Rolling MENA 2014 (Middle East)

Naomi Wolf posted some bullshit recently (innuendo about the US not Mossad)

reading comments is the best way of accessing the collective unconscious

the collective unconscious of crazy people

That well-trained Iraqi army is still not quite ready yet to move against Isis

Iraqi commanders, soldiers and police officers who could play a central role in any offensive are raising doubts about the readiness of Iraq’s ground forces. The army has struggled to recapture even smaller towns that pose less of a challenge than Mosul — Iraq’s second-largest city, which is still full of civilians and heavily defended by the militants, they say.

“Our assessment shows an offensive against Mosul is not imminent,” said Masrour Barzani, the head of the Kurdistan Region Security Council.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/14/world/middleeast/amid-talk-in-iraq-of-anti-isis-push-doubts-about-troops-readiness.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=first-column-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news

if u haven't read this yet it's next level:
http://www.theatlantic.com/features/archive/2015/02/what-isis-really-wants/384980/

ISIS theology is hauntingly familiar in many ways to anyone who has listened to the Book of Revelations inspired stylings of various American evangelical preachers. There is a grand plan and a detailed blueprint and they are being followed faithfully and exactly, but it is like someone who builds an exact scale replica of the Chartes cathedral out of toothpicks and white glue. The whole enterprise is methodically, totally batshit crazy.

I suppose there are valid analogies to be made between ISIS and American evangelical preachers (as there probably are among a multitude of hardcore religious adherents, of all kinds, and particularly those whose religion has a strong element of eschatology). But I don't see any kind of relevant analogy, relevant to the essential or unique character of ISIS, relevant to the present moment. Of course I know you don't mean to suggest any kind of equivalence; but these kinds of facile analogies (which inevitably-- I know not intentionally, but are too easily understood to) suggest some kind of equivalence, really really set my teeth on edge. Maybe that's my problem.

Might as well analogize Mormonism to the Khmer Rouge, or Scientology to Jacobinism, or whatever-- of course there are valid analogies to be made; but in historical context it seems absurd.

OK up front breaking Godwin's Law here. One of the creepy things about ISIS (obviously at the very bottom of an endlessly long list) is the persistence of a kind of "sophisticated" "Western" apologia for ISIS (at least to the extent of tu quoque-- for example Obama's college freshman "historical" version of an apologia, re the Crusades etc.). Lots of very sophisticated people "understood" or "sympathized" where Hitler was coming from, too, for a long time. (By the way Heidegger is one of my favorite philosophers; I somehow maintain a kind of intellectual negotiation and/ or denial about his politics. Ugh-- this is unresolved for me.) Analogy somewhat breaks down here because Nazis were (or appeared) more "sophisticated" than ISIS (i.e. appealing to "Western" intelligentsia as recognizably "Western"/ "European"); but in the present historical moment there are reasons why ISIS would be (if not appealing, at least somewhat excused) by current Western intelligentsia and its current biases-- precisely because of ISIS's non-Western, non-European, Third-World, anti-capitalist exoticism. A topic of another day. And as Wood's article concludes:

I could enjoy their company, as a guilty intellectual exercise, up to a point. In reviewing Mein Kampf in March 1940, George Orwell confessed that he had “never been able to dislike Hitler”; something about the man projected an underdog quality, even when his goals were cowardly or loathsome. “If he were killing a mouse he would know how to make it seem like a dragon.” The Islamic State’s partisans have much the same allure. They believe that they are personally involved in struggles beyond their own lives, and that merely to be swept up in the drama, on the side of righteousness, is a privilege and a pleasure—especially when it is also a burden.

Fascism, Orwell continued, is

psychologically far sounder than any hedonistic conception of life … Whereas Socialism, and even capitalism in a more grudging way, have said to people “I offer you a good time,” Hitler has said to them, “I offer you struggle, danger, and death,” and as a result a whole nation flings itself at his feet … We ought not to underrate its emotional appeal.

Nor, in the case of the Islamic State, its religious or intellectual appeal. That the Islamic State holds the imminent fulfillment of prophecy as a matter of dogma at least tells us the mettle of our opponent. It is ready to cheer its own near-obliteration, and to remain confident, even when surrounded, that it will receive divine succor if it stays true to the Prophetic model. Ideological tools may convince some potential converts that the group’s message is false, and military tools can limit its horrors. But for an organization as impervious to persuasion as the Islamic State, few measures short of these will matter, and the war may be a long one, even if it doesn’t last until the end of time.

PS Also cf intellectuals sympathetic to/ or apologetic for Stalin way too long. Who often adduced the tu quoque.

is the persistence of a kind of "sophisticated" "Western" apologia for ISIS

lol this doesn't exist bruv

lol this doesn't exist bruv

yeah I think you're probably right. (No doubt almost entirely overall anywhere and certainly here, at ILX.)

But why do I still feel this way? It's confusing. (As I said, it may have more to do with me or where I'm at. Politically, in many respects I'm at odds with the general political orientation at ILX-- but in many or most respects find y'all intelligent and nuanced and overlapping with my views. There's so much terrible stereotyping and overgeneralization in politics. (But, if I may speak in parables, I'm like a small-l libertarian living in Berkeley, CA. The motes in others' eyes are always much more conspicuous and irritating than one's own.) And I've encountered too may people who-- to speak in parables-- find say Scott Walker more hateful than Zarqawi. (This is a topic for a totally different thread which maybe I'll have the chutzpah to start someday, though I'm not much more than a lurker here.)

But I don't want to minimize a lot of disgust I've felt, either, toward things/ viewpoints I've experience in my environment (e.g. Berkeley, or a lot of college campuses).

Uh, is that you, Mordy?

Don't tar anyone other than me with my tarring and tarrible views.

I suppose there are valid analogies to be made between ISIS and American evangelical preachers (as there probably are among a multitude of hardcore religious adherents, of all kinds, and particularly those whose religion has a strong element of eschatology). But I don't see any kind of relevant analogy, relevant to the essential or unique character of ISIS, relevant to the present moment. Of course I know you don't mean to suggest any kind of equivalence; but these kinds of facile analogies (which inevitably-- I know not intentionally, but are too easily understood to) suggest some kind of equivalence, really really set my teeth on edge. Maybe that's my problem.

Might as well analogize Mormonism to the Khmer Rouge, or Scientology to Jacobinism, or whatever-- of course there are valid analogies to be made; but in historical context it seems absurd.

― drash, Tuesday, 17 February 2015 06:56 (5 hours ago)

there are plenty of idiots whom there will always be a dead abortion doctor to erase any sense of difference, this aggregate of sins analysis being the only insight necessary to understanding the unfamiliar, nevermind that the squalour of isis is the least unusual and singular aspect of what they are doing (and it isn't moral nullity)

obama's lakers quote there is almost as bad as the guilty homiletics of last week, two forms of western solipsism erasing any meaningful sense of a highly distinct and antithetical culture on the terms of its adherents, and now an anthitheist lunatic has murdered three palestinian abortion doctors there is another anoydyne consolation to add to the list

even the serious western coverage has focused too much on the most familiar aspect; the expatriate soldiers of fortune rather than understanding them in terms of last resort nationalism on behalf of the local sunni population under baathist/shi'ite persecution or in terms of the form of salafism that is animating them (though the new cockburn book amply covers the former and hassan/weiss/woods the latter)

Realizing that there's no possible wholly satisfactory way of framing ISIS (or any similarly complex phenomenon), I think it's better understood as a prospective empire using whatever regional conflicts it can to its advantage (antipathy for Assad, resentment of the recent US presence in Iraq, ex-Baathist disgruntledness and/or suffering at the hands of the Shi'a majority, fear of Iranian power, Israel/Palestine, etc.), rather than the outgrowth of a single conflict.

I find it very western-centric to believe that imperial ambitions would never independently arise in the region (hasn't been very long since they did) and can only be a reaction to western imperialism.

it's a very leftist thing to believe only the west has imperial ambitions as if the Weltanschauung only has room for one sinner and not many; plenty of Middle East minorities would obv disagree with such a characterization

that is just the usual unwitting racism of the intifada left, any act of enfranchisement by anyone historically disenfranchised by the west is only understood in reactive terms rather than as having any autonomous ideas or motives

I like the sound of that Cockburn book, it seems precisely what I have been looking for. I haven't read anything about the Arab region since The Looming Tower.

i find myself always underestimating what a POS Netanyahu is

lol

sure those ISIS guys burned a man alive but did you see bibi's tacky remarks about iran and diaspora jewry?

that's your version of "Obama is not perfect" I guess.

or your version of "ISIS is not perfect"?

Mordy, ladies & gentlemen

Straight for the jugular!

Mordy & Morby

Chomsky interview

Saudi Arabia not only provides the ideological core that led to the ISIS radical extremism, but it also funds them. Not the Saudi government, but wealthy Saudis, wealthy Kuwaitis, and others provide the funding and the ideological support for these jihadi groups that are springing up all over the place. This attack on the region by the US and Britain is the source, where this thing originates. That’s what (Graham) Fuller meant by saying the United States created ISIS.

You can be pretty confident that as conflicts develop, they will become more extremist. The most brutal, harshest groups will take over. That’s what happens when violence becomes the means of interaction. It’s almost automatic. That’s true in neighborhoods, it’s true in international affairs. The dynamics are perfectly evident. That’s what’s happening. That’s where ISIS comes from. If they manage to destroy ISIS, they will have something more extreme on their hands.

http://www.salon.com/2015/02/16/noam_chomsky_america_paved_the_way_for_isis_partner/

chomsky is an ignoramus

it's particularly embarrassing for him to be trotting out his "'merica made them do it" line in the same week that atlantic article was run

The US did not create Saudi Arabia

in 1940 chomsky would've been blaming the shoah on Versailles

speaking of 1940, Mordy, did you see The Last of the Unjust, and did you rate it above Guardians of the Galaxy or not?

Chomsky's obvious flaws aside, I don't buy Graeme Wood's subjective, not very well-supported conclusions in the Atlantic either.

I think about 75% of what Chomsky says there, few people would argue with today. The US absolutely helped to create the vacuum that enabled ISIS to thrive. It's also true that Saudi Arabia is our ally, and that Saudi Arabia is partly responsible for funding the ideological underpinnings of ISIS (though it's not clear to me whether it follows that the Saudi monarchy actually wants ISIS to exist). I just don't understand how all of this adds up to "the US created ISIS."

i have not seen last of the unjust but i'm very familiar w/ Theresienstadt

wood has a lot of original, primary research in that piece - putting aside any conclusion. i have seen no one deal w/ IS theology on that level before.

I was not familiar w/ Theresienstadt; the way Lanzmann uses the footage of his Murmelstein interviews from the '70s, and his own presence on the sites, is a very compelling dialogue beteen the past and present, principals and historian.

the proximate american derived cause of isis isn't their patronage of saudi arabia so much as the invasion of iraq and the failure to restrain shi'ite chauvinism, and the vacillatory response to the syrian revolt

isis are vehemently opposed to the house of saud not least because they are seen as provincial usurpers (not of lineage from the prophet) and unworthy custodians of the holy sites

also thought the atlantic article was very thought provoking regarding how fanatics (really of all religions - this is certainly true about judaism imo) on some level do represent a more textually supported take on their religion and that when we say, eg, that IS doesn't represent Islam, maybe what we should be saying is that no human is obligated to take a hardline on their religious obligations. that fanatics may do their religion better than us moderates, but us moderates shouldn't be competing for who best practices theologies developed in more barbaric times.

His paragraphs like this one below do not impress me:

The reality is that the Islamic State is Islamic. Very Islamic. Yes, it has attracted psychopaths and adventure seekers, drawn largely from the disaffected populations of the Middle East and Europe. But the religion preached by its most ardent followers derives from coherent and even learned interpretations of Islam.

why doesn't it impress you? they have a theologically coherent ideology rooted in a literalism reading of the text and w/ historical traditional support

yeah for example burning the pilot was justified with respect to accounts of early caliphatic warfare practises in order to distinguish themselves from mainstream sunni opinion and even from other salafists

they seem to be a lot more innovative/exegetically minded than saudi wahabbism, which was always devised as a very simple code that could be diffused unto illiterate bedouins by relatively uneducated preachers without extensive recourse to complicated jurisprudence

It would be facile, even exculpatory, to call the problem of the Islamic State “a problem with Islam.” The religion allows many interpretations, and Islamic State supporters are morally on the hook for the one they choose. And yet simply denouncing the Islamic State as un-Islamic can be counterproductive, especially if those who hear the message have read the holy texts and seen the endorsement of many of the caliphate’s practices written plainly within them.

Muslims can say that slavery is not legitimate now, and that crucifixion is wrong at this historical juncture. Many say precisely this. But they cannot condemn slavery or crucifixion outright without contradicting the Koran and the example of the Prophet. “The only principled ground that the Islamic State’s opponents could take is to say that certain core texts and traditional teachings of Islam are no longer valid,” Bernard Haykel says. That really would be an act of apostasy.

The Islamic State’s ideology exerts powerful sway over a certain subset of the population. Life’s hypocrisies and inconsistencies vanish in its face. Musa Cerantonio and the Salafis I met in London are unstumpable: no question I posed left them stuttering. They lectured me garrulously and, if one accepts their premises, convincingly. To call them un-Islamic appears, to me, to invite them into an argument that they would win. If they had been froth-spewing maniacs, I might be able to predict that their movement would burn out as the psychopaths detonated themselves or became drone-splats, one by one. But these men spoke with an academic precision that put me in mind of a good graduate seminar. I even enjoyed their company, and that frightened me as much as anything else.

It shouldn't be surprising that a religious text was written with the justification of conquest in mind. We liberals have a somewhat neutered view of religion and its role in history and civilization, as though apologetics for empire is a "distortion" of religion rather than what religion is often designed for.

Although I wouldn't make an easy equivalency (especially since Judaism doesn't have a period of conquest on the scale of Islam or Christianity), the Torah has a bit of that too.

News at 11: extremists who read religious texts, believe their own interpretation of such texts.

Sorry Mordy, but I don't consider this that mind-blowing. Former New Republic current Atlantic writer Wood tries to set up his religious take versus a strawman that doesn't exist--people who say ISIS are just thugs w/out an alleged religious motive

isn't that essentially obama's argument? "ISIL is not Islamic"?

strawman = POTUS?

One of the major points the article tries to make is that the religious ideas that drive ISIS will make their actions predictable. That would seem to be a falsifiable hypothesis. I didn't notice the author made any concrete predictions, but I didn't read to the end. Were there any?

well, he did predict that if there's a conventional western invasion that ISIS would try to throw all their resources at dabiq