We watched The Return of the Pink Panther last night and I was quite interested to not that, being a 70s comedy, the setting was in part a Middle Eastern military dictatorship. A right giggle ensued everytime the murderous secret police and their henchment piled in and out of the tiny Fiat. They were harmless goofs. Even though they - someone - were blowing up stuff back then, too.
But we do not laugh anymore. Since the locking shock of 9/11, our bit of the western world has lost that, sees the Middle East in another monochrome. Now embassies are burned over cartoons - but only in the last real nut job Middle Eastern military dictatorship left. [We don't do that - no, we just cancel TV shows over the unacceptable depictions of our Lord to some.] And could it be the Syrian Ba'athists have an interest in stoking the Islamo-fascist militancy they does not allow within its own borders? That is really not a useful way of thinking anymore as it is important to consider the enemy one large mass of evil just as it was important thirty years ago to consider the same blob of humanity one big joke.
Sooner or later, there is going to have to be some subtlty and maybe some reflection. Someone is going to have to make in-roads and connect, perhaps in the way that the hopeful see Iraq panning out. But maybe not. I wonder if that is just another broad brush, this time of panacea. If "we" can give them all market based legislative democracy then they all will be what we expect them to be, good neighbours. What happens when they vote in the enemy?
Of course, I don't know anything about any of this. But what happens if "they" decide to use the same tools we use one day - say extra-territorial, extra-judicial justice teams knocking out the leadership? What do we do then? Is it now as much about the choices we make? What happens if we get used to our own use of extra-territorial, extra-judicial justice teams knocking out the leadership? How is that different wrongs done in Central America in the past?
Maybe this is just an inevitable and cyclical clash of the weaknesses of each culture. Wasn't it nice when ours was just gaffawing along with Peter Sellers?
Update: this Flea-approved essay by Christopher Hitchens adds.
Comments
David Janes - February 5, 2006 11:45 AM
Your comparison of the cancelling the Book of Daniel to mob threats of violence is spurious at best. However, consider the FCC and Howard Stern and you might be on to something.
Alan - February 5, 2006 1:03 PM
It is fun to write things like "spurious at best" but in the aspect of making judgment on the religious and expressive views of others they are identical. In terms of reaction, they are not...unless to subtract the role the regime in Damascus is playing in stoking the actions in the streets. The rest for now is sub-"Battle of Seattle" as I coined at Ben's. Protests and boycotts are clearly less offensive than pulling art based on its offence to certain believers.
David Janes - February 5, 2006 1:39 PM
It's the reaction that's the heart of the matter: the headlines aren't "Islamic theologians write letters to the editor; shortage of Danish translators anticipated".
Alan - February 5, 2006 1:48 PM
Well, for one reason that would not be the headline. It would be "Militant extremists and military dictators whip religious faithful into frenzy with mischaracterization of faith...again..." The difference in reaction is one thing but so is the lack of homogenization of the reaction. A well placed threat to Damascus at this time would do wonders. It won't happen.
Marian - February 6, 2006 12:26 PM
Alan, your comparison of 'our' invasions with 'their' invasions is spurious at best (sorry). The principle involved in our actions is inherently good since might makes right as has been pointed out and backed up time and time again over the centuries. I mean, get with the etc.
Alan - February 6, 2006 12:31 PM
Are you, by any chance, being cheeky?
Marian - February 6, 2006 12:35 PM
Naw... could it be?