![]() ![]() ![]() |
March 30, 2003REPORTING ON THE REPORTERS        As I sipped coffee and tried not to choke on my bagel while listening to General Tommy Franks's press briefing this morning, I wondered how Darwinian theory could possibly account for the survival of the current breed of war reporter. The questions revealed a combination of ignorance and arrogance that must have tested the patience of the General. The tone was whiny, aggrieved, dismissive, smug, condescending--all at once. As I listened, I began to form a picture in my mind of what shaped these people. I imagined they were the teachers' pets who gained surplus praise for their verbal skills and were very good at standardized tests. They were disdainful of athletics which struck them as violent and mindless. They were more 'sensitive' and less physical. As they attended Ivy League colleges their notion of productive work became staying up late cramming for the exam on Post-Modernism. They avoided science courses in school because those demanded more than glibness and facile flattering of the wordsmith intellectuals who were their teachers. They learned from those professors the art of condescenscion and disdain for America; they absorbed the cant phrases of Post-Modernism. They emerged from college and journalism school full of attitude and politically correct assumptions, only to notice that, just as in grade school, the rest of the world didn't share their view of their own importance. (see The New Treason Of The Intellectuals.) March 28, 2003HORSEFEATHERS DOCTRINE: HARRY TRUMAN, EXEMPLAR        The Horsefeathers doctrine maintains that nations have interests, not emotions. We will delude ourselves if we expect gratitude from countries like Iraq. Similarly, if we base our military policy on concerns that we be liked and appreciated we will not be as deadly and ruthless as war requires. Iraq is a country with no democratic tradition, ruled by a savage dictator. It is a part of the backward and primitive Arab world; we would be foolish to expect to be greeted as liberators by its people. Relief, no doubt, but gratitude and a wish to emulate our democratic freedoms-- highly unlikely. Iraq has far more in common with fellow primitives in Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, and the other Arab countries, than it does with the GI's who are fighting to liberate it from Saddam. There is a utopian strain to America's Wilsonian ideals; the notion that we are all human and therefore everyone would welcome freedom and democracy. A strain of psychobabbling "empathy" for the plight of the Iraqis obscures the murderous envy and hatred many, many, Iraqis feel towards us.The high minded sentiments that animate us do not easily take hold in a world of Islamo-fascist totalitarianism. Horsefeathers fears that the benign utopian strain in our thinking could hamper our military efforts. The admirable effort to minimize civilian casualties will be viewed as signs we have little stomach for the need to utterly subdue our enemies. Let us hope that we will pursue total victory, unconditional surrender, the utter destruction of our adversary. We would do well to learn from our great twentieth century President, Harry Truman. In his state of the union address in April, 1945, Truman said: "Our demand has been, and it remains-Unconditional Surrender! We will not traffic with the breakers of the peace on the terms of the peace." After dropping the first atomic bomb he commented, "We are now prepared to obliterate more rapidly and completely every productive enterprise the Japanese have above ground in any city. We shall destroy their docks, their factories, and their communications. Let there be no mistake; we shall completely destroy Japan's power to make war." Japan has caused few problems since Truman carried out his threat. Let us hope the demands of political correctness do not prevent our leaders from applying the necessary force to yield 50+ years of peace with the Arab world. SAUDI FAMILY VALUES        Our friends the Saudis are helpfully lecturing us on our immoral war against Iraq. This time it's not the Princes taking time off from skiing at Vail or debauching on the Riviera, it's their women and children. According to the English Daily, Arab News, Saudi women are denouncing President Bush while "donning military fatigues at private parties and boycotting fashion wear from the West..." One of them, Nada Al-Fayez asks: “Who gave America the right to police in this area and handle this situation in a bloody way? How come, as a world policeman, Bush wants to punish one criminal, Saddam Hussein, and leave another criminal, Ariel Sharon, alone? Is that fair?” March 26, 2003ANOTHER BOLD CINEMATIC ARTIST STRUGGLES TO ARTICULATE HIS VISION        "Egyptian actress Wafa Amer has turned down Egyptian folk singer Shabaan Abdul Rahim for the leading role offered in his upcoming film "Ana Bakrah Israel" (I Hate Israel), which is also the name of the popular single for the singer." ---Al Bawaba. com THEME SONG OF HOWELL RAINES AND THE NYTIMES EDITORIAL BOARD"...When, to evade Destruction's hand, March 25, 2003SAVAGES REJOICE: ROADMAP TO MADNESS (3)These are the people we wish to reward with statehood:         "There were many smiling faces in Ramallah on Monday as Palestinians celebrated the capture of American and British soldiers by the Iraqi army. "This is a big day for the Iraqi people and all the Arabs and Muslims," said a policeman at Yasser Arafat's battered headquarters.         "Everyone here was happy to see pictures of American soldiers in Iraqi custody. This is a big blow for [George W.] Bush and [Tony] Blair. I don't believe they will be able to continue with the war now that many of their soldiers are being killed or taken prisoner."         One of his colleagues in Force 17, Arafat's presidential guard, said he was so happy when he heard the news of the capture of the US soldiers that "I felt like kissing all the people around me."         "Saddam has once again proven that he is a great leader, a defender of Arab rights. His men are brave. They have been able to teach the American and British dogs an unforgettable lesson. The Iraqis are much better at war because they have more experience. The American and British soldiers are cowards and spoiled kids," he said...." March 24, 2003YOU DON'T HAVE TO BE A GENIUS TO RECOGNIZE A MORON: THE OSCAR FOLLIESby Rita Kramer         And Sunday night’s Hollywood demonstration of self-love and mutual congratulation provided plenty of opportunity. WITH FRIENDS LIKE EGYPT....        Egypt is the recipient of billions of dollars of American military and economic aid yearly. So how is our grateful Arab ally supporting us in the showdown with Saddam?         And in an article titled "Nazism Threatens the World Anew" published in the Egyptian daily Al-Ahali, former Egyptian Minister of War, Amin Huweidi, compares U.S. President George W. Bush's policy to Adolf Hitler's Nazism.         "...what Hitler wrote in his book Mein Kampf is much less grave than what is done by the American administration, both within and outside the U.S...." March 23, 2003SADDAM: MEET OZYMANDIASI met a traveller from an antique land March 22, 2003ROADMAP TO MADNESS (2)Palestinian protesters call on Saddam to hit Haifa and Tel Aviv The Palestinian Arabs take the occasion of our military action to express their yearning for Statehood by burning American flags, pocketing Saddam's bonuses, and calling for the annihilation of Israel. March 21, 2003"NO MATTER HOW THEY CHANGE HER..."by Rita Kramer         Nothing can be more disillusioning than finding out that the love of one’s youth was a whore. Rita Kramer has written for Commentary, The Public Interest, The Wall Street Journal, Newsday, The International Herald Tribune and other newspapers and magazines in the U.S. and abroad. Her most recent book is Flames in the Field: The Story of Four SOE Agents in Occupied France (Penguin) March 20, 2003ROADMAP TO MADNESSNext time we hear about a "roadmap" to a Palestinian state, let's remember this: Palestinians in Gaza Burning American Flags "Only a few hours after the attack on Iraq began early this morning (Israel time), some 700 Arab protestors took to the streets in Gaza in favor of Saddam Hussein. Burning American flags, the mobs called out, "Death to America and Bush" and "We will give our souls and blood for you, Saddam." PATTON'S SPIRIT LIVESMajor-General J.N. Mattis, commander of the 1st Marine Division addressing his troops on the eve of war: "For decades, Saddam Hussein has tortured, imprisoned, raped and murdered the Iraqi people; invaded neighboring countries without provocation; and threatened the world with weapons of mass destruction. The time has come to end his reign of terror. On your young shoulders rest the hopes of mankind. "When I give you the word, together we will cross the Line of Departure, close with those forces that choose to fight, and destroy them. Our fight is not with the Iraqi people, nor is it with members of the Iraqi army who choose to surrender. While we will move swiftly and aggressively against those who resist, we will treat all others with decency, demonstrating chivalry and soldierly compassion for people who have endured a lifetime under Saddam's oppression. "Chemical attack, treachery, and use of the innocent as human shields can be expected, as can other unethical tactics. Take it all in stride. Be the hunter, not the hunted: Never allow your unit to be caught with its guard down. Use good judgment and act in best interests of our Nation. "You are part of the world's most feared and trusted force. Engage your brain before you engage your weapon. Share your courage with each other as we enter the uncertain terrain north of the Line of Departure. Keep faith in your comrades on your left and right and Marine Air overhead. Fight with a happy heart and strong spirit. "For the mission's sake, our country's sake, and the sake of the men who carried the Division's colors in past battles -- who fought for life and never lost their nerve -- carry out your mission and keep your honor clean. Demonstrate to the world there is 'No Better Friend, No Worse Enemy' than a U.S. Marine."
March 18, 2003GIVE WAR A CHANCE       For those of us old enough to remember WWII, the runup to Gulf War 2 has been instructive. We re-learn that human nature doesn't change. The lessons of history are forgotten. Appeasement seems more comprehensible, when we notice today's intellectual elites parading their anxieties and cowardice as high moral principle. Has it taken less than 70 years to forget appeasement of Hitler? Memories of Chamberlain announcing "peace in our time" to cheering throngs hold no lessons for our chattering classes. They argue that demonstrators chanting "peace" require us to continue the UN charade, that the easily swayed crowds must be right. The history of "peace" movements as protectors of tyrants like Stalin, is meaningless to contemporary utopians. Our 21st century peace marchers do not remember Picasso's peace doves, held aloft by an earlier generation's 'useful idiots',marching for Communist tyranny. Whether it's Tom Friedman, turning against the war following conversations with his nervous spouse, or Maureen Dowd, Pat Buchanan and others sounding like the pro-Hitler anti-semite, Charles Lindbergh, the sorry spectacle of academics, artists and opinion makers expending energy in denial of the obvious--that there are people with the means and motive to kill us---is painfully edifying. Alistair Cooke, remembering the debates in England during the 1930's, notes that "..so many of the arguments mounted against each other today, in the last fortnight, are exactly what we heard in the House of Commons debates and read in the French press. The French especially urged, after every Hitler invasion, "negotiation, negotiation". They negotiated so successfully as to have their whole country defeated and occupied. But as one famous French leftist said: "We did anyway manage to make them declare Paris an open city - no bombs on us!"
MR. PRESIDENT, DON’T PUT OUR MEN AT A DISADVANTAGE In the Gulf War and even in Afghanistan there was much hand-wringing in the State Department about “collateral damage.” Haunting every military strategy and tactic was the ghost of collateral damage. The scenario goes something like this: there is a successful air strike against an important enemy installation, but the enemy calls in the press to show them that one of the walls of the orphanage next to the bombed installation collapsed killing 13 little orphans and maiming 20 others. The press has a feeding frenzy and the bloody scenes are on U.S. and world-wide TV for the evening news cycle. The military offers no word except to say that it will look into the matter. The following day the White House press corps smells blood and poor Ari Fleischer is eaten alive. For the next week the pictures are shown in every newspaper in the world with accompanying stories asserting how cruel and heartless the beastly Americans are. The net result is that the White House tells the Pentagon and the Pentagon tells the CINC and the CINC tells the commanding General and the Commanding General tells the Air Strategy Controller, and he tells the pilots to lay off being so aggressive. That’s exactly what happened in the Gulf War. The net result was that we were inhibited from pursuing our war aims for a week or more. What that means is that the war gets prolonged and more men have an opportunity to get killed or wounded. War being what it is, whenever soldiers are inhibited from performing their soldierly duties they are disadvantaged and vulnerable to an opportunistic enemy. You can be sure that some of our men will die or be wounded unnecessarily. It boils down to this, that soldiers are frequently put in an ambiguous situation in the fog of war that requires them to make choices between “us” or “them.” And whether they take lethal action against an unknown target or not depends on the “Rules of Engagement” issued to them at the time of battle. If, for example, they are told not to fire unless fired upon, they are put at a distinct disadvantage. They may never get a chance to return fire. Such rules of engagement may sound like a fair and honorable way of fighting, but that’s not the way to win wars and diminish casualties. It is enough to ask our soldiers to risk their lives for our safety, it is too much to ask them to risk their lives for the safety of Iraqi civilians as well. The important idea that our soldiers and their civilian masters must keep in mind and publish loud and frequently, especially to the press, is that if Iraqi civilians, women, children, orphans, sick people, get killed or injured, it is completely the responsibility of Saddam Hussein and his government. His countrymen are in his care, they are his to safeguard and not expose to danger. Our men must be given rules of engagement that explicitly tell them that pursuing their military objectives—which is a military way of saying they are protecting their country and its people—is first on their agenda, that keeping themselves as safe as possible is next on the agenda, and then and only then can regard for civilian life be considered. The press must be told that our soldiers are not risking their lives in Iraq in order to be humanitarians—at least not until the war is over.
ARAB NEWS EXPLAINS: IT'S AN ILLEGAL AND IMMORAL WAR        On the eve of war, Saudi Arabia's first English daily, Arab News, denounces the U.S. and the small group of neoconservatives (translation: Jewish cabal)who control the government.         "...This war — which is illegal according to international law and immoral by any standards — is about oil and America’s strategic dominance of the Middle East — no more, no less. There was never any real debate. The war has been years in the planning, initially drawn up by neo-conservative zealots in Washington, D.C. who now dominate US defense policy.".... For the full argument see Arab News March 16, 2003PATTON UNABRIDGEDThe Full Speech (Thanks to Steven den Beste) March 15, 2003A TIME FOR WAR      As the "rush to war" continues at a snail's pace, Horsefeathers has grown tired of the endless, repetitive moralizing of the "peace" protesters. Their arguments are impervious to reason because they amount to utopian faith unrelated to reality. They are self flattering arguments designed to exhibit intelligence and sensibility, a higher, more civilized stance, self evidently superior because it renounces violence. In fact, Horsefeathers believes their objections to military action in dealing with mortal threats amount to cowardice masquerading as moral and intellectual argument. We ARE at war, and were attacked by totalitarian fanatics bent on destroying us. The early attacks, for example, in 1993 on the World Trade Center, were essentially ignored, as we took a post cold war vacation from history. We preferred to entertain ourselves with eight years of a soap opera Presidency. Awakened from our slumbers on 9-11 we ignored the ditherers and doubters and won the first battle, a quick and decisive victory in Afghanistan. Despite this victory, the handwringers and doubters regrouped and are once again out in force. Our chattering class--academics,artists, intellectuals-- counsel against action. What Churchill said of the British intellectual class applies to our own: "The worst difficulties from which we suffer...come from within. They do not come from the cottages of the wage earners, they come from a peculiar type of brainy people always found in our country, who, if they add something to its culture, take much from its strength. Our difficulties come from the mood of unwarrantable self-abasement into which we have been cast by a powerful section of our own intellectuals.."       We yield to no one in our admiration for Churchillian prose. It is wonderfully bracing, eloquent and stirring; however, on the verge of war--and we sense that it really is about to happen-- perhaps within 48-72 hours, Horsefeathers feels an American voice, earthy, direct, manly, bracing and truthful is worth quoting again. Here in unexpurgated form, not the George Scott movie version, is George S. Patton: NOTE: This speech contains language that may be considered offensive. User discretion is advised. "Men, this stuff some sources sling around about America wanting to stay out of the war and not wanting to fight is a lot of baloney! Americans love to fight, traditionally. All real Americans love the sting and clash of battle. America loves a winner. America will not tolerate a loser. Americans despise a coward; Americans play to win. That's why America has never lost and never will lose a war. You are not all going to die. Only two percent of you, right here today, would be killed in a major battle. Death must not be feared. Death, in time, comes to all of us. And every man is scared in his first action. If he says he's not, he's a goddamn liar. Some men are cowards, yes, but they fight just the same, or get the hell slammed out of them. The real hero is the man who fights even though he's scared. Some get over their fright in a minute, under fire; others take an hour; for some it takes days; but a real man will never let the fear of death overpower his honor, his sense of duty, to his country and to his manhood. All through your Army careers, you've been bitching about what you call "chicken-shit drills." That, like everything else in the Army, has a definite purpose. That purpose is instant obedience to orders and to create and maintain constant alertness! This must be bred into every soldier. A man must be alert all the time if he expects to stay alive. If not, some German son-of-a-bitch will sneak up behind him with a sock full of shit! There are four hundred neatly marked graves somewhere in Sicily, all because one man went to sleep on his job--but they are German graves, because we caught the bastards asleep! An Army is a team, lives, sleeps, fights, and eats as a team. This individual hero stuff is a lot of horse shit! The bilious bastards who write that kind of stuff for the Saturday Evening Post don't know any more about real fighting under fire than they know about fucking! Every single man in the Army plays a vital role. Every man has his job to do and must do it. What if every truck driver decided that he didn't like the whine of a shell overhead, turned yellow and jumped headlong into a ditch? What if every man thought, "They won't miss me, just one in millions?" Where in Hell would we be now? Where would our country, our loved ones, our homes, even the world, be? No, thank God, Americans don't think like that. Every man does his job, serves the whole. Ordnance men supply and maintain the guns and vast machinery of this war, to keep us rolling. Quartermasters bring up clothes and food, for where we're going, there isn't a hell of a lot to steal. Every last man on K.P. has a job to do, even the guy who boils the water to keep us from getting the G.I. shits! Remember, men, you don't know I'm here. No mention of that is to be made in any letters. The USA is supposed to be wondering what the hell has happened to me. I'm not supposed to be commanding this Army, I'm not supposed even to be in England. Let the first bastards to find out be the goddamn Germans. I want them to look up and howl, "Ach, it's the goddamn Third Army and that son-of-a-bitch Patton again!" We want to get this thing over and get the hell out of here, and get at those purple-pissin' Japs!!! The shortest road home is through Berlin and Tokyo! We'll win this war, but we'll win it only by showing the enemy we have more guts than they have or ever will have! There's one great thing you men can say when it's all over and you're home once more. You can thank God that twenty years from now, when you're sitting around the fireside with your grandson on your knee and he asks you what you did in the war, you won't have to shift him to the other knee, cough, and say, "I shoveled shit in Louisiana." JACQUES CHIRAC: WORTHY HEIR OF MARSHALL PETAIN      Send an email to Jacques Chirac, defender of Saddam, hero of Euro-appeasing, Jew-hating, "peace" lovers. OUR FRIENDS THE SAUDIS EXPLAIN: IT'S NOT JUST THE JEWS      It seems the Jewish, neo-conservative cabal Pat Buchanan, Chris Matthews, Jim Moran and Saddam Hussein agree is running U.S. war plans, is more far reaching than we realized. It includes blacks, like Colin Powell, whose slave mentality leads them to do the bidding of the Zionists. Writing in the Arab News, Saudi Arabia's English Daily, Prof.Afnan Hussein Fatani,outlines the full scope of the Jewish conspiracy, from Sept. 11,to its present military plan, "designed to kill millions in 48 hours using 800 cruise missiles."       Fatani informs us: "During the days of slavery in America, white men discovered the powerful singing voices of their black slaves. Today, judging from the sleek performance of Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice, American leaders have apparently discovered and successfully utilized the articulate skills of their black citizens. Too bad the message these black politicians are promoting is Zionist war and destruction, and not Christian peace and goodwill." Who would have guessed? Colin Powell, and Condeleeza Rice, singing and dancing for their Jewish slave masters! March 13, 2003WITH FRIENDS LIKE THE SAUDIS...Saudi Arabia's English Daily, Arab News, Explains how America Resembles Nazi Germany: "...If America keeps clinging desperately to its bygone youth and innocence and refuses to accept the natural process of aging then it could destroy itself and the world with it. OUR FRENCH FRIENDSNext time you're tempted to lift a glass of Bordeaux, consider this: The not-quite English language Iraq daily today thanked a staunch ally: Baghdad, March 11, INA Accordingly, Dr. Al- Hashimi appreciated the French clear attitude in rejecting US threats to launch unjustified military action against Iraq’s safety. Notifying that this position unveiled the false pretences of US lies on Iraq’s possession of the so-called Weapons of Mass Destruction, Mr. (sic!)Bionic underlined French people and government pro-Iraq stance stems from its deep faith of Iraqi just cause . March 12, 2003THE ANTI-WAR MOVEMENT GAINS SUPPORT FROM OUR FRIENDS THE SAUDISFor those of us in the pro-war majority, Saudi Arabia's reaction to the impending military action is heartening. The Saudi Foreign minister, Prince Fahd warned that "..a US-led war on Iraq would destabilize the region and breed and foster terrorism, in addition to weakening the worldwide campaign against terrorism." Yes indeed, our ouster of a brutal tyrant will disrupt the stability of the region. Yet, the grave is a stable place for the millions of dead, killed by tyrants like Saddam. Let us rejoice at the destabilizing of tyranny; hopefully Prince Fahd and his ilk will soon follow; his none too subtle threats of terrorism in retaliation for ousting Saddam should encourage us to get on with the job. Mr. President, hurry up please, it's time. JEW HATERS FOR PEACEA new peace alliance has coalesced around Saddam Hussein's idea that a cabal of Americans loyal to Israel is pushing us towards war. Saddam, say hello to James Moran, Pat Buchanan and Gary Hart. Iraq Daily The President addressed the attendants that the US democracy could be explained that Zionist personnel allocate sums of money to finance a US presidency candidate on condition of meeting the Zionist objectives following a good preparing for propaganda and media yield him presidency office, defence secretary or national security advisor. He remarked that world peoples strife in all fields to block the evil US intentions towards the war. “Demonstrations in the US believe, which is right, that their (US) administration is leading the whole humanity to real unjustified disaster and tempt to push them into extermination and continuum war not on Iraq only but the Palestinian people as they sponsor Zionists crimes in their carnage against Palestinians,” the President clarified. The President referred to threats of war, underscoring that talking about war is not the thing that others awaiting of, but the daily situation Iraqis are going under. He added, “There are warplanes, rockets and bombings, which are being daily shut on Iraqis and destroy residential facilities and properties just to commit aggression as sanctions go on as a sort of war. Iraq, he went on, is under land, air and water sanctions, therefore Iraq is under war.” “The world should not be at the defending position and submit to aggressors tactics for the latter want the world to be concerned over the looming aggression and forget the daily aggression, while they commit it every day and breach the international law”, he said. The President made it clear that the world have to demand lifting sanctions and aggressors leaving. “We have faced war rather than what we are exposed to now however, we don’t want it for we want peace but not at the account of sovereignty, dignity and maintaining our people’s rights and land,” President Hussein concluded.
ALL YOU NEED TO KNOW TO MAKE THE IRAQI WAR EASY TO UNDERSTAND DON’T LEAVE HOME WITHOUT IT
(Much of the essay below is condensed and abridged from The Original Arab, The Bedouin, by Philip Hitti. Originally “Arab” referred to the largely nomadic inhabitants of the Arabian Peninsula. In modern usage, it embraces any of the Arabic-speaking peoples living in the vast area made up of North Africa, Egypt, The Sudan, the Arabian Peninsula, Syria, and Iraq. The early Arabs of the Arabian Peninsula were predominantly pastoral nomads who herded their sheep, goats, and camels through the harsh desert environment looking for pasture. Settled Arabs practiced agriculture in the oases, which also served as trade centres for the caravans transporting the spices, ivory, and gold of the Horn of Africa to the civilizations farther north. The distinction between the desert nomads, on the one hand, and town dwellers and agriculturists, on the other, still pervades much of the Arab world. Islam, which developed in the west-central Arabian Peninsula in the early 7th century AD, was the religious force that unified the desert subsistence nomads—the Bedouins—with the town dwellers of the oases. Although most Arabs of today are Muslim, a small number are not; approximately 5 percent of the native speakers of Arabic are Christians, Druzes, Jews, or animists. The Bedouin still lives, as his forebears did, in tents of goats' or camels' hair and grazes his sheep and goats on the same ancient pastures. Sheep-and-camel- raising, hunting and raiding, are his regular occupations, and are to his mind the only occupations worthy of a man. It is his conviction that agriculture-as well as all varieties of trade and craft-are beneath his dignity. In the fertile valleys of Iraq empires have come and gone, but in the barren wastes of Arabia the life and ways of the Bedouin has remained forever the same. The Bedouin, the camel and the palm rule supreme over the desert. And together with the sand they constitute the four great actors in its drama. The rudiments of Semitic religion developed in the oases, but religion sits very lightly in the heart of the Bedouin. In the judgment of the Koran, "the desert Arabians are most confirmed in unbelief and hypocrisy." Even in our present day they pay little more than lip homage to the Prophet. The monotony and aridity of his desert habitat are faithfully reflected in the nomad's physical and mental make-up. Dates and milk are the chief items on his menu; and dates and camel flesh are his only solid foods. Fermented, the date gives him his favorite beverage. Its crushed stones furnish the cakes which are the everyday meal of his camel. To possess "the two black ones," water and dates, is the dream of every Bedouin. Of the animals of Arabia, two are preeminent: the camel and the horse. Without the camel the desert could not be conceived of as a habitable place. It is the nomad's nourisher, his vehicle of transportation and his medium of exchange. The dowry of the bride, the price of blood, the profit of gambling, the wealth of a sheikh-all are computed in terms of camels. It is the Bedouin's constant companion, his alter ego. his foster parent. He drinks its milk instead of water, which he spares for the cattle; he feasts on its flesh; he covers himself with its skin; he makes his tent of its hair. Its dung he uses as fuel, and its urine as a hair tonic and medicine (as shampoo it leaves on the hair an odor corresponding to perfume and on the face a layer of oil serviceable as a protection against insect bites). To him the camel is more than "the ship of the desert"; it is the special gift of Allah. As Arabia is the chief camel-breeding center of the world, the camel industry is one of its great sources of income. The part which the camel has played in the economy of Arabian life is indicated by the fact that the Arabic language is said to include about a thousand names for the camel in its numerous varieties, breeds, conditions and stages of growth, a number rivaled only by the number of synonyms used for the sword. The horse, on the contrary, is an animal of luxury whose feeding and care constitute a problem to the man of the desert. Its possession is a presumption of wealth. The horse's chief value to an Arabian lies in providing the speed necessary for the success of Bedouin raids. In an Arab camp today if there is a shortage of water the children may cry for a drink, but the master, unmoved, would pour the last drop into a pail to set before the horse. The raid or ghazw (corrupted into "razzia"), in other cultures considered a form of brigandage, is raised by the economic and social conditions of desert life to the rank of a national institution. It lies at the base of the economic structure of Bedouin pastoral society. In desert land, where the fighting mood is a chronic mental condition, raiding is one of the few manly occupations. An early poet gave expression to the guiding principle of such life in two verses: "Our business is to make raids on the enemy, on our neighbor and on our own brother, in case we find none to raid but a brother!" THE CLAN ORGANIZATION is the basis of Bedouin society. Every tent represents a family; members of one encampment constitute a clan. A number of kindred clans grouped together make a tribe. All members of the same clan consider each other as of one blood, submit to the authority of but one chief-the senior member of the clan-and use one battle-cry. Blood relationship-real or fictitious (clan kinship may be acquired by sucking a few drops of a member's blood) furnishes the cohesive element in tribal organization. The tent and its humble household contents are individual property, but water, pasturage and tillable land are common property of the tribe. No worse calamity could befall a Bedouin than the loss of his tribal affiliation, for a tribeless man is practically helpless. His status is that of an outlaw beyond the pale of protection and safety. The spirit of the clan demands boundless and unconditional loyalty to fellow clansmen, a passionate chauvinism. His allegiance, which is individualism of the member magnified, assumes that his tribe is a unit by itself, self-sufficient and absolute, and regards every other tribe as its legitimate victim and object of plunder and murder. The unsocial features of individualism and the clan spirit were never outgrown by the Arab character as it developed and unfolded itself after the rise of Islam, and were among the determining factors that led to the disintegration and ultimate downfall of the various Islamic states. The clan is represented by its titular head, the sheikh, who is the senior member of the tribe whose leadership asserts itself in sober counsel, in generosity and in courage. In judicial, military and other affairs of common concern the sheikh is not the absolute authority; he must consult with the tribal council composed of the heads of the component families. His tenure of office lasts during the good will of his constituency. The Arabian in general and the Bedouin in particular looks upon himself as the embodiment of the consummate pattern of creation. To him the Arabian nation is the noblest of all nations. The civilized man, from the Bedouin's exalted point of view, is less happy and far inferior. In the purity of his blood, his eloquence and poetry, his sword and horse, and above all his noble ancestry, the Arabian takes infinite pride. He is fond of prodigious genealogies and often traces his lineage back to Adam. BA’TH PARTY The following is excerpted from the Encyclopedia Britannica. The Ba‘th Party was founded in 1943 in Damascus by Michel ‘Aflaq and Salah ad-Din al-Bi t ar and in 1953 merged with the Syrian Socialist Party to form the Arab Socialist Ba‘th (Renaissance) Party. The Ba‘th Party espoused nonalignment and opposition to imperialism and colonialism, took inspiration from what it considered the positive values of Islam, and attempted to ignore or transcend class divisions. Its structure was highly centralized and authoritarian much like the communist party, and quite different from political parties in western democracies which advocate political values but are not authoritarian and tightly centrally structured. In Iraq the Ba‘thists took power briefly in 1963 and regained it in 1968, after which the party's power became concentrated under Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein. In Iraq the main internal threat to Ba‘th hegemony stemmed from Kurdish and Shi‘ite opposition. IRAN A worried neighbor of Iraq. In 1980 Saddam Hussein started a war with Iran because it wanted the latter’s oil fields. The war went on for eight years until a truce was called in 1988. IRAQ Iraq became a sovereign nation only 70 years ago. It was cobbled together at the end of World War I out of parts of the defeated Ottoman Empire by a team of British and French bureaucrats none of whom had ever been to the region. The political boundaries that were drawn up in 1920 to create a British mandate make little or no sense geographically, culturally, linguistically, or with regard to religious practices. The country is fragmented between Kurds in the north, Sunni Muslims in the center, and Shiite Muslims in the South. ISLAM Although great forests of trees have been cut down in order to describe, explain, advocate, interpret, criticize, and celebrate Islam, our discussion will be brief. It is a major world religion belonging to the Semitic family; it was promulgated by the Prophet Muhammad in Arabia in the 7th century AD. The Arabic term islam, literally “surrender,” illuminates the fundamental religious idea of Islam—that the believer (called a Muslim) accepts “surrender to the will of Allah (Arabic: God).” Allah is viewed as the sole God—creator, sustainer, and restorer of the world. The will of Allah, to which man must submit, is made known through the sacred scriptures, the Koran, which Allah revealed to his messenger, Muhammad. In Islam Muhammad is considered the last of a series of prophets (including Adam, Noah, Jesus, and others), and his message simultaneously consummates and abrogates the “revelations” attributed to earlier prophets. Retaining its emphasis on an uncompromisng monotheism and a strict adherence to certain essential religious practices, the religion taught by Muhammad to a small group of followers spread rapidly through the Middle East to Africa, Europe, the Indian subcontinent, the Malay Peninsula, and China. Although many sectarian movements have arisen within Islam, all Muslims are bound by a common faith and a sense of belonging to a single community. It is important to distinguish between Arab and Muslim. Although Islam was originated by Arabs in Arabia, in modern times Arab Muslims represent only a part of the world of Islam. Many other ethnic groups—Indonesians, Iranians, Turks—have adopted it, and each one gives rise to variant beliefs and practices. Some people believe that the Koran explicitly says that it is the duty of all Muslims to destroy or convert all infidels. Some people believe that only the most radically fundamental Muslims believe that Islam advocates such ideas. KURD (The following material is abridged from the Encyclopedia Britannica) A Kurd is a member of a non-Arab ethnic and linguistic group. Most of the Kurds live in contiguous areas of Iran, Iraq, and Turkey, a region generally referred to as Kurdistan (“Land of the Kurds”). The Kurdish language is a West Iranian language related to Farsi and Pashto. The Kurds are thought to number more than 15 million, but sources for this information differ widely because of differing criteria of ethnicity, religion, and language; statistics may also be manipulated for political purposes. The traditional Kurdish way of life was nomadic, revolving around sheep and goat herding throughout the Mesopotamian plains and the highlands of Turkey and Iran. Most Kurds practiced only marginal agriculture. The enforcement of national boundaries beginning after World War I impeded the seasonal migrations of the flocks, forcing most of the Kurds to abandon their traditional ways for village life and settled farming. The prehistory of the Kurds is poorly known, but their ancestors seem to have inhabited the same mountainous region for millennia. The name Kurd can be dated with certainty to the time of the tribes' conversion to Islam in the 7th century AD. Most Kurds are Sunnite Muslims, but among them there are also many Sufis and other mystical and heretical sects. The principal unit in traditional Kurdish society was the tribe, typically led by a sheikh, or an aga, whose rule was firm. Tribal identification and the sheikh's authority are still felt, though to a lesser degree, in the villages. The Treaty of Sevres, drawn up in 1920, provided for an autonomous Kurdistan but was never ratified; the Treaty of Lausanne (1923), which replaced the Treaty of Sèvres, made no mention of Kurdistan or of the Kurds. Thus the opportunity to unify the Kurds in a nation of their own was lost. Indeed, Kurdistan after the war was more fragmented than before, and various separatist movements arose among Kurdish groups. Short-lived armed rebellions occurred, and in 1931–32 and 1944–45 there were serious conflicts in Iraqi Kurdistan. Kurdish nationalism, a recent phenomenon, came about through the conjunction of a variety of factors, including British introduction of the concept of private property, the partition of traditional Kurdistan by modern neighbouring states—Iraq, Turkey, and Iran—and the influence of British, U.S., and Soviet interests in the Persian Gulf region. These factors and others combined with the flowering of a nationalist movement among a very small minority of urban, intellectual Kurds. The Kurds of Turkey received particularly unsympathetic treatment at the hands of the government, which tried to deprive them of their Kurdish identity by designating them “Mountain Turks,” by outlawing the Kurdish language (or representing it as a dialect of Turkish), and by forbidding them to wear distinctive Kurdish costume in or near the important administrative cities. The Turkish government suppressed Kurdish political agitation in the eastern provinces and encouraged the migration of Kurds to the urbanized western portion of Turkey, thus diluting the concentration of Kurdish population in the uplands. Iraqi Kurds suffered relatively less cultural suppression. In 1958 the Iraqi monarchy was overthrown, but Kurdish hopes of a measure of administrative devolution, enhanced status for their language, and a fairer share of social services and development projects under the new government were not fulfilled. In 1970 a new Ba’thist government granted the Kurds of Iraq a limited autonomy that was nonetheless declared inadequate by Kurdish leaders. Unsuccessful, short-lived Kurdish rebellions continued into the late 20th century; slaughter, dislocation, and starvation were the usual consequences. SHI’ITE (The text below is abridged and condensed from the Encyclopedia Britannica) Arabic Shi‘i, plural Shi‘ah, member of the smaller of the two major branches of Islam, distinguished from the majority Sunnites. In early Islamic history the Shi‘ites were a political faction that supported the power of ‘Ali, who was a son-in-law of Muhammad and the fourth caliph (temporal and spiritual ruler) of the Muslim community. ‘Ali was killed while trying to maintain his authority as caliph, and the Shi‘ites gradually developed a religious movement that asserted the legitimate authority of ‘Ali's lineal descendants, the ‘Alids. This stand contrasted with that of the more pragmatic Sunnite majority of Muslims, who were generally willing to accept the leadership of any caliph whose rule afforded the proper exercise of religion and the maintenance of order in the Muslim world. Over the centuries the Shi'ite movement has deeply influenced all Sunnite Islam, and its adherents numbered about 60 to 80 million in the late 20th century, or one-tenth of all Islam. Shi‘ism is the majority faith in Iran, Iraq, and perhaps Yemen. Over time the Shi‘ites became a distinct collection of sects who were alike in their recognition of ‘Ali and his descendants as the legitimate leaders of the Muslim community. The Shi‘ites' conviction that the ‘Alids should be the leaders of the Islamic world was never fulfilled over the centuries. Despite occasional Shi‘ite rulers, the Shi‘ites remained almost everywhere an Islamic minority until the start of the 16th century, when the Iranians made it the sole legal faith of their empire, as did the Turks of Azerbaijan, and many of the Arabs of Iraq proper. In the late 20th century, notably in Iran, the Shi‘ites became the chief voice of militant Islamic fundamentalism. SUNNI (The text below is abridged and condensed from the Encyclopedia Britannica.) Arabic Sunni, plural Sunni, member of one of the two major branches of Islam, the branch that consists of the majority of that religion's adherents. Sunnite Muslims regard their sect as the mainstream and traditionalist branch of Islam, as distinguished from the minority sect, the Shi’ites. In contrast to the Shi‘ites, the Sunnites have long conceived of the theocratic state built by Muhammad as an earthly, temporal dominion and have thus regarded the leadership of Islam as being determined not by divine order or inspiration but by the prevailing political realities of the Muslim world. This led historically to Sunnite acceptance of the leadership of the foremost families of Mecca and to the acceptance of unexceptional and even foreign caliphs, so long as their rule afforded the proper exercise of religion and the maintenance of order. The Sunnites' orthodoxy is marked by an emphasis on the views and customs of the majority of the community, as distinguished from the views of peripheral groups. The institution of consensus evolved by the Sunnites allowed them to incorporate various customs and usages that arose through ordinary historical development but that nevertheless had no roots in the Qur’an. The Sunnites recognize the six “authentic” books of the Hadith, which contain the spoken tradition attributed to Muhammad. The Sunnites also accept as orthodox one of the four schools of Muslim law. In the 20th century the Sunnites constituted the majority of Muslims in all nations except Iran, Iraq, and perhaps Yemen. They numbered about 900 million in the late 20th century and constituted nine-tenths of all the adherents of Islam. TURKEY Another worried neighbor of Iraq. Worried primarily because of Iraq’s large Kurdish problem. Turkey has a large Kurdish population in Eastern Anatolia which has been trying for decades to separate from Turkey because of the latter’s policy of trying to get the Kurds to give up their Kurdish identity and assimilate into secular Turkey. It is afraid that if there is a war the Iraqi Kurds will foment a separatist movement amongst the Turkish Kurds to form an independent entity called Kurdistan. March 11, 2003WAR OF IDEAS: FRENCH POSTMODERNISM VS. AMERICA      Colin Powell, our skilled and sophisticated practitioner of diplomacy has, by all reports, been deeply shocked and angered by French duplicity at the UN. The sophisticated Powell somehow believed that words have shared consensual meaning and that treaties and resolutions, based on agreed meanings are achievable goals. But what if words possess no fixed meaning? What if the people you are bargaining with view words as merely expressions of subjective power relations, having no reference to objective facts, since none exist? Having signed on to resolution 1441 the French, ever since, have behaved as if the demand for Iraqi disarmament was not what it seemed, that words like "immediate" and "disarm" do not mean what Powell assumed. None of this should be surprising in light of the grip on France's educated elites of such thinkers as Lacan, Foucault, Lyotard and the grand master of obfuscation, Jacques Derrida. While the Soviet Union collapsed and Marxism has been generally discredited, Marxist modes of thought survive in the form of fashionable French philosophies, including Deconstructionism and Post-Modernism. Old fashioned Marxist hatred of capitalism combines with a misunderstood Heisenbergian principle of indeterminacy to produce Post-Modernism. The Derrida Interview follows: Nobody is innocent. What are your thoughts on the terror attacks on September 11? Derrida: The attacks confront us anew and in the most cruel way with the problems of globalization, but also with our outdated concept of war. What kind of war is this, that is not declared to any nation state, any identifiable adversary? A 'war' that is accompanied by massive movements of capital - we know by now that immediately before the attacks there were big speculative gains at the stock exchange. All that forces us to think newly about globalization, capitalism and war. How did you get to know about these attacks? What does this catastrophe mean to you? Derrida: Like everybody I was totally shocked. Also, I feel very connected with New York, I have been there often and enjoyed it. I feel deep compassion for the victims. But one may not be blinded by compassion for the responsibilities. Who is responsible in your eyes? Derrida: Of course in the first place the terrorists themselves and their backers. But also a particular, long standing American and European policy toward this part of the world. What's the responsibility, the task of the philosopher now? Derrida: It's the general responsibility of the political citizen. But his task is also to review the concepts I was talking about. He may not cease his critical questioning, although his feelings may place him on the side of the victims, the innocent targets. I believe that at the moment all human beings of the west are directly or indirectly victims of what happened - and at the same time not innocent. I am far from siding with those who commited those barbaric attacks. I only ask myself if someone like Osama bin Laden, if it was him - because that is a name, a metonymy - doesn't stand on the same side like what he is fighting. He is a major capitalist, he is part of a network of money and power. How can he or this network be fought? With military strikes? Derrida: It is possible that such strikes are necessary, that there must be answers from the military and the police. But such an answer will not suffice, if not modifications in politics will deprive terrorism of it's base. Else one can be sure that everything will start anew very soon. What one must withdraw from the attackers is the field of public opinion. And to do that, American and European politics must be changed with respect to the Arabian or islamic states. What is the connection with the "politics of dreams" that you are mentioning in your acceptance speech? Doesn't the whole western world dream the dream of security these days? In our momentary situation, can we surrender security? Derrida: By no means. It would be irresponsible to say that we surrender security. I believe in the necessity of a police, in the necessity of an army. I believe in the necessity of the usage of violence for the sake of justice. I don't say: Put your weapons aside. But that alone will not suffice, neither for security nor for justice. A war like the one that is prepared at this time can not be the sole answer. It would be a dream to simply say: Invent something else now. What could that be? Derrida: That can't be put into one word. This doesn't concern military and police alone, but every citizen, in America as well as in Europe, and I can't lecture anybody on what they should do. Are the 'politics of friendship', that you were mentioning in your latest books, still possible? And if so, how? Derrida: The friendship that I mean is just as impossible as the dream that I mentioned in my acceptance speech. An impossibility that is not the opposite, the negative of the possible. One has to do the impossible, one has to think it and do it. If only the possible happened, nothing at all would happen. If I only did what I can do I'd do nothing at all. But didn't the events of September 11 origin in exactly that unpredictability, impossiblility? And the network of terror was being knit tighter by military and financial means. Two or three days before there were speculations at the stock exchange. This was not totally unpredictable. It was a program, a concatenation of elements, that were already possible.
Interview: Ulrich Raulff HELP! HELP! SEND IN THE FRENCH FERRY BOATSHorsefeathers alert: Evidence of a shocking outbreak of plain speaking among the fork-tongued diplomats of Europe. Portugal's foreign Minister Antonio Martins da Cruz on state radio remarked: "Let us suppose Portugal, proper or its archipelagos, faced a threat, who would come to our rescue? The European Commission, France, Germany? "I think it would be NATO who would come to our rescue, in other words, it would be the U.S., no one else would defend us. For instance, during the 1996 mission in Bosnia, operations took place with the support of 20 satellites, of which only one was European," and the remainder belonged to the U.S. "If we were attacked, is that what they would offer to defend us? How curious is this: in Bosnia, when we were called to send soldiers urgently to that region, the U.S. had C-17 and C-130 planes, and France leased ferry boats, which during the summer are employed in tourist services to Corsica. "Is this how we are supposed to project our forces in Europe? Are they planning to defend us with ferry boats? I cannot envisage the European Commission protecting us from an attack in which highly developed weapons were employed," the foreign minister said. March 10, 2003HORSEFEATHERS’ SOUND THINKER AWARD GOES TO PROFESSOR BOBBITT HE TELLS US THE RIGHT WAY TO THINK ABOUT WRONG IDEAS Congratulations to Professor Philip Bobbitt, a Professor of Law at the University of Texas, he has the right idea about wrong ideas. Writing in today’s New York Times’ Op-Ed page, he takes up the common arguments against the Iraq war which go something like this: ‘What’s the hurry? Aren’t we better off now than we would be if we invaded immediately? We would surely have many casualties, and provoke many terrorist attacks against us. So why not just maintain the status quo? Keep the inspectors inspecting and keep him contained, bottled up?’ Professor Bobbitt says that that argument is fallacious; you can’t compare the conditions of the present with a future possibility because time never stands still. The only meaningful question to ask is: Will we be better off in the future if we invade Iraq or if we do not invade? “Those who believe that the status quo can be indefinitely extended through inspections, then, have an obligation to tell us how the inspectors would prevent Saddam Hussein from buying a weapon from, say, North Korea — which would be a rather dramatic change in the status quo. “Supporters of an indefinite inspectors' presence focus on large weapons like missile launchers that they say we will be able to detect. (Although Secretary of State Colin Powell's masterful presentation to the Security Council last month, and our experience hunting for Scuds in the Persian Gulf war, lead one to question that assumption.) “Whether they admit it or not, those who favor containment are asking for an ever more expensive United States armed presence in the region, as well as perpetual sanctions that crush innocent Iraqis even further. This is because without troops on his borders, Saddam Hussein would not admit inspectors, and without the sanctions he could quickly replace whatever outlawed weapons we are lucky enough to find and destroy. “It is also misguided to believe that the threat of our overwhelming military force is enough to deter Saddam Hussein from aggression indefinitely. Were Iraq to get weapons of mass destruction, it would be able to deter us from interfering in any plans it had to broaden its control in the Persian Gulf region. Saddam Hussein's ambition to impose his will on his neighbors is the only reason he has resisted his obligations to the United Nations for 12 years, at great cost to Iraq. “I recognize that we are running a terrible risk if we put Saddam Hussein's back against the wall. But unless we are willing to eventually grant him a free hand in the Persian Gulf, he is bound to act in a way that will put his back against the wall in the future — after he does acquire nuclear weapons. At that point, however, the United States would have a significantly diminished capacity to prevent his aggression. One certainly cannot imagine an operation like Desert Storm if Iraq were to acquire nuclear warheads and accurate missiles.” That’s not the end of Professor Bobbitt’s argument so check it out. He is also the author of “The Shield of Achilles: War, Peace and the Course of History" March 08, 2003OUR FRIENDS THE SAUDIS EXPLAIN PROPER FLOGGING TECHNIQUE: USE THE WRIST IN A FLICKING MOTION        An Australian national living in Saudi Arabia, 56-year-old Robert Thomas, has been flogged after being found guilty of breaking the Kingdom’s laws. Thomas, who asserts his innocence, is currently serving a 16-month sentence and has received 300 lashes for his alleged involvement in the theft of medical equipment, a crime for which his Filipino wife was also arrested. Saudi justice has come under criticism from Australia, a country governed under quaint Anglo-Saxon rules of justice, as opposed to Islamic Sharia law practiced in Saudi Arabia. Australian Prime Minister John Howard has described the floggings by Saudi authorities as “cruel and appallingly inhumane”. Fortunately, however, the Saudis explain their humane motives: “The reason the punishment is meted out in public is not to humiliate, but to serve as a deterrent,” Adil Salahi, an expert in Shariah law, told Arab News. “During a flogging, the man inflicting the punishment is required under Shariah law to keep his elbow at his side and only use his wrist in a flicking motion so as not to cause too much pain.” |