Friday, June 30, 2006
Vengeance Surrealism & Independence
Bin Laden has released a new tape in the wake of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi's death praising his struggle in Iraq. It's hard to know what the Arab Street makes of this. Perhaps Bin Laden isn't the shining example of Islamic ascendancy to many he once was. These days it seems Arabs kill more Arabs in the name of Allah than are killed by any other cause. Ayman al-Zawahri had sent a message to Zarqawi at one point counseling him to knock it off with all the killing of Iraqi civilians. In the Arabic Islam world of Zarqawi and others it isn't enough to follow Muhammad, but you must follow the exact right flavor of Islam or else be labeled an apostate and be labled for death. Funny, I can't remember the last time a Methodist faction bombed a Catholic Church -- though maybe this type of thing would be more common if there was a complete breakdown of order in America or Europe.
Bin Laden's audio tape (the fourth this year alone versus none in 2005) follows on the heels of two Zawahri video tapes; these guys are talking just a little bit too much for their own good in my opinion. Things are not going well for them and I suspect these efforts of theirs to rally the troops will instead finally lead the US or allies to both of them in less than six months. Lord help the Democrats if it's before the November elections. Both Bin Laden and Zawahri promise vengeance for the death of Zarqawi. So before they were just trying to kill us in the name of Allah... but now it's personal. Note to Bin Laden and Zawahri: threats of vengeance are much more effective when you haven't already made previous promises to kill us.
In contrast to this, and certainly more surreal, is Japanese Prime Minister Koizumi's visit to Graceland with President Bush. Koizumi seen on camera singing snippets of Evils tunes, imitating Elvis' judo moves, and hugging Lisa Maria Presley -- you know the Scientology nut job that was married to Michael Jackson, oh wait I guess she is Elvis's daughter also. Call me crazy, but I'd prefer my world leaders to travel in more dignified circles, especially at time of war and with certain nations currently playing nuclear-warhead-capable-carrying chicken with missiles. But then hobnobbing with the famous and near famous is what politicians do.
Swinging back to more sober matters, I can't help but be amazed by the struggle between Hamas and Israel. Given the desperate financial mess the Palestinians have found themselves in after voting Hamas to power, Hamas seem to have gone for broke in attempting to irritate Israel. I'm not quite sure Israel's overreaction to the kidnapping of one Israeli soldier on Israeli soil is quite what they wanted or expected, but in light of not being able to do anything else for the Palestinians they've gone the martyrdom route again. As long as the struggle goes on and Hamas continues to poke Israel with a stick, it seems the Palestinians' will continue to back Hamas. Self-determination doesn't seem to be a panacea for the ills of the world. The Palestinians' almost certainly chose unwisely in what would bring near term relief for them in electing Hamas, and the current actions of Hamas can only be considered wise in the long run if Israel is eventually destroyed (a seeming unlikely outcome).
Nations like Somalia would seemingly rather tear themselves apart than brook US and UN interference. Yet (and much to my wife's consternation) the US backs independence for Tibet from China, whose people she feels have generally benefited from China's governing. Almost universally in America it is accepted as an article of faith that the South should not have been allowed to secede from the Union in our own Civil War. So I guess the larger question is when is it to be encouraged for regions to break away and become autonomous, and when not? Chechnya had America's sympathy for seeking independence from Russia until we recognized they where employing mostly the same terrorists methods as al-Qaida (though before 9/11 the US largely ignored whatever methods the Chechens were fighting with). America has supported numerous South American insurgencies in the past. What made them "good" ones? During the Cold War whom to back was an easy call; insurgencies against Communist countries where supported (whether the people generally supported their Communist Government or not); and insurgencies against Capitalist governments (even those corrupt, despotic, or dictatorial) where to be stamped out. Without this guiding (though flawed) principle it is hard to know where America should intercede (or at a minimum support) and where not (my wife would say always "not"). Many would say "oil" is America's new guiding light. I'm not quite to the point where I believe my Government is so self-serving and greedy, but if your Politics run counter to America's AND you have oil under your feet, well it's probably not a good combination for you.
