Just a few ramdom thoughts this evening:
Many people complain that we went into Iraq (and Afghanistan, for that matter) with no plan for the "after". I'd take it further. We went in with no understanding of the before - the history and culture of the area. There may well be lots of people in Iraq who want a democratic government, but the fact is that throughout the countryside, it's still very tribal, with a might-makes-right way of doing things, not to mention a fanaticism that values idealism over life. The strongest chieftain will always be tempted to take control, because if he can, then the thought is that he deserves it and should have it. The most effective campaign tactic is still assassination, and we've seen plenty of that lately. A democracy is weak by comparison. You'd have to change the culture and the society before an elected government would have any hope of lasting (living!). Or, you might be able to keep the elected government in power if it has a strong army supporting it. But that's where a coup d'etat so often starts, in the army. After an election, you'd have to restaff the entire army with soldiers loyal to the new leader (read "tribe", "religous persuasion", whatever...) before they revolt. Easier to get a loyal army, then just cancel any further elections and dare anyone to object. Agggh! It just ain't gonna work, fellas. Under those conditions, the only way to have a democracy is to kill everyone who objects. Sorta like the way to stop a democracy from forming is to kill everyone who tries. I wonder if any Americans in charge of this fiasco has ever read "The Ugly American". Maybe they should reread it. Has some good lessons we need to hear before we get uppity again.
Maybe they should also look at Iran after the Shah was kicked out. They had a Prime Minister and cabinet for a few months, until the religious right decided to take over, and executed thousands to cement their position. To quote the Ayatollah Khomeini, responding to protests by human rights organizations, "Criminals should not be tried. The trial of a criminal is against human rights. Human rights demand that we should have killed them in the first place when it became known that they were criminals." Of course, who defines "known" and "criminal"? Khomeini's bunch defined as a criminal anyone who was "Westernized", or who "Displayed leftist tendencies" - i.e. "might be a threat to us".
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, SilkenDrum is on the grid. Said alter-ego got her first junk snail mail yesterday - an offer to handle credit card sales. For a cut of the sales, of course. Said mail has been appropriately filed.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Funniest thing I've read lately was in a review of the movie "The Manchurian Candidate". The movie is based on a cold-war pre-digital era novel, wherein corporations spend a lot of money and time to brainwash and elect a presidential candidate who would then do their bidding. The reviewer said the whole plot of the movie seems sadly dated. The corporations have already done it in real life a lot cheaper and faster simply by buying an idiot from Texas.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am now reading Reading Lolita in Tehran, by Azar Nafisi. That's where I got the Khomeini quotes above. It's a rather fascinating memoir, covering the political and social climate during and after the revolution in Iran, mostly from the point of view, and in the context of, Mrs Nafisi and a small group of her female students, who meet secretly to continue their studies of forbidden Western literature after it becomes impossible to do so at the university.
The women of Khomeini's Islamic Republic of Iran did not have to wear the burka (a.k.a. burqa), but they did wear a concealing robe, and a scarf over their heads. It brought back tome how I felt when I wore a full burka for a very short time. It was hard to see through the little embroidered window, which offered a very narrow view and was spatially disorienting, but worse was the growing feeling of detachment. Even though everyone was looking at me, I was aware they couldn't see me, couldn't see even my eyes, and even though I could and did speak, pretty soon they stopped speaking to me. I became both literally and figuratively invisible. And then the view outside my little window seemed to recede, like the world was pulling away. Things moved slower, colors became duller, sounds became muffled. I began to feel that I could have no physical effect on the world out there. It was an effort to make contact. When began to feel like I could float through walls, I got scared and had to take it off. And then I almost had a panic attack, because the world rushed in on me, pressed on me, too much all at once.
I can understand why women who have worn the burka for a long time lose the will to fight it. It sucks every ounce of power out of you.
Men should have to wear a burka just once, one hour in the middle of town should do it. Generate a little understanding. (If, for religious reasons, he can't wear "female clothing", we'll create a male version. It would look like one of those suits they wear to clean up industrial accidents, but with a cape over it and a tiny fuzzy window to peer through.)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re my entry on Terrorism, along about 8/7 I think - The late night comedians and newsfolks in other parts of the country are now referring to those guys arrested in Albany "for trying to buy a shoulder-fired missile to kill a Pakistani diplomat". Arrrrgggh! There was no missile! They didn't try to buy anything but a fake id card for a newly-arrived relative (suburban and college teens do stuff like that all the time)! They didn't want to kill anyone! Not even the feds are accusing them of any of that. They even told the informant who set them up with the loan of tainted money that violence was not a good idea. But the real story just isn't scary enough I guess. I'm disgusted. Ask me why I mostly watch the BBC news. Every other source is enough blather to make it all suspect. BBC is only slightly blather.
It came out that the reason the feds were interested in the Imam and wanted to search the mosque is because an address book had been found in Afghanistan with the Imam's "name and address", and the notation "The Commander" (as the feds translated it) next to the Imam's name. Sounds bad, huh? Until you look at it another way. An address book was found with the address of the mosque, and the Imam was listed as the leader (an alternate translation) of the mosque. Turns out that the word next to his name is an alternate term for "Imam", much as "Reverend" is an alternate term for "Pastor".
Madmen are making decisions that directly affect me.
Stop the world - I want to get off.
No comments:
Post a Comment