JustinLogan.com

Let's All Say It Together: "They Hate Us Because of Who We Are!"

Er, wait:

The militant demand that a French ban on Islamic head scarves be overturned has raised an unprecedented backlash among religious and political leaders in the Middle East, who have often been silent about hostage slayings and other terrorism.

They say those holding two French journalists have desecrated Islam and mindlessly struck out at a country considered a friend to Arabs...

Unlike Italy, France has no troops in Iraq and gained points with Arabs for leading the opposition to last year's U.S.-led invasion of Iraq. There are fewer than 100 French citizens in Iraq, mostly journalists, aid workers and employees of private companies; nearly all are in Baghdad, according to the French government.

Criiticism of the kidnapping has come from government officials, activists and religious figures — including those who have censured France for its head scarf ban.

Syria's Grand Mufti Ahmad Kuftaro issued a statement Tuesday calling for the release of the two reporters and also urging France to reconsider its scarf ban — "because of the sensitivity and importance of this issue for Muslims." Kuftaro also praised France's stand in support of Arabs. Many Arabs see France as an important ally in the Arab-Palestinian conflict.

Al-Jazeera, the Arab television station, broadcast a stream of criticism from voices including Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat, Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Aboul Gheit and Lebanon's most senior Shiite Muslim cleric, Grand Ayatollah Mohammed Hussein Fadlallah.

In a statement issued by the Palestinian news agency WAFA, Arafat urged the journalists' "immediate release," calling France a friend of the Palestinian cause. Egypt's largest Islamic opposition group, the banned Muslim Brotherhood, also condemned the hostage-taking.

Mohammed Bashar al-Faidi, spokesman for Iraq's Muslim Scholars Association, appealed for the Frenchmen's release during a Baghdad news conference Tuesday, saying while the head scarf ban was "painful for every Muslim," threatening French journalists was no way to solve the problem...

The abductions have been condemned worldwide, and with denunciations from unexpected quarters: Islamic militant groups, such as the Palestinian Hamas faction, and even French Muslim women who oppose the scarf ban.

Hawks? Explanation? Anything?

WTH.

Moving

So I've been moving the past few days (still sort of am), and haven't really had any time to blog. Also, not having an internet connection at home doesn't help.

In the meantime, go read:

Niall Ferguson on why conservatives should hope Bush loses;

John F. Burns and Erik Eckholm on why Najaf's nothing compared to Anbar; and

Arthur Chrenkoff wins the award for stupidest item of the day (which is, of course, endorsed by Andrew Sullivan) on how amid the security shitstorm in Iraq, the Iraq soccer team, girls in school, and caring for 60 Iraqi children with Down's syndrome (I'm not making that up) make it all worthwhile. What an utter frigging moron.

Crap.

One Last Time...

Can our behavior create terrorists or not?

Some hawks aren't sure. I am.

Look, we took 3,000 civilian casualties on 9/11, and our behavior dramatically changed. Iraq has taken 12,000 or so civilian casualties (no moral equivalance). Doesn't it at least stand to reason that people in that region may change their behavior, too? Or is there some terrorist gene that you either have or don't have, and it's predetermined at birth whether you'll be a terrorist?

And isn't precisely what we're trying to do over there is change people's behavior?

We (for the most part) aren't fanatics. I'd argue that the average person in the Middle East has a greater propensity to resort to fanaticism and violence, due largely to political and historical factors. So if anything, their behavior would be more likely to change for the worse.

Right?

Get'cher MoJo

In my continuing (and disturbing) dalliances with left wing rags, Mother Jones continues to impress me, particularly because of its aggregation of bizarre and disturbing public opinion data and outrageous public statements by politicos. (I blogged their annual "awards" here. If you give a crap about foreign affairs and want to be pissed off, check out how unqualified Bush's appointments for ambassadorships are here.) This month's issue brings us some enlightenment on faith and politics. Like:

"You could almost wind up creating a godless orthodoxy.” – White House Faith-Based Czar Jim Towey, on a Bush defeat

and

"I don't believe there is a separation of church and state. I think the Constitution is very clear. We have the right and the freedom to exercise our religion no matter what it is anywhere we choose to do it. We have an opportunity to once again get back into the public arena." – Tom DeLay

versus

"Religious factions will go on imposing their will on others unless the decent people connected to them recognize that religion has no place in public policy. They must learn to make their views known without trying to make their views the only alternatives." – Barry Goldwater

and although

7 in 10 white evangelicals say Israel was “given to the Jews by God.”

7 in 10 Israelis want to evacuate most West Bank settlements.

WTH.

An Open Question to Hawks of All Stripes

Hizb ut-Tahrir is a nutty Islamic group who seeks to unify the Muslim world under the rule of a restored caliphate. They operate mainly out of Uzbekistan. They condemn attacks on Americans in the U.S. (like September 11th), but support attacks on Americans in Muslim countries, like Iraq. (For an interesting interview with Jalaluddin Patel, the leader of their London branch, go here.)

What is the hawk position on such a group? Should we go in and take them out? They're Islamic nutjobs, and they're supporting attacks on U.S. troops in theater. Or would doing so possibly make the problem worse? You know, by bringing into the fold a whole new cadre of fanatics who weren't before? If the hawk view that "they hate us because we're beautiful" is right, then we have to go get them before they get us. Or if the hawks want to make a concession that although these people are repugnant and nutty, they aren't a threat, then maybe they should've thought of that two years ago, hm?

I'm just askin'...

Juan Cole on Khan

To be filed under "Cloak and Dagger Aspects of the Bush Administration," Juan Cole has a good rundown of the emerging questions about the outing of Muhammad Naeem Noor Khan. (I meant to blog this Friday, but had Typepad problems.)

There's really a ton in the article, but Cole says that:

The appearance of Khan's name in the New York Times on Aug. 2 caused the British to have to swoop down on the London al-Qaeda cell to which he was speaking. As it was, five of them heard about Khan's arrest and immediately fled. The British got 13, but it was early in their investigation and they had to let five go or charge them with minor offenses (such as immigration irregularities). On Tuesday, the British charged eight of them.

When the British made their arrest, the Bush administration announced that among those captured was Abu Eisa al-Hindi, also known as Abu Musa al-Hindi (both are noms de guerre).

The British, especially MI5 and Home Secretary David Blunkett, had not wanted his name made public, and were furious at all of the detailed information being given out to the public by the Bush administration or in consequence of its revelations. For some reason, the British seem to have feared that the naming of Abu Eisa al-Hindi would complicate the case against him. The Times of India reports that Abu Musa (or Abu Eisa) al-Hindi's real name is Dhiron Barot. He is one of the eight charged in London on Tuesday. He is from a Hindu family, but converted to Islam at age 20 and got pulled into jihadi activities in Kashmir (about which he published a book). He was the one who cased the financial institutions in the U.S. for al-Qaeda. The story of Barot, like that of Richard Reid, shows that al-Qaeda isn't mainly about Islam per se, it is a political-religious ideology that can attract non-Muslims.

Likewise, Pakistani Interior Minister Faisal Saleh Hayat was livid that Khan's name and other details had turned up in the press.

Cole says that there isn't a bona fide "slam dunk" case that the Bush administration leaked Khan's name, but that a LOT of circumstantial evidence points in that direction. If the Bushies leaked Khan after the Pakistanis had flipped him, it would seem to indicate that either A) the administration is knowingly playing politics with national security or B) that they are utterly incompetent in handling national security. Remember, Khan was the fellow who had access to top al Qaeda operatives and was helping Pakistani authorities try to nab them.

The Triumph of Pop Culture?

I have pretty non-mainstream tastes when it comes to music and film, so when people lap up, say, that stupid song "a hero can save me" from the first Spiderman movie, or 8 Mile or something, I pretty much go berzerk.

However, I was urged by a dear friend to see "Garden State," and not only was it quite good, but there were asses in the seats, and the writer/director's blog says that it's been successful enough that it's expanding to 600 screens soon. Not only that, the soundtrack (which has many songs that I already own and enjoy) has hit #1 on Amazon (at least at this time of writing).

And not only that, but the film has some themes that have been a part of my schtick for a pretty long time, and I think the director does a good job of getting the ideas out there without being preachy.

So maybe there's hope for humanity yet. Anyway, go see Garden State. Now.

Remember "Hearts and Minds?"

"This is primarily not a military problem -- it is a battle for the hearts and minds of the South Vietnamese people. As a prerequisite to that, we must be able to guarantee their physical security."

--Robert S. McNamara on Vietnam

"[Y]ou're already starting to see increasingly visible signs of Iraqis speaking out for freedom and helping the United States and the United Kingdom and Australia. Some of the information that you've been getting from Iraqis has led to direct actions on the ground, as the military briefers have shared from CENTCOM. And so the only reason that Iraqis would be providing that is if they, themselves, are taking sides. And obviously they're taking sides with the United States and against the oppressive Iraqi regime."

--Ari Fleischer, April Fool's Day 2003

"[Our hearts and minds policy is] worse than failing. Failing means you tried and didn't get better. But at this point, three years after September 11, you can say there wasn't even much of an attempt, and today Arab and Muslim attitudes toward the U.S. and the degree of distrust in the U.S. are far worse than they were three years ago. Bin Laden is winning by default...

"There is a total collapse of trust in American intentions and it's only gotten far worse over the past year," Telhami said. "When people hate or resent the United States far more than they dislike bin Laden, how can you succeed? That's the bottom line."

--Shibley Telhami, member of a White House-appointed advisory group on public diplomacy and Brookings Institution scholar.

Pardon My...Well...French

I am sick to FUCKING DEATH of this sour grapes, "I can't believe Bush was so incompetent that he could FUBAR the Iraq adventure" crap. The fatal conceit doesn't stop at water's edge, fellas. Sure, Bush cocked the thing up royally, but the arrogance that is required to think that any of these chaps could've done better (with the possible exception of Rubin) is astonishing. The arrogance required to believe that anybody could've wrapped it up cleanly enough to support it in the first place was bad enough.

Either still be a hawk, or mea culpa it and shut the hell up.

Other Stuff

Radley links to this, which is entirely inappropriate, but hysterical. I blame the Brits.

Bob has a funny piece about the most interesting public figure living in the White House.