August 07, 2007
Macho, macho manPolitics
Every time Obama goes down to Devon Avenue he seems to raise a ruckus (see previous post). This afternoon in Chicago:
A small group of protesters assembled this afternoon across the street from an Indian restaurant in Chicago where Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama was holding a fundraiser.
The mostly Pakistani group chanted anti-Obama slogans in response to a threat the Illinois Democrat made last week about his willingness, if elected president, to launch unilateral American military strikes against Al Qaeda havens in a remote border region of Pakistan.
“Obama, hypocrite,” the group repeatedly chanted, as some of the 25 or so assembled held signs that read “Sen. Obama, Good speaker. But no clue what to speak” and “Obama equal Osama,” a reference to Al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden. [Link]
To recap, the main reason this small group of Pakistani Americans were protesting Osama Obama was covered here recently by Amardeep.
“Barack Obama is advocating bombing an entire nation. This man is not our friend,” said Andy Thayer, a spokesman for the Chicago Coalition Against War. “Hillary Clinton is also not our friend. She called for not taking the nuclear option off the table…” [Link]
Hold up there Andy. He might have advocated a little bombing but at least he swore it would not be nuclear! Stop painting things with such a wide brush. Presidential candidate Joe Biden recently pointed out the obvious by the way. We already routinely violate Pakistani sovereignty (probably with SEAL Teams). We just got to be hush hush about it so that the Pakistani population doesn’t give Mushie a hard time because of it.
“… in order to look tough, he’s undermined his ability to be tough, were he president. Because if you’re going to go into Pakistan — which is already our policy by the way, if there’s actionable intelligence — you need actionable intelligence from moderates within Pakistan working with you. Now if you’re already going to say I’m going to disregard whatever the country thinks and going to invade, the likelihood you’re getting the cooperation you need evaporates. It’s a well intended notion he has, but it’s a very naïve way of figuring out how you’re going to conduct foreign policy…” [Link]
At least Obama was willing to talk things over with the Pakistanis gathered outside:
Obama spokesman Ben LaBolt said Obama offered to meet privately with a small group of the protesters following the fundraising lunch, but they declined the offer. [Link]
The problem is that Obama has fallen into the classic liberal trap. He is trying too hard to prove he is not “soft” on terror and thereby undermining his greatest strength: His ability to intelligently see the nuance in major policy.
“His image was that he is not a macho guy, so he wanted to prove that he’s a macho, macho man,” said Ifti Nasim, one of the organizers. [Link]
Maybe, but another thought is that Obama is simply trying to bring new ideas to the table. Not all of them will turn out to be the right ideas but those that support him do so for the very reason that he is not afraid to bring new thoughts to old problems. Incidentally, Obama was set to raise ~$75,000 at the Indian restaurant mentioned above (hosted by Tariq Siddiqi, a Chicago real estate developer). Since Indian Americans donate more money to campaigns than Pakistani Americans, maybe all this bad publicity won’t be too hard on the war chest.
abhi on August 7, 2007 06:19 PM in Politics · · Direct link · Email post
nuke 'em
ok. I'm ashamed to say I was fooled by the onion story someone linked to (didn't see the onion banner at top) for at least halfway through the story (the feuding subway-amoco owners) and the first thing I thought when I saw the photo above was that it was related to that story.
I'm cool with this policy, but I hope Biden isn't revealing any information that shouldn't be publicly acknowledged (US acting on Pakistani territory, with cooperation of course).
With enough [deleted by request of poster]
Personally, I think everyone in the loop (Congress, Military, Presidency, etc) need to be far more coordinated in revealing information. The right and left, in order to get political brownie points, have too many times spilled the beans for short sighted partisan gains. Not saying Biden has done that here, though it does bring up a tangential point linked to this issue.
Obama was a bit clumsy in his statement but I am happy that at least one candidate knows enough geography to understand that Iraq is not the focal point of global terrorism. He's got my vote at least at this point...
Oh, it's in the public domain alright, but who says what is far more important than the information itself at times (as Obama's speech shows). It's like nuclear weapons. When India and Pakistan officially went 'nuclear', sanctions come down in a very public manner (India lost access to fighter engine technology for the LCA and spare parts for Sea King helicopters among other things). But the ability to make nukes existed with both countries for some time, with India going back to 1974's experimental detonation. Plenty of things don't really need to be said to ensure political capital (attention and support of the masses) never reaches critical mass.
Random Joe - "We're doing XYZ" - doesn't stir the pot.
Government Personnel - "We're doing XYZ" - hell breaks loose.
Unfortunately, as Camille said: "Fear not, GujuDude, it's knowledge that was already in the public domain. :)" Yes the cat is out of the bag but that does not mean we can't be discreet since the public has short memory. So let's not bring it up again. :-)
Rajesh, what information?
SM Intern/Abhi: Sorry to bother you guys, but can you delete the second paragraph in post #3 (With enough...). I need to take my own goddamn advice.
Shush Rahul ! ErroristsTay are isteningLay ! Loose lips sinks ships ! Ann Coulter and Rajesh are watching!
Sorry, America, please go on and take on the fifth, and I promise not to waterboard you. I was under the misapprehension that loose lips crowned kings.
Don't sass me boy, drinkin' your Jamba juice with the REMF, democrats, sh*tbirds and other traitorous avian types with GI disorders. There's gonna be a draft and when there is I WILL BE YOUR AMMA !
I don't know but I've been told
That Scythian booty is two millenia old
Hooah !
That almost caused me to spray my Lion Stout (made with special, rasam-infused Lemurian hops) all over my poster of Sivaji, MGR and Rajni neutering a Scythian steed.
Personally, I think everyone in the loop (Congress, Military, Presidency, etc) need to be far more coordinated in revealing information.
hm. i'll disagree with this. i think transparency is essential for the long term health of a republic. yeah, in the short term it really might not be prudent, but these sorts of machiavellian power plays jeopardize the future for the sake of the present. of course, you can't make it to the future if you don't make it through the present, but i don't think that talking about stuff like this is really giving the terrorists a leg up: everyone who can use google, or watch the videos on frontline's pbs website, knows that we already go into pakistan regularly.
Could this situation turn out to be another disaster (like the current Iraq situation?)? Just wondering.
Could this situation turn out to be another disaster (like the current Iraq situation?)? Just wondering.
pakistan has 7 X as many ppl as iraq. something to think about....
From a fundamental standpoint, I don't disagree that transparency is necessary. Managing this transparency more effectively and strategically is what I'm after. On the flip side, I do not like restrictions on the media or first amendment to 'suppress' any information either. At the end of the day, since we're a republic, our elected officials are 'us'. On a day to day management of activities, the American public has outsourced governance and access to information (within the laws established by the republic). I've discussed this before here, too, that if ops are needed in Pakistan, they need not be mentioned by public leaders. Everyone pretty assumes Israel has nukes, but them declaring possession openly (like India and Pakistan did) has a different impact. Since politics fundamentally drives wars, I'm simply hoping political leaders are more savvy in how they use information and consider the impact of their statements. You and me discussing a topic does not carry the weight of a United States Senator.
Coordination of information needs to be better and considering the asymmetric nature of the current conflicts(this not only means keeping mouths shut, but also revealing information properly too, ensuring maximum attention is given). How do you reconcile protecting allies (like the UAE or Pakistan) and field agents (military or intelligence) when cover is blow prematurely or in a haphazard manner with transparency for the sake of it, but nothing else? Congress has the oversight abilities for that reason. Does Obama's statement affect the core 'nodes' directly? I don't think so. It does affect a facet in our efforts to impact the 'Central Staff' node, via undercutting Musharaff's political capital.
I'm not promoting duping anyone or lying, simply better cohesion and having strategic vision of how information can be used (the truth, not lies).
It would be impossible to occupy a nation like Pakistan (Iraq already had significant divisions, primarily three different groups with the Sunnis ruling), unless you're willing to conduct WWII style operations not only targeting military threats, but civilian population supporting (passively and actively) as well.
That is a political unreality, hence the development of tactical weapons with high accuracy and greater investments in Special Operations from a military standpoint.
But are special ops the scalpel needed to extract whatever enemies exist in Pakistan or would it end up as a butter knife meeting carbon fiber situation?
Sgt. Cypher, requesting permission to express appreciation for your brilliant comment #13, Sir! Lou Gossett Jr. and R. Lee Ermey have nothing on you, Sir!
muralimannered, I did not realize there was a South Asian stout. Is it good?
Even without the relative paucity of tropical-climate stouts, Lion Stout would have be considered as a top tier brew. It would probably benefit from porter-like consistency, and more geographically-spread distributors (I can get it at my local Krogers in VA, but my cousin can't find it in Houston), but to say that it is a revelation would be an understatement.
Just to make sure it has cred, there's a bushy-bearded Brit on the back-label giving his seal of approval.
murali, I wouldn't trust it unless it had a bushy-bearded Irishman on it :)
Gujudude, I understand what you're saying, but our ops in Pakistan are already open knowledge -- i.e., they're already discussed in the news (print), and are available via C-SPAN or Congressional documents anytime anyone would like. The details -- location, objective, etc., -- are excluded, but you'd have to be totally ignoring U.S. coverage of international news not to know that we have an active, physical presence in Pakistan. I don't think Biden let anything slip beyond what's already commonly known.
Where can I get Lion Stout ?
That is true Camille but the public isn't paying attention. If they were it could be troublesome for Musharaf and for US.
Alcohol recon. It's not easy--but find your local yuppie beer/wine shop and start from there.
from the tribune article:
I wonder if the reporter took the time to establish that they were in fact Pakistani and not American...
Also, I don't know who Andy Thayer is, but on the face of it, his quotation...
...seems awfully paternalistic (there are other choice words I could use, but I'll be nice for now).
I had a chance to chat with James Astill, the Defence and Terrorism Correspondent of 'The Economist'. He feels that Pakistan is much more mature than India in handling the peace process. Do listen to the conversation.
http://www.theindicast.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=7900012&Itemid=64
Abhishek
http://www.theindicast.com
Well, neither. They are one of the tools necessary, not the only one. Without co-opting local authorities/tribes in to providing support (militarily, information, mere acceptance of fighting the Taliban/AQ), Special Ops alone are not sufficient and merely the tip of the spear. Wars are multidimensional conflicts. There is a reason Kennedy was a fan of Army Special Forces (Green Berets) abilities to talk the local languages, work with tribal populations, and build support. He saw nuance where many Army General officers saw 'weird' rather than their smash mouth tanks and artillery.
Camille:
I'm not saying its not commonly assumed or even discussed, just that I hope leaders (not just Biden, but his Republican counterparts as well) think through before discussing information in certain channels. CSPAN puts most to sleep and PLENTY gets said there, but it hardly hits the airwaves with the same impact (unless the opposition makes a stink about it), as talking to a 24 hour news network at prime time or the NY Times front page. That is why I said hope Biden didn't say more than he should have. Then again, I'm just another American, he's a United States Senator with far more info and data than I(hopefully). Honestly, I'm not being down on Biden at all. The United States at the height of the cold war was a leaky sieve when it came to keeping secrets. My boss who retired a few months ago was in Germany in the 80s, who said the East Germans would routinely pick up valuable information from dumpsters of US/NATO bases. We've always been sloppy, just part of being a republic.
I was merely bringing up a tangential point, which is the air of legitimacy leaders lend to information (credible or not) when it comes from the horses mouth :) and how that affects politics. At times it helps build political support (WMDs anyone?) and at times negates it. Better coordination within our large and open government would be beneficial especially when warfare isn't as simple and linear as it used to be.
Fools have dreams, too.
Camille, Have you see the movie 'Captain Corelli's MANDOLIN" ? it is a a chik flik and a lot more because it is based on actual events. I think you will like. :-).
pakistanis are not only aware of the routine violations of their border by uncle sam's special forces, but they also know that uncle sam with help from india, nato and israel, is going to come in and grab the nukes in case the green brigade throws out mushy.
...just like we will do in Iran, right?
I am not sure why people are extrapolating Obama's remarks all the way to an occupation of Pak. The way I read it, he said that if we have good intel, we will bomb within Pak's borders to kill terrorists. I don't agree with him, but I do see the difference between what he said and what people say he said.
am not sure why people are extrapolating Obama's remarks all the way to an occupation of Pak. The way I read it, he said that if we have good intel, we will bomb within Pak's borders to kill terrorists. I don't agree with him, but I do see the difference between what he said and what people say he said.
I agree - Obama was arguing for U.S. action in the tribal areas, where Islamabad's writ does not hold sway anyway. What was particularly galling in last night's Chicago debate was how Clinton argued that Musharaff was facing threats from Islamists. Musharaff - yes, the whole nation of Pakistan - now. While it is setting a low bar, Pakistan has survived assasinations, military coups, even being dismembered by India. Their last dictator, Zia, died in a plane crash that to this day is not allowed to be discussed publicly. So, even if Musharaff were killed, Clinton's idea that Pakistan would either descend into anarchy or face takeover by Islamists is nonsense.
As for the idea that instability in Pakistan is particularly worrisome due to its having nuclear weapons, just a reminder that the Soviet Union went through Brezhnev, Andropov, and Chernenko in very short order without falling apart.
Musharaff faces 2 kinds of threats. The threats to his life are from the Islamists, the threats to his power are from secular parties and other civilians who have grown tired of military rule. Is Clinton suggested that it is in America's interest to protect him from both?
Looking on my earlier post - uggh. I really gotta wait for the caffeine to kick in before I start typing.
Sgt Zim might...
Crazy people might extrapolate that. An attempt to occupy Pakistan and impose "regime change" as was done with Iraq in 2003 would be the equivalent of invading the Japanese home islands at the end of WW II. And that's assuming nukes and other WMD are off the table. Unless we're ready for a draft, rationing, a couple of windows with gold stars on every block and all that other Greatest Generation stuff that's so much more fun to read about than experience in real life... it's not gonna happen.
GujuDude, I was reading your comments and thinking, he's not wrong, but why does this bother me so much?
I think it's because it's clear, from your comments, that you think of the US's wars/military actions/covert ops/what have you as yours, as actions in which you as an American have a stake, and therefore as an American you have a duty to help the US military protect its information, 'loose lips sinking ships' and all that.
You of course have a right to take whichever side you want, but for me personally, that idea is really disturbing. I'm sure the more conservative types on this board will now jump all over me, but this isn't for them... I just think that if the war in Iraq has taught us anything, it's that these wars aren't ours. There's a tiny minority which benefits from American adventurism abroad-- the rest of us are hurt by it: Pakistanis, American soldiers and their families, poor Americans who face more austerity measures to pay for said adventures, and of course everyone else in the world who prefers not to live under the conditions Iraqis now face. If you think American imperialism is wrong, you are not obligated to shut your mouth, plant a victory garden and do your best to help the war effort; you'd be better off helping to organize a solidarity march to show Pakistanis and Pakistani-Americans that not all Americans view them as targets.
My $.02.
Oh man, good stuff. It's very high in alcohol and almost has a red-wine sort of flavor to it. It's a very unusual stout.
Ratebeer.com might be a good place to start...
Obama is in a tight spot. Of course there are special ops/drones in pakistan already but not enough, given the new national intelligence estimate. Obama was critiquing the current administration for not doing enough. People who are spinning this into an occupation are playing 2008 politics. But instead of sending in more special forces, we could just send in Jason Bourne.
p.s. I have an aversion to nic cage too, mostly cuz he takes crap roles like National Treasure.
Alright - stop with the anti- nick cage stuff already
Watch the "World trade center" and then we'll talk :-)
Actually, I agree whole with you that these wars are not just ours. It's a mistake strategists on the right and left make when assuming we can either completely disengage (their conflicts don't affect us) or do things completely our way. The evolution of Salafist Jihadis has been from those focused on 'near Jihad' to 'far Jihad'. Their goals were to gain political power internally, but the state apparatus (Egypt) didn't allow it, hence the transistion to attacking more western targets to gain legitimacy within their target population they're looking to coopt. As someone far smarter than I stated, this is a war within and for Islam, and we're just a part of it. Which is the reason why, if you read my comments, I was stressing that without gaining local support, you're just fighting pitched battles. Tactically, while they may be sound, it'll just go back and forth.
To the rest of your post, let me address them point by point.
Was routing the Taliban and AQ (primarily done with unconventional tactics and strategy) from it's training camps not beneficial? Are you/were you opposed to US actions there? I'm taking Iraq out of the equation right now, because Afghanistan was the headquarters and material training support location for those directly involved in attacking us. The Taliban were given notice to hand them over. However, these guys were smart, thinking two steps ahead and had Ahmed Shah Massaoud assasinated days before 9-11. They knew he was one man who could galvanize solid support against them (Taliban and AQ). Everyone else would be Iraq and Afghanistan, the two countries we are currently occupying. Who else in the world?American Imperialism is a word that's been used by the anti-war groups, and IMO, it's trying to fit a square peg into a round hole. Great Britain was imperial. i>Sarah, where did I say that Pakistanis should be attacked and they should fear that they're all targets of American military might? This is the very reason why I thought Obama's statements weren't well thought out. With the geo-political environment, that isn't a smart statement.
Let me ask you this and please answer honestly ( I don't bite :)). Are you fudamentally opposed to war (low or high intensity) say like Gandhi would be?
Also, why is better government coordination with different agencies/branches working together a bit better a bad thing? If anything, better flow of information within these groups and the ability to disseminate information more strategically would REDUCE WARS AND VIOLENT CONFLICT, because instead of being behind the curve, you're actively using information (The truth again, NOT lies) to avert more costly and deadly situtations. This is what information and psychological warfare is about - trying to win before you're even in a situation where guns need to be used...
In doing the above, it would require our politicans to EDUCATE themselves more on the dynamics of the world and not stick their heads in sand. Instead of being myopic, one would, as a result of the education, understand nuance and how to communicate American positions in a far more effective manner than the knee-jerk pendulum of struggle that occurs between the left and right.
I for one, don't prescribe to the school of thought that wars are 'never' the answer. Sometimes they are, sometimes they aren't. The more difficult question isn't fighting itself, but how one fights. You could be a punch drunk bar brawler or a educated, trained, and disciplined martial artist that doesn't engage in unecessary moves, wasting energy. We seem to swing from one end to the other from a strategic standpoint.
It's about balance. Ying Yang, and all that other stuff, without falling into a trap of 'one way' (Miyomoto Musashi type philosophy)
I am heartened to see all this Nicolas Cage haterade. The man buries any hint of cinematic talent he might have inherited from his Coppola genes in a toxic combination of over-the-topness, bathos, and maudlin self-pity that wouldn't be out of place in a Sanjay Leela Bhansali movie. That and his insistence on guilting you into loving him by making puppy-dog eyes only makes me want to kick him.
Oh, and Runa, World Trade Center? I haven't seen an Oliver Stone movie in years, but the man makes a sledgehammer looks subtle with his directorial philosophy of "If it's worth saying once, it's worth saying again. And again. And again." If ever there is a remake of Clockwork Orange, that should be the instrument of torture that Alex de Large is subjected to with his eyelids clamped open.
Thats why you should see WTC because its quite Un-Stone like and Nic Cage ( and Jose Pena) were amazing.Its not a political movie, its a human story.
FYI ( This is why I come to SM for the mature level of debate here)
Runa, I haven't seen WTC, but my stomach just sinks at the thought of it. One day, when I am strung out on Benadryl, I will rent and watch it, I promise.
Camille,
OUCH!
Rahul,
After the FYI in # 46 this was supposed to appear:
FYI I like puppy-dog eyes, so there! Nyah,nyah,nyah!
Michael Caine of the 70s and 80s would probably beat him hands down. Still I'd watch Caine over Cage any day of the week. It's not just his selection, he was good in Leaving Las Vegas, but he has just become a caricature of himself. And he wasn't that interesting to begin with. As bess said, Wild at Heart and Raising Arizona are the kinds of movie that play perfectly to his talents, but they don't make many like David Lynch or the Coens.
I will put it on my list then.
I am assuming you missed the smiley at the end of this sentence :)
Count one more in on the Nicolas Cage haterade wagon.
Runa, oh no, you've been suckered.
His puppy dog eyes work best with irony.
David Lynch and the Coen Brothers knew how to make the most of them for their flicks.
Getting off topic, but i will only watch a movie based on 9/11 if all the star actors/directors/producers work for free and all the studio profits got to charity. i hear united 93 is good, but i still won't watch it.
confession: i enjoyed Stone's "Alexander"
Gujudude, is that because he busted the lid open on the top-secret Navajo code breaker program? :P
bess, I forgot to give a hat tip to Raising Arizona, which I do like, but mostly because it has "arizona" in the title :) I haven't seen Wild at Heart. Rahul, I'm with you on the self-caricature + suckfest.
Well, he was pretty lame and busted up in that movie, in his one trick pony Nicolas Cage way. But those code talkers (not breakers :)) were some bad-ass dudes, who didn't receive recognition for their efforts until 1982. Frankly, a better movie needed to be done with Eastwood, Spielberg, or Ridley Scott directing it. The lid needed to be busted on it!
Somebody needs to explain to me why Ridley Scott is considered such an amazing director.
Speaking of Nic Cage, remember Snake Eyes? Subjecting yourself to a combination of Cage and Brian De Palma is a recipe to make you want to break your fingers off and poke your eyes out with them. This after one of the most exhilarating opening 30 minute shots (it was all one take, I think) of any action movie I've seen. I have seen that opening sequence multiple times, and still can't believe how horribly the movie ran aground soon after (although maybe the presence of Gary Sinise should have warned me). Brian De Palma is another director who has never met a concept he couldn't run into the ground within the length of a film.
Getting back to the topic, i only assume Obama only meant more special ops. If he meant real troops, he would become my least favorite candidate overall. As many others have said, there is a big diff between special ops and troops. It just doesn't seem consistent with Obama's anti-Iraq invasion stance he took before the war to say he is going to invade Pakistan.
Hillary has shredded him in the debates though. How naive for Obama to say he would meet with world tyrants, although I am all for dialogue at lower levels.
Best moment of the cycle so far: when Biden called that gun rights guy in the youtube debate a nutjob. and then he said he'd like to bang kucinich's wife. well, not in so many words. the guy's hilarious (an he probably has the most detailed plan about Iraq)
Is it true you can't go into a Dunkin Donuts in Delaware without an accent?
(also did not watch Snake Eyes b/c it looked bad. this coming from a woman who has seen nearly every bad movie out there)
Or Wild Orchid? Or Sheena -Queen of the Jungle?
I will qualify my comment. A woman who has seen nearly every bad movie to come out once she was old enough to attend kindergarten (i.e. 1990). And yes, have (unfortunately) seen Wild Orchid, as well as Wild Things, Autumn in New York, and Gigli.
Camille,
I bow under the impact of your masochism.Gigli? really?
Before I get banned, enough of the thread jack! Though I would love to see a post on BAD films( desi and non desi) the mutineers love ( They are so bad they are good!)
Runa 63:
There is always a chance it could be so bad, it's past good, and back to bad again (paraphrase of Ghostworld http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0162346/)
Back on topic, Biden has a snowcone's chance in hell of being nominated, and I think he's exceptionally talented at saying stupid things, but he IS funny. I did like when he said that something was wrong with the guy if he thought his gun was his "baby." It made me LOL at the gym.
GujuDude, thanks for a long and serious reply! I'm at work (shhh!) so I can't reply at as much length as I'd like to, unfortunately, but I will try to answer your questions.
I'll answer this question first because it will make the rest of my answers clearer. I'm a socialist in the Trotskyist tradition (read: NOT a Stalinist or Maoist). I'm not a pacifist in any Gandhian sense, but I am fundamentally opposed to capitalism, so my opposition to wars conducted to further the interests of the US capitalist class (as I think the current wars are) flows from that. Had I been alive, I would have supported the US Civil War, though, or the war against the fascists in Spain, to give some examples.
Yes, I was/am. I am categorically opposed to the US marching into any country it pleases. I was horrified by the way Bush used feminist and humanitarian rhetoric to try to justify what was clearly a play for control over a key part of the region. (Not to mention that AQ is going strong, bin Laden is nowhere to be found, and women are still living under horrible conditions.) The fact that the US goes about pursuing its goal of world domination for profit differently than the British did doesn't mean it's not imperialism. (This article by a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations makes a case for the US reclaiming the word, actually. Quite entertaining if you are, as I have been called, a 'knee-jerk anti-imperialist'.)
Rahul, I saw Snake Eyes a long time ago, but I doubt if the brilliant opening continuous shot is 30 minutes long, though it may seem like that. There's Orson Welles in Touch of Evil, Antonioni in The Passenger and many other directors who have done continuous shots before. Russian Ark is a movie that is a single take. I believe Brian de Palma does include one such shot in his movies - there's one in Black Dahlia too.
As for Ridley Scott, he has been churning out ridiculous stuff lately, but to his credit, he did direct Alien, Blade Runner (my favorite is director's cut) and Thelma & Louise.
Yup, we're definitely not coming from the same place here.
Amit, Snake Eyes is a continuous take. I realize de Palma didn't pioneer the technique, I mentioned it because I think that it did really add to the energy and frenetic nature of the opening of the boxing match. Haven't seen a de Palma lately (despite the James Ellroy connection), he's in the "Ignore" tray along with Oliver Stone :)
Russian Ark was very pretty, but also very pretentious, I thought. But definitely worth watching on the big screen. Also, thanks to youtube, you can now see the Touch of Evil tracking shot whenever you want. Good stuff.
He also directed Black Hawk Down, which is as solid as a war movie (in terms of tone, realism, getting the little details right, etc) as you'll ever see. It wasn't over the top, nor did it potray an 'agenda'. For a movie, it was re-created very accurately, trying to show things as they were not what people wanted it to be.
You see Gujudude, what the Left typified by Arundhati Roy are for is the preservation of schticks. What's the point of travel if when I go to Kabul I see a Jamba Juice instead of a stoning of an adultress? Might as well just go to Pittsburg. We all lose when these quaint schticks are lost to posterity. We just can't support those schticks that we find pleasing, that would be like being an ecologist who kills great white sharks to save cute baby seals. And from an operational perspective, things would be much better for Afghan women if we had armed RAWA and Eve Ensler to take care of business.
louiecypher, my point was that the US's intervention in Afghanistan did not liberate Afghan women, not that I have some sort of Maoist-third-worldism rationalization for letting their oppression stand. I think it was sick and disingenuous of the Bush administration, which has done everything it can to undo what liberation American women have one, to use fake concern for Afghan women to win support for a war that had nothing to do with liberation. And I don't remember the US having all that much concern for women's rights back when it was arming bin Laden to fight the Russians.
GujuDude, I appreciate your friendly and respectful tone. I wasn't really looking to get into a big old left-vs-right fight-- glad you feel the same. :)
er. won.
In my professional experience, I have found that it is the qualified ecologist-scientist who is unafraid to state that it is the great white shark that needs to be saved in order to stop the cute baby seals from breeding unchecked. And this would usually be in response to a public indifference to shark die-off or overwhelming demand for shark fin soup coupled with the public's 'knee-jerk' emotional outrage when seal hunters have to step in and play the role of the missing shark.
Personally bothered when ecologists are misrepresented and lumped together with the 'emotional.' Ecologists have usually done their rigorous science and are quite cerebral.
SkepMode and KXB - The link below is to an opinion piece, which alludes to the get the nukes plan I mentioned in # 31.
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/07/13/2493/
p.s. if an islamic coup does come to pass in pakistan, american, indian and nato priority will not be to occupy the country, but to get the nukes at any costs.
GujuDude, I haven't seen Black Hawk Down. I prefer sex over violence. ;)
Rahul, you're not missing much with Black Dahlia - it's a royal mess.
The evolution of Salafist Jihadis has been from those focused on 'near Jihad' to 'far Jihad'. Their goals were to gain political power internally, but the state apparatus (Egypt) didn't allow it, hence the transistion to attacking more western targets to gain legitimacy within their target population they're looking to coopt. As someone far smarter than I stated, this is a war within and for Islam, and we're just a part of it. Which is the reason why, if you read my comments, I was stressing that without gaining local support, you're just fighting pitched battles. Tactically, while they may be sound, it'll just go back and forth.
At the leadership level for Al Qaeda what you are saying is probably correct (at least used to be anyway when Al Qaeda was more structured) and at some level Zarqawi's inability to gain ground in Egypt has resulted in the jihad spreading to fighting the West in the West.
However, the violence which we see now against the West in West (London bombings, Scotland bombings, Madrid bombings etc.) are a result of individuals who have a predisposition to extreme hardline Salafist Islam combined with a social network which inflames and sustains the feelings of humiliation, and frustations over Israel-Palestine conflict, Iraq war and channels them into random acts of violence against Westerners in the West. I would be surprised if these people are thinking about the strategic shift made by Zarqawi/Bin Laden or the debates within Al Qaeda about this shift.
In the pre 9-11 world, most of the terrorist attacks against US interests in the 90s were carried out by Al Qaeda operatives following the chain of command, relying exclusively on Al Qaeda contacts for logistics etc. I have a feeling that even if the US were to not invade Iraq or even Afghanistan, we would have still seen independent copycat jihadis spring up around the West after 9-11. However, the US response in Iraq has probably increased the number and intensity of these wannabe Bin Ladens.
In my last post, I mistakenly named Zarqawi instead of Zawahiri.
As someone far smarter than I stated, this is a war within and for Islam, and we're just a part of it
Thats a nice dramatic line (Thomas Friedman?) but I am not sure about the war within or for Islam. There is hardly any theater where Al Qaeda types have taken a majority or command the support of the majority. I guess one could say Hamas in Gaza or Hezbullah in the Shiite part of Lebanon, but these are mostly localized groups with local concerns, enemies and agendas with no aims whatsoever similar to the ones espoused by Zawahiri.
I couldn't agree more. Have you seen any of the sexist 'emotional' stuff that's been leveled at Rachel Carson? Both back in '62 when Silent Spring was published, and now... actually, that might have been the birth of said stereotype, come to think of it.
Sarah: I see now that what you want is purity of purpose, something that would attract young hipsters into the fray like Hemingway and his artistic comtemporary types during the Spanish Civil War. Implementation failures aside, I am guessing you would not be happy with an outcome where both hedge fund managers get new Ferraris from Central Asian Jamba Juice expansion and Afghan girls get to go to school
Hyperbole ?
Sorry, but could you please be just a little bit more condescending? I haven't quite been put in my place yet.
While that was touted as a added benefit, it was not THE selling point of intervention in Afghanistan. The mission objective was to remove AQ's base of operations, disrupt the network, and kill/capture terrorists while slowly infuse the region with more liberal policies (at a rate of change that the domestic population can evolve at). Womens rights didn't happen overnight in western nations, how can anyone expect that to happen overnight in the most conservative quarters of the world?
How does one 'liberate' women in a culture where even moderates aren't still up to western liberal notions of female emancipation? If you try to plop it down, you lose immediate support. It takes time. The article about the female olympic boxing hopefuls was pretty neat as is the fact the girls can actually GO TO SCHOOL, which was banned under the Taliban. Women are gaining opportunities and as the old gaurd ages and whithers away, it will be replaced by those affected by more liberal policies than their predecessors. When the Taliban were around, the social isolation of the local population didn't even allow for the process to begin. Now, that has begun again.
Fightining also means you take licks, too. Boxers, martial artists, MMA, war, whatever - if you're going to stand in the area and fight, you'll have setbacks. How long one can sustain and the ability to outfight the other in the long run is how one wins. A tactical setback or temporary tactical retreat does not constitute failure or defeat.
I'm not going to discuss the merits of socialism vs the capitalism. We've had other threads - this one is about Pakistan, Afghanistan, and US policy. If you're coming from the viewpoint that going to Afghanistan wasn't justified or that American intervention is a result of capitalism and imperialism, well, I don't think there is much more that can be added. Although the following is some good food for thought:
Here is a great article by Robert Greene (a Democrat) about the anti-war movement and it's failure (much of it is focused on lumping all the other agendas along with protesting the war).
From the article:
What did pre-emptive war have to do with Mumia?
I'm not looking for a right-left fight, but will continue to discuss topics as the thread continues. I'm not a righty or lefty, but I guess from where you're at, I'm definitely to your right. I think most moderates and even many democrats would be to your right. No worries though, the friendly tone will continue.
Zing...
Sarah, excellent virtual thappad that!
I was at the DC rally (incidentally the last one I would ever attend, since libertarian leanings saps motivation for non-utilitarian action) and I totally identify.
It is the Afghans who are taking the vast majority of these 'licks.' I tend to rate this success you refer to on the progress made on phenomena that are, without much controversy, the highest priorities on any 'fixer's' agenda: women's rights, eliminating opium production, establishing law-and-order governance, eradicating the Taliban and clamping down on corruption (part of the governance issue but is a great starting point).
How is the Afghanistan mission proceeding on these issues?
I only know, for sure, that there are cricketers of prodigious talent in the country and post-Taliban, they are kicking some ass.
Agreed-- thanks.
I mostly agree with you here-- it does take time, and I'm frustrated by the attempts of some liberal feminists to try to export their ideas without regard for local culture, in a 'we know best' sort of way. But that's what Bush was selling, and women's groups like NOW, who otherwise might have been at least somewhat critical of the Bush administration, fell for it. I think Bush's objective had more to do with establishing a power base in the region, and he hasn't been too successful in that regard.
Also, one thing Afghanistan and Iraq have in common is that the US media tends to ignore the suffering of the majority of people and flock like crazy to cover any story that seems even remotely like good news. And it's not exactly a paradise for school girls just yet: UNICEF estimated in 2005 that
Believe me, I'm the first one to admit that the anti-war movement has major, major problems. I'd like to see a much more clear, focused message-- it's certainly worth linking our government's violence abroad with its violence toward African-Americans at home, but if you don't have a forum where you can fully make that argument, it's a bit hard to get that point across. Yes, the anti-war movement is a long way from perfect. (I could tell you some horror stories.) But I think we need to work to improve it, not give up on it for that reason.
Romba thanks! :)
Sure, the earlier model was broken when we went into Afghanistan (or disrupted). I don't necessarily disagree with your reasoning here. Like I said, poor strategic vision and an inability of political decision makers to adapt to a dynamic battlefield doesn't make our hand stronger. Iraq could have gone our way, but for reasons mentioned numerous times, it hasn't. Our best bet is to stabilze the warring factions, help the locals fight off Al-Sadr and AQ-Iraq thugs (which the Sunnis are turning against in numbers, holding along tribal loyalty lines), and call it a day. Patreaus has finally pushed the correct strategy with more troops (both not in place in the beginning), hopefully it isn't too late.
It is a dramatic line, but I was trying to replicate what was told to me with the same context. I failed. No, it isn't Friendman, rather it was a retired SF (Green Beret) Colonel who said so on a military messageboard I visit. The point he was stressing is that this isn't a fight of ideology between the west and Islam, rather one internal to Islam with the west as a major component. The idea is to energize the moderates to really win the fight (hearts and minds stuff) because only they are truly in a position to stomp Salafists out. Replace the word 'war' with 'conflict' and maybe that helps drive the nuance.
There are groups that are looking to co opt others to their vision. For the very reason they haven't taken control of the majority, the west has become a juicy target to rally more to their [salafist] cause. What better way to market yourself to your target demographic than by showing off strength and fighting the west (and lumping it with Israel, religion, us taking their women, etc)? When they received political shelter in the most run down parts of the world (hence most removed from western influence) from folks with a similar vision (Taliban), they became far more lethal. Hamas, Fatah, Hezbollah have never really branched out against us to fight the 'far jihad'. They've stayed pretty focused on Israel.
Taliban, AQ, AQ-Iraq (who really aren't AQ, but have managed to become a brutal player) need to be marginalized continually, until domestic populations can adequately handle such threats. In many places, the mechanisms already exist. On the wild frontiers of Afghanistan/Pakistan, it doesn't. Somalia is now in the grip of radical Islamists (and with neighbors, local tribes, and Special Ops, we're fighting them off there, too).
Hell, the DOD even established an Africa Command now, realizing that Eurocom and Centcom don't adquately address Africa.
A mixed bag. As I've said before also, the first few years were managed quite differently. According to Michael Yon, the opium production is staggering and there are few alternatives in the open market for poor farmers to earn currency on. Politicians pushed Army SF and other Special ops to do more direct action missions, which will net you dead Taliban, but it leaves the Foreign Internal Defense missions and Unconventional Warfare aspects (building tribal coalitions) on the back burner.
I think I see a shift towards more slower, but successful plans. Time will tell.
Nick Cage has been in some awful movies and his acting was not so good either. This is why he supprised me 'Capt. Corelli's Mandolin'. He has grown and gotten better.
Interesting observation GujuDude, but has has the better marketing strategy and dominate the news. It is not mainstream Muslims,the silent majority.
Rajesh, don't worry. Reaming Nic Cage does NOT reflect in any way on your recommendation, and I will queue it in my SO-free Netflix queue :)
Here, here!Amit, it is really good and very disturbing. Definitely not something to be "watched lightly." Gujudude, you're totally correct in saying that this wasn't the major selling point; however, it was one of the most-repeated selling points (and was certainly an egregious lie) across the political left in the U.S.. Perhaps that's part of where Sarah's critique is coming from.