The Art of Vilifying
It's awfully peculiar if you stop to think about it.A bin Laden video surfaces and the 24-hour news coverage comes swarming. But no matter how nonstop the coverage, all we seem to hear is the briefest of overviews repeated on a loop and a ton of semi-related analysis like: How do you think this'll affect the president's approval rating?
Am I the only one who has shook his fist at Anderson Cooper and shouted: Just show the damn video already!
Now, if you've recently had a lobotomy you may be saying: "Bob, they don't televise them because they may include secret cues to activate al-Qaeda sleeper cells the world over. It is a matter of national security!"
Let me ask this: If you were an evil genius would you transmit your coded messages though a medium that you knew the CIA and NSA and FBI would be scrutinizing more than any other or by way of the absolutely unpolicable expanse of the Internet?
Besides, although it is a pain in the ass, anyone can get the full transcript from foreign sources in about 5 minutes anyways...even al-Qaeda sleeper cells in Boise, Idaho can read the BBC online.
So let's put this nonsense justification aside for a moment and ask the real question:
Am I the only one who has shook his fist at Anderson Cooper and shouted: Just show the damn video already!
Now, if you've recently had a lobotomy you may be saying: "Bob, they don't televise them because they may include secret cues to activate al-Qaeda sleeper cells the world over. It is a matter of national security!"
Let me ask this: If you were an evil genius would you transmit your coded messages though a medium that you knew the CIA and NSA and FBI would be scrutinizing more than any other or by way of the absolutely unpolicable expanse of the Internet?
Besides, although it is a pain in the ass, anyone can get the full transcript from foreign sources in about 5 minutes anyways...even al-Qaeda sleeper cells in Boise, Idaho can read the BBC online.
So let's put this nonsense justification aside for a moment and ask the real question:
Why would the Bush administrating push U.S.-based media against airing the bin Ladin recordings?
Hold that thought…
At my job I recently did some work on the rerelease of GI JOE! That's right, after being AWOLish for a decade or so, Duke and Snake Eyes are back and reporting for duty! Hasbro is releasing a new toy line and a new cartoon will soon be airing called GI JOE: SIGMAS 6.
I've seen the first episode and man, if there isn't something familiar about the story line...
Hold that thought…At my job I recently did some work on the rerelease of GI JOE! That's right, after being AWOLish for a decade or so, Duke and Snake Eyes are back and reporting for duty! Hasbro is releasing a new toy line and a new cartoon will soon be airing called GI JOE: SIGMAS 6.
I've seen the first episode and man, if there isn't something familiar about the story line...
Destro, the evil Cobra mastermind is back at it, he has pulled together a nebulous network of brainwashed ninjas and loyal robots to crush freedom.
As I worked, I started to wonder: what was Destro so darn mad about? Unfortunately the new show gives no coherent justification. Destro represents no nation state or oppressed peoples or rational ideology and almost all of his back story from the comic books has been scraped.
As I worked, I started to wonder: what was Destro so darn mad about? Unfortunately the new show gives no coherent justification. Destro represents no nation state or oppressed peoples or rational ideology and almost all of his back story from the comic books has been scraped.
The new Destro is simply evil in a vacuum.
Anyhow, the project got me thinking about the Osama tapes again. I searched for the transcripts (that CNN.com failed to include in their special report page dedicated exclusively to the Osama videos! See their sidebar.) and I read them in their entirety for a change. Without the help of Anderson Cooper.
In this last one, Osama empathizes with the U.S. soldiers, points out misinformation put out by the pentagon, describes torture techniques being used by the U.S. (including electric drills in joints), gives a book recommendation, discusses the futility of continued violence and even, at times, sounds poetic. Listen:
"As for us, we do not have anything to lose. The swimmer in the sea does not fear rain. You have occupied our land, defiled our honour, violated our dignity, shed our blood, ransacked our money, demolished our houses, rendered us homeless, and tampered with our security. We will treat you in the same way...You tried to deny us the decent life, but you cannot deny us a decent death."
He ends with, "I swear not to die but a free man even if I taste the bitterness of death."
Anyhow, the project got me thinking about the Osama tapes again. I searched for the transcripts (that CNN.com failed to include in their special report page dedicated exclusively to the Osama videos! See their sidebar.) and I read them in their entirety for a change. Without the help of Anderson Cooper.
In this last one, Osama empathizes with the U.S. soldiers, points out misinformation put out by the pentagon, describes torture techniques being used by the U.S. (including electric drills in joints), gives a book recommendation, discusses the futility of continued violence and even, at times, sounds poetic. Listen:
"As for us, we do not have anything to lose. The swimmer in the sea does not fear rain. You have occupied our land, defiled our honour, violated our dignity, shed our blood, ransacked our money, demolished our houses, rendered us homeless, and tampered with our security. We will treat you in the same way...You tried to deny us the decent life, but you cannot deny us a decent death."He ends with, "I swear not to die but a free man even if I taste the bitterness of death."
Hey, I thought this guy hated freedom?!
Before I go further...please, do not misunderstand this post. It is not a defense of Osama. I certainly am not trying to justify his actions. Furthermore, I am not concerned here with the validity or sincerity of what he's said, only why the administration would want to keep us from hearing it.
If I learned anything from the original GI JOE it was this:
Before I go further...please, do not misunderstand this post. It is not a defense of Osama. I certainly am not trying to justify his actions. Furthermore, I am not concerned here with the validity or sincerity of what he's said, only why the administration would want to keep us from hearing it.
If I learned anything from the original GI JOE it was this:
Knowing is half the battle.
Sadly in the rerelase of this cartoon (in our post-Sept-11th-world), this out-of-date tag line has been retired. It turns out that 'knowing' isn't all it was cracked up to be.
Sadly in the rerelase of this cartoon (in our post-Sept-11th-world), this out-of-date tag line has been retired. It turns out that 'knowing' isn't all it was cracked up to be.
From now on, Destro and Osama will remain evil in a vacuum.
And our subsequent strategy in the War on Terror will continue to mimic that of a roach exterminator calling for ever stronger poisons.
By Robert - 2/28/2006
18 Comments:
Very interesting post, Bob.
You have the scoop: our leaders want us only to believe what they want us to believe...nothing else which may even include whats actually going on.
The last Paragraph of the post was excellent!
Am I Saddam??
Wow. That is one interesting way to "not defend" Osama.
Can you tell we ignorant readers exactly what of this message the American people should be hearing and why they should be hearing it, keeping in mind that Osama's grievances stem from pre-Iraq US action (i.e., Iraq is largely a response to Osama among other things)?
Petey,
Thanks.
Cobra Commander,
No, you're not Sadaam.
Pete,
Thanks for the comment. Let me address your main question directly. That is:
Why might it be good for the American people to hear these tapes?
LONG ANSWER [PREFACE]: The question isn’t: why should the American people be allowed to hear this? The question is: why shouldn’t they? Or more specifically (as I’ve already said): Why would the administration care to keep this from the American people?
LONG ANSWER: Pete, it seems to me that we are losing the War on Terror and the War in Iraq (3 years after the invasion and there was a daytime curfew in the capitol this week!). As I have said, I believe that in the panic after 9-11 we started aggressively treating the problem before it was properly diagnosed. And we never came to terms with exactly where the problem stemmed from and the role that our foreign policy in the region might have played in all this. Osama declared Jihad on Russia the day the Russian troops set foot in Afghanistan and declared Jihad on the U.S. the day our soldiers set foot in Saudi Arabia. It’s all right there in the tapes, if we care to listen.
By listening to the enemy, we might get a better understanding of what the enemy is and how to defeat it.
Some would have you believe that the enemy we confront is not simply a network of ultra-violent, reactionary rebels but a sub-human force that has crawled up from the depths of hell to lashed out at goodness, completely unprovoked; the kind of enemy that must be completely exterminated before peace and stability is ever possible.
If we were fighting Godzilla, our current approach to the War on Terror might be more successful. Unfortunately we are fighting an ideology that expands and contracts in the presence of poverty, insecurity, oppression, inequality and religious fundamentalism (an environment which we must claim some responsibility for). This is not something we can smoke out of a cave and slay, but something (like the Racism that drove the KKK) that must be debunked and marginalized.
You can’t weed a garden with a bulldozer. And you can’t decrease terrorism by driving a unilateral, preemptive, illegitimate, torturous, uber-destructive war machine all over the globe! There is an utterly endless line of new recruits waiting to replace Osama and until we make the connection between American hegemony and terrorism it will only continue to get longer.
SHORT ANSWER: Those who don’t learn from their mistakes are bound to repeat them.
The Invasion of Iraq is not a response to Osama. It was the brainchild of The Project for New American Century - Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz et al.
Linking Iraq to El Queda was just a convenient method to accomplish the Iraq invasion that had been advocated by PNAC since 1998.
No coherent connection between Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden has ever been uncovered. In Fact, if you think about it, A totalitarian dictator has NO room in his domain for a religious jihadist. Makes sense, Huh?
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
Bob, I agree the tapes should probably be shown, and at a minimum more analysis of the root of this issue should be considered. However, Republicans will say you are "aiding the terrorists" and other stuff (see Pete's comments). There are a lot of cheap tricks out there, which are dumbing down essential questions/analysis. Also, relying on cable news to do much of anything is a bad idea (not saying you/we should fight against their weak broadcasting, just pointing out how pointless it can feel sometimes to get mad at CNN)
Related: BUSH ADMITS BIN LADEN TAPES HELPED HIS REELECTION
Officers Say Arms Can't End Iraq War
By Tom Lasseter
Knight Ridder Newspapers
Monday 13 June 2005
Shiites, Sunnis must find solution to insurgency, US commanders warn.
Baghdad - A growing number of senior American military officers in Iraq have concluded that there is no long-term military solution to an insurgency that has killed thousands of Iraqis and more than 1,700 U.S. military personnel during the past two years.
Instead, officers say, the only way to end the guerrilla war is through Iraqi politics - an arena that so far has been crippled by divisions between Shiite Muslims, whose coalition dominated the January elections, and Sunni Muslims, who are a minority in Iraq but form the base of support for the insurgency.
"I think the more accurate way to approach this right now is to concede that... this insurgency is not going to be settled, the terrorists and the terrorism in Iraq is not going to be settled, through military options or military operations," Brig. Gen. Donald Alston, the chief U.S. military spokesman in Iraq, said last week, in a comment that echoes what other senior officers say. "It's going to be settled in the political process."
Gen. George W. Casey, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, expressed similar sentiments, calling the military's efforts "the Pillsbury Doughboy idea" - pressing the insurgency in one area only causes it to rise elsewhere.
"Like in Baghdad," Casey said during an interview with two newspaper reporters, including one from Knight Ridder, last week. "We push in Baghdad - they're down to about less than a car bomb a day in Baghdad over the last week - but in north-center (Iraq)... they've gone up," he said. "The political process will be the decisive element."
The recognition that a military solution is not in the offing has led U.S. and Iraqi officials to signal they are willing to negotiate with insurgent groups, or their intermediaries.
"It has evolved in the course of normal business," said a senior U.S. diplomatic official in Baghdad, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of U.S. policy to defer to the Iraqi government on Iraqi political matters. "We have now encountered people who at least claim to have some form of a relationship with the insurgency."
The message is markedly different from previous statements by U.S. officials who spoke of quashing the insurgency by rounding up or killing "dead enders" loyal to former dictator Saddam Hussein. As recently as two weeks ago, in a Memorial Day interview on CNN's Larry King Live, Vice President Dick Cheney said he believed the insurgency was in its "last throes."
But the violence has continued unabated, even though 44 of the 55 Iraqis portrayed in the military's famous "deck of cards" have been killed or captured, including Hussein.
'We Can't Kill Them All'
Lt. Col. Frederick P. Wellman, who works with the task force overseeing the training of Iraqi security troops, said the insurgency doesn't seem to be running out of new recruits, a dynamic fueled by tribal members seeking revenge for relatives killed in fighting.
"We can't kill them all," Wellman said. "When I kill one I create three."
American officials had hoped that January's national elections would blunt the insurgency by giving the population hope for their political future. But so far, the political process has not in any meaningful way included Iraq's Sunni Arab population.
Most of Iraq's Sunni Arabs, motivated either by fear or boycott, did not vote, and they hold a scant 17 seats in the 275-member parliament.
With Shiites and Kurds stocking the nation's security forces with members of their militias, Sunni Arabs have been marginalized and, according to some analysts in Iraq, have become more willing to join armed groups.
U.S. officials prefer not to talk about the situation along religious lines, but they acknowledge that one of the key obstacles to resolving Iraq's problems is the difference between Sunni and Shiite religious institutions.
Shiites are organized around their marja'iya, a council of clerics - led in Iraq by Grand Ayatollah Ali al Sistani - that issues religious edicts that Shiite faithful follow as law. Sunnis, on the other hand, have no such unifying structure.
Unless Sunnis develop confidence that the government will represent them, few here see the insurgency fading.
Asked about the success in suppressing the insurgency in Baghdad recently - the result of a series of large-scale raids that targeted primarily Sunni neighborhoods - Alston said that he expects the violence to return.
"We have taken down factories, major cells, we have made good progress in (stopping) the production of (car bombs) in Baghdad," Alston said. "Now, do I think that there will be more (bombs) in Baghdad? Yes, I do."
If this was not so absolutely sick ,....it would be hysterical:
Bush & Bin Laden are enabled by each other.
Anyone familiar with the "enabling" concept such in Alcoholism, Drugs, Gambling.....?????????
Sad
Good post, Bob. I agree with the necessity of getting to know your enemy so as to find a better way of defeating him...that old cliche..
Peterpattakos, did you Really write that Iraq was largely a response to Osama? I think I just heard your balls clank. I thought Afghanistan was supposed to be our response?? And we would focus on capturing him?? Honestly, if you were an Iraqi, who would you dislike more: Osama or Pres. Bush? Who has been responsible for the death of more Iraqis? About the anon. article, while it is very outdated, much remains unchanged, except that thousands more Iraqis and 500 more American troops have died. And this administration doesn't seem any closer to finding a solution to their tidy war gone awry. So while I don't want the Today show broadcasting Osama's tapes, we at least have to be willing to try a new tack.
What I'm getting at is that if one were to coldly do a cost/benefit analysis of this situation, it would become clear that the 250+ billion dollars we have spent here could have been spent with far more efficacy elsewhere, and with much greater results(as far as Warring on the Terroring). It seems the administration doesn't think Americans can handle Osama talking poetically, just like we can't deal with seeing troops coffins as they arrive back on their native soil.. and I object to this policy of 'suggesting' to the media what it should or should not air. This is an awful, horrific mess we're in. The worst thing we can do is lie about it.
I think that it's a defensible strategy for the President to ask networks not to air these tapes, if only because it undermines Osama's expectation that his pronouncments will get full TV coverage. The security justification is also entirely plausible, but I don't think this is an interesting issue.
You seem to think that Osama has a legitimate grievance, and maybe he does, but what exactly is it? It seems to me that he opposes the US doing business in the Middle East, and supporting the State of Israel. That doesn't sound like a legitimate grievance to me.
Seth: Who's "lying"? Give me a break. I've posted extensively on the connection between Osama and Iraq...if you want to understand why my balls aren't clanking, go back and read "Our Oil Under Their Sand" (January Chief Source Archives) I would suggest that your cold cost benefit analysis is much more complicated than you seem to think it is, especially if you think the results are clear, and can be evaluated now. If what we achieve what we went over there for, and there is every indication that we are on our way to doing this, then there is no question it is worth the benefits. See below from powerlineblog.com:
If clashes between Sunni and Shiite forces constitute evidence that the Bush administration's assumptions about what is possible in Iraq are wrong, then why isn't the fact that these forces pulled back from brink of civil war (if that's where they were) evidence that the administration's assumptions may not be wrong? If William F. Buckley were correct that "the great human reserves that call for civil life [aren't] strong enough" in Iraq, then one wouldn't expect massive Iraqi turnout for elections; one wouldn't expect the formation of a government including Sunnis, Shiites, and Kurds; and one wouldn't expect that, within days of the bombing of a holy Shiite shrine, leaders from every important political faction in Iraq, working together, would have quelled the violence.
This evidence doesn't establish that, ultimately, Iraq will hold together under the pressure of the insecurity produced by the terrorist insurgency. But it does establish, I think, that the administration's critics, and the MSM as a whole, seriously underestimate the will of ordinary Iraqis to hold their new democracy together.
Elements of the MSM are committed at several levels to telling a story of failure in Iraq. This makes them reluctant to report news that contradicts this narrative, and loath to treat such news as evidence that we might not fail. Thus, through the intellectual dishonesty of many of its members, the MSM continues to squander the natural advantage it holds over new media by virtue of its ability to put "boots on the ground" in Iraq.
I do not think Osama has a legitimate grievance, although I would say he objects to us Occupying the Middle East. I do not think he cares if he gets US coverage--he is playing to his home audience, and gets Full coverage on the major Arab networks.
Peter: When I said "lie", I meant it in reference to the situation we are in over there. That seemed pretty clear to me. I would Never say you were lying, just that I didn't agree with your opinions...I remember the post you mention, but it isn't under Jan 05 or 06..? Anything to say about Afghanistan, and our short attention span?
About the lie I was talking about--If you were to listen to only what our administration says, then listen to what their own officers on the ground in Iraq say (see above article, etc.), you would say, "Hey, someone isn't telling the complete truth." Or perhaps to be more gracious "It seems that someone involved is partially obfuscating the facts." What I was asking for is honesty--something like: "The situation in Iraq is very delicate and dangerous. Perhaps we did not foresee all the problems now placed before us, but as conditions change, so do our methods and tactics. The one worst thing we could do in this situation is be bullheaded and continue on as if the playing field were not drastically altered."
About the blog post. Good points, but I thought the Sunnis had left the bargaining table in response the wave of reprisals. Also, the fact that the country could erupt like that, even though it seems more calm now, worries me greatly. Sectarianism must be handled, I'm not sure how, but I feel those divisions only grow deeper--especially with reprisal after reprisal.. Its so difficult for me to even comprehend the level of hatred and distrust that is poisoning everything over there. Finally, I disagree with anyone who talks about the 'MSM', I do not believe such a cohesive force exists--liberals and conservatives both complain equally about the news media: so, apparently we are all getting the shaft. Sounds American to me!
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
Your call for honesty is fair enough, but I'd bet that if we went back through some transcripts we could find such statements; though these would be the kind of statements that would not get media coverage.
As far as the sectarianism, it seems to me that the most logical reaction on the part of Iraqis wanting a pluralistic peaceful secular society (and there are many) will react strongly to this violence, and refuse to tolerate it, thus further marginalizing these forces of terror. I think the more things like this happen, the more the average Iraqi becomes fed up.
An interesting point made by Victor Hanson (p.a14, 3.1 WSJ): "Few observers suggested that the Samarra bombing of a holy mosque by radical Muslims might be a sign of the terrorists' desperation- killers who have not, and cannot defeat the US military. After the furor over Danish cartoons, French rioting and Iranian nuclear perfidy, the entire world is turning on radical Islam and the terrorists feel keenly this rising tide of opposition on the frontline in Iraq."
I wish I had the time, but I would be surprised if such a straightforward statement were made by this White House...I agree w/ your statement about "the more things like this happen..", but I think the average Iraqi would prefer they never happen at all. I agree that "Aver. Iraqi" wants a peaceful, pluralistic society, but the difficulties of secularism w/i majority Islamic nations is well documented, be they Shi'ite or Sunni.
Moreover, if you look in the news today, it seems it is not Iraqi sects working together that is helping to quell the violence, but rather simply imposed curfews and bans on vehicle travel (..the minority parties are trying to use this latest violence as a reason to remove al'Jaafari from his post).
As far as the WSJ article--I think that is plainly obvious. What I mean is, to me, desperation Is the basic M.O. of terrorists. Whether they tried traditional methods (diplomacy, etc) initially or not, they have decided that guerrilla tactics are the most efficacious of their current options. No one fighting against the US military can honestly expect to be victorious in the traditional sense.
Far from desperate, I fear that terrorists in Iraq are growing more confident and more bold as they find the weak spots in our occupational strategy; the longer we are there, the more they will get to know our methods, and the easier it will be for them to exploit our weaknesses (not enough personnel (Iraqi and American), etc.). I think our military needs to be in more of a state of flux vs. one of stasis--it is harder to hit a moving/changing target. All the traditional reasons of why a small guerrilla force can 'succeed' against a large army apply in this case. As Bob said, those who do not truly examine the(ir) past are more likely to repeat it.
Exactly...and if you are referring to Vietnam, you might want to consider the possiblity that that war was lost back here, in Washington, and not in Vietnam.
It seems ludicrous to me to think that "the longer we are there" the terrorists get an advantage on the US and it is easier for them to exploit our weaknesses, when there is a much greater possibility that the situation is the reverse...
Peter,
The longer we are there the less support the public has for the war and the enemy knows this.
Therefore success is inversely proportional to time (shortness of)
I was not referring specifically to Vietnam, just world history (nation-building is a biotch) in general.
But taking Vietnam as example, I would say that as in Vietnam, we are in danger of losing the war via Washington through this administration's lack of foresightedness and unwillingness to attack this situation from a different angle--and no, I don't think we should/can leave...
As far as your second part, check out the term "guerrilla warfare"--it works. A large, cumbersome army with no clear direction and waning desire is a much easier target than a small, desperate and mobile force. Those, to me, are facts. An occupying force Must take the initiative, must be malleable, and I feel our military is not.
Post a Comment
<< Home