An interesting piece by Charles Krauthammer on one aspect of the Abu Ghraib case that makes it particularly provocative in the Middle East in a way that even those condemning it may not appreciate — and an aspect that puts to further scorn Rush’s glib Madonna/Britney comparison.
For the jihadists, at stake in the war against the infidels is the control of women. Western freedom means the end of women’s mastery by men, and the end of dictatorial clerical control over all aspects of sexuality — in dress, behavior, education, the arts.
Taliban rule in Afghanistan was the model of what the jihadists want to impose upon the world. The case the jihadists make against freedom is that wherever it goes, especially the United States and Europe, it brings sexual license and corruption, decadence and depravity.
[…] Which is what made one aspect of the Abu Ghraib horrors even more incendiary — the pictures of female U.S. soldiers mocking, humiliating and dominating naked and abused Arab men. One could not have designed a more symbolic representation of the Islamist warning about where Western freedom ultimately leads than yesterday’s Washington Post photo of a uniformed American woman holding a naked Arab man on a leash.
(via Rantingprofs)
It is so nice too see that Krauthammer has decided to go with the Wookie defense. I was a little worried that he might start to have doubts in his crusade against Islam.
Oh…and he scores some nice Bonus points with the “Iraq: now with 70% less torture!” position.
The “Wookiee Defense”?
The “Wookie Defense” or “Chewbacca Defense” is an off shoot of “Calvinball”. A very good write up of which is “>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chewbacca_Defense”target=”new”>here.
You really need to watch some South Park…*grin*
No thanks.
So, to quote the Wiki defn: “The phrase Chewbacca Defense is a satirical term for any legal strategy which relies on overwhelming listeners with clever-sounding (yet irrelevant) arguments to confuse them into failing to properly evaluate opposing arguments and reject them. It is thus a special kind of logical fallacy.”
Now I’m confused. Because I don’t see what you’re driving at.
Call me kooky, but I didn’t read anything that sounded like it was defending what happened at Abu Ghraib. I think he presented a different way of looking at the atrocities that happened there (from an arab males perspective).
Instead of talking about the Human Rights violations, and the top down orders to do so. He brings up his old favorite of “war of cultures” chestnut, and his old “we are more human then them” argument that he has constantly been harping on.
The Article is a glossy defense piece that talks about culture and sex. A long winded version of Rush’s quote from the other day:
RUSH: While women are being masculinized, I contend to you that men are being feminized.
CALLER: I agree.
RUSH: Men are not staying masculine to meet up with this new masculine female.
CALLER: Absolutely.
RUSH: They are being feminized. I think a lot of the American culture is being feminized. I think the reaction to this stupid torture is an example of the feminization of this country.
This is the “overwhelming listeners with clever-sounding (yet irrelevant) arguments” part. Krauthammer takes a page to say what it took Rush to say in four sentences. ¾’s of the article is not about anything relevant to the subject at hand. It’s a Wookie defense for the administration.
The last bit of the article sounds like the Pentegon spokesman the other day when he referred to the soldiers under investigation as “The six people who lost us the war” because it’s all about our “Cause”.
So instead of saying “well these photo’s back up everything that has been reported in the Arab press about the US’s treatment of Prisoners over the past two years”, he makes it about “the lunatic fantasies that the jihadists believe”.
Instead of talking about the Human Rights violations, …
That would probably be this part: “By our standards, these were egregious violations of human rights and human dignity. They must be punished seriously.”
…and the top down orders to do so…
Which top-down orders were those?
… He brings up his old favorite of “war of cultures” chestnut, and his old “we are more human then them” argument that he has constantly been harping on.
Obviously you’re reading an article here that I’m not.
Are you positing that the role of women in Middle Eastern countries — whether the extreme of the Taliban or in other countries such as Saudi or Iraq — is not much more tightly constrained than, say, in the US? That the immodesty and licentiousness of Western women is not the subject of screeds and diatribes by fundamentalist Muslim clerics (heck, by fundamentalist Christian clerics, too)?
If during the Civil Rights era, during the time federal troops were brought in to put down segrationist activiites, there had been pictures of US soldiers humiliating arrested protesters, there would have been a hue and cry. Had those pictures been of *black* soldiers, it would have had far more photographic impact. To draw that conclusion, or to make an analogous conclusion about the impact of women being involved in the despicable behavior at the Iraqi prison, is not to defend or lessen the import of what did actually happen, or defend it, or make it somehow okay, and has nothing I can see in common with Rush’s drivelings on masculinization and feminization.
It’s not meant as a defense of the Administration, nor a denial of what happened. Nor does it dismiss (or even address) whether there is more to be revealed. It’s an analysis of why the pictures might be more inflammatory in some places than others, which actually sounds more culturally open-minded than not.
“Are you positing that the role of women in Middle Eastern countries — whether the extreme of the Taliban or in other countries such as Saudi or Iraq — is not much more tightly constrained than, say, in the US?”
Nope, not at all. But we are only about 30 years removed from the same mind set (well, most of the US is). Again this is the part of the Wookie Defense. This really has nothing to do with the discussion at hand. Krauthammer knows this, and uses it to placate ‘mericuns.
I had about two pages worth more, but decided to delete it. Need to find my happy place, or at least Randy’s blood pressure meds.
Re: “Particularly provocative”
Yeah, it’s almost like it was scripted by Talibanistas, or the same nitwit who put the word “crusade” in Bush’s State of the Union address. But it’s really the fault of the nitwit who made it public policy that the Geneva Convention did not apply and that our troops didn’t need to be trained in obeying it.