the blue revolution

I've officially joined the Shotgun, official blog of the Western Standard magazine. Such recognition is an immense honour.

I'm uncertain how I will divide between posting on the two blogs. All I know for the time being is that long posts will remain here.

Please check out another place for my work, as well as the great commentary by many Canadian writers.

The Iraqi Governing Council came up with a new Iraqi flag. A lot of Iraqis are critical, either because it looks too much like Israel's flag or that the IGC isn't representative enough to create a flag. But this post is about another criticism, summed up by one Baghdad resident: "The flags of other Arab countries are red and green and black."

Black/Red/Green/White, as a vexillogical theme, originated in the original Arab revolt against Ottoman rule. It soon became a symbol of the Arab fascination with a Western-style nationalism (the type that led to unified Germany and Italy). We remember it best personified in the form of Nasser, as well as such schemes as the "United Arab Republic".

When Iraqis say they prefer the old colour scheme (as opposed to just disliking the new one), it is a statement in favour of the dream of the pan-Arab state.

But if history has taught us anything, it is that pan-Arabism is doomed: Arabs are too geographically dispersed and have too little ties to each other to emulate the sort of state that Bismarck and Garibaldi formed in Europe. Instead, pan-Arabism has become an excuse to legitimize the rule of despots (i.e. Saddam) and has become a factor in the xenophobia of the region.

And what's worse is that it's all a sham anyways. Just look at how Palestinians are treated in Arab countries, and the reaction in Arab countries on April 9, 2003.

That is why, when I first saw the new flag, my immediate reaction was "Finally! None of that pan-Arab bullshit!" And I think that was a factor that the IGC was thinking of as well: this is a flag for "Iraq", not "Iraq, part of some Arab superstate fantasy." The resemblance to the Israeli flag is a major mistake for their part (not that I support Arab anti-Zionism/Semitism, but the IGC certainly things harder for itself), but at least somebody was trying to break out of the old mentality. Unfortunately, though, it'll take a lot longer for the average Iraqi to shake off those antiquated ideas.

Okay, there's no spinning this one: Gaddafi's no saint, and he's not far from a demon.

I don't know how everyone else is going to spin this, but if Gaddafi still thinks that terrorism is a legitimate enterprise and dares to say it in the heart of the West, then he is ->this<- close to being on the wrong end of a JDAM. Or at least he should be. Indeed, it's even more imperative for the West that he either has a sincere change of heart or be gone, because the West needs to show that we're not after papering up problems: that's exactly what got us into this mess in the first place.

On another note: care to take bets how many Lefties will say in the same breath that this a "setback" and then proclaim that "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter"?

Fallujah insurgents say to the Americans that "Fallujah will be their Stalingrad."

I wish!

Let's see here... ...what exactly happened in Stalingrad? Germans and Russians spent the whole autumn and early winter killing each other in the city, but it wasn't this massive flow of blood or any loss of morale that pushed the battle one way or another. After all, the Soviets lost twice as many people as the Axis forces. The Russians won at Stalingrad because Hitler was too fixated on capturing the city, and the Russians closed a pincer maneuver outside the city and strangled the surrounded Germans.

Who's in the position of surrounding Fallujah right now? Which side wants to forget about Fallujah as soon as possible? I'm sure it's not the insurgents!

The enemies of America think that America can be defeated by bloodying its nose. The truth is that, first, a bloody nose isn't going to do anything (not after 9/11), and two, the US is not going to let you land that punch in the first place. The biggest advantage of the US forces against the insurgents isn't the guns, it's the brains. American forces are methodical and meticulous, and that is why, with enough political will backing them, they will carry the day.

Especially if it seems like Stalingrad.

Now I really don't know what to make of this one. Iraqi insurgents kidnapped several Italians, and now demand, as the condition for their release, that Italians organize protests against the presence of their troops in Iraq.

Are people just crazy, or is there some sort of high-level logic I'm not getting here? I have no doubt some hairbrained Italians are going to take up these terrorists' offer and actually try to have a demonstration, but does anyone expect that such demonstration means anything but squat, when they're done with a gun up Italians' heads? Does anyone expect that Berlusconi's going to give a crap? And how exactly are the terrorists going to measure the degree by which Italians comply with this idea? If one guy in Milan waved a sign around tomorrow, does that count?

Or maybe they're still trying to regain their bearings after realizing that Westerners have more spine than they do.

One of the advantages (?) of using Blogger is the opportunity to beta test the new Gmail service. So I'm changing my blog-related e-mail address to kelvinc (at NOSPAM) gmail . com.

And I thought de-de-Baathification was crazy: Karzai Invites Taliban to Join in Afghan Poll

Nonetheless, this one might be a different creature than what's happening in Iraq. Notice what Karzai actually says:

"They are Afghanistan's people," Karzai said, referring to the Taliban. "They can go for registering their votes and take part in the elections and do what they want to do," he told a news conference while on a visit to Kandahar.

Karzai doesn't refer to the Taliban as the political organization: instead he talks about them in the sense of individual Afghans, nor does he suggest that they may be contributing anything useful to the Afghan political process. As a Pashtun leader, Karzai may be trying to provoke a negative response from the Taliban (which they gladly provided), thereby strengthening the position of moderate Pashtuns in Taliban-leaning regions. But if this is the game Karzai is playing, it might backfire on other ethnic groups in Afghanistan, who may see this as Pashtun helping Pashtun in the worst way.

These are just my thoughts on this story. I'm no expert on Afghan politics, but my attention was caught by the headline: when I actually read the article, however, the story seemed not quite what it was hyped up to be. Or maybe Karzai is serious, which would not be a good thing, but right now I really don't know.