Month: April 2004

The following op-ed by Brooks in today’s NYTimes gives some interesting perspective on past views in America about combatting terrorism. Seems to make a convincing case that the dumbing down of American politics continues on.

Via today’s Mother Jones: Number of U.S. service members killed in Iraq since Operation Iraqi Freedom began on March 19, 2003: 671 Number killed since George W. Bush declared an end to “major combat” on May 1, 2003: 533 Number killed this month: 83 Source: U.S. Department of Defense

Officially, the taking of hostages is forbidden in Islam. A stance reiterated today by the Ithna’ashari scholars in Iraq. So that means the kidnappers are either Sunni or are acting out of an interest other than Islam. I don’t believe they are Sunni at this point – are at least are not acting under that identity – as it would disenfranchise the community. These are pseudo-nationalists, and the behavior is not intrinsic to Muslims. Just a clarification for those who were wondering if hostage taking was tenet of faith.

“Please attend our destruction of the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001. No RSVP needed, but looks of shock, disbelief and mourning are encouraged.” Is that what Bush was waiting for? It must be because he said: “There was nothing there that said, you know, ‘There’s an imminent attack,’ ” Bush said during a brief news conference with Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak. The Egyptian leader visited Bush’s Texas ranch to talk about the Middle East. I don’t think 9/11 was the strictly the fault of the Bush administration, but I believe they did ignore a risk minimization strategy.

Here’s a link from the New York Review of Books on current books trying to frame the current debates in the Muslim (mostly Arab) world. I give credit to the author for attempting to make sense of such a broad topic. For such a short piece, I think he does a good job. However, the piece is too short for a real understanding of the issue for non-specialists. Still, a read worth noting. Update: Found another good summary of some of the issues involved in Islamism.

All news outlets today in the US issued an apology for calling Muqtada as-Sadr a cleric. The lack of clerics in the Islamic tradition clearly makes such a title incorrect. In addition, as-Sadr has no official standing in the hierarchy of Ithna’ashari religious scholars, making any title inappropriate and granting him an unwarranted level of legitimacy. If only the press would bother learning to read. Rhetorical question: Can one write without knowing how to read?

From today’s Thomas Friedman op-ed: What is going on in Iraq today is not only a war between radical Islam and America, it is, more importantly, a war within Islam — between those who want an Islam with a human and progressive face that can meld with the world and those who want an Islam that is exclusivist and hostile to the world. So, yes, we need all the Arab and Muslim support we can get to see Iraq through to some decent outcome. But the Arab-Muslim world needs a decent outcome in Iraq just as much — if not…

The Boston Globe has a good op-ed on some of the political dissimulation going on by both parties.