Army now has close to 150,000 troops in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA), Swat, and Malakand. In Swat alone, there are at least two full divisions from the eastern frontier and an additional four brigades cobbled together from divisions usually stationed near the Indian border. In addition, there is a full brigade of commandos in the Peochar Valley, and nine wings of the Frontier Corps. The total troop commitment in Swat is about 52,000. The military is taking losses daily. The militants, meanwhile, have taken the battle to the center of Pakistan, attacking offices of the Inter-Services Intelligence in Lahore in May and other softer targets, such as the Pearl Continental Hotel in Peshawar last week.
And Samina Ahmed on Pakistan's internally displaced people (IDP) problem:
The IDP situation matters for more than its very real status as a humanitarian crisis. Between 80 and 90 percent of the IDPs are not in the camps; they are bunking with overstretched relatives and friends who receive no outside aid whatsoever. If the international community responds to their needs, these IDPs could present a potentially powerful constituency of civil opposition to extremism. They fled their homes because they reject the militants' worldview. If and when peace returns, they, as a resident living in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas told Crisis Group, will be the robust civil society that is so badly needed in the conflict zones.
So I'll preface this by acknowledging that Christian Amanpour had an excellent special on Iran last night. Both her and Fareed Zakaria continue to be at the top of their game...
BUT...
I happened to see a clip of a recent episode of Larry King Live hosted by Wolf Blitzer. The show included a panel made up of Democratic strategist James Carville, conservative analyst and former Treasurer of the United States Bay Buchanan, political analyst and media mogul Arianna Huffington, and former Nixon speech writer and actor Ben Stein. And they discussed among other things: healthcare reform, Iran and O.J. Simpson. Yes....O.J. Simpson. How timely.
So I'll be brief(well briefer than usual). I'm sick of seeing the same people brought on as analysts for topics they're not really qualified to talk about--namely, Iran. As you can see from part two of the videos, none of the "analysts" seem to have any real clue or unique insights into what's happening in Iran right now (none of them have a background in Iranian history, politics, etc....or even Middle Eastern history, politics, etc.). And after hearing Ben Stein talk about North Korea, it's clear that he must have been sniffing dangerous amounts of industrial glue and consuming exorbitant amounts of shrooms over the past few weeks. I'm not saying CNN shouldn't have these characters on every once and a while to get their perspective. They're intelligent people. But seriously--the amount of air time these people get is ridiculous.
And please, let the O.J. story go. I know it got you big ratings back in the early 90s. We all understand--he got away with murder. Crazy stuff. But can we please use the power of 24-hour news to focus on something current and relevant to the world around us?
It's been nice to see that not all conservatives are freaking out over President Obama's supposed "inaction" towards Iran and "lack of support" for the Iranian protesters. Many old school conservatives (I guess that's what I'll call them) have not only come out to compliment Obama's current strategy towards Iran, but have also chided the whacky neocons for their unreasonable criticisms of the president's actions.
To refuse to see all this as progress, or potential progress, is perverse to the point of wicked. To insist the American president, in the first days of the rebellion, insert the American government into the drama was shortsighted and mischievous. The ayatollahs were only too eager to demonize the demonstrators as mindless lackeys of the Great Satan Cowboy Uncle Sam, or whatever they call us this week. John McCain and others went quite crazy insisting President Obama declare whose side America was on, as if the world doesn't know whose side America is on. "In the cause of freedom, America cannot be neutral," said Rep. Mike Pence. Who says it's neutral?
This was Aggressive Political Solipsism at work: Always exploit events to show you love freedom more than the other guy, always make someone else's delicate drama your excuse for a thumping curtain speech.
As much as British intellectual Christopher Hitchen's enjoys rallying against religion, he doesn't appear to be free of the very religious thinking he sets out to criticize. OK, so maybe "religion" is too strong a word, or not quite right--dogma and rigid ideology probably work better.
But whatever you want to call it, Hitchen's worldview, analysis and decision-making seem completely enslaved to his anti-religious tunnel vision. Everything he addresses seems to be compounded through this Manichean perspective as you can see from the video below where he and CNBC blowhard Larry Kudlow talk about President Obama's response to the current turmoil in Iran:
Ok Hitch, I understand: you don't like religion. Congrats. I'm not traditionally religious myself. But I do understand that there's such a thing as nuance--that there's grey, not just black and white. What good would it accomplish if the United States railed against the Iranian regime, put its full (open) support with the protesters, and (as Hitchens suggests) refused to recognize Iran as an Islamic Republic--perhaps even openly denigrating that title's connotations? Well, you'll probably help delegitimize the protesters' movement by making it appear (to those in Iran who are "on the fence" in the conflict) that the movement is a western ploy filled with western puppets. It would further, if we were to bash the "Islamic Republic" title, alienate those in Iran who may be unhappy with the current leadership yet still want to retain an Islamic identity for the nation and government, but perhaps support larger societal and governmental liberalization.
If you want a progressive revolution in Iranian society there needs to be a broad base of support against the current regime and its ideology. How can you foment this through insulting and alienating groups of people in Iranian society who have the potential to be strong, effective members of this revolutionary base? It's a simple answer: you can't.
And Chris, I gotcha: you don't like Islam. I myself don't understand organized religion. But you shouldn't let it shape your every decision to the point of dogmatism. Dogma, by its very nature, cuts off certain facts, often time critical facts. This is Hitchen's very problem with religion and dogmatic thinking in religion. So why does he apply this type of reasoning to Iran (and many other cases of international relations)? Open hypocrisy or just sheer dogmatic ignorance? Take your pick.
When I was in DC from August 2008 to May 2009, I was without cable TV--and thus, without cable news. Therefore I had to go to print media and the web for my news and news analysis.
I didn't know how good I had it.
Now, back in Philly, I've returned to cable news (occasionally) and what I've seen has been horrendous. Case and point: cable news' coverage of recent events in Iran.
To be fair, I don't really watch FOX or MSNBC news much if at all, mainly because I don't consider them credible news outlets. They're more like partisan entertainment, political circle jerks. FOX, for a long time, has been a mouthpiece for the Republican party (and not even any real type of coherent conservative ideology). Seeing FOX's rise in the ratings, MSNBC had a genius "idea" and decided to buck the whole "traditional" objective and fair reporting method (so old-fashioned) and become the yin to FOX's yang. The network has now transformed into the liberal/Democrat version of FOX--again, with no real clear, coherent liberal ideology. It's all, on both sides, partisanship at its worst: defend your man/woman (not necessarily ideas) no matter what they do. Beating the other party is key, not the truth--not objective analysis. Of course, there are exceptions: for example Shepard Smith on FOX and Rachel Maddow on MSNBC are decent reporters/commentators.
This leaves CNN. While the network has decided to take the highroad and stick to a relatively objective and fair narrative, the blunt truth is that their coverage of news still sucks. It's still based more towards entertainment (style over substance) and is framed in an ineffective, irrelevant right-left paradigm that does little justice to the reality of most of the stories the network covers.
Recent events in Iran--the rigged election, the street protests, the brutal government backlash--are a perfect example. One segment I watched on CNN focused on how recent events in Iran would affect the Obama administration. OK, so that might be a somewhat relevant question to American politics. But seriously, that question should be low on the totem poll. There are so many more important questions to ask about what's happening in Iran (some that, *GASP*, don't pertain specifically to America or American politics).
But the worst is what came later. It was enough to cause my brain cells to begin to engage in mass suicide. Yet I continued to watch. It was like a car crash or a naked Larry King. It's horrifying, but for some reason you just can't seem to look away.
Take a gander, if you dare, below:
Now if you managed to get through that without a) driving sharp objects into your eyes and ears so you no longer had to see or hear that travesty of news b) going to the hospital to treat the bloody knuckles you suffered from beating your computer screen in or c) having your brain simply stop functioning after it came to the realization that it could no longer exist in a world where this was taken seriously as news reporting, then congratulations.
So what's wrong with this segment? Where do I start?
First let's take the analysts...oh sorry...I mean "analysts." You may ask: are either of them Iran experts? Nope. How about Middle East experts? Nope. Well Jesus Herbert Christ, are they at least International Affairs experts? Nope, sorry. Then what the hell are they?! They're radio hosts. Yes, FUCKING RADIO HOSTS!!! So are they qualified at all to speak about the intricacies of Iranian politics and society?! Hell, are they even qualified to talk about the ins and outs of U.S. foreign policy in general?! NO THEY AREN'T, CNN!!! THEY'RE JUST TWO LOUD, ILL-EDUCATED TOOLBAGS!!! Their focus is not on objective analysis; it's on partisanship--beating the otherside, proving the otherside wrong. I hate to break it to these guys, but what's going on in Iran has little to do with whether Democrats or Republicans are right or wrong.
The second thing that drove me crazy about this segment was the pure idiocy of the liberal radio show host Warren Ballentine. If you don't quite remember it or your brain has tried to block it out because it was too traumatic, here's a sample:
I think the White House shouldn't say anything and the reason being because of what happened in 2000 when Bush stole the election.
...
When you look at what's going on in Iran right now, who are we to judge Iran? I'm proud of the people of Iran for standing up and going to the street because that's what we should've been doing in 2000 and 2004. Unfortunately our country doesn't have the fortitude to stand up when our country is doing wrong.
...
How are we as Americans going to be telling somebody else what they need to be doing when we had the same situation here and we didn't stand up and say anything? It's very hypocritical.
Alright, Mr. Ballentine, you are a moron. Last time I checked the recent news item was about the rigged election and subsequent mass protest reprisals in Iran. The breaking news is not "U.S. elections rigged in 2000 and 2004!" THIS ISN'T ABOUT AMERICAN POLITICS!!!! AHHHH!!!
And although I may agree with Ballentine that the U.S. should take an initial "soft" response to events in Iran, his reasoning for taking this approach is idiotic. It's like he took a page out of the Sarah Palin political analysis and debate handbook. Of course the U.S. government (and people) can condemn tyranny, corruption and human rights abuses by the Iranian government. Saying that the corruption and human rights abuses (although they have and do exist) in United States are on par with that of Iran are just ridiculous. It may score Ballentine viewers and increase his ratings but it does little justice to reality.
But Ballentine isn't all to blame for this haranguing. The CNN anchor actually set him up for the (irrelevant) subject!!! And why?! Because someone on twitter or in an email to CNN brought up the point! CNN anchors, here's a bit of news for you: YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO BE GODDAMN REPORTERS!!! START ACTING LIKE IT!!! WHO THE FUCK CARES WHAT SOME PRICK ON A LAPTOP IN HIS MOM'S BASEMENT HAS TO SAY ABOUT THE IRANIAN ELECTION?!
Perhaps the worst of this all is that this segment had me feeling sympathetic to, if not outright agreeing with, the turd monkey Ben Ferguson. CNN actually made him seem like a reasonable guy!!! If you don't know who Ferguson is just look him up on youtube. You won't be disappointed. Here's a quote from a past CNN interview with Rick Sanchez:
The people [Barack Obama] has surrounded himself with are very anti-Israel and have said some very radical things.
Now if you want some real coverage of what's going on in Iran hit the print media outlets (NY Times, Washington Post, etc.). Try Andrew Sullivan's blog "The Daily Dish" which has done a phenomenal job at giving as accurate a view of what's going on, on the ground level as possible. Foreign policy magazine and the Christian Science Monitor are good sources as well.
And to be fair to CNN, there is one show on their network that continues to do an excellent job at international relations reporting and analysis, especially recently on Iran. And that is Fareed Zakaria GPS.
