Define "Win"

by Dick Mac

Resources will not win this war, but under-resourcing could lose it, Gen. Stanley McChrystal wrote in a five-page Commander's Summary.

The enemy we are fighting in Afghanistan is not the Afghan people, nor is it really al-qaeda; the enemy we are fighting is the people of the Middle East who fund Islamic jihad that results in terrorism (crime).

We are not fighting a military, we are fighting a notion, an idea. If we want to squash that idea (an idea I believe is worth squashing), we have to go to war with the nations that fund, support, and promote that notion: Saudi Arabia and the other sheikdoms that Texas oilmen consider their closest allies.

If we funded the overthrow of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, we would further the cause of peace, further women's rights by nearly a millennium, and help sensitize the world to the plight of homosexuals whose lives are criminalized by theocratic rule.

Sure, sending more troops to Afghanistan will result in more dead people and more conquered regions that can be displayed as "victories"; but, until the sheikdoms of the Middle East are forced into the 20th Century, and their theocratic rulers dethroned, killed or imprisoned, there is no "win" possible in Afghanistan.

See you at the gas pumps!

Fundamentalism and Theocracy - Entertainment for the weekend

by Dick Mac

I have always maintained that the most dangerous countries in the world are theocracies. Iran, The Vatican, and Israel, all nations built, to some degree or another, on religious tenets, have been the most difficult nations for the international community to deal with.

Afghanistan, under the Taliban, was as hideous as the other three, but we have successfully destabilized that nightmare. And although the killing in Afghanistan continues, it seems that a secular government will form and those people will be freed from theocratic tyranny.

My fear for the United States since the election of Ronald Reagan and the promotion and success of Christian fundamentalism, is that we are surging towards a theocratic structure that has not really been stemmed, yet. The election of a two Democrats since 1980 has done nothing to hamper the rise of American fundamentalism. in fact, the current American president invited a pro-theocracy (which is intrinsically anti-Democracy) bigoted minister to preside over his coronation.

Iran, though, remains the most dangerous theocracy, because unlike Israel and The Vatican, there are no Western powers keeping them in check. They are like the neighborhood bullies, henchmen, and thugs for the more respectable Arab nations in the Middle East. They do the dirty work that our "allies" in Saudi Arabia can't be seen doing: promoting terror, acquiring nuclear weapons, and the like. Iran is relied-upon by some of our allies to be the bully of the oil cartels.

American fundamentalists cannot be relied upon to stop Iran, because they are intrinsically prone to support religious-based rule, whether it is Christian, Muslim, or Jewish.

So, we sit and watch as the fundamentalists in Iran plan their next repressive move, which will likely come this weekend. Television commentators will feign shock, as if this is somehow out of the ordinary, that this is somehow not what Americans want. In reality, Americans don't care what happens to Iran, any more than they care what happens to the United States. The news from Iran is entertainment. The reassertion of fundamentalism in Iran will be a welcome sideshow to this week's College World Series and Major League baseball's ongoing steroids promotion.

Fundamentalism will assert itself anew in the Middle East and the American president will promote fundamentalism in the Untied States by ensuring further repression of the rights of homosexuals, and the Israelis will kill some more Muslims in Palestine or Lebanon.

Theocracy will continue to gain popularity and most Americans won't even pay any attention.

Theocracy and religious fundamentalism are the most dangerous socio-political movements in the world.

Pay attention.

Here's a hodge-podge of stuff I've read recently:

Iran’s Supreme Leader Warns Protesters

Conservative Christians: Obama's Gay Benefits Order Approximates Marriage

Israel garbled Lebanon phone networks

And there's always:

Left I on the News

Religious Extremism

by Dick Mac

Who are the religious extremists? Karl Rove, Billy Graham, Jim Jones, David Koresh, Sarah Palin, various ayatollahs, imams, bishops, rabbis and other clerics, heads of theocratic and Zionist states, television preachers?

We all have opinions about extremism. My opinions are generally colored by my objection to theocracy. Religious foolishness considered rules and guidelines by individual religious people should never be the foundation for a nation's laws. Of course, our governments are informed by our cultural experience and our cultural experience is informed by our religious beliefs; but, we all know where the line should be drawn.

Well, intelligent, analytical people know how to draw the line. Smart people (like Karl Rove) who allow the manipulation of religion for personal gain are dangerous, and not-so-smart people (like Sarah Palin) who actually believe crap like "abstinence is the only way to prevent teenage pregnancy and sexually-transmitted diseases" are their handmaidens.

The American Born-Again movement is probably the most dangerous religious movement on the planet. In the past 30 years they helped elect a series of Presidents (one in particular, twice) who have endangered our nation's security and our standing in the world AND our economy.

The second most dangerous religious movement in the world is the Taliban, operating in Pakistan and Afghanistan. Their implementation of sharia law, with the blessings of the American right, is nothing short of terror.

Recently, the following video was distributed. It shows a 17-year-old girl being publicly flogged by adults. This is on the level of 17th Century American justice for women and lesbians accused of being witches. And that is how we should think of the Taliban (and their apologists and supporters): as 17th Century thinkers who need to be kept out of power and disenfranchised.

The video is disturbing:



Read more at Jihad Watch here, where some translation is offered.