New lamps and old ones?

        Mohammed Amir Ahmed Khan in the Tehelka on how things will be the same whoever wins the US presidential elections this November. I agree with him on this(my take). However he extends this to propose that it doesn't make much of difference whoever wins and puts forward the argument that all presidents have continued a common strand of foreign policy.

        I have my issues with that argument. It is true that many of the existing issues that face America and the world will not, in any way, 'change'(as some of the campaign slogans seem to imply). But it is equally true that a lot of new crisis situations can be avoided depending on whoever comes to power. Al Gore becoming the president in 2000 would have meant the continuation of lot of foreign policy high-handedness, but one can safely assume that Gore would not have invaded Iraq.

        John McCain is after all the author of the famous song..."Bomb bomb bomb bomb bomb..Iran". Assuming that a McCain presidency and an Obama presidency will have the same impact worldwide is stretching it a bit too far. In case of the latter, Iraq will still fester, Palestinians will still be ghettoized in their own homeland and the military-industrial complex will still exert great influence, but the least one one can hope for is a better approach to Iran and for all you know Cuba and Venezuela as well.

Optmistic Ravings eh? Let's see.

A more scholarly study on McCain's militaristic credentials.

'Cultural Clashes'?--solution Said

Two interesting pieces on the American experience in Iraq

The LA Times on "cultural clashes" in Iraq.

        I found it yet another amazing instance of how stupidity is such an integral part of every layer of human interaction. Leaving aside the criminal negligence of Blackwater Corp and the pathetic attempts by the US. authorities to buy off the victims and their near and dear, what is infinitely annoying is the "o-so-matter-of fact" and "know-it-all" tone adopted by the newspaper in reporting the issue. Take a look at this:

"But traditional Arab society values honor and decorum above all. If a man kills or badly injures someone in an accident, both families convene a tribal summit. The perpetrator admits responsibility, commiserates with the victim, pays medical expenses and other compensation, all over glasses of tea in a tribal tent."

        And this is not a quote but a comment by the authors of this piece. This comment and the rest of the article completely recreate the old, oft-repeated stereotype of the strange, exotic, obscure Arab who just cannot understand plain common sense/logic/reason blinded as he is by a weird set of irrational webs comprising archaic, irrelevant concepts. Of course, it is to be noted that "plain common sense" in this case would be accepting some money and keeping quiet when your loved ones have been killed for no reason whatsoever. And the LA Times is supposedly liberal. So be careful the next time you are asked to proclaim your political affiliation on a social networking site.

A 'response' was posted here.

"If Orientalism had been widely read among the military and foreign affairs folks, perhaps the attitudes of some highly influential people would not have been quite so smug. Perhaps they would have entertained a few more doubts. Perhaps the thought of torturing their fellow human beings might have made them a bit queasy."

        A fascinating read, if only for the elevated level of wishful thinking. I mean, unlike "if everyone had money nobody would be poor" and "if men truly respected women there would be no harassment", the author speculates about how reading Orientalism would have made a bit of a difference in Iraq. The major fact being ignored is that while "Ideas have consequences", an idea itself does not stand in isolation. The circumstances under which an idea comes to prominence also ensure that it gains prominence among certain groups at certain times. Speculating beyond those boundaries makes for entertaining reading but..

HT: Matthew Yglesias