Comedy and the War on Terror

This past weekend, I was watching Comedy Central and ran across a hilarious show called The Axis of Evil Comedy Tour.

The show is made up of four comedians, two Palestinian-Americans (Aron Kader and Dean Obeidallah), an Egyptian-American (Ahmed Ahmed) and an Iranian-American (Maz Jobrani). As the name of their show indicates, the focus is largely on the War on Terror. They focus on issues as varied as the domestic impact of the GWOT on Muslim-Americans to perceptions of America in the Muslim world. Watching the show, I could not help but think about the chapter in Freakonomics titled "How is the Ku Klux Klan Like a Group of Real-Estate Agents?" In that chapter, Steven Levitt and Stephen Dubner, talking about the power of information, present the story of Stetson Kennedy and the manner in which he was able to halt and reverse the gains the KKK had made following the end of WWII in Georgia.

At the time when Kennedy began his campaign, the Klan was so entrenched in Atlanta, that it was considered its main headquarters. In order to bring it down, Kennedy went undercover and joined the Klan thereby gaining access to all of its secrets. At first, he tried contacting Georgia's attorney general, a known Klan buster, and the governor in his efforts to move against the Klan, however due to the Klan's power, his efforts did not produce their desired effect. As they describe it, it was like "tossing pebbles at a giant."

Dubner and Levitt tell the story as follows:

Kennedy was supremely frustrated, and out of this frustration was born a stroke of brilliance. He had noticed one day a group of young boys playing some kind of spy game in which they exchanged silly secret passwords. It reminded him of the Klan. Wouldn't it be nice, he thought, to get the Klan's passwords and the rest of its secrets in the hands of kids all across the country? What better way to defang a secret society than to infantilize and make public-its most secret information?

Kennedy thought of the ideal outlet for this mission: the Adventures of Superman radio show, broadcast each night at dinnertime to millions of listeners nationwide. He contacted the show's producers and asked it they would like to write some episodes about the Ku Klux Klan . The producers were enthusiastic, Superman had spent years fighting Hitler and Mussolini and Hirohito, but with the war over, he was in need of fresh villains...

The episodes aired and had a profound effect on the Klan. As Dubner and Levitt note, the Grand Dragon complained that when he got home "there was my kid and a bunch of others, some with towels tied around their necks, like capes and some with pillowcases over their heads. The ones with the capes chasing the ones with the pillow heads all over the lot." When asked what they were doing, the kids replied that they were playing a new version of cops and robbers with Superman as the cop and the Klansman as the robbers. The spectacle made the Grand Dragon feel ridiculous, and fearful that his kid would some day find his Klan robe. Following the Superman v. KKK episodes, membership declined dramatically, with new membership dropping down to zero. Levitt and Dubner argue that in using the Klan's secrecy against it, it converted that secrecy into powerful ammunition for mockery, and irrelevance. (P. 63-65) As stated above, the authors' point here was to show how that information could be used to marginalize an ideology. In watching the comedy show, I began to feel that something similar could happen in the case of Islamic extremism.

Watch the videos, and and see if you get where I'm going with this.

Comedy Centrals Axis Of Evil Comedy Tour

Who knows the intricacies and idiosyncrasies of Muslim life better than other Muslims? of the religion? Imagine the impact of having comedians such as Kader, Jobrani, Ahmed and Obeidallah telling their jokes in Arabic, Farsi, Pashto and all the various languages of the Muslim world. If anything, the use of such information, like the contradictions within Islamic extremism, would make ready fodder for comedians.

The comics featured above are American-Muslims so their impact on the wider Muslim world is debatable. However, if we could find Muslim comedians in the region, that speak the languages and don't shy away from criticizing either the US, the region's regimes or fundamentalists, they could go a long way to defeating Jihadist propaganda (even as they criticize the US from a Muslim perspective). It wouldn't be Superman v. the KKK at the time when radio was one of the most important means of communication, as in Kennedy's case, but these comedians would have something far more powerful; the internet and Youtube (or its Muslim equivalent).

Imagine Muslim comedians actively ridiculing Jihadists for all the contradictions in their ideology, their living standards, ideas and practices be they with regard to women, other Muslims or as in the case of Ahmed Ahmed the whole "martyrdom gets you 72 virgins" line we hear so often about. In his skit, Ahmed wonders whether you get help in choosing the right terrorist group (there being so many of them) and ponders whether these try to recruit people to their side by promising more benefits than the others. Ahmed imagines the Muslim Brotherhood telling a kid that he should join them and not al Qaeda because unlike al Qaeda, they offer not only 72 virgins, but also 1 whore, and a goat.

Hearing the laughter the joke above elicited, from a primarily Muslim audience, it seems that comedians would become the most fear enemy of Jihadists, because nothing rattles a true believer more than to see his ideology mocked and made to seem ridiculous. Anyone remember the uproar on the right following Stephen Colbert's act at the Correspondents Dinner? The reason for it, was that in very direct terms he took what President Bush considered his strengths, and turned them into objects of ridicule; from "thinking from the gut" to his "stay the course" mentality. It upset many people, so much so that Colbert was not invited back the next year.

In a paper titled "What the Mainstream Media can learn from Jon Stewart," Rachel Smolking noted how the faux news show had no qualms about second guessing our nation's leaders, particularly with regard to Iraq, which in the run up to the war was all but impossible for the MSM. What it did was to cut through "the daily obfuscation" more effectively than those whose main mission it was to inform. The quote that best captures the point of the article is one by Prof. Martin Kaplan, who argues that the Daily Show is effective because "It's not afraid to have a bullshit meter and to call people spinners or liars when they deserve it." Comedy, in short, gives you license to "tell it like it is" while making people laugh or what is called the court jester effect. Something alluded to by Al Gore in this Daily Show interview. In like manner, such comedic license would allow Muslim comedians the ability to criticize the US, the region's autocrats and most importantly, the Islamic extremists in a manner that would inform the population.

The argument against this would likely be that if any comedian dared to come up with such an act, they would be either imprisoned by one of the governments in the region (as Jobrani acknowledges), or killed by an extremist in the same way as Theo Van Gogh, who was murdered for supposedly insulting Islam. Another argument against this is that in order to even allow such a thing to happen, the US would have to discover, promote and protect them, making them seem subservient to the infidel's interests and hence far less appealing to Muslims in general. That said, however, while it is true that comedic license may not stretch as far in the Muslim world (particularly regions where extremism is strong) the solution is to start at the edges and then move inward toward the more radical bastions. The US would obviously have to play a minimal and low-key role (if any) since any connection to the US is immediate grounds for suspicion of ulterior motives and treason. But we can still do it, and effectively, by financing not only news networks as we are doing, but also encouraging businesses (like Comedy Central) to invest in Muslim artists, preferably through local subsidiaries so as not to appear to be the puppeteer moving the strings. Following Tom Barnett's theory of using the American military to export security, and the SysAdmin to build networks that integrate the Gap to the Global economy, I would also add, bring Comedy to shrink the Gap. After all, far more than ending terrorism (the tactic will always continue to exist and to be employed by the weak against the strong) our ultimate mission (and the measure of our success) in the Muslim world will be to marginalize the extremists, to make them an object of ridicule and ultimately irrelevant to the region's future. Like the Klan, they may exist fifty years from now, but they would be powerless to effect any serious change to fit their aims.

Comedy, also has the added benefit of attacking the other aspect of this GWOT, the dictatorships, autocrats, and monarchs who are directly responsible for the stagnation of the Muslim world. Sure, the US will take many hits as well (in comedy no one is safe), but so long as we look less hypocritical and ridiculous than the rest, we'll win by default. That also means that many of our policies will have to change. For example, we can't continue to call for Democracy in Iran, when we say little to nothing about Saudi Arabia, or Egypt, or until recently Pakistan. In diplomacy you need tact, but in the case of Democracy (particularly as done by this administration) you either promote it equally or not at all.

While I'm not suggesting that comedy alone will win the GWOT, I do think that it has a place in our efforts to undermine Islamic extremism. It's one of the many tools we have at our disposal and we should not discount its power to effect change. After all, if we look back at the Cold War and how we ultimately defeated the "evil" empire, it was not only through the build-up of armaments, or proxy wars in the third world but also through the power of American pop culture, which had a profound effect on how people behind the Iron curtain perceived us and was a large source of our soft power.

Read More...

Snippet only...

On a Sunny Tuesday Morning...

To tell the truth, as I sit here in my computer, looking at the screen I don't know what to write. This is the sixth anniversary of the attacks on my city and my people. What makes this day even more significant is the fact, that like that September morning, today is once again Tuesday September 11, only six years removed. It is perhaps fitting that today, unlike that other Tuesday morning is dark, cloudy and raining, almost as if the day is mourning that sunny Tuesday morning from six years ago. Just like last year, I turned to MSNBC for their replay of the events from that day from the first plane strike at 8:46 am to the second at 9:03 am. Viewing the tape once again, brought all those feelings back, the pain and the anger of seeing my city attacked. After that I had to leave home and I edit this entry on my way to work, remembering that even more was still to come.

I won't re-recount the events of that day as I remember them, I did that last year and see no point in re-writing that which has already been written. This is the sixth anniversary of those heinous attacks, but only my third commemorating them on this blog. Still, it seems like much of what I wanted to say I've already written, and all that remains is to remember and pay our respects to the casualties of that fateful day.

Not only to them, but also, as I noted in last year's post

to the families of those people who lost loved ones in the attacks, the first responders who have died since and those who are currently suffering as a result of the dust they inhaled while cleaning up the World Trade Center area searching for survivors and the bodies of those who did not make it out...to the families of the many soldiers currently serving overseas, those who have been wounded, and those who've paid the ultimate sacrifice,

this day belongs to them.

While the debate over Iraq, and Gen. Petraus' testimony before the Senate will bring the usual partisan hackery, I submit to you that the best way to commemorate this day is avoid the temptation and instead focus on working on realistic solutions to the problems that confront us.

I still remember the unity of that day, and the weeks that followed, we were not Republicans, or Democrats, Red or Blue, we were all Americans. It's been six years, and frankly its about time that we honor the victims of those heinous terrorists attacks in the only way that will do justice to their memory; unify the country, and cease dividing it. It no longer matters who is to blame for this or that, and yes there are many to whom that blame belongs, but that is not important today. Instead, we need to recognize the myriad problems that we face, be they in Iraq, Afghanistan, the Horn of Africa, Pakistan, and recognize that we can't face them divided for long.

It is time for both sides of the political spectrum to give so that we can arrive at a set of policies for addressing all these problems that all of as Americans can accept. That means, that the President and his supporters (the right) need to recognize that just because people don't support the President, it does not mean that they support America's enemies. In like manner, the left and other opponents of the President need to recognize that we do face a lot of problems internationally, 9/11 did happen and it was orchestrated by a group that subscribes to radical Islam. That is, just because you don't like, or perhaps even hate this President, it does not mean that our country does not really face these problems. We do. It's time we start working again as one nation, and put away the partisan slogans of the past six years.

There's a lot of distrust, and bad blood, I'm not saying that there isn't, or that people don't have a right to feel the way they do. In many cases, the administration and its supporters have gone way beyond what is acceptable, but so has the opposition and both sides can cite examples with little trouble. The point is not to assign blame, but to find a way to move forward, if not for us, then for the people who lost their lives six years ago today, and the first responders who risked their health and lost their lives trying to rescue co-workers or their remains. It isn't enough to mention 9/11 and then continue with the same partisan hackery that has characterized the last 6 years. Doing that, dishonors the memory of those we purport to honor this day.

Am I being naive? Probably, I'm an idealist at heart. But at least on this one day, I'd rather hear from the leadership of both parties, and their allies ideas for how to arrive at a compromise that is acceptable to both. After all, we continually talk about reconciliation in Iraq, and yet do little to achieve it here at home. We allow the fringes to dictate the terms of the debate, to set the tone, even as we chastise Iraqis for doing the same. There has to be a better way.

Given today's events in the Senate, and the continued fight over the Iraq war, this is unlikely to happen because at the end of the day our politicians and their hacks on both sides will have too much of an incentive to use this day to make a political point, and not just in the senate, but also in the executive branch; no one, here, is free of sin.

To truly honor those we lost that day, six years ago, today should be like it was that day, when before anything else, we were Americans.

If that seems too hard, then do the next best thing, and honor those we lost that sunny Tuesday morning, and those we've lost since by committing to doing a good deed today. This link is to MyGoodDeed.org which was founded as a means of turning the tragedy of 9/11 into something positive. Apart from ending the partisan gridlock that has become our Achilles heel, I can't think of a better way to honor those who fell that day than by engaging in an act of kindness toward other Americans (or anyone) who may need our help.

Read More...

Snippet only...

More on the Guatemalan elections

The most important issue, by far, in the Guatemalan election was, security. Nothing made this clearer than the fact that Gen. Otto Perez Molina, a former member of the Guatemalan security forces during the Civil War, came in second in Sunday's ballot with 23.78 percent of the vote to Alvaro Colom's 28.33 percent with only 3.84 percent of ballots left to count. As noted by Hectorlo, he rose from a paltry 10 percent of the vote to second place on the slogan of "a firm hand against crime." As the Economist notes, the election was more than just about left vs. right, indigenous vs. ladinos, it was in large measure about "the battle between democratic politics and organized crime."

Even so, many of the cleavages of left over by the country's civil war are still apparent. For one, Alvaro Colom, who currently holds the lead in the vote, was once close to the guerrillas opposing the various military dictatorships in the country. In like manner, Gen. Perez Molina, is a former general who at one point was in charge of army intelligence in Guatemala. As if that was not enough, he was trained at the infamous School of the Americas (now the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation). Mr. Colom emphasized social justice and economic development as a means of not only increasing revenue, but also reforming the judiciary and police forces in the country. Meanwhile Gen. Perez Molina promised to increase the number of police patrolling the streets during his term in office. He also indicated that until there was a large enough force, the army would assist the police in providing security for the population. That Guatemalans voted for him, in the numbers that they did points to the very real sense of insecurity in the country, currently second only to Colombia in violent crime. Yet, as the Economist notes, while the that trend has been descending in Colombia, the opposite has been the case for Guatemala, where the murder rate was 47 per 100,000 inhabitants in 2006 nationwide, and 110 per 100,000 in Guatemala city alone.

Despite the violence, and its costs to the Guatemalan economy, estimated by the UNDP to be around 7.3 percent of GDP, it has grown in recent years at a rate of 3.9 percent. Even so, the poverty rate remains high, and currently stands at 56 percent of the population below the poverty line. That is one of the reasons why Alvaro Colom has appealed to the masses as well. Also, being a Mayan priest probably didn't hurt. The electoral results largely reflect their base of supporters. Perez Molina won in the capital, while Colom gained the majority of the vote in the rural areas of the country. Many people in Guatemala who initially supported Colom seem to have abandoned him for the more charismatic Gen. Perez Molina, as they judged him to be likely tougher on crime where Colom was perceived as less resolute. The Economist notes that this follows the pattern in Latin America where the people bring to power conservative leaders who promise a firm hand against crime and violence, such as President Uribe in Colombia.

As al Jazeera notes, (yes, aljazeera) it was the sense of insecurity that was partly responsible for the poor showing by Peace Laureate, and the first Mayan woman ever to run for President in Guatemala, Rigoberta Menchu. The latest figures who her gaining 3.05 percent of the vote, despite the fact that Guatemala is a majority indigenous nation.

As Hectorlo noted in his post, regardless of who wins, he will have his work cut out for him. Not only will the new President have to tackle the violent crime wave, but also an entrenched elite who refuse to pay taxes, leaving the state to function with only 10 percent of GDP. That means that the government always has trade offs to make between different needs, be they education, social services, security and not enough money to do them all. Yet, given the history of corruption at the highest levels of government during the military dictatorships and since, it will be difficult to change attitudes among the elite. After all, why pay taxes if the political leadership in power will just fill their own personal coffers and leave the country worst off in the end.

As an example of this, from Prensa Libre we get this bit of troubling news, former General Rios Montt appears to have been elected to the country's parliament giving him immunity from prosecution for another four years.

Two Truth Commissions, one sponsored by the Roman Catholic Church and the other conducted by the government as part of the 1996 Peace Accords, documented widespread human rights abuses committed by Ríos Montt's military regime, including widespread massacres, rape, torture, and acts of genocide against the indigenous population.

Already the Rigoberta Menchu Foundation has questioned his election, and has vowed to continue to fight for his extradition to Spain to answer for the crime of genocide. Like Panama, Guatemala, given entrenched interests and a less than impartial Judiciary relies on third countries' like Spain, or France (in Panama's case) to bring powerful political figures to justice. This news is also troubling as Rios Montt has long established ties to the very Narcotics trade that the presidential candidates have vowed to address, and is another example of how the interests of the elite and the crime syndicates sometimes overlap in the country's political landscape. This is particularly true as now that Colom and Perez are preparing for a second round, they are both beginning to look to alliances with smaller parties to ensure their victory. Given that the Guatemalan Republican Front (the party headed by Rios Montt) gained 10 seats in the legislature, it gives him a means to bargain and himself to gain more power.

He has tried to run for President before, and has been blocked by various opposition groups who see him as nothing but a murderer and criminal. His victory now aides him in postponing his day in court, while also positioning himself and his family for higher office in the future. Already one of his daughters has married into the American political establishment, with her union to Rep. Jerry Weller of Illinois (R). At the time of his reelection to Congress questions arose regarding their union. This is particularly true following Zuri Rios' involvement in what in Guatemala came to be known as "Jueves Negro," which refers "to a violent series of political demonstrations that created havoc in Guatemala City on 24 July and 25 July 2003" whose ultimate aim was to force the Guatemalan government to accept the candidacy for President of her father, the aforementioned Efrain Rios Montt.

Additionally, and more closely related to his ties to the narcotics trade in the country, his most well known protege was former President Alfonso Portillo. Under his administration, the US decertified Guatemala for its lack of cooperation in fighting the drug trade. Additionally, the FRG was widely suspected of being involved in the trafficking of drugs. At the time, though Portillo was the president, Rios Montt was known to be the man ultimately in charge. Yet, despite all of this, Rios Montt continues to live free and to run and win in elections in the country, as a reminder of the dearth of corruption that will have to be tackled by any administration that actually wants to change the country's future for the better.

The task is made more difficult as the corruption is spread not only in the country's politics, but also the Judicial system and even the security forces, the same ones Gen. Perez plans to use to tackle the power crime syndicates. Much remains to be seen as the second round of balloting approaches. There is some hope, and Rigoberta Menchu's candidacy is a small proof of that. Yet the task will be arduous and many perils remain.

Read More...

Snippet only...

Update on the Guatemalan election

Prensa Libre, and Siglo XXI, two of the most widely read newspapers in Guatemala have reported initial results in the country's national elections citing the Guatemalan Supreme Electoral Tribunal.

According to their most recent reporting, the Patriotic Party (PP), and its candidate General Otto Perez Molina, are leading the race with 26.2 of the vote. In second place, as expected is the National Union of Hope candidate, Alvaro Colom with 22.99 percent of the vote. In third place, is the candidate for the ruling party National Grand Alliance (GANA), Alejandro Giammattei with 22.27 percent of the vote. Rounding up the top four positions, is an academic, Eduardo Suger from the little known party, Social Action Center (CASA) who garnered 12.23 percent of the vote. Peace Laureate, Rigoberta Menchu, from the Guatemalan Encounter party (EG), received only 2.8 percent of the vote.

The results above comprise only 24.06 percent of the ballots cast, so the final results may vary somewhat, however, as noted by Hectorlo in a previous post, it is widely expected that both Colom and Perez will face off in the second round of voting, scheduled for November 4 of this year.

That's all for now.

Read More...

Snippet only...

A Brief look at Central America: Guatemala's upcoming elections

This is a guest post by Hectorlo. He is an attorney based in Guatemala. This is the first of a series of posts he will contribute to this blog. He can be reached at hectorlo2004(at)gmail.com.

On September 9, Guatemala, the largest economy in Central America, will go to the polls to elect a new president, unicameral legislature and various municipal authorities. The two leading contenders for the presidency are Alvaro Colom of the center-left National Union of Hope (UNE)and Otto Perez of the Patriotic Party (PP). Both have promised to increase security, reduce poverty, and address the illicit drug trade, among other issues. The rest of the field is composed of 12 candidates, including Nobel Peace Laureate Rigoberta Menchu, who is far behind in the polls. However, given the proximity between the two leading contenders, the percentage of votes going to each of these is expected to be a factor. According to Guatemala’s electoral law, if a candidate does not attain 50% of the vote, a second round of elections must be held where the two highest vote getters will compete to determine the winner.

In recent decades, Guatemala has become a major transit point for the illicit drug trade. As a secure depot and a prime corridor to the U.S., Guatemala is well on its way to becoming a little Colombia. Paramilitary groups act on behalf of and to protect the drug cartels and trade, and they do so with impunity. Thus it was hardly surprising when many candidates were accused of receiving campaign funds from the drug mafias, including top presidential contender, Alvaro Colom. Colom, whose party members have also been targeted and killed by the drug mafia, has defended himself by stating that it is his zero tolerance approach that has made him a target for the violence and smear campaigns. The charge, however, is difficult for him to overcome, as the person making it has been Ms. Menchu who still carries a lot weight internationally.

The drug mafia has been introduced to all levels of society; its influence can be seen in the government, business sector, worker rights movement, etc. Previous administrations have expended little effort to prevent the proliferation of the drug trade in the country, whether as a transit point for drugs, or laundered money. In small towns in Guatemala, there is at least one “cacique” or narco; he commands the territory and acts with impunity. They embody the quintessential image of the narcos of old; always heavily armed and accompanied with bodyguards referred to as “matones” or “pistoleros”, they are immune to criminal prosecution and have ready access to all the levers of state power. Narcos often fire their AK 47 assault rifles before the impassive eyes of local police officers; they intimidate local authorities and kill anyone who opposes them without hesitation. This violent environment has made Guatemalans fearful, and far more likely to support a candidate whose main campaign slogan has been “Tough Hand; Security and Employment”. That candidate is retired General Otto Perez, the presidential candidate of the Patriotic Party who, as recently as March only had 10% of voter support, but has now reached 31.8% in the latest polls; this just days before the elections. In doing so, Gen. Perez is now in a statistical tie with Alvaro Colom who until recently was leading the polls with 21.23% of the vote in March and now stands at 31.7%.

In short, Guatemalans are t