Blog

Sex and Muslims


“ ‘So what’s your name,’ she said indifferently, taking off her black panties and tossing them with her toe to the cobwebby corner of the motel room just off the Turnpike in Iselin. He had a cowed look, watery eyes that wouldn’t settle on hers forthrightly, and office worker hands. She bet he worked in a cubicle.”

This is how the current installment of “Sex and the Umma,” opens, and this is part of what has sparked such controversy. “Sex and the Umma,” is the Islamic sex column portion of Muslim WakeUp!, a site and online publication that “seeks to bring together Muslims and non-Muslims in America and around the globe in efforts that celebrate cultural and spiritual diversity, tolerance, and understanding.” It is also now under attack from individuals who call themselves the Islamic Challenge Brigades and who claim that the web site is a “vile attack on Islam.” The Islamic Challenge Brigades also allege that the magazine’s publishers are “murtad,” or apostates, a term that can imply impending physical violence.

Muslim WakeUp! Editor-in-Chief Ahmed Nassef is in contact with the FBI about the situation, and Lloyd Grove, who covered the story for the shamelessly and unrelentingly gossipy New York Daily News, quoted FBI Special Agent Jim Margolin as stating: “Even if this were merely a denial-of-service attack, it would be a federal crime.”

—Mimi Hanaoka

    

Dear Reader, In The Fray is a nonprofit staffed by volunteers. If you liked this piece, could you please donate $10? If you want to help, you can also:
 
Commentary

Psychological secession

A “blue” print for half of the country’s future after the devastation of November 2.


In decades to come, historians will look back on the 2004 election — November 2, 2004 — as a turning point in the history of the United States. We crossed the Rubicon — or was it the River Styx? We are witnessing the beginning of the end of one country with the flashpoint as two divergent visions of morality and their implementation.

We have had a 229-year run, and history has taught us that nation-states are largely fragile, artificial constructs and finite. Within the context of human history, the United States’ influence is disproportionate to its physical size, population and duration, and it may prove to be insignificant and waning in influence as it retreats from any consideration of progressive issues facing the world.

Indeed in a few decades, we may well have another American revolution with the residents of so-called blue states revolting against taxation without representation in the very red federal government and declaring their independence from religious tyranny. Maybe such will lead to the physical division of our nation through blue state secession. In the meantime, I argue for something subtler: a mental separation, a psychological secession.

If our pretense to democracy was put on life support in 2000, conservatives just pulled the plug, proving that the most corrupt of administrations can lie, spin and buy their way out of the direst of electoral predicaments. Even when most Americans think that the country is on the wrong track, the current president has done a lousy job, and that most of the current administration’s policies have failed, some of those same Americans will still vote for him out of fear of something, whether it be terrorists or fags or feminists or gun-hating liberals or church-state separation or having to pay a fair share in taxes.

This year’s election was supposed to be the one in which  we made a cosmic correction. A few optimistic souls projected that more than 120 million would vote. Instead, roughly 115 million Americans voted out of nearly the 200 million eligible, meaning that about 40 percent of eligible voters did not vote in what was recognized as one of the most important elections in our lifetime. That is a travesty. Even more devastating is that we are celebrating the “high” turnout.

The Republicans’ plan for the 2004 election was twofold: increase voter turnout among conservatives in the swing states and suppress Democratic voter turnout in the same. While Republicans may not have been successful in suppressing the “Detroit” (read: urban and minority) vote, their threat to challenge the rights of over 50,000 newly registered Democrats in Ohio almost surely had a chilling effect on voter turnout in poor and minority neighborhoods in that state and probably others, which was, of course, the desired effect.

Intent not to be left on the sidelines, the corporate-owned media did their part to discourage voting with unfounded rumors of terror alerts, unsupported reports of an election-day attack, constant reminders about paperless voting machines not subject to recounts, horror stories of widespread voter irregularities, and cautionary tales of 500,000 too few poll workers by federal estimates. Increased anxiety coupled with just enough predictable voter apathy made for the perfect election storm favoring an unpopular incumbent. Maybe many were so afraid of terrorist attacks that they went shopping instead.

Were the exit polls in Florida and Ohio (and other states) really that far off? I’m sure we will never know as we can rest assured that this is not a story that our country’s media is interested in pursuing. As we witnessed in 2000, stability in election outcomes is more sacred than the accuracy or legitimacy of the election process itself. Four years ago, our country’s political power structure learned how patient the electorate would be in the face of an election crisis. Not only were we willing to affirm the legitimacy of an election where every vote was not counted, we would even allow the Supreme Court to choose our president for us.

During the time since the previous election, our corporate and political elite never wasted an opportunity to remind us how important it is for Americans to accept whatever result our faulty election process spits out. Markets like stability; whether your vote was counted correctly or counted at all doesn’t matter. The fact that we have a “clear” winner is more important than ensuring the integrity of the process that determined the winner. Despite the growing clamor for an investigation of the inconsistencies and potential fraud of November 2, 2004, none will be forthcoming. The proponents of transparency in our elections are now painted as poor losers or worse, conspiracy theorists.

Despite all their dirty tricks and the many who flouted their civic duty, the bottom line is the Republicans are still in charge. And if any doubt from 2000 lingered that we live in a deeply divided nation, it was vanquished on November 2. We now live in two countries, and rather than involving ourselves in the spectacle of the national Democrats’ self-flagellation in hopes that Republicans won’t treat them too unkindly, we need to think about moving in a new direction, our own direction. We must determine to decide our own destiny.

Abandon national politics

The national Democratic Party is now irrelevant and already scurrying to the right, dropping inconvenient progressive causes along the way, as if conservatives are ever going to choose a faux Republican when they can have the real thing. Make no mistake, we now have one national party, the GOP, which is set during the next four years to complete its work of crippling the federal government’s ability to aid those in need; its decades-long goal of destroying the New Deal and any remnant of the Great Society will have been met.

While Senate Democrats could filibuster proposed regressive legislation or votes on ultra-conservative judicial nominees, they won’t. There are just enough senators from red states who will be so frightened of losing their seats (a la Tom Daschle), that they will be quite compliant. Any way you look at it, the Republicans have a comfortable majority with which to bring about their revolution. They may not be passing constitutional amendments banning flag burning or gay marriage (at least not before the elections of 2006), but judicial nominees will sail through, our tax system will be “reformed” and what’s left of the social safety net will be unraveled.

The most useless act you can commit at this point in our nation’s history is to vote in a national election. And by the way, stop giving money to national political parties. Your time and money are better spent supporting the various charities and civic organizations that will have to expend their scant resources fighting back the red tide on every issue from civil liberties to environmental protection and filling the vacuum of leadership in Washington.

We must learn to expect nothing from the federal government except its disdain. Many say that we are now heading towards a theocracy, but I would argue that we are living in a corporate theocracy. The corporate powers that be that are running our government have promised conservative Christians a theocratic social agenda in exchange for their political support. So the corporate oligarchy gets less public regulation while the social conservatives get their desire for more regulation in the private sphere, which is the opposite of our clear blue vision for the country. Personal freedom is out; corporate freedom is in.

Support state and local organizations financially

If you are one of the lucky few to benefit from the current administration’s tax cuts, then your state government had better become your new favorite charity, especially if you live in a blue state. State governments will have to fund any public policy program that does not dovetail with our national government’s extremist agenda. And while the red states may be in for a federal tax-dollar bonanza, the blue states will be picking up the tab.

Most certainly, environmental protection will fall completely to the states, always subject of course to the feds overriding anything they don’t like; state’s rights only apply to the red states. States will have to replace Medicaid/Medicare and, eventually, social security. Corporate oversight, disaster relief, housing assistance, education assistance, and protections of civil rights and civil liberties will become the burden of the states as the funding for the federal agencies historically charged with such will be diverted to deeper tax cuts, defense and faith-based (read, Christian) charities.

The way Bush has insidiously interwoven faith-based initiatives throughout cabinet level departments is nothing short of ingenious. It can claim that the Department of Education’s budget has been increased without acknowledging that all of the increase will be earmarked for faith-based initiatives only. The same is true for Health and Human Services, the Commerce Department, and a host of others.

Thinking about ourselves in a new way

We must look to alternatives by buttressing the independence of our state and local governments and increasing our support for organizations that will be forced to absorb the responsibilities that the feds are and will be shirking or creating some sort of extra-federal system or regional systems of government or coalitions of blue states to supplant the role of the federal government.

We must also get more involved state activisim and do whatever we need to do to make blue states a haven for those fleeing the theocratic tyranny of the red states, and to create a bulwark against encroachments by our federal corporate theocracy. We must ignore the national media outlets with their democracy plazas and glib talking heads.

As media become more consolidated under the control of a handful of corporate interests with Bush’s dismantling of Federal Communications Commission corporate oversight, getting your news and information from independent and varied sources becomes paramount. Corporate media in the United States have the journalistic integrity of Pravda during the Soviet era. They act as a mouthpiece for the government, which in turn rewards them with further tax breaks coupled with less regulation of their corporate structure.

Possibly the most important task will be reigning in corporate influence in state and local politics as the failure to do so on the federal level has been a significant contributor to the demise of responsive government. We must not allow our states to follow suit; they are our last hope.

We need to overturn the most undemocratic of initiatives: term limits. On the state level, such as in a large, complex state like California, they wreak havoc on our representatives’ ability to legislate effectively and intelligently. A six or eight-year term is barely enough time for a new representative to understand fully the intricacies of a handful of issues before being banned from the statehouse. And with new representatives unable to look to veteran legislators for mentoring, the friendly neighborhood lobbyist will be more than happy to explain legislation to them and even tell them how to vote. Lobbyists, by the way, are not subject to term limits. Can you imagine firing your doctor every six years because she has been practicing too long and knows you too well?

True campaign finance reform in the blue states will have to come from the ground with our demanding the end of corporate influence money. A start would be limiting campaign contributions to natural persons only and not corporate “persons” granted personage through the pernicious legal fiction of corporate citizenship. This would not cease corporate influence completely, but it would severely restrict the flow of corporate money into politicians’ coffers. Coupled with a ban on in-kind contributions, we could forestall in the blue states what has happened in Washington and see the beginning of a new era of responsive government.

Be patient, but vigilant

Our new blue state revolution will not happen within a few months, or even years. The first step is easing into the mindset that we are on our own and will now need to fight to preserve the rights and liberties we value. And remember, you have not abandoned your country — it has abandoned you.

STORY INDEX

TOPICS > FAITH-BASED INITIATIVES

President Bush’s plan
URL:  http://www.whitehouse.gov/government/fbci/

“

Dear Reader, In The Fray is a nonprofit staffed by volunteers. If you liked this piece, could you please donate $10? If you want to help, you can also:
 
Reviews

Between nostalgia and fundamentalism

Does democracy matter? Philosopher Cornel West returns to the beginning of the great American experiment to find the answer.


For those of us just emerging from the hangover of an election gone awry for the Left, a proclaimed “mandate” from the people, and a string of fun new political appointments, the worst is yet to come. After a long night of ill-fated political exuberance , we roll over to find out we went home with John Kerry. The deed is done and there is no time for regret. Finding ourselves emerging from the haze of a series of embarrassing one night stands with the shrieking Vermonter, the slick Hip-Hop-savvy general, and pretty-boy Edwards — may demand a moment of clarity.  

None of these men seemed like out and out bad people. Their agendas all stood starkly in contrast to that of George W. Bush. Each candidate had his own nostalgic connection to a progressive era we missed. They opposed the war as it was being fought, made gestures towards labor, and even questioned the necessity of the Patriot Act’s most invasive measures. But none were men of substance. The shame of our brief affair with mainstream democratic politics is how little these men stood for. I am embarrassed that I voted for someone who crafted his position on gay marriage in the gutless language of states’ rights. And who responded to the increasingly genocidal violence enacted in the name of U.S. democratic principles with the phrase “find them and kill them.”  

How did it get so bad? Why were so many leftists and young people motivated to campaign and vote for people who represented them so poorly? (The media spinsters who have constructed the “people’s mandate” for Bush will fervently disagree, but as Michael Moore correctly points out, more young Americans voted in the last election than ever before.) What seems obvious now is how convinced we have all become that there is no alternative. What is missing is any kind of real dialogue over the issues.  

Even the “hot button” values issues such as abortion, gay marriage, and prayer in schools were not debated. Both the vice presidential and presidential debates where characterized by vaguery and moralizing, as opposed to reasoned discussion. In a pre-election appearance on the “debate” show Crossfire, Daily Show anchor Jon Stewart pleaded with host Tucker Carlson to stop “hurting America.” What seemed appalling to both the Democratic and Republican hosts on Crossfire was Stewart’s claim that they did not actually debate on the well-rated CNN talk show. Stewart was, of course, correct. The show that is supposed to provide “partisan balance” does exactly what it sets out to do: It gives exactly equivalent doses of pre-prepared democratic and republican sound bites.

A requiem for lost souls

Most of us know that a vote for Kerry was largely a vote against Bush. We found ourselves desperate and hopeless enough to believe anything would be better. In the past decade of an increasingly conservative Democratic party, many have begun to believe the Religious Right’s assertion that the history of America is a conservative Christian history, leaving the Left to settle for “anything but Bush.”

It is with this newfound nihilism that esteemed Princeton Professor Cornel West takes issue in his new book, Democracy Matters: Winning the Fight Against Imperialism. In a sweeping survey of American history focused on what he calls a “Socratic and Prophetic tradition of truth-telling,” West returns to the oft-heralded founding artists and thinkers of radical democracy — Ralph Waldo Emerson, Melville, and their inheritors, James Baldwin and Toni Morrison, amongst others, to resuscitate the rich American tradition of questioning and dialogue.

West’s well-known wit and brusque style immediately call out the Democratic party, dubbing them  “pathetic” and “spineless.” He argues that, as a nation, we suffer from a “deadening nihilism.” As West defines it, American nihilism has taken on three forms: evangelical, paternalistic, and sentimental. All, he says, demonstrate a “cowardly lack of willingness to engage in truth telling, even at the cost of social ills.” The sources of this nihilism are not surprising. Citing the increasingly violent and yet directionless infotainment of CNN and other major media sources, West argues that while they show the tragedy of the world, they prevent a “reckoning with the institutional causes of social misery.”

It is difficult to dispute this fact. Consider, for instance, the vice presidential treatment of the domestic AIDS spread. During the 2004 vice presidential debate, moderator Gwen Ifill asked both candidates to comment on the increasing spread of AIDS amongst African Americans and young people domestically. She added that their responses should specifically not address the AIDS crisis in Africa. Both Cheney and Edwards, of course, quickly redirected the question towards Africa. Finally, Cheney admitted that he was not aware that AIDS was spreading more rapidly amongst African Americans. However, he showed no remorse for this ignorance and instead enacted what West seems to mean by “sentimental nihilism.” Cheney used this opportunity to repeat with heartfelt sincerity the “tragedy” of such occurrences, as if such a compassionate performance was sufficient to address the AIDS crisis. West has aptly identified the role that admitting the horror of social ills has come to play in postponing any significant response to modern day injustices. His assessment of the Democratic party is equally correct. Edwards’ predictable response simply attacked Bush’s policy toward the AIDS epidemic in Africa, rather than taking the risk of proposing aggressive alternative solutions or even answering Ifill’s question.

The dreams that stuff is made of

West responds to this darkening political landscape with vigor. He identifies Ralph Waldo Emerson as the dreamer of American potential and Herman Melville as the dark oracle foretelling where American exceptionalism will lead in pursuit of our great white whale —global military control. West synthesizes these two historical referents into what he calls the “tragicomic position.” Or a historically rooted political ethos that owns up to the troubled and often violent history of the United States, a democratic experiment as indebted to notions of freedom as it is to enslavement and genocide.  In a description of what West feels few Americans are willing to accept, he describes our nation as a “complex intertwining of democratic commitment and nihilistic imperialism.”

West is frank and unflinchingly honest about the troubled histories of our brightest moments in democratic progress. The agrarian-led Populist movement, the social reforms of the Progressive era under Woodrow Wilson, and the Labor movement spearheaded by Eugene Debbs — all of these leaps forward for social justice and class equality also contain a shadowy and often forgotten history of racism, sexism, and profound xenophobia. Many of these advances occurred under the Wilson administration, which reasserted the Monroe Doctrine and exported American Manifest Destiny to Cuba, Guam, and the Philippines, while renewing racism at home through increased segregation and the re-segregation of Washington, D.C. In emphasizing the at times schizophrenic policies of reform and democratic struggle, West hopes to carve out a new space for politics that can be hopeful without the willful ignorance of nostalgia and sorrowful without the melancholy of nihilism.  

West impressively displays the breadth of his historical and philosophical knowledge throughout Democracy Matters. But he sets this work apart from other detailed histories of American progressivism like Richard Rorty’s Achieving our Nation by maintaining a truly global scope in his sources in hopes of renewing the American democratic tradition. Unlike Rorty, who champions the universal human spirit found in Emerson and Baldwin along narrow class lines at the exclusion of race and sexual politics, West devotes the second half of his book to the voices of dissent amongst three groups who are often represented as being united behind their dogma: Muslims, Jews, and Christians. It is this move to disrupt the predictable Christian, Jewish, and Muslim responses to global problems of injustice that makes this book a must-read. What West attempts is a truly ecumenical approach to politics that resonates with the religious and nationalistic tendencies of Americans while holding tightly to the truly cosmopolitan scope of his dream for global democracy. This is a Herculean task that tests the mettle of West as a thinker and a writer.

It is difficult to say West succeeds at the task, however. Democracy Matters concludes as more of an invitation for further striving than a final proposal or policy statement. But West’s attempt to reclaim the ossified history of the American renaissance alongside the legacy of Martin Luther King Jr.’s liberation theology, now mostly forgotten by mainstream religious dialogue, gives pause to cynics who have replaced hope with vitriolic aspersions toward the faith-based communities of this country. Democracy Matters is important because it starts an honest and fearless dialogue between the religious traditions that seem to draw the starkest lines of global division and conflict and have gained undeniable power, whether it be direct theocratic rule or the proxy wars of the Religious Right. West’s invitation to Judaic, Christian, and Islamic thinking is not one of banal respect or politically correct multiculturalism. Rather, it is an engaged, committed search for a common history that demands social justice and ethical lives in a world many have given up on. He crosses the lines into religious and spiritual debate that our “born-again” leaders run from as they profess their religiosity. Engaging new power centers of American politics within their belief structures presents political possibilities that Democratic leaders have not even considered. Given the new political landscape of values and beliefs, it is difficult to imagine competing with the church-led grassroots Republican organization until opposition leaders can dispute their claims to righteousness. West lays the groundwork to develop such a political vocabulary, concluding that “to be a Christian is to live dangerously, honestly, freely — to step in the name of love as if you may land on nothing, yet to keep stepping because the something that sustains you no empire can give you and no empire can take away.”

Out of curiosity, I wondered what the opposition response would be. I went to the Christian Coalition website, and typed into the search box, “What is a Christian?”  I received the following response: “Sorry, your search for ‘What is a Christian?’ yielded no results. Please try again.”  

Luckily, despite the confusion, I still received an invitation to make a donation using my Visa, Mastercard, or American Express.

Player Haters and Hater Players

Given that West intervenes in questions of capitalist greed, military empire, racial subjugation, and the fate of our nations souls in ways that have gotten many men shot, it is not surprising that his work should stir controversy. What is troubling is that the controversy has centered around his competence as a scholar rather than the validity of his claims. In a recent media frenzy over West’s scholarly credentials started by Harvard University President Lawrence H. Summers, one of the most accomplished men of American letters has had to defend his significance.  

Democracy Matters, however, lays those question to rest. The trajectory of this work points to a corpus of new philosophical developments that address the continuing legacy of American arrogance and political nihilism. For those like Summers who criticize West for his forays into Hip-Hop or appearances in movies such as The Matrix: Revolutions, bravo, you are correct. The man has no mic skills in that department. (His music reminds me of Christian rock; it is awful and embarrassing to listen to.)  But what makes West’s work exciting is his willingness to put himself on the line for what he believes. He finds hope in the possibility of a democratic youth that most politicians and thinkers write off all together. His attempts to speak in the idioms of science fiction or Hip-Hop are laudable, if not successful. Although his attempts at infiltrating popular culture have had mixed results, West’s invocation of Christian grace and generosity is undeniably powerful even amidst the best arguments for civic secularism.

West confronts the Left with a deeply powerful and difficult question, one that it must engage in a world increasingly dominated by theocratic politics. What must be discussed further is how well West can maintain his spirit of ecumenicism in an increasingly divided world.  

STORY INDEX

Marketplace >
(Purchase books from Powells.com by clicking on the link below, and a portion of the sale goes to InTheFray to maintain the magazine.)

Democracy Matters: Winning the Fight Against Imperialism by Cornell West
URL: http://www.powells.com/cgi-bin/partner?partner_id=28164&cgi=product&isbn=1594200297

Dear Reader, In The Fray is a nonprofit staffed by volunteers. If you liked this piece, could you please donate $10? If you want to help, you can also:
 
Blog

Quote of note


“Hollywood is controlled by secular Jews who hate Christianity in general and Catholicism in particular. It’s not a secret, okay? And I’m not afraid to say it. That’s why they hate this movie. It’s about Jesus Christ.”

— William Donohue, President of the Catholic League, speaking recently on MSNBC’s Scarborough Country.

Donohue indulged in this spectacular piece of anti-Semitic demagoguery in the context of a discussion about Mel Gibson’s controversial film, The Passion of the Christ. Donohue also added: “Hollywood likes anal sex.”

—Mimi Hanaoka

  

Dear Reader, In The Fray is a nonprofit staffed by volunteers. If you liked this piece, could you please donate $10? If you want to help, you can also:
 
Blog

Promoting peace, with some gender equity on the side


On Tuesday, Egypt and the United States signed a trade agreement to establish the creation of Qualifying Industrial Zones (QIZs) within Egypt.  These zones will allow for Egyptian factories within the QIZs to export their products to the United States, duty-free. The agreement is seen as a reward for Egypt’s recent attempts to reestablish a positive relationship with Israel, and possibly shift the tide of anti-Israel popular opinion in Egypt — but as Orly Halpern reports in The Christian Science Monitor, a similar agreement in Jordan is having unexpected results.

Jordan’s QIZs increased their exports to the United States from two million dollars in 1994, to one billion dollars in 2004; the materials used in the QIZ factories come in part from Israel.  There isn’t any evidence that Jordanians have changed their feelings about their neighboring country, but the factories have functioned as a catalyst for increasing female independence. Jordan’s QIZ employs tens of thousands of workers, who are predominantly female. The jobs provide newfound economic independence for Jordanian women, who were previously solely dependent on males for sustenance, and removes them from the seclusion of their homes by providing dormitory housing for workers.

United States’ support of the Egyptian economy is nothing new, but in a country where school children understand the Holocaust as a positive historical event and draw swatstikas on their notebooks, it will take more than linking economic aid to support of Israel to alter popular opinion. However, by providing economic empowerment to Egyptian women, the trade agreement may have even more insidious results — women with economic power.

—Laura Louison

Dear Reader, In The Fray is a nonprofit staffed by volunteers. If you liked this piece, could you please donate $10? If you want to help, you can also:
 
Blog

Rummy’s war?


TO DO: Spend Time with your draft-age child or grandchild.

“Would you sacrifice your child to secure Fallujah?”

This brilliant question was posed by Michael Moore on numerous TV appearances before the election, but seems to be getting a lot of airplay on the rerun circuit. The most recent of which was a couple nights ago on Conan O’Brian. For a moment, hundreds must have been waiting for Conan to do his trademark hair flip and blurt out “HUUUH!” But instead he shook his head like Moore made all the sense in the world.

Apparently, Conan wouldn’t sacrifice his son.

It is interesting though, that despite being informed by Bill O’Reilly that the days of parents sacrificing their children are over in America, Moore stuck to his perverted logic. In fact, I can’t recall an instance since Vietnam (a Democrat war) where parents were required to offer up their children to either Rumplestiltskin or the United States government.

The United States Army is an all-volunteer Army, and there’s a reason for it. They don’t want whiny boys gumming up the works in the middle of a war zone. The battlefield is for men and now also for courageous women, and they weren’t sacrificed by their parents on an altar; they signed up. Many people, including Moore, argue that the Reserves and the National Guard didn’t sign up for this. What did they think they were signing up for, knitting classes? Marching lessons? You can’t be “sent without consent” when you join the military; consent is implied. When you say the oath and give your first salute and put pen to paper for a tour, you are saying, “Wherever I am needed by my country, I will go.”

Before the election and even now, the media and certain members of Congress are keeping up the gambit on the draft. Congressman Charles Wrangle, a New York Democrat, thought it would be a great idea to have a draft and produced a bill that would’ve had little Johnny trading in his short pants for fatigues right out of high school. But with the old Democrat stick-to-it-iveness and dedication to national defense, he voted against his own brainchild (H.R.163), which he wrote back in 2003.

Apparently, he was unwilling to sacrifice his son to secure Fallujah too.

Yet, amazingly while all these people seem unwilling to sacrifice their own children, many continue to demand more troops in Iraq. The thinking seems to be thus: I don’t want to send my son to Iraq, but Donald Rumsfeld should be fired for not putting more troops in Iraq. (Remember when Kerry promised two new divisions and 40,000 new special forces soldiers? I don’t recall seeing Vanessa trying on green berets.)

A more brilliant strategem cannot be conceived. Democrats, who secretly profess their anti-war beliefs, but who were quick to record their votes in favor of the war, have a great way out … blame it all on Rumsfeld! The war would’ve been over in a week if Rumsfeld had put enough boots on the ground! Our boys wouldn’t be getting killed if Rumsfeld would’ve armored the Humvees! We’re in this mess because of Rummy’s theory of a light and fast army!

Maureen Dowd of The New York Times had this to say recently: “The dreams of Rummy and the neocons were bound to collide. But it’s immoral to trap our troops in a guerrilla war without essential, lifesaving support and matériel just so a bunch of officials who have never been in a war can test their theories.”

However, while everyone is calling for Rumsfeld’s head, it might be nice to know who actually decides military budgets to pay for things like armored humvees and bullet-proof flack jackets. Any guesses, anyone? CONGRESS! The Secretary of Defense, along with the President of the United States each submits a budget to Congress, both of which usually go straight down the garbage-hole. Many of the politicians now crying about the war effort were precisely the ones voting down the military spending during the Clinton years. John Kerry nearly got away with voting to go to war without backing up his vote with the bucks. We should be examining the records of other “nay-sayers” in the same way. So the next time someone says “Whoa is us, it’s all Rummy’s fault,” tell them this isn’t Rummy’s war, Rummy wasn’t around to vote all the equipment spending down. Tell them this is Congress’ War.  

—Christopher White

Dear Reader, In The Fray is a nonprofit staffed by volunteers. If you liked this piece, could you please donate $10? If you want to help, you can also:
 
Blog

Quote of note


“The detention system in Afghanistan continues to operate outside the rule of law. The United States continues to hold Afghan detainees in legal limbo and in many cases incommunicado, in violation of U.S. obligations under the laws of armed conflict and applicable Afghan law.”

— Brad Adams, Executive Director of Human Rights Watch, in an open letter written today to Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. The letter was also carbon copied to Porter Goss, Director of the CIA.  

Adams accuses the American government of neglecting to sufficiently investigate the allegations of criminal abuse and murder reported to have been perpetrated by American forces in Afghanistan, and states: “Six detainees are now known to have died in U.S. custody in Afghanistan—including four known cases of murder or manslaughter — and former detainees have made scores of other claims of torture and other mistreatment. Some of the cases took place over two years ago. Yet to our knowledge, the U.S. government has conducted only a handful of criminal investigations, and has charged only two people with any crime in these cases.”  

—Mimi Hanaoka

Dear Reader, In The Fray is a nonprofit staffed by volunteers. If you liked this piece, could you please donate $10? If you want to help, you can also:
 
Blog

The heartland Arabs


The newest demographic that American Democrats should court for political support is the “heartland Arab,” or so it would seem if we are to believe an American teacher in Syria. Tyler Golson, who teaches English in Damascus, wrote the following in a recent edition of The Daily Star, the Lebanese news daily:

Having a truly even-handed and practical approach to peace in the Arab world means realizing that not everyone, and certainly not all of the elites in Arab society, sympathize with the anti-American movements taking place within their own ranks, and that these heartland Arabs could prove a valuable ally in future U.S.-Arab relations.


The heartland Arabs that Golson refers to are hardly what would pass for someone from the traditional “heartland” on this side of the Atlantic; they populate the upper and upper middle class, they hail from prestigious families and backgrounds, and they are highly educated. They are, however, Christian. Golson notes that it is President Bush’s religious zeal, captured in what he touts as his moral values, coupled with these Arabs’ distaste for centrist Democratic policy — specifically on issues of abortion, gay rights, capital punishment, and gun control — that makes Bush so appealing to this elite.

It is certainly important for the Democrats, if they are to wrestle power and influence away from Bush and the Republicans, to take into account this pro-Bush Arab minority in Syria. It is, however, important to remember that it is the minority Alawite Shias who have proved themselves incredibly influential in Syria. The Alawite Shias have historically controlled the pan-Arab Baath party, which has been in control of the Syrian government since 1963.

In calling attention to this pro-American segment of Syrian society, Tyler Golson cautions the Democrats to not fixate on rigid dichotomies, such as the divide between the “red” and the “blue,” Arab and non-Arab, and rightly so. I would add that Americans — indeed everyone — should extend this attention to nuance not only to the Arab and non-Arab, Muslim and non-Muslim, but also to the various other minorities and groups that exist in Syria, such as the complex subdivisions that exist within the broader distinctions between Sunni and Shia Muslims, in additional to the Druze Kurds, Armenians, and Assyrians who live in Syria. To fail to do so is simply to replace the “red” and the “blue,” with yet another simplistic, albeit different, understanding of the Middle East.    

—Mimi Hanaoka

  
  

Dear Reader, In The Fray is a nonprofit staffed by volunteers. If you liked this piece, could you please donate $10? If you want to help, you can also:

personal stories. global issues.