November 19, 2007
America’s unpopularity: the news is not all bad
Critics of the "war on terror" - like me - have a favourite cliche. The battle is ultimately about "hearts and minds". Bush has got it all wrong because he has "over-militarised" the conflict.
The conventional wisdom is that the US is going down to a catastrophic defeat in the battle for Muslim opinion. The recent resignation of Karen Hughes from the State Department - she was in charge of US public diplomacy - was seen as evidence of this.
But - actually - there is interesting evidence that America is doing a lot better on the hearts-and-minds front than is generally acknowledged. This first occurred to me a couple of weeks ago, when I was writing a column on Pakistan, and turned to the Pew polls of global opinion. Normally, if you are looking to prove American unpopularity around the world, Pew is a reliable source of bad news. And indeed, the approval ratings for America in places like Turkey and Pakistan - not to mention the Arab world - are as low as you might expect.
But there was another number in the Pew polls that struck me. The sharp decline in the support for suicide bombing among Pakistanis. The obvious explanation is that it is easy enough to express support for suicide bombers when it is Israelis or American troops who are the targets. But when suicide terrorism becomes a daily curse in your own country, the whole idea loses some of its attraction.
What I initially missed is that this decline in the support for Osama bin Laden - and for terrorism in general - is now fairly general across the Muslim world. This fact was pointed out to me this morning by David Pollock, a former American diplomat (now a think-tanker), who was once in charge of studying public opinion in the Islamic world for the US government. Pollock thinks that now that many Muslim countries have experienced suicide terrorism at home - think of Egypt, Morocco and Jordan - they are turning against the whole idea.
The most dramatic and imporant example of this trend has come in Iraq. The "Anbar awakening" may sound like a made-for-the-media soundbite. But the decision of Sunni tribes to turn against al-Qaeda is looking increasingly like a turning point of sorts in Iraq.
The moral of the story is that however badly the Americans blundered in Iraq, they could never be remotely as brutal, murderous or plain stupid as al-Qaeda. Gradually, large parts of the Muslim world may be realising that.
So, the conclusion is that the Americans “could never be remotely as brutal, murderous or plain stupid as Al Qaeda”. WOW!! That’s a real comfort for the Americans
The very fact that a seasoned journalist like Mr. Rachman feels moved to compare America with a bunch of cave dwellers like Bin Laden & Co,. speaks volumes about the low standing of the US and the bankruptcy of its policies.
Having said that, is America really less murderous than Al Qaeda? How many people have died since 2001 as a result of Al Qaeda actions and how many have died as a result of America’s? Do the numbers even begin to compare?
As for stupidity….well, given all the advantages that Americans have (technology, money, control of the world media, etc.), they have not played their hand very well at all in the past 6 years. Isn’t that stpid?
Best,
P
Posted by: Pacifist | November 19th, 2007 at 6:34 pm | Report this commentGood to mark this observation, but your conclusion frames a picture I would quibble with:
GR writes: “The moral of the story is that however badly the Americans blundered in Iraq, they could never be remotely as brutal, murderous or plain stupid as al-Qaeda. Gradually, large parts of the Muslim world may be realising that.”
Only al-Qaeda has been seen as “brutal, murderous”. Few have likely described it as “stupid”. This word, and some others that go with it, have been reserved for the US. I think few have identified a choice between al-Qaeda and the US. I suggest most Muslim youth have thought of al-Qaeda as nothing more than a necezsary evil in the face of US hegemony.
No doubt Madame Rice will seize upon this blog to cite US success. Stupidity will find new lows, but few in the vast Muslim middle will be surprised. It is expected.
Politically, the US has lost the battle for hearts and minds. It will not regain it. The products and trends that have characterised more than a generation of US-led globalisation will continue to gain and even thrive there. So long as it is less and less often identified as “American”.
I have been surprised at the contradictions I have heard from Muslim youth in the region. They despise what the US is doing and has done to their world, but more importantly to their self-respect. They see their US counterparts in some sort of moral free fall, like the energy and creative product, but don’t want to live their lives.
So, I think the euro’s rise will mark a rise in the prestige of all product that is NOT from the US. The torch of globalisation will be taken out of the hands of the Americans. Most others are untainted to carry it and share it. In the end, this is good news.
Let us hope that those who pull down exorbitant fees in the marketing, PR and foreign-policy consultancies in the US will be marked down. Their President has already been discounted for history. Karen Hughes knew her efforts to give him a legacy were in vain.
Posted by: WCM | November 19th, 2007 at 6:41 pm | Report this commentI’ll go to dinner. I expected Pacifist to beat me, but I didn’t expect to be NEARLY on the same page.
Bonee soirée!
Posted by: WCM | November 19th, 2007 at 6:43 pm | Report this commentThe decline in support for Al Qaeda and the associated tactics is indeed significant and a great source of hope. For example in Jordan, the wedding suicide bombing seems to have had a major impact on public opinion.
However this is Al Qaeda shooting itself in the foot, and no credit is due to the US administration. If anything, they have been impeding the decline in popularity of Al Qaeda.
Nevertheless, let us hope that a world consensus has formed in favour of human rights and against terrorism and wars of aggression.
Posted by: OscarD | November 19th, 2007 at 7:32 pm | Report this commentP - What kind of grotesque body count are you attempting? Is brutality measured by the number of deaths, or by the sheer atrocity of the acts commited? (never forget Daniel Perle)
Interesting that you should be admonishing GR for comparing America to terrorists. Have you not explicitly designated American actions as “terrorist”?
WCM - In Hebrew we have a saying: He who never acts, never errs (is this international?) In this respect, France under Chirac could never have erred - neither in domestic policy nor in foreign.
Finally, I would like to praise Ms Shirin Ebadi, A REAL PACIFIST, for her great courage:
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/71f9e400-96b3-11dc-b2da-0000779fd2ac.html
Posted by: RCS, Israel | November 19th, 2007 at 7:42 pm | Report this commentDear P,
Mere sophistry. Intention is all. Compare the Iranian messianic cult. Whatever else you may say about the US government they do not have the explicit intention of wiping another country off the map.
The US is basically a force for good in the world. It has universal values which can be shared by everyone - muslim and non muslim alike - and on that basis is inclusive. On the other hand, the Iranian leadership for example, is exclusive - you’re either with us or we hang, flog, stone, terrorise, or if they successfully acheive their aims, nuke you. The fact is that when you judge a
country, any country, you have to look at the intentions of its leaders - what are they trying to do, how are they going about it and from where do they draw sustenance.
What I don’t understand is how opponents of the US can support despotic, murderous regimes, like Sudan, when any fair minded person would, on the regime’s actions alone, have to condemn them for what they have done. How people cannot condemn Iran for its support of terrorism, Syria for its machinations in Lebanon and other clear opponents
of the US simply because they are opponents of the US simply staggers me.
How is it possible that opponents of the US - who otherwise have liberal views - for example do not support female emancipation and implicitly support mutilation as a punishment simply because they are paractised by an opponent of the US?
The US is not perfect. It has its own interests to look out for and sometimes pursues them to the exclusion of that which is right - Guantanamo for example. However, I firmly believe that those interests are far more aligned to the general good, than the interests of any other major / regional power which seeks to impose its will - think
Posted by: AYC | November 19th, 2007 at 8:13 pm | Report this commentChina, Russia, Venezuela, Syria, Iran.
Dear AYC,
Impressive post. Couldn’t have said it better.
Posted by: RCS | November 19th, 2007 at 8:26 pm | Report this commentAYC–I was among the first here to see the error in suggesting any equivalence between al-Qaeda and the US. However, as it is clear that Washington policy makers indeed share your articulate–if ignorant and arrogant–analysis, you give good reason why US power needs to be checked. Do not cloak your fascism in terms of human interest and “female emancipation”.
The US is a great nation, but to the extent that you should relfect the thinking of a significant cadre of those who hold responsibility there, then I can conclude that its institutions have lost direction and its democracy is in crisis. The rest of the world will fare better without your help.
Posted by: WCM | November 19th, 2007 at 8:45 pm | Report this commentI agree with P that, given all of America’s strengths, the Bush administration has played a disastrous hand over the last six years. I also agree with WCM that the US shouldn’t be the world’s policeman. That said, the facts still support the long-term viability and strength of America’s economic and political system.
As Lincoln said, “You may fool all the people some of the time, you can even fool some of the people all of the time, but you cannot fool all of the people all the time.” As of October 17, 2007, Bush’s approval rating had hit an all-time low of 24%, according to a Reuters poll. Further, the new American Research Group poll finds that 55 percent of voters believe President Bush has “abused his powers” in a manner that rises “to the level of impeachable offenses under the Constitution”.
Posted by: kc | November 19th, 2007 at 9:15 pm | Report this commentkc
Just the fact Gideon is talking about several thousand Al-Qaeda militants fighting the US Army plus a dozen of organized armies (like the UK and Pakistan) with a Budget 140,000 times bigger is enough to think about that.
The result is the US will not leave the Middle East´s OIL, neither before nor now. They have their pawns, their balance of little powers, their (falling)$$$$ bag…so Colonialism will continue for a long time and more with oil scarcity and with the competence of China for natural resources.
Posted by: Enrique | November 19th, 2007 at 9:37 pm | Report this commentHi Gideon,
Re your article on American faith in imperialism, I believe you are far too optimistic. Rome had a couple of setbacks, at one stage loosing one third of its standing army, or numerous, less disastrous expeditions into Parthia. This did not change much because their main expansion vector was aimed towards civilized countries. Towards Greek world and Middle East.
Real American expansion is not happening in Iraq, it is happening in Europe. All the countries in so called euro-atlantic integration zone are becoming US Empire client states, firmly setting their course to a status of provinces, with some autonomy in local administration, but without any independent foreign policy. Taxation without representation is just around the corner. Athens had its own little NATO called Delian League, whose funds they embezzled to build Acropolis.
The problem with America is not that they are competent and capable to conquer and run the world, because they are not. The problem is in those who want them to do that, and are willing to submit to them and help them to achieve that goal. They are afraid of the world without a top ape with a big club, who is, by the way, their daddy. Those people in Europe, whose every other word is ‘democracy’, are the only and real current threat to individual freedoms of the rest of us.
Regards,
Dusan
Posted by: Dusan | November 20th, 2007 at 7:08 am | Report this commentDare to compare the U.S. with terrorists? Come on, your highnesses, the lid of the monster bottle had been opened, can the U.S. preserve its sacredness forever without facing threat from another extreme? Not least the U.S. itself is a child of the previous rebellious revolution.
Posted by: HF | November 20th, 2007 at 8:16 am | Report this commentRCS is right in saying those who never act never err; but then there’s a methodological issue presented to us:if severe setbacks occur in this action process, esp. in the most deep-embedded humanitarian sense, should we consider otherwise? or just stubbornly stick to the blood-shedded path? I deeply believe that is against human nature as well as Christian world view.
HF
I do not think that “the barbarians are still a long way from the Beltway”, as Mr. Rachman suggests. The point is, that not only the US or any other Great Power has its typical lifecycle, but the International System as well. History shows that International Systems become sooner or later obesolete, because they stop to represent the interests of Great Powers accurately. The frustration level rises and institutions of the system fail to function. Not only new powers start to challenge the system, but its foudnders as well. The US its position towards the UN is an example of this dynamic.
Posted by: Ingo Piepers | November 20th, 2007 at 9:33 am | Report this commentThe last 500 years - history shows - we were not able to reorganize (re-align)the system without resorting to large scale war. On the other hand, the ‘good’ news is that these system-sized and other wars, facilitate a process of ’social expansion’. The materialization of Europe is an example of this a process. The challenge we are now confronted with, is to create a Global structure, in a peaceful manner. Suggestions are welcome.
as per Piepers: “The last 500 years - history shows - we were not able to reorganize (re-align)the system without resorting to large scale war. On the other hand, the ‘good’ news is that these system-sized and other wars, facilitate a process of ’social expansion’. The materialization of Europe is an example of this a process. The challenge we are now confronted with, is to create a Global structure, in a peaceful manner. Suggestions are welcome.”
Who is the “we”? The “club” is East and West and North and South. Three of these are not branch outlets of a parent West. Christians in Washington don’t seem to get that; and John Bolton’s body is figuratively smoouldering the grave (to paraphrase a wonderful American hymn). It is meaningless if he is still humming “Onward Christian Soldiers” while pondering his nose hairs.
Moving beyond my first critical response to this post, it does help move discussion into an important question. Where are we in terms of global governance?
There is a new global order. The US, indeed, was pivotal in forming its framework. Its vision was bipolar, and then simply “we”-polar. Today it seems lost, but not like a collapsed empire.
Europe, having learned more than one rude lesson in living memories, has been hesitant to sign on with American evangelists. It has focused not on “materialisation”, as Pieper suggest, but on educating its people, expanding commerce and industry (the core EU model), and achieving a shared quality of life. Mrs Thatcher and her successors, Mr Sarkozy, and two lesser PMs that sit today in Brussels and Den Haag, have failed to understand the source or historical factors of our collective achievements. (Fortunately, voting power is one of the areas still under construction.)
Many Americans today seem to feel the US is a divinely ordained empire. They behave as if their passports are different. Yet surprisingly so few of them seem to want one.
The current self-righteous foreign policy of the US began in the Clinton Administration and was co-authored then with the same neocons that are an obsession for many here. In its lucky-if-unwise policy for the Balkans, the US turned at least 300 years’ worth of “Western” treaties on end. It tried to shape the whole world in what has become its romanticised image of itself. Hollywood became its mirror. The internet replaced its House of Representatives. Conceits in well-expressed social values became cover for expropriation and exploitation.
It should now take a closer look at home. Today, they should assess the quality and depth (and lack of critical) of thought expressed in most US-based blogs, including those linked to its premier universities. They need to ask themselves 1) what is a rigorous education and what does it matter; and 2) are their universities up to their vaunted repuation? Or have they slipped dramatically in just under 20 years? It is now America’s turn to learn some rude lessons, but this will not be a collapse of the US. Far from it. The US comprises new cultures and has entered a cosmos that make John Bolton’s dreams of being invited into Skull & Bones exactly what they were: a waste of emotional energy. (I suspect his career is part revenge for not having the right pedigree for such.)
Since 1789, the US Constitution has evolved through cumulative amendments. The underlying structures have assumed some sort of sacredness. Putting Europe aside for a moment, a comparison with the French system, which began to take form in the same year, is merited in the States. France began with the same ideals and objectives; when they failed, they were torn up and rethought. The process continues today with Nicholas Sarkozy and the question of presidential powers. Americans may think their adherence to core principles is superiour. I would argue that it has resulted in governance that is far from responsive to its people or the world.
France’s struggle with multiple republics and monarchies in the 19th century was far from a waste of time. Each time, best practices were retained, particularly in law and the rights of man. America’s detachment from slavery and 100-year delay in granting equal rights may read as a different history had constitutional form not become a religion of power. One can rightly argue otherwise. One can also say that was just how it was.
Realising I’ve started down a long path with only minutes (yours and mine) to spare, let me wrap up. France’s republican struggles between 1789 and today’s Fifth Republic, Germany’s monarchy-republic-reich between 1871 and 1945, and the UK’s more constant parliament/monarchy approach, AND the US model each contributed to the Treaties of Rome, Paris, Maastricht and so forth that have given us today’s EU. As we discuss here, Europeans or their representatives are assessing the latest governance framework for the EU. One hears frank and intelligent questions and concerns. Concensus is being reached, if ever so awkwardly and slowly. The results, however, are arguably more in tune with contemporary demands in managing social and economic priorities than is the US system, which is locked in time.
Okay. I’m in deep, but let me suggest that the US system puts foreign policy at mmore than an arm’s length from its domestic governance. As the EU is an international organisation, this is not the case, and foreign policy management is a key part of the new constitution/treaty debate. China, Russia, India and Latin America are each reviewing their foreign policy goals and frameworks.
What is the US doing differently? It isn’t succeeding as it is. It needs to take a chance an let some sacred questions be asked. They are not so sacred to most who live there as is so commonly accepted. The discussion should be a good one, and it needs leadership. So, toss it about in your primaries. You may be surprised.
Just make certain that, as Mr Rachman has warned, you don’t turn inwards and isolationist. This time, make sure foreign policy is integral. Then Europe can again learn some lessons from across the Atlantic.
Sorry to have dived into such deep water without more than a moment’s thought!
Posted by: WCM | November 20th, 2007 at 10:52 am | Report this commentI need to use the “preview” button: John Bolton may indeed like the way I left his body “smoouldering the grave”, as the hymn assigns a bit of martyrdom to the demented, but noble-caused John Brown. The metaphor would’ve failed, so best to drop it, except to turn it into a context in which John Bolton is quickly remaindered to a brief, and also troubled chapter of history. (The barometric pressure in Paris is low today. Sorry.)
Posted by: WCM | November 20th, 2007 at 11:06 am | Report this commentDear AYC,
First off, I refuted the argument that the Iranian government wants to wipe Israel off the map. You ignored that and you repeat the same things as a rhetorical device, a straw man, rather than a serious attempt at understanding the real situation:-
Quote
A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent’s position.[1] To “set up a straw man” or “set up a straw man argument” is to create a position that is easy to refute, then attribute that position to the opponent. Often, the straw man is set up to deliberately overstate the opponent’s position.[1] A straw man argument can be a successful rhetorical technique (that is, it may succeed in persuading people) but it is in fact a misleading fallacy, because the opponent’s actual argument has not been refuted
Unquote
If you ever lift your eyes any further than Fox News, you will see that Ahmadinejad’s quote was skilfully taken out of context and used to make hay and justify aggression and sanctions against Iran and Iranians. I don’t want to veer too far from the topic of this thread but as you keep banging on about it, then refer to this link by an American Professor (University of Illinois), Juan Cole:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
Quote
But the actual quote, which comes from an old speech of Khomeini, does not imply military action, or killing anyone at all. The second reason is that it is just an inexact translation. The phrase is almost metaphysical. He quoted Khomeini that “the occupation regime over Jerusalem should vanish from the page of time.” It is in fact probably a reference to some phrase in a medieval Persian poem. It is not about tanks.
http://www.juancole.com/2006/05/hitchens-hacker-and-hitchens.html
Unquote
and
Quote
Ahmadinejad was not making a threat, he was quoting a saying of Khomeini and urging that pro-Palestinian activists in Iran not give up hope– that the occupation of Jerusalem was no more a continued inevitability than had been the hegemony of the Shah’s government.
Whatever this quotation from a decades-old speech of Khomeini may have meant, Ahmadinejad did not say that “Israel must be wiped off the map” with the implication that phrase has of Nazi-style extermination of a people. He said that the occupation regime over Jerusalem must be erased from the page of time
Unquote
Frankly, Palestine has been wiped off the map and the relatively stable nation state of Iraq may be wiped off the map and replaced by a number of warring statelets and
America has to take a large doze of the blame for both. Here is a map of Palestine from 1946:-
http://www.palestineremembered.com/Acre/Maps/Story582.html
Your other comments: “The US is basically a force for good”. This is merely sloganeering. Ask the millions of Third Worlders in Latin America, Indo China, Middle East and elsewhere what they think of American colonialism, bombing and sanctions.
You say the Americans are inclusive and the Iranians are exclusive. Didn’t your idiot president say “You are either with us or against us”? This meant that other people, in Washington’s eyes, were not entitled to pursue their own interests or compete with America. Anything but abject obeisance to Washington would count an enmity.
You say “…when you judge a country, any country, you have to look at the intentions of its leaders”. Well, I have looked at the Project for New American Century which is available on the web and is the declared creed of those who advise (pull the strings) of your idiot president and your corrupt presidential candidates:
http://www.newamericancentury.org/
The intention here is to make American hegemony permanent and by use of force.
More accessible intentions of the American leaders are encapsulated in phrases like “Shock and Awe” and “All options are on the table”, when talking about using nukes against Iran. If you want it expressed musically, here is a US presidential candidate, John McCain, singing, “Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran”:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o-zoPgv_nYg
You say “What I don’t understand is how opponents of the US cab support despotic, murderous regimes”. You miss the point that the US is, and has always been, the prime supporter and installer of despotic regimes. We see it today in Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Palestine. We have seen it previously in Iran, Afghanistan and all over Latin America.
I could go on, but I know that you have made up your mind already….
Best,
P
Posted by: Pacifist | November 20th, 2007 at 11:45 am | Report this commentTo RCS,
Firstly, I said “Is America less murderous than Al Qaeda?” and the answer is clearly “no”. Murderousness is measured by the number of people you kill and there is no doubt that America is responsible for much deaths than Al Qaeda is.
Secondly, you say Brutality is a matter of intention. It seems that the Americans declared their intentions loud and clear before they unleashed their brutality on the Iraqis by words like shock and awe.
Now, the same Americans say “all options are on the table against Iran”. No doubt, this is a well-intentioned, good-humoured way of saying they want to do the same things to the people of Iran.
Of course, being a supporter of Avigdor Lieberman, you do not think much of the above as Israelis did similar things in Lebanon.
Best,
P
Posted by: Pacifist | November 20th, 2007 at 12:14 pm | Report this commentWhether the US has done more good than harm to the rest of the world is a question for the future generations to solve. Both US fans and haters agree though that the current administration is very likely the worst this country has had. However, what has been stunning me since several years is not the dumbness and aggressiveness of the government – we have that all over the world – but the preparedness of the population to support it against all odds. I’m not talking about their numerous foreign policy blunders – which are surprising in themselves given the long American tradition of democratic policy-making, free exchange of ideas, lots of think-tanks, experts and debates etc. However, just look at the course of events in the US under Bush since 2001:
- Two most controversial elections in 2000 and 2004 on record widely believed to be “stolen”
- Largest power black-outs in 2001
- Biggest wave of corporate bankruptcies in 2001-2002
- Most devastating ever terrorist attacks on 9.11.01
- Only second in history space shuttle blow-up in 2002 (?)
- The most unsuccessful and the costliest war in its history
- Third largest military death toll in a century
- The longest standing highest fuel prices hampering the US economy among the first
- Largest ever hurricane damage leading to devastation of a whole big city
- Some of the biggest ever registered fire damage in 2007
- Squandering of the biggest inherited budget proficit
- Biggest trade and current account deficits in history
- Lowest value of dollar making its role as the world’s reserve currency unrealistic in long term
- Biggest financial and property crisis in decades
If it were not clear reasoning, at least some gut feeling might have helped the 200 mn adult US voters guess twice in the past 7 years that smth is wrong with the leaders they elect. Wrong not for the others, but for themselves. That did not happen. Now, I have a question for the US citizens on this blog: how is it possible for the whole nation, a leading freedom values nation in the world as many claim, to be so blind in electing its leaders? Is it smth to do with the voters or with the system? If the voters are to blame, is it their lack of education (widely known fact of appaling illiteracy levels of Americans), their strong religious views which just turn them into blind missionaries, their inherited mentality features (pioneering spirit, stubbornness, etc.)? If the system is to blame, is it this strange indirect electorate college system which is so hard to understand? Or the polarized two-party structure? Or anything else?
There have been a lot of lucky “teflon” presidents in the history. Russia has one right now. But any nation (national mentality is rarely rational) may be excused for believing in their leaders who bring them luck. However, stubbornly believing in their leaders DESPITE all the clear signs of bad luck they are bringing to this nation – this is beyond my comprehension. And this is why I seriously doubt this nation can lead anybody at all in the future. The Americans as a whole seem to lack the right instincts to do so.
Posted by: A Russian | November 20th, 2007 at 1:06 pm | Report this comment“Just make certain that, as Mr Rachman has warned, you don’t turn inwards and isolationist.”
Inwards and isolationist is what I see as the only course of action that will save my country. We, the citizens, must become self-sufficient!
Posted by: Former Florida Democrat | November 20th, 2007 at 2:35 pm | Report this commentDear P
You are forcing us into the realms of literary interpretation and criticism: What did A-J really mean when he quoted Khomeini quoting an ancient Persian poem?
Let us see: he didn’t say “Israel should be wiped off the map”, he only said “the occupation regime over Jerusalem should vanish from the pages of time” (I’m sure this sounds much better in Farsi). Was there anything here lost in translation? How about the following literary interpretation: 1. “Jerusalem” = “Palestine” (this is a time-honoured metaphor, much used in the Book of Psalms; In fact my uncle, when he made aliyah as a boy from Morocco, was surprised to discover that they were not one and the same!), 2. “occupation regime over Jerusalem” = “State of Israel”, 3. “should vanish” = implying “should be vanished” — a call to arms, 4. “time” = “space” (for this I need not assume ancient Persian poets knew about General Relativity; mystics of all ages perceived this centuries beforehand).
P, you need not read A-J’s words so literally.
Posted by: RCS | November 20th, 2007 at 3:12 pm | Report this commentDear RCS,
“Is brutality measured by the number of deaths, or by the sheer atrocity of the acts commited? (never forget Daniel Perle)”
Surely the number of deaths matters (that this is a “grotesque body count” is precisely the point) and I don’t see that the high-altitude bombing of civilians (unintentional only in so much as it is impossible to be accurate from such high altitude) is any less of an atrocity.
Dear AYC,
“Whatever else you may say about the US government they do not have the explicit intention of wiping another country off the map.”
misquoting the (fool of a) president of Iran does not make you right…
“The US … is inclusive.”
“On the other hand, the Iranian leadership for example, is exclusive - you’re either with us or…”
“The fact is that when you judge a country, any country, you have to look at the intentions of its leaders”
I assume you can see the irony of your argument given President Bush’s statement ‘you’re either with us or against us’
Critics are not the same as opponents - I cannot think of many critics fo the US who do not also condemn the regimes you speak of…
“How is it possible that opponents of the US - who otherwise have liberal views - for example do not support female emancipation and implicitly support mutilation as a punishment simply because they are paractised by an opponent of the US?”
Because they’re not doing that - they’re disagreeing with you about methods…
Posted by: David | November 20th, 2007 at 3:34 pm | Report this commentDear P
I’ve just noticed you’ve set up (another) straw man argument: Mr Lieberman is a straw man — I never recall having supported him.
I’ve also just noticed you’ve translated for us Khomeini in two different flavours to choose from: one time you use “should vanish”, another time you use “erase”.
Posted by: RCS | November 20th, 2007 at 4:04 pm | Report this commentDear RCS,
Kindly save me (and yourself) the pain of indulging in amateur linguistics in a language that is my mother tongue and you don’t speak! I deliberately chose Professor Cole’s blog because he is an American that can speak Farsi and I thought he would be a credible witness. If you want to see a more informative (imho) article, written by an Iranian, I recommend this one by Dr. Arash Nourozi:
http://www.antiwar.com/orig/norouzi.php?articleid=11025
Let me be frank. Misquoting Middle Eastern sources by Zionist-NeoCons is a deliberate strategy and an everyday occurrence. Organisations like MEMRI are dedicated to fulltime mistranslation of articles, speeches and TV programmes in Farsi and Arabic. See this article in the British newspaper the Guardian:-
http://www.guardian.co.uk/elsewhere/journalist/story/0,,773258,00.html
And here is another example, this time of Norman Podhoretz, misquoting Khomeini and being caught in the act, as reported by The Economist:
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2007/11/is_iran_suicidal_or_deterrable.cfm
By the way, as you see in the report, the research to reveal Podhoretz’s lies was done by professor Shaul Bakhash of George Mason University, who is an Iraqi Jew who emigrated first to Iran and then to the US (therefore, no fan of Khomeini’s):-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shaul_Bakhash
In any case, as the Americans often said when rejecting the advances of the mild-mannered reformist former President Khatami of Iran, the Iranian presidents are not commanders in chief, nor are they in charge of foreign policy so even if Ahmadinejad wanted to attack Israel, he would not the authority to do so.
Can you sleep better now?
P
Posted by: Pacifist | November 20th, 2007 at 4:11 pm | Report this commentDear P
I agree. A-J doesen’t call the shots in Iran, Khamenei does. The latter has not voiced one word of criticism over A-J’s utterances, which has led analysts to assume he is pleased with A-J’s assertiveness and believes his policy is working. Witness too the removal of Larijani, who formerly reported directly to Khamenei.
Posted by: RCS | November 20th, 2007 at 4:33 pm | Report this comment“The moral of the story is that however badly the Americans blundered in Iraq, they could never be remotely as brutal, murderous or plain stupid as al-Qaeda.”
Yes, Mr.Rachman is technically correct. But at the end of the day, the Americans may well have killed far more innocents in Iraq by callousness and a sheer disregard for Iraqi lives (aerial bombings, checkpoint shootouts, Fallujah, Blackwater…)
Incidentally, when the war began and the Americans were still bombing Baghdad, I recall an incident when a restaurant in Al Mansour district of Baghdad was bombed because the Americans had intelligence that Saddam Hussein was present. As it turned out, he was not. But 14 civilians were killed. I know democracies don’t kill innocents for sport. But they do kill whenever it is expedient
Posted by: Ranjan | November 20th, 2007 at 4:44 pm | Report this commentHi RCS,
Khamenei has made no comment because Ahmadinejad did not say anything new about Israel.
Khamenei didn’t publicly disagree with Khatami’s soft attitude towards the West. It ran its course and was rejected by the West. Ahmadinejad’s assertiveness is not being commented on by Khamenei in public either. It will run its course again. This is not to say that Khamenei does not comment on it in private.
As you saw with the disagreement between Tzipi (Safura!) Livni and Mr. Olmert (over Iran’s nuclear capabilities, reported by Haaretz), politicians would rather disagree in private rather than wash their dirty linen in public.
I think I have now said all that I wanted to say on this issue and as soon as the forum’s moderator gets back from the pub, he is bound to remind us that we have digressed too far from the topic of this thread.
Happy Slumbers!
P
Posted by: Pacifist | November 20th, 2007 at 4:54 pm | Report this commenthttp://www.ft.com/cms/8a38c684-2a26-11dc-9208-000b5df10621.html
Has everyone seen this interview with Eli Broad? He has some choice things to say about the standing of the US!
He is clearly not with Bush. Is he a terrorist too?!
P
Posted by: Pacifist | November 20th, 2007 at 4:59 pm | Report this commentThanks for the encouragement, P. And say hello to Khamenei, will y’a? — you seem to know him intimately!
Posted by: RCS | November 20th, 2007 at 5:03 pm | Report this commentP.S. Still I’ll sleep best after Bush does his part. Good night.
Posted by: RCS | November 20th, 2007 at 5:24 pm | Report this commentCORRECTION
I have to correct my last comment:
A. I am sure it will not come to that, and in the end a diplomatic solution WILL be found: who knows? Maybe Annapolis will surprise us all and will be the beginning of a POSITIVE domino effect in the ME, for a change. It now seems that the Syrians might participate…
B. I would not put my trust in others in any case.
Posted by: RCS | November 20th, 2007 at 5:58 pm | Report this commentDear P,
On the contrary, I’m perfectly happy to debate and am open to having my view changed.
I agree, as I said, that the US is not perfect. But again, its basic intentions are for the common good. Its social fabric, constitution and
culture allow each and every citizen to be what they want. How many of the regimes you seem to favour can say the same? Of course, if you take
a microscope to the governing classes you will (hopefully) find stains - but that allows cleaning, which is why a free press is so important.
But you cannot hold the US to a particular standard and hold everyone else to a different one. Are the Chinese not infinitely more culpable for their conquest and strangulation of Tibet? Where does Russia stand in your view for the scorched earth policy in Chechnya? Sudan for the genocide in Darfur? Where are your protestations for the oppressed of these lands?
Every country has the right to export its viewpoint to the world. Iran has the right to push its influence in Iraq, however inconvenient this is to the West. Russia has the same right in Eastern Europe. China in its backyard. Struggle and counterstruggle - this is what has shaped our
world. The key to this is twofold: how that influence is pushed and what that influence entails. On that basis Iran, Russia, China and the
others all fall down for reasons you know as well as I.
I’m curious as to what the answer is, if it is not that the US should seek to impose its influence around the world. Do we allow the Venezuelan dictator to relive the export of the revolution of the rest of Latin America? I’m not sure how that would help the peoples of that region. Do we allow Taiwan to be swallowed by China? South Korea by
North? Pakistan and Afghanistan by the Taliban? Lebanon by Syria? Estonia by Russia? What do all these examples have in common? They are all democracies or aspiring democracies which would otherwise be at the mercy of totalitarian or aspiring totalitarian regimes. Which side is the US on in all of those struggles?
To return to your final point - can you convince me that that it is better to live with the Basijj than the fashion police?
Also, please note - I am a British citizen and whilst I may subscribe to a viewpoint that is slightly more to the right than is yours, I take my
news from a multiplicity of sources.
Oh, one final point regarding what the leader of the Iranian messianic cult specifically said: no matter! His intention is perfectly clear.
Pip pip.
Posted by: AYC | November 20th, 2007 at 11:02 pm | Report this commentDear AYC,
As I said, it appears that you have made up your mind already (as evidenced by your last comment), so I save my breath.
I think it was Sir Winston Churchill who said “A fanatic is one who can’t change his mind and won’t change the subject.”
Good Luck!
P
Posted by: Pacifist | November 21st, 2007 at 10:05 am | Report this commentFor anybody interested in the accuracy of some of the NeoCons claims on Iran, I suggest you read the following short article on Iran. Evidently, truth is a luxury. Why tell the truth when lies will get you there quicker, eh?
http://www.motherjones.com/mojoblog/archives/2007/11/6227_the_amir_ta…
“Amir Taheri is one of the strangest ingredients in America’s media
soup. There may not be anyone else who simply makes things up as
regularly as he does, with so few consequences. ”
And another interesting quote from Elena Benador, PR agent for Taheri
and a host of other NeoCons:
“…when it comes to Iran, accuracy is “a luxury…As much as being
accurate is important, in the end it’s important to side with what’s
right. What’s wrong is siding with the terrorists.”
All the best,
P
Posted by: Pacifist | November 21st, 2007 at 10:17 am | Report this commenthttp://mondediplo.com/2007/11/03mideast
The above link about the US attempt at empire building which has resulted in catastrophe and mayhem in the broader Middle East from Iraq to Afghanistan and from Lebanon to Pakistan.
“[..] it is doubtful whether the results match their [US] dreams of remodelling the region to secure the lasting hold that the French and British established after the first world war.”
Best,
P
Posted by: Pacifist | November 21st, 2007 at 1:06 pm | Report this commentPacifist,
Great posts. Referring to 20 Nov. 2007 @11:45:39 & 12:14:21. Specifically Palestine having been wiped off the map & the indecent “shock & Awe”.
Rachman’s spinning with the best of the neocons.
AYC’s a joke! Great “democracies” like US & Israel, given to bombing people, invading others’ land, sowing death & destruction everywhere, the world does not need.
Posted by: Niall | November 21st, 2007 at 4:35 pm | Report this commentAnd now we will spend four years with an American President who will be Hillary or Obama…oh, my God!
Posted by: Enrique | November 22nd, 2007 at 2:15 am | Report this commentWCM”So, I think the euro’s rise will mark a rise in the prestige of all product that is NOT from the US. The torch of globalisation will be taken out of the hands of the Americans. Most others are untainted to carry it and share it. In the end, this is good news.”
I agree. I see it happening. Beautifully put!
Posted by: Lisa-Helene Lawson | November 22nd, 2007 at 5:06 am | Report this commentFrom FT update this morning: “China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs announced the reversal at its regular daily briefing in Beijing on Thursday afternoon. ”We have decided to allow the Kitty Hawk strike group to stay in Hong Kong during Thanksgiving, and it is a decision out of humanitarian consideration only,” Reuters quoted a foreign ministry spokesman as saying.”
The FT report also quotes US officials as saying the KH Group will not make port in HK afterall.
This development jumps out of the expected bad news. This was no slip up on the part of the Chinese, who are clearly holding the upper hand on some matter at the moment. It was neither an objection to US policy nor to the recent Patriot II sale to Taiwan. Something less savoury than errant cigarette smoke has happened. It has all the markings of another CIA operation failure.
It will be nice to see some insightful followup on this, rather than to read about it in a book in 30 years (if they are still publishing books then).
Posted by: WCM | November 22nd, 2007 at 1:51 pm | Report this comment