About that word “Islamofascism”

The New Neo Posted on by

Don Surber has pointed out that recently–first on October 6, and then again yesterday–Bush has begun to use the word “Islamofascism” in his speeches to name the enemy.

I have a bit of history with that word myself, and so I have some advice for him.

I was reminded of this by accident the other day when I was looking in my old e-mail files and came across something I’d sent to a friend way back in the spring of ’04. It was written during a time when I’d just “outed” myself at a party where a group had been speaking in glowing terms of none other than Michael Moore and “Fahrenheit 9/11.”

After I had piped up and let them know I didn’t consider MM and his movie to be the repository of truth, a stunned and shocked silence ensued, and then a variety of reactions followed. Some people were angry and argumentative, some quiet. But one or two of my friends came up to me afterwards and said they wouldn’t mind if I e-mailed them some more information, and maybe some links.

In the end, though, it didn’t work out too well–both of them asked me to cease and desist after a month or two. One of them took great umbrage in particular at my use of the term “Islamofascism” in one of my e-mails. She wrote to me asking whether I would ever use the terms “Christianofascism” or “Judeofascism,” and why I didn’t condemn skinheads as well as Islamofascists.

So, if Bush runs into the same sort of trouble with the word that I did, perhaps he’d like to take a look at my answer to my friend:

The word doesn’t mean “Islam” and it doesn’t mean “Moslems.” It’s simply a shorthand expression to signify “the current crop of people who quote the Moslem religion to justify terrorism and other types of violence and who purposely target innocents such as women, children, and other bystanders with the goal of being a minority who rule over the vast majority of peace-loving people (including the vast majority of Moslems) who would prefer nothing better than to be left alone to live their own lives in peace; and who have a declared agenda to take over the rule of all Moslem countries and the rest of the world, imposing a very strict, repressive, intolerant, illiberal, anti-woman regime on all of mankind.” Think Taliban, ruling the world–that’s the goal.

That’s quite a mouthful, I know, so I use the term “Islamofascist” to cover it. Why “fascist?” Well, the connection to “fascist” is that it is a totalitarian and tyrannical group seeking power over a wide area of the globe, and these people don’t care what they do to get it–it’s no-holds-barred. The particular group I’m speaking about does this in the name of Islam, but if in fact there were some Buddhists, Christians, Jews, or any other sect with such an agenda in the name of their religion, I would call them “whatever-fascists,” also (as I call Nazis fascists; but they were secular fascists). White supremacist fascists (I assume that’s what you mean by “skinheads?”) are to be condemned also, of course, and in no uncertain terms–but right now they don’t seem to have purposely and premeditatedly blown 3,000 people to kingdom come and are not threatening to do it again and again, so my primary concern is with the people who have done just that.

By the way, another reason I use the term “fascist” to refer to the current crop of terrorists and their followers and sympathizers is that, historically speaking, they are actually the direct heirs of the Nazis. I don’t mean that in the metaphorical sense–although I do mean that, as well–I mean it in an actual sense. The Arab countries in general were allies of the Nazis in WWII and were, unfortunately, fed vast reams of Nazi propaganda, which, just as unfortunately, took root. Skinheads or neo-Nazis are unusual in the US, although of course they exist—but admiration of Nazis and their agenda became almost mainstream in the 30s in the Arab world as a direct result of Nazi influence, propaganda, and involvement there, and it has not gone away.

Reasonable minds may differ on what is to be done. I’m only writing about what my own study has led me to believe, and of course it’s possible I’m wrong. Perhaps we don’t disagree as much as you might think, because I, too, would love for the young men of that area, as you write, “to change their minds before they are poisoned.” That is actually what the whole idea of liberating Iraq was about–and you may laugh, or think I’m wildly naive to still use the word “liberated”–but I mean what I say. The Iraqi bloggers whom I’ve been reading are trying to do just that: change minds before they are irrevocably poisoned. They are the ones who have given me hope that a liberation is slowly but surely happening there, in a way that they say was utterly impossible before the war, and in a way that our media has hardly ever written about (and in a way that won’t be possible if we don’t stay the course until things are more stable there).

Well, now that I look at it, it may be a tad long and convoluted to put in a speech. But I did get a good response from my friend, who seemed to understand when I put it that way. And we’re still friends, although I stopped sending her anything political.

My heart is not broken; no, not at all

The New Neo Posted on by

It’s official; neo-neocon will not become a playing card in aaron’s Deck O’Bloggers. However, thanks to your valiant efforts I made a respectable showing despite my eleventh hour entry into the game.

But, no excuses (although come to think of it, didn’t I just make one?), no regrets. Upward and onward, excelsior, keep on keeping on, look for the silver lining, my HEART will go on…

Congratulations to the top winners, and Dr. Sanity and I will just go and lick our wounds in private.

Bush-hatred revisited

The New Neo Posted on by

Dr. Sanity tackles that old bugaboo, Bush-Derangement-Syndrome (BDS), and tries to drive a stake into its vigorously beating heart. Her post is a good description of how the psychological mechanism of displacement functions in deflecting the hatred and fear of terrorism onto Bush.

Dr. Sanity doesn’t pretend to explain the whole phenomenon of Bush-hatred, however, nor do I. I’ve felt for quite some time that there’s something quite mysterious and “extra” about it, something very difficult to explain.

Perhaps it’s merely that the whole is more than the sum of its parts. In addition to the process Dr. Sanity describes (which I think is key), there are other intangibles that feed the beast of BDS.

I’m not talking about mere disagreement with Bush. I’m referring to the sort of visceral demonization of the man that clearly seems out of touch with any reality, and which has gripped so many people I personally know and turned them into something unrecognizable and ferocious when they even mention his name–which they do with some regularity.

A while back I wrote a bit on the subject, which I’d like to repeat now as an addition to Dr. Sanity’s thoughts. Although I’m talking about something relatively superficial here, I believe that for some who hate Bush it is at least a part of what drives them:

…many people hate Bush for stylistic reasons. The way he talks, the way he smirks, the frat-boy persona–he represents the kind of person they simply detested in high school and college (particularly if they were the intellectual or literary sort). They distrust and dislike him in a very visceral way.

I am old enough to remember the reaction among Democrats to Lyndon Johnson after Kennedy’s assassination. They detested him–his good ol’ boy accent, his picking up his dog by the ears, his showing off his surgical scars–man, they just hated him; he had no class. Kennedy was the absolute personification of smoothness and class, so witty and bright and charming, and that New England accent!

But, in the end, that’s all surface stuff. Was Kennedy’s actual record as President much better–or really all that much different–than Johnson’s? Of course, we can’t know whether Kennedy would have done any better with the Vietnam war than Johnson did, but from books such as The Best and the Brightest, I think the answer is at least “probably not.” Perhaps, though, he may have ultimately done better because he would have had a more friendly press.

FDR and Kennedy were also children of great privilege–as great, or greater, than Bush. But they had that Eastern style, and great personal magnetism, that he lacks. And, of course, many people hated them–but not the press, and not academics.

Personal style is part of this. We relate to people in many ways, some of them quite subtle and even outside of our awareness: body language and facial expressions and clothing, as well as accents and speech patterns. The utter revulsion some feel towards Bush, both here and abroad, is partly a reaction to such signals that he gives off. In the end, these feelings are neither political, rational, nor amenable to argument–they simply are.

Literary leftists–Part I: “Reading Lolita in Tehran” (be careful what you wish for)

The New Neo Posted on by

Azar Nafisi’s Reading Lolita in Tehran has scored a surprising amount of popular success, currently ranked around #300 at Amazon, and amassing close to 300 comments there as well. For a fairly literary and even somewhat didactic work subtitled “A memoir in books,” that’s pretty good.

I think part of its success (aside from its great title) is that it’s the type of book that especially appeals to women’s book groups—in fact, that’s how I came to read it. Most of the members of my book group talked about the book’s main theme: the shocking and depressing ways in which Iranian women’s lives have been stunted and twisted by the authoritarian and misogynistic theocracy in charge in Iran, and how Nafisi and her students somehow managed to feed their spirits by the clandestine study of some of the classics of Western literature.

Apparently, literature can help keep people who live under a totalitarian system sane—the Soviet dissidents also provided evidence of that. But, although of interest, that was not the theme I kept noticing and marveling at when I read the book; no, a very different aspect of Reading Lolita in Tehran kept grabbing my attention: the tendency of literary and intellectual youths in free societies to gravitate towards leftist causes that would end up curtailing that very freedom.

Author Nafisi is currently a literature professor at Johns Hopkins. The biographical blurb on the flyleaf of her book states that she had formerly been an English professor at the University of Tehran but was expelled for refusing to wear the veil, and that she later emigrated to the United States in 1997.

But Nafisi’s story, and her relationship to the revolution that devastated her country, is far more complex and ironic than that. The year 1997 was not her first emigration from Iran; she had left at the age of thirteen and been educated in England, Switzerland, and the US, only returning during the pivotal and fateful year 1979 to her beloved and much-longed-for homeland.

And what a homecoming it was! She writes:

The dream had finally come true. I was home, but the mood in the airport was not welcoming. It was somber and slightly menacing, like the unsmiling portraits of Ayatollah Khomeini and his anointed successor, Ayatollah Montazeri, that covered the walls. It seemed as if a bad witch with her broomstick had flown over the building and in one sweep had taken away the restaurants, the children and the women in colorful clothes that I remembered. This feeling was confirmed when I noticed the cagey anxiety in the eyes of my mother and friends, who had come to the airport to welcome us home.

Nafisi learned through bitter experience that you can’t go home again, although you can try.

The terrible irony of her story arises because Nafisi herself was part of the revolution that ended up destroying her country. Her tale resembles that of so many youthful visionaries, dabbling in politics like a bunch of naive Mickey Mouses (Mice?) in Disney’s “The Sorcerer’s Apprentice,” not realizing until too late the horrors their machinations will conjure into existence.

Nafisi married early, at eighteen, and attended college at the University of Oklahoma during the 1970s. Her plunge into political activism was as casual (and as literary) as it was leftist:

I joined the Iranian student movement reluctantly. My father’s imprisonment and my family’s vague nationalist sympathies had sensitized me towards politics, but I was more of a rebel than a political activist–though in those days there was not much difference between them. One attraction was the fact that the men in the movement didn’t try to assault or seduce me. Instead, they held study groups in which we read and discussed Engels’s Origin of the Family, Private Property, and the State and Marx’s The 18th Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte. In the seventies, the mood—not just among Iranians, but among American and European students—was revolutionary. There was the Cuban example, and China of course. The revolutionary cant and romantic atmosphere were infectious, and the Iranian students were at the forefront of the struggle.

So, revolution was a mood, an essence, something infectious in the air—rather like bacilli, as it turns out. Nafisi describes the group as markedly Marxist in philosophy and in style, sporting “Che Guevara sports jackets and boots…and Mao jackets and khakis.”

For Nafisi herself, romanticism and literature seem to have been the primary motives, passed somehow through the alchemy of her homesickness and transmuted into political activism:

[I] insisted on wearing long dresses outside the meetings…I never gave up the habit of reading and loving “counterrevolutionary” writers—T. S. Eliot, Austen, Plath, Nabokov, Fitzgerald—but I spoke passionately at the rallies; inspired by phrases I had read in novels and poems, I would weave words together into sounds of revolution. My oppressive yearning for home was shaped into excited speeches against the tyrants back home and their American backers.

Once in Tehran, Nafisi began to realize that the unsettling airport scene had been only the tip of the iceberg. She soon came to bitterly regret the mindless revolutionary zeal of her youth, and to realize that her revolutionary dream had turned into a nightmare, as they so often do:

When in the States we had shouted Death to this or that, those deaths seemed to be more symbolic, more abstract, as if we were encouraged by the impossibility of our slogans to insist upon them even more. But in Tehran in 1979, these slogans were turning into reality with macabre precision. I felt helpless: all the dreams and slogans were coming true, and there was no escaping them.

Although the revolutionaries back in Oklahoma and elsewhere had been decidedly leftist, the revolution they helped birth was a restrictive theocracy. One of the most interesting portions of the book describes how those leftists, at least in the early stages, managed to rationalize and excuse such clear signs that things had gone sharply awry as the imposition of the veil and the subjugation of women.

Nafisi was not one of those excusers, however; she describes her horror at the relentless approach of the suffocating clasp of the mullahs, a chill embrace undreamt of in her leftist days in Oklahoma.

And it got worse, much worse; there are many passages in the book that reminded me uncannily of what it must have been like for French revolutionaries to have watched the unfolding of the Reign of Terror (those who survived, that is), not to mention Stalin’s ex-comrades viewing the purges of their ranks:

In later months and years, every once in a while Bijan [Nafisi’s husband] and I would be shocked to see the show trials of our old comrades in the U.S. on television. They eagerly denounced their past actions, their old comrades, their old selves, and confessed that they were indeed the enemies of Islam. We would watch these scenes in silence…I turned and asked Bijan, Did you ever dream that this could happen to us? He said, No, I didn’t, but I should have.

“No, I didn’t, but I should have.” What quiet words of chilling despair! And indeed, one wonders how it was that smart people could have been so dumb; by the mid-to late-1970’s, when Nafisi and her friends were supporting a leftist revolution in Iran, surely the jury was no longer out on the fact that this was a road that would lead to the revolution swallowing its own as well as many others. But we see such a phenomenon again and again, as history repeats itself in its winding, twisting path.

In Nafisi’s case, she seems to have been mainly a romantic, interested in literature almost to the exclusion of other topics—such as history, apparently. Unfortunately for her, she had to learn the lessons of history the hard way, from personal experience. And so, too, did her revolutionary Iranian comrades-in-arms, unfortunately for them—and for us, and for the world as well. They could never have guessed at the trajectory their lives would follow from those long-ago days of sartorial playing at being revolutionaries, sporting Che and Mao jackets, to their final moments in the executioner’s chamber.

And, if you can believe this interview, the Iranian students who took the Americans hostage in the last year of Jimmy Carter’s administration were hardly more serious or more focused than Nafisi herself. Read it and weep.

Nafisi’s story underscores the fact that there does seem to be something in the literary mind that is especially susceptible to romantic ideals of revolution, that doesn’t accept that institutions of government will always be flawed, that seeks a sort of misty perfection, and that believes in the power of youth to proclaim those ideals merely by taking to the streets and wishing it very, very hard.

[ADDENDUM: I’m well aware that all major political change is susceptible to being overtaken by unplanned and unwanted forces. That included our American Revolution, for example, and that’s why the drafting and adoption of our Constitution was so vitally important. That’s also why, as a neocon who had advocated regime change in Iraq, I waited with trepidation to see what the results of the Iraqi elections and constitution drafts would be.

So far, I am cautiously optimistic about the future of that country, as long as forces in the West continue to protect Iraq in its process of establishing some sort of true representative government, with checks and balances and guarantees of liberty and human rights that are unusual for that part of the world. Those things are our only hope against tyrannnies on both left and right.

But as Nafisi describes them, the leftists who wanted so much to overthrow the Shah did not even seem to care about those petty little details when thinking about what would take his place. They broke quite a few eggs, but instead of an omelet they got Humpty Dumpty. Are there any horses and men who can ever put him back together again?]

Shut up and deal

The New Neo Posted on by

I’ve come so late to this game it’s almost over, but why not play anyway?

There’s only one more day left, and so I’m playing mega catch-up. But there’s a competition over at aaron’s. It’s a poll to elect women bloggers as playing cards (hearts, naturally) in a card deck of the blogosphere.

Go vote if you want. You don’t even have to vote for me; I’ll forgive you.

So, what’s up with those suits, anyway? Did you ever wonder why it’s hearts, spades, clubs, diamonds? I have. Card decks are among the most conservative things around–paleo-paleo-con–preserving old courtly distinctions long after their original incarnations (jack; jester) have gone the way of the dodo.

Well, the final choice as to which suits would become standardized seems to have been fairly arbitrary, after a great many predecessors had been tried. The suits we now use originated in France, and became popular because they were less expensive to make. Here’s a little playing card history:

The cards manufactured by German printers used the suits of hearts, bells, leaves, and acorns…Later Italian and Spanish cards of the 15th century used swords, batons, cups, and coins…The four suits (hearts, diamonds, spades, clubs) now used in most of the world originated in France, approximately in 1480. These suits have generally prevailed because decks using them could be made more cheaply; the former suits were all drawings which had to be reproduced by woodcuts, but the French suits could be made by stencil.

So, why not an apple?

Took the day off

The New Neo Posted on by

I’m visiting family today and am taking the day off. I plan to be back posting tomorrow.

The weather is lovely, and I’m about to go out for dinner, so that’s good.

I’ve only been online for a few moments today, but it was long enough to read the astounding news of the woman bomber who failed to detonate herself.

If I could travel back in time about five years to tell my previous self that I’d be writing about a woman who, with her husband’s help and guidance, strapped herself with explosives and walked into a wedding party at a fancy hotel in Jordan planning to blow herself up among a bunch of happy celebrating strangers, I would think I had gone mad. But such events have become part and parcel of our lives now.

I hope this woman has a lot of very useful information to impart.

The Arab street speaks

The New Neo Posted on by

The well-known “Arab street” has spoken recently, and it seems to be angry at al-Zarqawi .

The hotel bombings have outraged Jordanians, apparently even some who ordinarily don’t support the king’s Western ways:

The Amman protest was organized by Jordan’s 14 professional and trade unions, made up of both hard-line Islamic groups and leftist political organizations, traditional critics of the king’s moderate, pro-Western policies…

Iraqi government spokesman Laith Kubba has noticed, also:

the attack should alert Jordan that it needed to stop hosting former members of Saddam Hussein’s regime.

“I hope that these attacks will wake up the ‘Jordanian street’ to end their sympathy with Saddam’s remnants … who exploit the freedom in this country to have a safe shelter to plot their criminal acts against Iraqis.”

Palestinian legislator Hanan Ashrawi agrees, stating:

she did not believe al-Qaeda “or any of these violent extremists have had support among mainstream Arab opinion at all. Now they are making sure they are turning everyone against them.”

Can we believe it? Here’s evidence to bolster Ashrawi’s claims:

Braizat said in an opinion poll conducted last year by his office, 67 percent of Jordanian adult respondents had considered al Qaeda in Iraq “a legitimate resistance organization.” That attitude may be changing, he said Friday, explaining that he had spoken since the attacks to 10 survey participants who held favorable views of al Qaeda; nine of them had changed their minds.

It seems difficult–perhaps impossible–for Jordanians to excuse this as an insurgency or a nationalist movement fighting against an evil occupation. Since Al-Zarqawi is a Jordanian, this feels like a case of fratricide:

“Oh my God, oh my God. Is it possible that Arabs are killing Arabs, Muslims killing Muslims? For what did they do that?” screamed 35-year-old Najah Akhras, who lost two nieces in the attack. Similar thoughts were heard over and over throughout the West Bank and Gaza Strip.

Until now Najah Akhras had somehow avoided knowing that yes, Arabs kill Arabs, Muslims kill Muslims–although how, after watching the Iraq-Iran war, or seeing what is happening these days in Iraq, or even learning the Black September history of Jordan itself, I don’t really know. Perhaps when reality is just too horrific, the mind closes down and denies–until the horror comes home in a way that no longer can be denied.

One wonders why al-Zarqawi didn’t heed his far more strategic mentor, al-Zawaheri, who cautioned him about the negative PR fallout from this sort of thing. And why, oh why, did Zarqawi actually claim this as his own act, rather than letting people blame it on the Jews or the Americans, as many in the Arab world did 9/11? My guess is that Zarqawi just doesn’t care; his focus is on proving that he’s badder than old King Kong, and meaner than a junkyard dog.

Lest you think I’m being frivolous by quoting Jim Croce–that’s not my intent. I am simply noting that although Zarqawi has political/Islamicist motives, his actions here don’t seem to be strategic at all. In fact, they seem counterproductive (as Zawaheri understood), and more in the realm of psychological pathology writ large: that is, he is a psychopath on a world stage.

The details of Zarqawi’s criminal past:

He spent his time scrapping and playing football in Zarqa’s dusty streets and surprised no one by dropping out of school aged 17.

He drifted into casual crime as an enforcer and general-purpose thug. At some time, he was imprisoned for sexual assault. On the streets, he learned the art of violence. It was a lesson he used to dramatic effect when he hacked off the head of American engineer Nick Berg in the first “snuff video” to emerge from Iraq.

Indeed, much of his violence has a street crime feel to it. It is brutal, direct, unflinching and unthinking. Not for Zarqawi the press interviews with Westerners that bin Laden once gave. Not for Zarqawi the pampered Saudi childhood. Not for Zarqawi the meandering meditations on Islamic theory as a justification for murder. If Zarqawi and his network are eclipsing bin Laden and al-Qaeda, as some terrorist experts believe, then it is a form of terrorism that betrays its roots in Zarqa’s brutish underworld, not some austere Arabian seminary.

Jordan has reason to regret its previous leniency towards its spawn Zarqawi. He was imprisoned there for plotting to replace the monarchy with an Islamic state, but was inexplicably released in 1997 after serving only five years in prison.

NOTE: I wrote most of this post last night, intending to finish it today. But this morning, when I checked out the NY Times, I wondered whether I’d spoken too soon about this being a case in which the Israelis weren’t being blamed. Take a look at this front-page article headlined: “Many in Jordan see old enemy in attack: Israel,” which describes blaming the same-old same-old scapegoat.

However, it’s impossible to know from the Times article how many this “many” refers to. As is so often the case these days, the Times sees no need to quantify it. That there are such people in Jordan and elsewhere I have no doubt, but that news is only useful if we know how extensive the belief is, and the Times offers no help with that.

However, the Times does offer some rather insightful remarks on the “blame Israel first” crowd from several Arab scholars and pundits who seem to have thought some of this through:

Whatever the cause, the result is the same: “In the first place, people don’t even recognize the reality around them,” said Muhammad el-Sayed Said, a political analyst at the government-financed Ahram Center for Political and Strategic Studies in Egypt. “Secondly, they continue to overlook and ignore the problem without supporting a consistent anti-terrorism campaign, which the government might be seeking.”

Dawoud al-Shoryan, a prominent writer and journalist from Saudi Arabia, says he is not convinced that those who blame Israel really believe it. But, he added, many people are deeply angry at United States policy in the region, including its occupation of Iraq, and blaming Israel is a way of conferring some degree of legitimacy on a crime that would be considered unspeakable if committed by a Muslim.

“They try to hide the hideous face of terrorism by hanging it on the United States and Israel,” he said. “Shifting the accusation is nothing but a subconscious attempt to justify the act.”

Denial ain’t just a river in Egypt, it seems.

So, which point of view will win out? My guess is that, whatever the Times says, the Jordan hotel bombings have cut into some of that denial, and that quite a few Jordanians were mugged by the tragic and horrific reality of 11/9.

Veterans Day, Armistice Day

The New Neo Posted on by

Yes, indeed, I am that old–old enough to remember when Veterans’ Day was Armistice Day. The change occurred in 1954, when I was very small, in order to accommodate World War II. Since then the original name has largely fallen out of use–although it remains, like a vestigial organ, in the November 11th date of the holiday, which commemorates the day the WWI armistice was signed.

I’m also old enough–and had a teacher old enough–to have been forced to memorize that old chestnut “In Flanders Field” in fifth grade–although without being given any historical context for it, I think at the time I assumed it was about World War II, since as far as I knew that was the only real war.

You can find the story of the poem here . It was written by a Canadian doctor who served in the European theater (there is no separate URL for the discussion of the poem, but you should click on the “John McCrae´s Poppies in Flander’s Fields” link on the left sidebar). It’s not much as poetry, but it was great as propaganda to encourage America’s entry into the war.

The poem’s first line “In Flanders fields the poppies blow” (and by the way, I don’t mean to be picky here, but can anyone tell me why it’s not “Flanders’s fields” and “Veterans’ Day?”) introduces that famous flower that later became the symbol of Armistice–and later, Veterans–Day. Why the poppy?

Wild poppies flower when other plants in their direct neighbourhood are dead. Their seeds can lie on the ground for years and years, but only when there are no more competing flowers or shrubs in the vicinity (for instance when someone firmly roots up the ground), these seeds will sprout.

There was enough rooted up soil on the battlefield of the Western Front; in fact the whole front consisted of churned up soil. So in May 1915, when McCrae wrote his poem, around him bloodred poppies blossomed like no one had ever seen before.

But in this poem the poppy plays one more role. The poppy is known as a symbol of sleep. The last line We shall not sleep, though poppies grow / In Flanders fields might point to this fact. Some kinds of poppies are used to derive opium from, from which morphine is made. Morphine is one of the strongest painkillers and was often used to put a wounded soldier to sleep. Sometimes medical doctors used it in a higher dose to put the incurable wounded out of their misery.

Now a day to honor those who have served in our wars, Veterans Day has an interesting history in its original Armistice Day incarnation. It was actually established as a day dedicated to world peace, back in the early post-WWI year of 1926, when it was still possible to believe that WWI had been the war fought to end all wars.

The original proclamation establishing Armistice Day as a holiday read as follows:

Whereas the 11th of November 1918, marked the cessation of the most destructive, sanguinary, and far reaching war in human annals and the resumption by the people of the United States of peaceful relations with other nations, which we hope may never again be severed, and

Whereas it is fitting that the recurring anniversary of this date should be commemorated with thanksgiving and prayer and exercises designed to perpetuate peace through good will and mutual understanding between nations; and

Whereas the legislatures of twenty-seven of our States have already declared November 11 to be a legal holiday: Therefore be it Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring), that the President of the United States is requested to issue a proclamation calling upon the officials to display the flag of the United States on all Government buildings on November 11 and inviting the people of the United States to observe the day in schools and churches, or other suitable places, with appropriate ceremonies of friendly relations with all other peoples.

After World War II, of course, the hope that peaceful relations among nations would not be severed had long been extinguished. By the time I was a young child, a weary nation sought to honor those who had fought in all its wars and thus secure the peace that followed–even if was only a temporary one.

And isn’t an armistice a strange (although understandable) sort of hybrid, after all; a decision to lay down arms without anything really having been resolved? Think about the recent wars that have ended through armistice: WWI, which segued almost inexorably into WWII; the 1948 war following the partition of Palestine; the Korean War; and the Gulf War.

So this Veterans/Armistice Day let’s salute and honor those who have fought for our country. The hope that some day war will not be necessary is a laudable one–and those who fight wars hold it, too. But that day has not yet arrived–and, realistically but sadly, perhaps never will.

Are Bush’s critics lying about lying?

The New Neo Posted on by

Like Dr. Sanity and the Anchoress, I’m tired, tired, tired of the “Bush lied about WMDs” meme, which is itself a lie (or at least a grave error).

Fortunately, though, Norman Podhoretz isn’t as tired as the rest of us. He’s written this article of remarkable clarity on the subject in Commentary. If it were a lawyer’s brief, it would be–to coin a phrase–a “slam-dunk.” He carefully and patiently amasses irrefutable evidence that Bush did not lie. Read the whole thing, as they say.

But Podhoretz actually sounds a bit tired, too, I’m afraid:

What makes this charge [“Bush lied about WMDs”] so special is the amazing success it has enjoyed in getting itself established as a self-evident truth even though it has been refuted and discredited over and over again by evidence and argument alike. In this it resembles nothing so much as those animated cartoon characters who, after being flattened, blown up, or pushed over a cliff, always spring back to life with their bodies perfectly intact. Perhaps, like those cartoon characters, this allegation simply cannot be killed off, no matter what.

Nevertheless, I want to take one more shot at exposing it for the lie that it itself really is. Although doing so will require going over ground that I and many others have covered before, I hope that revisiting this well-trodden terrain may also serve to refresh memories that have grown dim, to clarify thoughts that have grown confused, and to revive outrage that has grown commensurately dulled.

The fact that the “Bush lied” meme went all the way around the world several times over before the truth had time to even get its underwear on, much less its pants, has caused me no end of puzzlement. Surely there are many ways to criticize the Iraqi war without using such a transparently inane one. Illogical and easy to disprove by offering quote after quote after quote (some of them from the very people making the accusations) and fact after fact suggesting that everyone thought Saddam had WMDs, the “Bushlied” meme seems to nevertheless have unusually strong legs.

That so many otherwise intelligent-seeming people have swallowed it points to something irresistable about this particular lie (or error) about lying. What could it be?

My first thought is that people tend to be angry at being misled about something, even if the misleading was in fact done innocently and in good faith; nobody likes to be wrong. So it’s easy–and very tempting–to strike out at the source and imagine one has been purposely duped.

My next thought is that people are understandably reluctant to commit to war, and it’s not unusual, ex-post-facto, to attack the reasons originally given for entering such a conflict. There are even those who question whether Roosevelt knew about Pearl Harbor in advance and let it happen.

And then there are those lingering memories of controversy over the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, for example, which have made people in this country especially sensitive around this issue of being lied to in order to start a war.

The members of Congress who are criticizing Bush overemphasize his own reliance on WMDs as the casus belli, conveniently forgetting it was only one of many reasons he gave. Why do they do this? I think the answer is simple: it’s the reason that convinced them, the one that they gave the most credence to, the one designed to appeal most to a reluctant warrior or an isolationist.

What else? That old reliable, Bush-hatred, is part of the picture. To believe Bush was mistaken is one thing, and probably true (although he had plenty of company in this, to be sure). But to believe he lied requires a belief in a much greater depth of corruption.

Remember back when Clinton was in the middle of Monicagate, and he was accused of wagging the dog when he bombed Afghanistan and Sudan? Or when some thought Clinton had had Vince Foster murdered? It was one thing to not be a major fan of Clinton’s (I, for instance, counted myself among that number), but it was another to think him capable of a bombing to save his political skin, or a cold-blooded murder of a friend. Granted, the number on the right who believed the latter to be true never numbered anything remotely like those on the left who believe the “Bush lied” meme, but I think the process of believing both things is somewhat similar: each arises in the idea that the person in question is totally untrustworthy and almost devoid of a moral sense, not just lacking in judgment.

So, this one isn’t going to die, I’m afraid, despite how many convincing articles Norman Podhoretz has the stamina to write. More power to him, of course. But on this blog and others I’ve watched as the topic of WMDs and lies has been batted around in the comments section ad nauseum, without a single mind appearing to change.

Blogger Wunderkraut is tired, too (via Willisms)–tired, tired, tired–of blogging and debunking the same stuff over and over. It’s a dirty little secret that blogging is both invigorating and tiring, with peaks and valleys and long slow slogs.

Wunderkraut writes:

Maybe all bloggers go through this at some point. This must be where most give up, while others stick it out. You reach a point where you have written about the things that most interest you and you feel like you are repeating yourself. What more is there to say? How many more times can one point out the bias in the MSM? How many more times can you point out the hypocrisy of the Democrats in Congress concerning the war in Iraq?…

If I grow weary and the next blogger grows weary and this continues until the big name Conservative bloggers grow weary”¦then the MSM and their buds in the Democratic Party will have won and we will be left with the MSM passing forged “fake but accurate” documents to the unsuspecting American public.

Yes, Wunderkraut, it’s a war of attrition, and they’re hoping to tire us out. And blogging is a marathon, with no finish line.

Maybe we should all treat ourselves to one of these:

Poor Cassandra

The New Neo Posted on by

Varifrank posts a fine rant about those modern-day prognosticators who never seem to be called to account for the failure of their predictions of doom and gloom to come true (with, of course, the sole exception of Bush and the WMDs).

I’ve often wondered the same thing, in relation to pundits (especially those financial analysts who tell you where to invest), scientists, economists, fortunetellers, and psychics. But I’m not sure most of these predictions aren’t considered a sort of entertainment, much like disaster or horror movies, meant to impart a frisson of almost-pleasurable anxiety but not necessarily to predict reality.

I have one tiny quibble with Varifrank’s essay: he compares these people to poor old much-maligned Cassandra. Now I happen to know a little bit about Cassandra, having been fascinated by her back in high school when I first encountered her through Greek tragedies (yes, they used to make us read them in high school, and a public high school at that) and was moved to write a paper on her poignant plight.

Cassandra received one of those “yes, but” gifts/curses of which the Greek gods seemed so very fond. Her resultant powers, however, actually made her the opposite of those whom Varifrank decries: it was Cassandra’s terrible fate to make correct predictions about dreadful events to come, but to never be believed.

Who would ever host her on cable news?

Who is killing Saddam’s defense lawyers?

The New Neo Posted on by

Things that pique my interest are things that don’t make sense at first, that cause me to wonder what’s going on because something doesn’t quite jibe. One of those things is that two of Saddam’s defense lawyers have now been murdered.

Why doesn’t that make sense? After all, aren’t there enough people in Iraq who are angry at Saddam, angry enough to kill anyone who might want to defend him? Naturally, of course, no question–and it may indeed be just as simple as that.

But I doubt it. It somehow doesn’t have the right modus operandi–the fingerprints, as it were, of the opposition to Saddam: Shi’ite clerics calling for forbearance when their own people are bombed, anti-Saddamites supporting the ascendance of the rule of law. Instead, it bears more resemblance to what we’ve seen in the past from Saddam supporters.

Why would Saddam’s supporters kill his own lawyers, on his orders or on their own initiative? I’m not ordinarily a conspiracist, but in this case I might make an exception.

The world press has talked from the start about how Saddam’s trial shouldn’t be held in Iraq, and the murders of the lawyers could play to this belief and create clear proof in their eyes that indeed, it’s not safe enough. And who would benefit from a move? Saddam, especially if it’s to a European country with no death penalty (unlikely, but possible).

Who would benefit from a delay? Saddam (or his supporters). Who is a coldblooded killer who would murder his own best friend (and in Saddam’s case, probably has) many times over to further his power, or to protect himself? Saddam, or his supporters. Who would dearly love to give the impression that the anti-Saddamites are just as much cold-blooded killers as Saddam himself? Yes, indeed; you-know-who.

When one tries to learn more about the lawyers’ murders, the plot gets very thick indeed. Here, for example, is the Telegraph on the subject:

Today’s killing has raised further questions as to whether a fair trial can take place amid the violence in Iraq.

Defence lawyers have threatened to boycott the trial unless measures are taken to protect them, and one of the reasons the judge gave for adjourning the trial last month was that witnesses were too scared to turn up…

“There can be no fair trial without providing security for witnesses, judges and lawyers on an equal footing. No trial can take place in such conditions,” said Issam Ghazzawi, a spokesman for Saddam’s defence team.

Human rights organisations have also expressed concern.

Nicole Choueiry, a spokeswoman for Amnesty International, said: “The safety of these people is very important if the trial is to go on.

“It is the responsibility of the Iraqi government and the US military to provide protection.”

Makes sense, doesn’t it? So then, why haven’t these lawyers been protected? Well, see this, from the Hindu:

The assassination of a second lawyer associated with the trial was likely to raise new questions about whether this country can conduct such a sensitive prosecution in the midst of insurgency and domestic turmoil.

Following al-Janabi’s death, members of the defence team said they had suspended further dealings with the special court until their safety is guaranteed…

[Head of Saddam’s defense team] Al-Ubaidi said that the entire defence team had rejected an offer of guards from the Interior Ministry, pointing to frequent Sunni Arab accusations that ministry forces or Shiite militias linked to the government have killed members of the minority that was dominant under Saddam.

He said then that they were talking with U.S. officials about getting protection from American troops. But a later defence team statement said that it would seek United Nations protection for the Iraqi lawyers because they do not trust either the U.S. military or the Iraqi government to ensure their safety.

Saddam’s defence team, which includes some 1,500 lawyers who act as advisers, is led by Khalid al-Dulaimi and Abdel Haq Alani, an Iraqi-born lawyer based in Britain. Alani is the top legal consultant to Saddam’s daughter, Raghad, and believed to be backbone of defence team.

I can’t really blame them for not trusting the Iraqi government to protect them, to tell you the truth; I would imagine the motivation to do so would be a little weak. But the Amnesty spokesperson above is the very definition of a useful idiot, I’m afraid–either simply ignorant or willfully deceptive–because it seems clear that the defense will not accept protection from either the Iraqi government or the US.

Note the continual calls for UN involvement and the movement of the trial into a “neutral” (read: western European?) country–a country, no doubt, with an anti-US agenda, no death penalty, and even perhaps a history of being on the take from defendant Saddam:

[al-Dulaimi] blamed the government for Tuesday’s attack…

“The aim of these organized attacks is to scare Arab and foreign lawyers,” al-Dulaimi said. “We call upon the international community, on top of them the Secretary-General of the United Nations, to send an investigative committee because the situation is unbearable.”

He called for moving Saddam and his colleagues into a neutral country. Al-Dulaimi said defence lawyers do not recognize the trial’s next date which comes on Nov. 28.

Who is al-Dulaimi? I haven’t been too successful in finding much information. But he certainly doesn’t seem to fit the picture of the public defender, reluctantly taking on the case because he knows that the rule of law requires that even the likes of Saddam needs a defense lawyer for the trial to be fair.

No, al-Dulaimi has quite a different agenda. This interview in Der Spiegel makes it clear he reveres Saddam and considers the trial illegitimate. A few quotes:

The trial will be adjourned. The last chapter in Saddam Hussein’s life has not yet begun…The entire proceeding [the trial] is a farce…Although I am aware that this is not as much a criminal trial as a political process, I cannot imagine that the Iraqi judges will give in to pressure by the US occupiers…Neither the so-called governing council, which the former American governor appointed, nor the current Iraqi government are legitimate…By law, Saddam is still the head of state. The American invaders and occupiers deposed him and took him prisoner after having destroyed Iraq. Now they are using the law of the strong to impose their will and walk all over Iraqi laws…As far as I am concerned, the current government also lacks all legitimacy.

Clearly, al-Dulaimi is not just a defense attorney, but a die-hard supporter who seems to believe time is on his–and Saddam’s–side. And does anyone else hear the following sentence: I cannot imagine that the Iraqi judges will give in to pressure by the US occupiers–as a possible veiled threat?

Please note the following excerpt from this
article, which appeared in the Telegraph after the first killing of a defense lawyer, back in late October:

The killing raised worries about the viability of staging the emotionally charged case in Iraq.

Although heavy protection exists for the judges and prosecutors, security does not appear to have been provided for the defence team, all 12 of whom had been publicly named.

Mr Janabi, a friend of Saddam, is understood to have had no bodyguards at the time of his abduction.

Here we have the typical reaction–the trial may need to be moved–and the assertion (without further explanation) that the defense team has not been provided with security.

But the last sentence seems curiouser and curiouser. If Janabi had been offered but refused Iraqi government and/or US protection–as the entire defense team had done, apparently–why did he not have any bodyguards at all? Surely some could have been found? So his guardless state (if indeed this was even true) makes no sense to me, unless he was set up.

I don’t pretend to know what’s going on; these are mere speculations, gleaned from a few news articles that may not even be correct in their facts. But even a quick check of the Iraqi blogs didn’t reveal any inside information on the topic (if anyone can find anything, please post it in the comments).

So Roger, you write mystery novels–got any ideas?