Jeremy Scahill is a Tool

Rigid ideologies suck. If I haven't made it abundantly clear in earlier posts, I hate ideological thinking. What do I mean by this? Ideological thinking is when a person clings so tightly to their preconceived worldview that they shape all situations to this paradigm even if facts say otherwise. Inconvenient facts are ignored. Convenient facts are exaggerated and given undo prominence.

Investigative journalist Jeremy Scahill is a perfect case of this type of thinking. Although I found his book on Blackwater and private military contracting (Blackwater: The Rise of the World's Most Powerful Mercenary Army) insightful and important, his views on U.S. foreign policy, especially when it comes to Afghanistan and Pakistan (or Af-Pak for short), conform to a familiar anti-imperialist ideology.

In Scahill's mind, almost everything the U.S. engages in abroad is evil and imperialistic: Facts be damned!

And facts have readily been damned by Scahill when it comes to Af-Pak, as we can see from his June 5th appearance on HBO's Real Time with Bill Maher. The full clips of his time on the show can be found here, here, here, and here.

What follows are the statements I take issue with. I'll be clear here, however. There are legitimate arguments and viewpoints that can come out against the U.S. occupation of Afghanistan and policies toward and within Pakistan. Yet, Scahill's viewpoints on this matter are simply untrue. This is what infuriates me more than anything: not the position in and of itself but rather how that position is sustained and defended.

So let's get started!

Scahill said "Bombings in Pakistan with these drones are indiscriminately killing civilians. Civilians are dying in Afghanistan on a regular basis."

Now we'll deal with the drone issue later. But here's a question: civilians are dying in Afghanistan on a regular basis because of whom? The very language Scahill uses is dishonest. The passive voice here implies the U.S. is primarily to blame for civilian deaths.

So here's the truth. The U.S. is responsible for a large number of civilian deaths in Afghanistan and that number has been rising. HOWEVER, the majority of civilian deaths in the country, according to a recent UN report, are from the Taliban and that number is also rising. Now people like Scahill may argue, after sniffing massive amounts of glue, that once the U.S. occupation ends, Afghan civilians will have it much better. Bullshit. With the U.S. gone, fighting would still continue between the Taliban and various other factions within the country, including OTHER outside actors (yes Scahill, the U.S. isn't the only "meddler" in Afghanistan). That's not to mention the widespread systemic violence of the Taliban factions themselves, especially towards women and religious and ethnic minorities.

Later in the show Scahill goes on to make another ideological statement, this time about Iraq:

I actually hold the Bush administration responsible for releasing the hounds of hell on the Iraqi population because there certainly weren’t people being killed in those number under Saddam Hussein’s regime. He was most brutal when the United States was supporting him.”

Scahill attributes any human rights violation, violence or crimes internationally to the United States. When the U.S. supported Hussein, it was their fault. When they didn’t support him, it was their fault. Now the Bush administration does hold large responsibility for its mishandling of post-Saddam Iraq--but so does various ethno-religious factions within Iraq, so does Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia. But they aren't the evil U.S., so I guess Scahill doesn't care about those actors.

Perhaps Scahill's most imbecilic statement during the show was on Afghanistan once again, "quoting" a Soviet general who served in the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan in the '80s:

He called it the biggest mistake of his life. And said if we had it to be over again we wouldn’t have sent one troop. We would’ve helped support the Afghan people.

Ah yes, Scahill, those humanitarian Soviets. I’m sure the Red Army’s main concern was helping the Afghan people during their war in Afghanistan. Give me a break. And this sad excuse for a journalist can’t even draw key differences between the U.S. presence and mission in Afghanistan and the Soviets’ presence and mission there.

And Scahill uses the all-too-repeated "Graveyard of Empires" argument here. That is, he implies that any type of military or outside presence within Afghanistan is inevitably doomed, and draws from history to support this idea.

But let's turn to a real journalist, Peter Bergen, to debunk this historicist idea:

Objections to Obama’s ramp-up in Afghanistan begin with the observation that Afghanistan has long been the "graveyard of empires"—as went the disastrous British expedition there in 1842 and the Soviet invasion in 1979, so too the current American occupation is doomed to follow. In fact, any number of empire builders, from Alexander the Great to the Mogul emperor Babur in the sixteenth century to the British in the Second Afghan War three decades after their infamous defeat, have won military victories in Afghanistan. The graveyard of empires metaphor belongs in the graveyard of clichés.
The Soviets, of course, spent almost a decade waging war in Afghanistan, only to retreat ignominiously in 1989, an important factor in their own empire’s consignment to history’s dustbin. But today’s American-led intervention in Afghanistan is quite different from the Communist occupation. The Soviet army killed more than a million Afghans and forced some five million more to flee the country, creating what was then the world’s largest refugee population. The Soviets also sowed millions of mines (including some that resembled toys), making Afghanistan one of the most heavily mined countries in the world. And Soviet soldiers were a largely unprofessional rabble of conscripts who drank heavily, used drugs, and consistently engaged in looting. The Soviets’ strategy, tactics, and behavior were, in short, the exact opposite of those used in successful counterinsurgency campaigns.
Unsurprisingly, the brutal Soviet occupation provoked a countrywide insurrection that drew from a wide array of ethnic groups—Tajiks, Uzbeks, Pashtuns, and Hazaras—and every class in Afghan society, from mullahs to urban professionals to peasants. By contrast, the insurgents in Afghanistan today are overwhelmingly rural Pashtuns with negligible support in urban areas and among other ethnic groups.”

The final piece of bullshit that stood out to me in this panel discussion was Scahill's statements on a "colonial fortress in Islamabad [the capital of Pakistan]" that "is going to be the point of operations going into Afghanistan."

From the phrase "point of operations" one would deduce that this embassy will be involved in military operations. Well guess what. It's not. Scahill is either lying or ignorant (the bolding is mine):

The US is embarking on a $1 billion crash program to expand its diplomatic presence in Pakistan and neighboring Afghanistan, another sign that the Obama administration is making a costly, long-term commitment to war-torn South Asia, US officials said Wednesday.

...

Senior State Department officials said the expanded diplomatic presence is needed to replace overcrowded, dilapidated and unsafe facilities and to support a "surge" of civilian officials into Afghanistan and Pakistan ordered by President Barack Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Scahill also appeared on Bill Moyer's show, Bill Moyer's Journal, on PBS where he continued to spew his misinformation:



During this interview, Scahill stated:

I think that the fact is that, when you are killing civilians, in what is perceived to be an indiscriminate way certainly by the people of Pakistan you're going to give rise to more people that want to attack the United States. They view themselves as fighting a defensive war. But never are the statistics cited that come out of Pakistan. 687 people are documented to have been killed. That the Pakistani authorities say are civilians since 2006. In the first 99 days of this year over 100 people were killed.

Now the fact that the U.S. drone attacks have killed a disconcerting number of Pakistani civilians is indisputable. But what is disputable, what is downright false are Scahill's implications that 1) the Pakistani people are united in their opposition to the Predator drone strikes in their country and 2) the Pakistani government is also strongly opposed to the drone strikes.

Here are some facts for Mr. Scahill...

The Aryana Institute for Regional Research and Advocacy recently conducted a poll (if their website is down you can find an article on the poll here) within the Federally Administrated Tribal Areas (FATA) and Northwest Frontier Province (NWFP) in Pakistan and found....guess what...

A slight majority of those polled supported the drone strikes, found them accurate and wished the Pakistani government to act against the Taliban insurgency and Al Qaeda elements within their countries:

-- Do you see drone attacks bringing about fear and terror in the common people? (Yes 45%, No 55%)

-- Do you think the drones are accurate in their strikes? (Yes 52%, No 48%)

-- Do you think anti-American feelings in the area increased due to drone attacks recently? (Yes 42%, No 58%)

-- Should Pakistan military carry out targeted strikes at the militant organisations? (Yes 70%, No 30%)

-- Do the militant organisations get damaged due to drone attacks? (Yes 60%, No 40%)

Note: THIS IS NOT A DEFENSE OF PREDATOR DRONE STRIKES IN PAKISTAN! Frankly, I'm conflicted on the issue. The reason behind me bringing this up is to demonstrate that the issue is not as simple as Scahill makes it seem. The Pakistani people are neither overwhelming united for or against the use of Predator Drone strikes against Taliben and Al Qaeda targets.

And where does the Pakistani government stand on all this? They want the U.S. to stop performing drone strikes within their sovereign territory, damnit....so that they can carry the drone strikes out themselves, under the primary control of the Pakistani government:

Pakistan's president has called on America to provide his country with an arsenal of drones and missiles to target militants blamed for a wave of violence rather than carrying out independent operations that violate the nation's sovereignty.

If you think civilian casualties are too high now, while the drone strike are under the U.S.'s purview, you'd hate to see how high those numbers would fly if the Pakistani military got their hands on the operations. As one can observe from the Pakistani military's actions in Swat Valley, they aren't the best at counterinsurgency, protecting civilians, preparing for displaced peoples and minimizing collateral damage.

What I fear is missed in Scahill's analysis of Af-Pak is his almost casual dismissal of the brutality and oppression of the Taliban movement and the effect this has and may have upon millions of innocent men, women and children; on Shia and Hazaras; on Christians and Tajiks.

I leave you with a reminder: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JqNTXdjljnY&feature=ytn%3Amptnews

Sarah Palin's horrible basketball analogy

Now since the moment Sarah Palin first graced my television set it has been readily apparent that the woman had little grasp, knowledge or even interest in basic international affairs, domestic issues or the workings of government in general. But who knew that this former high school basketball player was ignorant about basketball as well?

This reality came to me during Palin's most recent speech, wherein she said she would not seek a second term as governor of Alaska (very sad, I know). During this speech she said the following:

Let me go back to a comfortable analogy for me - sports... basketball. I use it because you're naive if you don't see the national full-court press picking away right now: A good point guard drives through a full court press, protecting the ball, keeping her eye on the basket... and she knows exactly when to pass the ball so that the team can WIN. And I'm doing that - keeping our eye on the ball that represents sound priorities - smaller government, energy independence, national security, freedom! And I know when it's time to pass the ball - for victory.

Now as someone who eats, drinks and breaths basketball, one of my biggest pet peeves is when the game is somehow desecrated (yeah I know this is subjective but I really like basketball). Whenever I see a movie or TV show with a basketball scene that's not true to the game, with obviously shitty players hitting ugly jumpers and dribbling around nonexistent defenses, I flip. And this awful basketball analogy is no different.

So let me rant on this...

First of all, a good point guard does not "drive through a full court press." Full court presses are not beaten by one player dribbling through them. They're beaten with ball movement, passes from the sides to the middle of the court. A shitty point guard will try to dribble through a press and usually end up getting trapped and turning the ball over (unless the press is really, really badly executed...and I mean bad).

A weak man press can sometimes be beat by the dribble. If a good ball handler gets inbounded the ball, the rest of the team can clear out (bringing their defenders with them) to the other side of the court, essentially taking the press with them. But this rarely happens in good man presses. Good coaches usually keep one more player in the backcourt (who does not follow his man who clears out). This freelance defender then helps trap the ballhandler. Thus, the best way, again, to beat this press is through quick ball movement (passing) down the floor.

And then Palin says a good point guard keeps her eye on the basket during a full court press. Actually, a good point guard keeps her eye on where her teammates are and where the openings are on the press. It's not like you're going to nail a cross court shot during a full court press. Why would you keep your eye on the basket?

But wait, then the female Forrest Gump says "and I'm doing that - keeping our eye on the ball that represents sound priorities - smaller government, energy independence, national security, freedom!" Keeping our eye on the ball? A point guard should never keep their eye on the ball. They should keep their head up and eyes active. Oh god, I'll stop already.

Palin you ruin everything. Now basketball?! Ah!

Thus ends my basketball rant.

Hitchens and the Burka

Christopher Hitchens is at it again--allowing his hatred of religion to cloud his judgment and contradict basic liberal principles. In almost all of his books, columns and media appearances, Hitchens claims to hold dear the liberal principles of the Enlightenment--individual liberty, limited government, etc.

Yet, in a recent column in the New York Daily News, Hitchens comes out in support of France's flirtation with banning the wearing of burkas in public schools:

But that observation - if you will excuse the expression - brings us to another and even more powerful objection to this mode of dress. It is quite plainly designed by men for the subjugation of women. One cannot be absolutely sure that no woman has ever donned it voluntarily, but one can certainly say that, in countries where women can choose not to wear it, then not wearing it is the choice they generally make.

This disposes right away of the phony argument that religious attire is worn as a matter of "right." It is almost exactly the other way around: The imposition of burkas or even head scarfs on women - just like the compulsory growing of beards for men - is the symbol of a denial of rights and the inflicting of a tyrannical code that obliterates personal liberty.

Now I agree that the burka has often been a tool to subjugate women, something that has been forced upon them. And thus I find repulsive governments that make the wearing of the burka mandatory. However, it would be equally wrong to prevent women from choosing to wear the thing. And I don't understand why anyone would choose to do so, but some people do. What right does the government have to invalidate and infringe upon this choice?

Hitchens argues:

Think of the things that we all have to do now, like submitting to humiliating searches at airports, or showing our ID to people who have no "probable cause" for demanding it. Can we turn up at airport security wearing a bag over our heads? Can we produce a photograph that shows only our eyes through a slit? Of course not. Nor can anyone in a Muslim country (though of course in Saudi Arabia an unchaperoned women cannot turn up at the airport anyway).

Yes Hitch, often times security and individual liberty conflict with each other and a choice must be made for security in place of individual liberty. But I fail to see how school girls wearing burkas directly and negatively affects anyone's security.

Pakistan's Problems are Far From Gone

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.

CNN: Get REAL Experts! (Pretty Please)

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?

Old School Conservatives to Neocons: Chillax

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.

Including:

George Will



Henry Kissinger



Peggy Noonan

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.

Ah sanity.

Christopher Hitchen's religion

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.

Cable News and Iran

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.

The Palin ABC interview

In case any of you missed the Sarah Palin interview on ABC with Charlie Gibson, it pretty much went like this:



The real video is here:



Apart from not knowing what the Bush doctrine is, not realizing the implications of allowing Georgia and the Ukraine to join NATO, a casual ambivalence toward a possible war with Russia, believing that Ahmadinejad has any type of substantial power in the Iranian gov., being an uncritical supporter of Israel, misunderstanding the true motivations of the 9/11 hijackers, and nonsensical answers about the controversial raids into Pakistan by U.S. forces, she did just swimmingly.

If this woman becomes vice president, God help us.

Why Do They Hate Us?--A question of values or foreign policy

So, why do they hate us? I guess I should elaborate. By "they" I mean militant Islamic fundamentalists, specifically Sunnis of the Wahabist sect--even more specifically the dangerous minority within this minority that is comprised of groups like Al Qaeda. And by "us" I mean the "West"--a.k.a. the developed, secular nations, with a specific focus on the United States of America.

If you were to ask certain conservatives this question, you'd get a simple answer--they hate us; they attack us because of our values. The Wahabists hate our way of life, democracy, liberty, secularism and pretty much anything having to do with Western Enlightement era values.

"But wait," chirps in your average liberal college professor. "It's our political foreign policy that draws these men to arms, not our freedoms or values." This wing of the argument believes that the Wahabist violence and cause is a direct result of "blowback" from numerous unpopular and sometimes unjust actions taken by the United States and the West in general--overwhelming support for the state of Israel; the stationing of troops in Saudi Arabia; neo-liberal economic policies; economic, military and political support for authoritarian regimes in countries like Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan; and, most recently, full-scale invasions of "Muslim" countries like Afghanistan and Iraq.

The true answer to this question lies in neither of these aforementioned camps. It lies in the words and actions of the people whom we're trying to analyze. And after investigating these words and deeds, one quickly comes to the conclusion that both sides are dead wrong, but a little bit right.

The mistake the average liberal camp makes when analyzing groups like Al Qaeda is limiting their readings to the sanatized, propagandist literature without examining the available internal writings and writings aimed at a broader Muslim audience (as opposed to a Western one). The mistake many conservatives make, on the other hand, is not reading any of this material.

Probably the current intellectual leader of this dangerous fringe movement would be Dr. Ayman Al-Zawahiri, Al Qaeda's second in command. In his treatises--such as "Loyalty and Enmity," "Sharia and Democracy," and "Jihad, Martyrdom, and the Killing of Innocents"--Al-Zawahiri gives us a clear picture of militant Wahabist thought--its beliefs and aims.

Now, complaints against Western foreign policy are rampant in these writings, and some of these criticisms are valid; yet, most are not. Bin Laden, Al-Zawahiri, and their conhorts wish to restore the former glory of the original Muslim caliphate--a supranational religio-political entity. They despise democracy, secularism, human rights (those not explicitly enumerated in the Q'uran or Hadith), and pretty much anything that's fun (music, movies, sex):

Know that democracy, that is, "rule of the people," is a new religion that defies the masses by giving them the right to legislate without being shackled down to any other authority.

....

Thus, democracies raise up gods, establish masters, and assign partners to Allah Most High...The bottom line regarding democracies is that the right to make laws is given to someone other than Allah Most High. Such, then is democracy. So whoever is agreed to this is an infidel--for he has taken gods in place of Allah.
-Sharia and Democracy

They do not believe that peace can be achieved with infidels (any non-muslim) or apostates (any muslim who doesn't believe exactly what they believe). Instead, the infidel has three choices--death, conversion to Islam, or relegation to second-class citizenship under the new caliphate:

Allah Exalted has forbidden us from taking infidels as friends and allies, and aiding them against the believers, by either word or deed. Whoever does this is an infidel like them.

....

The Lord Almighty has commanded us to hate the infidels and reject their love. For they hate us and begrudge us our religious [way of life], wishing that we abandon it.
-Loyalty and Enmity

So what does this all mean? It means that, unlike what many on the left and isolationist right suggest, by simply pulling its presence out of the "Muslim World" (whatever that is), the scourge of militant religious whackos would not be placated, and would not result in a pleasant situation for the West or the rest of the world. Sorry Ron Paul. Al Qaeda and other religious thugs, however, are not an existential threat like many on the right would like you to believe. Their goal of a worldwide caliphate is a pipe dream. But that doesn't mean they can't inflict damage, as we've seen from recent attacks in NY City, London, Madrid and Saudi Arabia.

As far as U.S. foreign policy is concerned, this tells us that we can not rule out the importance of military action, yet we must reform our fp strategies in many areas. Being an ally of Israel is important, yet we should not be an uncritical ally. A true friend is an honest friend. It means we should not engage in reckless, cowboy behavior that results in more problems than we had before we began this project--case in point, invading Iraq.

A key component of our foreign policy that needs to change is to put greater focus on empowering human rights, secular or liberal groups, and the private sector in the "Middle East." (A great example is micro-financing programs for women seeking to start up a business. These programs encourage economic development, promote human rights, and challenge patriarchy.) By doing this, the unsustainable status quo authoritarian regimes are weakened, yet, at the same time, militant Islamic extremism is not strengthened. So we can never again hear that liberal democracy cannot be achieved in Egypt or Saudi Arabia or Pakistan because the alternative is militant theocracy.

The mistake this current administration has continioiusly made is believing that the simplistic diet of pre-mature military ejaculation (once again, Iraq) and elections would solve all of the problems in the "Middle East." As we can see from the elections in Palestine and Lebanon, a stable, liberal private sector needs to be established before some countries move to open elections. Otherwise, what we saw in Palestine and Lebanon were groups like Hamas and Hezbollah winning elections.

Chances are, we won't be courting the favor of Bin Laden, Al-Zawahiri or Al Qaeda through changing our policies and promoting human rights and economic development. But they're not the aim. It's the average Muslim man, the average Arab woman, the average Persian child who needs to be won over, as an ally against these religious bigots. We must help them weed out and further ostricize these individuals and groups--we must give them a middle path between oppressive authoritarianism and religious extremism. And that middle path is, liberal democracy.

Christmas Day Quote

After reading Dickens' A Christmas Carol, I thought this quote especially relevant in regards to religious extremism in the world today, no matter what the faith:

“There are some upon this earth of yours,” returned the Spirit, “who lay claim to know us, and who do their deeds of passion, pride, ill-will, hatred, envy, bigotry, and selfishness in our name, who are as strange to us and all our kith and kin, as if they had never lived. Remember that, and charge their doings on themselves, not us.”
-A Christmas Carolby Charles Dickens

The Anbar Experience: A New Solution or Just Another Problem?

While the decision of many Sunni militias (including former Baathists and religious extremists) to join with the Coalition forces in combating Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia (AQM) in places like Anbar province has been hailed as an aspect of success for the surge of U.S. troops and military actions in the Iraq, a recent article in the NY Times presents a more in-depth look at the implications of this new "Sunni Awakening" for Iraq at large, specifically as concerns the country's biggest obstacle: Sunni-Shia violence:

Though the Americans obtain biometric data on every Awakening group member to try to screen out known insurgents, the government and many Shiite citizens say they fear that the movement has spread so quickly that it is impossible to keep track of who has signed up for it. And while government officials are somewhat willing to accept the tribal character of the Awakening groups in Anbar Province, they are leery of the new ones in and around Baghdad, which have more Baathists from the era of Saddam Hussein in their leadership and are active in more mixed neighborhoods.

“Many people believe this will end with tens of thousands of armed people, primarily Sunnis, and this will excite the Shiite militias to grow and in the end it will grow into a civil war,” said Safa Hussein, the deputy national security adviser and a point man on the Awakening program for Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki.

...

While Mr. Mashadani is ready to look past his former enmity to work with the Americans, he draws the line at any partnership with the central government. He characterizes Shiite officials as pawns of Iran and Shiite death squads, a common view among Sunni Arabs in both Baghdad and Anbar.

“We want to work for the Americans, not the government,” he said. “It is as clear as the sun: the Iranians have dominated the ministries, the whole government. These guys are a bunch of conspirators who belong to Iran.”

So the Sunni-Shia rift in Iraq still seems no closer to being resolved, and not one presidential candidate seems to have put enough thought into facilitating any type of viable peace or balance of power between these two groups. All we hear is either Republicans talking about defeating the omnipresent, ill-defined "terrorists" or Democrats talking about withdrawal, without mentioning what effect this process would have, positively or negatively (because arguments have been made either way), in regards to Shia-Sunni violence.

Paul Krugman is a dick

There was a time when I read NY Times columnist Paul Krugman's op-eds and gave them a chance. He seemed like an intelligent man and I thought he may have some insightful things to say.

But the more I've read Krugman over the past couple of years, the more I've realized how little his craptastic columns are worth. What repulses me most about the man is that he personifies everything that's wrong with blind partisanship, whether it's to a political party or ideology. For Krugman, there is an absolute truth and he knows it. And anyone who departs from this ideoligical (leftist) or party (Democrat) line is to condemned as a heretic.

This dogmatic position angers me even more as someone who politically leans left of center. I may not always agree with religious conservatives, social conservatives, libertarians, or even leftists like marxists, socialists, or even fellow liberals. But I do not, however, believe that I hold the absolute truth to all things social, economic or political. And I believe even less that anyone who disagrees with me on an issue is always a charlatan or an evil, disingenious bastard. In some cases I may feel that is the case. But most of the time I do not. For instance, I do not agree with the libertarian belief that the income tax should be abolished and replaced with a national sales tax because I think this would lead to a more regressive, less egalitarian tax structure. Yet I do not believe that most of the people who do support this tax structure are doing so because they want to make the rich even richer and stick it to poor people. Most of these individuals seem to believe that this tax structure would lead to greater individual freedom and economic growth for everyone. They believe it. I don't. And I will continue to oppose this idea, but not on the grounds that my opponents are evil.

But for Krugman, anyone who disagrees with him never seems to fall into the category of simply mistaken or wrong about their position. Rather, Krugamn almost always implies or outright charges that his opponents should know better, that those supporting different beliefs are evil and want to harm the vast majority of people and further empower themselves.

No where has the sick structure of Krugman's attacks been clearer than on presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama. For Krugman, Obama is a heretic for even considering "moderate" positions or bipartisan efforts. The biggest pet peeves for Krugman are Obama's positions and statements on healthcare and social security as we can see from a recent interview with TPM:

Yet on health care Obama is behaving as kind of, "Let's make a deal." The idea that he would be talking even in the primary campaign about the big table is suggesting that he is not all that committed to taking on special interests.

On the big problems there's a fundamental, deep-seated difference between the parties. I've always just felt that his tone was one suggesting that his inclination is to believe that we can somehow resolve these thing through a kind of outbreak of good feeling.

...

When Obama used the word "crisis" about Social Security it gave me a little bit of a sense of, "Hmmm -- I'm a little worried that my initial concerns were more right than I knew."

To have Obama sort of sounding like the Washington Post editorial page really said among other things that he just hasn't been listening to progressives, for whom the fight against Bush's Social Security scare tactics was really a defining moment. Among the Dems he seems to be the least attuned to what progressives think.

It's a tone thing. I find it a little bit worrisome if we have a candidate who basically starts compromising before the struggle has even begun.

Now I wouldn't be as ticked off if Krugman simply said that he believes Obama's plans on health care and social security to be wrong. Maybe they are wrong. But Krugman goes even further: apparently, it isn't that Obama is simply wrong--in fact he knows he's taking the wrong position. For Krugman, moderates, centrists and independent thinkers are fictitious beings. The world is simply divided into left and right, liberal and conservative, good and evil. And any position that does not conform to Krugman's worldview is on the "wrong side," the evil conservative side. So when Obama takes a position on healthcare that does not include government mandates and does include more market incentives, it isn't just that his plan wouldn't work (from a more leftist, big govenrment perspective); even more than the plan's supposed inefficacy, Krugman shouts, is the "fact" that Obama is taking "conservative" positions in a cowardly act of surrender to the "evil" Republican side.

None of us, no matter what our political persuasion or party, has a hold on absolute truth. We all have our well-reasoned (and for others, I should mention, not-so-well-reasoned) positions about the world and specific social, economic and political issues. And we should fight and argue in support of them. But we should not, however, be so attached to our worldview that we do not remain open to new ideas and new facts and arguments that may further enrich or evolve our own perspective. We should not be so opposed to other perspectives that we are not willing to compromise for the good of society on certain things. Our entire government system was based on the ideas of ideological balance and compromise, on the idea that no one person or party has a claim to absolute truth or natural law. Moderation is not always the weapon of the weak (although in some cases, of course, moderation may be the wrong way to go).

What we need in the world now, Mr. Krugman, is not more partisanship and blind ideology but more independent thought and open, intelligent discussion.

War, poverty, and disease in Somalia

An important NY Times article on the need for more aid and international focus on the underreported humanitarian crisis in Somalia.

One thing that I resent in this article, however, is the pitting of one humanitarian crisis (Darfur) against another (Somalia), as if efforts to help the two were mutually exclusive:

“Many of these kids are going to die,” said Eric Laroche, the head of United Nations humanitarian operations in Somalia. “We don’t have the capacity to reach them.”

He added: “If this were happening in Darfur, there would be a big fuss. But Somalia has been a forgotten emergency for years.”

The officials working on Somalia are trying to draw more attention to the country’s plight, which they feel has fallen into Darfur’s shadow. They have recently organized several trips, including one on Monday, for journalists to see for themselves.

Both Somalia and Darfur should be priorities for the mainstream media, as well as other areas like Burma, Uganda, Chechnya, etc. We shouldn't pit these crises against each other, but rather cut down on our focus of less pressing news.

For example, these crises should trump the Natalee Holloway death, anything to do with Kanye West's mother and Larry King, Britney Spears, or Dennis Quaid's children--all "top news" items on cnn's website as I glance at it now at 1:05 a.m.

I guess in order to get some more press the Somalis should start taking rapping lessons or become hot blonde chics. Even better, they could develop a drug addiction and then walk off Larry King. Maybe then they'll be deserving of more of our attention.

Why I'm not voting for Rudy Giuliani

This video about sums up why I'm not voting for Rudy Giuliani if he gets the Republican Party nomination for president. In this video Norman Podhoretz, senior foreign policy advisor for Giuliani, "debates" Fareed Zakaria, editor of Newsweek and foreign policy savant, over what the U.S. policy should be towards Iran. Podhoretz's nonsensical answers about bombing Iran and random ravings about Hitler pretty much reaffirm my suspicions about the disaster in foreign policy that would be a Giuliani president:



Still not convinced? Take a look at "Mr. 9/11"'s piece in foreign affairs.

Giuliani displays an utter lack of knowledge about the rest of the world, and a scant grasp on international relations theory, history, and applications. Compound that with a fanatical, misguided, and unrealistic approach to Iran, and you've got a presidential disaster.

For a more sensible and pragmatic approach to Iran, check out Fareed Zakaria's piece in Newsweek from October:

In a speech last week, Rudy Giuliani said that while the Soviet Union and China could be deterred during the cold war, Iran can't be. The Soviet and Chinese regimes had a "residual rationality," he explained. Hmm. Stalin and Mao—who casually ordered the deaths of millions of their own people, fomented insurgencies and revolutions, and starved whole regions that opposed them—were rational folk. But not Ahmadinejad, who has done what that compares? One of the bizarre twists of the current Iran hysteria is that conservatives have become surprisingly charitable about two of history's greatest mass murderers.

Darfur charity event

For any interested in helping the people of the Irdimi refugee camp in Chad, which is made up of Darfuris who have been driven from their homes by the janjaweed militias and aeral bombings from the Sudanese government (for a larger version of the flyer click on the image):



The money raised from the event will go toward solar cookers that the refugees can use to cook their food. This will allow them to stay in the camp rather than trek outside to gather firewood--a task during which many, many women are brutally raped and/or killed by the janjaweed.

Come out and support it if you can. It's on Thursday, June 28th from 7pm to 10pm at Philadelphia Cathedral, 3723 Chestnut Street. It's $10 per person and will include poetry from Sandra Turner Barnes, great granddaughter of the last ruler of Darfur, Ali Dinar; Afro-Cuban music; speeches from Darfuris like Fatima Haroun; displayed drawings by Darfuri child refugees; and much more.

The Harsh realities of Darfur

Here's a quote from a heart-wrenching AP article on the brutal realities of Darfur, where the use of rape as a weapon is growing more prevalent every day. The Darfuri women who are raped by the janjaweed militias are not only left with the physical scars and pain of their attack, but the shame and stigma their rape entails within their broader cultural and familial life:

Sheikas in Kalma said they report over a dozen rapes each week. Human rights activists in South Darfur who monitor violence in the refugee camps estimate more than 100 women are raped each month in and around Kalma alone.

The workers warn of an alarming new trend of rapes within the refugee population amid the boredom and slow social decay of the camps. But for the most part, they added, it all depends on whether janjaweed are present in the area.

And still the international community does little to end these attrocities.

Lesbian Soldiers: Al Qaeda's new plan?

With a nice use of humor, Democratic Rep. Gary Ackerman gives a scathing critique of the U.S. military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy concerning homosexuals. Under this current policy, even service members fluent in Arabic and/or Farsi can be and have been kicked out of the military for being homosexuals.

Ask yourself--in a time when knowledge of the Muslim World is essential for sucess in our national security and foreign policy, does rejecting those fluent in these two most prominent "Islamic" languages make any sense?

That is, of course, not to mention the effect this policy has on the status of equality in the United States.

Ackerman may have also stumbled upon a new strategy for the insurgents in Iraq. Take a look:

Brooks on Political Pandering

An interesting piece from David Brooks on the conflict between politicians' public and private persona. I'm not sure if I agree with his conclusion, but it's worth the read.

"In short, our democracy, at least as it has evolved, takes individuals who are reasonable in private and it churns them through a public process that is almost tailor-made to undermine their virtues. The process of perpetually kissing up to the voters destroys the leadership qualities the voters are looking for in the first place: tranquillity of spirit, independence of mind and a sensitivity to the contours and complexity of reality."

Hagel: On Governance vs. Partisanship

Many have spoken about the evils of divisive, partisan politics and the pernicious effect this thought has had in recent years. Yet, behind this confrontational, childish attitude, is the pollution of governance with the fumes of campaign politics. Campaign politics invovles certitude, unrelenting attacks, and (most importantly) victory. Governance, on the other hand, requires humility, compromise, and pragmatism.

With the dawn of 24 hours news networks and instant information via the world wide web, the "never say die" campaign mentality has seeped dangerously deep into the roots of good governance. The melding of these two political mentalities has resulted in nothing but bad news for our U.S. government in recent years, no better personified than in the stubborness and arrogance of President George W. Bush. The Bush administration and its loyal followers have been less interested in governing and compromise than in ideological zealotry and dominance.

On Jan. 24, Republican Senator Chuck Hagel of Nebraska highlighted the danger of partisan politics at the expense of good governance. Being that rare type of politician who is not afraid to say what's on his mind, Hagel takes a strong stance not only against President Bush's troop surge plan for Iraq, but his administration's simplistic, personalized attacks against critics of that plan.

It's refreshing to see that politicians like Hagel, who care more about good governance than preserving a fallacious image of infallibillity, still exist: