One of Ours

...Just hours after the Bharatiya Janata Party lost power last Thursday to the left-leaning Congress Party, BJP leaders came under harsh criticism, most of it coming from the Hindu nationalist party's staunchest supporters. The focus of their attacks was the BJP's 79-year-old popular prime minister, Atal Bihari Vajpayee, who they claimed diluted the BJP's core values.

Over the past five years, the BJP under Mr. Vajpayee's leadership won plaudits, both in India and abroad, for speeding up the pace of economic reform and cutting back on India's stifling government bureaucracy and regulations. But by focusing on economics, at the expense of social issues - such as rewriting the Constitution to reflect Hindu values, and removing special privileges for minorities - the BJP has angered a half-dozen social organizations that make up its core base of support. Now, these activists want their party back.

"The BJP has deviated from the path of Lord Ram [a Hindu god] and adopted that of Ravana [the mythical demon that Ram slew]," said Praveen Togadia, leader of the Vishwa Hindu Parishad, a militant Hindu social organization that supports the BJP. "Hindus have taught the BJP a lesson."

...In fact, in a sign that Hindu nationalism may be on the wane, voters seemed fatigued with identity politics. The BJP fared poorly in regions most affected by the violent controversies surrounding the Hindu nationalists' struggle to unite their brethren around a sense that India is first and foremost a Hindu nation.

[...]

...if the elections are a gauge of public opinion, it seems that resolving the Ayodhya dispute was not foremost in their minds. The BJP parliamentarian in Ayodhya was voted out of office. The BJP also lost seats in the temple towns of Kashi and Mathura, where activists have also pledged to tear down mosques.

The BJP also did badly in the state of Gujarat, ruled by the BJP hard-liner Narendra Modi, where Hindu rioters killed nearly 1,000 Muslims...For political watchers, it's a sign that Hindu voters have rejected extremism.

"The Hindus with their feet voted the BJP out in Gujarat," says Saeed Naqvi, a senior political analyst in New Delhi. For most voters, economic matters rather than social ones, were the most important question of this election, and not enough of the vast majority of poor Indians felt the effects of the BJP's pro-business, economic policies. "There is a fundamental sanity, a certain balance in the Hindu mind that rejects this sort of extremism. And in the very areas where the riots took place, the Hindu voters voted the BJP out."

...On Saturday night in Baghdad, just after U.S. forces arrested two senior Al-Mahdi Army leaders. I spoke to a 24-year-old Al-Mahdi Army official, Saeed Hisham al Mousawi, who said that the Shia Islamic parties brokered a sell-out deal with the coalition. "After the Islamic parties met, the U.S. forces closed all negotiations. I am sure that some parties gave the U.S. the green light to attack." Al Mousawi meant that the U.S. got the green light to destroy the Al-Mahdi Army at their meeting in Baghdad on May 4. The young revolutionary, who is still living with his parents, was bitter about the betrayal. I wanted to know which party had betrayed them and he wouldn't come out and say the name. But it seemed clear that it was the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq, which is close to Ayatollah Sistani. The next day the U.S. destroyed the al-Sadr heaquarters in Sadr City, attacking with tanks in another fierce battle...

...Muqtada has forgotten to appease the old men, and the old men were turning against him.

Lately the fighting has evolved from small clashes at the edge of towns to long firefights in the center of cities, and it took no time at all. This is the aftermath of the understanding between the U.S. and the Shia figures, their bid to destroy the Al-Mahdi Army...By early Wednesday morning, the U.S. had destroyed the al Mukhayam, an al-Sadr mosque in Karbala, and was busy fighting Al-Mahdi Army soldiers 200 meters from the shrine of Imam Hussein. In the afternoon when I arrived in the city, it was still going on...

[...]

We drove past the shrine toward the al Mukhayam until we couldn't move because of the shooting along the street the alley opened into...In the medina, we heard the deep sounds of the U.S. weapons and the small arms of the Al-Mahdi fighters reflected off the houses...

I wanted to know why, if there was so much fighting going on in Karbala, there wasn't a flood of refugees. "Nobody is leaving, where can we go?" Alla Mohammed said. "In 1991 we left and Saddam bombed the entire city." Above all, Alla Mohammed believed in peace; he wanted the fighting to stop so his children could go back to their exams. "We want to work with the Americans, we just don't know what they want exactly. We are suffering and want something good for our future, but do you see any development in a year of occupation?" I agreed that there wasn't much to see. "My economic situation is good, but if I had to feed my family and I was unemployed, for a hundred dollars, I would fight," he said. We had to stop talking because Alla Mohammed wanted to evacuate his uncle's family from the medina. So they piled into our car, three women in their abayas and a 4-year-old girl sitting in the middle between them. Alla Mohammed's uncle didn't come with us, he stayed with the house to protect it from looters. As we turned the corner he waved at us in a cheerful way...

An American patrol entered the Abu Hanifa mosque in Adhamiyah just an hour ago, a sergeant told the mosque Imam that they were searching for weapons and fighters whom had taken refuge inside the mosque. Nothing was found and no arrests were made as far as I know. Short fighting broke after the force was leaving the area, a couple of mortar rounds were fired, an American vehicle came under an RPG attack, and people from the area say it was damaged badly.

I could hear the fighting, since I was fairly close to the area at that time...Adhamiyah is still considered a war zone, and surprises are bound to happen over there as it's the most anti-American district in Baghdad. Iraqi flags (with the Allahu Akbar sign) are pasted on almost every store, graffiti praising the 'valiant resistance' are all over the place, some prasing Saddam openly, and recently there have been a few shyly saluting Muqtada Al-Sadr and Al-Mahdi army.

Two days ago, Adhamiyah residents talked about clashes with American troops following the celebrations on the Iraqi Olympic football team's qualification to the Athens Olympics. Baghdad's night sky was red with celebratory gun fire at that day. Apparently, American patrols were bewildered and had mistaken the gun fire as attacks against them, possibly returning fire at foolish Iraqi football enthusiasts.

...since firearms were first introduced to the country during the 18th century. Almost every militant tribe at that time possessed fire power, the musket readily replaced the sword as a weapon used in raids against neighbouring trides and trade caravans. Tribesmen would celebrate victory by firing their spare bullets in the air while performing special dances and chanting hossat (tribal battle cry) fit for the occasion. And that's how it all originated. The practice also exists in similar societes throughout the Arab world, so it is not exclusive to Iraqis.

...In rural Iraqi areas tribesmen and farmers use certain firing methods as signals, for example a call for help, to announce a newborn, a marriage, or the death of a significant person. Each signal has its own unique style, like 3 bullets fired in quick succession followed by 2 with a short pause in between. I remember once when we were teenagers and were partying at a friend's ranch north of Baghdad. A friend of ours wanted to impress us and he fired a few shots in the air from his pistol, and while others were filing up to take a try, shooting started suddenly from all around us, shortly afterwards some farmers passed by and offered our friend their condolences for his father's death, asking him how he met his unfortunate end! We didn't know anything about signals and all that stuff, so we were immensely surprised and the friend freaked out thinking his father had an accident or something. Of course our friend had coincidentally fired the death of a family member signal.

[...]

Now, on Thursdays (the usual wedding day for Iraqis) you will have to remain indoors because of the ridiculous amount of gun fire in the air, the same for funerals, football events, and some creative instances such as getting your ancient car fixed! Yes, they do know that 'what goes up, comes down', but that won't change it. It is a bad habit indeed but if you lived here rest assured that you would be doing the same. Every individual is a product of his society.

...Nick Berg, just like Daniel Pearl, was slaughtered in precisely the same manner as a sheep during the Eid-el-Adha (feast of the sacrifice). Laid on his side, Mr. Berg's throat was cut while his killers repeated over and over again Allahu-Akhbar, Allahu-Akhbar, Allahu-Akhbar. These madmen think that they are slaughtering a human being in a somehow "Islamic" or "Halal" way, that by doing it like this they are fullfilling God's wishes.

Ritual slaughter of livestock as practiced by many Muslims is a celebration of God's mercy in staying Abraham's hand, although Abraham was ready to slaughter his own son at God's will. Every time a Muslim ritually slaughters a sheep, it is God's mercy that is celebrated. In order for a slaughter to be acceptable, it must be done in a certain way; the animal is laid on its side, and as the throat is cut, the words Allahu Akhbar (God is Greater) are uttered. As is obvious in the video (even if you don't understand Arabic), this is how Mr. Berg is murdered.

Allahu-Akhbar. The fact of these words being used in such a way is sickening...

If I were in charge of a bureau of reporters in Iraq -- are you listening NY Times, Washington Post, FoxNews, NBC, CBS, ABC, Reuters, BBC? -- I would assign one reporter, just one, to the rebuilding beat.

There are plenty of reporters -- hell, every reporter in the country -- assigned to the police beat, the blood-and-guts beat, the who-shot-whom today beat. When I worked in Chicago and San Francisco and New York, we had one or two reporters in the cop shop covering all that. We had hundreds of reporters covering the rest of life.

I see no reporters covering the rest of life in Iraq. The stories would be easy to get; all you have to do is read a few of the Iraqi weblogs. Read Zeyad or read Omar...Or read posts like this from Mohammad:...

WASHINGTON, May 14, 2004 - Two new military commands will stand up in Iraq May 15, replacing the current coalition military organization.

Multinational Corps Iraq and Multinational Force Iraq will replace Combined Joint Task Force 7.

Coalition military spokesman Army Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt, at a Baghdad news conference today, said the change addresses a concern that a combined joint task force headquarters was not sufficient to handle the military workload in Iraq efficiently.

"It's certainly more than a formality," he said. "It is trying to get the proper command structure for the days, weeks and months ahead."

Kimmitt explained that Multinational Corps Iraq will focus on the tactical fight -- the day-to-day military operations and the maneuvering of the six multinational divisions on the ground. Army Lt. Gen. Thomas F. Metz will command the corps. Meanwhile, Multinational Force Iraq will focus on more strategic aspects of the military presence in Iraq, such as talking with sheiks and political leaders, and on training, equipping and fielding Iraqi security forces.

Multinational Force Iraq "will certainly be involved in the tactical operations, but only to the extent that they have somewhat of an operational and strategic impact on this country," Kimmitt said. Army Lt. Gen. Ricardo S. Sanchez, current CJTF 7 commander who will head MNF Iraq, already has been working the strategic issues, and the new command structure will enable him to focus more of his time and energy in that direction, Kimmitt said.

...we will have exponentially magnified the mistakes made in Abu Ghraib if we allow these abuses to destroy our goal of a free and democratic Iraq. Success in Iraq remains possible, and it is more necessary now than ever...

...we must begin with an immediate and significant increase in our troop levels. We should sharply increase the number of troops, including Marines and Special Operations forces, to conduct offensive operations, and add other types of forces, including linguists, intelligence officers and civil affairs officers...

...Our retreat from Fallujah has emboldened the insurgents and convinced some Iraqis that America lacks the will or the means to enforce its demands. While it is difficult to criticize tactical decisions from Washington, our personnel in Iraq must show the determination to keep their promises. Our troops can display full resolve only by exercising the military action necessary to back up the words of political authorities. Part of this determination must mean a quick end to all independent militias in Iraq...

[...]

...The handover should represent a short-term transfer of sovereignty to a caretaker government that will quickly pave the way for elections. No Iraqi government can derive legitimacy simply through selection by the United Nations or the United States. Real legitimacy is derived only from the free choice of the Iraqi people.

For this reason, we should strongly consider moving up the date of the planned elections from January to this fall. Iraqis currently have little opportunity to turn their political desires into government decisions, and Shiite, Sunni and Kurdish Iraqis all fear losing out in a political process dominated by outsiders. In this atmosphere, some have turned to violence, and more may follow. The political focus in Iraq should revolve around waging and winning elections, not around currying favor with or opposing the United Nations and the United States. Accordingly, the United States and the United Nations should move ahead as quickly as possible with a full plan for democratic elections, one that will ensure that Iraqi liberals can compete fairly in local constituencies with Islamists organized nationally.

In Iraq our national security interests and our national values converge. Iraq is the test of a generation, for America and for our role in the world. We will endure setbacks, as the past weeks have painfully illustrated. But our focus must remain on our ultimate objective: helping to fashion a responsible and representative Iraqi government, with legitimacy in the eyes of Iraqis and the world. We do not have the luxury of time.

Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld and one of his top aides authorized the expansion of a secret program that permitted harsh interrogations of detained members of Al Qaeda, allowing these methods to be used against prisoners at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, according to an article in The New Yorker.

The article, by Seymour M. Hersh, reported that Mr. Rumsfeld and Stephen A. Cambone, the undersecretary of defense for intelligence, approved the use of the tougher interrogation techniques in Iraq in 2003 to extract better information from Iraqi prisoners to counter the growing insurgency threat in the country.

Mr. Hersh's account, to be published in the May 24 issue of the magazine, said that the expansion of the "special access program" allowed authorities in charge of Abu Ghraib to engage in degrading and sexually humiliating practices...

[...]

A military official who worked in Iraq on detention issues said on Saturday that a covert task force of military and intelligence officers had operated in Iraq, but that it had appeared to limit its contact with the jailers at Abu Ghraib.

The official said that the covert operators worked out of their own highly secret and well-guarded compound in Baghdad, where they held captives incommunicado and questioned them for relatively short periods of time before turning them over to the jailers at Abu Ghraib.

"They had their own mission," the official said. "They picked up their own people. They were operating under their own rules. So we had nothing to do with that. It would have been a huge security violation for anyone else to be in there."

The official said the group was no longer working in Iraq.

The official said the Baghdad compound where the team worked was so closely controlled that other military and intelligence personnel could not enter it without having clearance or the authorization of the commander of American forces in Iraq, Lt. Gen. Ricardo S. Sanchez. The official declined to discuss what interrogation techniques the covert team used, but said it generally turned over prisoners to Abu Ghraib after 72 hours.

[...]

Mr. Hersh wrote, [the solution to the insrugent problem] "was to get tough with those Iraqis in the Army prison system who were suspected of being insurgents." Mr. Rumsfeld and Mr. Cambone went a step further, the article said, expanding the scope of a secret program by "bringing its unconventional methods to Abu Ghraib. The commandos were to operate in Iraq as they had in Afghanistan."

[...]

At the Pentagon, the chief spokesman, Lawrence Di Rita, vigorously denied the allegations that Mr. Cambone directed a covert program to encourage the coercion and sexual humiliation of Iraqi prisoners.

"It's pure, unadulterated fantasy," Mr. Di Rita said in a telephone interview. "We don't discuss covert programs, but nothing in any covert program would have led anyone to sanction activity like what was seen on those videos."

"No responsible official in this department, including Secretary Rumsfeld, would or could have been involved in sanctioning the physical coercion or sexual humiliation of Iraqi prisoners," Mr. Di Rita said.

Some elements of the New Yorker article have been previously reported, including the special interrogation program for Qaeda prisoners captured in Afghanistan. That program, authorized by government legal opinions that said that Qaeda prisoners were "illegal combatants" not protected by the Geneva Conventions...

"Assertions apparently being made in the latest New Yorker article on Abu Ghraib and the abuse of Iraqi detainees are outlandish, conspiratorial, and filled with error and anonymous conjecture.

"The abuse evidenced in the videos and photos, and any similar abuse that may come to light in any of the ongoing half dozen investigations into this matter, has no basis in any sanctioned program, training manual, instruction, or order in the Department of Defense.

"No responsible official of the Department of Defense approved any program that could conceivably have been intended to result in such abuses as witnessed in the recent photos and videos.

"To correct one of the many errors in fact, Undersecretary Cambone has no responsibility, nor has he had any responsibility in the past, for detainee or interrogation programs in Afghanistan, Iraq, or anywhere else in the world.

"This story seems to reflect the fevered insights of those with little, if any, connection to the activities in the Department of Defense."

...the situation in Najaf is different from that in Fallujah because the Shiites are themselves divided, whereas in Fallujah the Sunnis were relatively united.
[...]
The reason the disunity matters is that it allows the US to be more successful in its siege of Najaf than it was in Fallujah....Because Grand Ayatollah Sistani and Abdul Aziz al-Hakim are actively colluding with the Americans to destroy Sadr and his militia, the US can hope to succeed by force, without having to do the hard work of making a political deal with the Sadrists.

Muqtada himself is largely responsible for his lack of significant Shiite allies, since he has deliberately alienated them all by bullying and threatening them...

...is the video executioner of Nicholas Berg in any way morally deficient compared to the general or politician who gives an order that - whatever the intention - will almost certainly lead to the death of an innocent somewhere?
[...]
...The beheading of Nick Berg has now become probably the most public execution ever staged...The accompanying statement was all about retrieving honour and averting shame. So, the shame of Islam could be partly mitigated by the decapitation of any American that the killers could get their hands on.
[...]
...until very recently women (and men) were being stoned to death in Iran for adultery. In July 2001, according to the Financial Times, a Maryam Ayoubi was executed at Tehran's Evin prison at dawn. Iranian newspapers carried an account of her being ritually washed, wrapped in a white shroud and then carried to the place of execution on a stretcher where she was buried up to her armpits. There were many such stonings during the Nineties.

In 2003 an aide to the governor of the Iranian province of Khuzestan told the press that his office had received reports of the murder of 45 young women in a two-month period in honour killings. None of these crimes were prosecuted. Honour killings are rife in Pakistan, and there are a large number in Iraqi Kurdistan. In Jordan the sentence for carrying out an honour killing is set at six months. In the first part of this year more than a dozen Jordanian women were killed by their relations for having 'sullied the reputation of their family'.

And just so that we have an idea of what we may be talking about here, a fortnight ago there was a report from Istanbul about the trial of the father and brothers of a 14-year-old girl. This child had been raped and imprisoned by another man. The men of the family, from eastern Turkey, held a council and decided their honour could only be salvaged if the girl was killed. She was strangled by her father with a piece of electrical flex. He told police: 'She begged as I was strangling her ... but I did not take notice of her cries.'

In Baghdad a month ago...I spoke with a representative of Moqtada al-Sadr. There were two things that concerned this cleric most about the new Iraq. The first was the rights of minorities to exercise a constitutional veto, which he opposed, and the second - more substantial - concerned his rejection of a code enshrining equality for women. He wanted it to be illegal to dress 'immodestly', for example. This was his red line.

Now, this is not a matter of Islam versus Western values per se. Those who have campaigned hardest against honour killings have been Muslims themselves, and the tribal values that are enshrined in the commodification of women precede Islam. In Jordan, Queen Rania has come out for tougher laws but until now she has been thwarted by Islamist parties in the Jordanian parliament, who complain about a possible breakdown of family values if men are punished for killing erring wives and daughters.

Last September, in Britain, Abdulla Muhammad Yunis was sentenced to life imprisonment for killing his 16-year-old daughter, Heshu. The judge, passing sentence, said it was 'a tragic story arising out of irreconcilable cultural differences between traditional Kurdish values and the values of Western society'. An organisation called Kurdish Women Action Against Honour Killing wrote to him and rejected the possible logic of his words. The group demanded 'the recognition and insistence that universal human rights must be a redeemable promissory note for all ... With the turning of a 'blind eye', the notion of human rights loses meaning as a set of principles that govern all.'

Do we agree with this? And if we agree with it here, why would we not agree with it in Iraq or anywhere else? True, an easy assumption of superior virtue can blind you to what is good about others and what is bad about yourself. But do we really believe that it is the same thing accidentally to kill a civilian with a bomb as it is to cut off his head on camera?...