Showing posts with label War on Terror. Show all posts
Showing posts with label War on Terror. Show all posts

Monday, February 5, 2007

The War in Iraq and Paris Hilton


Paris




Reinventing the Taliban?


I saw a wonderful film this week, Reinventing the Taliban?, which showed some of the rich cultural life in Pakistan and helped me jump to my obvious conclusion about one major reason why radical Muslims hate the United States.




See: Reinventing the Taliban?, a a Discovery Channel Production.

When Sharmeen Obaid returned to Karachi after attending college in the U.S., she was alarmed by what she saw: a fundamentalist political party on the rise and strictly interpreted Islamic laws that were gradually eliminating freedom of expression. This program follows Ms. Obaid in her travels throughout Pakistan as she exposes inequity and injustice, particularly in regard to women, while seeking to understand why and how the Taliban's ideology is being given new life in her home country. A diverse sampling of pro- and anti-Taliban voices is heard, and footage of rallies and protests is included.

Sharmeen Obaid:
is a journalist and a documentary filmmaker. She was born and raised in Pakistan and has received her higher education in the United States. Her documentary films have been aired on Discovery Times channel and PBS/Frontline World. Her first documentary, "Terror's Children," addresses the plight of Afghan children living in refugee camps in Pakistan. The film won the American Women in Radio and Television Gracie Award and the Overseas Press Club Award this year. Sharmeen's second documentary, "Re-inventing the Taliban," is about the rise of religious fundamentalism in the Northwest Frontier Province of Pakistan. That documentary just earned her the Banff Rockie Special Jury Award. Her most recent film is "On A Razor's Edge," which aired on PBS Frontline World on March 25th 2004. It is a documentary about the recent peace movement between India and Pakistan.

The Players

Pervez Musharraf


Ms. Obaid describes Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf as progressive, and tolerant. Indeed, the clips she showed of him do confirm this. He is of Muhajir descent and considered to be the first Pakistani Muhajir to be able to get to the highest rank both in Pakistani government and military.

click to show/hide the rest of this section

The Taliban

Mostly Pashtuns, The Taliban are:
a Sunni strictly puritanical Islamist movement that ruled most of Afghanistan from 1996 until 2001, and are currently engaged in a protracted guerilla war against NATO forces within Afghanistan.

The word Taliban is the Pashto plural form of the Arabic طالب Tālib, "student". The group gets its name from the fact that its membership is drawn from the students of religious seminaries, or madrasahs, in Pakistan and Afghanistan.

Osama bin Laden

Osama bin Laden is a Saudi Arabian militant Islamist and is widely believed to be one of the founders of the organization called al-Qaeda, responsible for terror, including the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center. In conjunction with several other Islamic scholars, bin Laden issued a fatwa (Islamic religious edict), that Muslims should kill civilians and military personnel from the United States and allied countries until they withdraw support for Israel and withdraw military forces from Islamic countries.

The MMA

The major fundamentalist Islamic Party in Pakistan is the MMA, Muttahida Majlis-e-Amal, an Islamic alliance between religious-political parties in Pakistan.
In the Pakistani parliament, the MMA is a coalition opposition, formed after Pakistan became a part of the "Global War on Terror". The coalition is united against the current government of President Pervez Musharraf because of his support for the United States' fight against what they consider to be global terrorism and allegedly putting the demands of the United States above the demands of his own people.

The MMA's
leaders are strongly opposed to the US-led anti-terrorism campaign in neighboring Afghanistan that ousted the Taliban from power. The group believed Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf had become a tool of US foreign policy. The MMA campaigned on promises to enforce Sharia law and in support of the withdrawal of US forces based in Pakistan in the campaign against international terrorism.

click to hide most of this section


From the Sacred to the Profane


Ms. Obaid's tour of Pakistan took us inside the people sympathizing with the fundamentalist MMA, with the Taliban, and with Osama bin Laden. It also took us, however, inside what she calls 90% of the country, the secular Islamists.


















The Taliban Sympathizers

were male-dominated, with women wearing Burkas and staying off the streets.

The Secular Islamists

See Liberal movements within Islam:
Since the 19th century, Muslim progressives have produced a considerable body of liberal thoughts within Islam (in Arabic: "interpretation-based Islam"; or "progressive Islam" - but some consider progressive Islam and liberal Islam as two distinct movements. These have in common a religious outlook that depends mainly on ijtihad or re-interpretations of scriptures. Liberal Muslims interpret the Qur'an and Hadith from their personal perspective rather than the traditional Muslim point of view. Liberals generally claim that they are returning to the principles of the early Muslim community and to the ethical and pluralistic intent of their scripture.

You have at one end of the cultural spectrum the fundamentalist MMA, and at the other end, the secular Muslims who allow sexy Pakistani models at the Lahore fashion show, slightly more demure than in the U.S., but still with the same half-naked, sexualized performances. In fact, one group of actresses covered in the film was putting on The Vagina Monologues.

click to show/hide the rest of this section

The Vagina Monologues is an Obie Award-winning episodic play written by Eve Ensler, which premiered at the off-Broadway Westside Theatre in 1996. Ensler originally starred in the production, playing all the various women who share their views about their vaginas with the audience; when she left the play it was recast with three celebrity monologists. The production has been staged internationally, and a television version featuring Ensler was produced by cable TV channel HBO.

The play, risqué in any culture, is an invitation only event in Pakistan. Beautiful Pakistani actress Ayesha Alam, who is a member of the troupe that is staging the production in India, told BBC News Online about the problems of showing it in her own country.
It was very difficult to perform the Monologues in Pakistan. It even got discussed in the national assembly. Many thought that the play was promoting promiscuity, was against our culture and our religion.

Ms. Alam has received death threats, and six playhouses in Lahore have been shut down due to the performances. Ayesha is brave in the face of other threats too, like someone throwing acid on her face. She says the majority of Pakistanis want nothing to do with extremist Islam, and their "narrow view," although their "popularity is gaining." Ayesha says that though the MMA is a minority, they are more powerful than their numbers because of death threats.

click to hide most of this section


Fundamentalism versus Secularism in Pakistan


My overall impression of Pakistan is that it is a wonderful country with an exquisite cultural background. One of the most beautiful arts is the magnificent male dancing. This is emblematic of the problems, though. Only males show up for anything important, including the dancing. This occurs even with the secular Muslims. With the fundamentalist Muslims it's even worse—with their women unseen anywhere, and when they do peek out, you catch them covered head to toe, some even without eye slits. According to Ms. Obaid and Ms. Alum, the MMA represents a highly motivated minority of millions and millions who are gaining momentum.

Why are They Angry? Why Do They Hate Us?


What then, is all the fuss? Why are these people so enraged? What motivates them to support Osama bin Laden, al-Queda, and the Taliban; cheer when U.S. towers fall; travel to the United States with evil in mind, and to Iraq; and strap bombs to their children's chests?

Control over Women; Order in the Family

It's obvious. The fundamentalists want control over their women. They view females as their property, and as sexual creatures that must be imprisoned. Their women must be covered head to toe, and not allowed out. They must be watched, and guarded. They will be punished if they stray. The man can divorce her easily. They want her to have no property rights, no voting rights, no sexual rights, no rights at all.












Paris burning












The Abomination of the West

The West, to the fundamentalists, is a nightmare. Western values bring sexy models, women dressing provocatively, strippers, whores, and the Vagina Monologues. Their biggest fear is Paris Hilton, an unchained, unleashed, unclothed sexual machine, without any purpose except to enjoy the flesh and wallow in decadence. This is their nightmare daughter, or wife.

Their women emulating the sexy models or Paris Hilton would mean, to them, the emasculation of the men, the breakup of family and tradition, and the end of order in society.


Family Values

The fundamentalist Muslims are fighting for family values! Not our family values, to be sure, but theirs.

An average American guy might understand this for a moment if he considers his view of strippers and prostitutes. This average American Joe might think exotic dancers and "whores" are just fine, but he doesn't want his girlfriend or his wife doing it. A lot of American men are not even happy about their partners going to Chippendales, or to a bachelorette party that has male strippers. American men can feel quite possessive of their ladies.

Fundamentalist Muslims feel they've got a good thing going. They have a patriarchy with the backing of law, Sharia. They are in total control. If they catch their wife cheating, they are allowed to kill her.

The advance of the West means an end to this control for them. Secularization is their enemy. They are fighting against the idea of Paris Hilton. They hate the West because of what she represents.


Disclaimer


click to show/hide the rest of this section


I'm not blaming Paris Hilton for the War in Iraq. I blame the fundamentalists. I'm fine with Hilton, ditz and all. Yet I do understand where the fundamentalist urge comes from. Men have always had a hard time not thinking of their women as property, even in the West. After all, though I love looking at Paris Hilton, and enjoy her antics from afar, I wouldn't want her as my wife, would you? (Except in California, where there is community property!)

Hope


I was pleased to hear that in Pakistan 90% of the people are secular Muslims, and that they don't support extremism. This is a great relief, if this is true. On the other hand, even the secularists there have a ways to go, it seems, when it comes to true freedom.

click to hide most of this section


Rock

(*Wikipedia is always my source unless indicated.)


Click here to get a button link to this blog:


Join me in the war on error, in the fight for truth, justice, and the American way! Support this site!


Subscribe to my feed
                                          

Join or Surf Rock's Political Blog Ring. Both Liberals and Conservatives are Welcome.


Technorati Tags for this post:
, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Regular Technorati Tags for this blog: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,


Tuesday, January 23, 2007

Pandering President Pursues the Arnold Effect


News Alert




Breaking Story


Lo and behold, I turned on the TV just now and saw General David Petraeus' (our proposed new leader in Iraq) confirmation hearings, and heard him saying much of what I was asking for in yesterday's post, My Fellow Americans.

I am astounded. I realize that I'm not that powerful, but it's as if I sent a request out to the ether and got an answer, the very next day!

Anyway, I am happy, and dumbfounded.

Petraeus spent many minutes going over the Iraq War, speaking honestly, going into depth, explaining the risks, exploring the uncertainties, and discussing the plan in detail for the troop surge. These were my advice for Bush in yesterday's post:

  • Do talk about Iraq at length.

  • Level with the American people as much as you can, and give them the feeling that you have a plan for all contingencies.

  • Think of a way or ways to involve the American people in the sacrifice for this war.

General Petraeus answered the first two requests, in depth!

Now, Mr. Bush, if you are listening, do some of this kind of talking yourself, and involve the American people in the sacrifice for this war, and we've got something.

Now, on to my more negative tone for today's post:



Bush
ashes himself.







A Sinking Presidency


I know some of my conservative readers are not going to agree with me on this post, so I apologize ahead of time. My liberal readers might agree with me, but not for the reasons that I come to my conclusions.I reach my conclusions from frustrated conservative principles, deeply disappointed in a President who is choosing the Arnold Schwarzenegger route to popularity.





Nixon, Carter, Bush


Bush, at Low Point in Polls, Will Push Domestic Agenda - New York Times:
WASHINGTON, Jan. 22, 2007. Carrying some of the worst public approval ratings of any president in a generation, President Bush is heading into his State of the Union address on Tuesday night seeking to revitalize his domestic agenda but facing stiff resistance over the initiatives the White House has previewed so far.

According to a CBS News poll conducted Thursday through Sunday, 28 percent of Americans approve of the way the president is handling his job, and more than twice as many, 64 percent, disapprove. It is the lowest approval rating the president has received in a CBS News poll, though it is statistically little different from the rating of 30 percent he received earlier this month.

Only Jimmy Carter has received a lower approval rating, 26 percent, in 1979, in surveys conducted by CBS News or its polling partner, The New York Times. In a Gallup poll conducted in August 1974, just before his resignation, Richard M. Nixon had a 24 percent approval rating.

In a new ABC News/Washington Post poll made public on Monday, only 33 percent approved of Mr. Bush’s job performance, and 65 disapproved, tying the record for his worst marks in that poll.

Disastrous Misreading of the Polls

Asked about the new batch of low ratings, Mr. Bush’s spokesman, Tony Snow, attributed them to discouragement over Iraq that could be overcome at home.

“George W. Bush as a president,” Mr. Snow said, “is not somebody who is going to cease to be bold because there has been — because right now people are concerned about the progress of the war. Instead he understands his obligation as commander in chief is to go ahead and address forthrightly big problems and come up with solutions that not only are going to have political appeal, but they’re also going to be effective in making life better for Americans.”

Administration officials said Monday that among Mr. Bush’s proposals would be a plan to help states provide health care coverage to people who lack insurance by diverting federal aid from hospitals, especially public institutions. The provision is likely to draw loud criticism from municipalities across the nation and will significantly affect the New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation, the nation’s largest municipal health care system.

Officials said Mr. Bush’s speech would include proposals to address the nation’s energy needs and global warming, partly by promoting the use and development of alternative fuels. He is also expected to renew his call for an overhaul of immigration law and to propose altering tax policies to help the uninsured.

Mr. Snow and President Bush's advisors are dead wrong. Bush's low approval ratings are due to what this blog has been saying for months, that Bush is simply not leveling with the American people, and not communicating well with them. He is not paying sufficient homage to the Truth.

click to show/hide the rest of the post


He is not unpopular because of the Iraq War per se. He is unpopular because he has tried to be popular in the way he wages this war, and he has not explained Iraq well.

(See Breaking News at the start of this post. Is Bush finally leveling? Let's keep our fingers crossed. He definitely is changing strategies and tactics, which is a good thing.)

Nice Guy Bush


He is also unpopular because he has tried to be a nice guy, and have everyone like him, with the opposite results.

Regarding Iraq, again, he has fought a politically correct war, tying the hands of our armed forces.

(Again, is this going to change with the new commander, Petraeus? Let's hope so.)

With regard to immigration, Bush has tried to buy the votes of Hispanics, angering many conservatives, dooming our country to third-worldedness, bankrupting our hospitals, overloading our entitlement programs, and filling our jail cells.

He has outspent any Democrat.

He now is pushing phony causes like global warming, so the Democrats and Independents will like him.

They won't.

(Here, as I've said before, I don't mind our country going green. I hate mercury in ocean fish. I just don't want the hysteria and pandering that feed off fear. Al Gore is a demagogue folks, believe it.)


Why the Schwarzenegger Approach Won't Work on a National Scale


Arnold's left veer worked in California because my state is basically a leftist encampment. Many people in California are limousine liberals who want nothing but feel-good politics that make them think they are being nice to everyone, from the environment to the poor, but without really being nice to anyone.

My theory is that real goodness, really being nice, means a kind of tough love. It involves making hard choices as well as goody-goody choices. You can't have everyone love you. If you try, then you become a populist or a demagogue.

Veering left has worked for Arnold because the people are getting what they deserve, the feeling that they are nice. In reality, they are ruining the state for everyone, and this is not nice.

The Schwarzenegger approach won't work for the entire U.S.A. For one thing, half the country really is red. The left will always hate Bush. This means he'll get about 50% disapproval from America even if he is perfect. Yes, the Iraq war exacerbates this, so make that a 55% disapproval when you include Iraq. Then include another 5% disapproval for Bush fighting a politically correct war. Then, add and another 10% disapproval from conservatives as Bush veers left, and makes a shambles of issues like government spending and immigration. Add another 2% disapproval for Bush's pandering to everyone. This adds up to a 72% disapproval rating. It is Bush's perfect storm of disapprobation


One Conservative's View of Bush


I am a conservative. Ask me if I approve of the way Bush is handling his job and I will be counted among the people who disapprove.

Issue by issue, I rate him high on the decision to invade Iraq, on the War on Terror, and on the economy. I rate him the lowest of the low on his conduct of the war in Iraq, his communicating with the American people, immigration, government spending, and his pandering to the left and trying to be a nice guy.

This is the tricky part to understand: though I disapprove of President Bush's overall performance, he still has performed admirably on arguably the two most important issues for me—on invading Iraq, and on the War on Terror.

So, while I disapprove of Bush's performance overall, I do not regret voting for him, as no other politician in America, I believe, would have invaded Iraq; and no other politician, I believe, would have kept us safe from terror. On these issues, all the other politicians are wussies, and Bush is the giant.

Quite a conundrum.


2008


For the next election, I believe, with all due respect, we have had enough of Bush, and are ready to move on to new leadership. The Republicans, though, like Mr. Bush, are dramatically misreading the 2006 elections and the recent polls. They sense a need to move left and be the nice guy Republicans. They are so wrong, and they will pay for this with even more losses in congress.

The only Republican who even comes close to what I want in a leader at this time is John McCain.

Has his pro-surge stance hurt him in the polls? No. Just the opposite. McCain has the reputation, even among liberals, as a straight shooter, and they respect him for this, even when they disagree with him vehemently.

click to hide most of this post


It May be Too Late for Bush


Republicans, it's not too late. Learn a lesson.

For Mr. Bush, it does appear too late. He will exhibit his pandering self tonight in the State of the Union, and his polls will not rise because of it.

(Again, add the positive caveat of what I saw today with General Petraeus. If this is a sign of things to come, perhaps Bush will rise a bit in my estimation.)


Rock

(*Wikipedia is always my source unless indicated.)


Click here to get a button link to this blog:


Join me in the war on error, in the fight for truth, justice, and the American way! Support this site!


Subscribe to my feed
                                          

Join or Surf Rock's Political Blog Ring. Both Liberals and Conservatives are Welcome.


Technorati Tags for this post:
, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Regular Technorati Tags for this blog: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,


Tuesday, January 16, 2007

Jack Bauer Confronts Our Worst Nightmares


“Men's courses will foreshadow certain ends, to which, if persevered in, they must lead," said Scrooge. "But if the courses be departed from, the ends will change. Say it is thus with what you show me!"

24

Does it Again



I have been critical of George W. Bush lately about his conduct up until now of the Iraq War. I watched the continuing series 24, though, this week, and am reminded of something for which I believe we all need to be grateful to Mr. Bush.

There hasn't been a terrorist attack in the United States of America since 9/11.

Without ruining the episodes for those who have not seen it, Jack Bauer and friends face an America in the middle of a series of terrorist bombings, including the threat of a nuclear suitcase bomb. At first it appeared that 24 was starting to be politically correct, with ACLU types complaining about human rights violations in the middle of all these bombings and deaths, but I needn't have worried. The bad guys were shown to be bad guys, Middle-Eastern type bad guys, and the ACLU types were shown to be wrong. Bravo! (See also my previous post, Can Jack Bauer Save the World?)


Yet, you cannot watch the show and not worry that this vision of bombs going off in America can really come true, if we don’t fight a successful war on terror.





No U.S. Terrorist Attacks Since 9/11


Everything the Bush Administration has been doing with regard to Homeland Security has been effective, so far, in keeping the war off our shores. I find this to be an astonishing accomplishment, and something for which Bush is hardly given credit.

The Infinitely Patient Terrorists Bide Their Time


Bush's enemies, including Democrats and the entire left, pooh-pooh this feat. They instead, as usual, give credit to our enemies, saying that they, the terrorists, have simply not tried to attack us again. The left says that the terrorists have infinite patience and are simply biding their time, or planning for an even bigger strike than 9/11, which takes years of organization.

They may be right.

It's interesting, though, that the terrorists have not been biding their time in the rest of the world. They have been quite busy in Madrid; London; Mumbai, India; Amman, Jordan; Bali; several bombings in Israel; the Philippines; and the Red Sea resorts of Egypt; among others.

Clearly, terrorists are not biding their time anywhere else, only in the United States.


Has Bush Kept Us Safe?


Can we say for sure that this means the Bush Administration has been effective in thwarting terrorist attacks in America? Yes, we can say this for sure. At the very least, America has been made a difficult target for the terrorists, and they have chosen to hit easier targets.

Yes, they might be saving up for "the big one," even greater than 9/11. This only means, however, that everything the Bush Administration is doing has been effective so far, and continues to be vital in order to prevent any looming catastrophe. Either way, the scoffing left is wrong, and Bush is right. Thanks again to the producers of the politically incorrect 24. May we have leaders as effective as those depicted in 24, who are willing to fight to win in order to keep America secure.

Thank you for keeping us safe so far, Mr. President. In the War on Terror, the one war we must win, you are doing a fine job.


Rock

(*Wikipedia is always my source unless indicated.)


Click here to get a button link to this blog:


Join me in the war on error, in the fight for truth, justice, and the American way! Support this site!


Subscribe to my feed
                                          

Join or Surf Rock's Political Blog Ring. Both Liberals and Conservatives are Welcome.


Technorati Tags for this post: , , , , , , ,

Regular Technorati Tags for this blog: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,