How dumb is Al Qaeda? This is the really striking thing about the Zarqawi execution of Nick Berg. Al Qaeda never learns. Listening to the hooded coward shriek on that video and reading what he says can only remind us that these people are a) vile, b) as alien to true Islam as the KKK was to the Gospels, c) pathetic and d) dumb. They think they terrify us by this? The gang-murder of an unarmed, innocent civilian? And they think that it will add to the shame of Abu Ghraib, demoralize Americans still further, and prompt a withdrawal? In fact, of course, the Berg beheading does a grim but salutary service. In the midst of our own deserved self-criticism, we are suddenly reminded of the larger stakes, the wider war, why we are in Iraq in the first place. Most Americans do not in any way excuse Abu Ghraib, but also see that any sort of moral equivalence between our flawed democracy and Islamism's pathological hatred is obscene. In a purely strategic sense, stiffening American resolve and inflaming American outrage at this juncture is exactly what a smart al Qaeda would avoid. But there is no such thing as a smart al Qaeda. Evil can sometimes be stupid, and often is. Hitler, remember, invaded the Soviet Union. For our part, we must not take the deeper bait, which is to polarize this still further and associate these fanatics with Arabs or Islam as a whole. This is not a war against Islam. It is a war to defend Islam. And a democratic Iraq - not run by mullahs - is indispensable to that end.
I have some pretty complicated feelings about the firestorm this has created.
[T]he whole gay aspect is kind of...odd. Now, I understand that Muslims are kinda fanatical when it comes to homosexuality, so there is an argument that this kind of humiliation has a special psychological undertone when used against Muslims.
But look, the explicitly homosexual nature of the humiliation is something that's not completely unknown in the military. I mean, I spent a decade on active duty as an MP and an Air Base Ground Defense specialist. And, whenever you investigate military hazing incidents, something involving making lots of fit, handsome young men get naked always seems to crop up, for some reason.
I'm certainly not casting aspersions on anyone. I'm just saying.
Still, it seems to me that much of the uproar is a tempest in a teapot. In the former Iraq, and, indeed, in a the Arab world in general, prisoners are not just homoerotically humiliated; that's, in fact, the least of their problems. Prisoners are really tortured, in very painful ways, and in places like Syria or Iraq, bumped off in a variety of imaginative ways. Remember the industrial plastic shredders? Uday and Qusay thought they were really keen.
Indeed, people who commit crimes like this in the Arab world are routinely lionized:
Palestinian fiends mercilessly gunned down a pregnant Jewish settler and her four terrified little girls in their station wagon yesterday as the family headed to protest Israel's planned Gaza Strip pullout.
After riddling the car with gunfire on a road leading to Israel, the two terrorists then ran up to the vehicle and coldbloodedly pumped bullets into each of their victims' heads to make sure they had finished the job, Israeli police said.
One of the gunmen also shot the swollen belly of the eight-months-pregnant mom at point-blank range.
"At first, we thought we could do something to save the mother, but it was too late," one distraught Israeli settler said.
"The children were already dead, with bullets in the head. Little children. I don't know, I really don't know," the man said.
Killed were Tali Hatuel, 34, and her four daughters: Meirav, 2, Roni, 7, Hadar, 9, and Hila, 11.
Rescuers found the dead baby still strapped in her car seat, just above a blood-soaked children's book that had fallen on the floor.
Not a peep of concern about this from al-Jazeera, of course. No, no, the humiliation of Arab men is far more important. They'll gleefully broadcast terrorists hacking the head off of Danny Pearl, and they'll willingly serve as Osama bin Laden's PR mouthpiece, but the routine, murderous repression of the Arab world? Hardly worth a mention, really.
Arab "Human Rights" organizations are now foaming at the mouth. ... But, of course, the real difference isn't that our soldiers do bad things occasionally and theirs don't. The real difference is that when our soldiers do bad things, we clap them in chains for a couple of years, reduce them to the lowest enlisted grade, make them forfeit all pay and allowances, then give them a Bad Conduct Discharge as a lovely parting gift when they get out of prison. When it happens in the Arab world, it's policy. When Palestinians pop a cap into a 2 year-old little girl's head, they're freedom fighters.
That kind of hypocrisy is just a little hard for me to stomach.
The Arab world wants to pretend the actions of the MPs at Abu Ghraib are somehow indicative of the character of our soldiers. In truth, what is indicative of our character is that those soldiers are about to get royally boned for doing what they did. And that's as it should be. But it's cynicism and hypocrisy of the highest order for the Arabs to get their noses all bent out of shape over crimes that aren't a tenth of what they routinely ignore--or celebrate--in their own culture, and what we punish in ours.
... On one hand, we have Iraqi mass graves containing tens of thousands of innocent people, and rapists employed by the state to rape Iraqi women as an instrument of policy. On the other hand, we have some morons forcing Iraqi prisoners to pretend to have gay sex, and who are preparing for their Article 32 preliminary hearings even as we speak, and whose commanding general has been removed from command for cause.
13:41
Western Civilization, via the Weekly Standard. If you read no other article this year in its entirety, read this one.
The events of the past several months have cast doubt on a century of mostly bourgeoisophobe cultural pessimism. Somehow the firemen in New York and the passengers on Flight 93 behaved like heroes even though they no doubt lived in bourgeois homes, liked Oprah, shopped at Wal-Mart, watched MTV, enjoyed their Barcaloungers, and occasionally glanced through Playboy. Even more than that, it has become abundantly clear since September 11 that America has ascended to unprecedented economic and military heights, and it really is not easy to explain how a country so corrupt to the core can remain for so long so apparently successful on the surface. If we're so rotten, how can we be so great?
Confronted with the events of September 11, Americans have not sought to retreat as soon as possible to the easy comfort of their great-rooms (on the contrary, it's been others around the world who have sought to close the parenthesis on these events). President Bush, a man derided as a typical philistine cowboy, has framed the challenge in the most ambitious possible terms: as a moral confrontation with an Axis of Evil. He has chosen the most arduous course. And the American people have supported him, embraced his vision every step of the way--even the people who fiercely opposed his election.
This is not the predictable reaction of a decadent, commercial people. This is not the reaction you would have predicted if you had based your knowledge of America on the extensive literature of cultural decline. Nor would you have been able to predict the American reaction to recent events in the Middle East, which also differs markedly from the European one. Just as the French anti-globalist activist Jose Bove, heretofore most famous for smashing up a McDonald's, senses that he has something in common with Yasser Arafat (whom he visited in Ramallah on March 31), most Americans sense that they have something in common with Israel in this fight. Most Americans can see the difference between nihilistic terrorism and a democracy trying fitfully to defend itself. And most Americans seem willing to defend the principles that are at stake here, even in the face of global criticism and obloquy. In this, as in so much else, George Bush reflects the meritocratic capitalist culture of which he is a product. While the rest of the world was lost in a moral fog, going on about the "cycle of violence" as if bombs set themselves off and the language of human agency and moral judgment didn't apply, the Bush administration, by and large, has been clear.
Maybe the bourgeoisophobes were wrong from the first. Maybe they were wrong to think that 90 percent of humanity is mad to seek money. Maybe they were wrong to think that wealth inevitably corrupts. Maybe they were wrong to regard themselves as the spiritual superiors of middle-class bankers, lawyers, and traders. Maybe they were wrong to think that America is predominantly about gain and the bitch-goddess success. Maybe they were wrong to think that power and wealth are a sign of spiritual stuntedness. Maybe they were wrong to treasure the ecstatic gestures of rebellion, martyrdom, and liberation over the deeper satisfactions of ordinary life.
And if they weren't wrong, how does one explain the fact that almost all their predictions turned out to be false? For two centuries America has been on the verge of exhaustion or collapse, but it never has been exhausted or collapsed. For two centuries capitalism has been in crisis, but it never has succumbed. For two centuries the youth/the artists/the workers/the oppressed minorities were going to overthrow the staid conformism of the suburbs, but in the end they never did. Instead they moved to the suburbs and found happiness there.
For two centuries there has been this relentless pattern. Some new bourgeoisophobe movement or figure emerges--Lenin, Hitler, Sartre, Che Guevara, Woodstock, the Sandinistas, Arafat. The new movement is embraced. It is romanticized. It is heralded as the wave of the future. But then it collapses, and the never-finally-disillusioned bourgeoisophobes go off in search of the next anti-bourgeois movement that will inspire the next chapter in their ever-disappointed Perils of Pauline journey.
Because the striking thing is that, for all their contempt, the bourgeoisophobes cannot ignore us. They can't just dismiss us with a wave and get on with their lives. The entire Arab world, and much of the rest of the world, is obsessed with Israel. Many people in many lands define themselves in opposition to the United States. This is because deep down they know that we possess a vitality that is impressive. The Europeans regard us as simplistic cowboys, and in a backhanded way they are acknowledging the pioneering spirit that motivates America--the heroic spirit that they, in the comfort of their welfare states, lack. The Islamic extremists regard us as lascivious hedonists, and in a backhanded way they are acknowledging both our freedom and our happiness.
Maybe in their hatred we can better discern our strengths. Because if the tide of conflict is rising, then we had better be able to articulate, not least to ourselves, who we are, why we arouse such passions, and why we are absolutely right to defend ourselves.
Moqtada al-Sadr told his followers last Friday, “I am the striking arm for Hizbullah and Hamas in Iraq because the fate of Iraq and Palestine is the same.”
15:27
Western Civilization, via Victor Davis Hanson. There is starting to be almost no point quoting anybody else.
Out of all the recent chaos emerges one lesson: Appeasement of fundamentalists is not appreciated as magnanimity, but ridiculed as weakness and, in fact, encourages further killing. A shaken Spain elected a new government that promised to exit Iraq. In return, the terrorists planted more bombs, issued more demands, and then staged a fiery exit for themselves. France, as is its historical wont, triangulated with the Muslim world and then found its fundamentalist plotters all over Paris. The Saudi royals thought that they of all people could continue to blackmail the fundamentalists ? until the suicide-murderers turned their explosives on their benefactors and began to blow up Arab Muslims as well. General Musharraf once did all he could to appease Islamists ? and got assassination plots as thanks.
The sad truth is that civilization itself is engaged in a worldwide struggle against the barbarism of Islamic fundamentalism. Just this past month the killers and their plots have been uncovered in London, Paris, Madrid, Pakistan, and North Africa ? the same tired rhetoric of their hatred echoing from Iraq to the West Bank. While Western elites quibble over exact ties between the various terrorist ganglia, the global viewer turns on the television to see the same suicide bombing, the same infantile threats, the same hatred of the West, the same chants, the same Koranic promises of death to the unbeliever, and the same street demonstrations across the world.
Looking for exact professed cooperation between an Islamic fascist and the rogue regime that finds such anti-Western violence useful is like proving that Mussolini, Tojo, and Hitler all coordinated their attacks and worked in some conspiratorial fashion ? when in fact Japan had no knowledge of the invasion of Russia, and Hitler had no warning of Pearl Harbor or Mussolini's invasion of Greece.
In fact, it didn't matter that they were united only by a loose and shared hatred of Western liberalism and emboldened by a decade of democratic appeasement. And our fathers, perhaps better men than we, didn't care too much for beating their breasts about the exact nature of collective Axis strategy or blaming each other for past lapses, but instead went to pretty terrible places like Bastogne, Anzio, and Okinawa to put an end to their enemies all.
Now, in the middle of this terrible conflict, unlike the postbellum inquiry after Pearl Harbor, we are holding acrimonious hearings about culpability for September 11. And here the story gets even more depressing than just political opportunism and election-year timing. After eight years of appeasement that saw repeated attacks on Americans, Pakistani acquisition of nuclear weapons under Dr. Khan, and Osama's 1998 declaration of war against every American, we are suddenly grilling, of all people, Condoleezza Rice - one of the few key advisers most to be credited for insisting on using our military, rather than the local DA, to defeat these fanatics.
Then we have the creepy outbursts from commentators and screams from Democratic senators. We are told by Senator Graham that we smashed al Qaeda only to discover that we had hit a mercury-like substance that now has hopelessly scattered. Well, yes, that is what happens when you strike back in war. The alternative? Allow this elemental terrorism to remain cohesive and united? War is not a decision between good and bad choices, but almost always between something bad and something worse - and so it really is preferable to have toxic mercury scattered than to have it concentrated and pure.
Another pundit assures us that terrorists after American action in Iraq are more active now than before. Well, again yes ? in the sense that Germany was messier in 1944 than in 1933, or that Japan was more dangerous for Americans in 1943 than in 1935. Danger, chaos, and death are what transpire for a time when you finally decide to strike back at confident and smug enemies.
Senator Kennedy, the past exemplar of sober and judicious behavior in times of personal and national crisis, has gone beyond his once-wild charges of Texas conspiracies to slur Iraq as Bush's Vietnam - his apparently appropriate moral boosting for the young Marines, who, even as he spoke, were entering Fallujah to hunt down murderers and mutilators.
And this culminates now in the animus toward Condoleezza Rice, who has weathered it all and never for a moment evidenced the slightest lack of resolve. I suppose we are witnessing a sort of American pop version of the French revolution ? journalists and politicians on the barricades and guillotines constantly searching for an ever-expanding array of targets, their only consistency blind and mindless fury at the old regime.
So let us get a grip. Bush yet again must remind the American people that we are at war not merely in the Sunni Triangle or in the Afghan badlands, but rather globally and for the liberal values of Western civilization. There is no mythical pipeline in Afghanistan; Halliburton executives are not lounging around the pool in Baghdad chomping on cigars and quaffing cocktails; and in this age of sky-high gas prices there is no sinister cabal that has hijacked Iraq oil. Sharon is not getting daily intelligence briefings about Iraq. The war is what it always was - a terrible struggle against an evil and determined enemy, a Minotaur of sorts that harvested Americans in increments for decades before mass murdering 3,000 more on September 11.
Everything that the world holds dear - the free exchange of ideas, the security of congregating and traveling safely, the long struggle for tolerance of differing ideas and religions, the promise of equality between the sexes and ethnic groups, and the very trust that lies at the heart of all global economic relationships - all this and more Osama bin Laden, Saddam Hussein, and the adherents of fascism in the Middle East have sought to destroy: some as killers themselves, others providing the money, sanctuary, and spiritual support.
We did not ask for this war, but it came. In our time and according to our station, it is now our duty to end it. And that resolution will not come from recrimination in time of war, nor promises to let fundamentalists and their autocratic sponsors alone, but only through the military defeat and subsequent humiliation of their cause. So let us cease the hysterics, make the needed sacrifices, and allow our military the resources, money, and support with which it most surely will destroy the guilty and give hope at last to the innocent.
"We're Sending You A Cluster Bomb From Jesus." I can't quite believe my old Loose Ends confrere Alistair Beaton has written a song by this name. But apparently so: Bush and Blair sing it in his new satire of the war on terror at the Birmingham Rep. Charles Spencer pronounced the show a stinker. "There is," he wrote, "one kind of laughter I loathe, and Follow My Leader is full of it. It is the smug, complacent laughter of theatre-goers revelling in their own sense of moral superiority as a dramatist shamelessly panders to their prejudices."
Alistair was always a terrible old Leftie but I don't remember him as such a panderer. The last time I saw him he was doing a Radio 4 show called Fourth Column and I did a little bit on it one week which he liked. "That's what we need more of," he said. "Comedy that's edgy and dangerous." It was so edgy and dangerous and radical and exciting that I have absolutely no memory of what it was. But in those days that was his general line on comedy. In the pub one Saturday morning after Loose Ends, he explained his approach to writing Ned Sherrin's monologue. "It's not enough to say, ‘Fergie. God, what a fat cow.' There's got to be more to it than that."
I forget what more there had to be. But, even so, "We're Sending You A Cluster Bomb From Jesus" sounds awfully like the war on terror's answer to "Fergie. God, what a fat cow". Indeed, the show's big sing-along Fergie-ises an entire nation: "Let's all be anti-American. What's so wrong with that? They're much too loud. And they're far too rich. And one in three is incredibly fat." Wouldn't that lyric be even more hilarious if it were "two in three"?
Now I should declare that I haven't seen the show, and I've no plans to be in London during the run, assuming it runs until 2017, and it could be that our man Spencer is all wrong. As a rule, the urge to pander is the great weakness of comedy, and fatal in a satirist. Satire depends on stretching and thereby illuminating reality. "We're Sending You A Cluster Bomb From Jesus" is a flight from reality. Indeed, in its perverse evasion, it's the sort of satire a real satirist would satirise.
One can be pro-war or anti-war, but the notion that the fundamentalism that's threatening the world is Bush-Blair Christianity is so far off the mark as to be pathological. I mean, OK, it was pretty funny when Paxman asked the Prime Minister if he and the President prayed together. Those goofy fundamentalists, eh? But then it's also pretty funny surely when Jack Straw goes to Teheran to hang with the mullahs and, even though he's not a Muslim, he's obliged to do that "peace and blessings be upon his name" parenthesis whenever he mentions the Prophet Mohammed. I mean, what's the deal with that? Anyone would think they were a coercive theocracy like Washington, right? Maybe Alistair Beaton could write a comedy song about that. Right after he moves to a secure location.
The contours of our epic clash of civilisations are clear now: Christians are a cheap laugh and in control of the Bush Administration, Jews are sinister and in control of the Bush Administration, and Muslims... whoa, best not to mention them, man. You don't want to be Islamophobic. You can sing "We're Sending You A Cluster Bomb From Jesus" because there are no "fundamentalist Christians" within 20 miles of the Birmingham Rep - or at least none that is going to be waiting for you at the stage door. "We're Sending You A Schoolgirl Bomb From Allah" might attract notice from a livelier crowd. If you're going to be provocative, it's best to do it with people who can't be provoked.
Fortunately, there are still a few genuine satirists around - for example, the chaps who put together the EU report on rising anti-Semitism. "The largest group of the perpetrators of anti-Semitic activities appears to be young, disaffected white Europeans," said the official summary, introducing us to the concept of Euromaths. If you troubled yourself to look inside, it turned out that some nine per cent of anti-Semitic attacks were by young white males. The remaining 91 per cent were by... well, let's not get into that. In the EU, nine per cent is enough to make you the "largest group". One day, there will be only one tattooed knuckle-dragging white skinhead left on the continent. But he'll single-handedly be officially responsible for the majority of anti-Semitic attacks.
Did you see that story the other day about the Florentine Boar in Derby? His statue was put up in Arboretum Park in Derby in 1840, but he got his head blown off during the Second World War. And now plans for a re-capitated model have been dropped "for fear of offending Muslims", as the Mail On Sunday put it. As Councillor Suman Gupta put it: "If the statue is put back in the Arboretum, I have been told it will not be there the next day." Much like Alistair if he added a Muslim vaudeville routine to the Second Act.
I wonder if the Florentine Boar will be one of those small historical footnotes, marking the beginning of the banishment of porcine representation from British culture. In the new movie Looney Tunes: Back In Action, Porky Pig sits in the Warner Bros commissary complaining that he's been told to lose the stutter: "It's not easy b-b-b-being p-p-p-politically correct." Maybe for the UK DVD release it would be easier just to lose the pig. Perhaps in a year or two's time, Alistair Beaton will be living high off the hog bringing home the bacon because he got the gig to write the replacement scenes for the more multiculturally acceptable Mustapha Mongoose. Or perhaps he'll be listening to a BBC commissioning editor tell him: "Sorry, the governors nixed the Pinky and Perky revival. But what can you do? I like edgy and dangerous as much as the next man. But that's too dangerous. Hey, how about Edgy and Dangerous? One's a hamster, one's a neutered tom."
Flip through the newspaper and the stories are as depressing as they are monotonous: bombs in Spain; fiery clerics promising death in England, even as explosive devices are uncovered in France. In-between accounts of bombings in Iraq, we get the normal murdering in Israel, and daily assassination in Pakistan, Turkey, Morocco, and Chechnya. Murder, dismemberment, torture—these all seem to be the acceptable tools of Islamic fundamentalism and condoned as part of justifiable Middle East rage. Sheik Yassin is called a poor crippled “holy man” who ordered the deaths of hundreds, as revered in the Arab World for his mass murder as Jerry Falwell is condemned in the West for his occasional slipshod slur about Muslims.
Yet the hourly killing is perhaps not merely the wages of autocracy, but part of a larger grotesquery of Islamic fundamentalism on display. The Taliban strung up infidels from construction cranes and watched, like Romans of old, gory stoning and decapitations in soccer stadiums built with UN largess. In the last two years, Palestinian mobs have torn apart Israeli soldiers, lynched their own, wired children with suicide bombing vests, and machine-gunned down women and children—between sickening scenes of smearing themselves with the blood of “martyrs.” Very few Arab intellectuals or holy men have condemned such viciousness.
Daniel Pearl had his head cut off on tape; an American diplomat was riddled with bullets in Jordan. Or should we turn to Lebanon and gaze at the work of Hezbollah—its posters of decapitated Israeli soldiers proudly on display? Some will interject that the Saudis are not to be forgotten—whose religious police recently allowed trapped school girls to be incinerated rather than have them leave the flaming building unescorted, engage in public amputations, and behead adulteresses. But Mr. Assad erased from memory the entire town of Hama. And why pick on Saddam Hussein, when earlier Mr. Nasser, heartthrob to the Arab masses, gassed Yemenis? The Middle-East coffee houses cry about the creation of Israel and the refugees on the West Bank only to snicker that almost 1,000,000 Jews were ethnically cleansed from the Arab world.
And then there is the rhetoric. Where else in the world do mainstream newspapers talk of Jews as the children of pigs and apes? And how many wacky Christian or Hindu fundamentalists advocate about the mass murder of Jews or promise death to the infidel? Does a Western leader begin his peroration with “O evil infidel” or does Mr. Sharon talk of “virgins” and “blood-stained martyrs?”
Conspiracy theory in the West is the domain of Montana survivalists and Chomsky-like wackos; in the Arab world it is the staple of the state-run media.
But at some point the world is asking: “Is Mr. Assad or Hussein, the Saudi Royal Family, or a Khadafy really an aberration—all rogues who hijacked Arab countries—or are they the logical expression of a tribal patriarchal society whose frequent tolerance of barbarism is in fact reflected in its leadership? Are the citizens of Fallujah the victims of Saddam, or did folk like this find their natural identity expressed in Saddam? Postcolonial theory and victimology argue that European colonialism, Zionism, and petrodollars wrecked the Middle East. But to believe that one must see India in shambles, Latin America under blanket autocracy, and an array of suicide bombers pouring out of Mexico or Nigeria. South Korea was a moonscape of war when oil began gushing out of Iraq and Saudi Arabia; why is it now exporting cars while the latter are exporting death? Apartheid was far worse than the Shah’s modernization program; yet why did South Africa renounce nuclear weapons while the Mullahs cheated on every UN protocol they could?
Imagine an Olympics in Cairo? Or an international beauty pageant in Riyadh? Perhaps an interfaith world religious congress would like to meet in Teheran? Surely we could have the World Cup in Beirut? Is there a chance to have a World Bank conference in Ramallah or Tripoli? Maybe Damascus could host a conference of the world’s neurosurgeons?
And then there is the asymmetry of it all. Walk in hushed tones by a mosque in Iraq, yet storm and desecrate the Church of the Nativity in the West Bank with impunity. Blow up and assassinate Westerners with unconcern; yet scream that Muslims are being questioned about immigration status in New York. Damn the West as you try to immigrate there; try to give the Middle East a fair shake while you prefer never to visit such a place. Threaten with death and fatwa any speaker or writer who “impugns” Islam, demand from Western intellectuals condemnation of any Christians who speak blasphemously of the Koran.
The enemy of the Middle East is not the West so much as modernism itself and the humiliation that accrues when millions themselves are nursed by fantasies, hypocrisies, and conspiracies to explain their own failures. Quite simply, any society in which citizens owe their allegiance to the tribe rather than the nation, do not believe in democracy enough to institute it, shun female intellectual contributions, allow polygamy, insist on patriarchy, institutionalize religious persecution, ignore family planning, expect endemic corruption, tolerate honor killings, see no need to vote, and define knowledge as mastery of the Koran is deeply pathological.
When one adds to this depressing calculus that for all the protestations of Arab nationalism, Islamic purity and superiority, and whining about a decadent West, the entire region is infected with a burning desire for things Western—from cell phones and computers to videos and dialysis, you have all the ingredients for utter disaster and chaos. How after all in polite conversation can you explain to an Arab intellectual that the GDP of Jordan or Morocco has something to do with an array of men in the early afternoon stuffed into coffee shops spinning conspiracy tales, drinking coffee, and playing board games while Japanese, Germans, Chinese, and American women and men are into their sixth hour on the job? Or how do you explain that while Taiwanese are studying logarithms, Pakistanis are chanting from the Koran in Dark-Age madrassas? And how do you politely point out that while the New York Times and Guardian chastise their own elected officials, the Arab news in Damascus or Cairo is free only to do the same to us?