Understanding Ahmadinejad’s letter to Bush: the context

The New Neo Posted on by

How best to understand Ahmadinejad’s letter to Bush?

I’ve already noted that the letter seems to have worked nicely as propaganda for many people; the evil Bush seen as rejecting the “process” (as in “peace process” or “process of dialogue that might lead to understanding and rapprochement”) that Ahmadinejad is seen as opening.

And so, in the interest of cultural sensitivity, I turn to Amir Taheri, Iranian expatriate journalist, to help us out in our desire to comprehend Ahmadinejad. Writing in today’s NY Post, Taheri gives us some needed historical and religious context:

“The whole world is moving towards God,” Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has written to his American counterpart, George W. Bush. “Would Your Excellency not wish to join?”…

Ahmadinejad’s epistolary exercise seems merely another of his quirks. But it must be seen as yet another sign that the new leadership in Tehran is determined to provoke a direct confrontation with the United States in the hope that, plagued by internal problems, the Americans will either back away or be humiliated.

Ahmadinejad’s move fits into a 14-century-long Muslim tradition, initiated by the Prophet Muhammad himself, of writing letters to “the rulers of the world.” In 625 A.D., having consolidated his position in Medina and established a secure power base for his rule, the prophet decided it was time to call on “the infidel” to abandon their faith and submit to Islam. He dictated letters to Khosrow Parviz, the Persian king of kings (a Zoroastrian), and to Emperor Heraclius of Byzantium and the Ethiopian monarch Negus (both Christian).

To each, the prophet’s offer was simple: Convert to Islam and secure a place in paradise – or cling to your beliefs and face the sword of Islam.

The Persian monarch ordered his security services to find the “insolent letter writer” and bring him to the court in Ctesiphon, the capital of the Persian Empire at the time. According to Islamic folklore, Muhammad escaped capture only because, soon after, Khosrow Parviz was murdered by his son and designated heir. And within a decade the Persian Empire had disintegrated, with most of its territory falling to the armies of Islam…

It would be wrong to dismiss Ahmadinejad’s letter to Bush as just another of the Islamic leader’s many weird habits. It would be more prudent, and better politics, to take Ahmadinejad seriously and try and understand him in his own terms.

His letter contains a crucial message: The present regime in Iran is the enemy of the current international system and is determined to undermine and, if possible, destroy it.

It continues to puzzle me that so many of us have to learn the same lesson over and over, and that is this one: tyrants mean what they say. Iran’s leadership hasn’t had its people chanting “Death to America!” for nothing for all these long decades.

There are issues open to debate: how close is Iran to being able, if not to destroy, then at least to inflict a significant body blow on the US or its ally Israel; and what would be the best course of action to prevent it.

But there should be no debate on one thing: the desire is there on the part of Iran’s leadership (perhaps not its people–but, unfortunately, their intent doesn’t count for much in this equation). If, after so much repetition, we fail to understand that one basic fact, then we are worse than useful idiots: we might be sowing the seeds of our own destruction.

An 18-page letter a day keeps the world at bay: love that “process”

The New Neo Posted on by

Alexandra of All Things Beautiful’s take on Ahmadinejad’s 18-page letter to Bush emphasizes the fact that it was a good propaganda move for the Iranian President. She writes:

Thug-In-Chief Ahmadinejad scored quite a success with his 18-page letter to President Bush. Timing was of course carefully orchestrated to coincide with his high-profile visit to a key Muslim country, Indonesia….

We are…little surprised to be told by Iranian political analyst Saeed Leilaz that the letter “could have been the beginning of a new process,” and that Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice’s reaction, which has of course already been labeled as a ‘quick brushoff’, would fuel anti-American feelings in Iran.

Ahmadinejad is not ignorant of how this plays to the Left, as Alexandra points out. As for me, I note his canny use of that new-agey word “process”–as in the vaunted Israeli Palestinian “peace process,” the success of which was so deeply hoped for and wished for that it took a long time to understand that it was an emperor with no clothes.

Alexandra also quotes Amir Taheri’s piece on the subject of what to do about Iran:

Something interesting is happening with regard to the crisis over Iran’s nuclear ambitions. Slowly the blame is shifting from the mullahs to the Bush administration as the debate is redirected to tackle the hypothetical question of U.S. military action rather than the Islamic Republic’s real misdeeds. “No War on Iran” placards are already appearing where “No Nukes for Iran” would make more sense.

The attempt at fabricating another “cause” with which to bash America is backed by the claim that the mullahs are behaving badly because Washington refuses to talk to them.

Taheri goes on to point out the abject failing of the Carter and Clinton administrations in dealing with Iran.

Revisiting the Carter approach is an exercise in futile and frustrated toothgrinding at the shortsighted naivete of it all. A recap:

In 1979, soon after the mullahs seized power, Mr. Carter sent Ayatollah Khomeini a warm congratulatory letter. Mr. Carter’s man at the U.N., a certain Andrew Young, praised Khomeini as “a 20th-century saint.” Mr. Carter also tapped his closest legal advisor, the late Lloyd Cutler, as U.S. ambassador to the mullarchy.

A more dramatic show of U.S. support for the mullahs came when Mr. Brzezinski flew to Algiers to meet Khomeini’s prime minister, Mehdi Bazargan. This was love at first sight — to the point where Mr. Carter approved the resumption of military supplies to Iran, even as the mullahs were executing Iranians by the thousands, including many whose only “crime” was friendship with the U.S. The Carter administration’s behavior convinced the mullahs that the U.S. was a paper tiger and that it was time for the Islamic Revolution to highlight hatred of America. Mr. Carter reaped what he had sown when the mullahs sent “student” fanatics to seize the U.S. embassy compound, a clear act of war, and hold its diplomats hostage for 444 days. “The Carter administration’s weakness was a direct encouragement to [anti-American] hard-liners,” wrote Ibrahim Asgharzadeh, one of the hostage-takers, years later.

I don’t know about you, but I’m willing to take Asgharzadeh’s word for it on this, if on nothing else.

Clinton’s approach was cagier, but ultimately, not cagey enough:

Beating his own drum, Bill Clinton has rejected the threat of force and called for “engaging” Iran. This is how he put it in a recent speech: “Anytime somebody said in my presidency, ‘If you don’t do this, people will think you’re weak,’ I always asked the same question for eight years: ‘Can we kill ’em tomorrow?’ If we can kill ’em tomorrow, then we’re not weak.” Mr. Clinton’s pseudo-Socratic method of either/or-ing issues out of existence is too well-known to merit an exposé. This time, however, Mr. Clinton did not ask enough questions. For example, he might have asked: What if by refusing to kill some of them today we are forced to kill many more tomorrow? Also: What if, once assured that we are not going to kill them today, they regroup and come to kill us in larger numbers? We all know the answers.

I have no facile solution to the problem of Iran; I don’t think anyone does. But we are fooling ourselves if we think that either Carter or Clinton have much to say on the matter that would be helpful at this point.

And we are doubly fooling ourselves if we believe that the Ahmadinejad letter represented an attempt by Iran to begin “a new process.” No, I think the process was actually a rather old one.

Harry Harlow and his monkeys: being cruel to be kind?

The New Neo Posted on by


While researching my recent series on questioning authority, I got the idea to write a post about the seminal Milgram experiments on obedience to authority.

When I was a psych major back in college, part of our learning experience involved—as you might expect—studying psychology experiments. Many were of the so-called “rat psych” variety, and some were of a more clinical nature. Then much later, while getting my clinical Master’s in the early 90s, I had to read many more. In between, I actually worked as a social science researcher in a place with a sterling reputation. So I’ve done my time—and more—in the field of psychological research, including being a subject back in college (I remember interminable sessions with what was known as a “memory drum.” Bloody boring.).

But I must admit (or is it confess?) that too much social science research is “garbage in, garbage out.” Not all of course, but quite a bit. Some of this is the fault of sloppy methodology. But most of the problem may be inherent in the nature of the beast of social science research itself: too many variables to control for, too many unknowns.

But even social science has some experiments so very wonderfully done, and with such fascinating results, that they not only impressed me when I first encountered them, but they stayed with me and inform me still.

One was the famous “learned helplessness” research, in which dogs who received painful electric shocks without the possibility of escape learned that their efforts to avoid the pain were futile. Later, when they received shocks in a situation in which they were able to escape, they didn’t even try. Another was the perhaps even more famous case of the Harlow monkeys. Still another, of course, was Milgram’s research on obedience to authority.

The first two involved cruelty to animals in those pre-PETA days. The third involved feigned physical cruelty (and, some would argue, actual psychological cruelty) to humans. I’m no PETA member, but I’ve seen the visuals on Harlow’s monkeys and the shocked dogs–both the films and the still photos–and they are disturbing to watch.

Harlow’s research wasn’t limited to the esoteric halls of academe; his surrogate-mother monkeys became well-known through a feature in Life magazine in the 50s, where I first encountered them as a young child.

There was something haunting about those photos. I could hardly take my eyes away from the mournful expressions of the baby monkeys Harlow had taken away from their mothers and raised with two “surrogate mothers”–a wire one with a bottle attached, where the baby could get its nourishment, and a cloth one the baby could cling to for comfort (see photo that begins this essay).

And cling they did:


Before Harlow, many psychologists thought that the mother/infant bond was based on the nourishment provided. Harlow theorized that touch and comfort were even more crucial–if not in keeping the infant alive, then in keeping it emotionally healthy. This may seem self-evident today, but at the time it was revolutionary.

Harlow’s experiments exemplify the paradoxical nature of research that subjects animals to some sort of cruelty and yet yields results that can benefit humans.

Here’s a description of what actually happened to Harlow’s monkeys:

When the experimental subjects were frightened by strange, loud objects, such as teddy bears beating drums, monkeys raised by terry cloth surrogates made bodily contact with their mothers, rubbed against them, and eventually calmed down. Harlow theorized that they used their mothers as a “psychological base of operations,” allowing them to remain playful and inquisitive after the initial fright had subsided. In contrast, monkeys raised by wire mesh surrogates did not retreat to their mothers when scared. Instead, they threw themselves on the floor, clutched themselves, rocked back and forth, and screamed in terror…

In subsequent experiments, Harlow’s monkeys proved that “better late than never” was not a slogan applicable to attachment. When Harlow placed his subjects in total isolation for the first eights months of life, denying them contact with other infants or with either type of surrogate mother, they were permanently damaged. Harlow and his colleagues repeated these experiments, subjecting infant monkeys to varied periods of motherlessness. They concluded that the impact of early maternal deprivation could be reversed in monkeys only if it had lasted less than 90 days, and estimated that the equivalent for humans was six months. After these critical periods, no amount of exposure to mothers or peers could alter the monkeys’ abnormal behaviors and make up for the emotional damage that had already occurred. When emotional bonds were first established was the key to whether they could be established at all.

But the story is actually worse than that. It turns out that even the contact comfort of a cloth surrogate mother was not enough to raise a healthy monkey. All of Harlow’s monkeys had severe disruptions when they grew up–for example, they could not mate.

You might ask: what’s the point? Isn’t this stuff obvious? Who needed an experiment to prove it? But that’s 20/20 hindsight; at the time, Harlow’s results sent shockwaves through the psychology community:

What may seem obvious to us now…was as counter to the conventional wisdom in psychology in those days as Galileo’s ideas were to the astronomy in his day…The field was dominated by the behaviorist theories of psychologists like B. F. Skinner and child development theories exemplified by John Watson, who used his presidency of the American Psychological Association to conduct a personal crusade against cuddling children.

Harlow’s carefully executed and presented research sent shockwaves through the psychology community, eventually discrediting behaviorism and many other -isms under the extraordinary force of the information he collected. His voluminous hard data replaced what previously had been anecdotal evidence in fledgling schools of thought, providing a much-needed scientific basis for theories like attachment theory, humanistic psychology (Abraham Maslow was his first graduate student), and patient-centered therapy.

And what of Harlow himself? According to this Boston Globe profile, he was a troubled and contentious man. His life included two broken marriages, alcoholism, and depression (did he, perhaps, have only a cloth mother, too?)

Harlow didn’t even like monkeys—or animals—at all, which undoubtedly made it easier for him to conduct his research:

Harlow felt no kinship with his test subjects. “The only thing I care about is whether a monkey will turn out a property I can publish,” he said. “I don’t have any love for them. I never have. I don’t really like animals. I despise cats. I hate dogs. How could you love monkeys?”

Harlow fired off some excellent bon mots, including this one:

[Harlow] was at a conference one day, and every time he used the word “love” another scientist would interrupt and say, “You must mean proximity, don’t you?” until at last Harlow, a brash man who could also be strangely shy, said, “It may be that proximity is all you know of love—I thank God I have not been so deprived.”

But one wonders. If the original experiments were dark, later ones (after his divorces and electroshock treatments for depression) grew far darker, and entered the realm of sadism. I’m not using this word lightly; see whether you agree with me:

[Harlow] built a black isolation chamber in which an animal was hung upside down for up to two years, unable to move or see the world, fed through a grid at the bottom of the V-shaped device. This Harlow called “the well of despair.” Indeed, it was successful in creating a primate model of mental illness. The animals, once removed, after months or years, were shattered and psychotic. Nothing Harlow did could bring them back. There appeared to be no cure. No way to contact, to comfort.

Harlow’s earlier research was somewhat cruel, but it had a clear purpose and results that could be used to the benefit of humans. This later research (performed during the 60s) almost undoubtedly would not have been allowed today, whatever his previous reputation. It amounted to the torture of highly intelligent and sensitive animals, to no real purpose.

To me, it’s a case of balance. Harlow’s early experiments had elements of cruelty, but even before the experiments were performed it was clear that they could have some beneficial results for child-rearing (which have ultimately come to include advances in the treatment of premature and institutionalized infants, and the resurgence of breastfeeding). Furthermore, with those early experiments, the extent of the resultant disturbances to the monkeys’ psyches was unforeseen and unexpected.

Harlow’s latter experiments, however, seemed to have no redeeming social importance. The horrific results on the monkeys’ psyches seem not only predictable, but inevitable, and it’s virtually impossible to see how even the feisty Harlow could have argued, prospectively, of any real benefit to our knowledge of human nature likely to result from them.

In certain cases it may indeed be necessary to be cruel to animals in order to be kinder to humans. But Harlow’s trajectory is a cautionary tale of the necessity to calibrate the two.

We may mock PETA for its excesses—I certainly do. But there are times—especially in the relatively unfettered past—that research on animals can go too far. The trick is to make a considered and reasonable judgment about when that may be so, balancing the possible good with the probable harm likely to result. In that equation, people count more than animals, but animals still count for something.

See no evil: sadistic terrorists and “World War III”

The New Neo Posted on by


Mudville Gazette covers the killing of Iraqi journalist Atwar Bahjat (see NOTE below). If you haven’t yet read a description of how this 30-year old woman was brutally and tortuously murdered, I warn you that it’s very strong stuff.

I don’t usually link to such things. Who would want to dwell on them, or join in their sensationalizing in any way? But as Jeff Goldstein of Protein Wisdom has pointed out, avoiding the horrific details is a way of denying the nature of the enemy we face, and that is something we can ill afford:

Our own media feels the need to shield us from such brutality, even as they report daily on the US and Iraqi death count””or seemed almost to fetishize the torture photos from Abu Ghraib.

But presuming to protect us from the nature of our enemy, like many of the MSM’s other actions in framing the war on terror, is irresponsible””and either presumptuously paternalistic, or cynically calculating.

True, there is a fine line between “war porn” and the dissemination of information. But we nevertheless have the right to know who it is we are fighting. Because knowing just might have an impact on how we, as a country, feel about the necessity of carrying out the fight””and how far we are willing to go to see our enemy vanquished.

I don’t see how it’s possible for most people to read the account of Bahjat’s death and not feel that those who perpetrated it are evil. (And yes, the perpetrators are not Moslems as a whole. But they are a subgroup of Moslems–jihadi terrorists–who commit these acts in the name of the Moslem religion, chanting prayers even as the torture and murder is performed. And yes, I know about the Inquisition. But that was quite a while ago, if you check your history.)

Why do I use the word “evil,” as opposed to simply “violent?” It is because this–and so many other of their acts–was not a mere killing (as though killing can ever be “mere”); it was the purposeful amplification of this young woman’s suffering before she died, in order to inflict maximum horror. As such, it appears to enter the realm of sadism and sociopathy (I wonder, by the way, if this isn’t one of the reasons why so many would prefer to treat the perpetrators as criminals, if captured, and deal with them through the criminal rather than the military justice system).

But Bahjat’s torture killing is no means an isolated incident, as when a psychopath commits a crime acting out of some sort of individual pathology. It is part and parcel of the group movement that is jihadist terrorism today, and goes way beyond the strategic inculcation of fear (although it is undoubtedly also a strategic move meant to do that very thing).

“Evil.” Many mocked Reagan for calling the Soviet Union the “evil empire,” and George Bush was likewise thought to be guilty of the same lack of sophistication and nuance when he used the term “axis of evil” for the triumvirate of Iraq, Iran, and North Korea. For, after all, “evil” (in its non-religious sense, that is–its religious sense is such a huge topic that it’s beyond the scope of today’s essay) is a word left over from childhood. It dwells in the land of fairy tales and legends, in a simplistic dichotomous way of looking at the world that many adults of sophistication believe they’ve outgrown.

Of course, we are no strangers to evil’s face. In the twentieth century, it made quite a splash with the Nazis, who likewise seemed to have had a widespread and basic sadistic bent, an enjoyment of torture for its own sake. The same appears to have been true of Saddam’s regime, as well as others too numerous to mention.

But beheadings in particular, seeming to emanate from a distant barbaric past, represent a practice that we might have expected would have disappeared from the face of the earth by the twenty-first century. The fact that terrorists and jihadis have managed to stage a revival of this particular brutality complete with added sadistic refinements and the newfangled wonders of videotape and the internet to spread the images around the world (a la Daniel Pearl and Nick Berg), is hard for the modern mind to assimilate. It’s as though bogeymen and fire-breathing dragons, chimeras and man-eating giants thundering “Fe fi fo fum, I smell the blood of an Englishman” have suddenly sprung to life out of the pages of a storybook, wedded to cutting edge communication technology.

But in a strange and paradoxical way, the over-the-top nature of the drawn-out violence in this and other similar killings only makes them easier for many to deny. Despite the existence of video documentation, such methods seems so barbaric as to be almost unbelievable. And this air of unreality isn’t helped by the fact that media coverage of such things is tentative and muted.

The fact that many of the jihadis and their supporters may be literally bloodthirsty offends our PC sensibilities and our postmodern vision. So it’s much, much better–isn’t it?–to focus on President Bush rather than on the terrifying mental images of the dying woman in the video.

And yesterday President Bush obliged by uttering some words that stirred controversy–he mentioned in an interview that we are in a global war that could be characterized as World War III:

…he said he agreed with the description of David Beamer, whose son Todd died in the crash, who in a Wall Street Journal commentary last month called it “our first successful counter-attack in our homeland in this new global war — World War III”.

Bush said: “I believe that. I believe that it was the first counter-attack to World War III.

A predictable yelp of outrage ensued in the blogosphere. A roundup is offered by Gerard Van der Leun at American Digest, who observes:

You have to wonder what morally-relativistic, rainbow colored, secular fundament these folks have been wearing for a hat for years. What part of “airplanes into sky-scrapers followed by endless sermons of Hate America and various video tapes shrieking Death to Americans” do they not understand? Have they not gotten the memos from Iran for the last 27 years?

Apparently not. Many seem to believe that, when the mullahs have had their people chant “Death to America,” they don’t really mean it. Many also seem to forget that the attack on 9/11 was not a response to a muscular War on Terrorism but the impetus for it.

But when Bush describes what he sees–a worldwide fight against jihadists who have made their own aims known–some consider him to be the bloodthirsty one. I understand that Bush’s critics fear a spreading of the battleground to other venues such as Iran, but once again, they are mistaking cause for effect. Iran has been at war with the US and the West for a long, long, long time. And the World War to which Bush is referring is not always–or even primarily–a “hot” one.

Why hasn’t the message coming from the Islamicist jihadi side, sent loudly and repeatedly, been received? Perhaps the reason is not such a mystery after all, because hearing the message would mean we’d have to step outside our comfortable modern world and back into the realm of nightmare, and to engage that nightmare decisively, boldly, and effectively in a lengthy and difficult struggle. That effort would sometimes take a military form, but more often would be fought with cerebral and cultural tools.
.
Actually, there is nothing all that new about what President Bush said yesterday. He had already stated as much (although he didn’t use the exact “World War III” phrase) shortly after 9/11, when he addressed Congress on September 21, 2001:

On September the 11th, enemies of freedom committed an act of war against our country. Americans have known wars, but for the past 136 years they have been wars on foreign soil, except for one Sunday in 1941. Americans have known the casualties of war, but not at the center of a great city on a peaceful morning.

Americans have known surprise attacks, but never before on thousands of civilians. All of this was brought upon us in a single day, and night fell on a different world, a world where freedom itself is under attack….

They want to overthrow existing governments in many Muslim countries such as Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Jordan. They want to drive Israel out of the Middle East. They want to drive Christians and Jews out of vast regions of Asia and Africa.

These terrorists kill not merely to end lives, but to disrupt and end a way of life. With every atrocity, they hope that America grows fearful, retreating from the world and forsaking our friends. They stand against us because we stand in their way…

Now, this war will not be like the war against Iraq a decade ago, with a decisive liberation of territory and a swift conclusion. It will not look like the air war above Kosovo two years ago, where no ground troops were used and not a single American was lost in combat.

Our response involves far more than instant retaliation and isolated strikes. Americans should not expect one battle, but a lengthy campaign unlike any other we have ever seen. It may include dramatic strikes visible on TV and covert operations secret even in success….

This is not, however, just America’s fight. And what is at stake is not just America’s freedom. This is the world’s fight. This is civilization’s fight.

But to fight that fight effectively we need to take our hands away from our eyes and take a good look at the enemy we face.

[NOTE: After I wrote this piece, I noticed that Mudville Gazette had posted an addendum indicating there is some doubt about the identity of the woman being beheaded in the video. However, whether it be Bahjat or not, it is known that Bahrat was murdered by her kidnappers. It is also known that these scenes of torture and beheading are almost commonplace with this particular enemy.

One more thing: the “evil” nature of the enemy is not limited to its sadism. Although sadism is part of it, it is a symptom of even greater evils, such as the suppression of human rights and liberty in general, and the desire to spread this tyrannical ideology throughout the globe.]

For now

The New Neo Posted on by

It was another lovely Sunday, and I basically took the day off from blogging (except, of course, for this post).

For now, I’ve turned off anonymous commenting. That was actually my policy early on; I required registration with Blogger in order to post a comment here. It’s really not all that difficult a process to register (as those of you who haven’t already done so will see if you take a look), although I apologize for the inconvenience.

See you tomorrow!

Terrorism, fear, and fighting amongst ourselves

The New Neo Posted on by

Yesterday, commenter “sally” posted this on the Zarqawi thread:

Something to bear in mind in all of this is that terrorism itself is a purely ideological and propagandistic form of warfare. Sudden, random, and otherwise pointless acts of mass slaughter are an extremely effective way of, first, getting everyone’s attention, and second, “persuading” the more impressionable and easily frightened (e.g., the indecent left) of the value of your cause.

A fair amount of contention over sally’s message followed in the comments section.

Do I agree with sally? To a point, but not entirely.

One assumption that I don’t think can be disputed (although no doubt someone, somewhere, will try) is that terrorism is an excellent way of getting attention, and that this is one of terrorists’ main goals.

In addition, I think nearly everyone would agree that terrorists seek to foster fear in the populace, and often succeed in doing so–although, like civilian bombings in conventional wars such as WWII, terrorism can also foster solidarity and resistance in those who are its intended targets.

And I’m not at all sure that what sally refers to as “the indecent left” (I’m assuming she means that segment of the far left that makes excuses for and/or sympathizes with terrorists) is the most frightened part of the population. No, I don’t believe the far left’s particular response to terrorism come mainly from fear; rather, it comes from a world view that follows the PC Commandments (see this for the Commandments, and pay particular attention to my number 12).

When sally states that pointless acts of mass slaughter are a way of persuading those who are easily frightened of the value of the terrorists’ cause, what could she possibly mean? Isn’t it counterintuitive to think that horrific violence would foster sympathy for the cause in whose name it is perpetrated (the Rolling Stones notwithstanding)?

One mechanism by which such sympathy can occur is Stockholm Syndrome, in which, paradoxically, a bond is formed between a captive and his/her hostage-taker. But Stockholm Syndrome is generally limited to a situation of very close contact and vulnerability; the hostage is under the total control of the hostage-taker in that situation. Terrorism doesn’t generally have these characteristics.

Does terrorism sometimes result in more sympathy for the perpetrators, and, if so, why? One example of terrorism that seems to have worked in this way was the Munich massacre, which not only increased the visibility of the Palestinian cause but gave it more supporters. The old saw about children–that even negative attention is sometimes sought, because negative attention is better than no attention at all–seems true of those who turn to terrorism. Sometimes, it works.

Who says so? Surviving Munich terrorist Jamal Al Gashey, for one:

“I’m proud of what I did at Munich because it helped the Palestinian cause enormously,” he says.

“Before Munich, the world had no idea about our struggle, but on that day, the name of Palestine was repeated all around the world.”

And only two years after Munich, Yassar Arafat was considered an acceptable and legitimate enough world leader to address the UN. It’s no accident that he tried to wear his pistol during the speech he gave there (he ended up with an empty holster, instead). It seems Arafat already understood the value of wearing his gun on his sleeve, as it were.

So, why do some people end up sympathizing more with terrorist causes as the outrageousness and offensiveness of the terrorist attacks escalate? Perhaps it’s a combination of the aforementioned PC commandments, an attenuated Stockholm Syndrome, and the sort of inverted logic that goes like this: anyone desperate enough to commit an act as evil as the Munich Massacre must be sorely oppressed by circumstances. Therefore, the more terrible the terrorism, the more the cause must be just–as long as it’s against the West, especially the US or Israel.

Sally has more to say:

But in this case the murderers are counting on their opponent — that is, the West generally — being fundamentally soft and weak, enfeebled by decadence, riddled with self-doubt, fractured into squabbling factions. Against that kind of target, acts of mass carnage have the force of a spectacular propaganda display, and can induce a degree of internal collapse that leaves the target an empty and effectively paralyzed shell.

Are the US and the West already that soft? I think the jury is still out on that. But the last few years have made it abundantly clear that our society is, as she says, “riddled with self-doubt, fractured into squabbling factions.”

The terrorists and their supporters have known this for quite some time, and count on it. But don’t take my word for it, let’s turn to those of that prescient and wily old adversary of America, Ayatollah Khomeini (remember him?), who said as much:

In recent days an old slogan of the Khomeinist Revolution has made a spectacular comeback on city walls throughout the Islamic Republic: “America Cannot Do A Damn Thing!”

The late Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini launched the phrase in 1979, as he played Tom and Jerry with the clueless Jimmy Carter who, at the time, acted as President of the United States.

At the time many in the ayatollah’s entourage believed that he was being unnecessarily provocative. Khomeini, however, was dismissive. “America, “he told his secretary, a mullah called Ansari Kermani, “may have a lot of power but lacks the courage to use it.”

According to Kermani, who wrote a hagiographical account of Khomeini’s life in 1983, the ayatollah “always counted on America’s internal divisions” to prevent the formulation and application of any serious policy on any major issue. The ayatollah believed that the American political system was clear proof of the saying attributed to Jaafar al-Sadiq, the Sixth Imam, that “God keeps the enemies of Islam fighting among themselves!”

The Zarqawi outtakes and propaganda: “go help the sheik”

The New Neo Posted on by

I don’t know about you, but this reminds me of a “Saturday Night Live” bit:

The videotape released last week by the terrorist leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi showed him firing long bursts from a machine gun, his forearms sprouting from beneath black fatigues, as he exuded the very picture of a strong jihadist leader.

But in clips the American military released on Thursday and described as captured outtakes from the same video, Mr. Zarqawi, head of the Council of Holy Warriors, cut a different figure.

In one scene, Mr. Zarqawi, the most wanted terrorist in Iraq, appears flummoxed by how to discharge the machine gun in fully automatic mode. Off camera, one aide is heard ordering another, “Go help the sheik.” A man walks over and fiddles with the weapon so Mr. Zarqawi can fire it in bursts.

Al Qaeda and other Islamic terrorists groups use the power of video with great flair, boldness, and skill. Modern communications such as videocameras and the internet may be a primarily Western invention, but the US has lagged far behind the terrorists in the propaganda arena almost from the start.

This current campaign by the US is an interesting one. I’m not at all sure that it will matter much in terms of actually reaching any of those we’re trying to persuade. But at least it represents that someone on our side is thinking a little outside the box. And it’s true that in honor/shame cultures, looking ridiculous is one of the worst things that can happen to a leader such as Zarqawi, who clearly prides himself on appearing to be the meannest, baddest man around.

In another blend of old and new, the video goes on to exploit a sartorial mixed message:

Another sequence shows Mr. Zarqawi handing the weapon off to other aides and striding away, revealing white jogging shoes beneath his black guerrilla attire.

Shades of the Munich massacre terrorists in their jogging suits.

Zarqawi seems to be attended by at least one of the Three Stooges:

One insurgent later appears to grab the machine gun absent-mindedly by its scalding-hot barrel and drop it.

Of course Al Jazeera–which has no problem whatsoever being the mouthpiece for Al Qaeda propaganda–isn’t jumping to show these particular videos (perhaps they’re too shocking for Al Jazeera’s tender sensibilities):

The selected outtakes released late Thursday were not shown on the most popular Arab channels, Al Jazeera and Arabiya, although Arabiya mentioned them in a newscast later. But they were broadcast on state-run Iraqi television.

Al Jazeera picks and chooses the propaganda it deems worthy of broadcast, and this one didn’t make the cut. But Iraq has a competing network that is willing–and perhaps eager–to show it.

How did we ever come to this? One seminal event in the history of terrorist propaganda was that same Munich massacre I mentioned earlier. While doing research for this post, I came across an article featuring the Dutch-born widow of the Israeli fencing coach Andre Spitzer, one of the Israeli athletes so cruelly murdered that terrible September of 1972. She believes (and I concur) that Munich was the true start of the successful Mideastern terrorist use of propaganda through the use of worldwide media:

“The message was you could pull it off and get major exposure,” [Ankie] Spitzer said.

“No one was punished, no one was held responsible. I am really convinced that if the world had reacted differently then, zero tolerance then … everything would have looked different now…”

In the Arab world, Munich was viewed as a triumph. Weeks later, the three captured Palestinian terrorists were freed by the German government after a Lufthansa plane was hijacked in the Balkans. The men got a heroes’ welcome when they arrived in Libya.

Spitzer says a new era had begun. “I call it the first shot fired for international terror. Before that, it was never on such a level.”

I remember Munich well; I lived through it, or at least the media coverage of it. I remember the profound shock I felt then, my disbelief that people could invade the previously peaceful and off-limits realm of international sports to wreak such horror. At the time I didn’t know the details of the mindboggling incompetence of the German authorities, and then their later capitulation in releasing the terrorists in response to a possibly faked airplane highjacking (anyone who’d like to know the particulars should read this some time).

But with repetition over the ensuing decades, such events have lost some of their power to shock. And the fact that brutality wins converts has also become apparent. So let’s give ridicule a chance.

And then there was one…

The New Neo Posted on by

The sole survivor of the night of the marauding squirrels/deers/gophers has bloomed:


That’s it for my tulips this year. It stands, forlorn and alone, a profile in courage.

It’s a beautiful day today, though, one of several unseasonably warm ones we’ve had lately. Spring usually isn’t quite springlike here, not exactly–that old saw that there are two seasons in New England, winter and the Fourth of July, isn’t so very far from the truth. Usually it goes from snow to rain to brown crud/mud and then, after a brief burst, right into the short hot summer.

But this year spring has been early and, so far, it’s been long. The forsythia have been fully in bloom for more weeks than I can ever remember previously. And they’re still going strong, although this photo doesn’t nearly do justice to their intensity, which is the very essence of yellow:


Nothing is so beautiful as spring —
When weeds, in wheels, shoot long and lovely and lush;
Thrush’s eggs look little low heavens, and thrush
Through the echoing timber does so rinse and wring
The ear, it strikes like lightnings to hear him sing;
The glassy peartree leaves and blooms, they brush
The descending blue; that blue is all in a rush
With richness; the racing lambs too have fair their fling.

—-from “Spring,” by Gerard Manley Hopkins

Moussaoui gets life

The New Neo Posted on by

The jury deliberated, and the verdict for Moussaoui is life without possibility of parole.

I think that’s actually the best possible outcome for this extraordinarily strange case.

Moussaoui himself is a pernicious person, his rantings devoid of even a drop of the milk of human kindness: he has no sympathy for the 9/11 victims or their families, and regards Timothy McVeigh as “the greatest American.”

So no, I have no sympathy for Moussaoui himself. Despite his dreadful family background, he is coherent and sane enough to be held fully responsible for what he’s done and its consequences.

But what has he done? That’s the problem; we don’t rightly know. From the lack of hard evidence presented at the trial, it appears he’s done less than he would like us to believe–although he intended plenty of harm, as much as possible.

But our system of justice judges the act, not the personality. Intent is an element of some crimes, yes, but it has to be coupled with certain actions, and those actions have to be proven in court. To justify a death penalty it’s not enough to have wanted to cause the death of thousands or planned to cause the death of thousands or rejoiced in the death of thousands. One has to actually have caused those deaths–or, in Moussaoui’s case, to have withheld pertinent information that, if revealed, might have saved them.

Three jurors agreed that Moussaoui’s knowledge of the details of 9/11 was too inadequate to have given authorities the knowledge to prevent it, even if he had divulged those details in time. All twelve jurors agreed that Moussaoui’s actions did not result in the 3,000 deaths on 9/11. The fact that Moussaoui is the sort of terrible human being who would have been proud to claim such an accomplishment doesn’t change the fact that it probably wasn’t his accomplishment; he just didn’t have enough insider info.

I have no problem with this verdict. Life imprisonment without possibility of parole is, in my opinion, the very last thing Moussaoui wants, despite his yelling out “I won” at its announcement. Methinks the man doth protest too much. I think Moussaoui has no desire to live out his days in the belly of the hated beast, America, rather than to become a glorious martyr.

And France seems happy that the cowboys held off on the ultimate penalty:

The French Embassy in the U.S. issued a statement that said the trial was “conducted in an exemplary fashion.”

I think the trial was a circus, actually, as I indicated here. But I think this result is the right one–or at least, a right one.

[ADDENDUM: Varifrank has an interesting take on the death penalty vs. life imprisonment, with a look at the fate of some well-known lifers.]

Dr. Sanity on denial–sing it!

The New Neo Posted on by

In a way, my post today on Juan Cole and the Left is really about denial.

Well, Dr. Sanity’s the expert on that. And if she ever quits her day job, she has a future as a lyricist. Here’s still another in a long line of her clever parody offerings. This one happens to fits in quite nicely with the theme of the day–the Left’s denial of some hard but basic truths.

To the tune of “It Ain’t Necessarily So,” Dr. Sanity writes:

An’ just take dese newsfolk
As if dey’s a big joke,
‘Cuz when it bleeds it’ll lede.

Which reminds me to put in another Orwell quote that I came across here, while researching the previous post:

Orwell was perhaps even less kind to the press than Hitchens; when he was not censuring their mangling of proper English (he was once “upset for days” when the Tribune printed “verbiosity” in one of its articles), he was abusing them as “professional liars” and “halfwits.” “Early in life,” he wrote, “I had noticed that no event is ever correctly reported in a newspaper.”

Orwell was a great writer. But he didn’t set it to music, like Dr. Sanity.

Denial, Juan Cole and Ahmadinejad, and Munich

The New Neo Posted on by

Christopher Hitchens (previously no special friend of Israel’s) deconstructs Juan Cole’s Dowdification of Ahmadinejad’s threats to Israel in this Slate article (via Austin Bay) entitled “The Cole Report: when it comes to Iran, he distorts, you decide.”

Hitchens’s contention is that, contrary to Cole’s statements that Ahmadinejad never threatened to wipe Israel off the map, Cole is playing fast and loose with the quotes, and that it’s indeed what Ahmadinejad has said, several times over.

Cole is an excellent example of the repeated tendency of some on the Left to make excuses for outright declarations of annihilative intent by third-world tyrants. This tendency on the Left is both understandable and dangerous.

After all, many people (and not all of them are on the Left by any means, although a great number on the Left do fit this description) believe everyone pretty much resembles them in the way they operate. And my impression is that many on the Left see the use of words as a sort of harmless game.

It was George Orwell, a member of the Left but a different sort entirely (he knew the dangerous excesses of the Left up close and personal, and spent much of his writing life warning us about them, as well as musing on the extraordinary power of words themselves), who famously told us:

So much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don’t even know that fire is hot.

Plus ca change…

Hitchens, who recently wrote an entire book in praise of Orwell, clearly considers himself to be in the same mold: a straight-talking leftist who’s not afraid to break out of the circle dance.
The signers of the recent Euston Manifesto have also stepped out of the leftist ring and stated their unequivocal opposition to tyranny and their refusal to apologize for it:

We decline to make excuses for, to indulgently “understand”, reactionary regimes and movements for which democracy is a hated enemy ”” regimes that oppress their own peoples and movements that aspire to do so. We draw a firm line between ourselves and those left-liberal voices today quick to offer an apologetic explanation for such political forces….

People like Juan Cole are the ones they are up against. What else might be motivating him, besides a lightness about the meaning of “mere words?” My guess is that it’s the need to keep his conceptual world intact, to continue to dance in that circle to which he’s grown accustomed without feeling undue guilt or cognitive dissonance.

And what is that conceptual world? It includes, but is far from limited to, the idea that almost everything wrong with the world today is the fault of the US and past abuses of power by Western nations. And a further corollary–perhaps a more important one–is that human beings are basically well-meaning and reasonable (with the example, of course, of Bush, Cheney, et al).

The latter principle of general reasonableness applies even to tyrannical and dictatorial leaders who have unequivocally stated the desire to destroy the US and Israel (the famous “Big and Little Satans”). If the words of those such as Ahmadinejad are unequivocal, don’t worry; Cole will do the honors and equivocate for him.

Twas ever thus. Or at least, it’s been thus ever since the debacle of WWI made the fear and knowledge of war’s destructive costs far greater, the dream of peace ever more powerful, the need to believe in the goodwill of dictators more intense, and the ability to equivocate and deceive oneself about said goodwill more likely.

Witness, please, exhibit B: the British Parliamentary debate on the Munich Pact, which took place on October 3, 1938. Duff Cooper, speaking in the House of Commons, said:

Prime Minister [Chamberlain] has confidence in the good will and in the word of Herr Hitler, although when Herr Hitler broke the Treaty of Versailles he undertook to keep the Treaty of Locarno, and when he broke the Treaty of Locarno he undertook not to interfere further, or to have further territorial aims, in Europe. When he entered Austria by force he authorised his henchmen to give an authoritative assurance that he would not interfere with Czechoslovakia. That was less than six months ago. Still, the Prime Minister believes that he can rely upon the good faith of Hitler; he believes that Hitler is interested only in Germany, as the Prime Minister was assured….

The Prime Minister may be right. I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, with the deepest sincerity, that I hope and pray that he is right, but I cannot believe what he believes. I wish I could. .

Here is a portion of Chamberlain’s reply to Cooper (note, especially, the Pitt quote that ends the excerpt):

My right hon. Friend [Duff Cooper] has alluded in somewhat bitter terms to my conversation last Friday morning with Herr Hitler. I do not know why that conversation should give rise to suspicion, still less to criticism. I entered into no pact. I made no new commitments. There is no secret understanding. Our conversation was hostile to no other nation. The objects of that conversation, for which I asked, was to try to extend a little further the personal Contact which I had established with Herr Hitler and which I believe to be essential in modern diplomacy. We had a friendly and entirely non-committal conversation, carried on, on my part, largely with a view to seeing whether there could be points in common between the head of a democratic Government and the ruler of a totalitarian State. We see the result in the declaration which has been published, in which my right hon. Friend finds so much ground for suspicion….

I believe there are many who will feel with me that such a declaration, signed by the German Chancellor and myself, is something more than a pious expression of opinion. In our relations with other countries everything depends upon there being sincerity and good will on both sides. I believe that there is sincerity and good will on both sides in this declaration. That is why to me its significance goes far beyond its actual words. If there is one lesson which we should learn from the events of these last weeks it is this, that lasting peace is not to be obtained by sitting still and waiting for it to come. It requires active, positive efforts to achieve it. No doubt I shall have plenty of critics who will say that I am guilty of facile optimism, and that I should disbelieve every word that is uttered by rulers of other great States in Europe. I am too much of a realist to believe that we are going to achieve our paradise in a day. We have only laid the foundations of peace. The superstructure is not even begun….

As regards future policy, it seems to me that there are really only two possible alternatives. One of them is to base yourself upon the view that any sort of friendly relation, or possible relations, shall I say, with totalitarian States are impossible, that the assurances which have been given to me personally are worthless, that they have sinister designs and that they are bent upon the domination of Europe and the gradual destruction of democracies. Of course, on that hypothesis, war has got to come, and that is the view–a perfectly intelligible view–of a certain number of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen in this House”¦.

If that is hon. Members’ conviction, there is no future hope for civilisation or for any of the things that make life worth living. Does the experience of the Great War and of the years that followed it give us reasonable hope that if some new war started that would end war any more than the last one did? No. I do not believe that war is inevitable. Someone put into my hand a remark made by the great Pitt about 1787, when he said:

“To suppose that any nation can be unalterably the enemy of another is weak and childish and has its foundations neither in the experience of nations not in the history of man.”

Read it and weep. Weep for the opportunities lost, for what Chamberlain himself called “facile optimism:” so noble, so hopeful, so well-meaning, so deadly, so fatally wrong about the benign intents of totalitarian dictators who threaten others.