Category Archives: Middle East

Neocons Banished To The Backseat

Foreign Policy, Middle East, Military, Neoconservatism, UN, Uncategorized, War

In urging a no-fly zone over Libya (link), the neoconservatives wanted more than anything to see the US take the lead, once again, in democratic, faith-based initiatives around the world.

Neoconservatives like Bill Kristol and Charles Krauthammer (joined by eager pup Steven Hayes of the Weekly Standard) were champing at the bit to take the battle for Libya away from the Libyan people and put it where it belongs: the US military. Today, Obama threw America’s heft (such as it is these days) behind a U.N. Security Council no-fly zone over Libya. What this move lacks in glory, from the neocons’ position, it makes up for in the potential for blood, guts and gore. Except that the US—again, from where the neocons are perched—will take a strategic backseat to the UN:

The resolution passed 10-0 with five abstentions, including Russia and China.
The resolution establishes “a ban on all flights in the airspace of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya” while excluding an occupation force. It also calls for freezing the assets of the Libyan National Oil Corp. and the central bank because of links to Gadhafi.

[MSNBC]

Joining in this UN resolution means, in effect, that American funding and firepower will be channeled into one more futile expedition over a Muslim country. Neocons will act disappointed, having been denied leadership position in the expedition. But to all intents and purposes, the US (via our debtholders) will be left to carry the can.

UPDATED: Were Walid Phares Jewish, He’d Be A Pharisee

Anti-Semitism, Foreign Policy, Middle East, Neoconservatism, War

Dr. Walid Phares is the Fox News Channel’s Middle East and Terrorism Expert. He has been advocating a muscular military response in Libya. Somewhere on the Fox News’, moving-pictures-only website (in this vicinity), there is an interview in which Phares says that, “If the opposition in Libya cannot cross the Syrt line on the coast and head towards Tripoli, it is clear that there will be stalemate and only international intervention would end the crisis. The US must consider the fact that if the crisis stretch too long, even the uprising areas could be infiltrated.” (The excerpt is from Dr. Phares’ more script-friendly website, here.)

Pharisee,” which originally referred to a “member of an ancient Jewish sect that emphasized strict interpretation and observance of the Mosaic law in both its oral and written form,” has also come to mean a “hypocritically self-righteous person.” (FreeDictionary.com)

I wager that if Walid were a Jewish neoconservative, and not an Arab one, he’d be accused of being “a fifth columnist; a person with dual loyalties, a ‘binational.'”

UPDATE: Tom, I fail to see why you think my post is such a harsh criticism of Phares. It shows you how lukewarm and insipid public discourse has become if a sharp dig at the good doctor’s interventionism—or more likely, at the non-reaction to his militarism—is considered a devastating blow. Nonsense.

I like Phares on some counts; not on others. He just gets a pass because he is not a Jewish interventionist. If he were a Jew, the usual suspects would accuse him of recruiting poor American boys to die in order to safeguard oil for Israel, or something like that. I can never get conspiracy theories straight, as they are so unintuitive to me.

UPDATED: The Tyrant’s Intellectual (& Non-Egghead) Enablers

Celebrity, Critique, Ethics, Foreign Policy, Intellectualism, Media, Middle East, Neoconservatism, Propaganda, The Zeitgeist, Uncategorized

Much has been made of the American singers who sang for Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi. Nothing has been said of the intelligentsia that has sung his praise. There is a big difference between singing for your supper and singing songs of praise for this, and other, odious characters. Paul A. Rahe at The Chronicle of Higher Education dissects “The Intellectual as Courtier.” (Here, with thanks to my Canadian friend, Dr. Grant Havers.)

“If, in The Washington Post, one were to describe the elder Qaddafi as ‘a complex and adaptive thinker as well as an efficient, if laid-back, autocrat,’ if one were to call him ‘flexible and pragmatic,’ if one were to go on to suggest that ‘Libya under Qaddafi has embarked on a journey that could make it the first Arab state to transition peacefully and without overt Western intervention to a stable, non-autocratic government and, in time, to an indigenous mixed constitution favoring direct democracy locally and efficient government centrally,’ one would be apt—and with good reason—to be compared with Leni Riefenstahl, as Benjamin Barber was by Ken Silverstein at Harper’s Magazine.

Worse criticism would justifiably be in store for the intellectual sycophant who chose to write on the eve of the Libyan uprising, as Barber did at The Huffington Post, that Qaddafi ‘is not detested in the way that Mubarak has been detested and rules by means other than fear,’ especially if he were to add, ‘His son Seif, with a Ph.D. in political philosophy from the London School of Economics and two forthcoming books focused on liberalism in the developing world, has pioneered a gradualist approach to civil society in Libya, insisting along the way that he would accept no office that wasn’t subject to popular elections. No dynasty likely there.'”

READ ON.

[SNIP]

Because of their wide reach, Peggy Noonan (and her ilk)—while no intellectual— serves as a greater court courtesan than does the academic sycophant. As I chronicled in “LETHAL WEAPONS: NEOCON GROUPIES,” Noonan has gone as far as to conflate President Bush “with a Higher Power – Peggy believes God speaks through George W. Bush. From his furrows to his genitals, her high-flown linguistic banalities have lovingly depicted her man’s every inch. (See “He’s Got Two of ‘Em.”)

There are other culprits, of course.

UPDATE: Myron: You’re the funniest ever here on “nuance.” Why not cross-post this and other posts to the Facebook page, where the blog posts appear automatically? You’ll spice up the place in no time.

The Brotherhood’s Steel Magnolia

Democracy, Islam, Israel, Law, Middle East, Religion

“Mubarak’s dictatorial powers were directed, unjustly indubitably, against the Islamic fundamentalists of the Muslim brotherhood,” I wrote here. For the sake of accuracy, let’s remember that Mubarak was not an equal opportunity oppressor; he went after members of the Muslim Brotherhood, mainly.

The BBC concedes as much in an upbeat expose on the Brotherhood’s Egyptian acolytes. “For decades, keeping the Brotherhood and other Islamists from power was the main justification for the authoritarian rule of President Hosni Mubarak.” (Here.)

Here are some of the musings of gentle Doha, a Muslim Brotherhood steel magnolia:

“The first thing to do is to sever all ties with Israel because it is the cause of our ruin. And Mubarak was their agent.” …

“Egypt follows French law, and we do not want that, because when someone steals for example, he spends a month in jail and then he’s released to do the same again. But under Sharia law he gets his hand cut off and that’s better.” …

And the least unreasonable of Doha’s beliefs:

“Sharia doesn’t allow women to participate in government because women are emotional. Women should be responsible for their houses and their jobs, but not government,” she said.

The BBC correspondent says that “some of [Doha’s] views reflect the official Muslim Brotherhood line.”

The BBC would never entertain the notion that where the radicalism of dear Doha doesn’t jibe with that of her “moderate” Brothers—it’s because the latter practice Takiya: lying to advance and protect the faith.