A quiet reflection and retrospective...

I have to say that GWB’s acknowledgement of the distinct lack of WMD’s in Iraq has a sad feeling of ennui to it; a tired feeling of “better late than never” is completely overwhelmed by the fact that he truly believed the lie. I must add my personal acknowledgement that there is no joy – on my part at least – in knowing that along with a great many others I was right all along.

The saddest aspect to the whole sorry saga is that the success of the “Bush lie” remains. And, for the comfort of those who might be thinking I am about to deny the Holocaust I explain.

The “Bush lie” is not that 9/11 never happened, nor any of the far fanciful conspiracy theories that have sprung up around and since those tragic events. The “Bush lie” swings far more on the conflation of statism, realpolitik, and religious zealotry on the part of the few.

“Statism”, at least the context in which I prefer the term –

“… the ideology of statism that holds that Sovereignty is vested not in the people but in the national state, and that all individuals and associations exist only to enhance the power, the prestige, and the well-being of the state. The concept of statism, which is seen as synonymous with the concept of nation, and corporatism repudiates individualism and exalts the nation as an organic body headed by the Supreme Leader and nurtured by unity, force, and discipline.[4]

This first part of the conflation stems from, and clearly explains; the actions of al Qaeda; the actions taken by the US against Afghanistan and Iraq specifically (and militarily). The justifications, outcomes and consequences of all are not at issue but are now matters of history. What is critical is the confusion (of and by) the individual – such as Saddam, bin Laden, Bush and Cheney – with Nation.
“Realpolitik” –

“A usually expansionist national policy having as its sole principle advancement of the national interest.”
“Governmental policies based on hard, practical considerations rather than on moral or idealistic concerns. Realpolitik is German for “the politics of reality” and is often applied to the policies of nations that consider only their own interests in dealing with other countries.”

The combination and confusion of statism and realpolitik is understandable, especially on the part of the US as these are the foundation stones of their modern Republic. Yeah, I know that will get into the noses of quite a few from the US right but please remember, as your blood pressure rises, that that statism is exactly what you are trying to fight against.

Realpolitik comes from, rather than leads to, the opportunities presented by events. There is no question that 9/11 was seen as a prime opportunity to gain considerable advantage in the national interests of the US, quite apart from the social and national impact of the attack. Those opportunities were seen as providing potential solutions to a number of perceived and quite intractable problems looming in the not too distant future. Similarly, the political motives of binLaden and al Qaeda were aimed at consolidation and confirmation of their statism by the creation of their realpolitik.

If you detect a subtle nuance here you are not wrong. The difference between the two comes from the motives of those involved. On the US side the actions and motives of individuals were undoubtably intended as for the national good. For alQaeda’s part, the motives and actions of individuals were as equally intended for personal reasons as for the good of their “State”.

It is that point which raises the third colour in the blend. I can remember very clearly the very first, short, statement made by GWB after 9/11. I can remember the very visible wince from Cheyney as Bush stated the US’s intention to proceed with a “crusade against terrorism”, corrected part way through the phrase to “war on terrorism”. The Freudian slip of “crusade” for “war” has to be accepted as unintentional. That it slipped into the line indicates that its use had likely been discussed prior and discarded as being the wrong word to use. The religious connotation did not fit.

The implied “US-Judeo-Christianity versus Islam” would immediately become a religious war. The consequence would be to exclude many, if not all, Middle Eastern states as potential allies. On the other side, the Bush slip was exactly what alQaeda wanted. It was their intention from the beginning to make 9/11 the beginning of “the greatest ever jihad against Islam’s greatest ever enemy”. The accidental and momentary slip of the tongue was more than they could have hoped for. That the intended enemy was Israel rather than the US became forgotten from the instant the first aircraft hit.

I can not be certain, and I doubt that Bush’s memoir will cover the point, whether the intensity of the religious reaction in the US to 9/11 was intended. It best remains as an “unintended consequence”; one which had only beneficial impact for those in power in the US; one which focussed public attention on “the enemy” of Islam; and a consequence which again was entirely what alQaeda had hoped for. It is this part of the “Bush lie” that remains. It is evidenced – mostly on the right to far right – as an intense and enduring fear and hatred of ALL Islam. In saying that, I realise that it is an over-simplification because it is also strongly evident to the left as well in that part of US which strongly supports Israel. That section is not Jewish, nor Israeli. There is a strong nationalist religious element to the support of Israel in realpolitik and the American electorate.

I started with the statement that the success of the “Bush lie” still remains. It is not a lie that was spoken, nor perhaps even intended by GWB himself. I have consistently put the “Bush lie” in quotes because it is not a conscious untruth, an intended misleading. It is a consequence of a whole society (intentionally? I do not think so) taking the fact, the statism, the realpolitik, and the religious zealotry as one.

On the other side, bin Laden (if he is still alive) and alQaeda have succeeded probably beyond their wildest dreams in provoking the US people into that conflation. Their success in that regard has not reached, nor suaded, more than a very few of the people of Islam. To that extent they have failed.

They have however created a “State” which carries their power. It has no boundaries. It has no recognition as a formal “State” for that reason. It needs neither of those. They have also created a realpolitik which will have a large influence on the actions of other nations into the future. The reason for alQaeda is enough to ensure its continuance into the immediate future. The very great danger in the longer term will be realised if the realpolitik of the alQaeda jihad becomes the norm of Islam. It will become so if the mirror image of the west’s conflation (statism/realpolitik/religion) can be created from the actions of western states against Islam through alQaeda.

Allah willing it shall not.

On judgement, on prejudgement and prejudice...

TF has recently posted on the subject of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints and I make no criticism of his statement, in fact it is interesting and to the point.

I am using it (abusing TF?) to make an much wider point.

TF outlines briefly the difference between FLDS and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints and then branches into the matters of belief and difference with particular reference to Oprah Winfrey and her support of Obama. What that has to do with the FLDS escapes me, but it makes for an interesting read.

The FLDS has hit the news (again) as a result of their support for polygamy and hence TF's need to distinguish between that and the LDS as the "true" belief.

My mind turns in a different direction, turning more on the impact that a small, extreme group can have on a much wider community. There are probably so many examples that might be chosen; the Asian populations in Auckland about whom Winnie the Pooh has already been beating his electoral drum.

There is one very big example that I want to turn to - one which potentially involves some 1/3 of the global population.

As the consequence of the actions of one small group, numbering at that time no more than perhaps 100,000, the whole of the Islam belief and culture has been promoted, castigated, labelled, and criticised as "terrorists". Exclude the "Palestinians" from this as they pre-existed the actions of AlQaeda by a long way in both distance and time.

As a result of that, Islam is now degraded in the minds of much of the Western world to the status of cultural and religious pariahs irrespective of their beliefs.

That, dear friends, differs not at all from judging the LDS on the basis of the beliefs and actions of the few nutters who make up the FLDS.

Riverbend again...

A voice it is always good to hear. May your God walk beside you alway...

The Q.O.D. - 18/10/06

The breakfast round of news and views included this from Dave Justus who picks up this question from Deans World -

You Islamophobes have yet to answer me a simple question: how can you possibly support what America is doing in Afghanistan and Iraq if you believe that Islam and Muslims are inherently incapable of modernity and tolerance and democracy?


[Dave starts with...]
Leaving aside the ‘when did you stop beating you wife’ aspect of this question, at it’s core there is an interesting thing to discuss here.

Many of the comments at Deans World seem to start from the premise that Islam and democracy are incompatible. Dave's comment, the bulk of his post I have linked to above, is both cogent and reasonable. But it seems to leave an after-taste that I could not quite place.

One of the items new to ALD this morning led to this interview, which I have now read over my lunch. It makes an interesting comparison with Dave's post...

Die Zeit: Mr. Meddeb, how is it that in the Middle Ages, a peaceful dispute between Christians and Muslims was possible, whereas today, the very mention of these times causes an uproar?

Abdelwahab Meddeb: Because at that time, the Islamic world was home to a large, well-educated upper class which encouraged debate. Throughout the medieval period, there were renowned literary salons in major cities like Baghdad that were run by aristocratic patrons and merchants and whose sole raison d’être was to bring together Christians, Jews and various sects who did not agree at all on questions of faith. The Pope is wrong to speak of a single Islamic doctrine; there were many, and they were often the subject of open disputes. In Tunis, the capital of the Maghreb, the Sultan explicitly placed progressive theologians under the protection of the freedom of opinion and defended them against attacks by the people. Of course, the majority of simple Muslims were uneducated and hardly willing to be persuaded by the power of logic and arguments as the intellectuals hoped. Today, we have comparable Muslim masses, but there is little trace of an educated elite capable of leading the discussion.

That last paragraph is right where that after-taste starts from. As I read it, the one very fundamental difference between West and Islam can trace from one very small difference. Between a thousand and five hundred years ago, a very small number of intelligent Christians won small but significant victories over the Church. Similar cultural battles were fought in the world of Islam over the same period, ending probably with Spinoza, but the difference is that in Islam the intellectuals lost and religion won.

And this insight is worthy of thought as well...

Die Zeit: Where does the violence in Islam come from?

Meddeb: It really is not unique to Islam. But whereas it took Christianity a thousand years to discover fire and the sword, this violent persuasion was part of Islam’s inheritance from the very beginning. Muhammed was a warlike Prophet, and the Islamic conquests from China to Spain followed a quasi-Napoleonic principle. Yes, Muhammed was a kind of successful Napoleon. But this is less astonishing than the fact that there was violence in Christianity, as this was completely at odds with the spirit of the gospels. Acting against all Christian teachings, there were Popes who also called for holy war and promised religious warriors a place in the kingdom of heaven. Not to mention the forced conversions during the Inquisition, when Jews and Muslims in Spain had the choice between exile, burning at the stake, and baptism. But just as the Christians overcame their historical phase of violence, the Muslims face the same challenge. What Europe experienced in the age of the Enlightenment happened a century later in the Arab world, coming mainly from Egypt, which until the interwar period was the centre of modernity and reason in the Islamic world. That was the place most likely to produce a figure like Spinoza, someone to finally break the taboo of the holiness of scripture.

Die Zeit: Why did this process stall?

Meddeb: Since the Middle Ages, Islam has been left behind by the rise of Christianity and has resigned itself to this plight. But we should not forget that Christianity too had to pass through thebloodbath of interdenominational wars. The fundamentalists’ current struggle against modernity can be seen as a form of belated interdenominational war. One major problem is the failed Westernisation of many Muslims, who only have a scant knowledge of their own tradition and who are looking for a replacement. There is no more dramatic example than the attackers of September 11th, who may have been incapable of building aeroplanes but who were at least able to pilot them.

The reference to "failed Westernisation" I presume is reference to the London train bombers and other fundamentalists of similar background.

Die Zeit: What can the West do to ensure that this new religious war ends well?

Meddeb: What Europe must do – above all the Germans and the French – is to face Islam with solid convictions and to make clear to the Arab states what a danger the fundamentalists pose to the world. To give just one example: many countries have no idea of the unbelievable things going on in their schools. After September 11th, when Saudi Arabia’s leaders were reeling under the shock of Saudi nationals having attacked the country’s traditional protector, the USA, the Saudis were surprised to realise that their children’s schoolbooks contained things that were bound to produce hordes of little bin Ladens. The rulers of many Arab states have long since lost touch with their populations, which is most clearly visible in the puritanical Stone Age Islam of the Wahhabis.

And at that point, I come back to my continual theme that the WOT is NOT a war against Islam. That portrayal, almost betrayal, of the religion of Islam is the greatest "crime" that both the Wahhabis and the US have committed. The Wahhabi for their involvement in the schoolbook example and the many other "interpretations" that they promote. The US I have put down because of the fact that from 9/11 there has never been any real distinction made between the fanatic fundamentalist Muslim, and the ordinary Muslim shopkeeper, farmer or clerk in Baghdad, Jakarta, Mumbai or Auckland.

If we were able to return to 9/10/01, then at that time we would find the fanaticism of Islam limited to a very small number of people bounded in an even small region.

The response by the US, the equate of WOT with WOI, the "axis of evil", has alienated a very great silent majority of Islam. That majority while not marginalised or radicalised to the extent of the extremeists does now have a relationship with fundamentalist Islam that did not exist on 9/10/01.

Another article from the same source looks at the different faces of Islamic commentators and the modern Islamic intellectual.

This article perhaps goes some way to explaining why it is that (to give the right wingnuts example) only 38 Muslims accepted the Pope's apology.

Many of them are characterised by a carefully masked double standard. In their home countries they present themselves as guardians of traditional Arab values, but when writing in other languages for foreign audiences they express very different, more cosmopolitan views.

The Arab intellectual behaves like a despotic father. No internal family matter may be exposed to the outside world; regardless of what the reality may be, a façade of unbroken unity must be maintained. This is especially evident with respect to such matters as relations with Israel, the scandal over the fatwa against Salman Rushdie, the attacks of 9/11, the Danish cartoons of Muhammad, or the recent war in Lebanon. In private talks with such people, one hears opinions that are radically different from what they publish in the newspapers the next day. It is as if the views propounded in the Arab media are not based on independent thinking, but formulated as opportunistic statements for public consumption.

I wonder, how many reporters from NYT, USA Today, WaPo, CanWest, FoxNews or any of the other principle media outlets can honestly say that their personal observations and opinions are accurately presented by their employers. I am not including the op-ed writers, the entertainment analysts, the ex-party hacks who write a slanted line for their editor. I am thinking here of the honest Joe reporter, who gets sent to Suva to cover the next army coup d'etat as it develops, who does his job well and objectively, and whose reports might not meet the political line his employer wants to take.

Gamal al-Ghitani, the Egyptian novelist who is also editor-in-chief of the weekly literary journal Akhbar al-Adab, is notably restrained when commenting about such crimes against humanity as have been (and continue to be) committed in Rwanda, Darfour and Iraq. But when the affair of the Danish cartoons was at its height in February of this year, he sounded like some preacher at a mosque and called for a boycott of Danish products. When the Danes finally proffered an apology, he interpreted it as being motivated by fear for sales of Danish cheese rather than as an acknowledgement of respect for Islam.

Or take the famous poet Adonis: In the West he is seen as a Syrian exile who sharply criticises Islamism and the state of the Arab world. But his statements and his silences in recent decades present a completely different picture. Upon the death of Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser in 1970, the Arab masses went into profound mourning – and Adonis lamented his passing with a poem. This prominent exile has had nothing to say about the victims of the Syrian regime over the past four decades. But he published another old-fashioned panegyric to the victory of the Iranian Revolution in 1978, ...

The Lebanese poet and journalist Abbas Beydoun is a cultural correspondent for the Lebanese daily as-Safir. ...those of his articles which appear in German differ markedly from his pieces in Arabic. In Der Tagespiegel of July 26, 2006 and in Die Zeit of July 27, for example, he criticised Hizbullah's solo attack and confrontation with Israel, going so far as to describe it as a military putsch. He also emphasised that the majority of Lebanese want peaceful development in their country. But in the edition of as-Safir dated July 28, we find him writing, in cliche-ridden rhetoric, about Hizbullah's great deeds, which, he stated, had generated respect even among the party's sceptics and critics...

Many Arab writers and publishers regard themselves as secular, enlightened and critical – in other words, as intellectuals who stand up for freedom of speech and, of course, for human rights. Two months after the 9/11 attacks, during an Arab book fair, a rumour suddenly made the rounds that an aircraft had crashed into a high-rise building in Italy. Many people immediately thought this was a repeat of the previous attacks on America. Numerous publishers and editors shouted Allahu akbar (God is great) and welcomed the presumed act, which turned out never to have happened at all.

It strikes me that, more than anything else, the contrast is that simple - the west where the control of religion over culture was broken and the secular society allowed to develop; the Islamic society where the control of religion over culture and life remains. This does not in any way argue that religion has no place in society - it truly does for a great majority of people and the world would be a sadder place without religion (Well I mean, what could Bach have written all his glorious music for had it not been dedicated to God?).

But to return to Dave's quest...

Dean, and his simplistic approach to this debate, are as much the problem as the Islamophobes he intends to castigate. There is no simplistic answer.

Islam itself has such strong roots into their society that it would destroy the society if the roots were removed - the essence I believe of where Iraq is today.

So, it is not a matter of Islam vs Democracy at all. Islam must be allowed to evolve so that the principles of democracy - the freedoms of debate, of criticism, of tolerance and of acceptance - can develop.

We, the west, must not lose sight of our own principles of freedom while that evolution occurs. We, the west, must not lose sight of the immense upheavals that were the consequences of our own societal evolution from religious to secular - the revolutions of England, of France, the Wars of the Roses, the wars between Rome and the newly secular states.... all of the history of the West and Christianity over the past 1000 years.

We must have patience to allow the flower to grow. We are not seeing that patience today.

It is not a case of "Islam and Muslims are inherently incapable of modernity and tolerance and democracy", but rather that these are concepts foreign to their culture and their religion at the present time.

The problem is not "inherent". It has been "learned", in exactly the same way as western society has "learned" freedoms.

How long would it take for Western civilisation - Christianity if you like - to "unlearn" those freedoms and rights from the past thousand years? One generation? Three? How about ten? I would accept between five generations and ten. Certainly no less than that.

Updated 16:30 NZDT

I was wrong... but got some of it right...

"... the continuing stoooory of the pet who has gone to the dogs..." Well that is how Jim Henson might have scripted it.

The news today on election overspending...

New Zealand First is likely to recall undistributed leaflets from its branches to back its case disputing the Auditor-General's findings that it unlawfully spent $157,934 last election.

And it hopes that when leader Winston Peters presents the evidence to the Auditor-General it will avoid a legal challenge of the findings.
...
Once the evidence is collected, it is expected the party will appeal to Auditor-General Kevin Brady to reconsider his finding. Mr Peters and Mr Brady have not yet met.

Party president Dail Jones hopes the party will not have to challenge the findings in court.

"Going to court is a sign of failure in a way. If you settle it before you go to court that's a lot better than wasting your client's money going to court."

Mr Jones said he was not sure of the sums involved but that if, for example, 60,000 pamphlets had been printed for $60,000 and 40,000 had been distributed during the campaign, then the party would argue that $20,000 should come off the total. "All around, let's hope common sense will prevail."

Don't bet on it Winnie. I can't see Brady backing down.

In other developments, Labour's ruling body yesterday authorised president Mike Williams to seek a one-off levy from MPs tomorrow to fund virtually half of its $824,524 spending.

I note that H2 has not been levied. Perhaps she could pay as much as H1.

Labour president Mike Williams said he would ask Labour MPs tomorrow for a one-off payment of 5 per cent of their gross annual salary.

That would raise about half of what Labour has agreed to repay - although it assiduously avoids the term "repay", preferring "refund", a term that implies no obligation.

THere was an interesting speculation that Labour might try delaying repayment until after the validating legislation has been passed. Given that Labour is still in denial on the whole mess it is a possibility; but a remote one. More on that aspect later.

And United Future will decide tomorrow how to tackle the $71,867 identified as unlawful.

After they find their leader... Oh! He's is there!

United Future leader Peter Dunne said his party was not trying to play games on the matter. "We are just taking it steadily and calmly."

He said United Future would make its decision independently of whether New Zealand First took a legal challenge.

The Green Party has said it will pay its $87,192 within this financial year.

Good...

On the matter of the validating legislation -

Deputy Prime Minister Michael Cullen has labelled retrospective legislation validating the expenditure as a confidence issue because, technically, part of it relates to supply in this financial year.

But it won't be seen as an ordinary confidence issue because, in the unlikely event of it not passing, the Government would not realistically be expected to resign.

New Zealand First has said it will back it, and the Greens have indicated they will abstain, meaning there will be enough votes to pass it.

Not resign if they lose?

Oh, and who IS H2?

Heather Simpson, Helen Clark's long-time chief of staff, is believed to have insisted on producing the party's $447,000 pledge card for last year's election, despite the misgivings of members of the party's council.

She and Labour minister Trevor Mallard met Auditor-General Kevin Brady at his request before the last election, when he warned parties to be careful with their spending.

There is also resentment in some caucus quarters at the way Heather Simpson and Helen Clark have handled the issue.

They are annoyed that the Prime Minister waited so long to commit to repaying the unlawful spending when MPs were daily coming under pressure from their electorates to give the money back.

No MP who wants a future in the party would dare to publicly criticise Heather Simpson. She is "untouchable", as one MP put it yesterday, because of the complete confidence Helen Clark has in her.

Suicide pilots - Terrorist and kamikaze

I came across this paper through the good folks at ALD.

The author, Yuki Tanaka, begins with an examination of the principle psychological themes found in the records of the Japanese kamikaze pilots of WW2. The headings -

1) Rationalizing one’s own death to defend one’s country and its people

2) The belief that to die for the “country” was show filial piety to one’s own parents, particularly to one’s mother:

3) Strong solidarity with their flight-mates who shared their fate as Kamikaze pilots:

4) A strong sense of responsibility and contempt for cowardice:

5) A lack of an image of the enemy:

Read the whole paper. It is an interesting insight.

His conclusion -

In my view, religious or ideological indoctrination is not the decisive factor in turning a young person into a suicide attacker. Rather religion and ideology are used to justify and formalize their cause of self-sacrifice and to rationalize the killing enemies, whether military or civilians. In so doing, they mirror the strategies of their oppressors who likewise, in practice, make no distinction between military and civilian targets. Ritualising killing makes it psychologically easier not only to annihilate enemies but also to terminate one’s own life.

Ritualized violence and brutality as exemplified by suicide attack may constitute the most negative manifestations of a human being’s desire to let one’s own people live by sacrificing one’s own life. However, war and violent conflict inevitably brutalize not only suicide attackers, but all human beings. Undoubtedly war is an act of madness, its absurdity clearly shown in the paired (but imbalanced) actions and reactions of World War II: as Japan adopted kamikaze-style suicide attacks, the US used “strategic bombing” to indiscriminately kill hundreds of thousands of civilians, and finally engaged in atomic bombing attacks. Yet, to a great extent, it is the former acts that have borne the opprobrium of history while the latter would come to shape the strategic horizons of subsequent wars. Thus terrorist suicide bombing, which is occurring more and more frequently throughout the world, bears the opprobrium of “lunatic actions by fanatics,” while the bombing of civilians, such as those executed by the U.S. and British forces in Afghanistan and Iraq, are widely regarded as “legitimate military operations.” It is crucial that we find effective ways to break the vicious cycle of these two types of terrorism.

OK, to be very clear, his statement "... in practice, make no distinction between military and civilian targets..." carries an emotional charge that is not going to lead to reasoned debate.

I think I would have said, in order to be more accurate, "...in effect, make no distinction between military and civilian targets...".

That would be closer to the truth, in any and all of the possible examples that might be raised. It has to be said that the US euphemism "colateral damage" applicable in these military operations is a blunt acceptance that civilian casualties are inevitable if unintended. Why else would you drop an HE / incendiary mix if it were not to spread the fire as far and as wide as possible?

It also takes nothing away from Tanaka's conclusions.