BENGHAZI attack: all you can do is Scream

-->
On the Benghazi attack in September. This nasty episode didn't die away quickly and ultimately affected Susan Rice's career. It was a damn confusing event -- as is much that happens in this region -- but the desire for a neutral investigation that might have illuminated this disaster got obscured in political acrimony. The most disturbing ripple from the murderous riot is that weapons handed out by the US thru Qatar might have been used by the Islamist terrorists involved. Still puzzling--what was the connection between the "Muslim's Innocence" riots and this obviously 9/11 themed & planned attack?

The spectacle of enraged Muslims demonstrating? Protesting? Rioting? about another supposed offence against Islam, this time in response to a shoddy video produced in the US (but not in any way representative of any official point of view) in dozens of nations in this region, punctures the theory that Islamist extremism is a response to exploitative or misguided American foreign policy. The movie has nothing to do with the US government (even less so in the case of Germany!) yet the riots go on; it was not released by a major studio nor even seen by anyone publicly for heavens's sakes. The murder of a respected American diplomat Christopher Stevens--who supported the overthrow of Gaddafi--is particularly inexplicable and reprehensible in this perspective. Nor should Hillary have pandered to the rioters by claiming to have been “disgusted” by the video --but stated simply & firmly that street violence in Tunis, Cairo etc can never determine individual freedoms in the US. The fact is we have separation of church and state in the US – and this is a point no American official made. The only logical conclusion to draw from the behavior of irate Muslims in full cry is that we (Westerners and other free spirits) must submit to the totalitarian (extremist) Islamic demand--in short become Muslims. This group in effect rejects a pluralistic world, and it is that world that Hillary & Barack should defend publicly. Neither Hillary nor Barach nor Jay Carney made the slightest effort to explain the nature of the relations of a constitutional government with a democratic society. By failing to do this forthrightly and clearly, they appeared weak ideologically & opened themselves up to a Romney attack, but the latter’s blast was nothing but hasty opportunism. Rather than waste time trying to calm the irrational hysteria of these so easily provoked (and manipulated) mobs, we might do better to rescue one of the few truely secular Arab states in the region, Syria (the Syrians’ modernity is seen in their unconditional rejection of Basher). What we see here once again is the pathological displacement in much anti-US hysteria – that is, the use of the US as a handy whipping boy—that we see in many authoritarian societies (such as most of these are) where people cannot really dissent or protest unless they displace their anger onto the convenient US target. Anyone who has lived more than a few months in the region quickly catches on to the maneuver. Finally, why did no responsible person in one of these nominally democratic societies try at least via the media to speak reason to the rioters and educate them to the norms of the open democratic society they (hopefully) desire -- in which the claims of one religion cannot preempt civil law and civility.

Last Debate on Syria Betw. JB and Jalglish

Last Debate between JB and Jalglish (I’m done). Facebook’s format is not suitable for the kind of verbal jousting and polemic that has cropped up between JB and me. So I decided to use my blog –while reformatting for a dialogic style. –Keuka lake, NY, September 6, 12

Jamil: "bla, pontificating my left foot .... & basically, we just simply disagree ...

Jalglish: Yes, disagree but not so simply…I am essentially anti-totalitarian whereas you appear to be a cultural relativist but a strange cynical one with no positive beliefs. I do have such beliefs such as that tyranny is wrong, and it is my business to oppose it since as somebody said (I misquote) “wherever there are men living in slavery I am not free.”

i think that all systems & governments are basically set up to oppress & exploit their respective subjects & democracy is as much a joke as communism, since most people are ignorant & like Nietzsche warned, don't get trapped into being part of the herd, but be careful about appearing different than the herd ....

Here’s where you start  out with a half baked but half way coherent thought – all governments stink – a sort of anarchist, Bahkuninist sentiment – then seguing into elitist disdain for the unwashed… total incoherence.

as to your Chinese expertise, forgive any slight on that, but you do seem to somewhat express what sounds like old cold war us vs. them rhetoric...

in what? And you cite no examples? If I’m concerned about Chinese aggression in the PR this makes me cold war era? Or is that China has never emerged from the cold war???And if this is the case why is that politically correct ideologues such as yourself never criticize the Middle Kingdom?

my position is that all governments are corrupt, its only a matter of degree difference..

this again is a boring truism. it's better to be an old fashioned liberal like myself. At least you have something to fight for.

 & China has never known anything but totalitarian state system in the past 4000 years

While blithly pontificating, Jamil, this bit on China shows how ignorant you actually are – there was a Chinese Republic under Sun Yat Sen who was a democrat! Hey where’s you history? I studied China in depth while I lived there and for many years after. I’m not so easily brushed aside.

... so whatever they do is their business, not that or the US or UK, etc ..

sure, what they do is their business of course no one would dream of interfering with what is truly domestic matters – but if China is in fact the “interferer” then what? We may have some responsibilities, especially if old allies and friends ask us for help. The US is already involved in the Pacific and has responsibilities which so far it has handled carefully & well.

Jamil: I'm not a pacifist, but do not support military adventurism & Syria is nobody's business but their own & their neighbors ... sorry, but i don't live in that neighborhood ... so it's none of my business, nor of any Americans

JD Sorry but I submit on the other hand that wherever a civilian population is oppressed and deprived of other rights by an unwanted unelected government then it may be my business to support the rebellion – other wise I’m in contradiction with my principles that all people want and deserve freedom. (JJ Rousseau, Le Contrat Social).

...compost happens & the people get the government they deserve, so if Obama loses this election, the the American people have just screwed themselves ... ciao ...

This propagandistic onslaught is almost incomprehensible –an impasto of clichés & slogans standing in for thought, lacking clarity or originality, again verging on total incoherence, almost impossible to disentangle and probably not worth the effort … you contradict yourself by implying that Obama would be the better choice – so at the heart of your cynicism is just another disappointed liberal. Instead of honestly supporting Obama which you can’t due to your doctrinaire assumption– you pose as the world weary cynic --while other people unpretentiously work for Obama knowing that he won’t work miracles but that his adminstn will deliver a thicker slice of that basic bread we all need – remember Orwell’s wise saw about “a half loaf is better than no bread at all.”

let's take literature next time & forget politics, its your idealistic interventionism on behalf of some abstract human rights to which i respond, as in the case of Syria, its just a mess & getting messier & bloodier & will keep going in that direction even well after Baseer is gone ... & can't no outside power do anything to make things better as its gone too far ... all losers, no winners ... that's civil war, whatever the country"

This last bit is typical of Jamil’s lack of concern for real people – to him human rights are an abstraction; also remarkable is his forced, almost hysterical pessimism behind which you sense his fear that his predictions won’t come true.

The greatest proof of his disenfranchisement from street reality and casual suffering is his amazing failure to mention the immediate historical context of the Syria revolution – The Arab Spring. This is the basic denial/blind spot behind all JBs comments on Syria – for some bizarre perverse reason he wants to deny Syria a positive outcome modeled on the revolutions in sister countries. This kind soul seems to be very afraid they might break free of Basher.

I wonder why this no doubt brilliant, creative and imaginative mind doesn’t occupy itself with something else? Why does he bother to attack me I wonder? How have I lucked out? Literature? fine with me, because I don’t find Jamil’s political ideas very interesting – they are mainly an assemblage of slogans and commonplaces with a big blank space for the changed and changing political reality in the Middle East. There is also a surprising amount of disdain for the “common” people in his musings– an almost Ayn Randian hauteur. Sadly, our discussions don’t and won’t progress – so I’m hoping he’ll call it quits, declare a truce and I can get back to real life.