by Howard on August 29, 2010
Given all the damage that remains in Iraq, it is no wonder that some Iraqis are confused and angry at the rosy pronouncements about Iraq’s path to progress. Without masking his hostility and frustration, Jassim Al-Assawi pressed Ambassador Hill to explain why, despite all the problems Iraq is currently experiencing, he remains so optimistic. After waxing poetic about the heroism and drive of the Iraqi people, Hill simply insisted, “There’s no going back, only forward.”
This last statement encapsulates what is perhaps the most important function of the success narrative. All this talk about moving forward is also an insistence on not looking back, especially not to 2003. The U.S. has sought to control the past of the Iraq war by rejecting and effectively erasing it, willfully marginalizing the very act that got this whole story going in the first place. The Bush administration needed to scratch 2003 out in order to minimize its own role in the destruction of Iraq and the suffering of its people. Now, the Obama administration has picked up the eraser in order to convince everyone that this is a “responsible” withdrawal.
No matter how much the U.S government erases the past or predicts the future of Iraq, ordinary Iraqis will continue to face the more messy and complicated realities of the present. I dare Obama and everyone else in the spin machine to go to Iraq and look a child in the eyes. A child who, seven years after the U.S. invasion, still lacks adequate housing, drinking water, sanitation, electricity and education. Now, tell that child that the war in Iraq was a success.
- Hannah Gurman, from her article, The Iraq withdrawal: An Orwellian success on salon.com
by Howard on August 21, 2010
I strongly recommend reading an excellent article written by Bretigne Shaffer titled “Saving Women and Preventing Genocide: The Real Reasons We’re in Afghanistan Now”. It was written in response to the recent Time magazine cover showing an Afghan woman whose face had been mutilated, as well as a recent article by The Wall Street Journal’s Bret Stephens.
The US military has made life worse for women in Afghanistan, not better. Is it possible that a US exit will result in their lives becoming even worse than they are now, as Bret Stephens and Time magazine fear? Of course it is possible. But what is certain is that the occupation has had a harmful effect on the lives of the vast majority of Afghan civilians – not a positive one as the promoters of war as a vehicle for social change assert. Also indisputable is that the Taliban has grown in strength since the occupation began, and it only continues to do so. This should come as no surprise to anyone who has looked closely at the motives for terrorism. Even US intelligence agencies have acknowledged that the US occupation of Iraq has strengthened Islamic fundamentalism and .”..made the overall terrorism problem worse.”
To call for even more certain death and destruction as a defense against imagined, possible worse bloodshed reveals a curious kind of moral reasoning. For let’s not forget what it is that Time magazine (despite its protestations to the contrary) and Stephens are defending: The indiscriminate killing of innocent men, women and children, in the pursuit of what they believe to be some greater good.
by Howard on August 15, 2010
I use my real name on this web site. I don’t give out my address, or even my town of residence, but I don’t write under a pseudonym either.
I’ve been warned that using my own name is a mistake, that it could potentially hurt me if my employer finds out. What if family members or friends who aren’t aware of my beliefs find this site? What if my views haunt my family some day?
I’ve heard the warnings, but I had already considered my options carefully. At one point, I even did some online writing under an internet alias.
One of the reasons I started this web site is my frustration with the dishonesty in public discourse. But just as dishonesty is a problem, so is silence. Too many people either water down their opinions in public, or keep them to themselves entirely, out of fear. Fear of repercussions. From the government, employers, family members, the community.
I’m here to say that it’s OK to speak your mind. I respect the right of anybody to spew vile and hateful words, but we already see plenty of that. I’m trying to encourage the expression of thoughtful and heartfelt opinions. Unfortunately, ideas don’t have to be hateful or stupid to be ridiculed and marginalized in the United States these days.
The idea that those suspected of war crimes should be investigated and possibly prosecuted? That’s radical, or so we’re told by those in power and in the media. They say it’s backward thinking, political gamesmanship.
The idea that American courts are perfectly capable of trying cases of terrorism? Dangerous. Naive.
The idea that the United States has committed grave sins in its foreign policy dealings? Unamerican. Shut up and support the troops.
The idea that Israel isn’t always right? Heresy.
The idea that most religion is nonsense and science is a smarter way to go? Well, nobody saying such a thing could ever be fit for public office.
If this site stands for anything, it’s the truth. I don’t claim to know everything.
I may occasionally be wrong, but I will not lie. Sarcasm? Sure. Deceit? No way.
So I start by using my real name and the fact that I live in the Bible Belt. I stand by everything I write and if I ever get something wrong, I will admit it. I don’t want to get too specific with regards to my identity, because there are nuts out there who go beyond words in showing their disagreement. But I don’t completely hide either, because I am proud of my ideas.
Some day, my writing, along with some assorted memories, will be all that’s left of me in this world. I want them both to speak of my regard for honesty. I want them to speak of a man who had deeply held beliefs, which he wasn’t afraid to challenge and inspect.
This web site is part of my journey to not only express my beliefs, but to also investigate, challenge and solidify them. I have a set of strong beliefs, but one of my strongest is that I should always try to learn more and be unafraid to challenge, and even change, my beliefs if they fail to hold up against the truth.
This is the first in what I hope to be a long line of essays in which I explore, and express, some of my deeply held opinions.
These essays, and other postings on this web site, should serve two purposes:
- allow me to keep learning more about the world around me.
- allow me to say what’s on my mind without fear, even if I am putting myself, and my name, on the line.
by Howard on August 8, 2010
The videos linked to below help explain the noteworthy results of the 2010 Arab Public Opinion Poll, which was produced by Brookings Institution along with Zobgy International.
This year’s poll surveyed 3,976 people in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Morocco, Jordan, Lebanon, and the United Arab Emirates, during the period of June 29–July 20, 2010.
Among the key poll findings are:
- A substantial change in the assessment of President Obama, both as president of the United States and of Obama personally.
- Remarkably stable views on the Arab-Israeli conflict and the prospects of its resolution.
- A majority of the Arab public now see a nuclear-armed Iran as being better for the Middle East.
Click here for video
