Now that this Administration is toying with the temptation
of dragging us into yet a third war
in (or against) Iraq, we should
pause and once again set the
record straight about the name of our new foe: ISIS or ISIL?
We examined the matter from a linguistic perspective at great length here:
Upshot: “Levant”,
rather than “Syria” (in its contemporary sense) is more accurate -- and indeed,
in ways crucial to policy-making -- as a translation of the Arabic term in the
group’s (former) official name, al-Shâm.
Updated upshot:
Now that ISIL has morphed into plain IS, the “Islamic State” tout court (et tout grand), claiming the status of a Caliphate, the distinction between “Levant” and “(lesser,
nation-state) Syria” falls moot.
They want it all. At a minimum, de jure, the whole of the ummah, the Islamic oecumene; long-term, the entire planet, since it
is a settled point of Muslim doctrine that Islam is the natural, inborn state of mankind (left to himself,
Robinson Crusoe becomes a de facto Muslim); only via parental manipulation does the child get twisted
into becoming a Magian (or other sects we shall not mention).
[Herewith the original posting from 10 Aug 2014]
In her column this morning, after quoting some correct
linguistic information from the BBC, Maureen Dowd goes on to get matters exactly backwards:
It’s a bit odd that the
administration is using “the Levant,” given that it conjures up a colonial
association from the early 20th century, when Britain and France drew their
maps, carving up Mesopotamia guided by economic gain rather than tribal
allegiances. Unless it’s a nostalgic nod to a time when puppets were more
malleable and grateful to their imperial overlords.
It was precisely to oppose the legitimacy of colonial
arrangements, that ISIL chose the term al-Shâm
‘Levant’ rather than Sûrîa ‘modern
Syria’. The latter was a
post-WWI colonial creation; the
Levant has been there since the beginning of time. Additionally, the choice of the geographically more
inclusive name early signaled
their outsized ambitions.
In quite the same fashion, jihadis regularly refuse to use
the official terms for modern Muslim nation-states, substituting words with
hoary historical associations:
instead of Egypt, “the Land of Kinânah” (after an ancient
tribe); instead of Afghanistan or Pakistan, “Khurasân” (sort of “AfPak plus”); instead of Iraq, “the Nation
of the Two Tributaries’ (Bilâd al-Râfidayn
-- essentially the same metaphor as in Mesopotamia ‘[region between] two rivers’). And most of all: ‘the Nation of the Two Sanctuaries’ (viz.
Mecca and Medina), for the horrendous name Saudi
Arabia. That one really is offensive, though in
ways that owe nothing to colonialism, since here a clique of despots have
renamed the ancient nation after a family dynasty (as though Dubya had renamed
America “Bushistan”, or FDR "Rooseveltia").
~
So much for the linguistics. Serious political analysis
we must leave to wiser heads(** vide infra); but
we can at least offer an observation from our other credentialed specialty, irony.
There have been all sorts of dreadful events and
developments in Iraq, these past couple of years (not to mention in half the other nations of the Third
World), which we wisely refrained from wading into. The excuse this
time is that the ISIL is so menacing,
so evil, such an existential threat, that
it warrants throwing caution to the winds.
Yet here is a fine irony. Awhile back (a
dim memory now, for most) John
McCain and his crew were egging America on to get militarily involved on the
side of the anti-Bashar ‘Opposition’.
Well, the most powerful component of that ‘Opposition’ (a granfalloon;
it is not a coalition and never was) turns out to be … ISIL (some of whom, one
reads, may have received paramilitary training from the U.S.; I have no idea whether that is
true). So: Best buddies on the Syrian side of the
border; worst enemies over in
Iraq.
Americans, meet your new allies.
Another irony:
Had we gone McCain’s route, we would have been the allies,
“objectively” (as the Leninists used to say) of the ISIL, against the Syrian
Christians, whose chief defender is Bashar. (McCain himself did not understand this, which is why the
alliance would have been objective, rather than subjective.) And now, in ordering airstrikes
to protect Kurds and Yezidis against the ISIL, the Administration is
“objectively” allying itself with a group that includes the Kurdish PKK (which
is on the State Department list of terrorist groups) and a sect widely slanged
(and not only by the ISIL) as being “devil-worshippers”. (I am deliberately stretching things
now to the point of absurdity, simply indicating the sort of factoids that
would be more than enough fodder for Tea Party fanatics to start ranting “Obama
allies with terrorists and Satanists!!!”)
[Update 12 August 2014] That allusion to the State-Department-proscribed PKK was not just a random free-association
prompted by the notion ‘Kurdish’;
they really are actively involved. Headline in this morning’s Le Figaro:
Dans Makhmour repris aux
combattants de l'État islamique
Les Pechmergas irakiens ont
bénéficié de l'aide des militants kurdes turcs du PKK pour reprendre la petite
ville du Kurdistan irakien.
[Update 29 August 2014] Wack-o, crack-o, Boko Haram, has released a rant on video:
We mention it only because it was (mis)reported as the
declaration of a Caliphate.
Since there can only be one of these at a time, that would have
represented an open declaration of warfare against “Caliph Ibrahim” al-Baghdadi. But as sagely noted by the Long War Journal, Shekau mentions
neither the term ‘Caliphate’, nor the traditional caliphal title “amir al-mu’miniin”.
Scenic details:
(1) He brandishes a sort of scepter, or juju, or phallic
symbol, or whatever it is, to emphasize his points; and at one point he pauses and … cleans his teeth with it.
Not making this up.
(2) He begins speaking accented but grammatically correct
Classical Arabic; but eventually
breaks into (presumably) Hausa;
the effect is jarring.
(3) An alert watcher comments:
I hate to sound like the usual conspiracy fuckwits, but
something's wrong with this video. The cunt on the left and the cunt on the
right don't move at all._
Check it out yourself.
Layer upon layer of bizarrerie.
~
“With-it” Appendix
A young Arabist friend of mine, my advisor on media matters
relating to this perplexing 21st century (Twenty-first? Have we gotten that far already? Gracious…) informs me that the * Next * * Big * * Thing *,
which I cannot afford to ignore, is something called … “Pinterest” or
something. (No, that doesn’t sound
right. What a strange word. "Pin-ups", maybe? No, that's not it. Anyhow.) And the only way, nowadays, anyone under the age
of fifty will find my posts, will be if someone “Pins” them to
“Pinterest”. -- Well, meinetwegen, fine; Pin away. But there’s a catch. The essay in question has to be festooned with a visual image. Sheer text
(unless you’re texting) is so …. Twentieth.
She also had the kindness to send me a lovely picture
(called a “jay-peg” for some reason -- gotta get with the lingo) of a sleepy baby pangolin,
which I promptly posted here.
And in principle I’d
be amenable to posting it along with this essay as well, or perhaps one of my
favorite penguins (never get tired of those guys), only … ideally, the
illustration is supposed to actually illustrate
what you are talking about; and
some random adorable baby penguin could be perceived as lacking the
necessary … gravitas, for so sober a topic as the one at
hand; and “Gravitas” is our middle
name (it’s what the “B.” stands for, somehow -- the birth-certificate says “David
Bgravitas” -- the “B” is silent, like the “P” in “Psmith”).
Accordingly, after extended consultations with our Visual
Gravitas Staff over at the World of Dr Justice (headquarters: Geneva), we came up with these:
 |
| شيخ وحاخام |
(A sheikh and a rabbi walk into a bar ...)
 |
| Domino Effect |
Pin away!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[**Footnote]
Wiser heads, such as these for instance:
"Let Iran Save Iraq"
Die USA taeten gut daran, dem Iran die Loesung der aktuellen
Krise im Irak zu ueberlassen, meint Zachary Keck. Fuer diese Zurueckhaltung
spraechen gleich mehrere Gruende: "The first reason the United States
should not intervene in Iraq is because the situation is not nearly as dire as
some have claimed. (...) ISIS has not transformed into a formidable
conventional army, or a 'daunting military power' capable of waging 'jihadist
blitzkrieg.' It most certainly doesn’t have any realistic prospect of toppling
the Iraqi government and taking control of Baghdad. (...) The United States
should also pass the buck to Iran so it doesn’t have to fight for one side in a
sectarian conflict. (...) Another reason the United States should allow Iran to
save Iraq is because it is even more committed to this goal than Washington is.
(...) If the past is any guide (...) Iran will likely be more effective at
propping up the Maliki government. (...) The major objection to allowing
Iran to save
Iraq is that it would strengthen Tehran’s influence in Baghdad. Perhaps. But
Iran already exercises substantial control over Iraq’s government, and it’s
hard to see what concrete gains any additional influence will bring Iran."
(The National Interest vom 17.06.2014)
http://kurz.bpb.de/3ha
"America’s Late Imperial Dilemma"
US-Praesident Obama werde sowohl von liberalen
Interventionisten als auch von konservativen Falken vorgeworfen, "Schwaeche"
auszustrahlen und einen internationalen Rueckzug der USA voranzutreiben,
schreibt Ian Buruma in seinem kurz vor der aktuellen Irak-Krise
veroeffentlichten Beitrag. Obamas Kritiker glaubten nach wie vor, dass es die
Mission der USA sei, der Welt den amerikanischen Willen aufzuzwingen, sei es
nun im Namen der Demokratie oder aufgrund von Machtinteressen. Obama selbst
habe dagegen erkannt, dass die Reichweite der amerikanischen Macht in der neuen
Weltordnung begrenzt sei. "At least he has recognized the limits of
America’s power to impose a global order by force. His success as a president
rests less on the good things he has done (although he has done plenty) than on
the stupid things he has avoided, like getting into more unnecessary wars. This
does not resolve the late imperial dilemma of how to reduce dependency on the
hegemon without causing more tyranny and violence. But that painful and risky
process will have to be launched eventually, and it will be better served by
Obama’s brand of caution than by the tough talk of his critics."
(Project Syndicate vom 06.06.2014)
http://kurz.bpb.de/3hb
No comments:
Post a Comment