The Geek was all cranked up to post on the current violence in South Africa, but a post from PRESS TV ( ohttp://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=56834§ionid=3510303) out of Iran caught his attention. And rankled him.
Once again (some) Muslims are making a mighty moan about the West. The West apparently is a monolithic monster breathing satanic fumes of Islamophobia and similar foul odors of blasphemy. Worse, the loathsome Moloch of the West justifies its conduct by invoking a patently secular totem--Free Speech.
The nerve of the Secular Savages of the West astonished the writers of this open letter, identified on as "Thousands of academics, intellectuals, poets, writers, artists, journalists and scientists of the Islamic countries."
It strikes the Geek that this panoply of deep thinking desperately offended academics, intellectuals, et cetera, possess an extremely shallow understanding of the post-Enlightenment trajectory of Western Europe and the United States.
Perhaps they have to appreciate that the Enlightenment and its aftermath are not universally well-regarded in either Europe or the United States.
Perhaps the size of the Christian Fundamentalist movement which contains a significant number of Enlightenment deniers (at least in the US) has eluded them.
Perhaps they have missed the explosive rise of multi-culturalism in the post-Modernist period not only in the US but Europe as well.
More importantly these anonymous "academics, intellectuals" et cetera have overlooked that the West has undergone a number of fierce, violent conflicts over the past centuries all of which have been predicated to a significant extent upon the right of the individual as opposed to the authority of the community.
Ultimately the conflicts have ended in favor of the individual. The individual has been acknowledged to possess certain basic rights. Chief among them has been the right to free expression construed broadly and its essential twin, freedom of inquiry.
The rights of free inquiry and expression are particularly protected in the United States. As a result expression is notably raucous, boisterous and occasionally quite tasteless in the US.
(Intellectual honesty requires the Geek to admit he is periodically offended by some of what he sees, reads or hears.)
Religion is not off-limits for discussion--even attack. Nor should it be. Religion, like politics and economics is part of the human experience and as such is fair game for investigation, debate and disagreement.
That's the way it should be. As soon as one area of human discourse is ruled sacrosanct, no other area is safe. The reasons for insulating one specific arena of discourse out-of-bounds are immaterial. The harm is done by the prohibition.
Most Western governments and societies recognise this. They are secure enough in their values and identities not to seek the imposition of cordons sanitaires.
Apparently most Islamic governments and societies lack the same measure of security in values and identities. They not only need off-limit signs--they demand them.
If these insecure Muslims demanded thought police and mental shackles be applied only to themselves, this might be lamentable, unfortunate and ultimately counterproductive, but it would be their right.
The problem comes when the Legion of the Insecure demand that all humans be confined in the prison of Islamic sensibilities. This is neither ethically justifiable on any grounds nor allowable.
If Islam is the final, most highly perfected form of monotheism as the open letter from the Terminally Offended indicates, then why are they so insecure about it?
It seems to the Geek that certainty of correctness should lead to serenity when under putative attack. If cartoons, or grade school kids naming a rabbit Mohammad or even a US Army sergeant shooting up a copy of the Quran shakes the base of a religion adhered to by 1.5 giga-people, one can only wonder about the strength of that base.
Muslims howling about slander under the rubric of free speech are not the first to seek limits on the ability of individuals to write, speak, read or hear all forms of opinion or the manifold contradictory facts abounding in the world. Limits have been attempted--and failed--even in the US.
Remember all the well-intentioned efforts by assorted state legislatures back during the Fifties to purge our university campuses of "communists?" Recall all the state imposed bans on "communist" speakers or the possession by libraries of "communist" literature?"
The Geek thought at the time as did many of his contemporaries--the supposed beneficiaries of these "protect our precious children" enactments--that if free enterprise economics and democratic processes were so inherently good, what was the need to stifle opposing perspectives?
Censorship whether for political or religious reasons, no matter how presented, is not simply wrong. The imposition of limits on speech whether to protect the minds of children or to guard the sensitivities of (some) Muslims is simply a sign of underlying insecurity.
Censorship screams, "Maybe what I/we believe isn't right after all."
Censorship screams with fear, deep and primordial, "Maybe I'm wrong."
Censorship is the coward's way out of real debate.
Saturday, May 24, 2008
Thursday, May 22, 2008
Looks Like Turkey Is Starting the Reformation--Or Not
Months ago the Geek posted his view that under all the hoopla over "Islamists" coming to power in Turkey, the reality might be different. To the Geek it appeared possible, if not overwhelmingly likely, that the emergence of the admittedly Islamist rooted AKP as the majority party in Turkey would help bring about the start of an Islamic Reformation.
Recent developments in the country appear to support the Geek's assessment. He would like to start crowing about his prescience, but can't. Not and be honest.
The most intriguing development comes from the quaintly named Presidency of Religious Affairs and Religious Charitable Foundation (http://www.diyanet.gov.tr/english/default.asp.) As announced earlier this year, The Presidency has initiated a three year program entitled the Hadith Project.
This might be important. And, then, it might not.
The Hadith comprises some 162,000 sayings and actions attributed to the Prophet Mohammad. Complementing the Quran, the Hadith serves as a foundation for Islamic law, Shari'a. The Hadith is central to the understanding and practice of Islam today.
The goal of the Hadith Project is to winnow the Hadith, to prune out those sayings which contradict the Quran or violate the fundamental principles of Islam. One member of the eighty-five member panel, Ankara University theology professor Ismail Hakki Unni, is reported to have said, "The Koran is our basic guide. Anything that conflicts with that we are trying to eliminate."
The Presidency in a carefully worded press release describes the nature and extent of the project. (http://www.diyanet.gov.tr/english/englh.asp?id=114.) The concluding line of the release is, "It will constitute an important step for carrying the universal message of the Prophet of Islam to the 21st century."
This simple wording encloses a major set of changes in the orientation of the Hadith. The goal of the Project according to Mehmet Gormez, senior lecturer in Hadith at the University of Ankara, is to bring out the portions of the Prophet's message which support human rights, women's rights, justice and respect for the other. (http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1211288138020&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull)
Of course all must not be seen as peace, love and modernization on the Islamic Front no matter how engaging Gormez's words might be.
The relationship of the Presidency with the rest of the Turkish government must be looked at closely and critically. How independent are the assorted scholars and theologians associated with the Project? What agenda(s) are at work below the surface?
One possible hint regarding the currents running deep below the still waters of Gormez's characterization is given by the headscarf issue.
The headscarf issue?
You bet. The wearing of headscarves by Turkish women has become a barometer of Islamist tendencies. The AKP has moved to drop the Ataturk-era ban on women wearing headscarves in government offices and on university campuses.
The Hadith Project will apparently be evading the headscarf issue. Does that mean it will evade other touchy, but utterly central matters such as jihad, the ability of a Muslim to convert to another religion without fear of the death penalty or the rights of non-Muslims?
The Geek likes Turks very much. He hopes to see Turkey play the key role geography and history has made possible for the country as the broker between Muslims and the West. He would be delighted if the Hadith Project is the opening of an Islamic Reformation.
But, the Geek has doubts. Major doubts. He sees a possibility far larger in likelihood than Reformation.
Here it is, bucko.
The end result of the Hadith Project will be limited in impact to social issues of high visibility and easy condemnation such as honor killings, female genital mutilation and (perhaps) suicide bombings directed at non-combatants.
This would make Islam and Islamism more defensible as religio-political ideologies (and Turkey more attractive for EU membership.)
It would not, repeat, not either reform or modernise Islam. It would not, repeat, not defang the global ambitions of Islamists. It would not even limit the utility of jihadism and most of its tactics.
The Geek hopes he is wrong about the downside of the Hadith Project. But, he won't bet the ranch on it.
Recent developments in the country appear to support the Geek's assessment. He would like to start crowing about his prescience, but can't. Not and be honest.
The most intriguing development comes from the quaintly named Presidency of Religious Affairs and Religious Charitable Foundation (http://www.diyanet.gov.tr/english/default.asp.) As announced earlier this year, The Presidency has initiated a three year program entitled the Hadith Project.
This might be important. And, then, it might not.
The Hadith comprises some 162,000 sayings and actions attributed to the Prophet Mohammad. Complementing the Quran, the Hadith serves as a foundation for Islamic law, Shari'a. The Hadith is central to the understanding and practice of Islam today.
The goal of the Hadith Project is to winnow the Hadith, to prune out those sayings which contradict the Quran or violate the fundamental principles of Islam. One member of the eighty-five member panel, Ankara University theology professor Ismail Hakki Unni, is reported to have said, "The Koran is our basic guide. Anything that conflicts with that we are trying to eliminate."
The Presidency in a carefully worded press release describes the nature and extent of the project. (http://www.diyanet.gov.tr/english/englh.asp?id=114.) The concluding line of the release is, "It will constitute an important step for carrying the universal message of the Prophet of Islam to the 21st century."
This simple wording encloses a major set of changes in the orientation of the Hadith. The goal of the Project according to Mehmet Gormez, senior lecturer in Hadith at the University of Ankara, is to bring out the portions of the Prophet's message which support human rights, women's rights, justice and respect for the other. (http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1211288138020&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull)
Of course all must not be seen as peace, love and modernization on the Islamic Front no matter how engaging Gormez's words might be.
The relationship of the Presidency with the rest of the Turkish government must be looked at closely and critically. How independent are the assorted scholars and theologians associated with the Project? What agenda(s) are at work below the surface?
One possible hint regarding the currents running deep below the still waters of Gormez's characterization is given by the headscarf issue.
The headscarf issue?
You bet. The wearing of headscarves by Turkish women has become a barometer of Islamist tendencies. The AKP has moved to drop the Ataturk-era ban on women wearing headscarves in government offices and on university campuses.
The Hadith Project will apparently be evading the headscarf issue. Does that mean it will evade other touchy, but utterly central matters such as jihad, the ability of a Muslim to convert to another religion without fear of the death penalty or the rights of non-Muslims?
The Geek likes Turks very much. He hopes to see Turkey play the key role geography and history has made possible for the country as the broker between Muslims and the West. He would be delighted if the Hadith Project is the opening of an Islamic Reformation.
But, the Geek has doubts. Major doubts. He sees a possibility far larger in likelihood than Reformation.
Here it is, bucko.
The end result of the Hadith Project will be limited in impact to social issues of high visibility and easy condemnation such as honor killings, female genital mutilation and (perhaps) suicide bombings directed at non-combatants.
This would make Islam and Islamism more defensible as religio-political ideologies (and Turkey more attractive for EU membership.)
It would not, repeat, not either reform or modernise Islam. It would not, repeat, not defang the global ambitions of Islamists. It would not even limit the utility of jihadism and most of its tactics.
The Geek hopes he is wrong about the downside of the Hadith Project. But, he won't bet the ranch on it.
Wednesday, May 21, 2008
Some Muslims Live In the Land of Newspeak
The most chilling feature of George Orwell's classic 1984 (at least to the Geek) was the intentional impoverishment and distortion of language embodied in the new form of English called "Newspeak." The purpose of the new language was to enable people to engage in "doublethink," the holding of two mutually contradictory ideas simultaneously--and believe each was true.
A second goal of Newspeak was to make holding certain ideas literally impossible as there would be no words, no symbols to represent them.
Some Muslims at least accept both goals. They not only practice doublethink but want all of us to join them in the process. Beyond that they desire the eradication of some words in order that people not be able to formulate certain ideas which these Muslims find odious.
The statement, "Islam is the religion of peace" is on a par with the Orwellian phrases, "War is Peace," or "Freedom is Slavery."
Or, if you don't find "Islam is the religion of peace" sufficiently redolent of Newspeak, how about calling on a "Most Merciful and Compassionate" deity in a fatwa authorizing the death of an author or even an anonymous group of women and children?
Newspeaking Muslims include not just the usual deniers of Islamic rooted terrorism such as the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) or other offshoots of the Islamic Brotherhood, but purportedly responsible leaders of governments formally aligned with the US in the fight against jihadist groups such as al-Qaeda and Taliban. Neither are Muslim Newspeakers confined to the Wahabist clerics or Iranian ayatollahs.
They include the Speaker of the National Assembly in Pakistan. As reported yesterday by the Associated Press of Pakistan, http://www.app.com.pk/en_/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=38881&Itemid=2, the Speaker, Dr. Fehmida Mirza, proclaimed to a visiting delegation of Iranians, "Islam is a religion of peace and tolerance that abhors terrorism and extremism in all it forms and manifestations and it was the responsibility of religious scholars to play their role to remove the misperceptions of the West about Islam."
Right.
Unfortunately the Speaker didn't explain how this position squared with a report coming from the very same country she allegedly helps govern. The story (but not the video) ran on CBS. (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/05/20/cbsnews_investigates/main4110408.shtml?source=RSSattr=HOME_4110408)
The star is a young boy, estimated to be about twelve years old. The featured supporting player was a man of unknown age accused of spying on the jihadists who is prone on the ground, trussed and bound.
The action is simple. The kid wields a machete. Cuts off the head of the man on the ground. Holds it up to the camera.
The dialogue is even simpler. The kid crys, "Allah o Akbar." The Geek presumes that the head chopping kid is praising the Most Merciful and Compassionate One.
This video and many like it were and are being made in the Waziristan region of Pakistan, The two Waziristans (North and South, for those of you who like details) are also the center of al-Qaeda and Taliban training, logistics and base camps offering support to those fighting the Americans, NATO and, lest we forget, Afghans across the border.
It is also worth noting that the preferred tactic of the "Holy Warriors of Islam" is the bombing of civilians.
"Religion of peace and tolerance that abhors terrorism and extremism in all forms and manifestations..." So said the Speaker of the National Assembly of Pakistan. And, she must be an honest and honorable woman.
"Doublethink!" The Geek thinks.
No response was quoted for the delegation of the Guardian Council from the Islamic Republic of Iran. But, it's probably fair to think they agreed with the Speaker.
After all, the Iranian mullahocracy has often stated that Iran abhors terrorism and would never, never, never have anything to do with sponsoring or supporting it. And the assorted mullahs and ayatollahs who comprise the Iranian government must all be honest and honorable men.
Another example of Muslim style Newspeak that particularly rankles is the term "honor killing."
How is killing one's own daughters because they dressed and acted like the American teenagers they were a matter of "honor?"
How is killing one's sister (whom one has abused before) for no particular reason a matter of "honor?" The Geek would list more but it makes him sick.
Killing, particularly the killing of unarmed, defenseless women is not and can never be "honorable." It is true that women, children and other people without means of defending themselves are killed. With few exceptions the goal of military operations has not been the killing of civilians--even adult civilian men.
The Muslim "honor" killing is not an act of war. It is not even the act of the suicide bomber hitting the clicker in a crowded marketplace. It is an act of cold, ruthless murder. The act of murdering, not a stranger, but a person's own daughter, sister, wife.
Only a person well versed in the practice of doublethink could make any effort to justify it as a matter of family "honor." Only a person well versed in the practice of doublethink could see despicable up close and personal homicide of this sort as fitting with the demands of a Most Merciful and Compassionate deity.
It is not "Islamophobic" to point out the doublethinking nature of some Muslims. It is not "Islamophobic" to reject the Newspeak demands of some Muslims. It is neither insensitive nor phobic to insist that language be used correctly, even bluntly.
Remember in 1984 Newspeak was not only the prime tool of government control of all aspects of life. Newspeak aided mightily in assuring that perpetual war was the fate of the human race.
The war with Islamists and jihadists need not--can not--last forever. If we are going to end it with our victory, the calls to adopt Newspeak and doublethink, Muslim style must be rejected fast and hard.
A second goal of Newspeak was to make holding certain ideas literally impossible as there would be no words, no symbols to represent them.
Some Muslims at least accept both goals. They not only practice doublethink but want all of us to join them in the process. Beyond that they desire the eradication of some words in order that people not be able to formulate certain ideas which these Muslims find odious.
The statement, "Islam is the religion of peace" is on a par with the Orwellian phrases, "War is Peace," or "Freedom is Slavery."
Or, if you don't find "Islam is the religion of peace" sufficiently redolent of Newspeak, how about calling on a "Most Merciful and Compassionate" deity in a fatwa authorizing the death of an author or even an anonymous group of women and children?
Newspeaking Muslims include not just the usual deniers of Islamic rooted terrorism such as the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) or other offshoots of the Islamic Brotherhood, but purportedly responsible leaders of governments formally aligned with the US in the fight against jihadist groups such as al-Qaeda and Taliban. Neither are Muslim Newspeakers confined to the Wahabist clerics or Iranian ayatollahs.
They include the Speaker of the National Assembly in Pakistan. As reported yesterday by the Associated Press of Pakistan, http://www.app.com.pk/en_/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=38881&Itemid=2, the Speaker, Dr. Fehmida Mirza, proclaimed to a visiting delegation of Iranians, "Islam is a religion of peace and tolerance that abhors terrorism and extremism in all it forms and manifestations and it was the responsibility of religious scholars to play their role to remove the misperceptions of the West about Islam."
Right.
Unfortunately the Speaker didn't explain how this position squared with a report coming from the very same country she allegedly helps govern. The story (but not the video) ran on CBS. (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/05/20/cbsnews_investigates/main4110408.shtml?source=RSSattr=HOME_4110408)
The star is a young boy, estimated to be about twelve years old. The featured supporting player was a man of unknown age accused of spying on the jihadists who is prone on the ground, trussed and bound.
The action is simple. The kid wields a machete. Cuts off the head of the man on the ground. Holds it up to the camera.
The dialogue is even simpler. The kid crys, "Allah o Akbar." The Geek presumes that the head chopping kid is praising the Most Merciful and Compassionate One.
This video and many like it were and are being made in the Waziristan region of Pakistan, The two Waziristans (North and South, for those of you who like details) are also the center of al-Qaeda and Taliban training, logistics and base camps offering support to those fighting the Americans, NATO and, lest we forget, Afghans across the border.
It is also worth noting that the preferred tactic of the "Holy Warriors of Islam" is the bombing of civilians.
"Religion of peace and tolerance that abhors terrorism and extremism in all forms and manifestations..." So said the Speaker of the National Assembly of Pakistan. And, she must be an honest and honorable woman.
"Doublethink!" The Geek thinks.
No response was quoted for the delegation of the Guardian Council from the Islamic Republic of Iran. But, it's probably fair to think they agreed with the Speaker.
After all, the Iranian mullahocracy has often stated that Iran abhors terrorism and would never, never, never have anything to do with sponsoring or supporting it. And the assorted mullahs and ayatollahs who comprise the Iranian government must all be honest and honorable men.
Another example of Muslim style Newspeak that particularly rankles is the term "honor killing."
How is killing one's own daughters because they dressed and acted like the American teenagers they were a matter of "honor?"
How is killing one's sister (whom one has abused before) for no particular reason a matter of "honor?" The Geek would list more but it makes him sick.
Killing, particularly the killing of unarmed, defenseless women is not and can never be "honorable." It is true that women, children and other people without means of defending themselves are killed. With few exceptions the goal of military operations has not been the killing of civilians--even adult civilian men.
The Muslim "honor" killing is not an act of war. It is not even the act of the suicide bomber hitting the clicker in a crowded marketplace. It is an act of cold, ruthless murder. The act of murdering, not a stranger, but a person's own daughter, sister, wife.
Only a person well versed in the practice of doublethink could make any effort to justify it as a matter of family "honor." Only a person well versed in the practice of doublethink could see despicable up close and personal homicide of this sort as fitting with the demands of a Most Merciful and Compassionate deity.
It is not "Islamophobic" to point out the doublethinking nature of some Muslims. It is not "Islamophobic" to reject the Newspeak demands of some Muslims. It is neither insensitive nor phobic to insist that language be used correctly, even bluntly.
Remember in 1984 Newspeak was not only the prime tool of government control of all aspects of life. Newspeak aided mightily in assuring that perpetual war was the fate of the human race.
The war with Islamists and jihadists need not--can not--last forever. If we are going to end it with our victory, the calls to adopt Newspeak and doublethink, Muslim style must be rejected fast and hard.
Tuesday, May 20, 2008
Words, Words and More Words--About Words
Question 1. A jihadist is not a jihadist if--
A.) he is dead
B.) the fatwa authorizing his jihad is cancelled by clerical authority
C.) the clicker on his vest/vehicle/roadside bomb fails
D.) the National Counterterrorism Center and Department of Homeland Security
pronounce that the word must never be used except in a peaceful way
E.) none of the above.
Question 2. An Islamist is--
A.) an adherent of Islam
B.) a student of the foundations and tenets of Islam
C.) a political radical seeking the imposition of Islamic law on a people
D.) a believer in the necessity, desirability and inevitability of the global caliphate
E.) a figment of the fevered minds of Islamophobes
Question 3. A moderate Muslim is--
A.) a member of the silent Islamic majority who may or may not support terror
B.) a Muslim who rises in indignant opposition to those who pilfer Islam in the
cause of killing women, children and other civilians
C.) the target audience for US public diplomacy
D.) a Muslim the US must not risk offending lest he join the black hats
E,) nonexistent given the radical political nature of Islam from a Western
perspective
Question 4. Which statements are true
A.) Muslim terrorist is an oxymoron
B.) Jihad refers to peaceful internal struggle
C.) Jihad refers to peaceful struggle against human enemies such as poverty and
racism
D.) Calling suicide bombers "jihadists" or "mujahideen" confers legitimacy on
them
E.) According to the US Government, all of the above.
(If you answered 1-E, 2-E, 3-C and 4-E you are a US Government approved Sensitive Person. You have also had your visa to the Republic of Reality cancelled.)
The United States is not engaged in a Great Global War on Terror. We are haphazardly skirmishing with a specific and easily defined transnational group including both non-governmental actors and States which espouse the supremacy of Islam and pursue a political agenda which is hoped will lead to the establishment of a global caliphate and the universal application of Islamic law and principles.
What's hard to understand in that?
Islamism and jihadism have been around a long while. Since the purported receipt of the Word From On High by the Prophet Mohammad. Nothing hard to grasp there.
Nothing inherently wrong with the idea either. Islamists are welcome to have their beliefs. They are welcome to hope, pray and even argue that their desired end goal will come to fruition.
Islamists and their more action oriented kin, the jihadist, must not be permitted to use force, the threat of force or subversion to impose their vision upon individuals and nations that do not wish to live in an Islamic Paradise. (Or go there post-mortem.)
Drawing and defending that line is or should be the focus of the United States and kindred spirit countries. It is no more and certainly no less than what we did with respect to expansionist oriented, Soviet Union powered Communism during the Cold War.
Yes, the Geek readily acknowledges that the US government engaged in infuriating excesses of thought policing during the Cold War. As a historian he can cite chapter, verse and line about those excesses both foreign and domestic.
The Geek is quite well aware that the US often committed the fatal blunder of confusing short-term order under a repressive dictator with long term stability within a foreign nation. He knows the US often, all-too-often tried to put the brakes on change within another society and culture with long-term disastrous results for both them and us.
Recognising all of this it is still necessary to state unequivocally that during the Cold War the US understood the nature and character of the threat--the enemy, if you'll permit the Geek to use a harsh, blunt word.
More, the US understood the nature, character and appeal of its values, beliefs and institutions--warts, scars and all. We knew ourselves as we were and showed it to the world even if many were unwilling or unable to accept us as we presented ourselves.
The knowledge of ourselves and our adversaries served us well. It was a (perhaps the) key to understanding the final outcome of the Cold War.
Now it appears that we have thrown all that aside. Our government is unwilling or unable to define who the enemy is and where the threat originates.
Worse, our government--at least the current administration--seems to be gripless regarding just who or what we are and how best to present that to the world. Particularly that portion of the world covered by the word, Muslim.
The effort by the National Counterterrorism Center and the Department of Homeland Security joined by the State Department to become the Word Police has been given wide currency over the Internet. There is no need for the Geek to summarize the NCTC-DHS dictat.
Wrong headed attempts to assuage the ever-so-sensitive feelings of some American resident Muslims might be warm and fuzzy, but they are ultimately counterproductive in a world filled with cold sharpies.
The last time the US government tried such an exercise in the softening of terms was in 1948 and 1949 when members of the Truman Administration referred to the Chinese Communists of Mao as being "agrarian reformers."
Islamists and jihadists wear the label with pride. They know what they want. They know who they are. There is no reason for the government not to use the same terms.
If some non-Islamist, non-jihadist Muslims take unwarranted offense, that is their problem and the government need take no responsibility for it. There are more than enough multi-cultural oriented academics to wring their hands and view with dismay. The government and the rest of us don't have to join in the circle of tears.
More importantly, the US would be best served not by tender ministration to easily bruised sensitivity but by a robust declaration of what we stand for and why we stand for it.
Unlike the death worshiping Islamists/jihadists, the people of the United States are life oriented, life-affirming. We see both the risks and, more, the opportunities of life. We pursue life and all it has to offer with very few of us casting glances at some presumed pit of hell waiting to swallow our souls.
Unlike fear ridden, eager-to-submit to Higher Authority Islamists and jihadists, We the People are willing, even eager, to stand tall and proud, meeting authority on our terms--not its. We can admit our collective mistakes, the "sins" of our ancestors, rectify the wrongs and seek a better collective future.
Yes, we may take our individualism too far. Yes, we may be a messy people given to too much consumption (at least in the eyes of some). But, in our boisterous and often too exploitative way, we have been living up to that long ago vision of John Winthrop of establishing a "shining city."
Instead of playing the role of the politically correct English Department, the US government should speak of our adversaries bluntly and directly, calling them what they are. More, We the People best demand of the next administration that it get on with the task of letting all those "moderate" Muslims of the Islamic Silent Majority know just what we are and why we are that way.
Perhaps, just maybe, then the Silent Muslim Majority will find its collective voice and drown the demands of the Islamist for more martyrdom in a chorus of "No!"
A.) he is dead
B.) the fatwa authorizing his jihad is cancelled by clerical authority
C.) the clicker on his vest/vehicle/roadside bomb fails
D.) the National Counterterrorism Center and Department of Homeland Security
pronounce that the word must never be used except in a peaceful way
E.) none of the above.
Question 2. An Islamist is--
A.) an adherent of Islam
B.) a student of the foundations and tenets of Islam
C.) a political radical seeking the imposition of Islamic law on a people
D.) a believer in the necessity, desirability and inevitability of the global caliphate
E.) a figment of the fevered minds of Islamophobes
Question 3. A moderate Muslim is--
A.) a member of the silent Islamic majority who may or may not support terror
B.) a Muslim who rises in indignant opposition to those who pilfer Islam in the
cause of killing women, children and other civilians
C.) the target audience for US public diplomacy
D.) a Muslim the US must not risk offending lest he join the black hats
E,) nonexistent given the radical political nature of Islam from a Western
perspective
Question 4. Which statements are true
A.) Muslim terrorist is an oxymoron
B.) Jihad refers to peaceful internal struggle
C.) Jihad refers to peaceful struggle against human enemies such as poverty and
racism
D.) Calling suicide bombers "jihadists" or "mujahideen" confers legitimacy on
them
E.) According to the US Government, all of the above.
(If you answered 1-E, 2-E, 3-C and 4-E you are a US Government approved Sensitive Person. You have also had your visa to the Republic of Reality cancelled.)
The United States is not engaged in a Great Global War on Terror. We are haphazardly skirmishing with a specific and easily defined transnational group including both non-governmental actors and States which espouse the supremacy of Islam and pursue a political agenda which is hoped will lead to the establishment of a global caliphate and the universal application of Islamic law and principles.
What's hard to understand in that?
Islamism and jihadism have been around a long while. Since the purported receipt of the Word From On High by the Prophet Mohammad. Nothing hard to grasp there.
Nothing inherently wrong with the idea either. Islamists are welcome to have their beliefs. They are welcome to hope, pray and even argue that their desired end goal will come to fruition.
Islamists and their more action oriented kin, the jihadist, must not be permitted to use force, the threat of force or subversion to impose their vision upon individuals and nations that do not wish to live in an Islamic Paradise. (Or go there post-mortem.)
Drawing and defending that line is or should be the focus of the United States and kindred spirit countries. It is no more and certainly no less than what we did with respect to expansionist oriented, Soviet Union powered Communism during the Cold War.
Yes, the Geek readily acknowledges that the US government engaged in infuriating excesses of thought policing during the Cold War. As a historian he can cite chapter, verse and line about those excesses both foreign and domestic.
The Geek is quite well aware that the US often committed the fatal blunder of confusing short-term order under a repressive dictator with long term stability within a foreign nation. He knows the US often, all-too-often tried to put the brakes on change within another society and culture with long-term disastrous results for both them and us.
Recognising all of this it is still necessary to state unequivocally that during the Cold War the US understood the nature and character of the threat--the enemy, if you'll permit the Geek to use a harsh, blunt word.
More, the US understood the nature, character and appeal of its values, beliefs and institutions--warts, scars and all. We knew ourselves as we were and showed it to the world even if many were unwilling or unable to accept us as we presented ourselves.
The knowledge of ourselves and our adversaries served us well. It was a (perhaps the) key to understanding the final outcome of the Cold War.
Now it appears that we have thrown all that aside. Our government is unwilling or unable to define who the enemy is and where the threat originates.
Worse, our government--at least the current administration--seems to be gripless regarding just who or what we are and how best to present that to the world. Particularly that portion of the world covered by the word, Muslim.
The effort by the National Counterterrorism Center and the Department of Homeland Security joined by the State Department to become the Word Police has been given wide currency over the Internet. There is no need for the Geek to summarize the NCTC-DHS dictat.
Wrong headed attempts to assuage the ever-so-sensitive feelings of some American resident Muslims might be warm and fuzzy, but they are ultimately counterproductive in a world filled with cold sharpies.
The last time the US government tried such an exercise in the softening of terms was in 1948 and 1949 when members of the Truman Administration referred to the Chinese Communists of Mao as being "agrarian reformers."
Islamists and jihadists wear the label with pride. They know what they want. They know who they are. There is no reason for the government not to use the same terms.
If some non-Islamist, non-jihadist Muslims take unwarranted offense, that is their problem and the government need take no responsibility for it. There are more than enough multi-cultural oriented academics to wring their hands and view with dismay. The government and the rest of us don't have to join in the circle of tears.
More importantly, the US would be best served not by tender ministration to easily bruised sensitivity but by a robust declaration of what we stand for and why we stand for it.
Unlike the death worshiping Islamists/jihadists, the people of the United States are life oriented, life-affirming. We see both the risks and, more, the opportunities of life. We pursue life and all it has to offer with very few of us casting glances at some presumed pit of hell waiting to swallow our souls.
Unlike fear ridden, eager-to-submit to Higher Authority Islamists and jihadists, We the People are willing, even eager, to stand tall and proud, meeting authority on our terms--not its. We can admit our collective mistakes, the "sins" of our ancestors, rectify the wrongs and seek a better collective future.
Yes, we may take our individualism too far. Yes, we may be a messy people given to too much consumption (at least in the eyes of some). But, in our boisterous and often too exploitative way, we have been living up to that long ago vision of John Winthrop of establishing a "shining city."
Instead of playing the role of the politically correct English Department, the US government should speak of our adversaries bluntly and directly, calling them what they are. More, We the People best demand of the next administration that it get on with the task of letting all those "moderate" Muslims of the Islamic Silent Majority know just what we are and why we are that way.
Perhaps, just maybe, then the Silent Muslim Majority will find its collective voice and drown the demands of the Islamist for more martyrdom in a chorus of "No!"
Monday, May 19, 2008
Is Osama bin Laden Getting Catty or Just Losing It?
In his latest audiotape, al-Qaeda Symbol-in-Chief, bin Laden, sang one of his long time faves, "Death to the Zionist Entity and the Apostate Arab Leaders Who Protect It." This time he added some new lyrics.
Specifically the hermit sage named names and pointed fingers.
Bin Laden pointed his Flying Finger of Blame at Hezbollah. The name he named was that of Hezbollah's capo de tutti capi, Hassan Nasrallah.
Apparently the al-Qaeda Leader In Hiding was unimpressed by the outcome of the Hezbollah vs Israeli Defense Forces match up back in 2006. From the Geek's perspective, Hezbollah did very well against the IDF. Much better than, say, Taliban against the minature US invasion force and its Northern Alliance confederates four years earlier.
Maybe Osama is bent out of shape because he is the Running Man while Nasrallah sits in front of al-Jeezera cameras.
Deep in his twenty-two minute rant, the Troglodyte Sheik rhetorically demands why Nasrallah and his Hezbollah fighters allowed the UN peacekeepers "to protect the Jews." The Mystic of the Mountains alleged Nasrallah was deficient in manliness. "If he was honest and has enough (resources), why then he did not support the fight to liberate Palestine."
Golly, Mr bin Ladan, you sure do ask the tough questions.
Perhaps Nasrallah stopped fighting when he did because he has enough brains to know that Hezbollah had won. Did you consider that, Osama?
Hezbollah did win in a substantial and meaningful way. The IDF lost heavily. Israel did not accomplish any of the goals for which its military had been employed. Hezbollah gained status with Sunnis and Shias alike. It showed to its sponsors, Iran and Syria, that their investments had been well worth the price.
Perhaps Hezbollah's greatest victory in 2006 was undercutting Israeli self-confidence, certainty and political will.
It's second greatest victory?
The al-Qaeda Pontificator told us that. Hezbollah has replaced al-Qaeda as The Great Hope of Islamic Irredentism.
The rise of Hezbollah to the top of the Islamist/jihadist charts rebounded to Iran's advantage as the audiotape acknowledges. Bin Laden's admission comes in characteristically backhanded fashion. He accused Iran of wanting to dominate the Mideast--a charge he usually levels only at the United States.
Way to go, Nasrallah! You've pushed Iran ahead of the US at least on points.
Interestingly, the tape made no mention of the recent events in Lebanon where the US supported government failed in its attempt to rein in Hezbollah. Either the tape was made long before these events or The Grand Interpreter of Allah's Will did not want to give Hezbollah even more credit.
Hezbollah has emerged in the past two years as a major player in Mideast politics and Western anxieties. It has done this as al-Qaeda has faded.
Hezbollah has shown itself able to successfully confront Israel both directly and through proxies. It has treated with its "host" government as an equal--perhaps as something more than a mere equal.
In comparison, al-Qaeda and its Fugitive Generalissimo have managed to have their "host" government destroyed. In addition, the Peerless Band of Godly Warriors have managed to make themselves detested in Iraq, distrusted in most of the Mideast and doubted in the rest of the Muslim world.
No wonder Osama is feeling poopy and letting it show.
This leads to several questions--
The first is simply, what is al-Qaeda going to do about its diminished status? Skulk around in the mountains of the Pakistani Tribal Agencies or stage a spectacular act?
The Geek would hope for the first but prepare for the second. Al-Qaeda is down but most assuredly not out.
The second question is: Should the West, particularly the US, put Hezbollah and its chief sponsor, Iran, on the top of the International Worry List? The answer to that is self-evident.
There is a third question. What ever happened to Adam Gadhan? Was he killed along with Abu al-Laith last January in Mir Ali, Pakistan by a Predator launched Hellfire? Or is the one time California environmentalist studying for an advanced degree at some backwater madrassa?
The Geek misses Adam's translations since it means he has to improve his Arabic--a distasteful expenditure of time and energy.
Come on back, Adam (if you're still with us), we need you.
Specifically the hermit sage named names and pointed fingers.
Bin Laden pointed his Flying Finger of Blame at Hezbollah. The name he named was that of Hezbollah's capo de tutti capi, Hassan Nasrallah.
Apparently the al-Qaeda Leader In Hiding was unimpressed by the outcome of the Hezbollah vs Israeli Defense Forces match up back in 2006. From the Geek's perspective, Hezbollah did very well against the IDF. Much better than, say, Taliban against the minature US invasion force and its Northern Alliance confederates four years earlier.
Maybe Osama is bent out of shape because he is the Running Man while Nasrallah sits in front of al-Jeezera cameras.
Deep in his twenty-two minute rant, the Troglodyte Sheik rhetorically demands why Nasrallah and his Hezbollah fighters allowed the UN peacekeepers "to protect the Jews." The Mystic of the Mountains alleged Nasrallah was deficient in manliness. "If he was honest and has enough (resources), why then he did not support the fight to liberate Palestine."
Golly, Mr bin Ladan, you sure do ask the tough questions.
Perhaps Nasrallah stopped fighting when he did because he has enough brains to know that Hezbollah had won. Did you consider that, Osama?
Hezbollah did win in a substantial and meaningful way. The IDF lost heavily. Israel did not accomplish any of the goals for which its military had been employed. Hezbollah gained status with Sunnis and Shias alike. It showed to its sponsors, Iran and Syria, that their investments had been well worth the price.
Perhaps Hezbollah's greatest victory in 2006 was undercutting Israeli self-confidence, certainty and political will.
It's second greatest victory?
The al-Qaeda Pontificator told us that. Hezbollah has replaced al-Qaeda as The Great Hope of Islamic Irredentism.
The rise of Hezbollah to the top of the Islamist/jihadist charts rebounded to Iran's advantage as the audiotape acknowledges. Bin Laden's admission comes in characteristically backhanded fashion. He accused Iran of wanting to dominate the Mideast--a charge he usually levels only at the United States.
Way to go, Nasrallah! You've pushed Iran ahead of the US at least on points.
Interestingly, the tape made no mention of the recent events in Lebanon where the US supported government failed in its attempt to rein in Hezbollah. Either the tape was made long before these events or The Grand Interpreter of Allah's Will did not want to give Hezbollah even more credit.
Hezbollah has emerged in the past two years as a major player in Mideast politics and Western anxieties. It has done this as al-Qaeda has faded.
Hezbollah has shown itself able to successfully confront Israel both directly and through proxies. It has treated with its "host" government as an equal--perhaps as something more than a mere equal.
In comparison, al-Qaeda and its Fugitive Generalissimo have managed to have their "host" government destroyed. In addition, the Peerless Band of Godly Warriors have managed to make themselves detested in Iraq, distrusted in most of the Mideast and doubted in the rest of the Muslim world.
No wonder Osama is feeling poopy and letting it show.
This leads to several questions--
The first is simply, what is al-Qaeda going to do about its diminished status? Skulk around in the mountains of the Pakistani Tribal Agencies or stage a spectacular act?
The Geek would hope for the first but prepare for the second. Al-Qaeda is down but most assuredly not out.
The second question is: Should the West, particularly the US, put Hezbollah and its chief sponsor, Iran, on the top of the International Worry List? The answer to that is self-evident.
There is a third question. What ever happened to Adam Gadhan? Was he killed along with Abu al-Laith last January in Mir Ali, Pakistan by a Predator launched Hellfire? Or is the one time California environmentalist studying for an advanced degree at some backwater madrassa?
The Geek misses Adam's translations since it means he has to improve his Arabic--a distasteful expenditure of time and energy.
Come on back, Adam (if you're still with us), we need you.
Sunday, May 18, 2008
Iran, The Bomb and The Candidates
George W. Bush brought the matter of Iranian nuclear ambitions back out of the closet during his speech last week to the Israeli parliament. Apparently he continues to think that the Iranians are up to something icky-poo in that area and believes something should be done about it.
That's nice.
The question of what might or should be done was not addressed by the Decider Guy.
Neither has it been addressed meaningfully by any of the senatorial trio seeking electoral preferment.
We the People know the following. One candidate, Senator Obama, would go the route of negotiations backed by incentives--including a summit meeting without preconditions. The second, Senator Clinton, would go with negotiations and incentives albeit at the sub-cabinet level until fundamental agreement had been achieved. Finally, Senator McCain eschews negotiations beyond those necessary to lower Iranian involvement in the Iraqi War and would employ sanctions to achieve an end to unacceptable Iranian nuclear programs.
Those platitudinous adumbrations fail to impress the Geek. They should fail to impress anyone well oriented as to time and place as well.
The Iranians and their nuclear ambitions are not going to just evaporate no matter how hard any of us might wish they would. The mullahocracy is not going to have a sudden change of heart and mind.
They are going to need an effective kick in their collective rear end to mend their troublemaking ways. Perhaps a hard kick.
Now, don't go thinking that the Geek has joined up with the neocon ninnies and their hallucination of improving the world through force imposed regime change. He hasn't.
The Iranians have already preempted the next offer of inducements by the P5+1 (US, UK, France, Russia, PRC and Germany) by their letter to EU negotiator Solana and UN SecGen Ban Ki-moon. In it the Tehran regime allows that it might join an international consortium provided that its domestic enrichment program goes on as scheduled. With an arrogance that is breathtaking, the letter goes on to demand that any discussions also consider a remarkable range of irrelevant matters including the Balkans, the Mideast, Africa and Latin America!
The Geek is of the opinion that had the California Supreme Court issued its ruling on gay marriages a few days earlier, the Iranian letter would have placed that on the agenda as well.
The EU in its attempts to show Washington how real diplomats do the job has offered Tehran train loads of carrots with the results best illustrated by Iranian progress in deploying more improved centrifuges in their enrichment cascade. With this reality establishing the context, it is easy to see why the Tehran regime exhibited such intransigence and arrogance in their letter.
Senators Obama and Clinton, particularly the former, should think long and hard over the experience of the European Union before embracing inducement based negotiations.
In addition that Nice Young Man From Chicago, B.H. Obama, might take a cold hard look at the personality of the current Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
Leaving aside Ahmadinejad's jeremiads against Israel, attention might be given to the Iranian Chief Executive's statements regarding the direct involvement of the Twelfth Imam in the daily actions of the government (a position rejected by many clerics in the mullahocracy) or his comment that his country's economic problems might be solved if more Iranians followed a "culture of martyrdom." Whatever that might mean.
Check out one Western account of the call for martyrdom from the French press agency, a good source, http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5jelVVHDZfukEAiK80qF88B6Q1Tpg.
On balance, Ahmadinejad gives the impression of being off balance.
To date the various rounds of sanctions imposed by the UN and followed with varying degrees of enthusiasm by countries and companies around the world have hurt Iran.
But hurt isn't enough. The hurt hasn't worked. The centrifuges keep on spinning.
This doesn't mean that sanctions will not work if more are applied with greater precision in targeting and greater compliance by corporate and government agencies.
Get a grip on these unpleasant (for the Iranians) realities. PRESS TV admits the inflation rate in Iran ran twenty-four percent for the year ending last April. The outlet quotes the Central Bank in its coverage. (http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=54275§ionid=351020102) Ahmadinejad responded by firing some financial wallahs and claiming that the inflation rate was lower, only about nineteen percent and claiming Iran's "enemies" were responsible anyway.
Then there is the unemployment problem. About one out of every four young Iranians doesn't have a job. http://www.africasia.com/services/news/newsitem.php?area=mideast&item=080512115831.nd5ex4ol.php. In urban areas the figure is over twenty-eight percent. That's a right large passel of unemployed, frustrated teens and twenty somethings. Worrisome for any government.
But wait! There's more.
As if massive unemployment, exo-atmospheric inflation, chronic shortages and periodic "wage holidays" weren't enough, the Iranian government is proceeding with its "privatization" program. Over the past three years privatization has been an ad hoc affair, but as of 15 May, it went official, organised with the release of five or so percent of Republic Shipbuilding to the public.
The well-off, well-connected (or the sons thereof) will do even better than they did under the previous fit-and-start approach.
The idea apparently is to sop up some of the excess liquidity which has driven so much of the inflation to date. But, like previous attempts sponsored by Ahmadinejad, including housing construction and an order that banks lower interest rates to say nothing of directed increases in government salaries and pensions, this stab at privatization will prove counterproductive.
The economic difficulties confronting Iran suggest that strengthened sanctions calculated to hit the Iranian commercial class and sagging infrastructure may yet prove effective. This will take a greater effort on the part of the P5+1--particularly the PRC.
To accomplish the goal of more effective sanctions more effectively implemented will require more patience on the part of the current, lame duck US administration. Even that won't be enough.
For the sanction approach to work it is necessary that Tehran be allowed no comfort in the thought that barely more than six months from now a new administration, presumably with new policies and approaches, will take office.
Only John McCain to date has refused to give Tehran that comfort.
"What about oil prices?" You ask.
"What about the new Iran-Venezuela axis?" You object.
The Geek buys gas and LPG. He knows the pain in the skinny wallet all too well.
But, he also knows history. The US has been through periods of (at the time) astronomical oil and gasoline prices. During the previous oil shocks in 1973 and 1979-80 and the late '90s, the US was hurt badly by rising prices. But, we muddled our way through. The market forces eventually worked.
They will again. Provided the wallahs in Congress can hold their emotions (and driving need to be re-elected) under control. While not an unreconstructed free marketeer by any stretch of the imagination, the Geek cannot help by notice that the market has worked better than government actions in limiting and eventually reversing the damage of shocks to the economy.
Taking a quick look at Iran's attempt to horizontally escalate its confrontation with the US by linking with Venezuela (a subject for a later post), the Geek gives it a thumbs up.
What!
Yes, the Geek thinks it couldn't happen to a better bunch of guys. Hugo Chavez is clearly as deep an economic thinker as Ahmadinejad and the mullahs as his latest nationalization scheme shows. Venezuela is expected to have an inflation rate of twenty-six percent. http://www.shortnews.com/start.cfm?id=70644, http://english.eluniversal.com/2008/05/07/en_eco_art_inflation-at-1.7-per_07A1561241.shtml. Food prices have jumped over forty percent--and it isn't because of the oil price boom. http://english.eluniversal.com/2008/05/14/en_eco_art_venezuela-records-th_14A1576685.shtml.
With a meeting of such potent economic minds as those running Iran and Venezuela, the outcome can only be beneficial to those who live in other countries.
The next administration will have a full foreign policy plate whether they want to eat it or not. The incompetent neocon ninnie cooks in the current regime have made sure of that. We the People had best demand full, candid explanations of goals and means of acquiring those goals from the candidates.
We must not let any of the wannabe residents of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue glide on by with a handful of poorly thought out but nice sounding campaign platitudes.
Unless we want to see us and the rest of the world slide further down the slope so well greased by the Bush-Cheney regime.
That's nice.
The question of what might or should be done was not addressed by the Decider Guy.
Neither has it been addressed meaningfully by any of the senatorial trio seeking electoral preferment.
We the People know the following. One candidate, Senator Obama, would go the route of negotiations backed by incentives--including a summit meeting without preconditions. The second, Senator Clinton, would go with negotiations and incentives albeit at the sub-cabinet level until fundamental agreement had been achieved. Finally, Senator McCain eschews negotiations beyond those necessary to lower Iranian involvement in the Iraqi War and would employ sanctions to achieve an end to unacceptable Iranian nuclear programs.
Those platitudinous adumbrations fail to impress the Geek. They should fail to impress anyone well oriented as to time and place as well.
The Iranians and their nuclear ambitions are not going to just evaporate no matter how hard any of us might wish they would. The mullahocracy is not going to have a sudden change of heart and mind.
They are going to need an effective kick in their collective rear end to mend their troublemaking ways. Perhaps a hard kick.
Now, don't go thinking that the Geek has joined up with the neocon ninnies and their hallucination of improving the world through force imposed regime change. He hasn't.
The Iranians have already preempted the next offer of inducements by the P5+1 (US, UK, France, Russia, PRC and Germany) by their letter to EU negotiator Solana and UN SecGen Ban Ki-moon. In it the Tehran regime allows that it might join an international consortium provided that its domestic enrichment program goes on as scheduled. With an arrogance that is breathtaking, the letter goes on to demand that any discussions also consider a remarkable range of irrelevant matters including the Balkans, the Mideast, Africa and Latin America!
The Geek is of the opinion that had the California Supreme Court issued its ruling on gay marriages a few days earlier, the Iranian letter would have placed that on the agenda as well.
The EU in its attempts to show Washington how real diplomats do the job has offered Tehran train loads of carrots with the results best illustrated by Iranian progress in deploying more improved centrifuges in their enrichment cascade. With this reality establishing the context, it is easy to see why the Tehran regime exhibited such intransigence and arrogance in their letter.
Senators Obama and Clinton, particularly the former, should think long and hard over the experience of the European Union before embracing inducement based negotiations.
In addition that Nice Young Man From Chicago, B.H. Obama, might take a cold hard look at the personality of the current Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
Leaving aside Ahmadinejad's jeremiads against Israel, attention might be given to the Iranian Chief Executive's statements regarding the direct involvement of the Twelfth Imam in the daily actions of the government (a position rejected by many clerics in the mullahocracy) or his comment that his country's economic problems might be solved if more Iranians followed a "culture of martyrdom." Whatever that might mean.
Check out one Western account of the call for martyrdom from the French press agency, a good source, http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5jelVVHDZfukEAiK80qF88B6Q1Tpg.
On balance, Ahmadinejad gives the impression of being off balance.
To date the various rounds of sanctions imposed by the UN and followed with varying degrees of enthusiasm by countries and companies around the world have hurt Iran.
But hurt isn't enough. The hurt hasn't worked. The centrifuges keep on spinning.
This doesn't mean that sanctions will not work if more are applied with greater precision in targeting and greater compliance by corporate and government agencies.
Get a grip on these unpleasant (for the Iranians) realities. PRESS TV admits the inflation rate in Iran ran twenty-four percent for the year ending last April. The outlet quotes the Central Bank in its coverage. (http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=54275§ionid=351020102) Ahmadinejad responded by firing some financial wallahs and claiming that the inflation rate was lower, only about nineteen percent and claiming Iran's "enemies" were responsible anyway.
Then there is the unemployment problem. About one out of every four young Iranians doesn't have a job. http://www.africasia.com/services/news/newsitem.php?area=mideast&item=080512115831.nd5ex4ol.php. In urban areas the figure is over twenty-eight percent. That's a right large passel of unemployed, frustrated teens and twenty somethings. Worrisome for any government.
But wait! There's more.
As if massive unemployment, exo-atmospheric inflation, chronic shortages and periodic "wage holidays" weren't enough, the Iranian government is proceeding with its "privatization" program. Over the past three years privatization has been an ad hoc affair, but as of 15 May, it went official, organised with the release of five or so percent of Republic Shipbuilding to the public.
The well-off, well-connected (or the sons thereof) will do even better than they did under the previous fit-and-start approach.
The idea apparently is to sop up some of the excess liquidity which has driven so much of the inflation to date. But, like previous attempts sponsored by Ahmadinejad, including housing construction and an order that banks lower interest rates to say nothing of directed increases in government salaries and pensions, this stab at privatization will prove counterproductive.
The economic difficulties confronting Iran suggest that strengthened sanctions calculated to hit the Iranian commercial class and sagging infrastructure may yet prove effective. This will take a greater effort on the part of the P5+1--particularly the PRC.
To accomplish the goal of more effective sanctions more effectively implemented will require more patience on the part of the current, lame duck US administration. Even that won't be enough.
For the sanction approach to work it is necessary that Tehran be allowed no comfort in the thought that barely more than six months from now a new administration, presumably with new policies and approaches, will take office.
Only John McCain to date has refused to give Tehran that comfort.
"What about oil prices?" You ask.
"What about the new Iran-Venezuela axis?" You object.
The Geek buys gas and LPG. He knows the pain in the skinny wallet all too well.
But, he also knows history. The US has been through periods of (at the time) astronomical oil and gasoline prices. During the previous oil shocks in 1973 and 1979-80 and the late '90s, the US was hurt badly by rising prices. But, we muddled our way through. The market forces eventually worked.
They will again. Provided the wallahs in Congress can hold their emotions (and driving need to be re-elected) under control. While not an unreconstructed free marketeer by any stretch of the imagination, the Geek cannot help by notice that the market has worked better than government actions in limiting and eventually reversing the damage of shocks to the economy.
Taking a quick look at Iran's attempt to horizontally escalate its confrontation with the US by linking with Venezuela (a subject for a later post), the Geek gives it a thumbs up.
What!
Yes, the Geek thinks it couldn't happen to a better bunch of guys. Hugo Chavez is clearly as deep an economic thinker as Ahmadinejad and the mullahs as his latest nationalization scheme shows. Venezuela is expected to have an inflation rate of twenty-six percent. http://www.shortnews.com/start.cfm?id=70644, http://english.eluniversal.com/2008/05/07/en_eco_art_inflation-at-1.7-per_07A1561241.shtml. Food prices have jumped over forty percent--and it isn't because of the oil price boom. http://english.eluniversal.com/2008/05/14/en_eco_art_venezuela-records-th_14A1576685.shtml.
With a meeting of such potent economic minds as those running Iran and Venezuela, the outcome can only be beneficial to those who live in other countries.
The next administration will have a full foreign policy plate whether they want to eat it or not. The incompetent neocon ninnie cooks in the current regime have made sure of that. We the People had best demand full, candid explanations of goals and means of acquiring those goals from the candidates.
We must not let any of the wannabe residents of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue glide on by with a handful of poorly thought out but nice sounding campaign platitudes.
Unless we want to see us and the rest of the world slide further down the slope so well greased by the Bush-Cheney regime.
Saturday, May 17, 2008
History Challenged Politicos Do It Again!
The Decider and Commander Guy got it wrong again in his speech to the Knesset the other day. His analogy between talking with "terrorists" and the so-called "appeasement" of Adolph Hitler by the United Kingdom and France at the Munich Conference seventy years ago was as wrong as a cat barking.
The Nice Young Man From Chicago, Senator B. H. Obama, was no less wrong in his shrill, quasi-hysterical response accusing the current administration of sins ranging from the usual "failed policies" to the ludicrous, "fear mongering." The Geek senses that what the NYMFC wanted to say was that the Commander Guy is actually a "war monger slavering after breaking things and killing people throughout the Mideast." Senator Obama's remark was another cat barking.
Other commentators in the political, journalistic and blogging worlds damned Senator McCain over an alleged "flip-flop" in that the presumptive Republican nominee allowed as how Hamas would have to be brought into negotiations a few months ago and more recently has said his administration would not "negotiate" with terrorists. "Oy veh!" thinks the Geek.
"Appeasement" is a favored pejorative in the American political lexicon. It is one of those blobs of mud that is hurled with great emotion, some effect and absolutely no knowledge. Back during the Vietnam War, LBJ as well as supporters of our armed effort in Southeast Asia used it time after time. So there is no surprise that the Commander Guy has brought the golem back out its crypt in recent years.
Time out!
Time to get a grip.
Admittedly the Munich Conference happened a long time ago. It predates both Bush and Obama. It even predates the Geek. John McCain was barely out of three cornered pants when the Munich Conference gave the word "appeasement" its connotation of cowardly betrayal on 30 September 1938.
That's a long, long time ago.
Time to go to the videotape. The conference was brought about by the German dictator Adolph Hitler's desire to engulf the most important part of Czechoslovakia, the Sudentenland. In a perfect world the existence of mutual aid agreements between the threatened state and France and indirectly with the UK would have deterred the German ambition.
But the world in 1938 was far from perfect. Neither France nor the UK had either the military ability nor the political will to use force in support of policy. The German dictatorship knew that.
(Even the Soviet Union, whose capo, Joseph Stalin, was bent out of shape over having not been invited to sit at the Munich table, lacked the ability to use military force. The purges assured that the Red Army was a headless, brainless force. The Germans knew that as well.)
The Munich Agreement was not a cowardly betrayal of the Prague government even though then and now that is the way the Czechs and Slovaks define it. Rather, it was the product of military and political exigency.
The British Prime Minister, Neville Chamberlain, whose name and signature umbrella have become an icon for snivelling sell-out and his counterpart the French Premier Daladier were not brainless. They were not bereft of backbone.
Neither did either man believe that tossing steak to a wolf would result in the wolf becoming a vegetarian.
They signed the Munich Agreement, which not only transferred the Sudentenland and its German majority population to Berlin but opened the strategic door to the rest of Czechoslovakia. The Agreement also announced that the western democracies were uninterested in what happened to the rump state--a virtual invitation to Hitler to gulp down the rest of Czechoslovakia at his pleasure.
Any number of sinister interpretations can be put on the Anglo-French action. Most have, including the favorite: both governments saw Stalin's Soviet Union as a threat far greater than Hitler's Germany and hoped to urge the Beast of Berlin to bare his fangs in an easterly direction.
At bottom there were real reasons why neither the British nor the French had any option other than the one taken.
The French people still suffered the pernicious anemia of World War I. The lives lost, ruined or blighted to say nothing of the destruction of the industrial plant of northeast France by the war had blighted French politics, French society, the French economy to an extent that war was simply not a thinkable option.
The British might have had more political will than the French, but not by much. Even if the Brits had been pawing the ground for war, there was still one small problem. The British Army would have been hard pressed to take on the Albanian Girl Scouts. The Royal Air Force might have been able to bomb Iraqi tribesmen effectively but that was all they could do with their collection of obsolescent aircraft. The Royal Navy was flatly irrelevant.
If your people don't have the will to fight on behalf of a diplomatic policy (or even in their own longer term interest) or if your country's armed forces lack the ability to fight effectively, what choices do you have when it comes to diplomatic put-up or shut-up?
That's right, bucko.
You acknowledge reality and buy time. Time during which political will might be mobilized or military competence developed.
That's exactly what Chamberlain and Daladier did at Munich. They practiced the hardest, most bitter form of realpolitick. That neither man effectively used the time purchased at the expense of the Czechs and Slovaks is another story.
The US has the military ability to confront "terrorist groups" and rogue states. It might not have sufficient troops to contemplate adventures in regime change with attendant occupations. But it has more than sufficient capacity to break things and kill people if such becomes necessary.
Anyone well oriented in time and place knows that and takes it into account.
Arguably the American public has the political will to accept the use of force in support of policy provided a rational, credible and truthful explanation as to the necessity is forthcoming from the president. States and non-State actors who wish the US ill know this and probably factor it into their plans.
This is why Bush's equation was wrong. If the US chooses to negotiate with any State or pretender to statehood it does so from an automatic position of strength. It is asymmetrical diplomacy.
The Nice Young Man From Chicago is wrong in his characterization of Bush's remarks as the mongering of either fear or war. His quick and shrill response underscores a reality that has already become apparent during the campaign: The Senator does not understand the nature and character of diplomatic conversations.
Diplomacy, no matter how private, no matter how tentative, works only when there is a goal and a process agreeable to all parties. A further precondition is that all parties must be open to compromise in the achievement of a solution to a mutually perceived problem.
Appeasement, correctly understood, is simply capitulation spelled differently. Surrender with a diplomatic cover. Absent the preconditions for effective negotiation, there are only two possible outcomes: surrender or a further hardening of positions and ramping up of warlike preparations.
Those who dump on McCain for the alleged sin of "flip-flopping" fail to differentiate between the demands of diplomacy on the one hand and the requirements for domestic political campaigning on the other. The Geek has no doubt but Senator McCain well recognises that some day the US will have to deal with Hamas and possibly some other equally unsavory gangs of thugs and assassins at the conference table.
Much as none of us may like the idea, Hamas is currently what the Israelis call a "fact on the ground." Calling it a "terrorist group" might be both correct and politically necessary in the context of a domestic campaign, but the fact will have to be dealt with realistically both at the conference table and, if necessary, over the sights of a gun.
History shows clearly that refusing to talk to states or groups because they are morally or politically distasteful is counterproductive. History shows that talking without preconditions is like masturbating with steel wool--neither productive nor pleasant.
Finally, history shows that the great type case of appeasement, the Munich Conference and Agreement, is actually a type case of the effects of political and military realities upon the capacity of governments to do the right and necessary thing.
We can only hope that We the People do not place a future American government into having no option other than that presented to Chamberlain and Daladier.
The Nice Young Man From Chicago, Senator B. H. Obama, was no less wrong in his shrill, quasi-hysterical response accusing the current administration of sins ranging from the usual "failed policies" to the ludicrous, "fear mongering." The Geek senses that what the NYMFC wanted to say was that the Commander Guy is actually a "war monger slavering after breaking things and killing people throughout the Mideast." Senator Obama's remark was another cat barking.
Other commentators in the political, journalistic and blogging worlds damned Senator McCain over an alleged "flip-flop" in that the presumptive Republican nominee allowed as how Hamas would have to be brought into negotiations a few months ago and more recently has said his administration would not "negotiate" with terrorists. "Oy veh!" thinks the Geek.
"Appeasement" is a favored pejorative in the American political lexicon. It is one of those blobs of mud that is hurled with great emotion, some effect and absolutely no knowledge. Back during the Vietnam War, LBJ as well as supporters of our armed effort in Southeast Asia used it time after time. So there is no surprise that the Commander Guy has brought the golem back out its crypt in recent years.
Time out!
Time to get a grip.
Admittedly the Munich Conference happened a long time ago. It predates both Bush and Obama. It even predates the Geek. John McCain was barely out of three cornered pants when the Munich Conference gave the word "appeasement" its connotation of cowardly betrayal on 30 September 1938.
That's a long, long time ago.
Time to go to the videotape. The conference was brought about by the German dictator Adolph Hitler's desire to engulf the most important part of Czechoslovakia, the Sudentenland. In a perfect world the existence of mutual aid agreements between the threatened state and France and indirectly with the UK would have deterred the German ambition.
But the world in 1938 was far from perfect. Neither France nor the UK had either the military ability nor the political will to use force in support of policy. The German dictatorship knew that.
(Even the Soviet Union, whose capo, Joseph Stalin, was bent out of shape over having not been invited to sit at the Munich table, lacked the ability to use military force. The purges assured that the Red Army was a headless, brainless force. The Germans knew that as well.)
The Munich Agreement was not a cowardly betrayal of the Prague government even though then and now that is the way the Czechs and Slovaks define it. Rather, it was the product of military and political exigency.
The British Prime Minister, Neville Chamberlain, whose name and signature umbrella have become an icon for snivelling sell-out and his counterpart the French Premier Daladier were not brainless. They were not bereft of backbone.
Neither did either man believe that tossing steak to a wolf would result in the wolf becoming a vegetarian.
They signed the Munich Agreement, which not only transferred the Sudentenland and its German majority population to Berlin but opened the strategic door to the rest of Czechoslovakia. The Agreement also announced that the western democracies were uninterested in what happened to the rump state--a virtual invitation to Hitler to gulp down the rest of Czechoslovakia at his pleasure.
Any number of sinister interpretations can be put on the Anglo-French action. Most have, including the favorite: both governments saw Stalin's Soviet Union as a threat far greater than Hitler's Germany and hoped to urge the Beast of Berlin to bare his fangs in an easterly direction.
At bottom there were real reasons why neither the British nor the French had any option other than the one taken.
The French people still suffered the pernicious anemia of World War I. The lives lost, ruined or blighted to say nothing of the destruction of the industrial plant of northeast France by the war had blighted French politics, French society, the French economy to an extent that war was simply not a thinkable option.
The British might have had more political will than the French, but not by much. Even if the Brits had been pawing the ground for war, there was still one small problem. The British Army would have been hard pressed to take on the Albanian Girl Scouts. The Royal Air Force might have been able to bomb Iraqi tribesmen effectively but that was all they could do with their collection of obsolescent aircraft. The Royal Navy was flatly irrelevant.
If your people don't have the will to fight on behalf of a diplomatic policy (or even in their own longer term interest) or if your country's armed forces lack the ability to fight effectively, what choices do you have when it comes to diplomatic put-up or shut-up?
That's right, bucko.
You acknowledge reality and buy time. Time during which political will might be mobilized or military competence developed.
That's exactly what Chamberlain and Daladier did at Munich. They practiced the hardest, most bitter form of realpolitick. That neither man effectively used the time purchased at the expense of the Czechs and Slovaks is another story.
The US has the military ability to confront "terrorist groups" and rogue states. It might not have sufficient troops to contemplate adventures in regime change with attendant occupations. But it has more than sufficient capacity to break things and kill people if such becomes necessary.
Anyone well oriented in time and place knows that and takes it into account.
Arguably the American public has the political will to accept the use of force in support of policy provided a rational, credible and truthful explanation as to the necessity is forthcoming from the president. States and non-State actors who wish the US ill know this and probably factor it into their plans.
This is why Bush's equation was wrong. If the US chooses to negotiate with any State or pretender to statehood it does so from an automatic position of strength. It is asymmetrical diplomacy.
The Nice Young Man From Chicago is wrong in his characterization of Bush's remarks as the mongering of either fear or war. His quick and shrill response underscores a reality that has already become apparent during the campaign: The Senator does not understand the nature and character of diplomatic conversations.
Diplomacy, no matter how private, no matter how tentative, works only when there is a goal and a process agreeable to all parties. A further precondition is that all parties must be open to compromise in the achievement of a solution to a mutually perceived problem.
Appeasement, correctly understood, is simply capitulation spelled differently. Surrender with a diplomatic cover. Absent the preconditions for effective negotiation, there are only two possible outcomes: surrender or a further hardening of positions and ramping up of warlike preparations.
Those who dump on McCain for the alleged sin of "flip-flopping" fail to differentiate between the demands of diplomacy on the one hand and the requirements for domestic political campaigning on the other. The Geek has no doubt but Senator McCain well recognises that some day the US will have to deal with Hamas and possibly some other equally unsavory gangs of thugs and assassins at the conference table.
Much as none of us may like the idea, Hamas is currently what the Israelis call a "fact on the ground." Calling it a "terrorist group" might be both correct and politically necessary in the context of a domestic campaign, but the fact will have to be dealt with realistically both at the conference table and, if necessary, over the sights of a gun.
History shows clearly that refusing to talk to states or groups because they are morally or politically distasteful is counterproductive. History shows that talking without preconditions is like masturbating with steel wool--neither productive nor pleasant.
Finally, history shows that the great type case of appeasement, the Munich Conference and Agreement, is actually a type case of the effects of political and military realities upon the capacity of governments to do the right and necessary thing.
We can only hope that We the People do not place a future American government into having no option other than that presented to Chamberlain and Daladier.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)