Sorry, but I just can't help myself from attacking the abundance of abysmal center-left journalism in Britain. At least Robert Fisk, in his Sept 11th piece, made a genuine argument, even if equating Terry Jones with terrorists and dictators is ridiculous. Yet Yasmin Alibhai-Brown, whose spiteful diatribe is number 3 on the Independent's most read list (after two Robert Fisk articles), instead just serves up outright lies:

[Would be Koran burner Terry] Jones et al are not maddened desperados. They are part of a mainstream, resentful alliance with Sarah Palin's Tea Party, growing ranks of fundamentalist Christians and Zionists, bitter and racist frontiersmen and women...The real struggle today [in America] is between hate-filled Yankees and those who hold on to the most noble aspirations of their country. If the idealists fall..[America's] potent mythology, self-definition, patriotic anthems, poems and hymns will turn to ash and the Great United States Of America that was will be no more.

Excuse me miss? Jones is mainstream? Give me a mainstream newspaper, television channel, or politician in America who supports him. The politician that Ms. Alibhai-Brown gives--Sarah Palin--roundly denounced Jones (so did Glenn Beck, another tea-party favorite). Ms. Alibahi-Brown could easily have found that out through a quick web search, but she seems more interested in furthering her agenda. Ms. Alibahi-Brown of course also throws out some red meat--she obviously knows her crowd--with an unsubstantiated reference to "fundamentalist Zionists" who purportedly help lead the American racist coalition. Name me one mainstream "Zionist" who supports Jones. In fact, America's top "Zionist" politician, Mayor of Zion-on-the-Hudson Michael Bloomberg, is the biggest supporter in the country of the "ground zero" mosque. Unfortunately, nuance makes for bad propaganda.

The larger point of the article is that America, despite its high ideals, has always had an ugly underbelly of racism. This is of course true-- the founders of the country preached an inalienable right to liberty while they themselves held slaves. But part of the reason for this divide is that American ideals have always been ahead of their time, and are so high-minded as to be ultimately unattainable. Does this cause tension? Sure. But is it a bad thing? No, it's what makes America great.

So yes, "the land of the free" was also the home of the slaves. As recently as 45 years ago, many blacks couldn't even vote. No country, aside from perhaps Germany and South Africa, is more self-aware of its racist past. Yet, like every other country, America still has identity politics, and they can be very ugly and divisive. There are (gasp!) still racists in America. Because the economy is horrible, people are more prone than usual to the appeal of identity politics.

But unlike every other non-African country, a majority of Americans also voted in a black president, descended from Muslims in Kenya, in a country where 88% of the people are not black, and 99% are not Muslim. If this isn't proof that America is not an intolerant land imperiled by racist islamophobes, then I don't know what is. Get over yourself, Ms. Alibhai-Brown. 

- Jon
 
 
Picture
Kurt Westergaard, the Danish cartoonist who was recently attacked by a Somali axe-wielding terrorist inspired by al-Qaeda
Unless you’ve been a cave for the past week, you’ve heard that there is a nutcase in Florida named Terry Jones who wants/wanted to burn copies of the Koran. Americans of all political stripes, from President Obama to Sarah Palin, from Fox News to MSNBC, to grassroots protesters in Florida, told Jones that his plan was unacceptable. In America, many people are rightfully worried about the increasing difficulty that the United States is having with integrating its Muslim population.

Internationally, some people are taking the opportunity to stick it to America, accusing it of not being the land of the free when it comes to Muslims. Take, for instance, Robert Fisk’s column in the Independent, which is being e-mailed around quite frequently today. There are many meritorious arguments which explain how America overreacted to 9/11, but this is not one of them:

Did 9/11 make us all go mad? How fitting, in a weird, crazed way, that the apotheosis of that firestorm nine years ago should turn out to be a crackpot preacher threatening another firestorm with a Nazi-style book burning of the Koran…9/11 appears to have produced not peace or justice or democracy or human rights, but monsters.

This orgy of moral relativism and mendacity is a complete misreading of what is occurring in America. The growing fear of Muslims in the United States is not a delayed reaction to 9/11, but is rather a reaction to the very real problem of home-grown terrorism inspired by Islam, which seems to be increasing by the month (see Nidal Malik Hasan, Shaker Masri, Najibullah Zazi, Faisal Shahzad, etc.). Americans who follow the news are increasingly worried about this trend. The home-grown terrorists are simply reacting to American foreign policy, Fisk argues. Ok, fine. But in America, we protest with voices, pens, and ballots, not with suicide vests. Bombing various forms of transportation is not, as Fisk confesses, going to produce "human rights"--it will only produce monsters.

As for Terry Jones, what he proposed to do was an act of free speech. Burning a Koran is ultimately no different from burning a flag. These may be base and infantile forms of protest, typically found in backward countries, but they are necessarily permissible if you believe in liberalism. What is not permissible is violent protest, which is how many Muslims threatened to respond.
 

At its core, this is a repeat of the Danish cartoon episode, and of the Salman Rushdie episode before that. Yet Fisk, by disingenuously slapping the Nazi moniker on Jones (last I checked, Jones is not building any gas chambers), exonerates anti-free speech Muslims who think that violence is a proper response to insult.
 

The real point is that American civil society unequivocally denounced Jones as a lunatic moron. Regular citizens protested and organized campaigns against him. And he did stop. In other words, the American system, which balances constitutionally guaranteed freedoms of expression against a strong civil society, worked.  

Fisk, ignoring this, condemns “the West” while exculpating the noble savages who believe that insult from book burnings or cartoons or novels are reasonable grounds for murder. The cause of an isolated idiot burning some books, in Fisk’s world, is reminiscent of Adolf Hitler. In fact, Mr. Jones is not dangerous because of anything he is doing—all he is accomplishing is making himself look stupid. Instead, Jones is dangerous chiefly because of the violent ramblings of thousands of imams who encourage terrorism, and who will use the book burning as propaganda to motivate their minions.  

Unintentionally, Terry Jones has exposed the callous hypocrisy of those who are ready to sacrifice the right to free and peaceful expression upon the altar of "religious sensitivity". The irony is, of course, that religious tolerance is built upon that very same right to freedom of expression. It is high time that people remember that.

- Jon

P.S. The general point of the article is to point out how 9/11 spawned lunacy. Fisk is right about this rather obvious observation--few things are more absurd than the story of Arabs in Afghanistan traveling halfway around the world to intentionally crash planes into two skyscrapers, with the purpose of returning the Middle East to medieval government. Less crazy, but probably just as naive, was Bush's response of democratic nation-building. But how is Terry Jones the apotheosis of this?
 
 
Picture
Muhammad Alim Khan, Emir of Bukhara (modern-day Uzbekistan), one of the leaders of the last Central Asian revolt against Russia.
Stratfor often provides insightful commentary. That’s why I read their free reports. But they also have a whacky side, and like to make ludicrous, unfounded assertions (see here for more). Their piece on Kyrgyzstan falls into the latter category. They combine false assertions with loony theories, throw in some Russian revanchism and Uzbek irredentism, and voila! We have on our hands a potential Russo-Uzbek war.

Stratfor’s Peter Zeihan begins with a bunch of 19th century nonsense about Russia needing geographical barriers to protect against invasion. That makes seizing control of the Carpathian Mountains (!!!) central to Russian security.

In case you haven’t crawled out of your WWII bunker yet, it’s 2010. Nobody on the European continent aside from Russia (and America if you count bases in Germany) even has a military worth writing about. The mountains that Russia actually pays attention to are known as the Caucasus Mountains. Far from being a help against external invaders (Oh no! The Georgians are coming!), they serve as a refuge for Chechen terrorists. Yet all this jibber jabber about mountains makes Kyrgyzstan sound worthwhile to fight for (Kyrgyzstan is one of the most mountainous countries in the world), so Zeihan includes it.

Next comes the straw man.

Russia has reasserted itself as a dominant power in Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Ukraine.

Ukraine and Kyrgyzstan, I get it. In Azerbaijan, Russia is not really dominant, but at least it is a place where countries compete for influence. But Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, and Tajikistan? Who had pushed the Kremlin out as the dominant power in these countries, before the Russian bear roared back? Nobody. But all of this talk sets the stage nicely for some Russian aggression.

Click "Read More" to Continue--------->
 
 
Picture
David Brooks
Evan and I began this blog with the expressed interest to avoid commenting on US domestic politics that did not touch on foreign policy. After all, domestic politics tend to be banal affairs, hyperbolized by 24/7 news media to make them appear important.

In turn, American foreign affairs, in many ways, benefit from a lack of mainstream media coverage. Understanding international politics often requires more brainpower than understanding domestic politics-- as it involves the knowledge of disparate histories, cultures, languages, and geographies. When foreign policy does become front and center stage in U.S. politics, the attempts to package and parcel debates into bite size bits for common consumption are typically even more asinine than usual. Strokes of genius such as "jealous of our freedom" and "General Betray-us" come to mind.

Every once in a while, however, something legitimately big happens in domestic politics-- such as Sunday's passage of healthcare reform. Like it or not, it is an extraordinary piece of legislation, of a species that is only passed once in a generation. Obama suddenly transforms his image from that of a waffling president to one of a strong, tenacious president, something that will have reverberations in how foreign leaders perceive him.

This is a big event. Yet someone who I respect, David Brooks, inexplicably decides to inflate the complexity of healthcare reform by belittling the Iraq war:

Nobody knows how this [healthcare reform] bill will work out. It is an undertaking exponentially more complex than the Iraq war, for example. [bold is mine]

Mr. Brooks, have you lost your mind? Building democracy in a region that only knows autocrats, with a culture that we don't understand and tongues that we can't comprehend, at the cost of nearly a trillion dollars over 7 years, and indirect costs multiple times that---this is exponentially simpler than changing how we pay our doctors? A startling confession from David Brooks that he, and presumably many others, have not learned much about the difficulties of occupation and nation-building from the trials of the past decade.

It is this blindness to the challenges of using American power to shape the future of the world that allowed the Bush administration to saunter into Iraq and treat geopolitics like a game of chicken. Somehow, the same people who are (rightfully) skeptical of the power of the American government to do what is best for society at home lose all reservations when it comes to U.S. government power abroad. It is high-time that commentators stopped indulging in our national predilection for disregarding the complexity of international affairs.

- Jon
 
 
Picture
A serious question: When did the New York Times editorial board decide it doesn't give a @#%$ about quality?

Andrew Rosenthal et al. began February with Adam B. Lowther's bizarre argument that Iran getting the bomb wouldn't be such a bad thing. For those of you that missed it, Lowther lists five potential benefits that include Israel and Palestine getting serious about a peace deal, helping the US break OPEC, and forcing Arab states to pay for the "War on Terror." (Stephen Walt has the unnecessary full take-down here.) It's almost as if the editorial board felt bad for making the Iran hawks look stupid by publishing Alan Kuperman's ludicrous Iran invasion plan back in December and decided to right the wrong by publishing something equally stupid from the other side.   

This week the bizarro NYT Op-Ed page got even worse with the publication of Lara M. Dadkhah's views on why we need more civilian casualties in Afghanistan. The piece is an annoying combination of callous bravado and complete naivete:

"So in a modern refashioning of the obvious — that war is harmful to civilian populations — the United States military has begun basing doctrine on the premise that dead civilians are harmful to the conduct of war. The trouble is, no past war has ever supplied compelling proof of that claim."

You know those tough dudes at college who love 24, sleep with a copy of The Prince under their pillow and won't stop taking your ear off about how although Hitler was a sicko but he certainly knew how to motivate people? Something tells Dadkhah was/is one of those people.

To the point that civilian casualties historical haven't been an issue, um... remember the last time a superpower tried to invade Afghanistan? Thankfully Owen Matthews and Anna Nemtsova over at Newsweek do:

More after the jump --->
 
 
Picture
Looks like a 'Bret'
If I had a dollar for every time an arch neocon made a stupid argument about Iran I’d personally be able to make a significant dent in the deficit or at least buy a lot of pizza and beer. The latest clown in the parade of the ill-informed and ill-intentioned is Wall Street Journal columnist Bret Stephens.  

More after the jump -->
 
 
Ashoura Protests in Iran
Hillary and Flynt Leverett are not lightweights when it comes to Iran. During the early years of the Bush administration, they managed collaboration between the Islamic Republic and the U.S. over the invasion of Afghanistan. 

Since leaving government, this husband-wife tag team has been the principal critic of Bush's decision to refuse Iran's offer for a "grand bargain" after the invasion of Iraq. The pair continues to press for engagement with Iran, and maintains that the West overhypes the Green movement in this New York Times op-ed.

Such gadflies are useful. Bush could have changed history by being more open to Iran in 2003. Considering the West's intense desire to see the current regime in Iran overthrown, I do worry about the danger of selectively perceiving the political situation in Iran.

But that hardly excuses the Leveretts' selective and misleading portrayal of Iran's Green movement in their article. Here is their first salvo of stupidity: by focusing on the Greens' Ashura protests, people didn't realize that the Dec 30 pro-regime demonstration was actually much larger. Yeah, and I hear that Kim Jong Il gets big crowds too. It is easy for a villager to take money and hop on a bus to Tehran. It is a bit harder to take the streets and risk becoming the next Neda Agha Soltan. 

 Click "Read More" to Continue ---->
 
 
Picture
Alan Kuperman
Another misguided missive about bombing Iran was fired from John Bolton-land just in time for the holidays, courtesy of Alan Kuperman.

Kuperman, director of the respectable sounding Nuclear Proliferation Prevention Program at UT Austin, clearly outlines Tehran's efforts to paralyze the international community while it marches towards developing an atom bomb. The cognitive dissonance starts when he offers his prescription for stopping Iran-- American air strikes.

Kuperman begins with a dose of reality: 

As for knocking out its nuclear plants, admittedly, aerial bombing might not work. Some Iranian facilities are buried too deeply to destroy from the air. There may also be sites that American intelligence is unaware of. And military action could backfire in various ways, including by undermining Iran’s political opposition, accelerating the bomb program or provoking retaliation against American forces and allies in the region.

But, perhaps realizing that he has just stumbled across the reasons why sane people don't advocate airstrikes against Iran, Kuperman quickly dusts himself off and trots out the classic neocon assertions: war is easy and cost-free, Tehran might hand over bombs to terrorists, and negotiations=appeasement. The main question that liberal bloggers are asking in response to this jejune repackaging of the argument for the Iraq war is why the NYTimes published it in the first place.

For a full takedown see Marc Lynch's response at Foreign Policy.
 
 
Picture
Neda and Caspian while on vacation in Turkey
Some moron writing for the Guardian tracked down Caspian Makan, the boyfriend of Neda Agha Soltan. Neda is the young woman who was murdered by a basiji's bullet on June 20th in Tehran while protesting the rigged Iranian election. The article is worth reading to hear Caspian's story. 

Caspian and Neda had fallen in love while on vacation in Turkey last April. They planned to get married-- until everything changed on June 20th. The Iranian authorities arrested Caspian and held him in the notorious Evin Prison. He was released on bail after pressure from various human rights groups, and then fled the country.

Sadly, the author writes with the skill of a lobotomized monkey. The phrase, "the family were allowed" is not proper English, and should never be published by a newspaper. Then, in the middle of the piece, the author spasms into an unrelated anti-American invective, calling US elections "soporific staged affairs." That doesn't even merit a response.

Worst of all, the author engages in the most repugnant form of journalistic myopia: "It is impossible to say what the election result really was...[although] thousands of Iranians felt they had been cheated."

Are you kidding me??? You aren't sure who won? And in an article about Neda? This person should have their right hand amputated.
 
 
Picture
Yum
Alright, after a bit of a vacation it is time for the return of our previously and heretofore regular column "What Not to Read." Today, we turn our ire on Hossein Askari, Professor of International Business at George Washington University and part-time Iran analyst. 

Askari recently wrote a piece for Foreign Policy Magazine titled "Iran On the Edge" in which he argues that the current regime in Iran is on the brink of collapse:

"The country's economy is also in dire straits. The regime has put off reforms for three decades, blaming sanctions for its self-inflicted failures. Inflation is running at an annual rate of 20-25 percent. Unemployment is around 20 percent and on the rise. Iran's foreign exchange reserves have declined rapidly, to an estimated $40 billion. Tehran can no longer pay the bills, keep the regime's corrupt sycophants satisfied, and deliver a minimum level of subsidies to poor Iranians to keep the lid on political dissent."

Normally, I choose articles written either by blithering idiots or raging ideologues to attack. Askari is neither. Instead, he falls in the a third category of pundits I like to call "microwave analysts." These are the guys who take an idea--which may have originally been a good one--and reheat the damn thing so many times, in so many situations, that is just makes you want to vomit. (See about 90% of Thomas Friedman's work for a prime example.)

Click for more ---->
 
Loading
try {var pageTracker = _gat._getTracker("UA-9284776-1");pageTracker._trackPageview(); } catch(err) {}