When Iraq Went Wrong

Contrary to popular belief the problems in Iraq are not entirely to do an at once ambitious and blind American foreign policy. The challenges facing the current re-construction of Iraq are actually not the fault of George Bush at all.

In 1916, during the midst of World War I, the British and French secretly sliced up the Arabian provinces that were at that time under the control of the Ottoman Empire. The fact that the British completely neglected their promise to support an Arab State in exchange for an Arab revolt led by the Amir of Mecca against the Ottomans is one source of discontent that Arab peoples could hold with the two former imperial powers. But, something more misguided lies at the bottom of the division of the Arab territories.

Whereas the peoples of Greater Syria, what the agreement divided into the states of Lebanon, Syria, Palestine, and (trans)Jordan, share a relatively common history, the provinces of Mosul, Basra, and Baghdad are ethnically, linguistically, and religiously very diverse. Instead of maintaining a larger Arab state of Greater Syria, the British and French opposed the formation of an independent, unified state in favor of randomly dividing the region into imperially controlled mandates. The division of Greater Syria should have been the post-Ottoman strategy for what became Iraq. Our current situation too often glaringly reveals why this is so.

So, it is not in fact George Bush who has caused the wide spread division in Iraq- not all of it anyway. But, American foreign policy can learn a valuable lesson from the ill-fated Sykes-Picot agreement that set the stage for a tumultuous Middle East. The random (re)shaping of a region by an outside force, unless done with great tact, often leads to an outcome that is quite obviously the work of those without adequate local knowledge.

Atheism!

Ironically, presumed leader of the iraqi insuergeny Zarqawi stated that Iraqis should attack the infidel tyrannts who are impossing (now this is the funny part) atheism on the muslim people of Iraq. Now thats what I call good propaganda. Insurgency leaders are scaring the people of Iraq into fighting the godless Americans by threatening them with the worst thing possible-atheism. As if they didn't know that our President is God's own messenger who has been set by the big man on high to bring people god's very best gift: freedom. Didn't they pay attention to how much Bush said he talks to God throughout the campaign?

The irony abounds. When running for president this past year, Bush and the Republicans made use of the insurgent's tactic themselves. They smartly threatned the American people with the same thing as Mr. Zarqawi. If you don't vote Red, I believe the argument ran, god-hating, homo-loving, new york times reading, latte drinking, pagan liberals will run into your small town, burn your Bible, and make little Tommy wear a nice pink dress.

Maybe the solution to the Iraq situation isn't as hard then as it seems. If only Zarqawi and Bush can get together and share with each other their common disdain for atheists, then maybe, just maybe (cross those fingers!) they could negotiate an end to hostilities and bring this pesky insurgency to an end. Because, when it comes down to it, both of them are fighting for Abraham's God in the end. They just disagree on how many Hail Mary's they have to say to hang out with Allah in the after-life.

Obedience is Virtue

Watching church on TV, as if the concept wasn't distorted enough, opens a window into the rituals of some of our country's most blasphemously pious preachers. I was recently lucky enough to catch a few minutes of the middle of a service of one of the many denominations that now claim to be followers of Jesus on TV.

The preacher, with wide stretched arms, speaks the word of god in polemic fashion, paying tribute to the King on High and his son, Jesus. After a rhetorically driven sermon, the preacher (or the ring leader-whatever we call him these days) introduced his two daughters who were going to sing a song of praise to God, the father. His two daughters, dressed in their Sunday’s best, took the stage and sang a song of praise to God, the father, while their proud earthly father looked on with sadistic praise. His two little girls, exalting the transcendent at his command-what more could a father want?

My question is this: were those two young women singing a song to praise God, the father, or their Father, the God.The patriarchal symbolism of Christianity and the art and music that it spurred blurs the line between piety and misogyny. Piety for the female is obedience to two males - God and their father. Later in life a third male authority figure is added in the form of a husband. Loyalty to one's maker, creator, and provider is the most important virtue.

Such suppression of the female is not new to Christianity. It has a long tradition, going back to the four evangelic writers of the gospels and, most notably, Paul who penned roughly half of the New Testament. The two most prominent women in the New Testament are telling examples of this. Mary, the mother of Jesus, is the ideal woman-why? She is praised for her chastity-her virginity. She is ideal because she has been raped of her sexual identity. Conversely, Mary Magdalene, is the female villain. What better way to villanize a potential symbol of feminine strength and independence than labeling her a whore?

The question is simple: how do women, in the age of sexual equality, still tacitly ascribe to this patriarchal power tool known as Christianity?

On Listening to the Radio (and a Priest)

As our music collections grow continually larger like the national deficit under a Republican President, the difficulty of picking what song or artist you want to listen to becomes nearly unsurmountable. Choosing a song fitting to your mood when you have 93 cds and 3,000 mp3’s worth of music to choose from is indeed a great challenge. Existential angst abounds: Eminem or Eric Clapton, the Beatles or Beethoven. This kind of radical free will is indeed too much to handle.

Recently faced with an indiscriminate mood and an overstuffed cd wallet, I escaped this dreaded choice of musical options and turned on the radio. Despite the fact that there is a greater chance of hearing a song that I detest on the radio than one I enjoy, I decided to surrender my musical choice to the mass media conglomerate that owns the station I am listening to. Why should I decide what I want to listen to when someone will take that burden from me? Radio programming directors, pick away.

There is somewhat of a resemblance that I can’t avoid seeing between listening to the radio and seeking the advice of a priest. You are faced with a dilemma, so you see a priest for advice. He tells you to do this or that and you listen. But after you are done listening you ultimately have to make a choice whether or not you follow that man's advice. No one can make that ethical choice and evaluation for you. Your action may or may not turn out to be the best decision in the end, but you and only you must take responsibility for that choice. You, not the giver of advice, owns your choice and action. No man (priests are just men, remember-some better than others mind you) or book (the bible is still just words on paper the last time I checked) can be your excuse to hid behind. There are no excuses - you choose - you are responsible. So if you support a war, it is you supporting the war-not someone who told you that it was right. If you are anti-choice, then it is you, not anyone else making that stance.

In the end, no matter whose advice we seek it is still in the end just that-advice. So, if you don't like what is playing on the radio, just remember that you turned it on.

Barcelona V. Madrid

Barcelona’s waterfront and bohemian neighborhoods are juxtaposed with run-down areas filled with petty crime and the kind of basketball courts that don’t have hoops. San Francisco meets Tehran. Its homeless population is nothing surprising, though the line between street performer and beggar is unclear and the city seems to be a mecca for vagabond amputees.

Barcelona is the capital city of Catalonia, which has historically fought for its independence, both politically and culturally, from Spain. Under the dictatorship of General Franco, the Catalan national identity was violently oppressed: the Catalan language was banned in public institutions and the region’s economy suffered as it was denied access to new industries. Today, Catalonia is an Autonomous Community within Spain with its own semi-autonomous government.

However, its rancor towards Spain is still palpable, most noticeably when FC Barcelona plays Real Madrid in football. During the Franco era, FC Barcelona was an emblem of national independence and pride for the Catalans, though a Madrid victory was prearranged. The football fervor remains strong today as the Catalans fiercely hold on to their national identity, which is now utterly tied to their sense of themselves as the underdogs, as the repressed, and as victims.

In his new book What’s the Matter with Kansas?, Thomas Frank considers how the idea of victimhood has been seemingly co-opted by conservative middle America. The same "average" Americans who claim to despise "whining" liberals for their attention to minority rights and grievances, are now taking this stance themselves. In this past election, conservatives, though holding most of the government power, have still been able to sell the idea that extreme liberal policies are threatening to tear the fabric of American society, specifically by citing the rulings of "activist judges." Frank examines how the threat of rampant liberalism convinced middle America to vote against its own economic interests. The left is of course guilty of trumpeting their abuse at the hands of George W. Bush, though they managed it with less hypocrisy.

It seems to me that both sides of the political spectrum rally their base around the clarion call of victimization. Perhaps both sides of any major conflict need to claim the role of victim- it affords a self-righteousness that is indispensable for the endurance of a unified populace. The War on Terror and the Israel-Palestine conflict are apt examples. So is victimhood something that is earned or claimed? Are the lines of victim and aggressor clearly demarcated like sides on a football field, or are they just national songs chanted by a drunken mob filtering out of the stadium, sung regardless of who won or lost?

Rice: right resume, wrong choice

After the resignation of Colin Powell, the lone voice of dissent in the Bush administration, President Bush has nominated Condoleeza Rice to take his place as the Secratary of State. (Bush Picks Rice To Succeed Powell) Her strong personallity, resoluteness, and close relationship with Bush are good qualities for someone advising the president on pressing foreign policy issues. But a good resume and list of character attributes does not neccesarily make a good secretary of state.

Rice's hard-line stance on foreign policy is by no means a bad thing in itself. It does, however, create an overwhelmingly homogeneous cabinet for the President. The national security advisor, secretary of defense, and secretary of state in the current administration are now addressing foreign policy issues from the same ideological stance. Colin Powell, although he was largely ignored, at least served as a gadfly stinging the administration in its side when it may have overzealously proceeded without considering alternative options.

The Powell doctrine was ignored during the first administration. What does not boad well for the next four years is that the Rice doctrine is the Bush Doctrine is the Rumsfeld doctrine is the Wolfowitz doctrine. Tension within a president's cabinet is undoubetdly a good thing. It ensures the American people that the president is acting based on balanced advice. Now, we are left with a foreign policy machine with no gadfly-no conscience-no one to suggest a prudent second look at the situation.

Condoleeza Rice may be qualified to be the Secratary of State, but she is not the best choice.

Comparisons to Nazi Germany

Unlike your typical liberal, I'm not going to be making comparisons between George W. Bush and Adolf Hitler-not tonight anyway. To do that with would be ridiculous. First of all, Hitler was a far better orator than Bush and if Bush were Hitler we would have taken over Iran and Syria by now (and Poland for good measure). So why then the subject of this post?

Hitler once brilliantly stated, "What good fortune for governments that the people do not think." The dangerous thing with America today is not Bush's potentially fascist and anti-democratic leanings (ie the patriot act, Guantanamo bay, etc.), but rather the gullibility of the American people. What should be of alarm to those interested in democracy is how easily fooled the American people are: Bush voters wake-up! Sadaam had nothing to do with 911. Kerry voters wake-up! We were going to have to deal with Sadaam eventually. We were attacked on 911 (viscously attacked-I realize this), but we are too eager now to throw away our civil rights for safety. We are scared of terrorists (justifiably so), but we let fear decide our foreign policy decisions over reason. Obviously the German people were unjustified in believing that scapegoating the Jews would solve their problems. And Americans are right to be weary of terrorists-but not to the point of surrendering what we hold most dear-our reason and right to dissent.

If people truly think that Bush or Kerry is the right man to be president, than that is fine with me. But if a person's vote is influenced by one party arguing that the other will lead the country down a slippery dark path- that is not good for democracy. A "conservative" voter should not be scared into voting against their interests (ie economic, health, education, etc) because they are unduly influenced by a fear of being attacked. Likewise a "liberal" should not be scared away from Bush because they think he is going to draft them and imprison homosexuals.

If you think Kerry is a pansy liberal who is weak on defense-fine. If you think Bush is going to take away all of your civil rights-good for you. But come to that conclusion from a stance of strength and reason. A vote guided by fear is an undemocratic one. If the American people continue to let both sides of the political spectrum play on their fears, then we will all be making comparisons to Nazi Germany. Except the American people will be the guiltiest of all-because who is more guilty, the fool or the fools who follow him blindly?