b- thanks for that link. It’s really good to read about other perspectives. to call terrorist warfare “4GW” (George W. 2004?) is a bit too grotesque for my tastes, but that’s the world we live in right now.
here’s another good link to an interview with an expert on Al Qaeda SAAD AL-FAQIH
I don’t necessarily agree with all that he says, but he does say some things worth knowing about. Unfortunately, I do think he’s right about an internal crisis in the event of another terrorist attack because of the embrace of total war that seems to be the path of GW, versus strong isolationist and international law views from the right and left in America.
SF: I have always said Huntington is right. This clash of civilizations is inevitable. The Western and Islamic civilizations are both powerful and self-confident. They both believe others should embrace them. There can never be some sort of balance, there has to be a clash. Huntington’s conclusion was that the West will dominate, but of course I disagree with that.
TM: How will this clash climax?
SF: If another attack in America materializes, the American social structure is simply not powerful enough to withstand it. There is also the argument that no matter how strong your society is, you can not absorb a series of devastating attacks.
TM: How do you think the Americans will react to a series of 9/11 style attacks? Will this kind of extreme provocation elicit a nuclear response from the U.S.?
SF: This could be one of the reactions. The more likely reaction is the so-called Monroe principle which served America well prior to the First World War.
TM: You are talking about the policy of isolationism.
SF: Yes! The point about a nuclear response is that the U.S. has nowhere to detonate it. It has Afghanistan under its control; it has occupied Iraq and has influence in Saudi Arabia. So where will it strike? Mecca? There is nowhere! Therefore the other argument is more credible. There are people in the U.S. who argue that there are fundamental things wrong with the war against terrorism. They say let’s sit down and talk loudly….
TM: There is a problem with this as al-Qaeda is not exactly offering roundtable talks!
SF: No! I did not mean al-Qaeda. I meant Americans talking amongst themselves. There are many people in America who want to tackle the matter in a much more intelligent manner but they have been silenced by this pervasive McCarthyism. There are people that are very tired with this cowboy attitude. Once the next attack occurs they are likely to say that Bush has had two years of this cosmic battle against terrorism and we ended up with an even bigger attack. Now is the time to try a different approach. Now of course the right wingers, the Zionists and the arms lobby will refuse to give ground and then a clash inside America is likely to ensue.
TM: What you are saying is that another attack equalling or exceeding 9/11 will trigger an internal clash inside America.
SF: Yes! America does not have a well established society like Europe.
TM: The fear in the West, particularly here in Europe is that another 9/11 style attack will have grave consequences for individual freedoms.
SF: But this will be an achievement for Bin Laden. Once the West begins compromising on its core values al-Qaeda will have scored a major victory.

Posted by: fauxreal | Nov 16 2004 17:34 utc | 3

How fascinating. So the invasion, occupation, illegal alteration of the Iraqi constitution and laws to permit American ownership and control over key parts of Iraq’s economy and resources and, via alteration to patent laws, submit Iraq’s farmers to a lifetime of dependence upon US suppliers and perpetually levy ‘tribute’ from the farmers to same, the torture, the cluster bombing of residential areas, the violations of Iraqi rights and the gross interference in Iraqi self-determination manifested in a fake ‘political process’ and rigged elections, the thousands of house raids, desecrations of mosques, violations of female privacy and dignity, wholesale slaughter of men, women and children and the unrelenting promise of years more of the same, the war crimes perpetrated against innocent civilians denied water, food, medicines and humanitarian aid, the war crime of seizing a hospital and bombing hospitals and clinics to deny medical treatment, the designation of defenceless civilians as ‘unarmed sleeper cells’, the better to justify their summary execution, the war crime of refusing to allow terrified civilians to leave an area of carnage, shooting those who try and sending the remainder back into the maelstrom to face death and injury, the thousands of brutal, racist and despicable acts of aggression being directed against the Iraqi people each passing day in order to facilitate the imposition of a Quisling American-appointed regime, the appointment to high-office of American-picked stooges to oversee essential aspects of Iraq’s economic, social and political development, the looting of Iraq’s oil revenues to make ‘compensation payments’ to US companies based upon bogus and spurious claims, the assassination squads roaming Iraq and killing opponents of America’s ‘grand design’, the ongoing construction of ‘permanent US military bases’, the harassment, brutalizing and incarceration of opponents to the American ‘grand design’, as well as the incarceration of thousands of others, many for no offence other than to have been caught up in US military ‘sweeps’, the unreported, off-camera executions of Iraqis that occur on a daily basis and the daily airstrikes upon Iraqi cities, towns, villages and farmsteads, the ripping apart of Iraq’s social fabric, the beggaring of its people, the fomenting of ethnic conflict by using Kurdish militiamen to slaughter Iraqis elsewhere, the damage to and continuing destruction of Iraq’s cultural heritage, a thing that is the legacy of all of mankind – there is no problem here with these acts in and of themselves?
It would appear that just as the thousands of gallons of Iraqi blood that soaks the land each week was seamlessly absorbed and suborned into US electoral discourse as ‘a point’ that the chief problem for some commenters here now seems to be the nature and behavior of those who oppose the carnage for grubby domestic political purposes? It is not the horror that is being inflicted on Iraq that is wrong but the social strata, social sub-culture, political affiliations, methods and motives of those who would speak out against it?
Please correct me if I am wrong. Please tell me that it is my perspective that is disgusting, inhuman and insane. If you cannot do that then you are supremely qualified to take each word – disgusting, inhuman and insane – and affix them to yourselves for the rest of your natural lives.
Posted by: Sic transit gloria USA | November 15, 2004 08:52 PM
i have reposted this because it goes beyond any semantic or eytmological base
personally, i am not interested in reestablishing what are essential facts – they cannot be argued – but they can be interpreted & we need to do that for our own well being as much as for our care for the suffering of the iraqui people
yes i am enraged perhaps even sick with that rage. the only way to contextualise that rage is to seek out more information that both b & sic transit gloria have so effectively done – i need the links that you make here like i need air to breathe
slothrop – you misread me profoundly – this situation is so dark – so terribly apocalyptic – i do not ask you to believe me – or take sides against another but i refuse to stay silent on what i find offensive. i though the existence of iste’s like this was to be open to as much information as a human being is capable of absorbing, off interpreting, of transforming
our lives are completely different. & that is the benediction of being here. i do not want you to be like me – me i dont want to be like me, sometimes. the pain & madness of this world are too much. complicated by the essential vulgarity & coarseness of the american enterprise
learning rest important for me – very, very important – but it is not a fortress – it’s beauty exist in its fragility. this is perfectly explained by husserl, by trân dûc thào & by althusser
but i do not need to have genocide defined for me by anybody. i do not need a wall of learning that hides the truth as perfectly as bill o’reilly
unlike alabama – i do not believe that the western canon – is in & of itself redemptive – or that an understanding of it can create the better man. george steiner’s entire ouevre is an attempt to understand how the cultured man is capable of the most profound brutality. in his sixty years of scholarly work he does not seem to arrive at any answers so neither can i pretend to here or elsewhere
when i speak of marx for example -, slothrop it is not in evangilical fervour but in my own wonderment that at 50 i find that work useful & i moved to wonder by it. that is my chemin. if i try to do something here it is to share that wonder hoping that wonder can lead to a kind of enlightenment. but there are no guarantees. we are not perfect
it is ironic – i have seen death very close up – & it was americans who gave me that proximity because i opposed their immoral war in vietnam & i was willing to do everything that was necessary for that war to end. so it is ironic to meet americans as i do here & i can see something that gives me hope – i see your questioning. but what i also see is your impotence. & what i am convinced my after this year of posting how even university trained & intelligent people can believe the obvious lies of a criminal administration because essentially they believe the base
what is that base – that we are alone, that everything we do is correct, that our lives have more value than that of the other, that the concerns & desires of the other are of no matter, that there exists a confusion between force & power, as there is between brutality & violence
your culture dominates the world & it has the means of reproducing it ad finitum – it tries to make a continuum with the canon but the cano is there to legitimise the hatred of the other at a level that is liveable, bearable because deep in the heart of your culture is a sickness without end. a sickness that has been expressed in your literature from the beginning whether it was hawthorne, melville, dreiser dos passos, agee, faulkner – all the canonical writing in your country is an open admission of your sickness. you will say of course that that is a virtue – that you at least are able to see your sickness but that again is an iberted form of racism because deeply you do not understand the riches that lie at the heart of arab culture, of chinese culture – wherein their very patience in front of their sickness has guaranteed in a certain sense that they will heal themselves
this your culture cannot do. the english in their pathetic & ridiculous posturing are in keeping with what it is to be essentially powerless & to have no means to really reflect on your condition because is one of the essential elements of change – to be able to reflect. the english replay & replay the old movie. & that movie was not honest when it was first filmed – the pornography of that dream is perfecly encapsulated in the war propoganda ‘love actually’ which sent me often & potently to the toilet to rid myself of poisons. everybody laughs at the english except the english. but singapore, hong kong, newguinea, crete greece are no laughing matter – their idolatorous dreams have caused people great harm but essentially their mythology is ridiculous. ridiculous beyond measure
& that is the destiny of the american empire – to be loud, to make lots of noise, to do great harm but to be empty – to be without resonance – when facing your soldiers in vietnam i saw children – children who had no idea who & what they were – they were products. this is even truer today
& so i can understand the rage of cluless joe or of sic transit gloria because this murder must end & every means must be sought to make it end
i have never wanted to be personal here though i obviouslly feel affection for certain of you – it is business & a business i have been engaged in all my life – so again i will not, absolutely will not apologise for my argument but i will ask pardon for their temper & for their typographical errors
still steel

Posted by: remembereringgiap | Nov 16 2004 18:52 utc | 5

I have looked at images of Fallujah on the net, although I thought I had more important things to do. But there is nothing more important than looking at this. Those corpses in a sea of rubble. We are throwing away our humanity for greed and lies.

Posted by: teuton | Nov 16 2004 20:06 utc | 7

fauxreal – I agree with you in principle on your rules, but in this case I think that an exception was acceptable. STGA’s post was really strong and necessary and it is fitting, I think, that it is reposted near the top of this thread.

Posted by: Jérôme | Nov 16 2004 20:41 utc | 9

t’s typical American technique- every single atrocity is lost and covered up by blaming a specific person and getting it over with. What people don’t understand is that the whole military is infested with these psychopaths. In this last year we’ve seen murderers, torturers and xenophobes running around in tanks and guns. I don’t care what does it: I don’t care if it’s the tension, the fear, the ‘enemy’… it’s murder. We are occupied by murderers. We’re under the same pressure, as Iraqis, except that we weren’t trained for this situation, and yet we’re all expected to be benevolent and understanding and, above all, grateful. I’m feeling sick, depressed and frightened. I don’t know what to say anymore… they aren’t humans and they don’t deserve any compassion.
So why is the world so obsessed with beheadings? How is this so very different? The difference is that the people who are doing the beheadings are extremists… the people slaughtering Iraqis- torturing in prisons and shooting wounded prisoners- are “American Heroes”. Congratulations, you must be so proud of yourselves today.
Mykeru.com has pictures.
Excuse me please, I’m going to go be sick for a little while.
from riverbend today – could someone link the article

Posted by: remembereringgiap | Nov 16 2004 21:05 utc | 11

The John Robb analysis of the Fallujah operation is most informative, as to the central element of failure that characterizes the operation. Other considerations, such as video documentation of a US soldier killing an unarmed wounded “insurgent” INSIDE A MOSQUE, and other clear violations of Geneva, which all act to place the rubric of genocide in ever closer allignment with the US actions, are indicitivly, overshadowed with the greater magnitude failure of the Iraqi security forces.
The 50% attrition rate, of the Iraqi troops in Fallujah, coupled with the complete rupture of the police force in Mosul and other cities would indicate that stablization and security, as provided by Iraqis, is DOA. Important also, is the fact that 98% of insurgent casualtys are Iraqis (and not foriegn) levells this discourse, as it should be, as a predominatly Iraqi phenomena.
While truly characterized as “hearts and minds” from the vantage of the general population and it’s sympathies, is a good barameter of where the people are politically — there is a more important indicator at the existential knife edge combatent level. At this level, participates will decide(or not) to both risk their own life, and or (not) willingly take the life of fellow citizens, that are seen as either a threat, or as a collaborater of a larger enemy. Recent events would indicate that the insurgency, has the momentum, as evidenced by both dissertion (unwillingness) or the attack on police facilitys(willingness). The general population will express its will in tandem, through either affirmation or rejection of the more militant expression.
Unfortunately for the US effort, the true struggle for “hearts and minds” is waged by these individuals in accordance with, and informed by the whole, as a cultural re-definition of national identity, and this leaves little room for an alien imposition — particularly when the counter offer is so transparently self-serving — revealing its ingenuity as only facits of oppression, that also act on the home front to inversly destroy it’s own national identity.

Posted by: anna missed | Nov 16 2004 21:32 utc | 13

I’m sure anna was a powerful person and you bring her energy and vitality here.
please explain.

Posted by: slothrop | Nov 16 2004 21:46 utc | 15

per rgiap’s request Riverbend’s Post of Tuesday, Nov 16

Posted by: ego | Nov 16 2004 22:11 utc | 17

teuton: But there is nothing more important than looking at this. Those corpses in a sea of rubble. We are throwing away our humanity for greed and lies.
I absolutely agree that there is nothing more important. But I take exception to the “we”-statement that follows. I… have opposed all US militaristic imperialism since I was old enough to understand it in about 1966 (when I was fourteen years old), and I loudly and physically opposed the US and “coalition” invasion and decimation of Afghanistan, followed by the entire senseless mendacious murderious avaricious atrocity in Iraq to the present day.
I think it critical for each person including me to quit slinging “you”s and “we”s around like they really mean something where the Powers that Be are concerned. I’ve never found those passive-voiced words useful for illuminating any dialogue that seeks creative solutions.
[/rant]

Posted by: Kate_Storm | Nov 16 2004 22:20 utc | 19

@fauxreal agreed. check out the history of Belgium — peaceful, chocolate-making little Belgium — in the Congo. or its role today as a world arms marketplace… as I have said these sicknesses transcend the national — yet they do have a lot to do with nationalism… brain too subdivided to say more… swapping heavily [grin]

Posted by: DeAnander | Nov 16 2004 22:39 utc | 21

“We don’t wish this upon anyone, but everyone needs to understand there are consequences for not following the Iraqi government.”
Looks like America’s Democrats and Independents got off prettry lightly, eh?
Pentagon releases new figures for US military deaths in Iraq – 1,210
Shooting of Iraqi in mosque angers Muslims
Gee! Ya think?
UN seeks probe into US war crimes
US marine killed in Falluja clashes
U.S., ‘Iraqis’ regain some ground in Mosul
And kittens and candy and bluebirds and apple pie for everyone!
……In response to reports by Falluja residents that US forces had executed injured Iraqis and dragged them behind US tanks Gilbert said: “I will not talk about this issue. The US together with Iraqi forces confronted the terrorists in Falluja. The forces are there to clean the city from rebels and terrorists, regain stability and security in Iraq, and to hold elections so the Iraqi children can play in playgrounds,” he said……..
US Marines probed as Falluja fighting continues

Posted by: Sic transit gloria USA | Nov 17 2004 0:02 utc | 23

fauxreal speaks the truth. rgaip, yes, we owe a debit of graitude to Arab culture for the alphabet and many other things, just as the Orient owes gratitude to the Occident for antibiotics, democracy, powered flight, rock and roll etc. Most cultures have contributed great things to civilization in general, and often have built off of the works of previous and/or neighboring cultures to arrive at their achievements. The Chinese are not shining stars in terms of human rights or non-aggression, ask the next Tibetan you run into. Arab and Muslim history is just of full of warring as European and American history, and they were not always fighting as the defender.
Everybody’s shit stinks. And everyone starts out an innocent child. Its the choices each one of makes that matters.

Posted by: stoy | Nov 17 2004 0:52 utc | 25

@Kate, I think it is appropriate to say “we” when referring to our society, which we are a part of as US citizens (which I assume you are). That said, however, I agree with you that you and I and we that gather here and are a part of the progressive movement are not to blame, but we are not free from the responsiblity to do all we can to oppose what much of our fellow citizens condone actively or passively. We are in one boat, the ship of the (tenuously) United States of America. The eyes of the rest of the world are on US. As the famous Irish singer sang, “we are one, but we are not the same.”

Posted by: stoy | Nov 17 2004 1:26 utc | 27

Oh, BTW, in case (non-specific) you hadn’t noticed, Iraq is about to slip into civil war.

Posted by: stoy | Nov 17 2004 1:29 utc | 29

rgiap- my comment in no way diminishes the greatness of Arabic contributions to society, especially considering the way in which trade with them helped to move Europe out of the dark ages. For that I am more than grateful. Even in the worst times of conflict between Europe and Arabic nations, exchange via scholarship and trade kept alive the idea that people may be different without hating one another.
Yes, I know many things that have been contributed by Arabic culture…such as pretty much any english word/concept that begins with “Al” as in algebra or algorithm.
They possess greatness in their literature, or the literature of others who inhabit the region, such as the Persians/Iranians. In fact, one of the greatest cinemas of the last decade came from Iran, even though there were incredible difficulties in making any Iranian film. That’s modern, not ancient, but it is still a unique contribution to the arts.
The story of Leila and Majoun. The Conference of the Birds.. si morgh…if I remember correctly…we seek god but it is ourselves we will find.
And I must also say that I am not killing any Iraqi. I opposed the war, marched on Washington, stood vigil with Quakers, other Christians, Jews and Muslims, and those with no religious affiliation, week after week, wrote to my leaders in the legislature and the executive branch, talked about the stupidity of the idea with anyone who supported the invasion… I did not set myself on fire. I did not attempt to harm another person, either, because that would simply be what I oppose.
I don’t think you should lecture those of here who are not in support of Bush’s policies, or assume that we have no knowledge of other cultures, or assume that we are not mortified by what is going on. The evidence is to the contrary.

Posted by: fauxreal | Nov 17 2004 1:35 utc | 31

even to talk of saudia arabia as part of the ancient or antique world i was hoping to enunciate is to misunderstand me.
Oh please. this is utterly ridiculous. Saudi Arabia is a currently existing country which is a way to discuss part of a culture in a part of the world.
which map should we use? which names shall we agree to when referring to things?
Should we not call Iran by its name, and only refer to it as Persia in order for you to stop accusing people of ignorance because it fits your fit of pique?
I’m taking a break from the moon because this sort of attempt to force people into the mold that you have poured for their character and intelligence is annoying beyond belief.

Posted by: fauxreal | Nov 17 2004 1:46 utc | 33

for christ sake faux real i have about as much desire to pour a mold for you as i have of pouring depleted uraniul in my veins

Posted by: remembereringgiap | Nov 17 2004 2:01 utc | 35

Artwork from Falluja 1
Artwork from Falluja 2
Artwork from Falluja 3
Artwork from Falluja 4
Artwork from Falluja 5 (enlarge image to view at full size)

Posted by: Sic transit gloria USA | Nov 17 2004 2:03 utc | 37

We can take that SicTransit fellow too, along with Pat, just so we have a broad ideological spectrum in our first graduating class.

Posted by: L. Beria | Nov 17 2004 2:09 utc | 39

I would say Alabama that you are the most pompous ass I have ever witnessed on the internet.
Takes you 10,000 words to say, what the village idiot could say in 100.
Of course, it take verbose idiots to help make up the village.

Posted by: L. Beria | Nov 17 2004 2:24 utc | 41

Alabama, your attack on rgaip is completely uncalled for and way over the top.
rgaip, my remark about ensuing civil war was an attempt to express complete exasperation. I know goddamn good and well that this is no fucking word game; I have no words for my feels on what is going on in Iraq. I know that “Iraq” is a Britsh construction and that the “sides” in the civil war will largely be American constructions. At the same time fauxreal is correct in that their always boundaries, there are Sunnis, Shites, Turkomen, Christians and Kurds, ethinc and religious groups with hostility towards one another that cannot be blamed on Western colonization.
Alabama does have one valid point, though, and that is that you are accusing people of ignorance in certain areas when you don’t know what they truely know. I have read Mid East history, I have some good Palestinian friends. I talked to people from other countries and cultures whenever I get a chance, and that is not too freaking often, unfortuantely, in Indiana. I think, perhaps many of us are internalizing the horrors of Iraq and it is comming out at each other. Sitting around for hours at a time reading and watching news from Iraq is not health. We all know what happens in wars, we all know the path the US government is taking, we all can vividly imagine the carnage and horrible suffering that is taking place. We do owe it to Iraqis and Afghans to know what our country is do, but we do not need to learn each and every death and dismemberment. It is happening and that is all we need to know. What we do with that knowledge is what is important. And rgaip, you are right about American citizens being helpless. There is not much, as individual that we can do about this madness, but collectively, there is. And that is why we are all here. We must talk about what is happening, to each other and to those who do not want to listen and to those who’s job it is supposed to be to listen to us. But the greatest impact any of us have is on those people around us. So stop fucking bickering!

Posted by: stoy | Nov 17 2004 2:31 utc | 43

stoy
i know that or i would not be here – as i’ve sd often there is so much that is given here & that is not gratutious flattery. i have never been in your country – the closest i have been is montreal & in the fields of vietnam
i also know the suffering in the face of what is an oncomparable obscenity. in the vietnam war where i was engaged literally on the other side to your country i did not feel so passionate as i feel today
i presume nothing about you stoy or about fauxreal for that matter – i have come to know many here through email but i already think i sense the you & the who
i was neither demanding whether your uncle was a syrian diplomat or your brothers lover was coptic librarian – as if that proximity connotates knowledge. it does not. affinities perhaps. knowledge no. perhaps i labour a point but in the first few weeks of the occupation i could not believe my eyes – the desecration of the cultural infrastructure is as close to total & that frightens me, deeply & i watch & read about it from a province in france & i want to do more than i am capable of doing
hence the frustration – but i have never doubted the other persons here & when i have – as i did with pat – i did so openly, without cruelty & without insult. for a long time i asked a series of questions that were not answered except in droll regret – i got angry – spoke that anger – & that discussion is closed
i would be interested to know why alabama feels he needs to insult me & insult me with knowledge i have given freely here. if eel dissapointed but not surprised
all this to say stoy that is where my argument was being directed from – i thought i was communicating. perhaps not
still steel

Posted by: remembereringgiap | Nov 17 2004 2:46 utc | 45

rgaip, I highly value your in-put. I am pretty sure most (all?) of us may not be understanding what you are trying to say, and/or you may not be fully understand us.(?)
Could you try once more, to explain your basic argument?

Posted by: stoy | Nov 17 2004 2:52 utc | 47

Oh, sorry rgaip, after re-reading I think I know what your saying, maybe. Is it that we seem no to care about the cultures and histories the U.S. expeditionary force is obliterating?
I blame myself for not following you. I think I need eat. Later…

Posted by: stoy | Nov 17 2004 2:56 utc | 49

Galiel was indeed intemperate and stubborn until it was too late, but there was no single hand involved.
Is this comment in the previous vein, or is it merely parallel?

Posted by: stoy | Nov 17 2004 2:59 utc | 51

stoy
i live in france in the provinces we have a long and complicated relationship with the arab world but i find an ignorance, almost an arrogant ignorance about the arab world – so the american administrations worldview has some resonance for the us & in a bad way – that is our citizens of north african orign are not integrated though i really believe in my heart & head that it is the republiques deepest desire for that to be so. it has always been delicate & it rests delicate
i work with the men & women from the cités & i’m scared that they will react to the slowness of integration with a refuge to fundamentalism & there is evidence that that is the case
i guess what i am saying is that we should not just pay lip service to them but to find the real common points that exist between us & i know they are there
that can only be done by knowing them – knowing that culture – not without argument & not as a compensatory measure – simply as a means of living in this violent & volatile world
when i read the american press & even the best of it in common dreams & truth out – i see absences in their knowledge that i think are harmful to urselves & to the world we live in
simply because i work with them a great majority of my time i have come to know their culture better — by reading – by asking questions – by exposing my ignorance so that they may teach me because i need to be taught
because at any point in time our knowledge is not sufficient – we need to know more & since the events we are living through are so violent then perhaps that knowledge needs to be understood violently
genet says this much better than me – but that is the basis of my argument

Posted by: remembereringgiap | Nov 17 2004 3:04 utc | 53

I see your point, rgaip. It is certainly a fatal flaw of our government that we are so ignorant, or if not ignorant, so arrogant and lazy not to tap into our knowledge of Arab culture, which, BTW, is composed of national cultures. I am sure that in knowing Palestinians I do not know all Arabs.
I think most progressives default to the position that no matter what culture, country or ethnic group a person comes from as human beings the will always be points of meaningful contact (if you know what I mean?) that only wait to be discovered. The most basic are friendship and family relations, ie, everyone has mothers father sisters brothers etc. You are right that right now the American people, and for God’s sakes the military and government, should be comming up to speed on Arab culture. At the same time, my town is make up of 25% Mexicans and a segment of Ukrainians. The only Arab I have contact with in town is a Palestinian woman I went to college with. In other words, my main concern is haveing meaningful contact with my Mexican neighbors, and since I can’t do a whole heck of a lot to affect US foreign policy, Arab studies are not my top priority. If I lived in Dearborn, Michigan, then that would be another story. But I think you are being a little hard on us Americans, rgaip. After my transplant in 1997 my plan was to learn Arabic (I bought books and started studying during my night shift security guard job), move to Washington,D.C. and get a job in the State Dept.
One thing you should know, I recently read an article on Slate (will look up later) that basically stated that most Americans that go through Arab studies course come out with a poor opinion of US Middle East policy and don’t go into government or military work because they don’t want to be a part of it.

Posted by: stoy | Nov 17 2004 3:17 utc | 55

Here it is, rgaip: (Lets see how crude my syopsis was!)
http://www.slate.com/id/2107625

The Language Gap
Why Middle Eastern linguists are hard to find, even though the government has been funding the field.
By Lee Smith
Posted Monday, Oct. 4, 2004, at 4:54 AM PT
…
Perhaps the bigger problem has been Title VI’s success in its second mission, to support what has proved to be a thriving academic trend in area studies. The effect has been to discourage government service as a career choice for students in the Middle East field. The radicalization of college campuses during the 1960s dramatically reshaped Islamic studies in particular. According to the post-colonial paradigm that came to dominate the flourishing field of area studies, the Muslim world must be understood largely in terms of the physical, intellectual, psychological, and political damage wrought by the Western powers—first France and England and now the United States. Moreover, as the late Edward Said argued in his immensely influential book Orientalism (1978), Western writers and scholars were complicit in the further subjugation of the region.
Whatever the merits of the post-colonial thesis, the message that writers and academics had better beware of abetting the ambitions of empire is not likely to make graduates eager to serve their government. According to one study of the career paths for graduates from the year 2000 at all degree levels who studied foreign languages in Title VI-funded centers—not just Middle Eastern ones—only 2.3 percent worked for the federal government, while another .9 percent entered the military. …

Posted by: stoy | Nov 17 2004 3:35 utc | 57

Lets try that link again!

Posted by: stoy | Nov 17 2004 3:38 utc | 59

A gentle suggestion: Perhaps if we start from the assumption that we all have much to learn about each other and other cultures, and that we are here to learn what we can from one another and try go identify key questions that can help us learn, we can preserve the spirit of comraderie and intellectual sharing that is so valuable in this community. If we begin attacking and castigating one another personally as peoplewe will all lose, because the community will become an inhospitable and untenable place to be. It’s a fairly absurd proposition in the first place, given that in fact none of us knows the first thing about each other, that we know enough to form and pass character judgments of any kind. Truly, even the most experienced among us can benefit from learning more. At present, this is virtually a patriotic obligation, to try and extend our understanding of the proud and ancient culture that we are so brutally trampling.
DeAnder, I love and second your idea about providing a forum for learning about Arab culture. If such a forum is created, I can offer to try and recruit some Arabs to join us there for some cultural exchange. Would that be of interest?

Posted by: Bea | Nov 17 2004 3:53 utc | 61

Actually, I think LeSpeakeasy would better facilitate an “Arab Studies” thread since it can be keep available and not get pushed off the page as older topics do here, at least not nearly as quickly.

Posted by: stoy | Nov 17 2004 3:59 utc | 63

‘bama, if you could endure my verbosity long enough to get to the “concrete suggestion” bit at the end, I for one am impressed 🙂 Le Speakeasy sounds like a good venue to me.
I volunteer, if no one else particularly wants to — speak up before tomorrow, let’s say — to edit down (decontextualise) my confession of vast ignorance above into a new (brief!) article and start a new thread at speakeasy. [oh wow, I managed to keep this one short… don’t all fall off yer barstools now]

Posted by: DeAnander | Nov 17 2004 4:35 utc | 65

Don’t rig the Iraqi election
Insights and analysis – The value of postponing Iraqi elections by Raad Alkadiri
….But the architects of that occupation claim that it is Iraqis themselves who are beyond the reach of democracy. They are “militants” and “insurgents”, bent on terrorising their own people and destroying hopes of reconstruction. Why can’t they get involved in the peaceful democratic political process?
But they did, and they continue to do so. Over the last 19 months there have been protests, appeals, initiatives to set up a reasonable programme for elections, the opening of human rights centres, lecturing at universities, even poetry writing. This torrent of activism is still being practised by a broad variety of political parties, groups and individuals who oppose the foreign occupation. And they have been ignored. Newspapers were closed. Editors were arrested. Demonstrators were shot at, arrested, abused and tortured…..
Falluja is not unique – Collective punishment is escalating in Iraq
Even the dogs have started to die, their corpses strewn among twisted metal and shattered concrete in a city that looks like it forgot to breathe.
The aluminum shutters of shops on the main highway through town have been transformed by the force of war into mangled accordion shapes, flat, sharp, jarring slices of metal that no longer obscure the stacks of silver pots, the plastic-wrapped office furniture, the rolls of carpet. These things would be for sale, except there are no traders, no customers, hardly any people at all in the center of Fallujah….
….Asked how the battle was going, Hejlik looked out at the deserted street. “This is what we do,” he said. “This is what we do well….”
Fallujah battered and mostly quiet after the battle
More on civilian casualties in Falluja
That mosque killing – it’s not the war crime – do you know what the really bad thing about it is, apparently?
Setback to US image in war

Posted by: Sic transit gloria USA | Nov 17 2004 5:14 utc | 67

Rough Day @the Bar…..Drinks all around Pls. Bartender…..as we used to say @the bar of our cyberyouth!!
Stoy, just thght. the history here is illuminating.

Posted by: jj | Nov 17 2004 5:51 utc | 69

Just read “Setback to US Image”. They’ll probably prosecute the Marine retroactively under an addition being written to UCMJ, even as we speak. “Any idiot who shoots the wounded w/out first smashing nearby cameras, deserves to be court-martialled”!!

Posted by: jj | Nov 17 2004 6:00 utc | 71

“I’d defend assignment of genocide to this horror of Iraq by asserting the use of u.s. military power to achieve assimilation of particularly arabs into the system of domination reproduced by global capitalists.”
slothrop, on the Iraq Thread
As I stated on that thread, genocide is defined in my dictionary as “the systematic and planned extermination of an entire national, racial, political or ethnic group.” The key words are systematic, planned, and entire.
Is there anything wrong with granting this concept infinite elasticity, or applying it without honest regard for essential meaning?
If we are determined to define a concept in any old way, disregarding its subsumptions in order to describe a set of facts or circumstances that are not consistent with it, then we forfeit the right to object when those with whom we disagree do the same thing. If the White House Press Secretary or National Security Advisor employs certain language without respect for objective definition, then what are we to say? Nothing, although we may admire their success in doing so.
With apology to Robert Bolt: When you cut down every definition in order to get at the devil, what do you stand behind when the devil turns on you?
(When the White House or the DoD does it, we call it dissembling.)

Posted by: Pat | Nov 17 2004 6:29 utc | 73

@Pat – OK – so you want to preserve the integrity of the definition of the word genocide as distinct from other forms of mass murder and destruction.
Well, in the interests of preserving the veracity of the language you (arguably) have a point, and I think we can continue the discussion if these threads by using the term “mass murder and destruction” by the US military.

Posted by: DM | Nov 17 2004 6:54 utc | 75

Shi’ites seek to ensure win in Iraq vote
US military probes other deaths in Falluja mosque incident
Plenty of excuses can be found when a US Marine murders an Iraqi on camera, but US Army to punish soldiers who refused Iraq convoy
Tourism official says loss of treasures depriving Iraq of future revenue
US Marines pound Falluja with mortars

Posted by: Sic transit gloria USA | Nov 17 2004 8:12 utc | 77

“But ‘the world’ does not agree with you.”
Good for ‘the world,’ DM. It doesn’t have to.

Posted by: Pat | Nov 17 2004 9:02 utc | 79

Interesting word “genocide”. In the general sense of the word, one might concur any military operation, against say, another army might fit the definition. You have a “planned”, and “systematic” (by definition) attempt (at least) to exterminate another (in this case) political group. If we forget, for a moment the word “entire”, the above example still rings hollow to the sense of the word “genocide” and how we think of it. It’s admittedly odd to think of armys commiting genocide upon other armys (even though it fits the definition) so part of the sense must lie in the notion of “group”. Normally, “genocide” is thought of as an attempt by an armed faction to exterminate an unarmed or civilian group of people, be they ethnic, political, or racial. Basically, what we think of as a “hate crime” writ large.
In the case of Fallujah, obviously two armed factions fighting does’nt sound like genocide (ignoring the extreme technological difference) but when the Iraqi side being of the same ethnic,religious, and political bent – and in many cases, being indistingushible from the actual combatants (at least to US eyes) some confusion will arise, when those non-combatants are re-defined, as combatants — and treated as military targets. So when the US cordons off Fallujah, permitting only women and children to find refuge, the US is defining all remaining people as legitimate military targets — subject to surrender or death. The additional step of cutting off all medical services confirm, in no small way, the same fate. So the US has defined a group of people as combatants, subject to no appeal or recourse or explanation and sealed their fate through deliberate plan and systematic execution of overwhelming if not arbitrary and massive military force. In this sense a civilian in Fallujah can be nothing other than a military target by intentional design. It would be this group that would constitute the appearance , if not the fact of genocide.
the issue of “entire “in the equation is really a non-starter, bigger or smaller is just the degree of the infraction, and after, all when has a case of genocide included an entire group? Did it take the Nazis 2 years, 5 years, 6 years to reach genocide, or maybe never? My guess it happened the first day.

Posted by: anna missed | Nov 17 2004 9:53 utc | 81

pat, i’m sick of you. sick sick sick of you. go away. i have wanted to say this for a long time. why are you here? you make me ashamed to be an american.

Posted by: annie | Nov 17 2004 10:11 utc | 83

US forces holding Al-Arabiyya’s Falluja correspondent

Posted by: Sic transit gloria USA | Nov 17 2004 10:42 utc | 85

Making the world safer, one nuke at a time:
Putin says Russia’s secret weapons program is just fine
This just a few months if not weeks before the US missile shield is officially functional – not that many people actually think it is really ready and efficient.
Genocide: well, I tend to think it’s quite overused, and current US operations, as well as what happened in Bosnia and Kosovo, or even Saddam’s actions against the Shia, are definitely one level below Rwanda or Shoah. They didn’t imply a systematic and constant attempt to kill everyone in sight in the whole theatre of operation; that said they involved mass killings at a city level, which is just one step short of genocide in my opinion, and it should still be enough to generate global outrage and (usually international) justice should deal with it without mercy. And all this doesn’t mean such cases couldn’t come (or couldn’t have come) to genocide at the end. Concerning the US occupation of Iraq, it also greatly depends on if they plan to kill 100’000 each year as long as they’re there, even if it means butchering half the country. In fact, the 1.5 mio Iraqis that died from sanctions would so far be a bigger sign of genocide than anything else that happened there in the last decades. On the other hand, I don’t doubt that there are some, including some leaders, that wouldn’t mind a genocide to get rid of the indesirables – and that both in the Bush junta and in the Al-Qaeda networks; what’s really worrying is that we know that one side has the actual means of doing it, and the other is trying – though they’re not yet there so far and may never go there, with luck.
I also tend to think that the strictly legal (international treaties) definition of genocide and mass murder isn’t really more valid than mere gut feeling or Oxford Dictionary’s definition. Whatever, if Fallujah and the whole Iraq war didn’t include mass murder, then I would have to assume that 9/11 wasn’t mass murder either. Well, then what is Fallujah, “just a flesh wound”?

Posted by: Clueless Joe | Nov 17 2004 12:32 utc | 87

@Cloned Poster:
Please repost your Richard Gardner link above. It did not work.
Thanks

Posted by: Bea | Nov 17 2004 13:27 utc | 89

If I’ve understood Amnesty International correctly, Americans in Fallujah have killed civilians indiscriminately in the process of pursuing the insurgents lodged there. They’ve blocked escape routes for civiilians, and they’ve denied entry to medical relief operations. Whether Sy Hersh would describe it as “genocide” is a question worth asking. For me, the whole affair–the whole enterprise in Iraq–is an exercise in terrorism, partly in response to 9/11, which was itself partly in response (I believe) to Sharon’s actions in the summer of 2001, a response to the Intifada. Trying to keep it simple, I remind myself that Bush is a terrorist, and that his policy is one of terrorism, which is not news, given his role as a serial killer in Texas. But how to deal with a terrorist, working in concert with other terrorists, is not an easy thing to figure. Shakespeare analyses the problem in Hamlet, Macbeth, King Lear, and Timon of Athens, each of them offering up a singular analysis of a singular state of affairs.

Posted by: alabama | Nov 17 2004 14:52 utc | 91

“Here’s the basic litmus test: Imagine that the Iraqis were attacking YOUR town or village and committing the same atrocities. How would you see things then?”
I am still mavelling over the picture of the Marine platoon lying around the mosque first of the week, and the even more interesting one of the troop using a Koran in place of a sandbag to steady his rifle, prior to killing one for the Christian side.
Can’t imagine what the Muslim world will make of these two pictures.
We would probably get somewhat upset if a bunch of “ragheads” took over St. Peters and pissed in the holy water.

Posted by: FlashHarry | Nov 17 2004 15:37 utc | 93

Bea the link worked but here’s the url:
http://www.defence.com/article.aspx?id=61390

Posted by: Cloned Poster | Nov 17 2004 16:20 utc | 95

@Pat @02:33AM said
Iraq is an emotional issue, but emotions do not a case make.
This applies to you as well as the pro-war faction.
I agree, but I hope you will accept that people feel hurt by what´s happening and feel a need to express this.
@DM 03:25AM said
You, Bush, Blair, the US military, and every other fucking crazy that brought on this death and destruction are guilty of “mass murder and destruction”.
This DM is unacceptable to me. Assuming that Pat did not take part in the decision process to attack Irak, Pat is in no way guilty of mass murder or anything else.
@all
I understand that emotions are running high on Iraq and all the other bad things happening in this world. Let me assure you, that´s the case with me too – I could throw up anytime about what’s happening.
What Pat actually asked for @01:29am was precise wording, because we (and she included herself) are only able to critizise the administrations on their wording if we are not replicating there missuse of words. I do agree with this.
To analyse and to learn we need to listen to multiple reasonings and experiences. That’s why I like to read what all of you are writing here. Everybody here has experiences that others do not have and I am thankful for you to share them.
To beat on someone, to accuse someone, to press on people to leave or to threaten to leave oneself is not helpful.
/rant

Posted by: b | Nov 17 2004 17:28 utc | 97

@slothrop I guess it all depends on what the meaning of “is” is.
equivocation, hair splitting, and desperate recourse to jesuitical semantics are one behaviour that we all tend to resort to when our backs are against the wall. our backs are always to the wall when we try to find justification for the behaviour of armies, since when it comes to the pointy end, armies tend to degenerate into uniformed thugs doing what thugs do: murder, looting, rape, torture. we can’t justify those things w/o shredding our social fabric or our moral credibility utterly; and yet we have never managed to turn boys into killing machines w/o turning a substantial number of them into thugs (or perhaps recruiting thugs in the first place ‘cos it’s easier to turn them into killing machines if you start with sociopath material) — it takes a lot of semantic horsepuckey to pretend to ourselves that what they (not all but a visible percentage) do is anything other than unleashed thuggery. dirty boots on the mosque carpet. shooting wounded men. stealing women’s jewelry during “house searches”. gang raping vietnamese teenagers. no more than any liquored-up, coked-up gang of Hell’s Angels might do on a bender out of town, if they thought they could get away with it. [and I will digress to note that NGG (non governmental gangs) also have uniforms and insignia, and also have a fascination with thanatographic icons — such as skulls and bones.]
there are two ways to distance ourselves from the crimes that our armies commit — and mistake me not, every uniformed army unleashed in an invasive war has committed crimes. I will be the first to take my hat off in memory of the 20 mio Soviet war dead from WWII, and to admit that without the great defensive battles on Russian soil, the might of the Wehrmacht would have been far more difficult, maybe impossible to oppose. however I am not going to deny the shameful orgy of rape and looting that the Soviet army engaged in on its way through Germany and once it reached Berlin. it was not because they were Soviet, it was not because it was Germany (though the roaring anger of a recently-invaded nation probably assisted the thuggishness). it was because they were an army, and they did what armies do. even in armies where the penalty for (detected, prosecuted) looting and raping was hanging, it still happened and men were hanged for it.
one way to deny and separate ourselves from what armies do is the distancing of cold abstraction and theory, i.e. “omelette/eggs”, “greater good”, “end/means”, and all the hifalutin strat-speak and tac-speak of military jargonistas. the other is simply to deny that the people being slaughtered are really people. one can deny this on the grounds of race, religion, or “they eat weird stuff that I wouldn’t eat” [cf Repubs’ fascination with the idea that lefties eat Weird (non)Food like tofu, sushi etc], or “they dress funny”, or even that they speak a different language. imho all these “ethnicity” grounds are facets of racism, even when applied to people of a skin colour not so different from one’s own.
in the end the cold-detachment denial syndrome, as practised by higher-ranking military, Nazi “death doctors” and the like, is imho itself just a high-rent “respectable” version of the second (racist) denial mechanism. why? well, the entire omelette/eggs and grand strategy arguments come down to a determination that Our Kind of People, and not Their Kind, must prevail and get all the food and all the swag and all the glory, forever and ever amen. (or, in one pithy acronym, PNAC.) obviously this implies that Their Kind of People must be prevented from getting the food, swag, glory etc, by whatever means necessary, and that they must be sentenced to live a lesser, more constrained life than ours — even if they survive the “necessary means” with which we crush their ambitions. and we cannot accept our role in enforcing this fate on others if we think of those others as truly people just like ourselves. Kennan blew the whistle on this strategic reality decades ago — 1948: “We [Americans] have 50 percent of the world’s wealth but only 6.3 percent of the population. This disparity is particularly great between ourselves and the peoples of Asia. In this situation, we cannot fail to be the object of envy and resentment. Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity without positive detriment to our national security.” eggs, meet omelette.
it may be worth remembering that the “rules of war” historically derive from Gentlemen’s Agreements, i.e. rules only applied to aristocratic combatants. their roots are in the rules of gentlemanly warfare which governed relations between aristos on the field. the rules about chivalrous treatment of a downed adversary, ransom arrangements, the disgrace of espionage etc. applied only to the knights armed cap a pied, not to the lowly peasant and yeoman footsoldiers who fought without armour or (much) prospect of gain. the miracle of the GC was its democratising impulse. it sought to apply the rules of chivalry to the commoners as well as to the officer class. what a concept.
now the rules of war have changed again and the officer class leads by telemetry, from safe positions far, far from the pointy end. therefore, the overclass is no longer at much risk from conventional warfare — they and their children are not the ones actually fighting it, we no longer draw our lieutenants from the landed aristocracy’s adventurous younger sons — and I think that is why the overclass no longer sees any relevance in the GC. we don’t need gentlemanly rules any more because gentlemen don’t “do” combat. the death and suffering of peasants, or the bad behaviour of armed peasants, is of little official interest. what truly outrages us now — our official culture, that is — what we consider barbaric and offensive and shocking — is any blow struck at the overclass in their position of assumed safety (kidnapping, urban structure hits, what is called “terrorism”).
this is not a coherent philosophy I’m expressing here, and I’m writing in haste, so I expect some deflating critique of such a broad-brush picture. have at it ! it’s just a vague sense of pattern that’s developing for me, as I compare what little I know of mediaeval and early nation-state Euro warfare, with modern warfare. as warfare has become less and less a duel between gentlemen or a ritual, seasonal willy-waving festival where individual prowess and glory are the main point, it comes more and more to resemble interspecific rather than intraspecific aggression, in other words, predation or extermination rather than the duelling of bull moose in Spring. the vast majority of corpses in modern warfare are the corpses of civilians, not combatants — no matter how the winning side may try to weasel out of this with hopeful descriptions of “unarmed sleeper cells”.
lastly I’ll say that genocide is often thought of as springing from an irrational bigotry or hatred of an ethnicity or skin colour or religion — ethnicity being favourite due to the “geno” in the word itself. what is often overlooked is the complex relationship between pragmatic greed and irrational bigotry. antisemitism is irrational, but the coveting of one’s neighbours goods is, if ignoble and immoral, perfectly rational. believing that women ride through the sky on broom and consort with Satan and put curses on cattle is irrational and risible, but when the property of a condemned witch reverts to male relatives or to the Church or State, a very rational motive may be found for stoking up and encouraging the irrationality. the Shoah was at one and the same time (imho) an outburst of popular madness, and a well-planned act of mass theft. the property and business concerns of German Jewry — hell, even their clothes, eyeglasses, and gold teeth — was, en masse, transferred to new owners by force. when the Hutu massacred the Tutsi, race hatred and ethnic mistrust (amplified, btw, by British colonialists who played favourites and set up a deep rift in the local political scene) was one way to justify a desperate struggle over land ownership and deteriorating biotic resources.
genocide, in other words, is difficult to understand w/o understanding that sometimes bigotry is the sole reason for a murder — an irrational hatred or fear of an Other so loathed that one cannot bear the thought of him/her alive and breathing — and sometimes it is a good excuse for massive expropriation, looting, theft.
when a mugger kills a gay man and steals his wallet, afterwards spray painting DEATH TO FAGS on the sidewalk near the body — is that murder done because the victim was gay? or did it just make it easier to do the head-bashing and steal the wallet if the victim was dehumanised first by a good self-administered shot of Bigotrol and Hate-inax? or was the Bigotrol shot self-administered after the murder, a kind of inoculation against the natural human shudder up the spine on staring down at one’s victim and knowing that one has done murder?
the racism which has shocked and grieved many US Jews when they observe it in Israeli Jewish society (N*gger Jokes told about Arabs, blatant discrimination and hate speech etc), is that racism perhaps required in some way, emotionally necessary to comfort the conscience and distance us from the itch of knowing that the state exists on expropriated land, or that the land theft is still going on? sometimes hatred comes before the theft, and justifies the theft. sometimes it grows after the theft, to justify it in retrospect. sometimes the theft is incidental, an opportunist act, just a sideshow to the main issue of hatred and bigotry. other times the theft is the motive and the bigotry seems like just an easy figleaf for that itchy conscience…
do we call them “ragheads” and shoot their wounded because we just plain hate them with a racist hatred? or do we hate them with a racist hatred because they have the misfortune to be living on top of a lake of oil that we want to steal? or because we are told that someone who shares (sort of) their religion (more or less) had the chutzpah to violate the modern “rules of war” and strike at the citadels of the overclass — instead of massacring civilians properly, in a war zone, using approved and costly technologies purchased from reputable suppliers?

Posted by: DeAnander | Nov 17 2004 18:27 utc | 99