I just wanted to give an update to ALL of you loyal readers. I have been so busy the past week - end of the school year - and am now going out of town for 5 whopping days to visit friends in Austin, TX. This has meant and will mean for the next few days that postings are few and far between.
Please don't forget about me; I won't forget you.
I will be posting at my normal 5-10 a day rate when I return next week.
Maybe I will even have some neat pictures from my vacation, as a treat just for all of you.
cvdt
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
Shwarma King, comedy, and a great Palestinian group
The Jerusalem Fund for Education and Community Development (a DC Palestinian awareness and advocacy group, also have a humanitarian wing) put on a comedy show featuring local Arab and non Arab comedians. One guy made the the following joke: In the US we have surprise birthday parties; in the Arab world they have surprise weddings. Surprise you're getting married! Here's your wife! Hilarious.
The event took place at a relatively new restaurant in Adams Morgan, Shwarma King, 1654 Columbia. Great place for falafel, beef and chicken shwarma. It's an order at the counter place, they have tables or you can take out. Try it. Here's a pic of the sign inside.; it is similar to the one outside.
Monday, May 25, 2009
Check me out.
Every now and then, I post something funny or personal. Like don't you remember when I revealed my traditional friday night dinner to you all?? Or when I vented to you all about the study critical of red meat? Hence revealing my extreme fondness for it? I felt like we really grew closer after that one.
Don't worry I am not under the delusion that many actually read this blog, but I have realized it keeps me sane, well somewhat sane, and limits my real life verbal tirades and those that occur in my head. I think I really would have gone crazy by now not having a place to vent about all the injustices and inaccuracies and misconceptions out there about the Middle East and Islam.
So I thought I'd include a special pic for all of you (6) readers. That is me in the middle last year, just kidding, it was about 14 or 15 years ago. I am with my twin cousins, who actually dwell on the darkside (radical blindfaith Sarah Palin loving Christian conservatives), so don't be fooled by their cute faces or our similar look.
Oh and in case you were squinting at the picture, wondering, YES that is half of a lemonade cup on my shirt, and yes it was from Benetton circa 1994, like the rest of my wardrobe back then.
Another Asinine Article About Islam.
I'll vent on this piece tomorrow.
This is all I can say for now: WTF are you trying to say NYTimes? Wait, is it: Quran = violence? Naw.
Asinine pic.
Newsflash: The NYTimes sharing No. 1 spot on my s--t list with America Abroad. (see below for that story)
The NYTimes and whoever suggested this story should be sent to a maximum security prison, pronto.
Basically the article gives all this evidence that Islam does not play a role in radicalizing inmates, but the title, "Imams Reject Talk That Islam Radicalize Inmates," insinuates the opposite. First, it makes it seem like it is ONLY Imams that also reject the claim. Hmmm, not so says the article which presents studies from DoJ, FBI, social scientists finding that it is not about Islam. There is even one that says that Islam moderates inmates. Also where and from whom is this 'talk' coming? Since when was 'talk' enough evidence for an article?! Jimini Christmas.
Part of that article insinuates kinda sorta though that it does play a role - but with NO evidence! The evidence provided in the article points toward gangs - they are what make prisoners more violent and more radical toward an ideology.
This article makes me cringe like Sabrina Tavernese's article did a few weeks ago. (She blamed Islamic schools in Pakistan for militancy) I posted it on it here, and made a brief revision here. I will say the same here: It's not Islam it is the gang culture and all that goes with it in prisons, with one caveat, which the article includes: "small gang like cliques...use cut-and-paste versions of the Koran." Sure, that could be a problem, just like Christian based gangs in prisons that use violence in the Bible to justify their crimes. (IE: Neo Nazis)
Why the HELL print this article?? (Bc it's easy and provocative to blame Islam for violence.)
I'm giving this one my of big PUH-LEASEs.
Basically the article gives all this evidence that Islam does not play a role in radicalizing inmates, but the title, "Imams Reject Talk That Islam Radicalize Inmates," insinuates the opposite. First, it makes it seem like it is ONLY Imams that also reject the claim. Hmmm, not so says the article which presents studies from DoJ, FBI, social scientists finding that it is not about Islam. There is even one that says that Islam moderates inmates. Also where and from whom is this 'talk' coming? Since when was 'talk' enough evidence for an article?! Jimini Christmas.
Part of that article insinuates kinda sorta though that it does play a role - but with NO evidence! The evidence provided in the article points toward gangs - they are what make prisoners more violent and more radical toward an ideology.
This article makes me cringe like Sabrina Tavernese's article did a few weeks ago. (She blamed Islamic schools in Pakistan for militancy) I posted it on it here, and made a brief revision here. I will say the same here: It's not Islam it is the gang culture and all that goes with it in prisons, with one caveat, which the article includes: "small gang like cliques...use cut-and-paste versions of the Koran." Sure, that could be a problem, just like Christian based gangs in prisons that use violence in the Bible to justify their crimes. (IE: Neo Nazis)
Why the HELL print this article?? (Bc it's easy and provocative to blame Islam for violence.)
I'm giving this one my of big PUH-LEASEs.
America Abroad is No.1 on my s--t list.
I am SO MAD at America Abroad. Grrr.
They had a special on NPR tonight called "Exiting Iraq." Listening to the second part of it (1 and 3 are fine) almost ended with me smashing every radio in my house on the ground. Argh. I am just fuming.
Why? The narrator could not stop saying: "The American led invasion took the cap off, unleashed longstanding, severe deep ethnic and sectarian tensions in Iraq." She said it like ten different ways. It was like she was inside my head, trying push me over the edge. Also, she nearly spoiled my cheeseburger dinner.
This just after, JUST AFTER folks, she had a brilliant historian on from Miami of Ohio U. discussing that sectarian identities in the population were pretty much GONE by the 1940s and 50s, exchanged for an Iraqi identity.
The lack of Sunni Shii divide among the population of Iraq and the ignorant BS American officials who purported it (to take the blame off of themselves, where it really should have been laid) was major impetus for me in starting this blog. Nothing gets to me more than injustice; these lies did a great injustice to the people of Iraq. In fact, one of my first posts on this blog was about the lack of Sunni and Shii identities and divide among the population of Iraq in the past. (Yes Saddam exploited his (pretend) 'Sunni' identity to bolster support, and oppressed the Shii population to do the same. But that was not the people, the population, that was the government.)
They had a special on NPR tonight called "Exiting Iraq." Listening to the second part of it (1 and 3 are fine) almost ended with me smashing every radio in my house on the ground. Argh. I am just fuming.
Why? The narrator could not stop saying: "The American led invasion took the cap off, unleashed longstanding, severe deep ethnic and sectarian tensions in Iraq." She said it like ten different ways. It was like she was inside my head, trying push me over the edge. Also, she nearly spoiled my cheeseburger dinner.
This just after, JUST AFTER folks, she had a brilliant historian on from Miami of Ohio U. discussing that sectarian identities in the population were pretty much GONE by the 1940s and 50s, exchanged for an Iraqi identity.
The lack of Sunni Shii divide among the population of Iraq and the ignorant BS American officials who purported it (to take the blame off of themselves, where it really should have been laid) was major impetus for me in starting this blog. Nothing gets to me more than injustice; these lies did a great injustice to the people of Iraq. In fact, one of my first posts on this blog was about the lack of Sunni and Shii identities and divide among the population of Iraq in the past. (Yes Saddam exploited his (pretend) 'Sunni' identity to bolster support, and oppressed the Shii population to do the same. But that was not the people, the population, that was the government.)
Friday, May 22, 2009
I wish Cheney lived in Egypt.
Egyptian blogger Ahmed Mohsen is to be jailed for “Exploiting the democratic climate to overthrow the government.”
I wish Cheney lived in Egypt.
Article.
I wish Cheney lived in Egypt.
Article.
What Egyptians think about Obama coming.
Arabic Media Shack has an interesting post on what Egyptians think of Obama's forthcoming speech.
Awesome site. (And their post on American sensationalism on Pakistan)
Arabic Media Shack is an awesome site I just found out about by way of Marc Lynch.
For example, in this post, they mention an amazingly nuanced and realistic interview on of a French professor who is an expert on Pakistan.
Her expertise lead her to the following, which sounds much like the analysis of Pakistani journalist Shahan Mufti and Juan Cole on Bill Moyers last Friday:
"Q: “do their goals include all of Pakistan.”
A: Definitely not. They will not try to take control of Islamabad for example, despite what the Americans fear. In reality, there is no reason to be afraid of this because this is not what the Taliban wants to do. In any case, neither the Americans or the Pakistani army would let issue go that far. Also, the Taliban groups have a very marginal presence in Pakistani society in general."
For example, in this post, they mention an amazingly nuanced and realistic interview on of a French professor who is an expert on Pakistan.
Her expertise lead her to the following, which sounds much like the analysis of Pakistani journalist Shahan Mufti and Juan Cole on Bill Moyers last Friday:
"Q: “do their goals include all of Pakistan.”
A: Definitely not. They will not try to take control of Islamabad for example, despite what the Americans fear. In reality, there is no reason to be afraid of this because this is not what the Taliban wants to do. In any case, neither the Americans or the Pakistani army would let issue go that far. Also, the Taliban groups have a very marginal presence in Pakistani society in general."
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
Trash collection fights radicalism and builds civil society in Pakistan. Who knew?
I quadruple loved this article on Pakstani youth organizing to pick up garbage in their neighborhoods.
I really like their reasoning:
"...the students were inspired by the recent success of the lawyers’ movement, which used a national protest to press the government to reinstate the country’s chief justice, and their rush of public consciousness was irrepressible."
“The youth of Pakistan wants to change things,” said Shahram Azhar, the lead singer for Laal, a Pakistani rock band, reflecting an attitude that is typical of this rebellious younger generation.
“The reason the Taliban is ruling Swat,” he said referring to a valley north of Islamabad where Islamic extremists took control this year, “is because they are organized. We need to organize, too.”
“The only answer to Pakistan’s problems,” he added, “is a broad-based people’s movement.”
What they are up against:
"Actually, the problem was deeper. A long-term cycle of corrupt, weak governments interrupted by military coups has caused Pakistan’s political muscles to atrophy, leaving Pakistani society, particularly its poor, hopeless that it will ever receive the services — education, water, electricity, health — that it so desperately needs. "
“People say, ‘This is nice, but things will never change,’ ” Mr. Khwaja said, pointing to a hamburger seller who he said was particularly pessimistic. “There is a hopelessness.”
The divide they seek to bridge:
"That brought the students to the most serious discussion of the day, one that is arguably Pakistan’s biggest problem: the gap between rich and poor. Generations of poverty and a system of substandard education that keeps people in it have created fertile ground for Islamic militancy, which now poses a serious threat to the stability of the country."
Goooooooo Middle Class!!:
“The rich don’t care, the poor can’t do anything, so it’s up to the middle class to make the change,” Mr. Khwaja said, as a group of friends standing near him nodded in agreement. “We have to lead by example. To change it from inside.”
I really like their reasoning:
"...the students were inspired by the recent success of the lawyers’ movement, which used a national protest to press the government to reinstate the country’s chief justice, and their rush of public consciousness was irrepressible."
“The youth of Pakistan wants to change things,” said Shahram Azhar, the lead singer for Laal, a Pakistani rock band, reflecting an attitude that is typical of this rebellious younger generation.
“The reason the Taliban is ruling Swat,” he said referring to a valley north of Islamabad where Islamic extremists took control this year, “is because they are organized. We need to organize, too.”
“The only answer to Pakistan’s problems,” he added, “is a broad-based people’s movement.”
What they are up against:
"Actually, the problem was deeper. A long-term cycle of corrupt, weak governments interrupted by military coups has caused Pakistan’s political muscles to atrophy, leaving Pakistani society, particularly its poor, hopeless that it will ever receive the services — education, water, electricity, health — that it so desperately needs. "
“People say, ‘This is nice, but things will never change,’ ” Mr. Khwaja said, pointing to a hamburger seller who he said was particularly pessimistic. “There is a hopelessness.”
The divide they seek to bridge:
"That brought the students to the most serious discussion of the day, one that is arguably Pakistan’s biggest problem: the gap between rich and poor. Generations of poverty and a system of substandard education that keeps people in it have created fertile ground for Islamic militancy, which now poses a serious threat to the stability of the country."
Goooooooo Middle Class!!:
“The rich don’t care, the poor can’t do anything, so it’s up to the middle class to make the change,” Mr. Khwaja said, as a group of friends standing near him nodded in agreement. “We have to lead by example. To change it from inside.”
Dexter Filkins on possible peace in Afghanistan.
Dexter Filkins article in NYTimes, "A Peace Overture in Afghanistan," on potential possible peace deal
"How Pakistan Failed Itself"
I read this article from Time, "How Pakistan Failed Itself" today when getting a pedicure. How Washington. It was actually informative and interesting and kept me drying my nails for much, much longer than usual. (I am disgustingly impatient and usually leave far too soon and mess up three nails in 5 minutes.)
The article shows many sides of Pakistan, focusing at times on conversations with a upper level female Pakistani pilot and her progressive urban friends at a bar/restaurant in the Himalayan resort town of Nathiagali. I kind of want to hang out there with them. Feel free to drop me an email if you're reading this, Rifat.
Her voice echoes Mufti and Cole on Bill Moyer's last Friday night (see below for my post on the show):
"What is all this talk of Talibanization? Not once have these maulvis [religious leaders] complained that a woman is flying their plane," she says. Guests nod in agreement. "There is no way the Taliban can take over Pakistan," says one. "We are too many, and they are too few."
I thought this point from author Ayrn Baker was smart:
"Talibanization doesn't start with a military takeover. It happens when there is a Red Mosque in every city and citizens are afraid to stand up to its edicts. "
The article shows many sides of Pakistan, focusing at times on conversations with a upper level female Pakistani pilot and her progressive urban friends at a bar/restaurant in the Himalayan resort town of Nathiagali. I kind of want to hang out there with them. Feel free to drop me an email if you're reading this, Rifat.
Her voice echoes Mufti and Cole on Bill Moyer's last Friday night (see below for my post on the show):
"What is all this talk of Talibanization? Not once have these maulvis [religious leaders] complained that a woman is flying their plane," she says. Guests nod in agreement. "There is no way the Taliban can take over Pakistan," says one. "We are too many, and they are too few."
I thought this point from author Ayrn Baker was smart:
"Talibanization doesn't start with a military takeover. It happens when there is a Red Mosque in every city and citizens are afraid to stand up to its edicts. "
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
Arab perceptions of Obama Netanyahu meeting.
Marc Lynch discusses that the Arab media is reporting on the slight (yet still important) divide between Netanyahu and Obama on Palestinian statehood and settlements. Obama said: state, no settlements, and apparently Netanyahu wouldn't cede on either, and his facial expressions apparently showed his discontent.
This whole Iran - Israel - Palestine thing highlights such a huge difference between the Obama and Bush admins. Bush would have been out there with fiery anti-Iran pro-Israeli security rhetoric, upping the ante, creating himself another war, whereas Obama approaches it logically and rationally; the road to Iran for Israel goes through Palestine, not the other way around:
"If there is a linkage between Iran and the Israeli-Palestinian peace process, I personally believe it actually runs the other way.. to the extent that we can make peace... between the Palestinians and the Israelis, then I actually think it strengthens our hand in the international community in dealing with the potential Iranian threat."
This whole Iran - Israel - Palestine thing highlights such a huge difference between the Obama and Bush admins. Bush would have been out there with fiery anti-Iran pro-Israeli security rhetoric, upping the ante, creating himself another war, whereas Obama approaches it logically and rationally; the road to Iran for Israel goes through Palestine, not the other way around:
"If there is a linkage between Iran and the Israeli-Palestinian peace process, I personally believe it actually runs the other way.. to the extent that we can make peace... between the Palestinians and the Israelis, then I actually think it strengthens our hand in the international community in dealing with the potential Iranian threat."
2009 Arab Public opinion poll
John Zogby and Shilbey Telhami presented their findings from the 2009 Arab public opinion poll today at Brookings. Man, I wish I could have gone; pesky job. Marc Lynch was there, who is the all time go to guy for reform in the Arab world, and my personal favorite scholar activist. I am hoping one day he will take me on as a grad student. (Hear that Marc? I know you don't, but I'm still going to put it out there.)
Lynch recorded the key poll results here on his blog at Foreign Policy.
Lynch recorded the key poll results here on his blog at Foreign Policy.
Pam Constable on Pakistan on McNeil Lehrer News Hour
Pamela Constable of the Wash Post gave a very informative interview on the News Hour tonight about what is happening on the ground in Pakistan. She focused on interviews she conducted among residents from Buner and Swat in refugee camps.
Listen here.
Listen here.
Obama Promoting the D in the Middle East
New Brookings report, Democracy Promotion Under Obama: Lessons from the Middle East Partnership Initiative.
PDF here.
PDF here.
Sunday, May 17, 2009
van den Awesome.
What is it about people whose last names start with 'van den' that makes us all so smart???
Weight of a Mustard Seed.
I can't wait to read this book. In Weight of a Mustard Seed: The Intimate Story of an Iraqi General and his Family during 30 Years of Tyranny, journalist Wendell Steavenson tells the tale of Iraq under Saddam through the story of General Kamel Sachet, a Saddam Hussein loyalist turned dissident and was executed for his betrayal in 1999.
Robert Worth's review in today's NYTimes Book Review points out that these books are most important because, "One of the many sad facets of Iraq’s descent into sectarian warfare has been the loss of a proper reckoning with the recent past. Over the last five years, journalists and Iraqis alike have been too busy chronicling — and surviving — the horrors of the present conflict to spend much time thinking about Saddam Hussein’s murderous quarter-century in power. This is a shame, not just because Iraqis need a chance to rest and confront their history, but also because the violence that erupted after 2003 made limited sense to those who did not live through its prelude."
Robert Worth's review in today's NYTimes Book Review points out that these books are most important because, "One of the many sad facets of Iraq’s descent into sectarian warfare has been the loss of a proper reckoning with the recent past. Over the last five years, journalists and Iraqis alike have been too busy chronicling — and surviving — the horrors of the present conflict to spend much time thinking about Saddam Hussein’s murderous quarter-century in power. This is a shame, not just because Iraqis need a chance to rest and confront their history, but also because the violence that erupted after 2003 made limited sense to those who did not live through its prelude."
Kuwaiti women in Parliament.
Kuwaitis elected 4 women to the 50 seat Parliament yesterday! Women only received the right to vote in that country in 2006. Interestingly enough, all were educated in the US. All winner ran as independents.
Islamic parties dropped from 21 to 11 seats.
Marc Lynch has great analysis of the Kuwaiti elections.
Islamic parties dropped from 21 to 11 seats.
Marc Lynch has great analysis of the Kuwaiti elections.
New book on the invasion of Afghanistan.
Horse Soldiers: The Extraordinary Story of a Band of US Soldiers Who Rode to Victory in Afghanistan, reviewed today in the NYTimes Book Review, tells the tale of Special Forces and CIA who fought alongside Afghan General Dostum and the Northern Alliance forces to topple the Taliban in 2001.
Pentagon propaganda cover up.
Don't miss Frank Rich's article on the Pentagon **rescinding (which never happens) a report that whitewashed an investigation into their propagandist hiring and use of ex military generals turned defense contractors to convince the American public about what (wasn't) going on in Iraq before the invasion.
He also touched on the importance of a truth commission with regard to torture and the covers of those crazy creepy defense briefings which I linked to below.
So just to be clear: the Bush admin used torture and paid defense contractors (who would gain millions from a war) to convince the international community and the US public to go to war.
He also touched on the importance of a truth commission with regard to torture and the covers of those crazy creepy defense briefings which I linked to below.
So just to be clear: the Bush admin used torture and paid defense contractors (who would gain millions from a war) to convince the international community and the US public to go to war.
New Yorker article on liberals and Islamists in Malaysia.
New Yorker 'Letter from Malaysia' entitled "Eastern Promises". I just started it and will hopefully finish sometime soon. The question the article answers is: Can Islamists and liberals unite against a corrupt status quo?
Great argument against drones.
Andrew Exum (blog Abu Muqawama, works at CNAS) and David Killcullen (preeminent COIN strategist and anthropologist, savior of US army in Iraq), put forth a solid and convincing argument against drone attacks today in the Week in Review section of the NYTimes. Their opinions are weighty considered they are both well respected military strategists.
1. Drones are arrogant. They say, America is stronger and better than you and we are going to show it and American lives matter more than yours. They are pretentious.
2. Drones are a rallying cry for the Taliban in Afghanistan and Pakistan. People there do not like the Taliban, they like Americans, and drones are changing that dynamic. And not just in the regions where the attacks occur, it is all over both countries, uniting different parts of the populations around the anti American platform.
3. There is no PR campaign to accompany them.
Great section:
Governments typically make several mistakes when attempting to separate violent extremists from populations in which they hide. First, they often overestimate the degree to which a population harboring an armed actor can influence that actor’s behavior. People don’t tolerate extremists in their midst because they like them, but rather because the extremists intimidate them. Breaking the power of extremists means removing their power to intimidate — something that strikes cannot do.
And I like their nod to history:
The drone strategy is similar to French aerial bombardment in rural Algeria in the 1950s, and to the “air control” methods employed by the British in what are now the Pakistani tribal areas in the 1920s. The historical resonance of the British effort encourages people in the tribal areas to see the drone attacks as a continuation of colonial-era policies.
Exum and Kilcullen end with the point that killing these guys, while important, is not as important as winning the hearts and minds of the population, protecting them, and these attacks do just the opposite.
1. Drones are arrogant. They say, America is stronger and better than you and we are going to show it and American lives matter more than yours. They are pretentious.
2. Drones are a rallying cry for the Taliban in Afghanistan and Pakistan. People there do not like the Taliban, they like Americans, and drones are changing that dynamic. And not just in the regions where the attacks occur, it is all over both countries, uniting different parts of the populations around the anti American platform.
3. There is no PR campaign to accompany them.
Great section:
Governments typically make several mistakes when attempting to separate violent extremists from populations in which they hide. First, they often overestimate the degree to which a population harboring an armed actor can influence that actor’s behavior. People don’t tolerate extremists in their midst because they like them, but rather because the extremists intimidate them. Breaking the power of extremists means removing their power to intimidate — something that strikes cannot do.
And I like their nod to history:
The drone strategy is similar to French aerial bombardment in rural Algeria in the 1950s, and to the “air control” methods employed by the British in what are now the Pakistani tribal areas in the 1920s. The historical resonance of the British effort encourages people in the tribal areas to see the drone attacks as a continuation of colonial-era policies.
Exum and Kilcullen end with the point that killing these guys, while important, is not as important as winning the hearts and minds of the population, protecting them, and these attacks do just the opposite.
Lead up to the Iraq war: Bible quotes and baby milk
There are absolutely and totally and completely no words for these recently released covers of security briefings that show the Iraq war as a scary, scary crusade. You just have to look at them.
When these hit the Middle East press, Obama is going to be GLAD he has the pictures from Abu Ghraib to distract people.
I feel like the Bible quotes were for Bush what warm milk is for a baby.
These could easily be mistaken for AQ recruiting techniques.
Frank Rich refers to them in his weekly NYTimes Week in Review column, awesome as usual.
When these hit the Middle East press, Obama is going to be GLAD he has the pictures from Abu Ghraib to distract people.
I feel like the Bible quotes were for Bush what warm milk is for a baby.
These could easily be mistaken for AQ recruiting techniques.
Frank Rich refers to them in his weekly NYTimes Week in Review column, awesome as usual.
The COIN tunnel must be challenged.
I give two thumbs up to Celeste Ward for her piece in the Outlook section of the Wash Post today challenging the almost godlike status of COIN (counterinsurgency). It has received all the credit for 'solving' (ha) Iraq and has become the exclusive plan for success (ha) in Afghanistan and Pakistan. It is as if there is this tunnel that we must go through to 'win' and the sign above it is 'COIN.'
Ms. Ward makes an extremely important point about the 'surge' in Iraq, which is what the military et al would like us to see as proof of COIN's success. Not so fast, she says:
"Exhibit A of the counterinsurgency movement is the "surge" -- the catch-all term used to describe the increase in American troops and the new approach the United States took to the Iraq war beginning in early 2007 -- which supporters portray as the clearest example of counterinsurgency in action. The story of the surge has developed into a tidy narrative -- bordering on mythology -- that overlooks several critical factors. Many questions remain about what really happened in Iraq."
COIN crazies have also come out saying Pakistan needs a COIN strategy, Aye Yae Yae. For a reaction to that, see my post directly below on Bill Moyers last Friday with Mufti and Cole. Similarly, in the middle of the whole Somalia debacle, Andrew Exum (CNAS, who I usually like) and other COINies were out, COIN swords drawn, ready for battle. I cant even imagine the rallying cry this would have created there. Would have been like a bull horn times 5 million.
Few points:
I think what they fail to address is that maybe, just maybe, the US military presence in these places, protecting civilians or not, is creating more enemies (Taliban) than we are getting rid of. (I really mean 'maybe' bc I don't know exactly how I feel about this.)
Because locals - in Afghanistan and Pakistan - detest the Taliban, can we have a strategy that helps them in a less obvious way, so as to avert multiplying the Taliban? This also, however, sounds dangerously like what we did to fight the Soviets in the 80s. But what we are doing now might be just as detrimental.
I do, however, understand, that in places like Afghanistan and Pakistan, all civilians are not hostile to having US troops around, they want their help in fighting the Taliban. But is our presence making the Taliban harder to fight?
Ms. Ward makes an extremely important point about the 'surge' in Iraq, which is what the military et al would like us to see as proof of COIN's success. Not so fast, she says:
"Exhibit A of the counterinsurgency movement is the "surge" -- the catch-all term used to describe the increase in American troops and the new approach the United States took to the Iraq war beginning in early 2007 -- which supporters portray as the clearest example of counterinsurgency in action. The story of the surge has developed into a tidy narrative -- bordering on mythology -- that overlooks several critical factors. Many questions remain about what really happened in Iraq."
COIN crazies have also come out saying Pakistan needs a COIN strategy, Aye Yae Yae. For a reaction to that, see my post directly below on Bill Moyers last Friday with Mufti and Cole. Similarly, in the middle of the whole Somalia debacle, Andrew Exum (CNAS, who I usually like) and other COINies were out, COIN swords drawn, ready for battle. I cant even imagine the rallying cry this would have created there. Would have been like a bull horn times 5 million.
Few points:
I think what they fail to address is that maybe, just maybe, the US military presence in these places, protecting civilians or not, is creating more enemies (Taliban) than we are getting rid of. (I really mean 'maybe' bc I don't know exactly how I feel about this.)
Because locals - in Afghanistan and Pakistan - detest the Taliban, can we have a strategy that helps them in a less obvious way, so as to avert multiplying the Taliban? This also, however, sounds dangerously like what we did to fight the Soviets in the 80s. But what we are doing now might be just as detrimental.
I do, however, understand, that in places like Afghanistan and Pakistan, all civilians are not hostile to having US troops around, they want their help in fighting the Taliban. But is our presence making the Taliban harder to fight?
Model for Guantanamo detainees?
An article in the Outlook section of the Wash Post presents Obama with an interesting option in dealing with Guantanamo detainees: The Religious Rehabilitation Group. Apparently it has been effective; 40 former terrorists, most members of Jemaah Islamiyah, have been released and haven't, as of yet, returned to extremism. Similar programs in Saudi and Yemen have not met similar success; this is not a fool proof method. But maybe done the right way, a la Singapore(?), it could be:
"Singaporean officials said they decided to use Islamic clerics because they were convinced that only religious leaders could "de-program" the detainees. "Once you have taken an oath of God, it will take another man of God to undo it," a senior security official told me."
"Singaporean officials said they decided to use Islamic clerics because they were convinced that only religious leaders could "de-program" the detainees. "Once you have taken an oath of God, it will take another man of God to undo it," a senior security official told me."
Saturday, May 16, 2009
Bill Moyers on Pakistan and Afghanistan
Shahan Mufti (Pakistani journalist) and Juan Cole on Bill Moyers last night!! Watch it here.
I am thoroughly convinced that we need to stay as far as possible from Pakistan, for the good of that state and the good of Pakistan - neither the government nor the population like the Taliban, they will defeat them. Mufti and Cole state unequivocally that it is the US presence there that gives the Taliban a rallying call; the US presence makes their numbers grow and gives them local support. (This argument might apply to Afghanistan as well, however, there are major differences, for example, Afghanistan does not have as coherent of an army as Pakistan does, and the Taliban is more significant there.)
The other most interesting point they make concerns India. The US consistently fails to realize and acknowledge that all Pakistan cares about is India. They fears currently had grown, not fallen, because of India's new close relationship with Afghanistan, which makes Pakistan very, very nervous.
The show ends with a powerful display of Pakistani society: when the Chief Justice Iftikar Chaudry was reinstated, thousands of people gathered outside his house, you had Islamists shouting Allah Akbar next to students playing western sounding music on the guitar guitar, and the justice party singing nationalist songs.
Key points:
- no journalists there
- Taliban label is incorrect for those in Pakistan really
- we're talking only about 4,000 'Taliban' fighters, not mainstream, Pakistan army has 550,000
- Juan Cole thinks Pakistan should have sent in special ops teams not army
- that they sent in the army was not the correct reaction, it was disproportionate
- Pakistan, remember, is huge state of 165 million, this is a province of 3 million
- All this hub bub about these guys reaching the nuclear weapons is ridiculous
- no one is ever going to 'control' the FATA region, so that goal is unrealistic, Pakistan needs to work with people there (NOT like they did in Swat though)
- The US presence is what gives the Taliban a rallying call; US presence makes their numbers group and leading locals to support them
- Pakistanis don't even like the Taliban - many many polls have shown this
- Here is a report on a Gallup poll that shows that the people support the military kicking out the Taliban
- All political parties (Islamic, Nationalist) and women (who are well integrated into the system) are speaking out against Taliban
- Pakistanis are NOT religious conservatives, they are moderate and like a secular state, there is a strong well educated middle class, if you know Pakistan, you know the Taliban are far from even a long shot
- Pakistan sees India as the real threat - especially because of India's new strong relationship with Afghanistan, we must bring Kashmir into the fold.
I am thoroughly convinced that we need to stay as far as possible from Pakistan, for the good of that state and the good of Pakistan - neither the government nor the population like the Taliban, they will defeat them. Mufti and Cole state unequivocally that it is the US presence there that gives the Taliban a rallying call; the US presence makes their numbers grow and gives them local support. (This argument might apply to Afghanistan as well, however, there are major differences, for example, Afghanistan does not have as coherent of an army as Pakistan does, and the Taliban is more significant there.)
The other most interesting point they make concerns India. The US consistently fails to realize and acknowledge that all Pakistan cares about is India. They fears currently had grown, not fallen, because of India's new close relationship with Afghanistan, which makes Pakistan very, very nervous.
The show ends with a powerful display of Pakistani society: when the Chief Justice Iftikar Chaudry was reinstated, thousands of people gathered outside his house, you had Islamists shouting Allah Akbar next to students playing western sounding music on the guitar guitar, and the justice party singing nationalist songs.
Key points:
- no journalists there
- Taliban label is incorrect for those in Pakistan really
- we're talking only about 4,000 'Taliban' fighters, not mainstream, Pakistan army has 550,000
- Juan Cole thinks Pakistan should have sent in special ops teams not army
- that they sent in the army was not the correct reaction, it was disproportionate
- Pakistan, remember, is huge state of 165 million, this is a province of 3 million
- All this hub bub about these guys reaching the nuclear weapons is ridiculous
- no one is ever going to 'control' the FATA region, so that goal is unrealistic, Pakistan needs to work with people there (NOT like they did in Swat though)
- The US presence is what gives the Taliban a rallying call; US presence makes their numbers group and leading locals to support them
- Pakistanis don't even like the Taliban - many many polls have shown this
- Here is a report on a Gallup poll that shows that the people support the military kicking out the Taliban
- All political parties (Islamic, Nationalist) and women (who are well integrated into the system) are speaking out against Taliban
- Pakistanis are NOT religious conservatives, they are moderate and like a secular state, there is a strong well educated middle class, if you know Pakistan, you know the Taliban are far from even a long shot
- Pakistan sees India as the real threat - especially because of India's new strong relationship with Afghanistan, we must bring Kashmir into the fold.
More on how Bush admin tortured their way to Iraq.
More evidence, now from Colin Powell's aide, that US tortured to find link between AQ and Iraq.
Rachel Maddow 'traced the torture trail' to Iraq on Thursday, here is the clip and transcript.
Rachel Maddow 'traced the torture trail' to Iraq on Thursday, here is the clip and transcript.
Friday, May 15, 2009
Kefaya and Muslim Brotherhood: Ditch the rejectionism and get with the program.
Both the Kefaya movement and the Muslim Brotherhood have spoken out against Obama speech in Egypt. Here and here are a couple articles about their stance.
Rejectionist politics, as usual, I say.
While of course all in the Middle East have plenty of reason to oppose US policies there, we do have new administration and one that is clearly trying to reach out to the region and repair, well actually create is a more appropriate description, ties. He has been running up and down the region talking about relations based on 'mutual respect' and 'mutual interests.' It's like they all have ear plugs in or something from last night's show. Here's even an article they can read in Arabic on it! (I know we can't take everything at face value, but there is obviously some truth to what Obama is saying.)
Rejectionist politics, as usual, I say.
While of course all in the Middle East have plenty of reason to oppose US policies there, we do have new administration and one that is clearly trying to reach out to the region and repair, well actually create is a more appropriate description, ties. He has been running up and down the region talking about relations based on 'mutual respect' and 'mutual interests.' It's like they all have ear plugs in or something from last night's show. Here's even an article they can read in Arabic on it! (I know we can't take everything at face value, but there is obviously some truth to what Obama is saying.)
Both have put forth a variety of arguments, namely that that the US is serving its own agenda. This is a given in foreign relations, so tey need to get over that ASAP. Instead, what the Muslim Brotherhood and the Kefaya movement need to look at is how their interests and the US' may align. Obama is interested in stability and democratic development in the region, though he might not say it explicitly, the Muslim Brotherhood and Kefaya would be smart to endear themselves to Obama as democratic opposition groups, not radical reactionary rejectionist fringe movements.
Thursday, May 14, 2009
Great site on Arab media.
Just wanted to let everyone (and by everyone I mean you special 10 people out there who read this) know about a great site: Arab Media Society.
It is a product of AUC's (American University of Cairo) Kamal Adham Center for Journalism Training and Research and the Middle East Centre, St Antony's College, U of Oxford.
It is a product of AUC's (American University of Cairo) Kamal Adham Center for Journalism Training and Research and the Middle East Centre, St Antony's College, U of Oxford.
Shifting loyalties in Iraq.
Telling Shadid article in the Wash Post today about shifting loyalties and allegiances in Iraq. Every ME expert and their mama predicted this about the Sons of Iraq, or al Sahwa, the Awakening Movement. They might have served a purpose, temporarily defeating AQI (Al Qaeda Iraq), but then the US did not insure their integration into the system (somewhat a la Taliban and all the other mujahideen in 1988).
"Khalil's rivals have hailed his detention. His colleagues call it caprice. Either way, it underlines the free-for-all of elusive loyalties, stinging betrayals and unrequited vengeance as the U.S. military withdraws, its erstwhile allies splinter, the government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki remains tentative and everyone vies for power ahead of national elections."
"Khalil's rivals have hailed his detention. His colleagues call it caprice. Either way, it underlines the free-for-all of elusive loyalties, stinging betrayals and unrequited vengeance as the U.S. military withdraws, its erstwhile allies splinter, the government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki remains tentative and everyone vies for power ahead of national elections."
Wednesday, May 13, 2009
Pakistani Poll
This NYTimes article reports on some interesting stats from Pakistan.
Some of the survey results:
Most saw economic issues as the nation’s most pressing problems, with only 10 percent saying terrorism, but 69 percent agreed that having the Taliban and Al Qaeda operate in Pakistan was a serious problem.
Forty-five percent said they supported fighting the extremists in the tribal areas and the North-West Frontier Province, a high for the poll.
The survey also showed signs of an increase in the willingness of Pakistanis to cooperate with the United States against extremism, with the number hitting 37 percent from a low of 9 percent in January 2008.
“The most striking thing about the survey is that while 81 percent feel the country is headed in the wrong direction, 77 percent say they wanted to live in a democratic setup
Seventy-four percent agreed that religious extremism was a serious problem in Pakistan. But 56 percent said they would back Taliban demands to extend Islamic law to other parts of the country, including some major cities.
Some of the survey results:
Most saw economic issues as the nation’s most pressing problems, with only 10 percent saying terrorism, but 69 percent agreed that having the Taliban and Al Qaeda operate in Pakistan was a serious problem.
Forty-five percent said they supported fighting the extremists in the tribal areas and the North-West Frontier Province, a high for the poll.
The survey also showed signs of an increase in the willingness of Pakistanis to cooperate with the United States against extremism, with the number hitting 37 percent from a low of 9 percent in January 2008.
“The most striking thing about the survey is that while 81 percent feel the country is headed in the wrong direction, 77 percent say they wanted to live in a democratic setup
Seventy-four percent agreed that religious extremism was a serious problem in Pakistan. But 56 percent said they would back Taliban demands to extend Islamic law to other parts of the country, including some major cities.
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
Obama in Egypt.
Here is a good article on Obama speaking in Egypt in the NYTimes.
Good point on Egypt's interest:
Egypt maintains that to tame Iran — with which it is in open conflict — the issue of a Palestinian state must first be resolved. As long as that conflict is festering, Iran will be able to undermine Egypt by attacking its allegiance to the peace treaty with Israel, officials here said. Egypt has struggled to convince its people, and Arabs around the region, that its commitment to the treaty is the best way to help the Palestinians and to preserve Egypt’s own national security.
Good advice in the article from my favorite favorite Egyptian activist dissident, Saad Eddin Ibrahim:
There is, however, a way to navigate the issue of human rights, said Saad Eddin Ibrahim, an Egyptian democracy advocate living in self-imposed exile because the government has threatened to jail him. He said he recently spoke with Mr. Obama’s advisers and suggested that the speech address the “infrastructure of democracy, which to us is the rule of law, the independence of the judiciary, free media, autonomous civil society and gender equality.”
Little reminder from Ayman Nour, another great Egyptian activist dissident: (more analysis of this later.)
“America’s standing alongside authoritarian regimes is what created terrorism in the Arab world,” said Ayman Nour, a former presidential candidate who was recently freed after more than three years in prison here on what were widely seen as politically inspired charges. “It is what strengthened the thorn of extremism in the Arab world.”
I wish I could write more on this but I am so busy at work and have little time to write. Soon though I will have all the time in the world, I am taking off two months before heading to Iraq. So don't worry trusty readers, this summer will be exciting for all of us.
Good point on Egypt's interest:
Egypt maintains that to tame Iran — with which it is in open conflict — the issue of a Palestinian state must first be resolved. As long as that conflict is festering, Iran will be able to undermine Egypt by attacking its allegiance to the peace treaty with Israel, officials here said. Egypt has struggled to convince its people, and Arabs around the region, that its commitment to the treaty is the best way to help the Palestinians and to preserve Egypt’s own national security.
Good advice in the article from my favorite favorite Egyptian activist dissident, Saad Eddin Ibrahim:
There is, however, a way to navigate the issue of human rights, said Saad Eddin Ibrahim, an Egyptian democracy advocate living in self-imposed exile because the government has threatened to jail him. He said he recently spoke with Mr. Obama’s advisers and suggested that the speech address the “infrastructure of democracy, which to us is the rule of law, the independence of the judiciary, free media, autonomous civil society and gender equality.”
Little reminder from Ayman Nour, another great Egyptian activist dissident: (more analysis of this later.)
“America’s standing alongside authoritarian regimes is what created terrorism in the Arab world,” said Ayman Nour, a former presidential candidate who was recently freed after more than three years in prison here on what were widely seen as politically inspired charges. “It is what strengthened the thorn of extremism in the Arab world.”
I wish I could write more on this but I am so busy at work and have little time to write. Soon though I will have all the time in the world, I am taking off two months before heading to Iraq. So don't worry trusty readers, this summer will be exciting for all of us.
The reason we went to war in Iraq is dead; this man is the Bush admin in a nutshell.
This needs to be the lead story and on the front page of every news source around. This man's story brings out almost every single one of the most unbelievably messed up things the Bush admin did: war in Iraq, torture, rendition, Guantanamo.
Rendition? Torture? Proof that torture yields bad intell? Check, check and check.
After captured in 2001, Ibn al Sheikh al Libi was sent to Egypt via rendition, and after being almost buried alive for 17 hours, made up a story about Iraq and Al Qaeda and chemical weapons. (See Hubris: The Inside Story of Spin, Scandal and the Selling of the Iraq War, by Michael Isikoff and David Corn.)
War in Iraq? Check:
Ibn al Sheikh al Libi is basically the reason we went to war in Iraq. The FALSE intelligence he coughed up, no pun intended, during one of Cheney's torture sessions was the only 'link' the admin had between Iraq and AQ: that Iraq provided chemical weapons training to AQ (bullshit). It is the same story Colin Powell brought before the UN.
Guantanamo? Worse, Libya.
After being returned to CIA custody in 2004 after his brief underground tour of Egypt, al Libi was mysteriously missing from the group of lucky guys sent to vacation in Cuba; the Post article I linked to above quotes Tom Malinowski of HRW, "I would speculate that he was missing because he was such an embarrassment to the Bush administration."
Rendition? Torture? Proof that torture yields bad intell? Check, check and check.
After captured in 2001, Ibn al Sheikh al Libi was sent to Egypt via rendition, and after being almost buried alive for 17 hours, made up a story about Iraq and Al Qaeda and chemical weapons. (See Hubris: The Inside Story of Spin, Scandal and the Selling of the Iraq War, by Michael Isikoff and David Corn.)
War in Iraq? Check:
Ibn al Sheikh al Libi is basically the reason we went to war in Iraq. The FALSE intelligence he coughed up, no pun intended, during one of Cheney's torture sessions was the only 'link' the admin had between Iraq and AQ: that Iraq provided chemical weapons training to AQ (bullshit). It is the same story Colin Powell brought before the UN.
Guantanamo? Worse, Libya.
After being returned to CIA custody in 2004 after his brief underground tour of Egypt, al Libi was mysteriously missing from the group of lucky guys sent to vacation in Cuba; the Post article I linked to above quotes Tom Malinowski of HRW, "I would speculate that he was missing because he was such an embarrassment to the Bush administration."
Sunday, May 10, 2009
Arabic speaking gays in the military.
Lt. Dan Choi was canned from the army for coming out. He is fluent in Arabic and just back from Iraq.
I loved the following response from a Chris LeJeune to this article on Think Progress:
"I have to wonder - do the troops feel more threatened by having a homosexual there - or by not having anyone who speaks Arabic?"
I loved the following response from a Chris LeJeune to this article on Think Progress:
"I have to wonder - do the troops feel more threatened by having a homosexual there - or by not having anyone who speaks Arabic?"
Why is the pope trying to make me like him again?
I told him, after his comments on condoms increasing the spread of AIDS in Africa, there was no hope for us.
His recent comments, however, have left me conflicted: "However, is it not also the case that often it is the ideological manipulation of religion, sometimes for political ends, that is the real catalyst for tension and division, and at times even violence in society?"
Well said, sir.
His recent comments, however, have left me conflicted: "However, is it not also the case that often it is the ideological manipulation of religion, sometimes for political ends, that is the real catalyst for tension and division, and at times even violence in society?"
Well said, sir.
Saturday, May 9, 2009
Malcom Gladwell on how to win wars...and basketball games...oh and, how to lessen anxieties about lost luggage.
This is such an amazing article, you all must read it. (It is in the most recent, May 11, issue of the New Yorker.)
Malcom Gladwell relates the strategy used the 'full court press' strategy used by some basketball teams, focusing on a middle school girls league specifically in the article, to tactics used by Lawrence of Arabia and the Arab Bedouin forces to defeat the Turks in WWI.
I wish I could write on this for 2 hours right now, but it will have to wait until tomorrow morning.
Malcom Gladwell relates the strategy used the 'full court press' strategy used by some basketball teams, focusing on a middle school girls league specifically in the article, to tactics used by Lawrence of Arabia and the Arab Bedouin forces to defeat the Turks in WWI.
I wish I could write on this for 2 hours right now, but it will have to wait until tomorrow morning.
Great article on the realities economic development in the West Bank.
Great article in Wash Post with a catchy title, "Commerce in a Time of Occupation", on economic development in the West Bank. Netanyahu can talk about the importance of economic development all he wants, but the reality on the ground (checkpoints) will prevent exactly this. (This is particularly scary because in his argument, economic development in the West Bank, is a necessary precursor to a viable Palestinian state.) I'm not even going to get all cynical here.
An unconditional no for conditionality for US aid to Egypt. Bad decision in my book.
Defense Secretary Gates was asked at a news conference if US aid to Egypt would be conditional on the assurance that the state make progress in the way of democracy and human rights. He said no; this is a problem for the US and for Egypt and for the Arab world.
(Besides conditionality, many hope that some of the aid money will be earmarked for capacity building projects and economic development, not just for Mubarak's military.)
Brief background: Over the past years the US has thrown billion of dollars (8 to be exact) at Egypt; much of it goes to the Egyptian army, which Mubarak uses to suppress political opposition groups, many of them democratic groups who run for parliamentary elections, among other undemocratic things that are aimed at keeping himself in power.
Conditionality is a great way to indirectly encourage moderate change in regimes like Mubarak's in the Middle East. It is semi-underhanded, meaning it is not looked upon as the US 'democracy building,' a policy that is badly tainted right now in the region.
The Post advocates for conditionality on its editorial page.
A few months ago I attended a panel with Saad Eddin Ebrahim (Egypt rights activist) at GW put together by Prof. Marc Lynch (Aby Ardvark) in which Mr. Ebrahim discussed the benefits of conditionality; he had also been to Congress to make this argument.
More on this tomorrow, I've got to run.
(Besides conditionality, many hope that some of the aid money will be earmarked for capacity building projects and economic development, not just for Mubarak's military.)
Brief background: Over the past years the US has thrown billion of dollars (8 to be exact) at Egypt; much of it goes to the Egyptian army, which Mubarak uses to suppress political opposition groups, many of them democratic groups who run for parliamentary elections, among other undemocratic things that are aimed at keeping himself in power.
Conditionality is a great way to indirectly encourage moderate change in regimes like Mubarak's in the Middle East. It is semi-underhanded, meaning it is not looked upon as the US 'democracy building,' a policy that is badly tainted right now in the region.
The Post advocates for conditionality on its editorial page.
A few months ago I attended a panel with Saad Eddin Ebrahim (Egypt rights activist) at GW put together by Prof. Marc Lynch (Aby Ardvark) in which Mr. Ebrahim discussed the benefits of conditionality; he had also been to Congress to make this argument.
More on this tomorrow, I've got to run.
Obama to make speech in Egypt.
Obama announces he will make a speech in Egypt. Not too surprising, considering Egypt is the historical center of the Arab world.
I have many thoughts on this, considering that Mubarak is an oppressive dictator that does not allow free elections, political opposition groups, freedom of speech, a free press, or freedom of assembly. (And the list could go on...) Oh, can't leave out that the Egyptian economy is in shambles. Clearly Obama can't address all of these (or even one) directly in a speech in Egypt, but he can encourage change in more sneaky ways, as he did in Turkey. More tomorrow.
I have many thoughts on this, considering that Mubarak is an oppressive dictator that does not allow free elections, political opposition groups, freedom of speech, a free press, or freedom of assembly. (And the list could go on...) Oh, can't leave out that the Egyptian economy is in shambles. Clearly Obama can't address all of these (or even one) directly in a speech in Egypt, but he can encourage change in more sneaky ways, as he did in Turkey. More tomorrow.
Thursday, May 7, 2009
More great input from Andrew Bacevich.
I love Prof. Andrew Bacevich and his reasoned historical analysis based approach of US FP in the Middle East and in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
(Bacevich is an ex army colonel, history professor at BU, author most recently of The Limits of American Power: The End of American Exceptionalism.)
He was on the News Hour tonight with John Nagl, COIN guru, also an ex colonel, head of CNAS (Center for a New American Security.)
In my opinion, Bacevich and Steve Coll (New Yorker, author of Ghost Wars: The Secret History of the CIA, Afghanistan, and Bin Laden, from the Soviet Invasion to September 10, 2001, among others) really need to be running the US' program in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
(Bacevich is an ex army colonel, history professor at BU, author most recently of The Limits of American Power: The End of American Exceptionalism.)
He was on the News Hour tonight with John Nagl, COIN guru, also an ex colonel, head of CNAS (Center for a New American Security.)
In my opinion, Bacevich and Steve Coll (New Yorker, author of Ghost Wars: The Secret History of the CIA, Afghanistan, and Bin Laden, from the Soviet Invasion to September 10, 2001, among others) really need to be running the US' program in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
Article on civilians fleeing Swat in Pakistan
Great front page article in the Wash Post today on civilians fleeing Swat in Pakistan "In Pakistan, Great Rage and Great Fear"
I like this line:
"We all said to each other, what sort of people have come here? And what kind of sharia is this? Cutting off people's heads has nothing to do with Islam," recounted Karim, 55, a bus driver. "The people were filled with great rage, and great fear."
Later in the article:
"When the militants entered our area, the people held a jirga to discuss what to do. They said they would never accept them and vowed to fight to the death," said Sirmir Khan, director of an educational charity in Buner who fled to Peshawar last week after Taliban forces occupied his offices. "They are not Muslims, they are criminals who are defaming our religion, and the people of Buner are not their friends."
This one is telling:
Sher Mohammed, a property dealer from Mingora, the main town in Swat, was one of the first people to reach a new refugee camp in the Mardan district with his wife and children Tuesday night. On Wednesday, he kicked the dirt outside their tent despondently, saying that after enduring two years of fighting and Taliban abuses, he had had enough.
"I feel like I have lost my mind," he said. "I work hard to make a respectable life and educate my children. Now we are living in a camp, and my sons are talking of guns."
I like this line:
"We all said to each other, what sort of people have come here? And what kind of sharia is this? Cutting off people's heads has nothing to do with Islam," recounted Karim, 55, a bus driver. "The people were filled with great rage, and great fear."
Later in the article:
"When the militants entered our area, the people held a jirga to discuss what to do. They said they would never accept them and vowed to fight to the death," said Sirmir Khan, director of an educational charity in Buner who fled to Peshawar last week after Taliban forces occupied his offices. "They are not Muslims, they are criminals who are defaming our religion, and the people of Buner are not their friends."
This one is telling:
Sher Mohammed, a property dealer from Mingora, the main town in Swat, was one of the first people to reach a new refugee camp in the Mardan district with his wife and children Tuesday night. On Wednesday, he kicked the dirt outside their tent despondently, saying that after enduring two years of fighting and Taliban abuses, he had had enough.
"I feel like I have lost my mind," he said. "I work hard to make a respectable life and educate my children. Now we are living in a camp, and my sons are talking of guns."
Wednesday, May 6, 2009
Listen to Warren Olney 'To the Point' tonight! (Wednesday 5/6)
To the Point is on Afghanistan and Pakistan tonight, here is the link. Best thing about it is that the one and only Paul Collier, who I wrote about about a month ago here, is on the show. (He is author of Wars, Guns, and Votes: Democracy in Dangerous Places, and Professor of Economics at Oxford University.)
Tuesday, May 5, 2009
Refutation of Quranic sanction of Ploygamy (really amazing piece)
Now I can go to sleep happy:
Amazingly well-evidenced refutation , by A Faizur Rahman, that polygamy is sanctioned in the Qur'an.
I am talking using evidence straight from the horses mouth:
"Even a simple reading of verses 4: 2, 3 and 127 will show that it was under such circumstances that the Quran allowed conditional polygyny, mainly to protect orphans and their mothers from an exploitative society.
Polygyny, which finds mention just once (4:3) in the Quran, is one of the most misunderstood concepts of Islamic law. It has been abused over the centuries by Muslim men without appreciating the spirit behind its exceptional sanction, which is clearly contextualised in the historical conditions of the time when a large number of women were widowed and children orphaned as Muslims suffered heavy casualties in defending the nascent Islamic community in Medina. Even a simple reading of verses 4: 2, 3 and 127 will show that it was under such circumstances that the Quran allowed conditional polygyny, mainly to protect orphans and their mothers from an exploitative society."
Please click on the link and read the rest!
Amazingly well-evidenced refutation , by A Faizur Rahman, that polygamy is sanctioned in the Qur'an.
I am talking using evidence straight from the horses mouth:
"Even a simple reading of verses 4: 2, 3 and 127 will show that it was under such circumstances that the Quran allowed conditional polygyny, mainly to protect orphans and their mothers from an exploitative society.
Polygyny, which finds mention just once (4:3) in the Quran, is one of the most misunderstood concepts of Islamic law. It has been abused over the centuries by Muslim men without appreciating the spirit behind its exceptional sanction, which is clearly contextualised in the historical conditions of the time when a large number of women were widowed and children orphaned as Muslims suffered heavy casualties in defending the nascent Islamic community in Medina. Even a simple reading of verses 4: 2, 3 and 127 will show that it was under such circumstances that the Quran allowed conditional polygyny, mainly to protect orphans and their mothers from an exploitative society."
Please click on the link and read the rest!
It's a bone picking week: Now Andrea has a bone to pick with me!
My brilliant friend Andrea had a bone to pick with me at dinner tonight. (She got your back Sabrina Tavernese...maybe, see comments.)
A usual, we went to the new Matchbox on Capitol Hill, drank our favorite Malbec Felino, I ordered an awesome pizza, while Andrea ordered one of sub-par value. One thing Andrea and i can be sure of when we go to M-box: neither of us will ever really ask for a slice of the other's pizza.
Andrea made an important point about my post, directly below, on militancy in Pakistan and its connection, or lack thereof, to Islamic schools.
Andrea and I are both people at all costs try to steer people away from the dangerous stereotype that Islam is a violent religion; that Arabs have a violent culture. However, she reminded me that sometimes, I might be too overprotective of Islam. I am used to defending it against relatives who think that Muhammad was a predator (my Uncle Billy - that's a whole different story for another day) and sometimes I need to let my guard down and admit that there of course, are issues with Islam. Heaves to Betsy, I don't want to sound like a stinkin apologist.
Most importantly, she reminded me that something about these Islamic schools is contributing to militancy:
The Qur'an, taken out of historical context, just like the old and new Testaments are violent books. Stories of battles and hatred are intertwined in stories of compassion and empathy. Manipulated and perverted by the 'right' kind of people - militants in Islamic school - they are all dangerous. (Ie the use of the Bible to justify Christian militancy and the Torah to justify that of violent Jewish settlers.)
Big Dre's (Andrea) important point el numero dos: The manner of teaching at these schools - the way, the pedagogy, or lack thereof (sorry to use this phrase twice), is problematic; it is indoctrination. These kids are taught to obey, to follow, to listen. They are not taught to question, to think critically, to evaluate. Anything the 'teacher' says, goes. And he has a gun, so, even if you don't believe him, you're eventually intimidated into doing so.
The Qur'an taken out of historical context (like all holy books) combined with the indoctrination style teaching a la Stalin or Mussolini are a recipe for disaster.
A usual, we went to the new Matchbox on Capitol Hill, drank our favorite Malbec Felino, I ordered an awesome pizza, while Andrea ordered one of sub-par value. One thing Andrea and i can be sure of when we go to M-box: neither of us will ever really ask for a slice of the other's pizza.
Andrea made an important point about my post, directly below, on militancy in Pakistan and its connection, or lack thereof, to Islamic schools.
Andrea and I are both people at all costs try to steer people away from the dangerous stereotype that Islam is a violent religion; that Arabs have a violent culture. However, she reminded me that sometimes, I might be too overprotective of Islam. I am used to defending it against relatives who think that Muhammad was a predator (my Uncle Billy - that's a whole different story for another day) and sometimes I need to let my guard down and admit that there of course, are issues with Islam. Heaves to Betsy, I don't want to sound like a stinkin apologist.
Most importantly, she reminded me that something about these Islamic schools is contributing to militancy:
The Qur'an, taken out of historical context, just like the old and new Testaments are violent books. Stories of battles and hatred are intertwined in stories of compassion and empathy. Manipulated and perverted by the 'right' kind of people - militants in Islamic school - they are all dangerous. (Ie the use of the Bible to justify Christian militancy and the Torah to justify that of violent Jewish settlers.)
Big Dre's (Andrea) important point el numero dos: The manner of teaching at these schools - the way, the pedagogy, or lack thereof (sorry to use this phrase twice), is problematic; it is indoctrination. These kids are taught to obey, to follow, to listen. They are not taught to question, to think critically, to evaluate. Anything the 'teacher' says, goes. And he has a gun, so, even if you don't believe him, you're eventually intimidated into doing so.
The Qur'an taken out of historical context (like all holy books) combined with the indoctrination style teaching a la Stalin or Mussolini are a recipe for disaster.
Monday, May 4, 2009
I've got a bone to pick with you, Tavernese.
Sabrina Tavernese, I'm really angry with you. Your article today on the front page of the NYTimes is just plain wrong in its blatant direct linking of Islam to militancy in Pakistan. Ugh, the last thing we need is someone else purporting this hollow stereotype. It is most problematic bc the more we blame Islam, the further we get from a solution to the real roots of the problems there (this case in Pakistan), and the further moderate Muslims move from us.
This line really got my blood a boiling: (Good thing for you, Sabrina, I read it at a bar with a nice glass of full bodied red wine. Is there any other type of wine really though.)
"The schools offer almost no instruction beyond the memorizing of the Koran creating a widening pool of young minds that are sympathetic to militancy."
Koran = sympathy to militancy? Please don't tell me you think that Islam is to blame for all of this violence?
Despite these romantic 'violent Muslim' lines, in reading the rest of the article one can see that militancy in Pakistan has other roots, like a lack of economic opportunity (no jobs) and the lack of mobility due to the importance of political connections. Tavernese, however, does not direct us toward these practical explanations, rather she continues to make unsubstantiated claims blaming Islam.
For example, throughout the article she states that despair and poverty and neglect have created this space for the Islamic schools. My response is: Then is it not this desperation and neglect and poverty that cause militancy? Why is it Islam?
Furthermore, just because the kids that go to these schools become militants doesn't mean it's because of Islam, I'd argue it is because of the networks they fall into in these schools and the desparation they feel.
Also, these Islamic schools might teach these kids messed up conservative crap (no music, etc) but most of it, first of all, is not even 'Islamic' and second of all, what they teach is not the root of the problem, why they are there is.
Why are they there? Because there are few public schools and fewer good ones. Tavernese even states that few kids actually go to any school in these regions; Islamic schools make up only 7% of all primary schools. Private schooling is out - too expensive in these parts.
Many kids that attend these Islamic schools have nowhere else to go; these kids are usually the poorest of the poor. Islamic schools don't charge much, if anything, due to financing from the state. It is these kids that are vulnerable to militants, but they are vulnerable not because of their religious feelings but because of their poverty and desperation - their total lack of social networks and economic opportunities and political connections.
This line really got my blood a boiling: (Good thing for you, Sabrina, I read it at a bar with a nice glass of full bodied red wine. Is there any other type of wine really though.)
"The schools offer almost no instruction beyond the memorizing of the Koran creating a widening pool of young minds that are sympathetic to militancy."
Koran = sympathy to militancy? Please don't tell me you think that Islam is to blame for all of this violence?
Despite these romantic 'violent Muslim' lines, in reading the rest of the article one can see that militancy in Pakistan has other roots, like a lack of economic opportunity (no jobs) and the lack of mobility due to the importance of political connections. Tavernese, however, does not direct us toward these practical explanations, rather she continues to make unsubstantiated claims blaming Islam.
For example, throughout the article she states that despair and poverty and neglect have created this space for the Islamic schools. My response is: Then is it not this desperation and neglect and poverty that cause militancy? Why is it Islam?
Furthermore, just because the kids that go to these schools become militants doesn't mean it's because of Islam, I'd argue it is because of the networks they fall into in these schools and the desparation they feel.
Also, these Islamic schools might teach these kids messed up conservative crap (no music, etc) but most of it, first of all, is not even 'Islamic' and second of all, what they teach is not the root of the problem, why they are there is.
Why are they there? Because there are few public schools and fewer good ones. Tavernese even states that few kids actually go to any school in these regions; Islamic schools make up only 7% of all primary schools. Private schooling is out - too expensive in these parts.
Many kids that attend these Islamic schools have nowhere else to go; these kids are usually the poorest of the poor. Islamic schools don't charge much, if anything, due to financing from the state. It is these kids that are vulnerable to militants, but they are vulnerable not because of their religious feelings but because of their poverty and desperation - their total lack of social networks and economic opportunities and political connections.
These grievances are classic fodder for revolutions, as I commented on here, it has happened plenty of places over time, Iran, China, Russia, the list goes on.
Sunday, May 3, 2009
Great arguments against torture.
Tonight, during my Sunday night burger dinner, I watched a panel on torture on C-Span books from 2005, Torture Papers: The Road to Abu Ghraib. Excellent discussion.
There were about 5 legal scholars up there, including the two authors, Karen Greenberg and Josh Dratel; all made many thoughtful, well-evidenced and well-reasoned arguments against torture.
Here are just 3:
One was that the ticking bomb scenario is just a load of #2.
(Interesting point made as a follow up: the most info we've ever gotten about AQ was after the embassy bombings in Africa, guy we caught fessed up an arm and a leg not because he was tortured but because he was given incentives by US authorities. He also chose to be in US custody WITHOUT a lawyer vs. Kenya with one...we DON'T want to lose this upper hand.)
Two was about justifying torture through saving lives: Should we, asked Josh Dratel, also torture tobacco company exec to find out how and why cigarettes kill and what they are doing to stop those deaths? Where do you draw the line.
Third memorable point was by Karen Greenberg on how to stop it: We need a Harriet Beecher Stowe she said; we need an Uncle Tom's Cabin. Even admin officials that were sanctioning torture were out in public denying it. No one likes torture, no one admits to it publicly proudly, it's illegal and politically damning. Similarly, slavery, on its face was also a horrible institution, people admitted that but still did it out in the open. Both looked upon as necessary evils.
Greenberg suggests we have to change how people think about torture - it has to be unacceptable behind closed doors. How do we do this? Uncle Tom's Cabin showed whites that slavery was gong to come back and bite them where the sun don't shine; eventually slavery as an institution would rot their country and end up in violence against whites.
Officials up and down the chain of command and the public need to understand that torture will also corrode our country and our values and us as individuals.
There were about 5 legal scholars up there, including the two authors, Karen Greenberg and Josh Dratel; all made many thoughtful, well-evidenced and well-reasoned arguments against torture.
Here are just 3:
One was that the ticking bomb scenario is just a load of #2.
(Interesting point made as a follow up: the most info we've ever gotten about AQ was after the embassy bombings in Africa, guy we caught fessed up an arm and a leg not because he was tortured but because he was given incentives by US authorities. He also chose to be in US custody WITHOUT a lawyer vs. Kenya with one...we DON'T want to lose this upper hand.)
Two was about justifying torture through saving lives: Should we, asked Josh Dratel, also torture tobacco company exec to find out how and why cigarettes kill and what they are doing to stop those deaths? Where do you draw the line.
Third memorable point was by Karen Greenberg on how to stop it: We need a Harriet Beecher Stowe she said; we need an Uncle Tom's Cabin. Even admin officials that were sanctioning torture were out in public denying it. No one likes torture, no one admits to it publicly proudly, it's illegal and politically damning. Similarly, slavery, on its face was also a horrible institution, people admitted that but still did it out in the open. Both looked upon as necessary evils.
Greenberg suggests we have to change how people think about torture - it has to be unacceptable behind closed doors. How do we do this? Uncle Tom's Cabin showed whites that slavery was gong to come back and bite them where the sun don't shine; eventually slavery as an institution would rot their country and end up in violence against whites.
Officials up and down the chain of command and the public need to understand that torture will also corrode our country and our values and us as individuals.
Yoo was Bush's genie, according to Condi Rice. (Stay with me here folks, trust me, there's a parallel)
"When the president does it, that means it is not illegal."
This is positively absolutely definitely without a doubt the most amazing(ly disturbing) line of reasoning/ justification for torture I've heard yet. This one from Condi Rice, torture mama and messenger lady; she only 'delivered the memos to the CIA'.
Last Friday Condi cleared up the following for an inquisitive Stanford student: Waterboarding is legal BY DEFINITION BECAUSE IT WAS AUTHORIZED BY THE PRESIDENT. Ahhh, I see.
("The president instructed us that nothing we would do would be outside of our obligations, legal obligations, under the Convention Against Torture," Rice said at Stanford, before adding: "And so, by definition, if it was authorized by the president, it did not violate our obligations under the Convention Against Torture.") Here is the article.
That is problematic ten ways to Tuesday.
Clearly, Condi thinks the Pres is above the law AND forgot about good old Montesquieu and his silly little check and balances. The president it seems, can actually write laws, then serve under them.
This reminds me of scenes from movies with genies - or just any movie that involves a wish coming true: Boy writes on piece of paper what he wants, wish comes true; John Yoo writes on paper US can torutre, US tortures.
This is positively absolutely definitely without a doubt the most amazing(ly disturbing) line of reasoning/ justification for torture I've heard yet. This one from Condi Rice, torture mama and messenger lady; she only 'delivered the memos to the CIA'.
Last Friday Condi cleared up the following for an inquisitive Stanford student: Waterboarding is legal BY DEFINITION BECAUSE IT WAS AUTHORIZED BY THE PRESIDENT. Ahhh, I see.
("The president instructed us that nothing we would do would be outside of our obligations, legal obligations, under the Convention Against Torture," Rice said at Stanford, before adding: "And so, by definition, if it was authorized by the president, it did not violate our obligations under the Convention Against Torture.") Here is the article.
That is problematic ten ways to Tuesday.
Clearly, Condi thinks the Pres is above the law AND forgot about good old Montesquieu and his silly little check and balances. The president it seems, can actually write laws, then serve under them.
This reminds me of scenes from movies with genies - or just any movie that involves a wish coming true: Boy writes on piece of paper what he wants, wish comes true; John Yoo writes on paper US can torutre, US tortures.
Who needs sides...
when you have red wine and a fresh large ribeye from the Corner Store in Sperryville, VA. Not me, sir.
This is my response to the campaign against red meat (CARM) (I made that up) study that came out a few weeks back. (I posted on it here.)
Ini Mini Miny Mo...
Ini Mini Miny Mo catch tiger (a corrupt Pakistani dictator) by the toe if he hollars (doesn't git the Taliban) let him go Ini Mini Miny Mo...
The meddling continues.
The meddling continues.
3 new movies worth watching.
I'm not going to lie, I rarely to never make it ot the movie theatre. But I will be going to these 3:
***"Lemon Tree" - Israeli defense minster moves in next to a Palestinian widow an her lemon trees, many of you can predict where this is gong already, Israel says they must cut down the trees for security purposes, woman takes it to court, loses, then to Israeli supreme court...it is clear from the clip that at some point the Israeli defense minister's wife is going to intervene and empathizes with the widow... (If you are in DC, it is playing at E St theatre, opened last Friday.)
Here is a review in Haaretz.
Watch a clip here.
"Rachel" - documentary about Rachel Corrie, the American killed by an Israeli bulldozer
Here is a review on Salon which includes an interview with the highly acclaimed Moroccan, Israeli, French filmmaker Simone Bitton. (He also is known for "Wall" on, you guessed it, the erection of the wall separating Israel (and a lot of Palestinian land) from Palestinian West Bank.)
"Outrage" - on closeted congress members who vote against gay rights legislation.
Film homepage.
***"Lemon Tree" - Israeli defense minster moves in next to a Palestinian widow an her lemon trees, many of you can predict where this is gong already, Israel says they must cut down the trees for security purposes, woman takes it to court, loses, then to Israeli supreme court...it is clear from the clip that at some point the Israeli defense minister's wife is going to intervene and empathizes with the widow... (If you are in DC, it is playing at E St theatre, opened last Friday.)
Here is a review in Haaretz.
Watch a clip here.
"Rachel" - documentary about Rachel Corrie, the American killed by an Israeli bulldozer
Here is a review on Salon which includes an interview with the highly acclaimed Moroccan, Israeli, French filmmaker Simone Bitton. (He also is known for "Wall" on, you guessed it, the erection of the wall separating Israel (and a lot of Palestinian land) from Palestinian West Bank.)
"Outrage" - on closeted congress members who vote against gay rights legislation.
Film homepage.
This is the kind of stuff that starts 'religious' conflicts.
Egypt needs to stop slaughtering the Copts' pigs, pronto.
While a government killing off the livelihood of a certain part of the population would be bad under any circumstances, this situation is particularly hairy because of its religious component: Egypt (ok sure it is a secular state) has a Muslim majority and these pigs belong to the impoverished Christian minority group. I am sure any pig owners in Egypt would protest the government actions - Christian or not - but this could take on a whole other meaning, considering. I won't even get into the fact that these swine don't cause the flu.
There have already been protests and clashes.
While a government killing off the livelihood of a certain part of the population would be bad under any circumstances, this situation is particularly hairy because of its religious component: Egypt (ok sure it is a secular state) has a Muslim majority and these pigs belong to the impoverished Christian minority group. I am sure any pig owners in Egypt would protest the government actions - Christian or not - but this could take on a whole other meaning, considering. I won't even get into the fact that these swine don't cause the flu.
There have already been protests and clashes.
Saturday, May 2, 2009
Excellent thoughts on HOW to approach the Middle East.
Professor Eric Davis (Rutgers) has an excellent post on his blog Tabsir: Insight on Islam and the Middle East; it is basically a guide to studying the Middle East with rules on how NOT to do it in the form of '10 Conceptual Sins'.
He really covers all the bases here - from the importance of historical context to the lack of importance of ethnic identity. If I had made a similar list, it would list the same issues.
This is amazing:
Sin #5: The myth of “Islamic fundamentalism.” The notion of a radical Islam at the root of much if not all of the Middle East’s problems is pervasive in the Western media. I will soon upload a posting that will discuss this issue in greater detail. The idea that Islamic “fundamentalism” is a myth would begin by pointing out that most of those who claim to be pursuing a radical Islamist politics know little about Islamic theology and doctrine, or Islamic law (al-sharia). I discovered this many years ago when I conducted research on the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood. Brothers who went on trial for participating in alleged violent behavior knew very little about Islamic doctrine when questioned by a learned judge. While they would always argue that their actions were prescribed by “Islam,” they invariably were unable to support these assertions with textual sources when questioned by the judge.
A good analogy would be to compare radicals who claim to be acting in the name of Islam to members of the Ku Klux Klan (or other such radical organizations in the US). While Klan members have terrorized and lynched African-Americans in the name of “Christianity,” the overwhelming majority of Christians find such ideas abhorrent and reject the notion that they have anything to do with their religion.
There were times I was reading this when I was convinced that Eric Davis was inside my head. If you are a loyal reader of my blog (which chances are you aren't) you will see the similarities in our ideas: (Not trying to pat myself on the back, just saying we think alike and I like his funky Middle East style.)
Likewise, radical Islamists (and I would argue that they don’t even deserve to be dignified with the appellation “Islamist” given their lack of education and knowledge) make up doctrines as they go along. In addition to usually knowing very little about Islamic doctrine, they in effect create an “invented religion.” These radicals begin with a political agenda, often tied to economic goals, and then politicize Islam in ways that they hope will facilitate their behavior by giving it an aura of legitimacy.
Amen and Hallelujah all praise be to Eric Davis.
He really covers all the bases here - from the importance of historical context to the lack of importance of ethnic identity. If I had made a similar list, it would list the same issues.
This is amazing:
Sin #5: The myth of “Islamic fundamentalism.” The notion of a radical Islam at the root of much if not all of the Middle East’s problems is pervasive in the Western media. I will soon upload a posting that will discuss this issue in greater detail. The idea that Islamic “fundamentalism” is a myth would begin by pointing out that most of those who claim to be pursuing a radical Islamist politics know little about Islamic theology and doctrine, or Islamic law (al-sharia). I discovered this many years ago when I conducted research on the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood. Brothers who went on trial for participating in alleged violent behavior knew very little about Islamic doctrine when questioned by a learned judge. While they would always argue that their actions were prescribed by “Islam,” they invariably were unable to support these assertions with textual sources when questioned by the judge.
A good analogy would be to compare radicals who claim to be acting in the name of Islam to members of the Ku Klux Klan (or other such radical organizations in the US). While Klan members have terrorized and lynched African-Americans in the name of “Christianity,” the overwhelming majority of Christians find such ideas abhorrent and reject the notion that they have anything to do with their religion.
There were times I was reading this when I was convinced that Eric Davis was inside my head. If you are a loyal reader of my blog (which chances are you aren't) you will see the similarities in our ideas: (Not trying to pat myself on the back, just saying we think alike and I like his funky Middle East style.)
Likewise, radical Islamists (and I would argue that they don’t even deserve to be dignified with the appellation “Islamist” given their lack of education and knowledge) make up doctrines as they go along. In addition to usually knowing very little about Islamic doctrine, they in effect create an “invented religion.” These radicals begin with a political agenda, often tied to economic goals, and then politicize Islam in ways that they hope will facilitate their behavior by giving it an aura of legitimacy.
Amen and Hallelujah all praise be to Eric Davis.
Friday, May 1, 2009
OH the Hypocrisy.
Pew survey shows that evangelicals and other churchgoing groups love to torture! It's OK when the victims are evil-doing Arabs, and not babies!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
