Middle East Thread of Despair: More Broken Than Syria

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Middle East Thread of Despair: More Broken Than Syria

«‹›3125 »

Paul MaudDib: May 3, 2006; TEAM NVIDIA:
FORUM POLICE

Sucrose posted:

The World Trade Center was a military installation?

If this is going to lead into a discussion about "economic targets", every civilian could be considered an economic target, as their deaths will lead to economic weakening of the regime, however slight.

Not the people themselves, but virtually anything they do in a productive capacity is potentially an "economic target", in the sense that militaries use to select targets, yes. If a sewage treatment plant or a pharmaceutical plant can be considered a target, the telcomm gear on the roof and fiber/subway lines in the basement of the WTC can also probably be considered valid military targets (command/control and transport infrastructure generally are), as could the financial services/infrastructure it housed.

It depends on whether you really accept the concept of strategic warfare that was promulgated during WWII and has dominated American discourse ever since. Many of the acts under those doctrines should probably be considered war crimes. McNamara himself noted he would have been prosecuted as a war criminal if he'd lost, and in fact many enemy leaders were prosecuted.

I'm personally in favor of much tighter restrictions on valid targets, stricter rules of engagements in urban areas/around civilians, use of indiscriminatory weapons, etc but I don't write the laws of war.

Sucrose posted:

Look, it seems pretty clear-cut to me: If a civilian, walking down the street or whatever, having little if any power and nothing to do with their government/sect/whatever's actions, nonetheless gets deliberately targeted and killed because of the nationality, ethnicity, or sect they belong to, then the act was terrorism and a war-crime. If they were actually involved in a military operation against the enemy that killed them, then it probably wasn't terrorism. It doesn't seem all that ambiguous to me.

It's not that simple though. Al-Qaeda didn't fly a 747 into the World Trade Center because there black people inside. They didn't try to fly a plane into the Pentagon because it was full of Americans. They didn't try to fly a plane into Congress because it was full of Republicans. The selection appears to have been based on high-visibility targets of economic, military, and political importance (in that order).

The problem is that the traditional model we use to consider war where nation-states declare war and duke it out fails to account for non-state actors who have significant resources and can't really be "fought in a war" the same way as, say, Germany, which gives rise to generalized fear since there's no face of the enemy to fight. That doesn't mean specific attacks aren't perpetrated against targets that would be considered valid in a traditional war (not all attacks are).

Kaal posted:

To raise a less politically-charged example, consider the difference between two hypothetical attacks on a VIP who is meeting their family in a car: The first where a bomb is hidden under their car and detonated when the VIP gets inside with their family, the second where the bomb is strapped to the family and then detonated when the VIP gets in the car with them. In the first example, the VIP and the car is targeted and the family is collateral damage to that end - their deaths are incidental to the attack, and would not have happened if they had not been meeting with the VIP; in the second example the VIP and the family is targeted, and as their deaths are essential to the attack they are deliberate, not collateral, damage.

I think you'll need to draw the line slightly closer here to fully excuse the US: the family actually need to be the active vector of the attack. Because the US certainly uses family members as essentially a targeting vector for figures of importance. Most prominently this was done with Bin Laden, where an entire fake vaccination program was created to take samples of blood, so that they could track down Bin Laden's family (and thus, him). I'd imagine it also happens for the family of targets of interest in war zones and figures in the War On Terror, tracking cell phones and internet presence. So the specific distinction you want to make here is "the people can't be the weapon" - targeting Bin Laden's family to find him is OK, giving Bin Laden's family smallpox or FOXDIE to try and kill him is out.

Or to go back to your example, tracking the cellphone of the VIP's kid and then bombing his car while the kid hops in is fine, but giving the kid a remote-control bomb inside a toy is out. I mean, I think we can all see how completely different those two situations are morally. I mean, in one situation the kid is the guidance system for a bomb, whereas in the other...

I wonder how this morality plays out in other situations. If hypothetically you slipped Yasser Arafat some polonium-contaminated food that is prepared by his wife, is that morally different than giving his child a bomb and killing him that way? Why does the direct involvement of an innocent qualitatively change the act of killing in a way that their mere presence and death does not?

Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 20:16 on Jan 14, 2014

# ? Jan 14, 2014 19:22

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Jun 7, 2024 08:23

Captain_Maclaine: Sep 30, 2001; Every moment that I'm alive, I pray for death!

Libluini posted:

But there already is an African Union. And there are African UN-troops. Wouldn't have the founding of a third force divided Africa even more instead of helping? Even for political rhetoric this just sounds like nonsense.

It may surprise you to learn that Qaddafi often had nutty ideas that he didn't think all the way through!

# ? Jan 14, 2014 20:31

Huttan: May 15, 2013

Paul MaudDib posted:

It's not that simple though. Al-Qaeda didn't fly a 747 into the World Trade Center because there black people inside. They didn't try to fly a plane into the Pentagon because it was full of Americans. They didn't try to fly a plane into Congress because it was full of Republicans. The selection appears to have been based on high-visibility targets of economic, military, and political importance (in that order).

A simple explanation of the targets is that the Pentagon is a symbol of American military power projected onto the world. Likewise, the WTC was a symbol of American economic power projected onto the world. In contrast, the Murrah building in OKC was a symbol of American political power projected onto Americans. In addition, OBL stated that he wanted revenge for the burning buildings from Israel's 1982 raid in Lebanon, and that since the US supports, protects and sponsors Israel, that makes America (and all taxpaying Americans) legitimate military targets. 911 wasn't the first time they tried taking out WTC.

When analyzing attacks, it is helpful to determine to whom is this target important. And when comparing it to targets not attacked, to whom is this difference important. The point of terrorism isn't to cause pure death and destruction, it is also to send messages to one's audiences. The audiences of terrorists include: your fighters, the enemy's government and military, "your people" (nominally the people on whose behalf you're fighting), "their people", your external allies/sympathizers, your enemy's external allies/sympathizers and "everyone else".

Shortly after 911, anthrax letters got sent to various people and organizations in the US. Looking at who got them, who did not, and to whom are these differences important point clearly to domestic terrorists. Although lots of folks tried pinning them on Saddam Hussein.

I always loathed MacNamarra, but after watching The Fog Of War, I became a lot more sympathetic to the stupid things he did. That movie did a lot to bring the saying "never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity" into clear focus.

# ? Jan 14, 2014 20:52

Zudgemud: Mar 1, 2009; Grimey Drawer

Kaal posted:

But those two things are completely different. Firing a missile at an al-Qaeda leader at a public event might have unacceptable levels of collateral damage, but they would remain collateral and incidental to the intended target. There is no collateral damage in a plane hijacking/suicide attack, as every death is an intentional and deliberate part of the plan.

To raise a less politically-charged example, consider the difference between two hypothetical attacks on a VIP who is meeting their family in a car: The first where a bomb is hidden under their car and detonated when the VIP gets inside with their family, the second where the bomb is strapped to the family and then detonated when the VIP gets in the car with them. In the first example, the VIP and the car is targeted and the family is collateral damage to that end - their deaths are incidental to the attack, and would not have happened if they had not been meeting with the VIP; in the second example the VIP and the family is targeted, and as their deaths are essential to the attack they are deliberate, not collateral, damage.

It goes back to the concept of due diligence that I was talking about earlier. A justifiable attack needs to contain a reasonable effort to avoid causing civilian casualties, even if that effort is imperfect. Perhaps this sounds like quibbling over semantic details, but I think that it's an important part of conducting ethical war. It's the difference between bombing a building after telling authorities to evacuate it, and simply blowing it up during peak hours. It's the difference between mining a trench-line, and leaving toy-mines around enemy villages. It's the difference between toeing the line of morality, and abandoning morality in pursuit of your own goals.

There is no ethical war, there will never be an ethical war. There is no difference at all between knowingly killing a VIP and his family with a carbomb or killing the VIP and his family with a bomb unwittingly carried by his family, you are still killing the same amount of "civilians" to get to your target. You also hold all factions to the highest possible material standards, all your talk of how to conduct an attack assumes the attacker is a well off industrialized nation-state with the logistical, material and informational capacity to carry out a clean and efficient attack with a weapon that cause the minimal amount of collateral causalities.
So what you are basically saying is that if you lack the resources of a modern industrialized state, you are not allowed to fight a war, because then it might be dirtier than the other part would like. A lack of resources usually makes "dirty" tactics even more appealing since that still offers a way to strike at your enemy and punch above your weight.

For WTC, the terrorists did not have a cruise missile, so they chose another type of aimable weapon with a high destructive capacity (though they probably didn't mind the extra civilian casualties too, as that would bring them and their cause even more fame and as americans they were willing accomplices of the devil anyway.). And trying to qualify a target as a military targets are a also a pretty useless endeavor when the motivation for one side is the cultural destruction of the other and not a military conquest (which all "rules of war" assume). And really the main purpose of the WTC attack was more of an inspirational PR stunt than a deathblow to US hegemony.

# ? Jan 14, 2014 21:06

Hob_Gadling: Jul 6, 2007; by Jeffrey of YOSPOS; Grimey Drawer

Zudgemud posted:

There is no ethical war, there will never be an ethical war.

Essentially this. The problem of civilian casualties will not be solved by making better weapons or more restrictive laws, it will be solved by fighting less wars.

# ? Jan 14, 2014 21:11

Brown Moses: Feb 22, 2002

You might remember I mentioned speaking at Google Ideas Conflict in a Connected World Summit in October, and I've just noticed they've put each days talks into playlists for day one and day two. The details of each bit can be found here, and there's some very interesting stuff in there.

Couple of recommendations. Datalove in a time of Cyberwar was a fun and short presentation by Peter Fein of Telecomix, a group that's done some interesting work in Syria

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I7GhNK6K8fQ

Making Cameras Count, another short presentation, this time talking about Informacam, something I think will become key in verifying pictures and videos in the future

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lzjoAdhAKWU

A longer presentation about uProxy, which will allow users to easily create proxy connections between browser, getting around local internet restrictions. This is something that has the potential to be hugely useful in the future, especially when you look at what's happening in countries like Turkey

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aGOXMRJWSeg

I'm also going to be making a series of short films with Google Ideas where I explain the various techniques I use, with lots of fancy graphics to make it easier to understand. The film makers said they've been inspired by the recent series of Sherlock when he's figuring stuff out and it stuff starts zooming around, so it should be fun to watch at least.

# ? Jan 14, 2014 21:54

suck my woke dick: Oct 10, 2012; I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!

Put this cum-loving slave on ignore immediately!

Libluini posted:

But there already is an African Union. And there are African UN-troops. Wouldn't have the founding of a third force divided Africa even more instead of helping? Even for political rhetoric this just sounds like nonsense.

We are talking about conspiracy theorists here.

# ? Jan 14, 2014 22:00

Xandu: Feb 19, 2006; It's hard to be humble when you're as great as I am.

The West is providing intelligence to Syrian ~~rebels~~ forces.

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles...0126721930.html

# ? Jan 15, 2014 02:32

Plastic_Gargoyle: Aug 3, 2007

McDowell posted:

I've been seeing stuff on twitter about how Qaddafi was just about to start the African Monetary Fund and a PanAfrican defense force. Conspiracy theorists love to take political rhetoric at face value when it suits them.

Qaddafi liked to pretend he was a Pan-Africanist when it stroked his ego the right way; he also liked to play pretend Arab for the same reason. The likelihood of him doing something that would cost him money without immediately benefiting him in some way is incredibly low.

# ? Jan 15, 2014 02:37

Young Freud: Nov 26, 2006

Plastic_Gargoyle posted:

Qaddafi liked to pretend he was a Pan-Africanist when it stroked his ego the right way; he also liked to play pretend Arab for the same reason. The likelihood of him doing something that would cost him money without immediately benefiting him in some way is incredibly low.

Yep. Just remember the state of his air force at the time of uprising and the intervention. More than half his valuable airframes were rusted and sandgutted that the whole NATO air campaign was a cakewalk.

# ? Jan 15, 2014 02:40

The Brown Menace: Dec 24, 2010; Now comes in all colors.

A Turkish hacker released the phone numbers of most of AKP head-honchos.

People have been having a boatload of fun, amidst threats of being jailed for 6 to 10 years.

Edit:

Redigimate ‏@redigimate 2m
Learn English with US Ambassador Francis Joseph Ricciardone, Call now on 0533 482 0762, RicciardoneFJ@state.gov #RedHack

In case you want to give Riccardione a shout-out.

Anonymous SMS services are easy to find on Google.

The Brown Menace fucked around with this message at 03:37 on Jan 15, 2014

# ? Jan 15, 2014 03:34

Warbadger: Jun 17, 2006

The Brown Menace posted:

A Turkish hacker released the phone numbers of most of AKP head-honchos.

People have been having a boatload of fun, amidst threats of being jailed for 6 to 10 years.

Edit:

Redigimate ‏@redigimate 2m
Learn English with US Ambassador Francis Joseph Ricciardone, Call now on 0533 482 0762, RicciardoneFJ@state.gov #RedHack

In case you want to give Riccardione a shout-out.

Anonymous SMS services are easy to find on Google.

I'm unclear about how the US Ambassador to Turkey is an AKP head honcho.

# ? Jan 15, 2014 04:20

Vernii: Dec 7, 2006

Libluini posted:

But there already is an African Union. And there are African UN-troops. Wouldn't have the founding of a third force divided Africa even more instead of helping? Even for political rhetoric this just sounds like nonsense.

Obviously those are all subordinate to Western governments / ZOG / NWO and therefore don't count.

# ? Jan 15, 2014 08:36

The Brown Menace: Dec 24, 2010; Now comes in all colors.

Warbadger posted:

I'm unclear about how the US Ambassador to Turkey is an AKP head honcho.

He isn't, a few unrelated people (like pro-AKP media figures) had their phone numbers released as well.

Most interestingly and embarrassingly, head of MIT, Turkey's intelligence agency, has had his phone number released as well.

# ? Jan 15, 2014 12:08

Sucrose: Dec 9, 2009

Hob_Gadling posted:

Essentially this. The problem of civilian casualties will not be solved by making better weapons or more restrictive laws, it will be solved by fighting less wars.

True, but in the meanwhile I don't particularly think throwing up your hands and going "Eh, kill all the civilians you want, it's all the same" is the answer either. The line has to be drawn somewhere, whether it's at what can be legitimately targeted or what ratios of dead civilians are acceptable.

# ? Jan 15, 2014 13:13

Sucrose: Dec 9, 2009

Volkerball posted:

Not military, but it's been argued that attacking it was a legit priority for reasons other than "a lot of civilians are there."

http://www.kersplebedeb.com/mystuff/s11/churchill.html

I don't think it's a legitimate attack at all, but the point is that there's a lot of gray area when it comes to that type of thing.

This author is the terrifying leftist counterpart to George W. Bush. He just has the countries flipped. Hell, I don't think even George W. Bush would have been insane enough to declare that the people of the Axis of Evil deserved to die because of what some of their ancestors did in another country 300 years ago.

In addition to condoning terrorism, this guy also apparently falsely introduces himself in all of his articles as a member of a well-known American Indian tribe despite not being on their member rolls and having no recorded Native American ancestry.

Sucrose fucked around with this message at 14:26 on Jan 15, 2014

# ? Jan 15, 2014 14:14

Zudgemud: Mar 1, 2009; Grimey Drawer

Sucrose posted:

True, but in the meanwhile I don't particularly think throwing up your hands and going "Eh, kill all the civilians you want, it's all the same" is the answer either. The line has to be drawn somewhere, whether it's at what can be legitimately targeted or what ratios of dead civilians are acceptable.

This is good and all but this also assumes that everyone has the ability and priority of doing so. In reality the amount of dead civilians accepted depends on what the belligerents can get away with without compromising their supportbase and mission.

# ? Jan 15, 2014 14:44

Count Roland: Oct 6, 2013

Xandu posted:

The West is providing intelligence to Syrian ~~rebels~~ forces.

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles...0126721930.html

Non-paywalled version? I would find it funny and not all that surprising if the West ends up helping out Assad. Backing the dictator based on the stability argument has been standard policy for decades.

# ? Jan 15, 2014 15:59

Pimpmust: Oct 1, 2008

No way that's gonna backfire down the line, no siree :ughh:

# ? Jan 15, 2014 17:14

Zedsdeadbaby: Jun 14, 2008; You have been called out, in the ways of old.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jan/15/western-security-servies-cooperation-syria-claims

Yep, looks like the West are sloooowly changing sides. Head honchos are saying for now 'nope didn't see or hear nothing' but aren't denying anything. I can't blame them to be honest, Assad is a gently caress head but he's nowhere near as bad as the more odious elements of the rebel forces.

I think a bigger backfire would be the West continuing to support the rebels. We all know what the result of the CIA arming the Mujaheddin against the Soviets is.

# ? Jan 15, 2014 19:29

ecureuilmatrix: Mar 30, 2011

Here'a little piece of hope in a bleak place:

The NYT posted:

Saving Relics, Afghans Defy the Taliban

Life inside the Afghan National Museum, these peeps are incredible.

Remember Bamyan, etc.

# ? Jan 15, 2014 20:06

JT Jag: Aug 30, 2009; #1 Jaguars Sunk Cost Fallacy-Haver

Zedsdeadbaby posted:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jan/15/western-security-servies-cooperation-syria-claims

Yep, looks like the West are sloooowly changing sides. Head honchos are saying for now 'nope didn't see or hear nothing' but aren't denying anything. I can't blame them to be honest, Assad is a gently caress head but he's nowhere near as bad as the more odious elements of the rebel forces.

I think a bigger backfire would be the West continuing to support the rebels. We all know what the result of the CIA arming the Mujaheddin against the Soviets is.

With ISIS just refusing to die, this is practically the only choice the West has.

# ? Jan 15, 2014 20:22

Count Roland: Oct 6, 2013

JT Jag posted:

With ISIS just refusing to die, this is practically the only choice the West has.

This hypothetical switching of sides brings the US/the West on to the same side as... Iran. Iran which is most keen at supporting Assad in the name of "stability".

Israel and the Gulf will be pissed.

# ? Jan 15, 2014 21:43

JT Jag: Aug 30, 2009; #1 Jaguars Sunk Cost Fallacy-Haver

Count Roland posted:

This hypothetical switching of sides brings the US/the West on to the same side as... Iran. Iran which is most keen at supporting Assad in the name of "stability".

Israel and the Gulf will be pissed.

The Gulf? Oh, definitely. Saudi is already pissed, and this will just make that worse.

I expect Israel will grin and bear it though. The stability of their borders are of paramount concern to them, and Assad is a known factor that they can bargain with, unlike the rebels.

# ? Jan 15, 2014 21:47

Count Roland: Oct 6, 2013

JT Jag posted:

The Gulf? Oh, definitely. Saudi is already pissed, and this will just make that worse.

I expect Israel will grin and bear it though. The stability of their borders are of paramount concern to them, and Assad is a known factor that they can bargain with, unlike the rebels.

Yes, I don't think Israel really minds Assad all that much. But the US being on the same side as Iran in any realm will drive them nuts. Could you imagine the reaction of Assad, Nasrallah and Rouhani (or whoever) celebrating a shared victory? Stability or no, many in the Israeli government and military would be most unhappy.

# ? Jan 15, 2014 21:52

Pimpmust: Oct 1, 2008

Let's not get ahead of things, while the west may have been trying to nail the hardline islamists from day -1 they aren't going to be giving Assad any more support than they think is absolutely necessary.

More fuel for the "vague stalemate" fire though.

# ? Jan 15, 2014 22:10

Phlegmish: Jul 2, 2011

They won't switch sides. They will quietly cut back on their support for the rebels, though. In fact, as we've seen, that's what they've been doing for a while now.

Quite frankly, I can't blame anyone for preferring Assad over some of the rebel groups.

# ? Jan 15, 2014 22:11

Volkerball: Oct 15, 2009; by FactsAreUseless

Sucrose posted:

This author is the terrifying leftist counterpart to George W. Bush. He just has the countries flipped. Hell, I don't think even George W. Bush would have been insane enough to declare that the people of the Axis of Evil deserved to die because of what some of their ancestors did in another country 300 years ago.

In addition to condoning terrorism, this guy also apparently falsely introduces himself in all of his articles as a member of a well-known American Indian tribe despite not being on their member rolls and having no recorded Native American ancestry.

Yeah, Ward Churchill is an idiot, but I posted his take because he lays out a detailed argument for considering the WTC a legitimate target, even though his condoning of the attack and idea that everyone killed were "little Eichmanns" is absolutely retarded. Wonder what he'll be saying about US causal support for Assad in 10 years.

Volkerball fucked around with this message at 22:20 on Jan 15, 2014

# ? Jan 15, 2014 22:13

Aurubin: Mar 17, 2011

Phlegmish posted:

They won't switch sides. They will quietly cut back on their support for the rebels, though. In fact, as we've seen, that's what they've been doing for a while now.

Quite frankly, I can't blame anyone for preferring Assad over some of the rebel groups.

It's at times like this that this New Republic profile of Assad becomes eerily prescient, considering what so many people are agreeing on now:

Bashar Al Assad: An Intimate Profile of a Mass Murderer

Read that, then reconcile what you're saying about the realpolitik of dealing with Assad.

# ? Jan 16, 2014 01:31

JT Jag: Aug 30, 2009; #1 Jaguars Sunk Cost Fallacy-Haver

Aurubin posted:

It's at times like this that this New Republic profile of Assad becomes eerily prescient, considering what so many people are agreeing on now:

Bashar Al Assad: An Intimate Profile of a Mass Murderer

Read that, then reconcile what you're saying about the realpolitik of dealing with Assad.

This is a pro-click, if you haven't read it already.

# ? Jan 16, 2014 04:09

Cocoa Ninja: Mar 3, 2007

Aurubin posted:

It's at times like this that this New Republic profile of Assad becomes eerily prescient, considering what so many people are agreeing on now:

Bashar Al Assad: An Intimate Profile of a Mass Murderer

Read that, then reconcile what you're saying about the realpolitik of dealing with Assad.

Thanks, this was a great read.

Never underestimate someone who thinks about nothing all day except staying in power.

# ? Jan 16, 2014 04:19

Rosscifer: Aug 3, 2005; Patience

JT Jag posted:

The stability of their borders are of paramount concern to them

The Israelis have built giant walls around the country, stable neighbors would undercut the justification for that strategy. And since when has Netanyahu had any interest in "negotiating" with neighbors?

quote:

I think a bigger backfire would be the West continuing to support the rebels. We all know what the result of the CIA arming the Mujaheddin against the Soviets is.

The CIA didn't arm them, the Pakistanis did. And the CIA advised Reagan against it.

# ? Jan 16, 2014 06:30

Gen. Ripper: Jan 12, 2013

The Egyptian constitution passed in a landslide. Whaddya know. Also, Rosebud is the sled:

http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2014/1/15/egypt-votes-overwhelminglyfornewconstitution.html

# ? Jan 16, 2014 07:48

Pieter Pan: May 16, 2004; Bad faith argument here:
-------------------------------->

Rosscifer posted:

The CIA didn't arm them, the Pakistanis did. And the CIA advised Reagan against it.

What was Operation Cyclone then?

# ? Jan 16, 2014 07:52

JT Jag: Aug 30, 2009; #1 Jaguars Sunk Cost Fallacy-Haver

Rosscifer posted:

And since when has Netanyahu had any interest in "negotiating" with neighbors?

Maintaining a stable border and genial relations with Egypt has basically been Israel's primary foreign policy objective for the last 30 years. It is completely infeasible for Israel's neighbors to declare war on them as long as Egypt isn't interested, as opposed to just mostly infeasible.

So yeah, don't act like Israel just doesn't give a poo poo about the rest of the Middle East.

# ? Jan 16, 2014 07:57

Brown Moses: Feb 22, 2002

Gen. Ripper posted:

The Egyptian constitution passed in a landslide. Whaddya know. Also, Rosebud is the sled:

http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2014/1/15/egypt-votes-overwhelminglyfornewconstitution.html

In much nicer constitution passing news, Tunisia has been voting on their own constitution

quote:

Tunisian Constitution, Praised for Balance, Nears Passage

Tunisia�s National Constituent Assembly is close to passing a new Constitution that legislators across the political spectrum, human rights organizations and constitutional experts are hailing as a triumph of consensus politics.

Two years in the making and now in its third draft, the charter is a carefully worded blend of ideas that has won the support of both Ennahda, the Islamist party that leads the interim government, and the secular opposition. It is being hailed as one of the most liberal constitutions in an Arab nation.

�They finally found some equilibrium,� said Ghazi Gherairi, secretary general of the International Academy of Constitutional Law in Tunis, the capital. �It is a result of consensus, and this is new in the Arab world.�

The process of drafting and approving a new Constitution took a year longer than planned. It was buffeted by two assassinations and rising terrorism last year, and by political divisions that nearly derailed the government.

Ennahda ultimately gave up many of its original goals for the Constitution: It says nothing, for instance, about the establishment of an Islamic state or the supremacy of Sharia law. But the party succeeded in injecting an Islamic flavor, with wording stating that Islam is the religion of Tunisia and a preamble that recognizes Tunisians� Arab-Muslim identity.

With Western support and strong lobbying by civil society groups, the country�s more liberal parties secured constitutional guarantees that Tunisia will remain a civil state with separation of powers. The Constitution enshrines universal freedoms and rights, and calls for parity for women in elected bodies.

The first two articles lay out the balance between Islamist and secular views in careful language that is not subject to amendment by future governments. �Tunisia is a free, independent and sovereign state, Islam is her religion, Arabic her language and republic her regime,� they say. �Tunisia is a state of civil character, based on citizenship, the will of the people and the primacy of law.�

Though the country remains divided over the role of religion in public life, those divisions were set aside in order to guarantee freedoms and prevent a return to the kind of dictatorial rule Tunisians overthrew in 2011, at the start of the Arab Spring.

The atmosphere in the 217-member assembly drafting the charter changed remarkably in the last 12 days, as members put aside the hostilities that had suspended the proceedings for five months and worked 14-hour days to debate and vote on the draft, article by article.

�It�s a positively crazy, fantastic environment,� said Noomane Fehri, a member of a small secular party, Afek Tounes. �There is a will to complete it within the time frame, and suddenly things started to work.� The assembly is likely to ratify the full charter with the necessary two-thirds majority when the final vote is taken, he said. The vote may come in the next few days.

Mr. Gherairi, the constitutional law expert, predicted that the new Constitution would endure because parties across the political spectrum had endorsed it. He contrasted the drafting process in Tunisia, which has involved an elected assembly and consensus, with the process in Egypt, where an Islamist government pushed through a new charter over widespread opposition, only to be ousted and replaced by a military-backed government that rewrote it again. The latest draft was put to Egyptian voters in a referendum on Tuesday that the Muslim Brotherhood and other opposition groups boycotted.

The latest Egyptian Constitution, which strips the Islamist language of the previous one, has drawn criticism for strengthening the state institutions that overthrew the elected Muslim Brotherhood government: the military, the police and the judiciary. The new charter gives the armed forces the right to appoint the defense minister for the next two terms.

It was partly the crisis in Egypt � including the overthrow last summer of the Islamist government of President Mohamed Morsi, Egypt�s first popularly elected leader � that prompted Ennahda to make important concessions and seek consensus on the new Tunisian Constitution. The assassination on July 25 of a left-wing politician, Mohamed Brahmi, in Tunis � the second political assassination in the country in six months � drew a sharp public reaction, weakening the Islamists.

Though the assembly as a whole suspended work on the Constitution for five months, a commission of assembly members set up by Ennahda continued working, hammering out consensus language for disputed articles. That commission is responsible for the final document.

�The revolution was based on the expectations of the people for access to work and dignity in all its depths,� said Lobna Jeribi, a member of the consensus commission. �Now that is the slogan of Tunisia, and we tried to include all the components � the right to work, to health, education, freedom of conscience, freedom of thought.�

The careful balancing led to some contradictions in the text, occasionally even within a single article, said Amira Yahyaoui, founder of Al Bawsala, a nonprofit that monitors the constituent assembly. �There are some very, very good articles and some bad,� she said.

Ms. Yahyaoui noted that the Constitution guaranteed freedom of religion, conscience and expression, but that it also said it was the state�s duty to �protect the sacred,� a phrase that reflects Islamists� desire to prevent abuse of Islam. The two passages, she said, are incompatible.

But Mr. Fehri, the secular politician, said the balance was necessary. �Our opinion is different, so you have two explanations for the same thing,� he said, referring to an assembly member who is also an imam, who praised the first article from an Islamic point of view. �So when it comes to interpretation, they will take both into account.�

Human rights organization praised the Constitution, in particular for its recognition of universal human rights standards and conventions. �We are a far cry from how it was in the beginning,� said Amna Guellali, a Tunisian lawyer and researcher for Human Rights Watch. Tunisia�s laws do still discriminate against women on issues such as inheritance and child custody, and Ms. Guellali said it would be up to future governments to decide how the new Constitution changes that.

There were moments during the voting in the semicircular assembly chamber that reflected the struggles faced in 30 years of opposition to the succession of dictators that formerly ruled Tunisia. For some, those struggles included discrimination, imprisonment and exile.

When Article 45 was passed, guaranteeing women�s rights and parity for women in elected bodies � a first in the Arab world � the chamber rose as one and sang the national anthem.

For Amer Laarayedh, head of Ennahda�s political bureau and brother of former Prime Minister Ali Laarayedh, the most emotional moment was the passing of Article 20, which recognizes the rights of refugees.

�That touches me personally, because I was a refugee for 20 years in France,� Mr. Laarayedh said. �Everyone voted and then stood and applauded.�

Looking around the chamber, he saw members of the opposition celebrating. �They, too, were exiles in the �70s,� he said.

Some points of contention � including, notably, the division of powers between the president and Parliament � remained unresolved on Tuesday, the third anniversary of Tunisia�s revolution. But two-thirds of the Constitution�s articles had been passed.

�We did it in a very innovative, democratic way,� Mr. Fehri said. �I dream that kids who are 15 will look back when they are 60 and say, �Those guys put us on the right track.�

Feel good story of the Arab Spring.

# ? Jan 16, 2014 08:13

Brown Moses: Feb 22, 2002

Richard Lloyd and Ted Postol at MIT have put out a new report on the munitions used on August 21st, now claiming a 2km range, down from 3.5km a couple of weeks ago. I've read the report, and they assume the 122mm rocket it's assumed was used in the munition has been cut off at the base of the warhead, instead of extending into it like many people have assumed based off the design. I think there will be some debate about their figure, but there's something else interesting in the McClatchy report

quote:

Separately, international weapons experts are puzzling over why the rocket in question � an improvised 330mm to 350mm rocket equipped with a large receptacle on its nose to hold chemicals � reportedly did not appear in the Syrian government�s declaration of its arsenal to the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons and apparently was not uncovered by OPCW inspectors who believe they�ve destroyed Syria�s ability to deliver a chemical attack.

I'm currently working on a project to review every scrap of information about the August 21st attack, including a lot of expert opinion, so I'm sure there's more interesting stuff to come.

The full report can be found here.

Brown Moses fucked around with this message at 12:19 on Jan 16, 2014

# ? Jan 16, 2014 12:09

cloudchamber: Aug 6, 2010; You know what the Ukraine is? It's a sitting duck. A road apple, Newman. The Ukraine is weak. It's feeble. I think it's time to put the hurt on the Ukraine

Pieter posted:

What was Operation Cyclone then?

All the aid was given to the ISI who were responsible for distributing it. The CIA were forbidden from entering Afghanistan during the war and no evidence exists to say that they didn't honor this order.

# ? Jan 16, 2014 12:39

Lead Psychiatry: Dec 22, 2004; I wonder if a soldier ever does mend a bullet hole in his coat?

NSDD-166 of 1985 gave the CIA go ahead to act independently without any Pakistani ISI thought on the matter. Though if I remember what was said in Charlie Wilson's War, they weren't directly involved with too many Afghans. But they did supply better communications equipment, weaponry and even satellite reconnaissance to Mujahideen.

# ? Jan 16, 2014 13:22

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Jun 7, 2024 08:23

a glitch: Jun 27, 2008; no wait stop; Soiled Meat

AJE says the Syrian Govt.'s reply to the UN Secetry General has been leaked, saying that they'll only go if Western countries stop arming the Opposition.

The peace talks are screwed, aren't they?

a glitch fucked around with this message at 14:09 on Jan 16, 2014

# ? Jan 16, 2014 14:06

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Middle East Thread of Despair: More Broken Than Syria

«‹›3125 »