Party's Shifted

...to a new venue:

www.julescrittenden.com

You're a Wienie ...

... if you haven't had it peeled yet.

Nigel Barley on penis peeling and pain.

"They came in the night and grabbed me, took me outside and tore my shirt off. That annoyed me - you know how hard it is to get a decent shirt in the village - but they were all masked so I didn’t know who it was. Then one of them beat me on the back with those sharp reeds that really cut you and pushed me in the bullrushes - you know the ones whose sting lasts for days. Then they dragged me down to the lake to a muddy bit where the crocodiles live and threw me in the water, shouting that the crocodiles were coming. They held my head under the water till I nearly drowned and something sharp grabbed my leg and when I was hysterical they ran away, laughing. I dragged myself home and collapsed. The cuts all got infected and I couldn’t move for three days. The pain was terrible and I got a fever that nearly killed me. It was a wonderful spiritual experience."

... Anthropologists have been beaten and scarified, circumcised and starved, spat on and rubbed in excrement, all in the name of getting inside the skin of local people, understanding the way they think and feel. Pain is the ultimate proof of seriousness of purpose, of sympathy and empathy, the absolute core of the participant observation that is virtually the only intellectual capital of the subject. It is assumed that people who go to Africa or Asia to study exotic cultures must feel pain as the ultimate "being there." You just know that any anthropologist worth the name who was working on Christianity would absolutely insist on being nailed to a cross.

Yet, as my colleague’s words show, you are not supposed to make too much of it. It was a wonderful experience ... To live amongst a people, suffer pain and hardship at their hands and not love them and their way of life is to be simply an ungrateful tourist who failed to grasp the local viewpoint. You are the equivalent of someone who went to Paris and couldn’t be bothered to go up the Eiffel Tower. I once worked among a people where the central rite of a man’s life was to have his penis peeled for its entire length. It literally sorted the men from the boys. Without undergoing it, you were a snivelling child, wet and smelly, as contemptible as a mere woman. After the transformation, you were a real man, the finest thing God had created and allowed to swagger and swear oaths on the knife of circumcision. I sat up all one night worrying about whether to become a "real" man or - more seriously - a "real" hairy-chested anthropologist. Then, I paid a fine of six bottles of beer to the men to be classed as "honorary circumcised." I still think it is the best deal I ever made.

Wait, there's more.

Then there is the pain of the «natives». That, too, is everywhere. Pain is a resource that is deployed lavishly in human culture. In the Third World, we think immediately of a government monopoly of pain, the torturers in their dark rooms who live hand in glove with military dictatorships and absolutist regimes and deploy their batons, castor oil and electrodes in the loyal service of the state. One day, we smuggly believe, progress will sweep them away and everyone will enjoy universal human rights.

Yet pain is not just an aberration within imperfect nation states. In villages and townships, cattle camps and nomadic encampments, pain is proudly and openly deployed in traditional ways. Boys have their penes cut to open like flowers when they have an erection or drive pins through their noses and tongues. Men slash at their genitals with glass. Girls have their clitores sliced off, their lips pierced and their feet hobbled. Backs and faces and stomachs are pricked and carved and tattooed with blunt nails. People are mutilated and maimed and disfigured.

Human culture drips with blood and inflicted pain and the surprising thing is that most of it is voluntary. For pain is an important cultural resource and even in the West, we are raised in an economy of pain. As a child, I was assured that Christ suffered for me. I was to be redeemed by suffering myself and when I suffered I should accept it and offer up my pain to him. The explanation and colonisation of pain is a principal concern of all religions. I once bought a poignant T-shirt. "Shit happens," it declared. "Catholics say shit happens because of original sin. Jews say shit happens because I don’t love my mother. Protestants say shit happens because I don’t work harder. Hindus say here’s that same old shit coming round again. Buddhists say: What shit?"

-- Anthropologist and pain scholar Nigel Barley.

UPDATE: If you care to comment and/or get your penis peeled, the party's shifted over to www.julescrittenden.com.

Saudis in Iraq?

The Saudis would very much like us to stay in Iraq. We're holding Iran at bay, and preventing a Sunni bloodbath. We are doing their work for them. Again. Thus far, they've paid lip service to those goals, but reportedly have failed to stop money from flowing to the Sunni insurgents who kill Americans and Shiites, outcomes that do nothing to help us help them.

There is also the matter of the Muslim world's failure to address its own problems. Iraq is a great example.

As much as I would like to see Arab nations step up to the plate and behave responsibly, any Saudi role that is not part of a comprehensive involvement of sufficiently responsible Shia and Sunni Muslim nations would need to be sharply limited to Sunni areas, where they might be useful, considering the amount of baksheesh to Sunni insurgents they represent.

Stratfor.com on the Saudi position (Nov. 30, still relevant today):

Saudi Arabia's top strategic adviser warned Nov. 29 that Riyadh will intervene in Iraq to prevent Iran from gaining a foothold there if the United States withdraws its forces. The only viable option for intervention the Saudis have is to back jihadist forces against the Shiite-dominated government in Baghdad. In the short term, this could benefit both the Saudis and Washington, as it could lessen Iranian influence in Iraq; however, in the long term, it will empower transnational Islamist militants who will threaten both Saudi and U.S. interests.

Saudi Arabia will use money, oil and support for Sunni militants to thwart Iranian efforts to dominate Iraq in the wake of a U.S. military pullout, the kingdom's top strategic adviser wrote in the Nov. 29 edition of the Washington Post. In a blunt op-ed piece, Nawaf Obaid, managing director of the Saudi National Security Assessment Project -- a Riyadh-based government consultancy -- acknowledged that such a move on Riyadh's part could precipitate a regional war, but wrote, "So be it: The consequences of inaction are far worse."

So the Saudis are interested in stepping in. I'd like to hear from anyone who knows anything about the Saudi military. While their police and special ops have been aggressive and effective on al Qaeda in Riyadh in recent years, I'd be very curious to know what thoughts people who are directly familiar with them have about their potential usefulness, lack thereof or potential for hindrance is in Iraq.

GlobalSecurity.org on the Saudi Arabian National Guard. Apparently not weekend warriors, sound somewhat squared away and it sounds like you want to keep them away from the Shia.

GlobalSecurity's take on the Saudi regular army, less enthusiastic.

Meanwhile, the UK Telegraph's view of Iran in Basra, whence the Brits would like to split.

Al Qaeda headed for Diyala. So says Pajamas Media, as Omar had said earlier. This means a predictable game of whack-a-mole for the surge force. Allowing them to lie low is not an option.

Gateway totes up who's with us and who's with them on the Bush surge plan.

Paks attack

Pakistan whacks al-Qaeda on the Afghan border. The heat has been on Pakistan. As wonderful as it is to see them take out several terrorist compounds, Pakistan remains a marginally productive partner who, as Gates noted, needs to do a lot more.

Slightly off topic, the 165th anniversary of Gandamak and the last stand of the 44th Foot just passed on Jan. 13, marking the end of the poorly led, ill-fated British 1839 invasion of Afghanistan. Not counting Dr. Bryson's ride into Jallalabad later that day.

Back in 2001, this was one of the incidents everyone pointed to, along with the Russian invasion of 1979, crying quagmire before it started. Entirely different situations, cautionary in the sense that no Afghan adventure should be entered lightly. Nor Iraqi, it would appear. Our Afghan war, though its had its missteps and setbacks, shows no signs of going the way of either of those. Yet.

UPDATE: change of venue to www.julescrittenden.com. Come check out the new site.

Iranian Logic

Stratfor.com examines Iranian support for Sunni insurgents and posits it is part of a two-pronged strategy: use Sunnis to keep the U.S. tied down, while keeping the heat off Iran's primary proxies, the Shiite militias, while Iran strengthens them. But it is a dangerous game that provides openings for the United States:

Iran's primary militant assets in Iraq are Shiite militias and unaffiliated gunmen. But Iran's support for the Iraq insurgency is not limited to its Shiite allies. Tehran also has been providing support to segments of the Sunni insurgency. Though it might sound like a contradiction for Shiite Iran to support Sunni groups in Iraq, it is not unprecedented -- and there is a certain logic behind the groups the Iranians choose to support.

... By offering support in the form of training, weapons and logistics to these groups, Iran has been able to influence Sunni militants and encourage attacks that suit its interests. Such groups are willing to accept assistance from wherever it may come in order to enhance their own positions within the insurgent movement, and are unlikely to become Iranian proxies. They have their own agendas, which they see as being served through cooperation with Iran. Some of these groups feel that the United States is a far greater threat than Iran, while others simply want access to the sophisticated technology the Iranians have to offer.

... Iranian support for Sunni militants will further complicate an already complex insurgency, making it all the more difficult for U.S. and Iraqi forces to contain it. It will also create suspicions and rifts among various Sunni groups that will cause intra-Sunni violence. On the other hand, the situation provides an opportunity for Washington to drive a wedge between the Iranians and their Iraqi Shiite allies by showing that Tehran has actually been backing their enemies. This is why Iran has tried to encourage the Sunni militants it supports to focus on U.S. and other non-Shiite targets.

UPDATE: change of venue to www.julescrittenden.com. Come check out the new site.

Wind direction

UPDATE: change of venue to www.julescrittenden.com. Come check out the new site.


Great news for those who like to govern by poll. USA Today: Americans 'more pessimistic' after Bush's Iraq speech.

"President Bush's address to the nation last week outlining a 'new way forward' in Iraq failed to move public opinion in support of his plan to increase U.S. troop levels and left Americans more pessimistic about the likely outcome of the war," USA TODAY Washington Bureau Chief Susan Page writes this afternoon.

She adds that "in a USA TODAY/Gallup Poll taken Friday through Sunday, more than 6 of 10 back the idea of a non-binding congressional resolution expressing opposition to Bush's plan to commit an additional 21,500 U.S. troops to Iraq."

• 47% said it is "certain" or "likely" the U.S. will "win" in Iraq, vs. 50% who said that before Bush's speech.

• 49% said it is "unlikely" the U.S. will win or "certain" it will not, vs. 46% who said that before Bush's speech.

• 29% said the president does have a "clear plan" for handling the situation in Iraq, vs. 25% who said that before the speech.

• 69% said the president does not have a "clear plan," vs. 72% who said that before the speech.

So Americans responding to whatever kind of questions USA Today put in front of them don't like Bush's plan. Why would they? They're on an intravenous "abandon all hope" drip, with tsking docs around the deathbed offering up disaster prognoses.

• 21% said Democrats in Congress have a "clear plan" for Iraq, vs. 25% who said that before the speech.

• 75% said Democrats in Congress do not have a "clear plan" for Iraq, vs. 66% who said that before the speech.

OK. More people think Bush has a clear plan now than before the speech, and fewer people think Congress does. But what Democratic plan is that 21 percent talking about?

There are also a couple of questions they apparently forgot to ask.

If the United States follows the Democratic plan for Iraq, do you believe:

(a) Iraq will descend into greater chaos and violence, destabilizing the entire region.

(b) Iraq will return to the Eden-like state of peace and security enjoyed under Saddam Hussein, destabilizing the entire region.

(c) Don't give a damn.

Post-abandonment, Iran will:

(a) see the error of its ways, stop sponsoring violence in Iraq and Lebanon and abandon its nuclear weapons program.

(b) launch a large-scale bloodbath in Iraq, install a Shiite puppet, effectively control a large share of the world's oil supply and menace the region with its nuclear weapons.

(c) don't give a damn.

Chicago Boyz on sports vs. news reporting:

"A reporter who consistently attempted to sabotage the local team’s game plans would quickly be looking for work in a different discipline. Fans have too much invested in their teams to let that kind of behaviour continue.

Thus my broader view for the day — America will get the MSM it wants when America takes its national security as seriously as its football."

Don Surber on the UN's Iraqi death estimate. And other stuff.

A Rifle In Every Pot

Glenn Reynolds in support of mandating gun ownership. Cuts down on burglaries. Yeah, but what about the right not to own a gun. And the right to get burglarized. I thought Glenn was a libertarian.

Heads You Lose

UPDATE: change of venue to www.julescrittenden.com. Come check out the new site.


Washington Post headline:

Iraqi Hangings Bring More Denunciations
Head of Hussein's Half Brother Is Severed

Both halves of Saddam's half-brother taken to Auja, the family's bucolic retreat.

I'm beginning to think that if you don't draw denunciations in this world, you're probably not really doing anything worthwhile. Here are some reax:

"We knew that he would be executed and would join a parade of heroes, but Maliki, why did you behead him?" asked Salam al-Tikriti, 41, a relative of Ibrahim. "Why did you insult his body? Are you still afraid of him even after he is dead? We will cut your heads the same way that you are cutting the heads of the heroes of Iraq."

Other reviews:

Alaa Makki, a Sunni legislator, cut the baby in half, as it were: Justice was done but the manner of the execution was disturbing.

"Everybody knows that when you hang people, rarely the head will be decapitated from the body," he said, criticizing what he called a "revenge on the body."

Elsewhere, the Moroccan Human Rights Association said they were a "criminal political assassination masterminded by American imperialism." I'd be curious to know what statements they issued about Saddam during his regime, if anyone out there has been paying attention.

A U.N. spokesman expressed regret that Secretary General Ban Ki Moon's request to spare the two men's lives was not granted. Not about the head-body separation issue, however.

Jose Manuel Barroso, president of the European Commission, the European Union's executive arm, said after the hangings that he would back an Italian initiative for a worldwide moratorium on capital punishment under U.N. auspices. Also apparently silent on the head thing.

You Say Ug, I say Ugh ... Let's Call The Whole Thing Off

Romanian skull dated to plus 35,000 years could be the product of Human-Neanderthal intercave love. I'm guessing this kid got beat up a lot. By humans and Neanderthals. Because cave children can be cruel.

UPDATE: change of venue to www.julescrittenden.com. Come check out the new site.

Heads Up, Iran!

UPDATE: change of venue to www.julescrittenden.com. Come check out the new site.

Gates says all that stuff moving into the Gulf is a message to Iran. We're not tied down in Iraq. UK Guardian:

The defence secretary, Robert Gates, told reporters that the decision to deploy a Patriot missile battalion and a second aircraft carrier to the Gulf in conjunction with a "surge" of troops in Iraq was designed to show Iran that the US was not "overcommitted" in Iraq.

... His remarks followed tough comments on Iran at the weekend from other senior US officials. The vice-president, Dick Cheney, accused Iran of "fishing in troubled waters inside Iraq", while the national security adviser, Stephen Hadley, said the US was "going to need to deal with what Iran is doing inside Iraq".
Such remarks, following the prospect of "hot pursuit" raids into Iran as raised by George Bush in his televised address last week, have fuelled speculation that the US is softening up the American public for possible action against Tehran.

Works for me.

The increasingly confrontational pose struck by the US is a repudiation of one of the key recommendations of the Iraq Study Group, which called for the start of a dialogue with Iran and Syria in an effort to extricate the US from Iraq.

Bummer for them.

Mr Gates, who as recently as 2004 publicly called for diplomatic engagement with Iran, said the situation was now different. In 2004, Iran was concerned by the presence of US forces on its eastern and western borders, in Iraq and Afghanistan, but its behaviour had changed.

Not really, but whatever.

"The Iranians clearly believe that we are tied down in Iraq, that they have the initiative, that they are in position to press us in many ways," he said. "They are doing nothing to be constructive in Iraq at this point."

"And so the Iranians are acting in a very negative way in many respects. My view is that when the Iranians are prepared to play a constructive role in dealing with some of these problems then there might be opportunities for engagement."

Otherwise, opportunities for engagement of the destructive variety.

Blue Crab: it's bad enough Ahmadinejad has an Allied fleet crusing offshore, now he's got trouble at home. More from the UK Guardian.