Dan Feidt's log on Minnesota, Information Operations, spinstorms and latent contradictions.
The language police are out for the deviant ideas again, reports the New York Times on a new book "The Language Police." The author Diane Ravitch says that censor pressure groups all "demand that publishers shield children from words and ideas that contain what they deem the `wrong' models for living." Left and right "believe that reality follows language usage," and they hope they "can stop people from ever seeing offensive words and ideas, they can prevent them from having the thought or committing the act that the words imply." Semantics, semantics. It's not 1984.
We are getting cozy enough with the fun fun groups in Iraq today, such as the People's Mujahideen, who just signed a ceasefire with the US, despite their status as a terrorist organization. They are opposed to the Iranian government and are about 10,000 strong in Iraq, according to the Times. Their armed wing is the National Liberation Army of Iran, which seeks to "protect itself" in a "defensive" fashion against the frightening Badr Corps, who are affilitated with the Iran-angled Supreme Council of the Islamic Revolution in Iraq. So that balance of power looks pretty damn solid, yes. Thanks to jiriki for linx. This of course will fit in like a grand jigsaw puzzle with the emerging problem of the Turkish special forces trafficking weapons to Turkomen groups around Kirkuk, (via aid convoys) with the apparent goal of provoking a crisis to justify Turkish intervention in the area. Yes, the management of these forces is going so damn well. It's only going to get simpler from here, of course.
Its looking unipolar though. Voice of America reports Blair Warns France Against Multipolar World Vision , that There Can Be Only One, one world hegemony, that is (Thanks to Schwartz for link):
Mr. Blair said in an interview published today (Monday) in Britain's Financial Times that the quickest way to push America toward solitary action is to set up a rival center of power. The British prime minister said what the world needs is one power encompassing a strategic partnership between Europe and America.
Oh good, the Israeli Ambeassador to Washington, while speaking in front of the Anti-Defamation League, called for "regime change" in Iran and Syria because they still threaten Israel, via "psychological pressure." Yay.
Now it is always fascinating to jump in and watch Fox from time to time, to grasp in which ways they are justifying their whole circus. Hannity and Colmes was interesting because a former secretary of state, Mr. Bloated and Decrepit Troll was his name, if I recall. He basically said that (specifically citing a lack of NATO acquiescence) France is no longer worth sharing information with, now needs to be on the third tier, no longer an "ally." How did this happen? That totem of Republican Youth gone bigtime Sean Hannity, started rambling on about this plan to say we are 'done with the UN,' create an institution which didnt let Libya lead the human rights boards, and wasn't 'so anti-Israeli and anti-American,' which is a fascinating statement in and of itself. Tragically I can't find the link, which is really a pity because the angry ideology of these guys was so transparent and glorious...
And then whenever you go to FoxNews.com you invariably get a rich helping of the underbelly of dull-right rhetoric. No oil for food, an intriguing example of normative language to attack the United Nations. The lead:
Around the globe, the U.N. uses "humanitarian aid" as a vehicle to impose politically correct policies, from gender feminism to gun control. But the crisis in Iraq reveals another aspect of the U.N.: a money-hungry institution that hides behind a mask of compassion.Yes, ein volk und ein FOX. I liked the description of this Hannity & Colmes story, "What is Hollywood Saying Now? What are people in Hollywood who opposed the president saying now? Would they ever admit they were wrong?" Yes, Hollywood was so wrooooong, wrooong. We won, dude. What can you possibly be upset about? We woooon!!!!!!!!!!
For a perspective of the world which might not square with Hannity or Colmes, try the blogger IranianGirl .
Apparently there can be only one. Voice of America:
Mr. Blair said in an interview published today (Monday) in Britain's Financial Times (newspaper) that the quickest way to push America toward solitary action is to set up a rival center of power. The British prime minister said what the world needs is one power encompassing a strategic partnership between Europe and America.Big ups to Dan on this one.
Springfest this Saturday was out of control in a very good way as hundreds flocked to Shaw Field to watch such groups as Heiruspecs, Har Mar Superstar and Superdrag perform. Basically everyone there was completely crunked in one way or another. The beer garden was cheap and relatively easy to get into. The acoustics were not very good, as the stage was angled towards a brick wall that reflected sound straight back, creating an echo whose phase shifted as one walked around. Apparently they realized it would be a problem when the stage was already half-set up and they just had to go with it. However all in all we had a terrific time chillin on the grass and watching the new Macalester windmill go around and around and around....
Beyond all this, we are in the midst of revving up for finals time. Fortunately I've already finished work for one class. There's still a ton of stuff to do, including several papers for Monday...
What we need are Bush Administration playing cards.
In the news there are probably positive changes afoot in Israel and Palestine as Abu Mazen becomes the first Prime Minister of Palestine. He will probably be able to negotiate a solid peace because the outside world respects him more than Arafat, not without reason. This should unfold quickly over the next few weeks. Here's an MSNBC presentation of Israel's Weapons of Mass Destruction. Here's an amusing Lawyer's Trip to Israel which includes visits with the Mossad, a visit to an Israeli military court trying terrorists, the Syrian border, and other exciting Lawyerly activities, I suppose.
In Iraq news, a Marine executed an Iraqi irregular after the Iraqi attacked the marine's unit with grenades. His comrade offered a frightening justification for the execution: "If he wouldn't have done it, those guys probably would've come back and killed or severely injured other Marines. He did the right thing."
Israeli-Arab activist and former member of the Knesset Azmi Bishara comments on the unexpected American threats towards Syria.
There is a very interesting movie called 'The Russian Ark' which was filmed in a single take within the Russian Hermitage museum. AP reports on it.
As Operation Iraqi Freedom rolled into Mesopotamia, the Syrian government acted to oppose the Anglo-American coalition by trafficking military equipment to Saddam's regime and opening the border to allow Arab volunteer partisans into Iraq. Both these acts come very close to acts of war, which would hardly be an smart move for any government against the best military ever. So why was Bashir Assad compelled to do such a thing? Because Syria is a target of American and Israeli neoconservative strategy, which have essentially joined together against Middle Eastern 'terror' regimes. Military action against Syria is unlikely, but conflict between Damascus, Jerusalem, and Washington is intensifying. Why?
Q: Mr. President, Secretary Rumsfeld said today he thinks Syria is harboring some Iraqi leadership. Could Syria face military action if they harbor these people?The emerging confict between Bashir Assad's Syria and the administration of George W. Bush seemed a natural consequence to me a few weeks ago. The history of Baathist Syria, the Golan Heights, and the meeting of American and Israeli neoconservative strategy all pointed to growing trouble at Damascus. Whatever Syria might be or do, it stands squarely in the way of a new American demand for 'regional reform,' 'redrawing the map of the Middle East,' 'freedom' and above all 'security,' in the context of 'opposing terrorist organizations.' Syria, officially at war with Israel for 50 years, is so thoroughly unhip to the new boss that Ari Fleischer declared "Syria is indeed a terrorist nation." 2
THE PRESIDENT: Well, Syria just needs to cooperate with us. We've made -- I made that clear on Friday. I will, if need be, reiterate it today. The Syrian government needs to cooperate with the United States and our coalition partners and not harbor any Baathists, any military officials, any people who need to be held to account for their tenure during what we are learning more and more about. It was one of the most horrendous governments ever.
Q: Could they face military action if they don't cooperate?
THE PRESIDENT: They just need to cooperate.
Remarks of George W. Bush, South Lawn, April 13, 20031
"Can you imagine the effect on the Arabs if Iraq gets out of this war intact? It took just five days for all the Arabs to be defeated by Israel in the 1967 war. And already we Iraqis have been fighting the all-powerful Americans for five days and still we have held on to all of our cities and will not surrender. And imagine what would happen if Iraq surrendered. What chance would the Syrian leadership have against the demands of Israel? What chance would the Palestinians have of negotiating a fair deal with the Israelis? The Americans don't care about giving the Palestinians a fair deal. So why should they want to give the Iraqis a fair deal?"--British-educated Iraqi businessman to Robert Fisk 3
So today most of the people resisting American order on 'Free Iraq' are not the hapless Iraqis, they are foreign Arabs, mostly Syrian. Syria and other locals see this war as a terrible intrusion, a direct attempt to impose regional order upon the unruly Muslims with a view to securing the oil market and securing Israeli regional hegemony. Bush will consider opening Iraq's oil taps to threaten the nearby regimes, I mean "spread the seed of democracy." Jordan's and Syria's fragile economies were supported by cheap Iraqi oil, and the economic shock could crack these states, to say nothing of troubled nations like Saudi Arabia which would reach economic crisis with only a small drop in oil prices. The oil situation alone presents the United States precarious ethical decisions which will impact all Middle Easterners dramatically. Despite the local vortices of militarism, religious passion and ancient rivalries Bush is wandering into, we have merely been told the simple reassurance that 'the outcome is certain.' Hubris? Yes, and supreme confidence in a transcendant moral and military order enforcing the demands of Jerusalem and Washington über alles.
"We are not under pressure. Sometimes we see things the same way, sometimes we view them differently. But our relationship is very close. Our relationship with the White House has never been so good. I would like to emphasize that we are not in a conflict with the U.S. I do not live with a feeling that we are under any threat." -- Ariel Sharon interviewed by Ari Shavit, April 14. 4
The Bush Administration is packed with neo-conservative ideologues at the sub-cabinet level of many departments. These people see the Middle East from the perspective of the Likud, oil companies, and the increasingly allied Israeli and American military-industrial complexes. Indeed, this Tuesday, when a delegation from Israel visited Washington, one of the American representatives had already written policy proposals for the Likud Party in 1996.
It was considered significant that the White House meeting with Mr. Sharon's aides on Tuesday was attended on the American side not only by Secretary of State Colin L. Powell and Condoleezza Rice, the national security adviser, but by others in the administration whom Israel considers more sympathetic. These other officials included Elliott Abrams, the top White House adviser on the Middle East, as well as I. Lewis Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff, and Douglas J. Feith, under secretary of defense for policy. --NY Times, April 17. 5A central maxim of neocon thought is "Moral Clarity and the Use of Force," which was their principle when they worked under Reagan to help topple the Soviet Union. It seems to have worked well enough against the Russians, but today's Neocon strategy depends on the projection of power from Israel, especially against Syria. Consider the following excerpt from "A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm," a document Richard Perle, Douglas Feith and others wrote to advise the Netanyahu administration in 1996. Until very recently, Perle was chair of the Pentagon's Defense Policy Board. Feith is still the Pentagon's Undersecretary for Policy.
Israel can shape its strategic environment, in cooperation with Turkey and Jordan, by weakening, containing, and even rolling back Syria. This effort can focus on removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq - an important Israeli strategic objective in its own right - as a means of foiling Syria's regional ambitions.No wonder that Sharon finds his relationship with the White House so close. So what has Perle opined lately towards devious Damascus?
Given the nature of the regime in Damascus, it is both natural and moral that Israel abandon the slogan "comprehensive peace" and move to contain Syria, drawing attention to its weapons of mass destruction program, and rejecting "land for peace" deals on the Golan Heights.
Perle said that if the Bush administration were to learn that Syria had taken possession of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, "I'm quite sure that we would have to respond to that. It would be an act of such foolishness on Syria's part, that it would raise the question of whether Syria could be reasoned with. But I suppose our first approach would be to demand that the Syrians terminate that threat by turning over anything they have come to possess, and failing that I don't think anyone would rule out the use of any of our full range of capabilities." 6
Or more directly, in an American Enterprise Institute forum: "I would hope that Congress would take a look at helping those who want to free Syria from the tyrannical rule of the Ba'ath Party." 7
But now he's talking about American interests, isn't he? Do the Republicans and the Likud see anything differently?
This invasion of Iraq has widened opposition to the flexing of U.S. power. It is in the plain and direct interests of Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Turkey to see off the Americans from Iraq as quickly as possible. Every day that the American and British armies remain in Iraq, the less stable Arab societies become. What forces are destined to emerge from this new instability are mostly unknown, but frightening.
Those honorable Americans who laid it on the line these past weeks out in the desert are looking around now. They see the troubling dimension of armed resistance there. Many, if not most, of the fighters roaming around are cells of young Syrians who hate America. The battle for Baghdad has mostly been won. So can Iraq be stabilized in favor of American plans, against the many local groups who stand to lose if America gets a firm hold?
Conflict with Syria is natural, if you accept the Golan occupation without question, if you've spent the last few months rooting for the Ba'ath to get peeled off another ancient Arab capital. One regime is sorta like another. They support Terror. They harbor other Ba'ath, they sent Saddam military aid this spring. Enemy? Of course.
Attacking Syria in a variety of ways is a natural consequence of our neoconservative ideas currently in power in Washington and Jerusalem. Ambitions, ambitions. So what's between Damascus and Tehran? Kurds. Iraq. Hezbollah. And starting today, the Pentagon.
Natural enemies. Ba'ath is terror. Golan is Israel. Hegemony is Freedom.
It seems that the Bush administration has, what, offended some people with its utter disregard for the environment, global warming, and the rights of labor unions, besides that whole 'international law' issue. Paul Krugman summarizes the conservative worldview, Republican environmentalism, and reminds us that 'we can't go it alone.' A Washington Post columnist takes Bush to task for screwing over unions, which is probably the most significant and willfully obscured aspect of this administration. And The Guardian (UK) satirizes the lawlesness in Iraq:
With handkerchiefs masking half their faces, two rioters roughly the height of George Bush and Donald Rumsfeld kicked in the gates of Iraq's largest oilfield and started to grab all the keys for the oil tankers. International onlookers were powerless to prevent the illegal behaviour of these heavily armed looters and billions of dollars of worth of crude oil, gas and petroleum were seized, not to mention all the free glasses.Thanks to Nick for these tasty links.
In other news there have been some positive developments in the Israel/Palestine conflict as Ariel Sharon's government promised to help support the efforts of the new Palestinian Prime Minister, the elderly Mahmoud Abbas (Abu Mazen). Will anything tangibly positive occur? Who knows.
At any time it's good to look at the latest Noam Chmosky interview (April 13). Now some people loathe Chomsky and believe he's a full-of-shit anarchic biatch, but I think he usually has something astute to say.
Robert Fisk has really taken on a strange inverted view to whatever is actually going on inside Iraq. At this point, I can't tell if he's gone utterly mad, or actually has a grasp of the mysterious forms of anarchy and power now manifesting in Iraq. He also has some very interesting speculation on the looters and arsonists who destroyed all those government ministries:
There is something dangerous - and deeply disturbing - about the crowds setting light to the buildings of Baghdad, including the great libraries and state archives. For they are not looters. The looters come first. The arsonists turn up later, often in blue-and-white buses. I followed one after its passengers had set the Ministry of Trade on fire and it sped out of town.
The official US line on all this is that the looting is revenge - an explanation that is growing very thin - and that the fires are started by "remnants of Saddam's regime", the same "criminal elements", no doubt, who feature in the marines' curfew orders. But people in Baghdad don't believe Saddam's former supporters are starting these fires. And neither do I.
The looters make money from their rampages but the arsonists have to be paid. The passengers in those buses are clearly being directed to their targets.
So who are they, this army of arsonists? I recognised one the other day, a middle-aged, unshaven man in a red T-shirt, and the second time he saw me he pointed a Kalashnikov at me. What was he frightened of? Who was he working for? In whose interest is it to destroy the entire physical infrastructure of the state, with its cultural heritage? Why didn't the Americans stop this?
As I said, something is going terribly wrong in Baghdad and something is going on which demands that serious questions be asked of the United States government.
"Certain foreign newspapers have said that we fell on Austria with brutal methods....when I crossed the former frontier [into Austria] there met me such a stream of love as I have never experienced. Not as tyrants have we come, but as liberators."
-Adolf Hitler
Oil is far too important a commodity to be left in the hands of the Arabs.
-Henry Kissinger
The Shia crisis within Iraq continued today as a former Iraqi general and a just-repatriated cleric returning from London were killed by a hostile mob inside the Mosque of Ali, one of the holiest Shia sites. Al-Jazeera's report describes most sharply the sectarian conflict involved, although their site doesn't load correctly in some browsers. Apparently the murdered leaders were accused of being 'American stooges,' more or less. ArabNews.com also has a reporter who broke the story, although I'm sure Fox's will be more balanced and fair. Rupert Murdoch bought DirecTV today, by the way. Now Fox has seized the skies... And Halliburton won its bid to 'reconstruct' Iraqi industry without competition. Nice.
Seymour Hersh is a cool dude. First he wrote a nasty piece about Richard Perle which helped force Perle out of the Pentagon, then he comes up with a fascinating piece about an Iraqi-Nigerian uranium hoax, which Bush referred to as fact in his State of the Union address. Basically it's now known that the case Bush made about Iraqis buying uranium was completely false, and the documents were 'embarrasingly' bad forgeries. The White House has been extremely quiet about getting "fooled." Also another fun fun quiz about Bush and this war. Links thanks to Nick.
Some people are drivin' bitchin' Hummer-2s all over the place. I'm not in the burbs like I used to be, so I don't have a pulse on what the spendy and conservative are really into at the moment. According to the article, H2s now outsell Lincoln Navigators and Lexus LX470s, while almost even with the BMW X5, although the X5 only costs $10,000 to the H2's cool 50 grand. link thanks to Jiriki. Snip:
Rick Schmidt, founder of I.H.O.G., the International Hummer Owners Group, said: "In my humble opinion, the H2 is an American icon. Not the military version by any means, but it's a symbol of what we all hold so dearly above all else, the fact we have the freedom of choice, the freedom of happiness, the freedom of adventure and discovery, and the ultimate freedom of expression. Those who deface a Hummer in words or deed deface the American flag and what it stands for." ... [The war] "definitely helps," said Clotaire Rapaille, a consumer research consultant for G.M. and other automakers. "I told them in Detroit, 'Put four stars on the shoulder of the Hummer and it will sell better.' The Hummer is a car in uniform. Right now we are in a time of uncertainty, and people like strong brands with basic emotions." ... Travis Patterson, 35, an Air Force veteran who lives in Arlington, Tex., said: "To me, the Hummer, the H1, is the most American vehicle on the planet. It oozes patriotism. You put some flags on the Hummer and drive down the road and everyone is honking and waving at you."It really makes me proud to be American. Strong brands, strong SUVs. Support our troops, who as of today start their responsibilities as an occupying power in Baghdad. But can a Westernized army rolling around an Arab capital reach a peace with local leaders? Not when those tapped leaders get cut to pieces. One Arab author thinks we may still be looking at something like Lebanon II, although I do think there won't be that level of wanton slaughter.
Meanwhile, on the Lunatic Fringe, we learn that the Beast of revelations is the United States. Bow before the monster. Yeah, and reality is the Matrix, too. I'm glad someone figured it out.
On the lighter side of affairs, you may be interested in seeing something which transcends mere racism, or perhaps it's just the keenest satire ever. Actually Jon told me about this a long time ago, but then some guys around here ran into it. It's called "Tokyo Breakfast" and was theoretically the pilot for an unmade Japanese television show, with a profoundly disturbing view of race relations. Entertaining? Yes. Offensive? Oh my.
Thomas Friedman started talking about how Saddam has fallen in Iraq, not to Bush but to Hobbes. This is handy, as we are studying Hobbes right now in political philosophy. No state monopoly on legitimized use of coercion, it's true. Arabs lament that anyone could be the next target, and a hilarious Al-Jazeera piece points out that Palestinians, Cubans and Syrians better shut up and pay attention. The stuff about Syria is fascinating. Look for the "Syria Accountability Act of 2003" to some up sometime. Unless this too, is satire.
The fairest and balancedest newsmedia megalith Fox News recently used its news ticker in NYC to mock protesters: "War protester auditions here today. . . . Thanks for coming!" "How do you keep a war protester in suspense? Ignore them." "Attention protesters: The Michael Moore Fan Club meets Thursday at a phone booth at Sixth Avenue and 50th Street." This juxtaposes well with a FOX report "Commuters Sound Off on Traffic-Blocking Rallies." I like how it's written.
Does anyone ponder how Orwellian it was to have the U.S. support the weapons inspection program, poke around the country and then suddenly an invasion? Most odd, which makes this collection of American radio propaganda broadcast into Iraq rather creepy. Thx to Schwartz.
They are holding teach-ins here at Macalester Wednesday and Thursday. (links) I'll prolly go to some.
Yay, Congress is annoyed enough to actually consider investigating Halliburton for ripping off the government.
There is a lot of anarchy in Iraq now, as the Anglo coalition doesn't really have the ability to keep order in the cities they've captured. A roaming gang of punks called the 'Iraqi Coalition of National Unity' is lootingand terrorizing people in Najf, with American support. That's just the thing. The Americans and Brits are trying to get interim governments going, with who? The same tribal leaders that ran things under Saddam, because they have all the power and allegiance. But first we must pass through some chaos, before enforcing 'law and order,' which will have to be an order supporting the same locals as before. Or maybe not, but I don't see how.
Robert Fisk in Baghdad reports on the American attack on the capital. Three news reporters were killed today by American bombing, including Al-Jazeera's correspondent. A shell slammed into the Palestine Hotel, where journalists operate from. Fisk's report from April 8 looks more at the historic precedent of Westerners invading an Arab capital for the first time in 80 years:
Amid the crack of gunfire and the tracer streaking across the river, and the huge oil fires that the Iraqis lit to give them cover to retreat, one had to look away ? to the great river bridges further north, into the pale green waters of that most ancient of rivers ? to realise that a Western army on a moral crusade had broken through to the heart of an Arab city for the first time since General Allenby marched into Jerusalem in 1918. But Allenby walked into Jerusalem on foot, in reverence for Christ's birthplace and yesterday's American thrust into Baghdad had neither humility nor honour about it.An interesting opinion piece points out that we are destined for serious problems in Iraq because of the lack of international and regional harmony. Oh yeah, did you hear Osama calling for suicide attacks on Arab client states? Darn him! A funny piece about everyone betraying everyone else and being utterly useless.
In Oakland CA today protesters blocked the road entry of a company with a contract to handle shipping in Umm-Qasr, Iraq. The protesters clashed with police (they claim metal bolts were tossed) and the police attacked the crowd with various riot-gear weapons such as wooden blocks and rubber bullets. There is a pretty shocking video on San Francisco Indymedia. The video was by a protester who gets wounded by the police about halfway through. And there's a monorail in the background.
American and British forces have mostly encircled Baghdad now, but the Coalition lacks the manpower to completely seal the city off. For the last few days, American and British aircraft have battered Republican Guard divisions around the city, killing thousands of Iraqis. But under whose control is the situation? Is the Iraqi army dissolving before our eyes, or has the great mass of the elite divisions simply disappeared into Baghdad, a sprawling city of 10 million? John Keegan, defense editor at the London Daily Telegraph, is suspicious the Saddam has withdrawn forces into the city for the terrible final fight. The strongest evidence of this is that there have been far fewer Iraqi surrenders and kills than account for the large divisions, even battered ones. On the other hand, maybe the Iraqi security-military complex is dissolving. But does it really seem that way?
Saddam's tactics in refusing to commit any of his elite Republican Guards and most of his better army divisions to open fighting has indeed allowed U.S. forces to advance at breakneck speed and with remarkably low casualties to the outskirts of Baghdad. And if the city falls fast, then the Mystery of the Vanishing Army may well prove to be nothing more than a historic curio, or it might well be demoralized, paralyzed and disintegrated already as U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and his deputies clearly expected.
But if Keegan's concerns, and the observations of combat correspondent James Meek, are confirmed, then the more U.S. forces are pulled into the giant magnet and potential killing ground of Baghdad, the greater their peril will be. But it will not be primarily from the "Saddam Fedayeen" and other irregular forces contesting physical control of the great city of 5 million people -- more than 10 times the population of Stalingrad.
Instead, the real threat will be from the main forces of the Iraqi army, currently bedded down in vast underground bunkers -- which Iraqi engineers have long been expert at constructing -- and expertly advised on camouflage tactics by senior retired Russian officers.
And what national security philosophy are we rolling into here? The neoconservative world, love it or hate it. Policy Review has an article 'Rage, Hubris, and Regime Change' claiming that today "Dominance, Pre-emption, and Regime Change" are the key, but our understanding of Iraqi culture is disastrously warped:
The attempt to impose democracy in Iraq and the Middle East has all the unreality of Don Quixote. The truth is that an invasion and occupation of Iraq with the pronounced intent of imposing democracy will more likely be a "poison dart" with a "boomerang effect" than a "magic bullet" with a "democratic domino effect" in the region. For decades, the Iraqi middle classes have been forced to act like supplicants towards those who rule them with arbitrary power. Their servility has undoubtedly produced a psychology and culture that emphasize avoidance and distrust of political life. In no way do the Iraqi middle classes resemble the proto-liberal capitalist classes of seventeenth-century Western Europe with their preferences for, and understanding of, a legally framed market economy and individual autonomy. As for Iraqi society in general, it is fragmented into hostile tribes and clans based on kinship, religion, and ethnicity. In such an environment, creating civility will require Promethean effort. Creating a civil society and democratic government will take a miracle.Huzzah! The most 'fair and balanced' network on the other side of the world, Al-Jazeera, has started English.aljazeera.net, so you can get a dose of Arab satellite media. A comparison between Al-Jazeera and International Herald Tribune, via NYTimes:
Al-Jazeera: US military to be in charge of Iraq for over six months: Reawakening fears of United States' domination over Iraq, US Deputy Defense Secretary Wolfowitz said its military would remain in charge of the country for more than six months after its invasion. The Pentagon established the Office of Reconstruction and Humanitarian Assistance (ORHA), to be headed by retired Army Gen. Jay Garner, a controversial figure in the Arab world.
He has strong ties with pro-Israeli members in Congress, connections to the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs, and is one of 26 US military officials who recently visited Israel and issued the statement: "A strong Israel is an asset that American military planners and political leaders can rely on."
US Undersecretary of State Douglas Feith has also been an outspoken advocate of a continuing US presence in Iraq. He has gone on record as saying that Israel has "moral superiority" over the Arabs while his website states that he "represented a leading Israeli armaments manufacturer in establishing joint ventures with leading US aerospace manufacturers for manufacture and sale of missile systems to the US Department of Defence and worldwide."
The US has called for the construction of extensive road networks, the renovation of electricity grids and the rebuilding of thousands of schools. Contracts would be awarded to five US engineering firms announced earlier, including a subsidiary of Haliburton, the company run by Vice President Dick Cheney until 2000.
International Herald Tribune: New Iraq Government Could Take 6 Months, Wolfowitz Says.Ah, there is the story of the "Iraqi fighters" heading into fight the Anglo Coalition. Al-Jazeera's spin: Volunteer fighters continue to flock to the cause:
"We're not there to run the country," Mr. Wolfowitz said. "Our goal has got to be transfer of authority and operation of the government as quickly as possible, not to some other external authority but to the Iraqi people themselves."
Decisions would be made by all Iraqis, not just those returning from exile, he said, in a comment that appeared to move the Pentagon nearer the position staked out by the State Department. "You can't decide what the future government of Iraq will be when 20 million or more people can't say what they think," he said.
The Defense Department reportedly has pressed for an interim government, possibly headed by exile leaders, to be set up quickly in southern Iraq. The State Department maintains that these expatriates, some of whom have been out of the country for decades, may lack the public support needed to form a stable, broad-based government....
Mr. Wolfowitz issued new warnings to Syria, which the administration has accused of shipping weapons to Iraq and letting Iraqi fighters cross the border.
"I don't know what game they're playing," he said, "but they need to stop."
Syria, he added, would be "held accountable for" its actions. He said he was not threatening an invasion, but pointing to diplomatic and other consequences Damascus would face.
Nevertheless, there are now signs that the steady trickle of immigrant fighters may be growing in size. Western intelligence sources say that they have detected groups of Saudi fighters trying to get into Iraq to attack US and UK forces there, according to the BBC. Others are trying to cross into Iraq from Iran. Four groups of Saudis are also said to have left their hideouts in Afghanistan to join Iraqi forces as well....I just want to know how the White House explains this situation, how they can reconcile it with the 'freedom' and 'liberation' talk. With all the talk of killing Baathists, I think they brushed aside the fact of Baathist rule in Syria. Oh well... we have moral clarity.
Egypt's highest religious authority, Sheikh Al-Azhar Mohammed Sayed Tantawi said yesterday: "whoever wants to go to Iraq to support the Iraqi people, the door is open, and I say the door for Jihad is open until the day of judgement. Whoever wants to go to support the Iraqi people, I welcome that, I welcome that, I welcome that. I say to him go with peace and I wish you well. We do not prevent anyone from going to help those who are facing injustice." Activists say hundreds of Egyptians have signed up with the country's Lawyers' Union to fight in Iraq.
Rumor has it that HAMAS has opened a branch in Kuwait. Not sure if it's true, but there have been many terror incidents against U.S. troops in the area, so Hamas might find popular support.
Enjoy the collection of Donald Rumsfeld soundbites on BBC radio. But better is the fascinating collection of Rummy quotes such as "In our system leadership is by consent, not command. To lead a President must persuade. Personal contacts and experiences help shape his thinking. They can be critical to his persuasiveness and thus to his leadership." And read about how Poppa Bush's advisers thought that building a diverse coalition against Saddam would have worked better. Gracias a Sr. Schwartz.
An amazing video, George Bush and Tony Blair singing a love song to each other.
An excellent piece taking apart neoconservatives is in The Washington Monthly: Practice to Deceive by Joshua Micah Marshall:
Invasion of Iraq was not merely, or even primarily, about getting rid of Saddam Hussein. Nor was it really about weapons of mass destruction, though their elimination was an important benefit. Rather, the administration sees the invasion as only the first move in a wider effort to reorder the power structure of the entire Middle East. Prior to the war, the president himself never quite said this openly. But hawkish neoconservatives within his administration gave strong hints. In February, Undersecretary of State John Bolton told Israeli officials that after defeating Iraq, the United States would "deal with" Iran, Syria, and North Korea. Meanwhile, neoconservative journalists have been channeling the administration's thinking. Late last month, The Weekly Standard's Jeffrey Bell reported that the administration has in mind a "world war between the United States and a political wing of Islamic fundamentalism ... a war of such reach and magnitude [that] the invasion of Iraq, or the capture of top al Qaeda commanders, should be seen as tactical events in a series of moves and countermoves stretching well into the future."Slavoj Zizek asks if the war on terror is designed to increase social repression at home:
The administration is trying to roll the table--to use U.S. military force, or the threat of it, to reform or topple virtually every regime in the region, from foes like Syria to friends like Egypt, on the theory that it is the undemocratic nature of these regimes that ultimately breeds terrorism. So [hypothetical] events that may seem negative--Hezbollah for the first time targeting American civilians; U.S. soldiers preparing for war with Syria--while unfortunate in themselves, are actually part of the hawks' broader agenda. Each crisis will draw U.S. forces further into the region and each countermove in turn will create problems that can only be fixed by still further American involvement, until democratic governments--or, failing that, U.S. troops--rule the entire Middle East.
Today, Iraq. Tomorrow ... Democracy? Direct American occupation of a large and key Arab country--how could this not generate a reaction of universal hatred? One can already imagine thousands of young people dreaming of becoming suicide bombers, and how that will force the U.S. government to impose a permanent high-alert emergency state. At this point, one cannot resist a slightly paranoid temptation: What if the people around Bush know this, what if this "collateral damage" is the true aim of the entire operation? What if the true target of the "war on terror" is American society itself--the disciplining of its emancipatory excesses?