History lessons I don't usually recommend print articles, because I can't link to them, but do read the latest New Yorker. In particular, The Revolt of Islam, by Bernard Lewis. He is an 85-year-old academic who actually knows his history, and therefore brings more understanding to the Islamic world than all the burbling commentators out there. His central insight: the rage of Islam is the rage of a system that has been losing the military and economic competition for more than 300 years, as far back as the failed Ottoman siege of Vienna in 1683. Of course, that doesn't explain why the Islamic reaction is one of frustrated and self-destructive rage. As opposed, for instance, to a determination to beat the West at its own game. China suffered a century of humiliation, from which it still smarts. But why does the Arab part of the Islamic world turn back to the certainties of medieval Islam, while China builds its way to respect? Although the Lewis article in the New Yorker is in print only, there is a good review of his work in Slate, an article from a decade ago in the Atlantic Monthly which makes many of the same points, a contrary view from the irritating Edward Said, a link to the latest Lewis book on sale at Amazon, some more links to Lewis articles in the NYRB, and finally some other related links which put the current crisis in a historical context. Slate: Bernard Lewis - The Islam scholar U.S. politicians listen to Bernard Lewis: The Roots of Muslim Rage Edward Said: The Clash of Ignorance Amazon.com: Bernard Lewis: The Multiple Identities of the Middle East The New York Review of Books: Bernard Lewis bibliography Foreign Affairs Magazine: Special Briefing Samuel Huntingdon: The Clash of Civilisations Prospect: Anatole Lieven#
Rubbing their noses in it The Taliban were too tough, the Northern Alliance too weak, the hatred in the Islamic world too easily provoked, the rage contagious, the bombing indiscriminate, the western public support too fickle. Sure, everyone is entitled to their views, and their predictions of doom. But they should also expect to be held accountable for their words. We should respect those who get it right, and disparage those who get it wrong. And so an audit of the acres of comment is a worthwhile exercise. One of the features I liked about Brill's Content, the media monitoring magazine, was its ranking of the talkshow pundits. Finally, Sam Donaldson, a pompous fool if ever there was one, was exposed as one of the poorest prognosticators around. I wish there was a media monitoring organization around to score all the weblog writers, and newspaper commentators. I would do it, but watchdogs rarely make good businesses. For the record, I was a bit too rude about the Northern Alliance, just before they began to advance. In the absence of apologies from George Monbiot, Robert Fisk, Seamus Milne and other opponents of the war, here is a gleeful Hitchens column, a Toynbee despairing at the left's inability to engage in honest intellectual discussion, and Andrew Sullivan's awards to those writers who got it most wrong. Christopher Hitchens: Ha ha ha to the pacifists Polly Toynbee: Why is the nihilist left unable to accept events have proved it wrong? Andrew Sullivan The Times: Media Wars: Paper warrirors take no prisoners Observer: Britain's very uncivil war nickdenton.org: I take it all back#
If you can't beat them Even supporters of the war have always assumed that action was necessary, in order to address a clear and present danger to Western cities. But at a cost: yet more virulent Muslim hostility to the Western system. But here's a great article by Anatole Kaletsky which makes the opposing point. "The defeat of the Taleban has shown to the entire Muslim world that the mullahs’ vision of an ultra-orthodox Islamic Utopia is a catastrophic delusion. Not only does returning to medievalism lead to economic catastrophe. Even worse, it produces political humiliation and military disgrace. In a battle between religion and technology, between medievalism and modernity, between theocracy and democracy, the West has long known which side was bound to win. The collapse of the Taleban may now teach the Islamic world the same lesson." If you can't beat the West, join it. China, Japan, Soviet Russia, Nazi Germany have all stumbled into that conclusion. After occupation, cultural revolution, famine, world war, economic stagnation, territorial loss. I'm sure the Islamic world will eventually learn that Koranic law cannot govern a modern and successful society, that reactionary Islam is as much a dead end as were reactionary German and Japanese nationalism. The question is this: How much humiliation does the Islamic world have to experience before it comes to that conclusion? The Arab part of the Islamic world has already experienced 300 years of failure. There is no reason to believe that the defeat of the Taleban will prove the decisive lesson. Anatole Kaletsky: A war that has served notice on all terrorists#
thursday, november 15
The Flame War Now you don't have to wait until Al-Jazeera - the influential Arabic satellite news station - puts out an English-language website. An NPR affiliate is carrying transcripts. Al-Jazeera is about as moderate and factual as Arabic media gets. Unfortunately, most of the Arab online sources prompt frustration more than understanding. For a discussion of the rabid Arabic media, here's my latest column in the Guardian, an excerpt with a link to the full article below. "In the first online discussion forums, the hippy hopes for mutual understanding were often soured by “flame wars” – online arguments which would career out of control because there was none of the reassurance of face-to-face contact. In this current conflict, we are witnessing a flame war, in which the ease of online communication first promotes bitterness. We can only hope that the understanding comes later." Guardian: The Flame War Al-Jazeera in English Matt Welch: Does the House of Saud Consider Giuliani a 'Jewish Homosexual'? Department of State: Foreign Commentary on the U.S. Ajeeb Translation Site Newsrack Slate: A Middle East Media Primer#
Bluff or threat? Mullah Omar, leader of the Taliban: "The current situation in Afghanistan is related to a bigger cause - that is the destruction of America... The plan is going ahead and God willing it is being implemented, but it is a huge task beyond the will and comprehension of human beings. If God's help is with us this will happen within a short period of time. Keep in mind this prediction." Also... Bin Laden's nuclear secrets found#
tuesday, november 13
Nelson Mandela press conference "The United States of America lost 5,000 people, innocent people, and it is quite correct for the President to ensure that the terrorists, those masterminds, as well as those who have executed the action and survived, are to be punished heavily." And this is a guy who knows a terrorist from a freedom fighter.#
The many faces of Mohammed Atta I'm getting confused. First, there is the gay Atta theory. Sparked mainly by a throwaway remark by the terrorist's father. Then Atta, thought to be the leader of the September 11th attacks, gets lumped in with the other attackers as a porn-video-renting, lapdancer-watching hypocrite. Although, actually, he wasn't personally identified by the strippers. Now, Atta is revealed to have had a warm online correspondence with a 58-year-old woman he met in a chat room. Nothing yet on whether she disclosed her true age. No wonder he was lusting after all those virgins in paradise. Woman Says She Befriended Hijacker Online Signorile: The Mohamed Atta Files Plastic: Atta, Hitler and Dahmer: If Evil People Are Gay Too, Does It Matter?#
Scorched earth Bamiyan, the city where Buddhist monuments were destroyed last year, has been razed by departing Taleban forces. BBC: Bamiyan destroyed by Taleban#
I take it all back Okay, I take it back. A couple of weeks ago, I had the Northern Alliance pegged as a bunch of armchair generals, collecting rent from the Western press and military, giving advice, and commentating on the US air strikes. Okay, so they do fight. I should also take back the assumption that the Taliban are diehard fanatics. They may indeed put up more resistance once they retreat to their home territory. But, when faced with overwhelming force, they run. BBC: Who are the Northern Alliance?#
More Arab media monitoring Reading the Arab media is a dangerous pursuit. It can turn even the most multicultural of us into unforgiving hawks. Look at poor Matt Welch. He used to be such a gentle young man, until he started reading the more outrageous reaches of the Saudi press, and learned how to froth at the mouth. See for yourself. Department of State: Foreign Commentary on the U.S. Ajeeb Translation Site Newsrack#
The rat-trap Warning: a politically incorrect thought. I hope the Taliban don't surrender. We have all bemoaned the fact that the enemy in this war is invisible, in our neighbourhoods, melts into the background. But that is not entirely true. The jihad in Afghanistan has lured extreme fundamentalists from Arab countries and Pakistan. The enemy is concentrated in Afghanistan, and now concentrated in an ever-smaller enclave in southern Afghanistan. I would rather the Islamic international brigade stay there, and die there, rather than leach out full of revenge into the wider world. Now is the time to seal the Pakistan border, and gradually close the noose. I only wish there had been more time for Islamic extremists from the UK and other western countries to get to Afghanistan first. Among the articles below, I'd highlight the Washington Post discussion on bombing the columns of Taliban troops retreating from Kabul. Whatever qualms U.S. commanders had at the end of the Gulf War about appearing to pile on, Elliot Cohen of Johns Hopkins said, do not apply this time. “This is a more ruthless war." New York Times: Two Wars, Many Fears Washington Post: Rebel gains shift U.S. focus to south Guardian: Hundreds of Pakistanis believed massacred Charles Krauthammer: Take Kabul BBC: Arab bodies in Kabul#
The latest Thomas Friedman column: In Pakistan, It's Jihad 101 "The real war for peace in this region, though, is in the schools. Which is why we must do our military operation against bin Laden quickly and then get out of here. When we return, and we must, we have to be armed with modern books and schools — not tanks."#
monday, november 12
How to dump the Saudis I am taking as a given that most of us - conservatives and liberals included - would like to see the end of the Saudi regime. Conservatives because the House of Saud has betrayed US support, tacitly backing Islamic fundamentalism across the Middle East. Liberals because Saudi Arabia is one of the world's more obnoxious societies. Medieval, without even the excuse of poverty. My own feeling is that the Middle East's political development has been held up by US support for stale regimes such as the House of Saud. Even if Saudi Arabia goes fundamentalist, as it well may, its people need to make their own mistakes if they are to take responsibility, and learn that the Koran cannot govern the complexities of a modern society. I found this wonderful letter, written before September, from an anti-American Saudi prince who warned the two countries might finally have to go their separate ways. Crown Prince Abdullah wrote: "a time comes when peoples and nations part... It is time for the U.S. and Saudi Arabia to look at their separate interests." Uncanny: just what I was thinking. But what about the oil? Tempting though it might be to throw the Saudi princes to the bloodthirsty fundamentalist crowds, Saudi Arabia is the world's swing producer of crude oil. It is not so much a matter of the US depending directly on Saudi supplies. Saudi Arabia actually exports less than Mexico and Venezuela to the US. But cut Saudi production by half, and the oil price shoots past $30 per barrel, compounding the West's current economic problems. So, what to do? Unfortunately, for the moment, we just have to bite our tongues, suffer the nauseating blandishments of Saudi Arabia's new public relations agencies, and keep Saudi Arabia intact. But Russia is ever more surely moving into the Western orbit. Its oil production is already increasing, and neighbouring Kazakhstan has unexploited reserves at least as large as Saudi Arabia's. Wait five years, expand the pipeline network through Russia, persuade Turkey to allow the tankers through the Bosphorus, create a buffer of oil production outside the Middle East, and then let Saudi Arabia go. You want Islamic government, go ahead, and don't blame us if it all goes horribly wrong. Here is some background. A few rants by Matt Welch against the Saudis. An interview by Jim Hoagland with a leading Saudi prince who blames the press for anti-Saudi agitation. Jewish press, I presume he means. There's a useful BBC fact sheet on the oil business, which shows where Russia and Saudi Arabia stack up in the oil charts. An analysis from this week's Economist of the current state of the oil market: prices going down, rather than up, as the West slides into recession. An article from Newsweek about the US dependence on Saudi oil, which kind of misses the point, because it focuses on direct imports, rather than the impact of Saudi production on the market as a whole. And, finally, an excellent piece from the Weekly Standard which argues that the US can't do without Saudi oil just yet. Matt Welch: The case against Saudi Arabia Matt Welch: Does the House of Saud Consider Giuliani a 'Jewish Homosexual'? Funny slogans for Saudi PR campaign Hoagland: On a Precipice With the Saudis BBC: Q&A: The oil business Economist.com: Oil price war Newsweek: The Saudi Game Newsweek: Driving Toward Independence Weekly Standard: Can We Do Without Saudi Oil?#
sunday, november 11
The soothsayer I've just found this gob-smacking article from Peggy Noonan, written in 1998. It catalogues the wealth and complacency of the US, and pretty much predicts an attack on New York. A reminder: Noonan was Reagan's speechwriter, the one spoke of doomed astronauts touching the face of God. A quote from article. Remember, this is from three years ago. "When you consider who is gifted and crazed with rage . . . when you think of the terrorist places and the terrorist countries . . . who do they hate most? The Great Satan, the United States. What is its most important place? Some would say Washington. I would say the great city of the United States is the great city of the world, the dense, ten-mile-long island called Manhattan, where the economic and media power of the nation resides, the city that is the psychological centre of our modernity, our hedonism, our creativity, our hardshouldered hipness, our unthinking arrogance." Peggy Noonan: Stay God's hand#
Guardian: a wonderful broadside against the Islamically correct "Said not only taught an entire generation of Arabs the wonderful art of self-pity (if only those wicked Zionists, imperialists and colonialists would leave us alone, we would be great, we would not have been humiliated, we would not be backward) but intimidated feeble western academics, and even weaker, invariably leftish, intellectuals into accepting that any criticism of Islam was to be dismissed as orientalism, and hence invalid."#
Sunday Telegraph: Bin Laden: Yes, I did it UK newspaper finds a Bin Laden video in which he seems to admit to the twin towers attack. I suppose he *has* to claim responsibility. It is his reputation as the scourge of America which has made him the focus for Islamic radicalism.#
History lessons
The Flame War
The many faces of Mohammed Atta
Scorched earth
