FOREIGNID: 83418
FOREIGNPARENTID: 0
FOREIGNCOMMENTERID: 2955
AUTHOR: tristero
DATE: 01/14/2006 10:20:16 AM

Posted at January 14, 2006 10:20 AM in response to Say Anything

FOREIGNID: 82836
FOREIGNPARENTID: 0
FOREIGNCOMMENTERID: 2955
AUTHOR: tristero
DATE: 01/12/2006 07:09:17 AM

Posted at January 12, 2006 7:09 AM in response to Price Tag

What branch of the military did he serve in? From when to when? What combat did he see? How did he distinguish himself as a warrior? Or is he just metaphorically a warrior? Like Jon Stewart is metaphorically a news anchor? 
If the latter, why should I care one way or the other whether this fake warrior got turned down for a prestigious gig by someone else who, whatever his qualifications, doesn't seem to be a fake anything?

Posted at November 25, 2005 2:12 PM in response to Institutional Suicide at Brookings? Talbott Shuns Ivo Daalder -- Hires Unknown Carlos Pasqual

"the parallel is a lot eerier than I, for one, thought a year or two ago."
Todd, 
With all due respect, you being a "real journalist" and all, but what on earth took you so long? The parallels between Vietnam and Iraq were as obvious a year ago as they are today. (As were the differences, duh.)
What happened to your streetsmarts, my friend?

Posted at November 25, 2005 2:03 PM in response to How Bad are the Media in Iraq?

Islamism - what you're calling "political islam"- does have many parallels to the official cultural ideology of the Bush administration:
1. They hate liberals and religious moderates.2. True power comes from God backed with a gun, and nukes if they can get them.3. They are obsessed with controlling sexual behavior.4. They detest compromise.5. They term the conflict a "clash of civilizations," or use similarly apocalyptic language, ie. "jihad" for "crusade."6.  They are contemptuous of reason, but masters at modern communications technology.7.  Their most prominent leader is a tight-assed religious fanatic from a fabulously wealthy and influential family.8. They have no respect for democratic process: Power is force, period.
Now, if those are your values and mindset, and you think those are genuine American values, then in a very real sense, the spread of Islamism is in America's interest. I'm only half-joking.
I also think that we who cherish reality tend to underestimate the Rapture gang and their influence. I remind you: Jerry Boykin was never fired or pushed aside. He was just told to keep his trap shut. 
Sparking a holy war, which the Bush administration seems to be hellbent on doing, is necessary to get Christ down off his heavenly throne and kick off the Second Coming. 

Posted at November 17, 2005 12:46 PM in response to It's Not Just History

Predicated on a government run by amateurs? That's news to me. I thought it was predicated on a government run by citizens elected to do so. Amateurism is not a job requirement, as far as I knew.
But that's hardly the point. The point is that the folks who are presumed expert in Islam, etc. aren't. Yet they write as if they are. I'm glad your cousin is fluent in Arabic and briefs the US government but that doesn't solve my problem, which is obtaining information that is not secondhand. 
I would like to know that the books I read that profess to analyze Islam and Islamism are written by someone who actually knows enough to speak the language. I submit that it is impossible to have expertise on a country, let alone a culture as multi-faceted as Islam, without being able to read and converse in at least some of the relevant languages.

Posted at November 16, 2005 8:04 AM in response to The Problem with Political Islam

Bob's post perfectly illustrates what I've been saying since before the Afghan invasion: the United States has no clue what it has been dealing with.
Unfortunately, the state of American scholarship on Islamism, and Islam in general, is so woefully low that people who can't understand Arabic, let alone Persian, Pashtun, and numerous other languages and dialects, are deemed experts on Islam, Islamism, and the countries where Muslims predominate.
To amateurs like myself, it is very distressing to have to depend upon the opinions of fellow amateurs, no matter how sincere, careful, and intelligent. 
I need far more substantive analysis than that which can be provided by people who can't skim the newspapers or broadcasts in, say, Syria, let alone talk to people in their own language, for clues as to what is going on.
What is truly amazing is that most commentators, here and elsewhere, don't see a problem with this kind of amateurism. I think people have become so inured to fake news and fake expertise that they no longer care enough to demand the real thing. 
Considering how vital it is that the US understand the numerous Islams and Islamisms out there, I can only shake my head in amazement at how low public discourse has sunk. That men and women are deemed experts on a country when they haven't even bothered to acquire skills necessary to understand the languages spoken in that country - and that smart Americans think that's no big deal - now, that is very, very weird.

Posted at November 16, 2005 6:01 AM in response to The Problem with Political Islam

A study based purely on English-language literature that was informed by fluency in the language and culture of the societies under question could tell us a lot more.
Given that the US government and so many "experts" got so much wrong about al Qaeda, it would seem to me that fluency in Arabic would be prerequisite number one when discussing Islamism from the standpoint of an expert, be s/he journalist or historian. 
How can a journalist write accurately about a culture whose language s/he cannot understand? 
And we most certainly need a high degree of accuracy. After all, this isn't about the nuance of American conflicts with traditional culture in Northern Finland. This is about understanding a movement that nearly succeeded in their efforts to decapitate the US government. 
If I wanted to be thought expert about the Soviet Union, it would be naturally assumed that I was fluent in Russian. I don't see any reason why such standards should be abandoned when discussing Islamism. 

Posted at November 14, 2005 8:59 AM in response to Why I Wrote Devil's Game

Robert,
I notice that you write that you interviewed and researched American officials and documents. This begs some important questions:
1. Did you speak to anyone on the "Islamic Right?"
2. If so, did you use a translator?
3. If you did, how can you be personally sure that you are receiving accurate translations of conversations? Were recordings translated by a second interpreter? 
4. More importantly, if you can't understand the languages, how can you be sure that some of the most basic research material - newspaper and television reports - haven't been, no matter how inadvertently, cherry-picked for you by your translators? Or that their importance has been properly gauged, at least from your own point of view?
I hasten to add that when dealing with, say, Europe, extensive language skills are assumed. And for such very good reasons no one bothers to make them explicit. I wonder why, if you don't have comparable language skills and background in Islam, I should consider seriously the ideas in your book.
I really this is an impolite post, but to continue in my blunt fashion, the level of knowledge required to claim expertise in Islam is so woefully low that it makes it all but impossible for those of us who are admitted amateurs to find genuinely accurate information.
I do not think it is possible to analyze with any sense of reliability the failures of US policy towards political Islam, or its successes, unless one is equally conversant with the persons and documents of Islamism. Admittedly, access to individuals may be difficult, but there is no reason to compound that limited access by not having the requisite language skills or background in the cultures.
Needless to say, if you do speak Arabic and some other languages, I apologize profusely for the clear intent of these questions.

Posted at November 14, 2005 7:42 AM in response to Why I Wrote Devil's Game

"To be honest I can understand why some people support torture."
To be honest, I can't.

Posted at November 13, 2005 3:01 PM in response to Media For Torture