MSNBC:

At Ramadan, TV turns up heat on extremists
Satirical Saudi show makes mockery of militants, draws fundamentalist ire

CAIRO, Egypt - Ramadan is a time of fasting and prayer, but it is also a time for overindulgence. Once the fast is broken each day, many sip tea and feast on syrupy sweets while lazing in front of the TV.

That is why the holiest month in the Muslim calendar is akin to the sweeps weeks in the United States - and why satellite and local channels spend the year producing their most compelling TV serials to fiercely compete for what are essentially captive evening viewers.

An example is "Tash Ma Tash," a wildly popular Saudi TV series that is deploying satire to poke fun at the fundamentalists.

Encouraging news; read the whole thing. Sounds like some Muslims - even in the homeland of Wahhabism - are speaking out.

Via John Burgess, who adds:

"Tash Ma Tash" is somewhat of a phenomenon in the Middle East. It's one of the most widely viewed TV programs during the month of Ramadan, popular for its ascerbic attacks on the status quo. What's somewhat surprising (at least to those who have little knowledge of Saudi Arabs) is that it is a Saudi production, in Arabic, and so clearly for domestic consumption.

A Canadian Army Company endures ambush and friendly fire, but not without a heavy toll:

"All hell broke loose," says Master Cpl. Allan Johnson of Owen Sound, in command of the LAV known as 3.1 Alpha.

"It was dead quiet. And then I saw a guy jump up on a roof. Maybe he was giving a signal to the other Taliban.

"All I know is the entire area just lit up. We were taking fire from at least two sides, maybe three, with everything they had. Rocket-propelled grenades, small-arms fire, the works.

"It was the cherry-popper of all cherry-poppers. And once we started taking casualties, we moved up to provide cover fire. Our cannon didn't stop from that point on."

(Via sda)

Iraq the Model:

The sounds of war continue while I'm typing these words... the night is obviously going to be a long one but tomorrow should bring the truth about what's happening. More important, tomorrow will be a big challenge for the Iraqi security forces in Baghdad. We'll try to keep you updated when we can.

Perspective

(Via AoSHQ)

I'm still too busy today to author substantive commentary on the Esmay-Malkin Conflict, but in the meantime, be sure to read Eric Scheie's post. Despite showcasing (very) slight variations from my own emphasis, it's by leagues the best take I've read thus far. An important read.

UPDATE: Esmay responds to Malkin's post.

The Chicago Tribune:

When Lt. Abuhena Saif-ul-Islam first arrived at the Camp Pendleton military base in California, recruits often asked the Muslim chaplain what the crescent on his lapel meant. Saif-ul-Islam, a Bangladeshi immigrant, jokingly told them he was an astronaut.

Nowadays, fewer sailors find the Islamic symbol unfamiliar. But Saif-ul-Islam, a U.S. Navy chaplain since 1999, still is questioned often about his religion during training sessions he conducts at bases across the nation.

"They want to know if non-Muslims can go into a mosque," Saif-ul-Islam said. "They ask why people in Iraq are behaving [violently] if Islam is so peaceful. It's a genuine question."

Read the rest.

(Via Dean)

Bruce Kesler on the recently well-publicized Iraqi polls:

As a teenager expressing his or her independence is welcomed, even though often shrouded in surliness, the latest poll of Iraqis' desires for independence from any external presence in their affairs should be welcomed.

The Washington Post reported on several polls of Iraqis. The headline, "Most Iraqis Favor Immediate U.S. Pullout, Polls Show" and most of the article focus on this part of the polling. Although the poll by World Public Opinion devotes most of its content on other matters, and the WP article spends a few paragraphs on these, Judith Klinghoffer's blog post focuses on this other side of the poll story, "Poll: Al Qaeda Lost Hearts And Minds In Iraq."

In short, most Iraqis polled favor a withdrawal of US forces within a year, but most Iraqis also oppose Al Qaeda, support their central government, oppose sectarian militias, have faith in Iraqi security forces, and do not favor dissolution into Shia, Sunni and Kurd states.

Read the whole thing.

*** Dean Esmay attempts a dialogue with Michelle Malkin on the nature of Islam. As Kevin from Pundit Review remarks, it's a debate worth having (civilly):

I sympathize and understand with those who think Islam is simply incompatible with democracy. Just look around. When Islamic radicals slaughter innocents in the name of Allah, there is hardly a word of condemnation. When someone draws a cartoon of Mohammed or the Pope utters a benign statement of advancing religion through dialogue, the Muslim "street" leaps into action, has rallies in their capitals around the world and sets out to intimidate those who even question them.

However, as Dean points out, look at Afghanistan. Listen to what Harmid Karzi said this week. Wanting freedom and autonomy over one's live [sic] is a basic human desire. Democracy, maybe not as we know it, can work in Iraq, and elsewhere. I believe that. Given my relentless defense of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, count me in with Ralph, and Dean. Your thoughts?

I was pretty satisfied with the tenor of my exchange with Bryan Preston on the same topic.

UPDATE: Malkin responds. I'll withhold more extensive commentary until I have time for it, but immediately:

Glad to see that she responded ... but the implication that Esmay is trolling for traffic is an odd mischaracterization of his motivations; agree or disagree, the guy is about as sincere on this issue as one can get. I'm also kind of surprised at how much the post ticked her and Bryan Preston off, though there's some backstory there. (UPDATE: Michelle has now noted Dean's shrill comment under his post, which I can't defend, except to note that there is backstory there as well.) This whole back-and-forth is a bummer, as relevant debate can and should take place about this topic, given its influence on the character of the war.

Also check out Donald Sensing's substantive critique. Sensing's distinction between Arab countries and other parts of the Islamic world and his quotation of Bernard Lewis are especially worthwhile.

And also check out Eteraz for a must-read Muslim's take.

*** Kudos to the folks at MSNBC for their production of a new series of vignettes about American military personnel in Iraq. The first features Medal of Honor recipient SFC Paul Smith:

*** Iowahawk is back with a perfect parody of a Keith Olbermann rant. Pajamas Media throws the humorist some praise:

Where else on the web can you channel-surf the spirits of Mark Twain and Big Daddy Roth on the same page?

I have no idea who Big Daddy Roth is, but the Mark Twain comparison is quite right.

*** babalu:

"When I left Cuba," he said with tears running down his aged cheeks. "We had nothing and noone. I was scared. And back then, I could never have imagined that one day my son would be a guest at the White House."

Moving.

Last night I attended the Pajamas Media panel at the National Press Club. A few quick impressions:

* The panel went pretty well, though some responses to questions ran a bit long. Cable news formats may have destroyed my attention span. Not to mention ...

* ... the top-shelf open bar.

* Jane Hall showcased some amusing involuntary(?) facial expressions while listening to right-wing panelists speak.

* The open bar had 86-proof Kentucky bourbon.

* Glenn Reynolds displayed no visible antennae, wires or other electronic components. His grip was warm and remarkably flesh-like, and his optics tracked movement with reptilian smoothness. Remarkable.

* Juan the Press Club bartender: libatory magician. A healer, really.

* A blogger from the New York Times shot the panelists some skeptical questions, one asking if blogging increased partisanship because people could "choose news" that fit a worldview. Best counter-argument**:

"Like the people who read the New York Times?" -- Val Prieto.

* Met LT SMASH, Ace of Spades, Mary Katharine Ham, Judith Weiss, Michael Totten, Baron Bodissey, among others. Nice folks. Surprisingly not abnormal for a group of bloggers.

* The Press Club was a nice setting, despite the lights flickering wildly in the presence of such concentrated nerd energy.

* Pajamas Media is holding a contest to nickname political independents. My suggestion: "Wild Turkeys."

** CLARIFYING UPDATE: Val's comment about the NYT was to me, not the reporter.

I've been MIA on this campaign, but hearty congrats to the Porkbusters for their terrier-like and ultimately successful lobby of the Coburn-Obama Bill. This effort has represented bi-partisan, 21st Century citizen advocacy at its finest.

*** Somebody's got some 'splainin' to do ...

*** In a comment under my post lamenting the rarity of military heroism stories in the MSM, Pundit Review Radio's Kevin Whalen dropped a reminder:

Every Sunday at 9pm, Matt from Blackfive joins on on Pundit Review Radio on WRKO in Boston to bring his series 'Someone You Should Know' to the radio. Hester, Chontosh and so mant others have been honored for their incredible service to our country. You can find them all here ...

Check it out.

*** I've been wondering recently about the Administration's practical commitment to winning Iraq, given apparently insufficient troop levels. Do we simply lack the personnel? Has the Administration been unwilling to invest in a requisite build-up? It's probably at least the latter, given the unsustainability of current force levels:

Army Warns Rumsfeld It's Billions Short
...
An extraordinary action by the chief of staff sends a message: The Pentagon must increase the budget or reduce commitments in Iraq and elsewhere.

The Army's top officer withheld a required 2008 budget plan from Pentagon leaders last month after protesting to Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld that the service could not maintain its current level of activity in Iraq plus its other global commitments without billions in additional funding.

The decision by Gen. Peter J. Schoomaker, the Army's chief of staff, is believed to be unprecedented and signals a widespread belief within the Army that in the absence of significant troop withdrawals from Iraq, funding assumptions must be completely reworked, say current and former Pentagon officials.

One might hope that this underfunding is a long-term component of pre-midterm politicking regarding the deficit (and thus due to expire in November), though I'm not holding my breath. And given Bush's stated prioritization of a stable Iraq and historically moderate defense spending as a percentage of GDP, I'm at a loss as to why the Army has to fight for resources.

Via the Commissar, who opines:

This is way beyond partisan politics, comrades. I'm struggling for less strident tone, but can't get there. Rumsfeld and Bush are showing terrible disrespect for, and are damaging our military.

I'll be curious to see Rumsfeld's reaction.

See also: "I think we will be in need of American forces for a long time"

*** Slate Explainer tackles the history behind Satan supposedly smelling like sulfur. Nary a word on why Hugo Chavez smells like flop sweat, rotten platanos fritos, Brut 33 and Fidel Castro, however.

Notable excerpts from a WaPo interview with Iraqi President Jalal Talabani:

[Talabani:] The presence of American forces -- even a symbolic one -- will frighten those who are trying to interfere in our affairs.

Are you talking about Iran?

Our prime minister just came back from Iran. He got good promises from Iran on security -- promises that they will never permit any kind of interference in the internal affairs of Iraq.

Do you believe that?

Our prime minister tells me he got real and serious promises. Let us see.
...
Would you welcome U.S. bases in Kurdistan?

Yes, they are welcome. Kurdistan wants the Americans to stay. In some places Sunnis want the Americans to stay -- Sunnis think the main danger is coming from Iran now. There is a change in the mind of the Sunnis. The Sunnis are for having good relations with America. The [Shiites] have started to think that.

Even minding requisite grains of political salt, Talabani provides some relevant info. Read the rest.

See also: Iraqi Parties Reach Deal Postponing Federalism

Light posting alert.

Some good news:

[T]he leader of Ansar al Sunnah, Muntasir al-Jibouri, has been captured! This is big news.
...
We should be shouting for joy that the leader of Ansar al Sunnah has been captured. This should just as big as when we got Zarqawi. It is that important.

Ansar al Sunnah's organizational structure is not as well know as al Qaeda's. It appears, though, that al-Jibouri's voice can be heard on at least two hostage murder videos-and probably many many more ... Like Zarqawi, al Jibouri is said to have personally murdered many of Ansar al Sunna's victims.

*** Ghoulishly cynical asymmetric warfare:

Shiite militias are encouraging children - some as young as 6 or 7 - to hurl stones and gasoline bombs at U.S. convoys, hoping to lure American troops into ambushes or provoke them into shooting back, U.S. soldiers say.

Gangs of up to 100 children assemble in Sadr City, stronghold of radical anti-American cleric Muqtada al-Sadr and his Mahdi Army militia, and in nearby neighborhoods, U.S. officers said in interviews this week.

American soldiers have seen young men, their faces covered by bandanas, talking with the children before the rock-throwing attacks begin - and sometimes handing out slingshots so the volleys will be more accurate, the troops said.

Just awful.

*** Steve Verdon is focusing on gloomy economic news:

Leading Economic Indicators Decline

U.S. Recession Likely in 2008

CFOs See 33% Chance of Recession in 12 Months

*** Factcheck.org debunks the latest attempts to make body armor into a political issue:

A new ad claims Republican Sen. George Allen of Virginia "voted against giving our troops" modern body armor. He did no such thing. The ad cites a vote on an appropriations amendment that had nothing whatever to do with body armor.

The ad also claims troops were sent to Iraq with flak vests "left over from the Vietnam war," another falsehood. The ad actually shows an improved vest that wasn't available until the 1980's.

Apparently, McQ at QandO got the ball rolling on this one. Nice job.

*** And lastly, not a big surprise here:

Hezbollah leader Sheik Hassan Nasrallah told supporters Friday that his guerrillas will not surrender their weapons until a stronger Lebanese government is in place _ including 20,000 rockets his group claims to still have after its 34-day war with Israel.

In his first public appearance since Israel launched its massive offensive against Hezbollah guerrillas on July 12, Nasrallah repeatedly attacked the Western-backed government of Prime Minister Fuad Saniora, which he called weak and unable to protect Lebanon from Israel.

More accurately, Saniora's government is too weak to protect Lebanon from Hezbollah.

A Street Corner in Ramadi

Frank Warner:

Unknown soldiers: With 38,000 Bronze Stars awarded in the Iraq war, where are the stories of heroism?
...
I've been following the war fairly closely for three and a half years, and I admit I can't think of 10 American servicemembers who have made headlines for their heroism.

One of the media's staggering failures in covering the past 5 years of war has been its relative ignorance of military heroism, particularly when that bravery involves killing the enemy. SFC Paul Ray Smith defied the trend and made headlines because his Medal of Honor citation and sacrifice were too amazing to ignore; SGT Leigh Ann Hester's aggressive defense of a supply convoy garnered attention because of the uniqueness of a female receiving a silver star in combat; Dr. Richard Jadick made the cover of Newsweek because his valor saved lives, rather than took them. These exceptions merely prove the rule.

Few Americans outside of the blogosphere have heard of CPT Brian Chontosh, CPT Dominique B. Neal or SGT Kenneth Conde Jr., unless they read DoD press releases, the Marine Corps Times or other military-centric information outlets. The reasons are simple: despite the gobs of narrative tension present in stories of combat, most mainstream media outlets take pains to avoid the perception of jingoism.

In contrast, when my grandfather shot down planes or destroyed ground targets, his exploits consistently made the Newark Star Ledger, along with the actions of thousands of others in combat during WWII. I always hesitate to mourn lost parallels between "the good war" and present conflicts: the country has changed, the press has changed and public opinion is much more sharply divided than it was in certain other wars. But despite the rational portion of these evolutions, the media's aversion to combat reporting that highlights acts of bravery does the country and the media outlets themselves a disservice, if at least for the reason that such features are terribly gripping human interest stories. Their rare exposition is a loss.

(Via DW)

A little bit of hope: "Muslims & Christians In Iraq Join to Renounce Violence"

Previous:

What the Pope Said

When Religious Folk Misinterpret Secularists

Sports Illustrated's Gary Smith delivers a lengthy and impressive eulogy to Pat Tillman, as well as a disheartening account of his death: "Remember His Name."

From details of his love of literature, curious mind, alternately humble and reckless character and acerbic rejection of the casus belli for Iraq, the piece reveals Tillman as a remarkably complex man.

Everybody who thought he'd enlisted purely out of patriotism, they missed reality by a half mile. Sure, he loved America and felt compelled to fight for it after more than 2,600 people at the World Trade Center were turned to dust. But his decision sprang from soil so much richer than that. The foisting of all the dirty work onto people less fortunate than an NFL safety clawed at his ethics. He had uncles and grandfathers on both sides who'd fought in World War II and the Korean War, one who'd taken a bullet in his chest, another who'd lost a finger and one who'd been the last to leap out of a plane shot from the sky. On a level deeper than almost any other American, he'd reaped the reward of those sacrifices: the chance his country afforded him to be himself, all of himself.

He yearned to have a voice one day that would carry, possibly in politics, and he was far from the sort of man who could send others into a fire that he had skirted. His relentless curiosity, his determination to live his life as if it were a book that would hold its reader to the last word, pushed him into the flames as well. The history of man is war, he told a family member, so how, without sampling it, could he ever know man or himself completely?

Some people, only a few, decide early in their lives that the world will remember their names. Some people -- fewer still -- understand that the cleanest and most powerful way to do that is by never asking the world to remember their names, by letting their lives do that. "Let people find things out about you," Pat told B.J. Alford, his roommate and teammate at Arizona State. "Don't tell them."
...
Something else he figured out early: Fear was what stood between a man and an extraordinary life, and the surest way through it was to stare it down over and over, until that gaze became habit.

Read the rest. Many of those who've valued Tillman's sacrifice most will be surprised at and even disagree with some of his opinions and traits, but I'll be damned if they won't come away more impressed and mournful than ever. He was a classic American.

*** Surprisingly, the WaPo highlights a positive impact of US reconstruction efforts in a story about the Iraqi date crop:

In the calculus of preventing Iraq's slide toward civil war, reconstructing Iraq's economy is a top priority. And dates are Iraq's second-biggest export, after oil. Revitalizing the industry could help reduce sectarian tensions by creating thousands of jobs while generating revenue to rebuild Iraq, improve security and lessen the country's dependence on U.S. reconstruction dollars.

Now, after years of neglect, war and sanctions, the date industry is showing signs of recovery, partly through U.S. efforts. Farmers are being introduced to market-oriented capitalism after years of depending on state subsidies under the government of Saddam Hussein.

In May, helicopters contracted by the U.S. military sprayed thousands of acres of date palm trees across Iraq with pesticides to eradicate insects that had caused major damage.

If the New York Times ran the story, the headline might read: "Shades of Vietnam: Mercenary Helicopters Defoliate Iraqi Jungles; Contribute to Global Warming."

*** I see merit in both the "avoid gratuitous offense" and "aggressively protect free speech and Western values" memes that spring from the controversies over the Pope's remarks and the Danish cartoons; these ideas aren't antithetical. Anne Applebaum makes a strong case for the latter:

None of the radical clerics accepts Western apologies, and none of their radical followers reads the Western press. Instead, Western politicians, writers, thinkers and speakers should stop apologizing -- and start uniting.

By this, I don't mean that we all need to rush to defend or to analyze this particular sermon; I leave that to experts on Byzantine theology. But we can all unite in our support for freedom of speech -- surely the pope is allowed to quote from medieval texts -- and of the press. And we can also unite, loudly, in our condemnation of violent, unprovoked attacks on churches, embassies and elderly nuns.
...
[N]othing the pope has ever said comes even close to matching the vitriol, extremism and hatred that pour out of the mouths of radical imams and fanatical clerics every day, all across Europe and the Muslim world, almost none of which ever provokes any Western response at all. And maybe it's time that it should: When Saudi Arabia publishes textbooks commanding good Wahhabi Muslims to "hate" Christians, Jews and non-Wahhabi Muslims, for example, why shouldn't the Vatican, the Southern Baptists, Britain's chief rabbi and the Council on American-Islamic Relations all condemn them -- simultaneously?

She's got a point.

*** It's silly to draw facile equivalencies between modern evangelical Christianity and radical Islam (a la Andrew Sullivan), but some surprising folks may aspire to:

Film Shows Youths Training to Fight for Jesus

Speaking in tongues, weeping for salvation, praying for an end to abortion and worshipping a picture of President Bush -- these are some of the activities at Pastor Becky Fischer's Bible camp in North Dakota, "Kids on Fire," subject of the provocative new documentary, "Jesus Camp."

"I want to see them as radically laying down their lives for the gospel as they are in Palestine, Pakistan and all those different places," Fisher said. "Because, excuse me, we have the truth."

An odd analogy, though I'm not quite sure if she's referring to radical Muslims for an example, or merely Christians in those countries who have been killed for their religious belief. Either way, death probably isn't the best thing to teach at a kid's summer camp. Martyrdom's admittedly much more exciting than making tin can totem poles or macaroni sculptures, but it can't touch the frolic of a good potato sack race. No sir.

"A lot of people die for God," one camper said, "and they're not afraid."

"We're kinda being trained to be warriors," said another, "only in a funner way."

This interview with the directors paints a more moderate picture, but I admit some, ah, trouble getting past the initial quotes. More here. Apparently the camp and movie are pretty controversial among evangelicals.

*** And continuing the spirit of our recent deep theology discussions, via the sitemeter, I have the bizarre duty to announce that INDC is the number four google result for "Is Joey Lawrence a Christian?"

Best guess: might he be a Je-"WHOA!"-vah's Witness?

(Ra-ta-ta. Don't forget to tip your waitress.)

*** The chairman of one of the largest independent Islamic organizations in the world is telling Muslims to put a sock in it with regards to the Pope's statement. (alternate link)

Hasyim said the regret was "enough" and further resentment from the Muslims would only justify the pope's statement. "If the rage continues, perhaps what the pope said is true," he said.

*** The statement quoted by the Pope was from a conversation between the Byzantium Emperor Manuel II and an "educated Persian", but who was the "educated Persian" and what were the circumstances of their discussion? The surprising answer is that Manuel II was a vassal of the Turks, the "educated Persian" was a judge, and the discussion took place under the auspices of the Turkish sultan*. See this post by Gail at Scribal Terror for more. This comment by Gail is also worth quoting:

How interesting indeed, that in the old days of Muslim ascendency, no one offered to cut off the head of the questioning infidel, although they could easily have done so. Instead, his gracious hosts encouraged him to speak his mind and amused themselves by answering his objections and correcting his misconceptions, as they understood them.

The behavior of the Qadi and his Sultan, in my opinion, should be celebrated as one of the high points of Muslim civilization. Has that civilization declined so much in the intervening centuries, that the way debates are settled is now by vitriol and violence instead of by reasoned and dignified discourse?

*** On a much lighter note, today is Talk Like A Pirate Day. Readers of INDCJournal who happen to be pirates may be interested to read about "the only drunken Pirate seeking office in this great nation": James Hill (Who could soon be referred to as James Hill (ARR! - IA)). While not endorsing his candidacy, I would note that past experience in plundering and pillaging means he should fit right in with the rest of Congress.

* Updated for accuracy per second comment.

*** Jonah Goldberg:

I don't think the Pope's original comments have elicited nearly as much authentic rage as the images on TV would suggest. But I do think those driving these protests and whipping up anger know what they're doing. The West wants to be loved. It can't stand the idea that somebody -- anybody -- doesn't like us. This is doubly so in Europe and perhaps triply so at the Vatican.

(Via IP)

Aziz P:

Such violence is the product of professional thugs who exploit the lack of civil order in their societies, and seek any pretext upon which to wage chaos. Their efforts are barbaric, and they are transient, and they are ultimately futile.

I'm not sure that I agree with the "futile" part, and I'm of two minds about the piece's larger focus on quite that level of practical deference to radicals, but still.

Robbo the LB:

It strikes me that the outbursts of rage on the Muslim "street" don't have much to do with offended sensibilities per se. Rather, somebody recognized a perfect opportunity to play some more on the West's perpetual self-doubt by whipping up the mob.

*** Nice theory, guys. But who could possibly have incentive to ...

Iranian Leader Urges More Papal Protests.

... oh.

*** Muslim (yawn) rage. Though this is nothing to yawn about.

*** And finally (and largely unrelated):

(Dubai Ports) World, a leading global marine terminal operator, has become the first global company in the transport and logistics industry to gain certification to an international standard for its security management systems and operations. Lloyds Register Quality Assurance (LRQA), an independent international certification body, has audited DP World for compliance with the international standard ISO/PAS 28000:2005 at both the corporate head office in Dubai, UAE, and its chosen site, Djibouti Container Terminal....

Daniel Drezner: "If only Dubai Ports World could somehow run our ports." Heh.

In a critique of my post on the Pope, Bryan Preston explains that there are differences between Islam and Christianity:

The basis of the title of this post is that it's consistently atheists and adamant secularists who understand the Islamist enemy the least, yet they're also the quickest to slam or argue against anyone who does quote the Koran on its own terms to argue that it is animating violence. They are also the quickest to equate Christianity with the villain du jour, because Christianity is to them just one among many faiths that they may think they understand, but ultimately don't. Here's one example [My post - ED]; here's another.

I'm not sure that I've exactly "equated Christianity with the villain du jour," nor would I argue that Koranic text is incapable of animating violence. My post primarily focused on the Pope's principle of engaging Muslims against terrorism by finding common cause in shared humanistic values, rather than theological understanding. From this first interpretation of my argument, it's clear that we're in for a rough road to understanding. If nothing else, it intimates that Bryan disagrees with the Pope's strategy.

In contrast, he insists on almost totally addressing the rise of militant Islam with religious analysis. To wit:

Namely, that an essentially post-Christian West comes to the battle with Islamism, Islamofascism, caliphascism, or whatever you want to call the demon that animates al Qaeda and apparently millions of Muslims across the globe to hate the West and work toward our destruction, ill-equipped to understand and confront the foe. This inability to get into the enemy's head and heart makes it harder for us to win. Yes, for all our weapons and the superiority of our forces versus theirs, we are ill-equipped to fight because we're increasingly incapable of understanding what motivates them and therefore are less likely to find the means of removing that animator.

I take this as a politely condescending slap that people like me aren't willing or able to understand the threat within the limitations of a secularist's mindset. But what I think Bryan misses is the idea that hyperanalysis of a religion's bondage as a deterministic cause of violence (to the exclusion of political, cultural and economic factors) is only as good as the extent to which those particular religious edicts hold sway over the faith's followers. And thus, when Robert Spencer and the Hot Air crew describe the negative Koranic underpinnings of radical Islam, they do a fantastic job of describing the motivation of violent Islamists. They also do a good (if partial) job of explaining some of the reasons how and why so many Muslims become radicalized to embrace violence, and why a greater number of them tolerate it.

But what this theological reading and analytical focus consistently fail to account for is how significant portions of the rest of the "Muslim world" - by which I mean the other hundreds of millions of people who aren't radically devout or interested in violence - view and study their religion. Furthermore, the incessant "FEAR ISLAM" drum beat (as opposed to the distinctive "FEAR ISLAMOFASCISTS") offers no constructive solution to addressing the cultural or political aspects of terrorism, given that we need the aid of non-violent Muslims to eradicate the religious violence within their midst; an aid probably best acquired by not trashing their basic religious identity. Thus, from a practical standpoint, Bryan's focus describes the religious aspects of a problem and ably succeeds at whipping up anti-Islamic sentiment, but it's almost totally useless at providing solutions to address that problem. "I'll engage 1.3 billion Muslims when Islam changes according to A, B and C" seems like about as much of a throwaway, pie-in-the-sky, argumentative head-fake as it gets.

I'd call this a trap common to specialists the world over - applying their relevant speciality to the entirety of a much more complex problem, to the neglect of potential solutions that reside outside of this focus.

I'll give you a real world example:

The other day, I was having a conversation with a Marine officer who was describing the experiences of Marines working to train Iraqi Army units. He'd mentioned that most of the Iraqi officers were Sunni, while the enlisted men were Shia. I asked him if this produced any tensions, to which he responded "no, not really. People tend to overestimate how religious the average Iraqi is." While acknowledging the sectarian violence gripping the capital, he said that most Iraqis are pretty laid back about religion, primarily focusing on the things that most people the world over focus on: making a better life and providing for their family. He told me that Marines entering Iraqi homes often found shows like Baywatch dubbed in French on satellite TV. Young Iraqi soldiers like to drink beer, listen to rap music and give each other gangster nicknames. Now, I'm not going to argue that Baywatch, beer and rap are necessarily cultural improvements (well, maybe beer), but they do anecdotally illustrate how much the average Iraqi gives a rat's ass about "restoring the Caliphate" or "killing the infidels."

But despite this apparently lackadaisical piety, the Marine very explicitly told me, "disrespect their Koran and they'll get mad. It's sort of like somebody messing with our flag." These Iraqis are fighting side-by-side with our military personnel against Al Qaeda in Iraq. They are our allies against Islamic terrorism. Many aren't radically devout. But shock of all shocks, they naturally bristle at affronts to their religious and cultural identity.

And there lies an anecdotal example of how non-distinctive anti-Islam rhetoric fails to acknowledge the realistic solutions to terrorism that have to come from shared humanistic values - be they a desire to stop radical co-religionists from killing innocents or to watch Yasmine Bleeth run down a beach in a red bathing suit. These theological arguments about the structure of Islam, while worthwhile, persistently look past the fact that real solutions will also come from Western cooperation with and within the Islamic world, the former contingent upon the practicality of not wholly trashing our allies' religious identity. And for every Vent cautioning against Islam's threat with a background of ominous music, I can imagine quarter percentage points of requisite empathy slipping away from the American electorate's support for Iraqi democracy.

And that's why I have my own chuckle when a religious fella like Brian claims a more steadfast support for the Global War on Terror by rallying the men of Rohan against a legion of evil Muslim horsemen poised to descend upon our cities and towns. While I respect his analysis of radical Islam, to borrow and slightly modify a line from his post:

"This inability to get into the enemy's our allies' head and heart makes it harder for us to win."

UPDATE: It's also important to note that there are pious Muslims who share a rejection of violent jihad. For example. And example.

*** DaF: Five Years in the War on Terror.

*** Dowdified quotes at Newsweek.

*** Donnah: "Handicapable."

*** LT Smash's further adventures with Code Pink.

*** Tim Blair rounds up hurt feelings.

Did Pope Benedict deliver a blistering critique of Mohammed's militarism and the structural primacy of Islam? Eh. Sort of. Not really.

Using the words, "jihad" and "holy war", the Pope quoted criticisms of the prophet Mohammed by a 14th century Byzantine Christian emperor, Manuel II, during a debate with a learned Persian.

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached," Benedict quoted the emperor as saying.

His discourse Tuesday sought to delineate what he sees as a fundamental difference between Christianity's view that God is intrinsically linked to reason (the Greek concept of logos) and Islam's view that "God is absolutely transcendent." Benedict said that Islam teaches that God's 'will is not bound up with any of our categories, even that of rationality." The risk he sees implicit in this concept of the divine is that the irrationality of violence can potentially be justified if someone believes it is God's will.

The incendiary words in question were an illustrative historical quote that set the stage for a critique of irrational violence in the name of religion, specifically Islam. His surrounding exposition of the quote does not endorse the text of the quote itself, but does somewhat logically reinforce the view that Islam is a deterministic force, given the oft-noted self-reinforcing structure of the Koran that prioritizes obedience over reason. The media ledes have all characterized the speech as a harsh attack on Muslims. Predictably, many Muslim protests have turned angry and violent, the New York Times has rushed to condemn the speech and bloggers are crowing about the Pope's brave condemnation of the "true nature" of Islam.

But did anyone actually read it?

Here's the full text. Good luck: it's an interminably dense - painful, even - theological argument about how the concept of reason interacts with faith. The hyper-rationality of science to the exclusion of faith comes in for more critique than Islam, whose mention is almost an aside that prefaces this much longer treatise. David Warren provides a good analysis:

Read More »

"Silent revolution in Arabia: Yemen's president hard-pressed:"

The cliche goes that the Arab world is at its most modern in Lebanon and at its most backward in Yemen, one of the poorest countries in the world. While it is true that tribal ties are more important in Yemen than ideologies, it is also true that the poor house of the Arabian peninsula - where men still wear traditional wraparound robes and women hide their faces behind black veils - is experiencing an electoral campaign that is more democratic than in other Arab states in the past year.

On September 20, Yemenis are due to elect new local councils and decide whether President Ali Abdullah Saleh should step down after 28 years at the helm of the region the Romans called Arabia Felix, or Happy Arabia.

Unlike the presidential campaigns in Egypt and Tunisia, where it was clear from the start that no opposition candidate had a chance against the incumbents, the fight for the top spot in Sana'a is proving to be gripping.

A notable bit of detail:

Five of the larger opposition left-wing and Islamist parties have agreed on a joint presidential candidate and manifesto.

Limited engagement of Islamists in a governing coalition marks a test case for the second scenario discussed in my summation of Zakaria's prescription for democratic reforms in the Arab world. Let them deal with coalitions and voter appeasement for a while - without total authority - and we'll see if the process influences them more than they influence the process. Keep an eye on Yemen.

(Via Jane, the 'sphere's resident expert on all things Yemeni)

And lo, the healing legend of green tea grows stronger yet more confounding:

Adults in Japan who drank more green tea had a lower risk of death from all causes and from heart disease specifically, though not from cancer, a study has found.

In the study, they tracked more than 40,000 adults in northeastern Japan, where green tea is popular, from 1994 until last year. Participants had no history of stroke, coronary heart disease or cancer at the the study's outset, Kuriyama said.

Compared with participants who drank less than one cup daily, those who consumed five or more had an overall risk of dying 16 percent lower during the time of the study, the researchers reported. The reduction was 26 percent when only the first seven years were counted.

(Emphasis mine)

This apparently impressive result reinforces the idea that tea's polyphenols delay damage from oxidative stress and inflammation. A big caveat is present, however:

The researchers, reporting their findings in the Sept. 13 issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association, wrote that the study isn't the last word: still more rigorous trials will be needed to confirm the results. The ideal would be a "randomized controlled trial" in which some participants are assigned at random to drink the tea while others do not, Kuriyama wrote in an email.

Without randomization, the study design raises a big question: how much did green tea itself promote health, vs. how much did those inclined to drink green tea live an otherwise healthy lifestyle? Still, this is merely another result out of many, in vitro and in vivo, that implicates green tea as a mild to moderate elixir. Drink up.

*** LT Smash observes interaction between wounded soldiers and Code Pink protestors outside of Walter Reed. Some telling lines:

They wouldn't even talk to us! How are they supporting us, if they won't even talk to us, or look us in the eye?
...
Those guys (indicates Code Pink) say, "Don't talk to them." That guy literally came out and said, "Don't talk to them."

(Via IP)

*** Dean Esmay jumps headfirst back into the Terry Schiavo debate, citing news that ambien(!) has been found to successfully treat a small number of patients in a Persistent Vegetative State. Predictable debate ensues in the comments, much of it worth your while.

Much of it not.

*** Al Gore gets a frosty reception from (some) Australian officials:

"There are three places I do not go for advice on climate change," fumed Industry Minister Ian Macfarlane, dismissing the film in which Gore singles out Australia as trailing the rest of the world on climate change.

"One of them is to unsuccessful candidates for the US presidency who cannot even convince their own people that they are right. The second place is the movie," he said, adding that the third was the Australian opposition.

Ouch.

(Via FC)

*** Wikipedia vs. Britannica! Joyner hits the key note:

We've come to the point where, for an increasing number of us, information has to be available quickly, easily, and for free online. It almost doesn't matter if the competition is "better" in terms of quality if it's hiding behind a subscription firewall or otherwise not easily searchable and obtainable.

A powerful clip from "Path to 9/11:"

Via AP at Hot Air, who adds:

We get only a few impressionistic glimpses of the cabin of Flight 93, an artistic choice I found effective. I remember Shelby Foote in Ken Burns's Civil War documentary describing Pickett's charge and how vividly it exists as a proving ground for valor in southerners' imaginations. Flight 93 fills a similar space now in the American imagination, a fact the film's elliptical treatment implicitly acknowledges. There are good reasons to dramatize it but also good reasons not to; the technique here trades brutal realism for greater exaltation. Not always the right choice, but not a bad one here.

Agreed.

Anne Applebaum has an essay in the Telegraph examining the notion that Bush "wasted sympathy" after 9/11.

The dislike of America, the hatred for what it was believed to stand for - capitalism, globalisation, militarism, Zionism, Hollywood or McDonald's, depending on your point of view - was well entrenched. To put it differently, the scorn now widely felt in Britain and across Europe for America's "war on terrorism" actually preceded the "war on terrorism" itself. It was already there on September 12 and 13, right out in the open for everyone to see.

Coincidentally, I was recently looking through some Pew Global Attitudes Survey Reports, and noticed one entitled "Bush Unpopular in Europe, Seen As Unilateralist."

That report was published in August of 2001.

A side project is eating up large amounts of time - posting should resume by tonight or tomorrow.

You may have already heard of the 2,996 Project:

2,996 is a tribute to the victims of 9/11.

On September 11, 2006, 2,996 volunteer bloggers
will join together for a tribute to the victims of 9/11.
Each person will pay tribute to a single victim.

We will honor them by remembering their lives,
and not by remembering their murderers.

A list with links to every blog participating in the tribute can be found here.

I tend to promote charities at times like this:
Any Soldier and Operation Gratitude are both charities involved in sending care packages to the troops. There's also Two For The Troops, an offer in partnership with Operation Gratitude to send tins of spice to the troops to help jazz up their MREs.

Bill Adds: Also Project Valour-IT, which purchases voice-activated laptops for injured troops, and INDC favorite Spirit of America, dedicated to helping win the GWoT one heart and mind at a time:

Spirit of America's mission is to extend the goodwill of the American people to assist those advancing freedom, democracy and peace abroad. We provide support to those on the front lines: American military and civilian personnel and people who call to Americans for help in their struggle for freedom.

It's worth remembering on this grim anniversary that the War on Terror is a war of ideas, in addition to being an armed conflict and law enforcement issue.

*** Al Qaeda's number two telegraphs the organization's next targets:

Osama bin Laden's deputy warned that Persian Gulf countries and Israel would be al-Qaida's next targets, according to a new videotape aired by Arab broadcaster Al-Jazeera on Monday, the fifth anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks.

Sounds like someone's overcompensating for a tough five years.

*** The WaPo features an interactive database of September 11's victims.

*** Stephen reflects on his 9-11 experience:

Not long after 10:00, we were told to go down to the building cafeteria and await further instructions. As I left my office, I grabbed my briefcase, thinking, "The way things are going, those bozos [building security] won't let us back in." Down in the cafeteria, it didn't seem like anyone was in charge and we milled around aimlessly and anxiously. Someone had a portable radio tuned in, and when the reporter announced that the South Tower had collapsed and that 50,000 people work in the WTC every day, then it finally hit me that this was something big. At that instant, it seemed that most of those people would have died.

I was at a convention in Palm Springs, silently staring at a television screen for hours with a hundred or so other shocked souls.

*** The graphic novel adaptation of the 9-11 report is a great way to digest its originally dry contents.

In a discussion under an AoS post, Bob Owens drops the following comment regarding news that suspected Hindu Nationalist terrorists bombed a Mosque and graveyard in India, killing 37 and injuring 50:

If Hindus were behind this--and I'm not saying they are--they certainly have mre than enough reason.

The area now called Afghinstan [sic] was formerly two Hindu Kingdoms, until maurading [sic] Muslims swept across Mesopotamia and Persia, killing all in their path. You know, like they want to do us.

Hindus have millions of great reasons to want Muslims dead. You can read about them here. [His intended link doesn't work for me -- ED]

I fail to see how this exculpatory logic - which serves to rationalize the murder of civilians via historical slights initiated circa 711 AD - fundamentally differs from that of apologists for Al Qaeda or Palestinian militants; those who justify indiscriminate murder as an "understandable redress" for events from the Crusades to the establishment of a modern Jewish homeland in the Middle East. Certainly there are large moral differences in intent between the collateral casualties caused by an Israeli missile and civilian targeting by Muslim extremists; but neither grants license to purposefully murder children in response, nor deprioritize condemnation of those who do.

One might hope that Owens intended an incomplete argument about the roots of anti-Islamic sentiment, and not an endorsement of Hindu terrorism. But any who reflexively fail to condemn terrorism against civilians because it fulfills an anti-Islamic assessment of the GWoT need to step back and look closely at initial judgments. If the first reaction to the slaughter of innocents praying at a funeral is to nonchalantly explain it with 8th Century historical grievances against the victims' co-religionists, relativism has short-circuited one's moral wiring in service to ideology. That this particular moral relativism is a right-wing, reflexively anti-Islamic funhouse mirror of the left's rationalizations of Palestinian violence against Israeli children in pizza parlors is no small irony.

In addition, Owens and some of the AoS commenters seem unaware that the rise of violent strains of Hindu nationalism in India has not merely been a reaction to Islamic radicalism or the dispute over Kashmir. Rajeev Bhargava, a professor of "political theory and Indian political thought" at the University of Delhi, discusses "the worldview of activists who use 'Indianness' as a weapon against their Muslim, Christian, and secular fellow-citizens:"

The movement brings together fundamentalists, traditionalists, anti-modernists, and right-wing conservatives who covet a form of modernisation radically different from the one begun by secular humanists such as Jawaharlal Nehru. Under its wings, there are proponents of old-fashioned terrorism, authoritarianism and fascism packed closely together with those who reluctantly submit to the constraints set by representative democracy.
...
[F]our features cement all the various groups:

* First, abiding and pervasive anti-liberalism.

* Second, repugnance for the left or to anything that even remotely smells of it.

* Third, commitment to a distinctive and exclusivist variant of nationalism. Hindu nationalists aim to unite all those who are seen by them as part of the Hindu fold and to create (or, seen by their own lights, to reinstate) a strong, disciplined nation of such united people: the Hindu Rashtra.

* Fourth, and above all, relentless antipathy to Muslims, and to a lesser extent, to Christians and to the secular-minded who desire equal citizenship for all Indians.

To totally discount the actions of Islamic radicals in motivating terrorism by violent elements of the Hindu Nationalist movement would be incorrect - it is indeed a bloody back-and-forth - but the Hindu Nationalists don't simply dislike Muslims because of Islam's militant strains; they dislike them because of their inevitable refusal to accept the primacy of Hinduism in all aspects of Indian life. And rationalizations offered by Westerners who are worried about Islamic militancy yet haven't paid much attention to Indian society don't quite explain acts of Hindu violence and religious intolerance against India's Christian population. Namely, what did Christians do to deserve the murders of ministers, the destruction of Christian churches and schools and the mob beatings of Christian convention-goers?

The real explanation is a familiar refrain surrounding many political perversions of world religions ...

The Hindu nationalists argue that emotions and loyalty make a nation, not laws and institutions. Laws, they say, can always be politically manipulated. One should explicitly ground politics in Hinduism, not in laws and institutions.

... which is an absolutist religious prioritization similar to the one expressed in Al Qaeda's latest statement.

But beyond the intricacies of Indian politics and debates about the deterministic role of specific religious ideologies in violent movements; beyond superficial analysis that tries to pigeon-hole all of the world's intolerance into an anti-Muslim template; at a bas