The World is a Circular Firing Squad

There's a line in one of the greatest "Bollywood" classics, written by the scions of a couple of the greatest South Asian literary families—sons of Urdu poets, to be precise—and delivered by a minor but unforgettable character, "Soorma Bhopali" that goes "Yahaan hamaaree kya zaroorath hai; yahaan tho waisay hee aap kay naam ka warrant nikla huwa hai." [Who needs me? There's already a warrant out for your arrest.]

And that's the thought that's being going through my head as South Asia spirals downwards, some folks caution against jumping to conclusions, and others rally for peace. And I include the arguments over "Islamists did it. No, wait! Let's not jump to conclusions; it could be home grown! …" in that.

How is it realistic to look at everything as either-or? The mess South Asia is in--not to mention the rest of the world--there's enough blame to go around. Neo-purist fanatics (our Islamist/Jihadists; their Sanghis; our--speaking from North America—Christian and Jewish fanatics); civilizing imperialists; ethnic militants (Sena, MQM, racists of white and other hue); everybody's jingoistic nationalists; everybody's military-industrial-intelligence complexes…all feed off each other. In some cases, they work with each other. Just for example, Is it too much of a stretch to believe that what is happening in Karachi (in case either of you missed it) is being helped along by Indian Intelligence (and who knows who else) as a counterpoint to what they see as Pakistani Intelligence "doing Mumbai"? From where I sit, what's happening in the NW of Pakistan also has elements of a turf battle.

And as we all participate in this circular firing squad—including the agonizing over Muslims being targeted or profiled—the folks I list above make leaps and bounds in the struggle for the hearts and minds of their respective target constituencies…

And PS: how many noticed there were riots in the prettiest town in Africa's largest nation, too? Rally anyone?

---

Cross-posted on the iFaqeer, Wadiblog, ProgressiveIslam.org, Pak Tea House, Urdu ke Naam, Doodpatti (by Tohfay) blogs.
Technorati tags applicable to this post: Mumbai - Pakistan - India - War on Terror

Ignatieff's Mea Culpa

Bouncing off something a friend posted on Facebook. I read Michael Ignatieff's NY Times piece. Notes:

• Is he always this long-winded? Or is it just becuase he's having to say sorry that it is difficult?
• That's the longest I have seen any one take to call someone a rich brat who's caused a mess.
• I like the fact that he only blames the troubles of Iraq on the last 35 years and doesn't go for the Western Establishment's usual "hundreds/thousands of years" that X non-white population has been dysfunctional.
• I agree with the Achilles Heel theory that some folks mentions--that this is basically a way of neutralizing something that could hurt him politically. But he is, in effect, saying "It's not my fault; Harvard made me do it." Which only confirms that he's now all politician--and not the kind of politician folks love, neither.
  

The other issue a friend raised was why he said all that in the NY Times and not a Canadian magazine. My reaction is that I think that is but appropriate. His support for the Iraq War was as an academic/pundit at an American institution--you could say as an American pundit, in a manner of thinking. Or you could say that he work in support of the War was done while at the center/capital/seat of the empire, and it is only fair that he make his mea culpa's in the same forum--The Forum in Rome itself, if I may use the metaphor. In fact, the fact that he did in that forum might actually mean that it is a real conversion/Road to Damascus moment or what-have-you.

Technorati tags applicable to this post: Ignatieff - Iraq War - tag

Update: Poem from The East on Oppression and The Oppressed

Once upon a time, I had posted a translation of an Urdu piece by Gauhar Raza, and had been trying to get in touch with him to submit it for his attention and maybe get his okay for posting his poem here. I finally got in touch with him (and his wife Shabnam Hashmi) over the last few days and got him to comment on the translation and the poem. It was gratifying to hear that he thought well of the humble effort at translation. He added:

"Though I would like the poem to be dead and irrelevant as soon as possible but since the world is not going to be peaceful in near future therefore I suppose it has some use."

Technorati tags applicable to this post: Urdu translation - Gauhar Raza

Reflecting on The 'M' Word

Quite simply, a person who does not wear a uniform and operates in a war zone carrying out functions that soldiers usually do and, most importantly, carry arms, all of this in return, only, for a salary are, in the English language, called mercenaries.

Listening to a story Amy Goodman is covering about "private security contractors" in Iraq:

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07/02/08/1611238

What I notice is that both the title of the book by the guest she has, and the title of the segment itself on the Democracy Now! website use the "M" word, but no one besides that guest/book author uses that word.

Several things come up in this regard:

Firstly, why doesn't Amy use the word? I have a feeling it's because she doesn't want to get too far outside the mainstream of American discourse and sound like a crazy hippy.

Secondly, why won't Congressman Waxman use the word? He is looking at--and quoting--evidence about private persons carrying arms and wearing armour and so on. Why won't he call a spade a spade?

And the common person on the globe today--American or non-American. And even Muslim activists. Why won't anyone use the word?

In the segment above, Jeff Cahill asks why there is no follow up on a private contractor killing a civilian. And I don't understand why Jeff Cahill is even talking about Iraqi law which, as he says, has been completely compromised. In previous decades and centuries, as the global community moved towards nation states and a respect for the rule of law and justice on an international level, the phenomenon of mercenaries was one that was given special attention. Basically, they were declared illegal. Meaning that such a person is, by definition an illegal combatant of the most clear, well-defined kind. And meaning that, in the context of war, it was a crime to be one. A war crime.

[One problem, however, is that the Geneva Conventions do leave a weird loophole for citizens of a country that is a "party to the conflict". See the Wikipedia for more. Of course, maybe we need a better word for people who are private players under contract to a country that is party to a conflict...a privateer, maybe? Of course, that was the origin of the phenomenon of Pirates, wasn't it?]

Technorati tags applicable to this post: Mercenaries - Iraq

It's the War, S...

I actually saw this first in the International Herald Tribue, but later realized they were reproducing a New York Times Op Ed. Either way, the sentence--at the very beginning of a piece--just jumped out at me. It said, simply, that

It is not an inspiring sight to watch the U.S. Senate turn the most important issue facing America into a political football, and then fumble it.

What else can one say?

Technorati tags applicable to this post: Iraq - US Politics

Catch-Up: Saddam's Execution

One of the short pieces I wrote right after returning from vacation in mid-January:

I just got back from 3 weeks in the Muslim world (2 in Pakistan, 1 in India), and which coincided with a certain execution. The points made in the Tarek Fatah's article about Saddam Hussain's execution:

"The fact is that far from fostering democracy in Iraq, the execution of the Iraqi dictator has turned a murdering monster into a martyr of mythical proportions for the Arab people.

...

His death will be a relief to those in America who feared being exposed for having aided Saddam as he murdered so many of his countrymen.

To the teeming millions in the Muslim world who saw Saddam being led to his death by slogan-chanting masked men, his hanging was an act of revenge, not justice, a lynching, not the carrying out of a death sentence."
http://www.thestar.com/article/167219 for full article.

is not accurate--it is a huge understatement. Especially from the point of view of the reputation of the US in the Muslim world. What one heard all week long that week in Pakistan--and I am talking about people with absolutely no fundamentalist leanings or sympathy for Saddam--was "They shouldn't have done that on Eid [on the day of the Festival]." And the thing to note specifically was that the "they" in that sentence was always meant to be the "The Americans". (People in Third World countries do not, when looking at the big picture, really pay attention to the thin facade of witless stooges, however brutal or self-agarandizing they might be.)

Technorati tags applicable to this post: Iraq - Saddam - Dictators - Pakistan