Psychopolitik 2.0

36.  44.

Those numbers are, respectively, the percentage of US citizens that when polled said they condoned torture in 2006 & this year.

Leaving aside the obvious moral implications of this, especially with regard to American Exceptionalism & our overall foreign policy, here’s the question: why has this number gone up?

The Suck, it burns…:

The Egyptian bureau of al-Hurra, an Arabic-language television network financed by the U.S. government, boasts a spectacular view of the Nile River and the capital’s bustling streets. But inside, all is quiet.

The bureau’s satellite link was unplugged with little explanation a few weeks ago by a local company, making it impossible to broadcast live. Since then, staffers have had to use a studio controlled by the Egyptian secret police, who have warned guests not to say anything controversial on the air.

Al-Hurra — “The Free One” in Arabic — is the centerpiece of a U.S. government campaign to spread democracy in the Middle East. Taxpayers have spent $350 million on the project. But more than four years after it began broadcasting, the station is widely regarded as a flop in the Arab world, where it has struggled to attract viewers and overcome skepticism about its mission.

Ironic name, considering its status. What’s Arabic for “The Imperialist Welfare Project”?

This being a terrible idea should’ve been obvious from day one, simply due to its contradiction of the stated purpose: seriously, promoting “democracy” via a foreign government financed network? That’s like showing the film “Dogma” in hopes that it’ll promote catholicism. Knowing that the real problem is a lack of Liberalism, since democracy in and of itself means zilch (imposed on a cultural context devoid of respect for the rights of differing groups, voting just formalizes the same tribal strife that was there already), what logically follows is acknowledgment that the road towards liberalism is paved with very difficult arguments. Them being part of a culture so different from ours, the discourse that would flow from such is inherently going to involve things that will offend us. Al-Hurra is rightly seen as an attempt by an outside party to control the discussion, which is why it is failing.

Arab journalists and viewers say al-Hurra has a basic problem: It is boring. Investigative pieces are rare, and critics say the channel generally doesn’t make waves.

Salameh Nematt, a Jordanian journalist based in Washington, said that al-Hurra, like many of its competitors, has ignored controversial issues such as financial corruption involving Arab leaders and the use of torture by security forces.

“Al-Hurra would have been the number one station in the Arab world had they done one-quarter of what they should have covered,” Nematt said. “People say if it’s an American station, nobody will watch it. That’s crap. If it’s an American station that does a good job, everybody will watch it.”

What Nematt is missing here is that doing a good job would involve acknowledging issues that are…inconvenient, to put it lightly, to the actual aim of US policy.  They can’t exactly air stories about torture when people can just throw Abu Ghraib in our faces in response, for example.

Al-Jazeera comes closer to the mark on promoting discussion of alternate viewpoints, yet we now treat it as enemy propaganda. What does that tell you?

The “No Duh” story: Iraqis don’t want a permanent U.S. presence in their country, and al-Maliki — in hopes of keeping his job — is listening:

The Bush administration’s Iraq policy suffered two major setbacks Friday when Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki publicly rejected key U.S. terms for an ongoing military presence and anti-American Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr called for a new militia offensive against U.S. forces.

During a visit to Jordan, Maliki said negotiations over initial U.S. proposals for bilateral political and military agreements had “reached a dead end.” While he said talks would continue, his comments fueled doubts that the pacts could be reached this year, before the Dec. 31 expiration of a United Nations mandate sanctioning the U.S. role in Iraq.

The moves by two of Iraq’s most powerful Shiite leaders underscore how the presence of U.S. troops has become a central issue for Iraqi politicians as they position themselves for provincial elections later this year. Iraqis across the political spectrum have grown intolerant of the U.S. presence, but the dominant Shiite parties — including Maliki’s Dawa party — are especially fearful of an electoral challenge from new, grass-roots groups.

That’s one unrealized quirk about the whole “spreading democracy” junk: Pandering means different things in different cultures.  For Iraq, we’re the illegal immigrants, and Sadr is Lou Dobbs in a turban.  Maliki has to shore up his base, y’know?

All that aside, I noticed something in the article that many people probably just glanced at:

Maliki’s comments came as Sadr called for a new armed wing of his Mahdi Army militia to fight U.S. troops. Sadr had ordered the militia to cease carrying weapons last August — a leading factor in the recent decline in violence — although U.S. military officials have asserted that renegade militia units have continued the fight under instructions from Iran. (emphasis mine)

The conventional stance of the mainstream media, as we know, is to take everything the government says at face value.  Military officials said Iran ordered attacks, so they pass it on, full stop.  However, in light of what they’ve been wrong about up to this point, this makes even LESS sense than it would absent the context.  So, thanks to them, someone out there is inevitably going to spot this and take it as sign that the war should cross the border — which is exactly why this comment was made.  Never mind that official encouragement of attacks by Iran would be just about the dumbest thing they could do, considering how they’ve gained something huge influence-wise through no effort on their part.  You see, thinking about why a regime we don’t like would or would not do something is for pansy latte-sipping intellectuals, real red white & blue manly men just smash things and justify it later, if at all.

Shorter Bush: “Don’t take after my Grandpa.”

Sometimes I wonder if we’re in an alternate reality because of crap like this. Seriously, Bush comparing someone to Nazi appeasers passed the laugh test for his speech writers?

Sometimes there are moments where, even when you know much of the information already, seeing it nakedly laid out in chronological order really pushes your buttons.  I know we generally bash Bush as dumb, yet the worst part isn’t his own lack of intelligence, but how that trait made him so easy to convince to go along with dumb and/or evil ideas.  I doubt there’d be such emphasis on his brain if it didn’t drag us into committing rampant war crimes.

This needs to end, at all costs, as soon as possible.   If  we keep going down this road, eventually some other country will start discussing invading us for “liberation”…

John Cole, noting the sudden “don’t cross me, Mahmoud!!” statement from Hillary, asks a really damn good question:

Are the roles reversed anywhere else in the civilized world- is there some place where candidates, on their respective national television channels, play out their war fantasies in which they nuke the United States?

What’s amusing about this is that even Iran doesn’t make this kind of threat. Most they say referring to the US is “if you invade us, we’ll make you regret it”, and that comes out of a position of fear and weakness anyway, akin to threatening to throw a sock at someone if they don’t stop beating your wife.

(cross-posted to FreedomDemocrats)

Um…er…What the fuck?

John Stewart is at home kicking himself right now.  Terrible timing for a break.

General Petraeus states the obvious:

Iraqi leaders have failed to take advantage of a reduction in violence to make adequate progress toward resolving their political differences, Gen. David H. Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, said Thursday.

Petraeus, who is preparing to testify to Congress next month on the Iraq war, said in an interview that “no one” in the U.S. and Iraqi governments “feels that there has been sufficient progress by any means in the area of national reconciliation,” or in the provision of basic public services.

No duh.  Considering how far back the sectarian tension there goes, along with the fact that no government can truly address these kinds of things in the first place, the expectation here is akin to an aerobics trainer expecting Michael Moore to do military-style “clap” pushups.  Anyway, moving on…

The Shiite-led government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has won passage of some legislation that aids the cause of reconciliation, drawing praise from President Bush and his supporters. But the Iraqi government also has deferred action on some of its most important legislative goals, including laws governing the exploitation of Iraq’s oil resources, that the Bush administration had identified as necessary benchmarks of progress toward reconciliation. (emphasis mine)

As the laws referred to consist of the package mentioned here, which would give foreign oil companies long-term contracts and put their representatives in control of the majority of Iraqi oil fields, a version of which was put in place in Kurdistan that Dennis Kucinich pointed out served to funnel even more money  towards the pockets of a Bush loyalist, that line is way more literal than the author of the Petraeus article intended.  This kind of move being a “benchmark” could be seen as a reverse protection racket — “pass this bill or we won’t leave!” — if not for the bases already being constructed.

Apparently Iraqis are familiar with N.W.A., because the increasingly fundamentalist government there just took a policy cue from MC Ren:

The Iraqi government has ordered all policewomen to hand in their guns for redistribution to men or face having their pay withheld, thwarting a U.S. initiative to bring women into the nation’s police force.

The Interior Ministry, which oversees the police, issued the order late last month, according to ministry documents, U.S. officials and several of the women. It affects all officers who have earned the title “policewoman” by graduating from the police academy. It does not apply to men in the same type of jobs.

Critics say the move is the latest sign of the religious and cultural conservatism that has taken hold in Iraq since Saddam Hussein’s ouster ushered in a government dominated by Shiite Muslims. Now, that tendency is hampering efforts to bring stability to Iraq by driving women from the force, said U.S. Army Brig. Gen. David Phillips, who has led the effort to recruit female officers. […]

Policewomen say the decree also will leave them unable to protect themselves at work or off duty. Scores of police employees, both officers and administrative workers, have been killed by insurgents. Men and women have traditionally been allowed to carry their Glock pistols with them after hours for security.

“We are considered policewomen. We face kidnapping. We could be assassinated. If anyone knew where we worked, of course they would try to do something to us,” said a 27-year-old interviewed Sunday.

But…but Freedom Is On The March™!!  Islamo-Fascism™!!  9/11™!!  Dissent Is Un-American™!!

Props.

Why do they still even bother with National Intelligence Estimates if the president himself is going to ignore whatever they say?

Eh, at least no one died this time…