Archive for the 'Middle East' Category

A bone to pick

I was tempted to write a riposte to Pamela Bone’s schtick about the alleged betrayal of Islamic women by Western feminists the other day, but in the end I was pretty busy with work and I also decided that I didn’t want to give her the time of (International Women’s) day. It’s probably significant that when a lot could be said about the declining position of women in the workforce here in Australia, the increasing difficulty of finding childcare, and a whole lot of other issues (many of which were covered in tigtog’s Blog against sexism post and the comments thread) that the only thing the Australian found worth publishing on IWD was a left-bashing rant. Shaun took Bone on in a post linking to tigtog’s previous refutation of similar claims by number one feminist of convenience Janet Albrechtsen. But the whole thing was niggling at me. There are two obvious counters to claims (which I think are in fundamentally bad faith, but more on that later) by people like Bone that:

I don’t hold much hope on this International Women’s Day of seeing big protests in Australian cities against female genital mutilation; or against honour killings, stonings, child marriages, forced seclusion or any of the other persecutions to which women are still subjected. The fire of Western feminism has quietly died away, first as a victim of its success, lately as a victim of cultural relativism, of anti-Americanism and reluctance to be seen to be condemning the enemies of the enemy.

The first is that “big protests” tend to be directed at domestic issues. The Iraq War is not an exception - what was at issue was Australian participation. This canard is identical in logic to the slur made by other RWDB columnists - that anti-war Australians didn’t march to protest about Saddam’s human rights abuses. Aside from the fact that neither did any of those columnists or all of the chicken hawks in the blogosphere who like to shriek loudly about this, the claim that the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are fought for human rights reasons is just risible. And of course, for those who want to make that claim (and the feminist of convenience argument is rarely made these days about Iraq where women’s rights are under sustained attack), there’s an obligation to reflect on the degree to which military and civil violence against civilians (including many women) advances human rights. As I’m suggesting, women in Australia have a lot on our plate here at home. But I also suspected that the claim that women in the West gave no support to Islamic feminism was a complete furphy. My guess was that about ten minutes’ worth of research in the blogosphere would refute that (op/edders are apparently exempt from the requirement to test their ops against facts). And so it proved to be. Over the fold.

Continue reading ‘A bone to pick’

Unspeakable horrors

There was a very good, but also very disturbing doco on sbs tonight, essentially following the journey of a British reporter through the middle east seeking some answers to what influence warporn propaganda videos made by Jihadists had. Not very much, he found, with many young people in countries like Syria using the net more for cyberdating than consuming the hateful snuff films of Al Qaeda and a host of other Jihadist sects and groups. There was much to reflect on, not least the parallel that the production values and style of the warporn mirrors some of the triumphalist warporn that first started showing on CNN in Gulf War I, and the ubiquity of the use of the technological standards of the intertube generation, Microsoft software and YouTube, for intentions far removed from the utopian dreams of those for whom “information wants to be free”. But the show concluded that it was more the constants of death and destruction on the satellite tv stations rather than the efforts of Jihadists which reinforce the implication of war and everyday life and culture in the middle east. There again there were mirror effects - people ranting and raving at each other on Al-Jazeera in a format straight out of Fox News. Perhaps most confronting were the images of war and children shown on a Syrian satellite tv’s kids program. It’s as if Play School were reporting from the front. But, then, the death of children is a reality in places like Lebanon, Palestine and Iraq. One other theme was the diversity of opinion that the interviewees had. All within a particular frame, but then, what else would you expect?

Continue reading ‘Unspeakable horrors’

Iran: please explain

There are increasing signs that the US plans to attack Iran within the next few months. In today’s TomDispatch, Michael T Klare pieces together evidence for what he thinks amounts to a case for war which George W Bush will almost inevitably offer to the American people.

The New Yorker carries an article by renowned investigative reporter Seymour Hersh which alleges that Dick Cheney has personally taken charge of an aggressive new policy which includes plans to bomb sites in Iran at 24 hours notice. Open Democracy reported some weeks back that the US was already moving logistically to prepare for an attack.

Cheney was of course in Australia last week and gave a sinister interview in which he hinted at a strike and referred to the “apocalyptic philosophy” of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (shades of the pot calling the kettle black!)

Continue reading ‘Iran: please explain’

End game

Political commentary, and political options, in both Australia and America tend to assume that if the US pulled out of Iraq, the result would be a descent into chaos and regional instability far worse than the current (and already extremely dire) situation. There’s clearly no way in which the claim that “the terrorists would win” is sustainable. Jihadists in Iraq are only a very small percentage of the contending forces (and most never would have been there in the first place had the US taken effective action to secure Iraq’s borders after Saddam was toppled). They’re not popular among either ordinary Iraqis or any of the other groups and militias currently in conflict. The broader claim that “the terrorists” would be emboldened by a loss of American prestige is rarely supported with any strategic argument, and seems inconsistent with the effectiveness of current anti-terrorist strategies outside the Middle East.

But, as Robert Dreyfuss argues in The Washington Monthly, there’s no reason to automatically accept the apocalyptic scenarios about the other consequences of an American withdrawal (it’s safe to assume that the only consequences of an Australian withdrawal would be felt in Australian domestic politics). Dreyfuss argues that the neocons and the Bush administration premissed their prewar rhetoric and postwar planning on the most rosy of scenarious. Ironically, the very same bunch are now pushing the most dire of scenarios. I don’t necessarily endorse Dreyfuss’ analysis except on the point about Al Qaeda, but it’s well worth factoring in to thinking about the question, if only to challenge the terms of the debate. After all, conventional wisdom from pollies and policy makers on Iraq has an appalling record to date.

The beat goes on…

Stop me if you have heard this one before but there is this government you see. They claim to have evidence of wrong doings by a certain country in the Middle East so they put on a press conference with said evidence. Not so much WMDs but IEDs. Sorta like this other joke from a few years back. Can’t remember the punchline but involved Iraq somehow.

What is amazing is that there seems to be some skepticism this time around.

Deja vu. And the beat goes on.

A vote for Obama is a win for Osama sez our PM

John Howard has decided that the race for the United States Democratic presidential nominee needs his input:

Prime Minister John Howard has launched a broadside against US presidential hopeful Barack Obama, warning his victory could destroy Iraq and prospects for peace in the Middle East.

While Howard himself suffering the indignities of questions regarding ’senior moments’, he does seem to have Barack Obama confused with Osama Bin Laden.

If I was running al-Qaeda in Iraq, I would put a circle around March 2008, and pray, as many times as possible, for a victory not only for Obama, but also for the Democrats.

With Obama being a African-American senator from Illinois and Osama being a Saudi terrorist currently who knows where it is very easy to confuse the two as CNN did late last year. Maybe Prime Minister Howard simply misheard a question along the lines of “What are your thoughts about Barack Obama?” Then again, he may be watching just a little too much Fox News for his own good.

A Bone to pick

In his excellent history of the Iraq War, The Assassins’ Gate (reviewed here in Salon), George Packer writes:

Iraq provided a blank screen on which many Americans were free to project anything they wanted, and because so few Americans had anything directly at stake there, many of them never saw more than the image of their own feelings. The exceptions, of course, were the soldiers and their own families, who carried almost the entire weight of the war.

This state of the affairs on the home front was, in one way, the natural outgrowth of a political atmosphere that had become increasingly poisonous for a decade. The culture wars produced Clinton hatred, which led to impeachment, followed by the contested election of 2000, followed by Bush hatred, which was just as intense and crazy making as its predecessor. Iraq provided another level on the downward spiral. Whereas the street fights of the late 1960s were the consequence of Vietnam, the word fights of the early 2000s were not the consequence of Iraq - if anything, the other way around.

Packer’s careful book of impassioned yet dispassionate journalism, and Thomas E. Ricks’ Fiasco, are both antidotes to the ludicrous hyperbole and political projection that characterises much debate over Iraq. I’ve read both over the weekend, and have learnt a lot, not least something about the way in which debates over Iraq have been framed and shaped.

It was the first bloggers’ war, and the characteristic features of the form - instant response, ad hominem attack, remoteness from life, the echo chamber of friends and enemies - defined the quality of the debate about Iraq far better than the reasoned analyses and proposals that quicky disappeared from view…

Packer might be a tad unfair to some corners of the blogosphere in this assessment, but the essential point remains true. Debate over Iraq - whether in op/eds, on shrill tv and radio rantfests, or indeed in legislative chambers - has had almost everything to do with emotion and the search for political advantage and almost nothing to do with rationality and an assessment of the situation as it really is.

Witness the debate over Nick Cohen’s book What’s Left?, which has come to these shores via an op/ed piece in The Australian by Pamela Bone, who if I’m reading her correctly, admits that she hasn’t read the book yet.

Continue reading ‘A Bone to pick’

Strange alignments

On this thread, we’ve recently been treated to the spectacle of a self-proclaimed radical leftist commenter defending the Bush administration’s War on Iraq. Though I was familiar with the Euston Manifestists’ critique of the anti-war left, I’d had no idea that there were some who describe themselves as Marxists who view Bush as a progressive embodiment of the forces of history. This argument seems to be one put forward at a webpage called The Last Superpower, which believes, inter alia:

On the one hand capitalism is vastly superior to tribalism, feudalism and fascism. The achievements of advanced capitalism really are quite spectatcular. Nevertheless it holds back development and progress because it is based on wage slavery and is therefore incapable of fully unleashing human potential. So from the perspective of the past it is progressive - but from the perspective of the future it is reactionary and deserves to perish!

But also that:

the left has always fought against fascism. We therefore supported the overthrow of the fascist Baath Party in Iraq. The United States currently has no choice but to drain the swamps and support the democratization of the Middle East. We areglad about that!

The argument appears to be a species of determinist Marxism which sees “Islamism” as some sort of progressive force.

Writing at Open Democracy, Fred Halliday is crystal clear as to why the left should not align itself with Islamism.

It does not need slogans to understand that the Islamist programme, ideology and record are diametrically opposed to the left – that is, the left that has existed on the principles founded on and descended from classical socialism, the Enlightenment, the values of the revolutions of 1798 and 1848, and generations of experience. The modern embodiments of this left have no need of the “false consciousness� that drives so many so-called leftists into the arms of jihadis.

Continue reading ‘Strange alignments’

“Augmentation” leads to diminution of Republican support

Over the fold is a news report of a Senate Foreign Affairs Committee hearing on the Iraq escalation, which Condi Rice has now dubbed an “augmentation”. Not a single Senator expressed support, Condi faced harsh grilling from Republicans and a number of Republican Senators indicated they no longer supported the President on Iraq.

Elsewhere: Tim Dunlop on Senate stand-up, at Troppo, D W Griffiths calls for “less soldiering, more policing”, and Ken Lovell at Surfdom parses the Gettysburg Address for Bush’s benefit.

In other news: Shmuel Rosner wonders if war has just been declared on Iran:

Donald Rumsfeld’s tenure as secretary of defense is quickly fading from memory, but yesterday, as his successor shuttled from briefing to hearing, one of Rumsfeld’s famous aphorisms came to mind: If you can’t solve a problem, enlarge it.

Coming from Gates, it sounded technical rather than slick. “We are beginning to move aggressively to try and identify and root out the networks that are involved in helping to bring Iranian-supplied [bombs] into Iraq,” Gates said. If you can’t solve Iraq, enlarge it. While you were sleeping, the war with Iran might have begun.

Continue reading ‘“Augmentation” leads to diminution of Republican support’

The unknown international humanitarian crisis

For reasons that are very obvious, there’s been very little reporting of the internal and external displacement of Iraqi refugees.

The UNHCR is launching an appeal:

UNHCR and its partners estimate that out of a total population of 26 million, some 1.7 million Iraqis are displaced internally and up to 2 million have fled to nearby countries.

While many were displaced before 2003, increasing numbers of Iraqis are now fleeing escalating sectarian, ethnic and gene ralized violence.

In 2006 alone, UNHCR estimates that nearly 5,00,000 Iraqis fled to other areas inside the country and that 40,000 to 50,000 continue to flee their homes every month. Planning figures under the latest appeal are for up to 2.3 million IDPs by the end of this year.

Shamefully, the US suspended its Iraqi refugee intake after s11, and didn’t restart it until 2005. But the US plans only to resettle 500 Iraqi refugees in 2007.

John Quiggin blogs on a request from an American journalist seeking information on the possibility of resettling Iraqi refugees in Australia. See his post for details. You’d hope that possibility exists, since we’ve been there since 2003, even if our “mission” at the moment appears to be transparently political in character, as Tim Dunlop observers.

Meanwhile, In The Middle East Revisited

In a post last week I mentioned the Iranian elections were to be held last Friday.

It seems that the results haven’t been good for President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. His allies have lost ground and a coalition of reformers and progressives have gained ground. This article has a good analysis of what it means (if anything). The election is only for positions in the local councils so there won’t be a major shift in Iranian policy but it does seem that public sentiment is not with Ahmadinejad. But there is very cautious optimism that the results will reign in the rhetoric of Ahmadinejad.

Meanwhile, the US is sending another carrier group to the Gulf as an apparent warning to Iran.

Meanwhile, In The Middle East…

…democracy and stability continue to spread.

Some may remember a little war that happened in Lebanon back in July. The attempt to destroy Hezbollah hasn’t quite worked out. In fact, Hezbollah seems that have recovered well. So well that they have been leading rallies aimed at undermining the Lebanese government. Syria is likely to have a hand in all this but it is an unintended consequence in regards of the war.

In Iran, a bizarre and disgusting conference involving Holocaust deniers has wrapped up. In the grand tradition of such conferences, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has stated that Israel’s days are numbered. A very different position on Israel than Iran was proposing in 2003.

Continue reading ‘Meanwhile, In The Middle East…’

Iraq: the Verdict

Donald Rumsfeld demonstrated that his famed mastery of bureaucratic politics was not a myth by writing a memo (duly leaked) just before he was ousted admitting that the War in Iraq was off course. His replacement, Bob Gates, has admitted in Senate testimony that the US is not winning the war (though he later clarified his remarks to suggest that the US wasn’t losing either - but confined this to the military sphere, not the political). In a blow to neo-cons, he also ruled out surprise attacks on Iraq and North Korea on his watch. Now the Baker Study Group has released its report [available in full here in a pdf], warning of a collapse of the Iraqi government and an impending humanitarian catastrophe. The trouble is that the Baker suggestions have already been overtaken by events. Iraq, not the US, has been talking to Syria and Iran, and the disintegration of the Iraqi government looks imminent.

The report puts a stake through the heart of the “stay the course” strategy of the Bush administration, a course so warmly welcomed by John Howard. It’s suggested that US forces might be out by 2008. The doubters about the wisdom of the invasion are now in the citadel itself, with Gates agreeing that in hindsight the war may have been a mistake. It’ll be fascinating to observe whether the Bush administration is able to get to grips with reality. And fascinating to hear how John Howard responds.

Continue reading ‘Iraq: the Verdict’

More Sunday video

Over at Blogocracy, Tim Dunlop has posted a link to some footage of Saddam and his aides discussing their “slingshots of mass destruction” strategy for beating the American invasion:

In the video, Mr. Hussein, wearing a double-breasted gray suit, aims a slingshot, shoots an arrow at a door using a crossbow (as aides scamper out of the way) and swings a mock gasoline bomb over his head with a rope. He urges his aides to get such weapons into the hands of Iraqis.

“Let’s use all the methods we can,� he tells his generals. “These methods can be made at home.�

Later he says, “Let’s talk to the minister of industry to see if we can mass produce this.â€? Tariq Aziz, Mr. Hussein’s close adviser and deputy prime minister, pipes in, “This can be shown to our group of people, who can introduce it to the others.”

The footage is here.

One step ahead of you

Bush is reportedly downplaying the recommendations of the Baker Commission (which hundreds of reports suggest are likely to favour a ‘realist’ approach involving dialogue with Syria and Iran) in favour of a strategy being mulled over by a Pentagon panel (”Go Big but Short”) involving an increase of 20 to 30 000 troops in Iraq.

But while the Decider in Chief ponders, Syria and Iraq have resumed diplomatic relations for the first time in thirty years and Iraqi President Jalal Talabani is off to powow with Ahmenijad in Tehran.