Setting billmonesque hyperbole aside for a second, it really does seem sometimes like the Cheney Administration is deliberately trying to set the Middle East in flames. Why? What possible benefit could they or America derive from the bonfire that would justify the costs?

bill, ya noticed oilco profits lately?
strategic ellipse

Posted by: matt | Sep 14 2006 8:59 utc | 4

I have written on Baluchistan some 17 month ago. I expected the U.S. to try to build up something there. Just wondering if/how that project is going on.

Posted by: b | Sep 14 2006 9:33 utc | 6

“…it really does seem sometimes like the Cheney Administration is deliberately trying to set the Middle East in flames. Why? What possible benefit could they or America derive from the bonfire that would justify the costs?”
America will derive no benefit at all; why would you think “they” would even care about benefitting America? “They” are all oil industry people, and/or Israeli agents, and both of those groups stand to derive great benefits from a Middle East in flames: The oil industry in higher prices for oil and the Israeli bloc from the destruction of an enemy which they perceive to be, vis-a-vis Israel, monolithic in its hatred of Israel and desire to destroy Israel.
Your question implies a status of the Administration which I think deserves more attention, that the neocons and oil industry people in the Bush Administration are functioning as defacto Fifth Columnists for al Qaeda and assorted wanna-bes of similar strip. They are, at the least, fellow travelers of al Qaeda, supporting al Qaeda’s activities but not necessarily its goals, because those activities will advance the neocons’ goals of higher oil profits and greater security for Israel.

Posted by: Doran Williams | Sep 14 2006 11:23 utc | 8

“To me, it looks like the jihadist movement is using the Maoist instruction manual for prolonged struggle, albeit at a kind of macro, worldwide (or at least Islamic world) level.”
Nothing new here, but I’ve never seen this discussion in the public eye before. I’ve been telling this to my students for over five years and at a conference we had up here in the far north before the Iraq war both myself and our polysci specialist predicted the same thing would evolve if we invaded Iraq. It was, quite frankly, an easy call if some one bothered to read history instead of being Hell bent on making it!
I’m not surprized at this. I’m far more surprized that the dullards and history haters at Cheney, Inc play the role of Chiang Kai-Shek so damn well!

Posted by: Diogenes | Sep 14 2006 11:49 utc | 10

“Successful insurgencies (in China, Vietnam, Cuba, Algeria, Somoza’s Nicaragua) usually won because they attracted at least the temporary support of a broad cross-section of society — even if the real power actually resided in a narrow cadre of ideologues.”
And that’s how it worked in Iran, too. Billmon hits the nail squarely on the head, once again.

Posted by: Lennonist | Sep 14 2006 13:25 utc | 12

phil from new york
and to add to your list, theres the motivation that control of Mideast oil represents a very valuable tool for keeping China in check.

Posted by: jony_b_cool | Sep 14 2006 15:20 utc | 14

THE MASTER PLAN
For the new theorists of jihad, Al Qaeda is just the beginning.

Posted by: Uncle $cam | Sep 14 2006 15:29 utc | 16

Sorry, meant WTC 7 (google it). Also sorry not to give links, don’t know how to do the html and putting tinyurls in the submitted text hasn’t worked.

Posted by: plushtown | Sep 14 2006 15:39 utc | 18

instead of using public diplomacy to highlight and, where possible, promote the enormous diversity of Islam, the Cheneyites are now doing precisely the opposite. They’re conjuring up the spectre of a vast, monolithic and powerful Islamic fundamentalist movement, implacably hostile to the West. They’re implicitly and even explicitly defining all who oppose their maximum program for a “new” Middle East as extremists — the enemies of civilization.
had the ‘liberation’ been all it was cracked up to be, democracy installed, success, there would have been no justification to remain in iraq. the reasoning behind our invasion, although unjustified at the time, that there was a web of terror spreading and becoming more powerful that threatens us, is now becoming a reality.
the majority of our soldiers have a safe haven inside the greenzone and don’t take to many casualties.
phil 13 The question is not why do it. The question is why not do it?
my sentiments exactly. the conjuring of an image of all muslims and their faith as exreme is all they need to bring the american public on board. it makes perfect sense if this is the image cheneyco want us to have, that they would promote it anyway they can.
this is only the birthpangs of the total war. as creative destruction burns around the fortress embassy becoming more out of control it sets a perfect example of the nightmare the entire middle east can become.
what i want to know is how the progress is going on behind the scenes. to the neocon rulers in dc and israel it is the perfect backdrop in which to proceed w/their greedy and theft.
the more extreme the situation in iraq becomes, the more justification for purification. why would they opt for diplomacy at a time like this, at any time really?

Posted by: annie | Sep 14 2006 16:24 utc | 20

Poor Victoria Nuland – no-one is keen to relieve the USUK/NATO at the “pointy end” in Afghanistan.
In remembrance of imperial fuck-ups past, I hereby name any and all future NATO operations in that country Operation My Dear Watson, because the only good thing they ever birthed was the circumstances required for Dr Watson to meet Holmes viz.:

In the year 1878 I took my degree of Doctor of Medicine of the University of London, and proceeded to Netley to go through the course prescribed for surgeons in the Army. Having completed my studies there, I was duly attached to the Fifth Northumberland Fusiliers as assistant surgeon. The regiment was stationed in India at the time, and before I could join it, the second Afghan war had broken out. On landing at Bombay, I learned that my corps had advanced through the passes, and was already deep in the enemy’s country. I followed, however, with many other officers who were in the same situation as myself, and succeeded in reaching Candahar in safety, where I found my regiment, and at once entered upon my new duties.
The campaign brought honours and promotion to many, but for me it had nothing but misfortune and disaster. I was removed from my brigade and attached to the Berkshires, with whom I served at the fatal battle of Maiwand. There I was struck on the shoulder by a Jezail bullet, which shattered the bone and grazed the subclavian artery. I should have fallen into the hands of the murderous Ghazis had it not been for the devotion and courage shown by Murray, my orderly, who threw me across a pack-horse, and succeeded in bringing me safely to the British lines.
Worn with pain, and weak from the prolonged hardships which I had undergone, I was removed, with a great train of wounded sufferers, to the base hospital at Peshawar. Here I rallied, and had already improved so far as to be able to walk about the wards, and even to bask a little upon the veranda, when I was struck down by enteric fever, that curse of our Indian possessions. For months my life was despaired of, and when at last I came to myself and became convalescent, I was so weak and emaciated that a medical board determined that not a day should be lost in sending me back to England. I was despatched, accordingly, in the troopship Orontes, and landed a month later on Portsmouth jetty, with my health irretrievably ruined, but with permission from a paternal government to spend the next nine months in attempting to improve it.

(Study in Scarlet, Chapter 1)

Posted by: Dismal Science | Sep 14 2006 16:27 utc | 22

Billmon,
thank you for a fine read.
However, I have noticed one thing among the more hysterical of the Republicans seeking re-election this term.
The screeching about terrorists. Santorum of late is just one example.
Billmon, in order to justify the Bush madness, you really do have to have an enemy that can be seen. al Qa’ida is not especially popular, the 9/11 attack was greeted with horror by much of the Muslim world aside from a few displays of anti-Americanism mainly in Palastinian areas where America’s ally has displayed less than tender mercies.
I think the key to the entire affair is that the Middle Eastern nations would prefer it if we left them alone. They will gladly trade with us, work with us, borrow and lend money with us, generally tolerate us, but they don’t want our troops there, and do not want too much of our culture there.
Until this is mulled over by some power other than Bush, all we will see is self-defeating delusions that require that we create as many mad Arabic terrorist boogiemen as can be stuffed under every bed. This is where Bushism has failed. It is a one way policy with no provision for peace or even an end to hostilities. Since the Republicans are saddled with this lame set of circumstances, there is no other way but to scream a warning tocsin as loudly as possible about terrorism and give maximum intensification to the “Arab/Brown person/Muslim” as terrorist/suicide bomber and ‘The Enemy Of All Mankind!’ trope for political purposes. And, all that tells me is thet the Cheney administration, featuring George W. Bush as “The President”, is now assuming the role of the cornered rat.
It’s depressing.

Posted by: boilerman10 | Sep 14 2006 17:43 utc | 24

In Uncle’s #16, The Master Plan, one line (in the first graph) jumps at me (I know, Johnny-one-note):

Osama bin Laden later boasted that he was the only one in the group’s upper hierarchy who had anticipated the magnitude of the wound that Al Qaeda inflicted on America, but he also admitted that he was surprised by the towers’ collapse.

Posted by: beq | Sep 14 2006 18:04 utc | 26

Awww, poor Henry feeling left out…
Kissinger warns of possible “war of civilizations”

Posted by: Uncle $cam | Sep 14 2006 18:51 utc | 28

[dead] Osama’s speaking part

According to a recent news report, Osama bin Laden is planning to carry out new, more destructive attacks inside the United States, and there is someone working on this terror plot currently in the US. This is according to Hamid Mir, the famed Pakistani journalist who obtained the only post-9/11 interviews with Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri.

Man, these guys know their lines eh?

Posted by: Uncle $cam | Sep 14 2006 18:57 utc | 30

annie #20
the majority of our soldiers have a safe haven inside the greenzone and don’t take to many casualties.
An aside from the discussion stream. annie, how I appreciate your sensitivity and insight on this site. I think, if you knew families or friends of soldiers who are sent to Iraq, you would not dismiss the casualties so lightly. Just since 12/15/05, day after elections, until today 525 US soldiers & 32 “others” have been killed. In the same period 1,629 soldiers have been seriously wounded, a significant number which is often overlooked, although the wounds are often multiple and more devastating than in any previous wars. That’s a lot of dead and injured soldiers, and it accounts for less that one year of casualties, leaving broken families and young men. Eventually, the whole country will come to know the living casualties, just as once we all came to know Vietnam veterans.
As for the green zone, there are soldiers inside the zone, but not most of the soldiers. The green zone is chiefly the preserve of politicians, diplomats and the decision-makers in Iraq. Wikipedia lists the forces currently in Iraq and where they are based. This may help illustrate how US soldiers are scattered around the country. All I have figured out so far about the specifics is that the two big bases near Baghdad are Camp Victory near the airport and Anaconda near Balad. While it is true that most of the bases are pretty well fortified and guarded, more military people are killed and injured by bombs, esp IEDs, while travelling along roads in Iraq, than are felled in traditional combat-type operations.
The unasked for, unmitigated suffering and death of Iraqis dwarf all US casualties. But minimizing the dangers or the suffering of any of those directly involved in this pyrrhic enterprise may lead us to undervalue the very live outrage and violence of it.

Posted by: small coke | Sep 14 2006 22:13 utc | 32

I think the key to the entire affair is that the Middle Eastern nations would prefer it if we left them alone. They will gladly trade with us, work with us, borrow and lend money with us, generally tolerate us, but they don’t want our troops there, and do not want too much of our culture there.
Well said boilerman10.
This paragraph belongs in page one of “How to not delude like a Eurocentric – for Dummies”

Posted by: jony_b_cool | Sep 15 2006 0:50 utc | 34

The post seems to assume the existence of some sort of mystical global force (jihadism) that is not situated geographically, not defined politically, not named beyond terms like ‘jihad’, ‘sharia law’, not stated as responsible or involved in past events – a shadowy Bogeyman whom one just knows is responsible for 9/11, for the London bombings, for war-making and violence in Afghanistan and Iraq…
Even without going tin-foily, there are very serious reasons to question such a blanket assumption.
Different groups in different places cannot be lumped together as jihadists. For example, there is very little difference between the Northern Alliance and the Taliban, except that the former are in the Afghan Gvmt. and Army and fighting on the side of both Coalition troops, and NATO, with the latter on occasion fighting against the former. Both groups are principally Muslim; both are made up of territorial war lords (some now with official status); both groups survive by dominating territory which yields high revenues (poppy); both have their entrenched and mafia-like networks of relations; and I would guess that both manage to siphon off considerable ‘aid’ money.
Sistani issued fatwas calling on clerics not to meddle in politics. He urged Iraqis to vote, and critisised the American plans as not being democratic enough. Recently, he has said that he will confine himself to religious advice only. Hezbollah practically qualifies as a secular nationalist leftist political party. (It is other things at the same time.) Hamas? the Pals. are fighting a national liberation movement (say, I know it is more complicated, but jihad is irrelevant), and the votes Hamas got has more to do with the corruption of Fatah than anything else. Chechnya – Philipines..see also others mentioned above, one could go on…
As I understand it, Salafists (fundamentalists) aim is to obey the Prophet in all things and live like the Prophet. This is inherently peaceful. “Wahabi” seems to mean many different things – I can’t sort that out.
Ultimately it boils down to 9/11, Al Quaida, terror, 9/11, terror…If you remove 9/11 from the collective psyche, and ignore US foreign policy, there is nothing much left.
Who exactly are these Islamist guerrila fighters and what are they fighting for? Why is the Pakistani border region a front in a ‘war’? And if it is, why aren’t the Americans there?
…Nuts and policement in Casablanca don’t count and have never even heard of Mao (except on tourist T shirts.)

Posted by: Noirette | Sep 15 2006 14:23 utc | 36

It was for argument as is clear in the post.
Political party – as they have elected representatives in Gvmt.
Nationalist – as they espouse National Unity, and claim to fight or act for all Lebanon, for all the Lebanese. They are not defending an ethnic or religious or other group.
Left – the Lebanese communist fought and died with the Hezb. Various leftist groups, and figures, e.g. Chavez, supported the Hezb. resistance or inconsidered agressive actions… That doesn’t make the Hezb. left, I realise, still that is their range of political allies. Against imperialism, all that stuff.
Secular – they have said, and said again, that they do not want to impose Islam, islamic law, custom, on the Lebanese. Even the BBC with its alarmist and garbled discourse admits as much (see link.) They have changed over the years.
Wiki tells us that the Gvmt. recognised the Hez. as a legitimate resistance movement, and that their liberal brand of shia islam is considered apostate by others, and they have no links to AlQ or anyone like that, and condemn them roundly.
Nasrallah always uses the term ‘Zionists’, as he wants to mark the fact that not all Israelis are Jews, not all Jews are Zionists, not all Arab-israelis are Muslims, and so on. His stance is overtly divorced from religious affiliation, of any kind.
You will be aware that top pol. seats in Lebanon are apportioned according to religion (e.g. the president is a Maronite Christian by agreement), that it has a system of ‘family courts’ divorced from Napoleonic law, but that these, and other characteristics, that may look ‘weird, backward’, have nothing to do with the Hezb. itself, and that they predate it. So the ‘religious’ definition of the Hezb. is part of Lebanese society, enshrined in law, since ..(1940s?).
Part of Nasrallah’s success consists in his modernism, his apparent willingness to annul of by-pass these divisions, and formulate a new discourse. Of course, he was thrown into a particular situation, and one may interpret differently, quibble, and see show and fakery where others (such as Iraelis who listened to his speeches but did not believe their own Gvmt) see a genuine ‘resistance fighter’ against Zionist oppression – others would prefer to see a religious nut. I don’t want to toot the Hezb’s. horn, I admit I know too little, but the view point expressed here is very common, standard, even, in many places. It may all be clever political management with the secret aim of stoning adulterous women and killing Amurrikans, but I kinda doubt it. Even just looking at pictures of Hezb. country you can see that women are on the street and unveiled and mingle like anyone.
That is no longer the case in Iraq…
left again. In fact the Hezb is not inherently politically socialist or leftist. They represent (in my mind) the poorer fringes of market muslims – they are very liberal ( in its original sense, liberty of commerce, etc.) but that is part of their world in Lebanon. In fact, they have few or no political ideas about this dimension, as they are too concerned with other things, and count on personal relations and occult funding. Their leftist discourse, or leftist ties are an outcome of anti-imperialist stance, but not more.
bbc

Posted by: Noirette | Sep 15 2006 16:16 utc | 38

Noirette,
I think I understand quite well why you want Hezbollah to be, however vaguely, leftist and secular. I too wish that were the case. In fact, as the recent saga of the fake Nasrallah interview showed, lots of people wish this to be true, and they were quite pissed when their bubble was pricked by reality. I sympathize with your sentiments, I just happen to have had enough first-hand exposure to Lebanese society to know that you are romanticizing Hezbollah.
You have managed to pull together a large amount of facts on Lebanon and The Party of God, but unfortunately just as many errors. I really wouldn’t know where to start to refute them.
So rather than do that, here is why I am pro-Hezbollah and how I see them: They are the center of the anti-Zionist resistance, left-wing or not. There is a war going on between Zionism and the rest of the world, and peace-time politics are secondary. The situation seems to me comparable to what it must have been like for a liberal Slav to oppose the Nazis in Eastern Europe: necessarily one was supporting Communists and the defeat of the Nazis was clearly going to result in a Stalinist regime at home. Still, the choice was easy: the Nazis saw Slavs as racially inferior slave peoples, so Communism was better than permanent humiliation.
A few weeks ago, over at AngryArab, a commentator with a Muslim background put it roughly like this: “I am an atheist, cherish Whiskey and love nothing more than seeing my wife’s booty in a mini-skirt, but given the situation we’re in I am ready to give up alcohol and see my wife wear the veil. It’s a simple question of priorities.”
Now that guy is real about Hezbollah.

Posted by: Guthman Bey | Sep 16 2006 1:19 utc | 40

Is his wife what?

Posted by: Guthman Bey | Sep 16 2006 1:56 utc | 42

Maybe there are veiled Muslim crossdressers, who knows, but that’s of course not what the guy meant. Hezbollah don’t require women to wear the hijab, but if a woman belongs to Hezb’s community she is expected to wear it. There is nothing particularly radical about that, it is just very traditional, and certainly not leftist.

Posted by: Guthman Bey | Sep 16 2006 2:28 utc | 44

Hezbollah don’t require women to wear the hijab, but if a woman belongs to Hezb’s community she is expected to wear it. There is nothing particularly radical about that,
Gotta be thoroughly steeped in male-supremacist hatred of women to even consider making a statement that insane…

Posted by: jj | Sep 16 2006 3:11 utc | 46

there are places in the Islamic world where women can expect to be subjected to public harassment for not wearing a veil/hijab namely Saudi, Iraq (as in the new Iraq), Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan.
but there are many other places where they are not – Senegal, Indonesia, Ethiopia, Bosnia, Nigeria, Albania, Morocco, Tunisia, Malaysia, Dubai … And I think Lebanon falls in this group, but not sure about rural areas outside Beirut especially in the South.
The veil/hijab comes in different forms i.e you might see a woman with a colorful scarf covering part of her hair walking down the street with another woman whose face is completely covered down to her shoulders. They might be friends, work-mates or they might even be sisters or mother & daughter. And it might be Mom in the colorful scarf.
In Western eyes, the hijab/veil/scarf tends to be construed as a symbol of male oppression. But its not that simple. It has a lot to do with personal modesty.

Posted by: jony_b_cool | Sep 16 2006 4:23 utc | 48

You have managed to pull together a large amount of facts on Lebanon and The Party of God, but unfortunately just as many errors. I really wouldn’t know where to start to refute them.
So rather than do that, here is why I am pro-Hezbollah and how I see them: They are the center of the anti-Zionist resistance, left-wing or not.
Re.the first, what errors, hey, spit em out! Learn to start, with just one or two points.
Re the second, I agree absolutely, and supposed that would be clear.
Remember the orginal context: I was citing an example against blanket “jihadism” and made it quite clear that the Hezb. “could practically!” etc. be.. etc. About the left, I brought up the two points; which makes them not left, just in case you missed that.
About secular, this is really very difficult. What role exactly does any kind of religious orientation play? Tough.
It made me think of the Christian Communist I met last week. (this is a tiny political party here, Switzerland) He was a very nice chap, religious, vegetarian, modest, a follower of Jesus, someone who believed in love and sharing and …free public transport! I related the discussion and:
Person A: A Christian! Horrors! The most bloody, vicious, violent religion ever to scour the face of the earth. Ban them, bomb them, eradicate them.
Person B: A communist! How totally dumb, how ridiculous, the Red Devil is dead. What, he wants the economy to go phut? No communists here. They are an official party? My God.
Person C: Christian? Are they Cathoooolic? We can’t have Papists around here. They are banned and should stay banned.
Person D: They are not real Communists, they just have vague ideas about social justice and want to raise taxes.
.. and so on.. In fact, the Christian Communists are Social Democrats with no religious agenda, and they are well further right than the Worker’s Party (Communist.)
Context is all … please enlighten!

Posted by: Noirette | Sep 16 2006 16:32 utc | 50

Noirette and b,
“La Gauche” is a product of the Enlightenment. Mother Theresa, Hassan Nasrallah, Joseph Ratzinger and Osama Bin Ladin have in common that their worldviews are grounded in traditionalist superstitions that they submit to themselves and ask others to submit to as well.
Other cultural expressions have changed the same way and will change in future. This will happen in Hisbullah land too. It is therefore a non-starter for me to argue about such an issue as a pro or con for a political movement. It is style not content.
What nonsense! It is why you wear the hat that matters. If you wear it because some religious authority tells you to do it, then your style is the expression of your submission. You people in your comfy post-religious Swiss and Schleswig-Holstein towns: Get fucking real!

Posted by: Guthman Bey | Sep 16 2006 17:25 utc | 52

Noirette,
nonsense doesn’t make sense just because there are people who have developed it into an art form: A Christian communist is not… a communist.
Lebanon is not a secular country. Secularists in Lebanon demand that it become a secular country. You can’t even get married there without the priest/mufti/whathaveyou of your respective sect. That a sectarian organization with the name Party of God fits right into this mediavalist political system and has vowed (until the demographics change further) to respect its bizarre theocratic pluralism, is supposed to make them… what?
You speak of Nasrallah’s modernism, of his stance being divorced from religious affiliation of any kind… all utter nonsense.
Yes, in the current environment, I feel I have no choice but to be pro-Hezbollah but that doesn’t oblige me to become self-delusional.

Posted by: Guthman Bey | Sep 16 2006 18:06 utc | 54

was wondering if the practice of burning witches at the stake (or hang-draw-and-quarter for male witches/heretics) by some early Christians had more to do with latent cultural/superstitious beliefs than with their interpretation of Christianity.

Posted by: jony_b_cool | Sep 16 2006 19:19 utc | 56

There is a German economist, Gunnar Heinsohn, whose overall thesis is that women were made into objects by men, because men are afraid of, what he postulates as, their “superior orgiastic potential.”
Call me a vulgar Marxist, but I think it was because women can bear children and in a primitive society, children are the most important source of wealth. Their surplus labor value being the easiest to expropriate.

Posted by: billmon | Sep 16 2006 21:38 utc | 58

Guthman:
Your sexism, misognyism, chauvinism, and general ranting are unseemly.
Seems like you need someone to massage your neck and shoulders.
Just ring the bell for the masseuse. Don’t talk about Charles Martel or Molotov though. History upsets her.
BELL

Posted by: Ms. M | Sep 16 2006 22:29 utc | 60

“Illusions commend themselves to us because they save us pain and allow us to enjoy pleasure instead. We must therefore accept it without complaint when they sometimes collide with a bit of reality against which they are dashed to pieces.”
Sigmund Freud

Posted by: Guthman Bey | Sep 16 2006 23:21 utc | 62

and sure beats having to deal w/the feelings that underlie Male Supremacy…
doesn’t expropriating labor deal w/male supremacy?

Posted by: Anonymous | Sep 16 2006 23:59 utc | 64

given the amount of video surveillance and facial recognition technology now available (and in use) as well as laws that are in force forbidding the covering of one’s face in public, I would think that we should fully embrace and support the wearing of scarves and perhaps even burkhas.
we may well regret this.

Posted by: dan of steele | Sep 17 2006 10:09 utc | 66

you too theodor

Posted by: annie | Sep 18 2006 6:14 utc | 68