Obituary

Red Auerbach
September 20, 1917 - October 28, 2006

"But we read the newspapers as we love, blindfold. We do not try to understand the facts. We listen to the soothing words of the editor as we listen to the words of our mistress. We are 'beaten and happy' because we believe that we are not beaten but victorious."

-Proust, Le Temps retrouvé

Already in Trouble at the Hippo...

Here for Stan's comments on my "massive left-wing conspiracy theory."

Here for Jared's.
Here for my rebuttal.

They affectionately refer to me over there as the "punching bag."

Today's Post from the Hippolytic

Remember that video al Qaeda released just prior to the 2004 presidential elections, supposedly trying to influence their outcome? Who knows how it affected the election, although it seems it probably drove more people into the Bush camp who still saw the Republicans as the anti-terror party. I am convinced that's the outcome bin Laden sought: get Bush reelected, bleed the U.S. more in Iraq, turn as much of the Muslim world against the U.S. as possible, and eventually force an embarassing withdrawl from Iraq for which he could take credit. In that vein, here's another speculation: what if the upsurge in violence in Iraq over this past month is directly linked to the impending November elections? That is, what if the insurgents on the streets are trying to directly affect American voter opinion through heightened activity? This may not be as surprising as it sounds. As of yesterday, there had been 96 American soldier deaths in October, not to mention a large increase in sectarian death-squad activity and attacks on civilians, making this month the most violent month of 2006 and one of the worst of the whole war. It is significant that so much of the new violence has been directly focused on American soldiers, since it is American deaths that influence voter opinion much more than Iraqi deaths.

The problem, of course, with making such an assumption is that it locates the source of the increased violence in a coherent and coordinated movement. As we have seen, the insurgency is in Iraq is one of the most diverse and variegated resistance movements of modern history. But it is not impossible that primarily Islamist Sunni groups have coordinated activity against U.S. soldiers in the past few weeks to force a political outcome. And, since this is war, increased violence from one sector will inevitably encourage violence from others as well. Thus, the Shiite death-squads respond in vigour to increased Sunni attacks.

So let's assume for just a moment that the majority of U.S. military deaths in October are the result of a coordinated Sunni strategy to affect U.S. voter opinion (if anyone can find out more details about exactly who was killing soldiers, then leave a comment--the validity of my hypothesis ultimately rests on this information), then what was their strategy? What outcome are they trying to affect at the polls? While al-Qaeda, in my opinion, probably wanted Bush back in office in November 2004, I think the reverse is true now; that is, a pro-withdrawal Congress in power now is probably more to their liking. U.S. pullout from Iraq would be seen as a major Jihadi victory and the opportunity to finally realize Islamist goals in Iraq: foment sectarian violence into all-out civil war and eventually try to form a Sunni Islamist polity out of the ruins of violence. With that said, the Iraq War has proven a tremendous recruiting tool for al Qaeda, and it may be that they are not ready for it all to be over yet. And al Qaeda certainly wouldn't mind bringing the U.S. even more to its knees through continued violence. But if insurgent activity this month is in any way tied to the U.S. elections, then it seems like the insurgents could have only one goal in mind: dislodge the Republicans and get a pro-withdrawal majority into Congress. While in 2004 the increased threat of terrorist attacks would certainly get a Republican in power, violently demonstrating the failure of this Republican war will most likely help the Democrats.

Again, the veracity of this speculation rests on empirical facts to which I do not have access. But I wouldn't be surprised if Bush has finally gotten what he wanted and has brought the Islamists fully into the democratic political process (think of them as a lobbying group of sorts). Too bad it's ours and not their's.

By the way, I'm still voting Democrat. But you can imagine who my choice is...

Today's Post from the Hippolytic

I've just stumbled across word from Yale professor of philosophy Keith DeRose that his son at college is conducting some interesing experiments in torture. Read about it here, on the group blog "Generous Orthodoxy"--a progressive Evangelical "think tank"--to which DeRose contributes. The results are pretty illuminating, if not un-surprising.

Idea: Let's get Zack DeRose over to Yale for a weekend, have him give a teach-in on how to build his "cell" and then fill Beinecke Plaza with undergraduates trapped inside these cells, shouting for freedom. It would be interesting collective performance art--a field of entrapped, squealing Yale students--and a nice way to remind everyone what is at stake in this Administration's agenda...

(it must mean it's midterms when all i can post is you-tube after you-tube after you-tube...)

enough said.

I've just agreed to write for a group blog The Hippolytic--a progresive, student-run publication expanding into digital space. I hope my centrist skepticism does not prove too much a thorn in their (left) side...
For now here.

Julia Boutros Ahibaii

I love Lebanese pop. Here's an interesting song--glorifying the Lebanese "martyrs" of this summer's war against Israel. Thanks to Abu Aardvark for the link.

Causes of Jihad

"...the American flight from Beirut after the bombings in 1983, the American flight from Somalia after "Black Hawk down," the attack on the U.S. embassies in Africa, the USS Cole, 9/11, the continual bombing of Iraq under the Clinton administration, the economic sanctions against Saddam's regime that Muslims saw as choking the Iraqi people. The Iraq war, as the critics see it, overwhelms the American attack on the Taliban and bin Laden, the Taliban's resurgence in Afghanistan, bin Laden's survivor charisma, the Pakistani madrassa machine, General Pervez Musharraf's retreat from Waziristan, the Saudi Wahhabi multitentacled missionary-money machine--still the most influential conveyer of anti-American, anti-Western, anti-Semitic, and anti-Christian hatred in the world--the existence of Israel, the Israeli retreat from Lebanon in 2000, Palestinian suicide bombings, the resurgence of Hezbollah, the triumph of American pop culture in Muslim lands, the Satanic Verses, Danish cartoons lampooning the Prophet Muhammad, the Western assault on traditional sexual ethics and the God-ordained malfe domination of the Muslim home, the constant, positivist legal assault on the Holy Law, American and European support for Muslim dictatorships, the Western-centered, Western-aping, increasingly brutal Muslim regimes that have transgressed against God ever since Napoleon routed the mameluks outside Alexandria in 1798, and the unbearable Western military supremacy that reversed a millennium of nearly uninterrupted Muslim triumphs. To these critics, the Iraq war somehow is uglier than the whole cosmological affront of the modern world: Western Christians, Jews, and atheists on top; Asian Buddhists, Confucians, and Shintoists gaining power; the Hindu pantheists rising; and the Muslims, Allah's chosen people, descending..."

- Reuel Marc Gerecht

Book Review

Elisabeth Young-Bruehl's new book on Hannah Arendt: Why Arendt Matters

I had dinner tonight with some significant neo-con intellectuals and it dawned on me just how bad the world has become over the past five years. This, however, is a nice song.

In a Bind

I'm now officially a registered voter in Connecticut and, as you know, we have an extremely important Senate election coming up. While many of my political sympathies lie with Lamont, I simply cannot get over his planned withdrawl of troops from Iraq. While there certainly is a case to be made for doing so, it doesn't seem to me like Lamont has fully contemplated or understood it. The case he makes is purely political: out with the Bushites, in with the Dems, reorient our policy to appease American discontent with the failure of this war. Pretty straight-forward. I think such a policy, however, will doom us to a catastrophic foreign policy failure, a kind of failure which may not immediately become apparent, but which will have far-reaching consequences for the first half of this century. Our withdrawl will be seen as the first major (or second major, after 9/11) victory for the Jihadists of the 21st century. It will turn Iraq, until--if ever--it is secured, into a Jihadist training ground and base from which efforts to destabilize surrounding countries will be launched--Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Syria, etc. Iraqi security forces are nowhere near ready to deal with this possibility, nor with the task of preventing all out civil war.

While Lamont makes the case, admittedly a compelling one, that our presence in Iraq is simply keeping these security forces from taking the task onto their own shoulders, the stakes are far too high for us to risk this hypothesis being wrong following our withdrawl.

It seems there a few courses of action the U.S. can now take (as laid out by a professor in a class of mine):

1) Pull-out, trusting that the long-term forces of history will prove our democratization strategy right.
2) Draw down forces, leaving some behind to train and provide intelligence for Iraqi forces.
3) Bring in more troops to secure the country once and for all.
4) Let the three competing sectors of Iraqi society (Shia, Sunni, Kurd) duke it out in hopes that they will eventually balance each other out and reach a stable settlement.
5) Partition the country into three sovereign entities along religious/ethnic lines.
6) Maintain status-quo.
7) Cut a deal with the Iranians.

It seems like 2) and 3) are the only possible solutions, with 3) being vastly unpopular, although certainly the best course of action. 2), although the most popular, will undoubtedly provide our enemies with an enormous symbolic victory.

So where do my allegiances lie? To a Senator who got us into this awful war, but who offers a more realistic and feasible solution to it? Or a Senator with great social policies, but a politically-driven and dangerously naive approach to this war? To the people of Connecticut and of New Haven--this sad and poor city which is, at least for now, my own--whose lives would undoubtedly be bettered by Lamont's election? Or the people of Iraq, whose lives would surely be made worse?

"North Korea has never developed a weapons system that it didn't ultimately sell."
-NYT

A very Useful Graphic from the NYT.

Click on it and blow it up (Ctrl-+ or Command-+) to see it better. Data from Woodward's new book.

An Important Question

Is Dean Wareham of Luna saying "meow meow meow meow" towards the end of "Moon Palace"? If so, that' s brilliant. Really brilliant.

I'm Back!

And to celebrate here is possibly the funniest thing I've ever seen. If you know John Zorn, then you'll probably agree. I know A. Sullivan posted it, but I've got to share it too.