Muddle in the Puddle
Ritzy’s Weekly Eye on Cairo’s English Papers. If you want to know what Al-Ahram is writing this week but like everybody else think they are too dull to bother reading, bear with me a minute and I’ll run through this weeks content with you:
“The one thing all candidates promises are change” promises the lead article that then goes on to introduce Mubarak’ election agenda and briefly mentions the other candidates in the remaining one quarter of space. (Part of the blame, I assume, is that the opposition don’t have much to say anyway). At the same time, Ahram is writing about a USAID sponsored workshop that will teach Egyptian journalist’s objectivity in covering elections – handy thing to get to know a few weeks before the poll. Hmm. Wonder when that will be introduced in journalism-schools? Also, The Presidential Elections Commission has already received complaints that campaign regulations are being infringed. Surprise surprise.
Next up is an article discussing the opposition’s economic programs for reform, followed by a report on the Muslim Brotherhood and its pondering of whether they should boycott the elections or not. For no other reason it would be good fun if they decided to mobilize their troops to throw their votes. Yesterday’s reading of the paper edition took five minutes instead of the usual two and that’s because I found an article about Pope Shenouda’s controversial embracement of the incumbent candidate. Critics point out that if he is speaking on behalf of all Christians, they’re reduced to a sect where individuals have no political will.
Opinion-wise, national head-intellectual, Abdel-Moneim Said, is asking why the Chinese aren’t blowing bombs on the London Underground if it is oppression that creates terrorists. After all, China was colonized too. He doesn’t ask if it is the current oppression of Arab people who are fuelling anger. How could he?
Another opinion-piece by Immanuel Wallerstein is re-saying what last week’s pieces in Slate and NYT were claiming: The War is Over – meaning the game is lost. Yani, “don’t get in, oh you’re in then get out of there” has been the national intelligentsias position since day one but no one ever seemed to bother to ask what the Iraqi people wish (which incidentally is that the coalition should leave after security has been achieved).
Personally, I say the war was over (won) the day the last battalion of Saddam loyalists took of their shoes and ran into the desert; the statue fell and the ex-president was found in a rabbit-hole. The rest is charity with self-interest: killing off the last resistance is more attractive than putting the Muslim aliens residing in the US and Europe in intention camps and closing the entrance gates for fifty years ahead. Harsh as it sound and bizarre as it is, that is the option. Unfortunately, appeasing the terrorists and hoping future attacks will not happen because the US are kind will not work. Sad, I know.
Wallerstein on the other hand believes the situation is lost because a) the US can’t win against the resistance; b) the Iraqi’s can’t draft a constitution and will not be able to establish a stable government and; c) Bush is loosing his support at home. He is wrong on all points.
There is increased violence and there are plenty of successful missions to root out violence. It will continue, yes, but the supplies of willing volunteers streaming in from other countries are not endless and quite frankly, in White House terms, the fact that they’re entering Iraq and haven’t succeeded with an attack in the US in the past 47 months is a success as well.
The Iraqi’s exercised their right to delay the constitution, a clever move; there is no rush although it is important they move on. It is a difficult task but if you believe they are incapable of it you might as well say that Negroes are only good for running fast and climbing in trees; the basic racist attitude is the same.
Finally, opinions fluctuate and are not Bush’s primary drive for continuing in Iraq and wouldn’t be even if he could stand for a third term. He is convinced he is doing the right thing; for Iraq, for the US and for the rest of the world. You might not agree with him but it is still wise to see things for what they are.
“The one thing all candidates promises are change” promises the lead article that then goes on to introduce Mubarak’ election agenda and briefly mentions the other candidates in the remaining one quarter of space. (Part of the blame, I assume, is that the opposition don’t have much to say anyway). At the same time, Ahram is writing about a USAID sponsored workshop that will teach Egyptian journalist’s objectivity in covering elections – handy thing to get to know a few weeks before the poll. Hmm. Wonder when that will be introduced in journalism-schools? Also, The Presidential Elections Commission has already received complaints that campaign regulations are being infringed. Surprise surprise.
Next up is an article discussing the opposition’s economic programs for reform, followed by a report on the Muslim Brotherhood and its pondering of whether they should boycott the elections or not. For no other reason it would be good fun if they decided to mobilize their troops to throw their votes. Yesterday’s reading of the paper edition took five minutes instead of the usual two and that’s because I found an article about Pope Shenouda’s controversial embracement of the incumbent candidate. Critics point out that if he is speaking on behalf of all Christians, they’re reduced to a sect where individuals have no political will.
Opinion-wise, national head-intellectual, Abdel-Moneim Said, is asking why the Chinese aren’t blowing bombs on the London Underground if it is oppression that creates terrorists. After all, China was colonized too. He doesn’t ask if it is the current oppression of Arab people who are fuelling anger. How could he?
Another opinion-piece by Immanuel Wallerstein is re-saying what last week’s pieces in Slate and NYT were claiming: The War is Over – meaning the game is lost. Yani, “don’t get in, oh you’re in then get out of there” has been the national intelligentsias position since day one but no one ever seemed to bother to ask what the Iraqi people wish (which incidentally is that the coalition should leave after security has been achieved).
Personally, I say the war was over (won) the day the last battalion of Saddam loyalists took of their shoes and ran into the desert; the statue fell and the ex-president was found in a rabbit-hole. The rest is charity with self-interest: killing off the last resistance is more attractive than putting the Muslim aliens residing in the US and Europe in intention camps and closing the entrance gates for fifty years ahead. Harsh as it sound and bizarre as it is, that is the option. Unfortunately, appeasing the terrorists and hoping future attacks will not happen because the US are kind will not work. Sad, I know.
Wallerstein on the other hand believes the situation is lost because a) the US can’t win against the resistance; b) the Iraqi’s can’t draft a constitution and will not be able to establish a stable government and; c) Bush is loosing his support at home. He is wrong on all points.
There is increased violence and there are plenty of successful missions to root out violence. It will continue, yes, but the supplies of willing volunteers streaming in from other countries are not endless and quite frankly, in White House terms, the fact that they’re entering Iraq and haven’t succeeded with an attack in the US in the past 47 months is a success as well.
The Iraqi’s exercised their right to delay the constitution, a clever move; there is no rush although it is important they move on. It is a difficult task but if you believe they are incapable of it you might as well say that Negroes are only good for running fast and climbing in trees; the basic racist attitude is the same.
Finally, opinions fluctuate and are not Bush’s primary drive for continuing in Iraq and wouldn’t be even if he could stand for a third term. He is convinced he is doing the right thing; for Iraq, for the US and for the rest of the world. You might not agree with him but it is still wise to see things for what they are.
posted by ritzy @ 9:40 pm
<< Home