Every time Obama goes down to Devon Avenue he seems to raise a ruckus (see previous post). This afternoon in Chicago:
A small group of protesters assembled this afternoon across the street from an Indian restaurant in Chicago where Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama was holding a fundraiser.
The mostly Pakistani group chanted anti-Obama slogans in response to a threat the Illinois Democrat made last week about his willingness, if elected president, to launch unilateral American military strikes against Al Qaeda havens in a remote border region of Pakistan.
“Obama, hypocrite,” the group repeatedly chanted, as some of the 25 or so assembled held signs that read “Sen. Obama, Good speaker. But no clue what to speak” and “Obama equal Osama,” a reference to Al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden. [Link]
To recap, the main reason this small group of Pakistani Americans were protesting Osama Obama was covered here recently by Amardeep.
“Barack Obama is advocating bombing an entire nation. This man is not our friend,” said Andy Thayer, a spokesman for the Chicago Coalition Against War. “Hillary Clinton is also not our friend. She called for not taking the nuclear option off the table…” [Link]
<
p>
Hold up there Andy. He might have advocated a little bombing but at least he swore it would not be nuclear! Stop painting things with such a wide brush. Presidential candidate Joe Biden recently pointed out the obvious by the way. We already routinely violate Pakistani sovereignty (probably with SEAL Teams). We just got to be hush hush about it so that the Pakistani population doesn’t give Mushie a hard time because of it.
“… in order to look tough, he’s undermined his ability to be tough, were he president. Because if you’re going to go into Pakistan — which is already our policy by the way, if there’s actionable intelligence — you need actionable intelligence from moderates within Pakistan working with you. Now if you’re already going to say I’m going to disregard whatever the country thinks and going to invade, the likelihood you’re getting the cooperation you need evaporates. It’s a well intended notion he has, but it’s a very naïve way of figuring out how you’re going to conduct foreign policy…” [Link]
<
p>At least Obama was willing to talk things over with the Pakistanis gathered outside:
Obama spokesman Ben LaBolt said Obama offered to meet privately with a small group of the protesters following the fundraising lunch, but they declined the offer. [Link]
<
p>The problem is that Obama has fallen into the classic liberal trap. He is trying too hard to prove he is not “soft” on terror and thereby undermining his greatest strength: His ability to intelligently see the nuance in major policy.
“His image was that he is not a macho guy, so he wanted to prove that he’s a macho, macho man,” said Ifti Nasim, one of the organizers. [Link]
Maybe, but another thought is that Obama is simply trying to bring new ideas to the table. Not all of them will turn out to be the right ideas but those that support him do so for the very reason that he is not afraid to bring new thoughts to old problems. Incidentally, Obama was set to raise ~$75,000 at the Indian restaurant mentioned above (hosted by Tariq Siddiqi, a Chicago real estate developer). Since Indian Americans donate more money to campaigns than Pakistani Americans, maybe all this bad publicity won’t be too hard on the war chest.
Runa, oh no, you’ve been suckered. His puppy dog eyes work best with irony. David Lynch and the Coen Brothers knew how to make the most of them for their flicks.
Getting off topic, but i will only watch a movie based on 9/11 if all the star actors/directors/producers work for free and all the studio profits got to charity. i hear united 93 is good, but i still won’t watch it.
confession: i enjoyed Stone’s “Alexander”
Gujudude, is that because he busted the lid open on the top-secret Navajo code breaker program? 😛
Runa, I’m actually hopped up on Benadryl about once every 1-2 months, so it’s actually not that rare an occurrence 🙂 My overwhelming lethargy (side-effect) is often paired with an inability to sleep, so I find it’s a great time to watch films I would otherwise not have the patience to watch.
bess, I forgot to give a hat tip to Raising Arizona, which I do like, but mostly because it has “arizona” in the title 🙂 I haven’t seen Wild at Heart. Rahul, I’m with you on the self-caricature + suckfest.
Well, he was pretty lame and busted up in that movie, in his one trick pony Nicolas Cage way. But those code talkers (not breakers :)) were some bad-ass dudes, who didn’t receive recognition for their efforts until 1982. Frankly, a better movie needed to be done with Eastwood, Spielberg, or Ridley Scott directing it. The lid needed to be busted on it!
Somebody needs to explain to me why Ridley Scott is considered such an amazing director.
Speaking of Nic Cage, remember Snake Eyes? Subjecting yourself to a combination of Cage and Brian De Palma is a recipe to make you want to break your fingers off and poke your eyes out with them. This after one of the most exhilarating opening 30 minute shots (it was all one take, I think) of any action movie I’ve seen. I have seen that opening sequence multiple times, and still can’t believe how horribly the movie ran aground soon after (although maybe the presence of Gary Sinise should have warned me). Brian De Palma is another director who has never met a concept he couldn’t run into the ground within the length of a film.
Getting back to the topic, i only assume Obama only meant more special ops. If he meant real troops, he would become my least favorite candidate overall. As many others have said, there is a big diff between special ops and troops. It just doesn’t seem consistent with Obama’s anti-Iraq invasion stance he took before the war to say he is going to invade Pakistan.
Hillary has shredded him in the debates though. How naive for Obama to say he would meet with world tyrants, although I am all for dialogue at lower levels.
Best moment of the cycle so far: when Biden called that gun rights guy in the youtube debate a nutjob. and then he said he’d like to bang kucinich’s wife. well, not in so many words. the guy’s hilarious (an he probably has the most detailed plan about Iraq)
Is it true you can’t go into a Dunkin Donuts in Delaware without an accent?
Blade Runner, Director’s Cut.
(also did not watch Snake Eyes b/c it looked bad. this coming from a woman who has seen nearly every bad movie out there)
Oh yeah, have you seen Mitchell?
Or Wild Orchid? Or Sheena -Queen of the Jungle?
I will qualify my comment. A woman who has seen nearly every bad movie to come out once she was old enough to attend kindergarten (i.e. 1990). And yes, have (unfortunately) seen Wild Orchid, as well as Wild Things, Autumn in New York, and Gigli.
Ugh! Thankfully I’ve not seen these, but excellent point Camille about Blade Runner! Now you’ve got me thinking about Rutger Hauer…
Camille,
I bow under the impact of your masochism.Gigli? really?
Before I get banned, enough of the thread jack! Though I would love to see a post on BAD films( desi and non desi) the mutineers love ( They are so bad they are good!)
Runa 63:
There is always a chance it could be so bad, it’s past good, and back to bad again (paraphrase of Ghostworld http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0162346/)
Really. To my credit I was not the rentee (my sister was), and I was heavily medicated [post-wisdom tooth surgery].
Back on topic, Biden has a snowcone’s chance in hell of being nominated, and I think he’s exceptionally talented at saying stupid things, but he IS funny. I did like when he said that something was wrong with the guy if he thought his gun was his “baby.” It made me LOL at the gym.
but it might be (if he meant troops) consistent with this (self-)notion that democrats need to appear more hawkish to their voters.
a lot of analysts think that this is exactly what he was saying – he would have lower-level talks – to them his wording seems like he would allow his administration to have some talks, but he would not be present. so then the distinction comes down to him being open to talks, and HRC being categorically against.
HRC’s coming off as a bit too bullish for my taste. i wish these candidates would learn how to argue without seeming so condescending or defensive.
i don’t know, camille – this ‘captive’ audience excuse is getting a bit old. how do we know you didn’t decide pre-surgery to watch this movie, and ordered your sister to rent it to avoid face-to-face-with-video-store-clerk embarassment?
GujuDude, thanks for a long and serious reply! I’m at work (shhh!) so I can’t reply at as much length as I’d like to, unfortunately, but I will try to answer your questions.
I’ll answer this question first because it will make the rest of my answers clearer. I’m a socialist in the Trotskyist tradition (read: NOT a Stalinist or Maoist). I’m not a pacifist in any Gandhian sense, but I am fundamentally opposed to capitalism, so my opposition to wars conducted to further the interests of the US capitalist class (as I think the current wars are) flows from that. Had I been alive, I would have supported the US Civil War, though, or the war against the fascists in Spain, to give some examples.
Yes, I was/am. I am categorically opposed to the US marching into any country it pleases. I was horrified by the way Bush used feminist and humanitarian rhetoric to try to justify what was clearly a play for control over a key part of the region. (Not to mention that AQ is going strong, bin Laden is nowhere to be found, and women are still living under horrible conditions.) The fact that the US goes about pursuing its goal of world domination for profit differently than the British did doesn’t mean it’s not imperialism. (This article by a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations makes a case for the US reclaiming the word, actually. Quite entertaining if you are, as I have been called, a ‘knee-jerk anti-imperialist’.)
<
blockquote>Sarah, where did I say that Pakistanis should be attacked and they should fear that they’re all targets of American military might?
<
blockquote>
Sorry if I was unclear– I’m not saying that you said that. I think they should have that fear because a US attack on Pakistan is clearly on the table and a major topic of discussion in the US presidential elections, and because Pakistani-Americans are being targeted by Homeland Security and held in detention without charges.
What I was trying to get at in my last post, though perhaps clumsily, was that this is a question of perspective. From the point of view of promoting/defending US interests around the world, your arguments are quite correct. What I was saying is that this point of view is not the only one, and that even if you don’t agree with my perspective, it may be illuminating to have it out there. In my case, I’m coming from the perspective of promoting/defending the interests of working-class people across borders, which I think is in direct conflict with the interests of the American government and its corporate sponsors.
Would that politicians would approach the question this way. I think there are a lot of people in various government agencies who would like to do this but are being thwarted (and I suspect you’ll agree with me on that). But as long as the US’s goal is to dominate the Middle East and control the allocation of its resources, reducing violent conflict is not going to be high on the agenda. Maybe better communication will allow the US to move closer to that goal with less violent conflict– but that situation isn’t exactly a just and desirable peace for the people who live there.
The things that I would like the US government to do (put profit before people; rebuild bridges, schools and levees before spending billions on wars; reduce oil consumption; tax the rich– for starters) are patently not in the interests of the ruling class and will never happen unless there are mass movements forcing them to happen. So I don’t spend much time thinking about what I think the US government should do in any given situation; I focus instead on the question of building a real left-wing alternative in the US.
Clearly we are coming from very different ideological backgrounds, but I hope that clarifies what I’m getting at. 🙂
Rahul, I saw Snake Eyes a long time ago, but I doubt if the brilliant opening continuous shot is 30 minutes long, though it may seem like that. There’s Orson Welles in Touch of Evil, Antonioni in The Passenger and many other directors who have done continuous shots before. Russian Ark is a movie that is a single take. I believe Brian de Palma does include one such shot in his movies – there’s one in Black Dahlia too.
As for Ridley Scott, he has been churning out ridiculous stuff lately, but to his credit, he did direct Alien, Blade Runner (my favorite is director’s cut) and Thelma & Louise.
Yup, we’re definitely not coming from the same place here.
Amit, Snake Eyes is a continuous take. I realize de Palma didn’t pioneer the technique, I mentioned it because I think that it did really add to the energy and frenetic nature of the opening of the boxing match. Haven’t seen a de Palma lately (despite the James Ellroy connection), he’s in the “Ignore” tray along with Oliver Stone 🙂
Russian Ark was very pretty, but also very pretentious, I thought. But definitely worth watching on the big screen. Also, thanks to youtube, you can now see the Touch of Evil tracking shot whenever you want. Good stuff.
He also directed Black Hawk Down, which is as solid as a war movie (in terms of tone, realism, getting the little details right, etc) as you’ll ever see. It wasn’t over the top, nor did it potray an ‘agenda’. For a movie, it was re-created very accurately, trying to show things as they were not what people wanted it to be.
You see Gujudude, what the Left typified by Arundhati Roy are for is the preservation of schticks. What’s the point of travel if when I go to Kabul I see a Jamba Juice instead of a stoning of an adultress? Might as well just go to Pittsburg. We all lose when these quaint schticks are lost to posterity. We just can’t support those schticks that we find pleasing, that would be like being an ecologist who kills great white sharks to save cute baby seals. And from an operational perspective, things would be much better for Afghan women if we had armed RAWA and Eve Ensler to take care of business.
louiecypher, my point was that the US’s intervention in Afghanistan did not liberate Afghan women, not that I have some sort of Maoist-third-worldism rationalization for letting their oppression stand. I think it was sick and disingenuous of the Bush administration, which has done everything it can to undo what liberation American women have one, to use fake concern for Afghan women to win support for a war that had nothing to do with liberation. And I don’t remember the US having all that much concern for women’s rights back when it was arming bin Laden to fight the Russians.
GujuDude, I appreciate your friendly and respectful tone. I wasn’t really looking to get into a big old left-vs-right fight– glad you feel the same. 🙂
er. won.
In my professional experience, I have found that it is the qualified ecologist-scientist who is unafraid to state that it is the great white shark that needs to be saved in order to stop the cute baby seals from breeding unchecked. And this would usually be in response to a public indifference to shark die-off or overwhelming demand for shark fin soup coupled with the public’s ‘knee-jerk’ emotional outrage when seal hunters have to step in and play the role of the missing shark.
Personally bothered when ecologists are misrepresented and lumped together with the ’emotional.’ Ecologists have usually done their rigorous science and are quite cerebral.
SkepMode and KXB – The link below is to an opinion piece, which alludes to the get the nukes plan I mentioned in # 31.
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/07/13/2493/
p.s. if an islamic coup does come to pass in pakistan, american, indian and nato priority will not be to occupy the country, but to get the nukes at any costs.
GujuDude, I haven’t seen Black Hawk Down. I prefer sex over violence. 😉
Rahul, you’re not missing much with Black Dahlia – it’s a royal mess.
The evolution of Salafist Jihadis has been from those focused on ‘near Jihad’ to ‘far Jihad’. Their goals were to gain political power internally, but the state apparatus (Egypt) didn’t allow it, hence the transistion to attacking more western targets to gain legitimacy within their target population they’re looking to coopt. As someone far smarter than I stated, this is a war within and for Islam, and we’re just a part of it. Which is the reason why, if you read my comments, I was stressing that without gaining local support, you’re just fighting pitched battles. Tactically, while they may be sound, it’ll just go back and forth.
At the leadership level for Al Qaeda what you are saying is probably correct (at least used to be anyway when Al Qaeda was more structured) and at some level Zarqawi’s inability to gain ground in Egypt has resulted in the jihad spreading to fighting the West in the West. However, the violence which we see now against the West in West (London bombings, Scotland bombings, Madrid bombings etc.) are a result of individuals who have a predisposition to extreme hardline Salafist Islam combined with a social network which inflames and sustains the feelings of humiliation, and frustations over Israel-Palestine conflict, Iraq war and channels them into random acts of violence against Westerners in the West. I would be surprised if these people are thinking about the strategic shift made by Zarqawi/Bin Laden or the debates within Al Qaeda about this shift.
In the pre 9-11 world, most of the terrorist attacks against US interests in the 90s were carried out by Al Qaeda operatives following the chain of command, relying exclusively on Al Qaeda contacts for logistics etc. I have a feeling that even if the US were to not invade Iraq or even Afghanistan, we would have still seen independent copycat jihadis spring up around the West after 9-11. However, the US response in Iraq has probably increased the number and intensity of these wannabe Bin Ladens.
In my last post, I mistakenly named Zarqawi instead of Zawahiri.
As someone far smarter than I stated, this is a war within and for Islam, and we’re just a part of it
Thats a nice dramatic line (Thomas Friedman?) but I am not sure about the war within or for Islam. There is hardly any theater where Al Qaeda types have taken a majority or command the support of the majority. I guess one could say Hamas in Gaza or Hezbullah in the Shiite part of Lebanon, but these are mostly localized groups with local concerns, enemies and agendas with no aims whatsoever similar to the ones espoused by Zawahiri.
I couldn’t agree more. Have you seen any of the sexist ’emotional’ stuff that’s been leveled at Rachel Carson? Both back in ’62 when Silent Spring was published, and now… actually, that might have been the birth of said stereotype, come to think of it.
Sarah: I see now that what you want is purity of purpose, something that would attract young hipsters into the fray like Hemingway and his artistic comtemporary types during the Spanish Civil War. Implementation failures aside, I am guessing you would not be happy with an outcome where both hedge fund managers get new Ferraris from Central Asian Jamba Juice expansion and Afghan girls get to go to school
Hyperbole ?
Sorry, but could you please be just a little bit more condescending? I haven’t quite been put in my place yet.
While that was touted as a added benefit, it was not THE selling point of intervention in Afghanistan. The mission objective was to remove AQ’s base of operations, disrupt the network, and kill/capture terrorists while slowly infuse the region with more liberal policies (at a rate of change that the domestic population can evolve at). Womens rights didn’t happen overnight in western nations, how can anyone expect that to happen overnight in the most conservative quarters of the world?
How does one ‘liberate’ women in a culture where even moderates aren’t still up to western liberal notions of female emancipation? If you try to plop it down, you lose immediate support. It takes time. The article about the female olympic boxing hopefuls was pretty neat as is the fact the girls can actually GO TO SCHOOL, which was banned under the Taliban. Women are gaining opportunities and as the old gaurd ages and whithers away, it will be replaced by those affected by more liberal policies than their predecessors. When the Taliban were around, the social isolation of the local population didn’t even allow for the process to begin. Now, that has begun again.
Fightining also means you take licks, too. Boxers, martial artists, MMA, war, whatever – if you’re going to stand in the area and fight, you’ll have setbacks. How long one can sustain and the ability to outfight the other in the long run is how one wins. A tactical setback or temporary tactical retreat does not constitute failure or defeat.
I’m not going to discuss the merits of socialism vs the capitalism. We’ve had other threads – this one is about Pakistan, Afghanistan, and US policy. If you’re coming from the viewpoint that going to Afghanistan wasn’t justified or that American intervention is a result of capitalism and imperialism, well, I don’t think there is much more that can be added. Although the following is some good food for thought:
Here is a great article by Robert Greene (a Democrat) about the anti-war movement and it’s failure (much of it is focused on lumping all the other agendas along with protesting the war).
From the article:
I’m not looking for a right-left fight, but will continue to discuss topics as the thread continues. I’m not a righty or lefty, but I guess from where you’re at, I’m definitely to your right. I think most moderates and even many democrats would be to your right. No worries though, the friendly tone will continue.
MAJOR kudos to you both. It’s been way too long since there’s been constructive disagreement here that didn’t descend into name-callling, questioning motives, and random insults. Let’s keep it up and hopefully forge a new Sepia Mutiny way 😉
Zing… Sarah, excellent virtual thappad that!
I was at the DC rally (incidentally the last one I would ever attend, since libertarian leanings saps motivation for non-utilitarian action) and I totally identify.
It is the Afghans who are taking the vast majority of these ‘licks.’ I tend to rate this success you refer to on the progress made on phenomena that are, without much controversy, the highest priorities on any ‘fixer’s’ agenda: women’s rights, eliminating opium production, establishing law-and-order governance, eradicating the Taliban and clamping down on corruption (part of the governance issue but is a great starting point).
How is the Afghanistan mission proceeding on these issues?
I only know, for sure, that there are cricketers of prodigious talent in the country and post-Taliban, they are kicking some ass.
Agreed– thanks.
I mostly agree with you here– it does take time, and I’m frustrated by the attempts of some liberal feminists to try to export their ideas without regard for local culture, in a ‘we know best’ sort of way. But that’s what Bush was selling, and women’s groups like NOW, who otherwise might have been at least somewhat critical of the Bush administration, fell for it. I think Bush’s objective had more to do with establishing a power base in the region, and he hasn’t been too successful in that regard.
Also, one thing Afghanistan and Iraq have in common is that the US media tends to ignore the suffering of the majority of people and flock like crazy to cover any story that seems even remotely like good news. And it’s not exactly a paradise for school girls just yet: UNICEF estimated in 2005 that
Believe me, I’m the first one to admit that the anti-war movement has major, major problems. I’d like to see a much more clear, focused message– it’s certainly worth linking our government’s violence abroad with its violence toward African-Americans at home, but if you don’t have a forum where you can fully make that argument, it’s a bit hard to get that point across. Yes, the anti-war movement is a long way from perfect. (I could tell you some horror stories.) But I think we need to work to improve it, not give up on it for that reason.
Romba thanks! 🙂
Sure, the earlier model was broken when we went into Afghanistan (or disrupted). I don’t necessarily disagree with your reasoning here. Like I said, poor strategic vision and an inability of political decision makers to adapt to a dynamic battlefield doesn’t make our hand stronger. Iraq could have gone our way, but for reasons mentioned numerous times, it hasn’t. Our best bet is to stabilze the warring factions, help the locals fight off Al-Sadr and AQ-Iraq thugs (which the Sunnis are turning against in numbers, holding along tribal loyalty lines), and call it a day. Patreaus has finally pushed the correct strategy with more troops (both not in place in the beginning), hopefully it isn’t too late.
It is a dramatic line, but I was trying to replicate what was told to me with the same context. I failed. No, it isn’t Friendman, rather it was a retired SF (Green Beret) Colonel who said so on a military messageboard I visit. The point he was stressing is that this isn’t a fight of ideology between the west and Islam, rather one internal to Islam with the west as a major component. The idea is to energize the moderates to really win the fight (hearts and minds stuff) because only they are truly in a position to stomp Salafists out. Replace the word ‘war’ with ‘conflict’ and maybe that helps drive the nuance.
There are groups that are looking to co opt others to their vision. For the very reason they haven’t taken control of the majority, the west has become a juicy target to rally more to their [salafist] cause. What better way to market yourself to your target demographic than by showing off strength and fighting the west (and lumping it with Israel, religion, us taking their women, etc)? When they received political shelter in the most run down parts of the world (hence most removed from western influence) from folks with a similar vision (Taliban), they became far more lethal. Hamas, Fatah, Hezbollah have never really branched out against us to fight the ‘far jihad’. They’ve stayed pretty focused on Israel.
Taliban, AQ, AQ-Iraq (who really aren’t AQ, but have managed to become a brutal player) need to be marginalized continually, until domestic populations can adequately handle such threats. In many places, the mechanisms already exist. On the wild frontiers of Afghanistan/Pakistan, it doesn’t. Somalia is now in the grip of radical Islamists (and with neighbors, local tribes, and Special Ops, we’re fighting them off there, too).
Hell, the DOD even established an Africa Command now, realizing that Eurocom and Centcom don’t adquately address Africa.
A mixed bag. As I’ve said before also, the first few years were managed quite differently. According to Michael Yon, the opium production is staggering and there are few alternatives in the open market for poor farmers to earn currency on. Politicians pushed Army SF and other Special ops to do more direct action missions, which will net you dead Taliban, but it leaves the Foreign Internal Defense missions and Unconventional Warfare aspects (building tribal coalitions) on the back burner.
I think I see a shift towards more slower, but successful plans. Time will tell.
Nick Cage has been in some awful movies and his acting was not so good either. This is why he supprised me ‘Capt. Corelli’s Mandolin’. He has grown and gotten better.
Interesting observation GujuDude, but has has the better marketing strategy and dominate the news. It is not mainstream Muslims,the silent majority.
Rajesh, don’t worry. Reaming Nic Cage does NOT reflect in any way on your recommendation, and I will queue it in my SO-free Netflix queue 🙂
Here, here!
Amit, it is really good and very disturbing. Definitely not something to be “watched lightly.”
Gujudude, you’re totally correct in saying that this wasn’t the major selling point; however, it was one of the most-repeated selling points (and was certainly an egregious lie) across the political left in the U.S.. Perhaps that’s part of where Sarah’s critique is coming from.
Yes indeed. Thanks, Camille.
One more comment about that wanker Nic Cage and I shut this thread down.
Well then, I better get my comment in quickly. 😀
Ooh, I know what we should do – drop iPods there with Harold & Maude soundtrack. AQ-types can smoke a joint and listen to one of their own sing songs and maybe they’ll see the light. 😉
I’m sorry, Abhi 🙁
It wasn’t a selling point for the US public, any politician would have been able to sell the Afghan invasion even as pure retribution. Maybe it had some utility with getting the EU on board. If you are looking for manufactured selling points you will be on terra firma with: a) The bogus attempt by the Bush admin to link 9/11 to Iraq b) WMD in Iraq c) The “Iraqi soldiers tossed babies from incubators” bogus testimony during the first Iraq conflict
Why don’t you just lean on over to SM intern, and ask him/her to make sure they are all gone in 60 seconds?