More rumblings...

A few follow-up links on the Syrian situation. The New York Times has an interesting article on how the complicated politics of Lebanon are getting in the way of investigating Hariri's death. President Emile Lahoud, a close friend of the Syrian government, has taken the unusual step of appointing the Lebanese Army, which is loyal to him, to investigate the bombing. The UN is flying in a team of Swiss experts, which (one presumes) will have a little more neutrality- as is their way, you know? Meanwhile, the debate is whether it was a sucide bombing, which would have been a parked car on the side of the road and which would exonerate Syria, or a giant bomb in the middle of the road, which would point to their invlvement, as that is a more complicated way of doing things. Eyewitnesses disagree on whether the cars were blown laterally (suicide bomber) or vertically (Syrian role). It is a fascinating article, equal parts forensics and politics. There is also an article about the new Syrian spy chief, Bashar al-Asad's brother-in-law. Asad passed a law a few months ago demanding a mandatory retirement age, which is a very clever way of consolidating his power. Perhaps young Bashar has the chops to survive. We'll see how he weathers this storm, though.

Also check out this BBC story analyzing the fallout in Syria. For a more visually and aurally stimulating discussion of much the same, though with far less candor, see Syrian Ambassador to the United States Imad Mustapha on C-Span's Washington Journal. He is very smooth, and points out that Syria has a lot to lose and Syria's enemies have a lot to gain by Hariri's death, which in a sense is true. But one can rarely lose money betting on the irrationality of dictators who need to show that they are still powerful and can play a role in an arena where their power is slipping. Again, there is no sure linkage to Syria, but it would be foolish to dismiss them as suspects because it isn't the smart move.

There are a few gems in the interview. There is the normal flim-flam about how the Lebanese invited the Syrians in (which is true, but a long time ago) and how no Lebanese government has asked them to leave (also true, but Syria controls Lebanese politics- until they stop that, a departure request is not forthcoming). My favorite part, though, was when the host asked Ambassador Mustapha when Syria entered Lebanon. He hedged, kind of laughed, and said he wasn't good with figures. But, as an olive branch, "...let's say 15 years." Which would bring us to about 1990, many years after Syria actually moved in. Still, it was a nice dodge.

Strange Rumblings in the Levant...

The day that Saddam Hussein's statue in Fidros Square was pulled down, a CNN crew interviewed a young man in Syria. The man, contrary to some hand-wringing expectations that the "Arab Street" would explode, pointed out that "we too have many statues here." And, indeed, Syria does have many statues, mostly of the late Hafez al-Asad. Statues, paintings, photographs and all the various iconography typical of the Arab world litters the beauty of Syria.

Syria is a country that has been rocketed into the news in the last few days with the assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri in downtown Beirut. The buzz has moved away from the killing and what it means for Lebanon to what the US response to Syria will be. This is partly a sideshow, and indicative of the parochial nature of western media, and also a measure of how everything revolves around the United States.

The reason Syria is the country the media is zeroing in on is because of their decades-long role as the main power-broker in Lebanon. During the ruinous, brutal Lebanese civil war, in which the beautiful Mediterranean city of Beirut became synonymous with hell, Syria invaded under the pretext of helping out their allies and bringing stability to Lebanon (which, ironically, is basically the same rational Israel used for doing the same, with basically the same degree of cynicism). Since then, Israel has pulled out, leaving only a small and controversial piece of land in their power. Syria, despite a UN resolution last year ordering their withdrawal, has stayed behind.

This is beginning to chafe the Lebanese, who want to create their own government free from the rule of their relatively muscular neighbor to the north. Syria, which profits immensely from their status of occupier, is reluctant to leave. They would lose both money and prestige. This position has never sat well with the international community, particularly since the withdrawal (or retreat, depending on who is doing the spinning) of Israel nearly five years ago.

But it is only now that pressure is really beginning to heat up. The common guess is that Syria was indeed behind the assassination, both in the international community- where no one actually states it explicitly- and in Lebanon itself, where they are not so subtle.

(Granted, not everyone thinks it is Syria: the kind of obscure Islamic militant groups consisting entirely of losers in some basement who take credit for things like the 2003 Northeast blackout have claimed this as their own- in this case the previously unknown "Victory and Jihad in Greater Syria". There have been grumblings from the opposite corner as well, as Iranian media and the speaker of the Yemeni Parliament, the decrepit and corrupt Sheik al-Ahmar, have pointed their wearying fingers at Israel. Not a bad guess, if perhaps Hariri were not such a pragmatic moderate. But then there are those who think that Israel welcomes chaos in the
Middle East, whereas in reality they prefer a numb acceptance of their power.)

There is of course no direct proof at this point that smoking-guns its way to Syria. But Syria had the means and the motivation, as Hariri was by all accounts set to join the opposition and call for Syrian withdrawal. His clout and popularity, as well as his relations with the outside world, would have made the pressure on the Syrian government almost irresistible. With one fell swoop, with one shock of destruction that converted the beautifully rebuilt downtown Beirut into a smoldering morgue, Syria could have re-established its power and reputation for absolute ruthlessness.

This is a reputation that has been in a bit of a decline lately. After the death of old man Asad in 2000, his son Bashar was bull-rushed into power by a manipulation of Parliament and typical strong-armed military tactics. A bit about Bashar is important here. He was never groomed to take over the role of his father. That was left for the medallion-bedecked, uniform-wearing Basil, father's chosen one. Basil was the man who for years Syrians (and by extension Lebanese) were told would rule their lives one day. Basil, sadly, had a penchant for speeding and drove his car off a road. His speed was fatal, and now he only exists on posters around Syria- many of which have the holy trinity of Hafez, Bashar and Basil.

Bashar was an ophthalmologist in London. Western-educated, nothing to do with the family business. Think Michael Corrleone. Actually, this is a very apt analogy, and I am sure it has been made elsewhere. When the family crisis hit, he rushed back and began to be groomed. In a few years, though, he seemed to promise, the family would be totally legitimate. He even funded a computer society, in a country where ATMs were banned because Hafez was terrified of anything that could connect unfiltered to the outside world, something this writer found out the hard way.

I was in Syria shortly before the old man died, and there was some optimism about Bashar. I was most impressed by his techno-side. But the realities of Syrian politics came to the forefront, and after a brief Damascus spring he began to crack down on dissidents and reformists, and the thaw refroze. His low moment was perhaps when he used a papal visit to promote Christian/Muslim brotherhood, as they are both opposed to the Jews. This did not make the Pope happy, as one can imagine, and put the final nail in the coffin of Bashar al-Asad, reformer.

The assassination of Rafik Hariri falls into this pattern. Syria had to show its muscle again and not let things get out of control. They had to show that no one was going to be able to pull down any statues. This may be provoking the rage of the US, but Lee Smith argues in Slate that Syria is calling Bush's bluff. This was a good international example of the mafia nature of Syrian politics. This nature was on its fiercest display in 1982, when the Muslim Brotherhood of the beautiful town of Hama rose up against the Hafez. The dictator sent in his tanks and leveled huge sections of the town, killing at least 20,000 and leaving only the sounds of fear and acquiescence to compete with the creaking of the ancient waterwheels turning slowly in the river Orontes. Today, Hama has more posters and items of fawning iconography than anywhere else in Asad-choked Syria.

The Beirut bombing is an extension of these policies, and there is very little the administration can do about it, with its overtaxed military and fear of losing the Arab world forever. Syria is a dictatorship, yes, with an abhorrent human rights record. And regardless of whether or not they killed Hariri, their record in Lebanon is one of oppression, cruelty, violence and criminal profiteering. It is important for this administration to turn up the heat on the UN to pressure Syria to withdraw. That loss of face alone could shake the regime with the same effectiveness as the strategically backward and morally bankrupt idea of invasion, or even air strikes.

Make no mistake- the collapse of the regime, if it is replaced with even a semi-decent and functioning government, would be a huge blessing for Syria, a country laden with history, where one can see some of the more wondrous examples of archeology from all eras. One historical site, Baalbek, has ruins from several different epochs, and is an incredible way to spend an afternoon wending your way through the temples and pillars of this antique trading post, with its Roman and pre-Roman beliefs soaked into the sand-red stones. The Dead Cities in the north are a harrowing reminder of the fragility of human endeavors. And the castles in Syria- Crusader and otherwise- are wonderful beyond description. It would be wonderful if Syria could be known for these instead of a violent and torturing government.

But it is known for its statues. In the port city of Latakia, Hafez al-Asad's birthplace, there is a towering statue of the old don. He has his arms outstretched in a half-hug and has a weird, scary smile on his face. It is supposed to be inviting- he is the father of his country, welcoming his children with open arms- but the result is a mixture of Frankenstein and John Wayne Gacy. Disconcerting, no? It would be a cathartic pleasure to see it pulled down, but that can't be done with US bombs. It has to come from Syria. This is a great test of the doctrine George Bush outlined in his inaugural speech. Will the US help democratic reformers? Or will they ape the regime they despise by believing that only a show of force will do any good? One has to hope, for the sake of Syria and of the US, they will choose the former.

Bad science, worse politics

As the Kyoto Accords regulating greenhouse emissions went into effect today, without the support of the world's largest polluter, the United States, it is 34 degrees in Chicago, warm and sunny, a rare February day where you can get away with just a sweatshirt. We haven't had significant snow in weeks: the worst weather was a few days of cold rain, practically equatorial by our usual standards. It would be easy here to make a connection- indeed, the normal joke is that maybe global warming isn't so bad. Fortunately, that isn't the case. A rare warm stretch in a normally brutal Chicago winter has nothing to do with global warming. And unfortunately, both sides of the debate on climate control use these arbitrary facts to prove a case.

Let's start with the warmth. It is a warm winter, to be sure. But global warming is not the culprit (hero?). Global warming, if it does exist, works by fractions of degrees over decades. It is a slow process, and to treat a statistical quirk like a pleasant day as proof the sky is falling does a great disservice to a very real problem.

Because it is a real problem, and one has to work backward from ideology to pretend that it isn't. Because climate change happens so gradually, it is easy for people- and yes, let us call a spade a spade, conservatives with industrial connections- to claim that global warming doesn't exist. What is a quarter of a degree over 10 years? Absolutely nothing, right?
Well, no. Even small changes in the climate can be catastrophic. The median temperature of the Ice Age was only a few degrees colder than the preceding epoch, and we are only a few degrees warmer than that. And yet, the ecological differences are enormous. It doesn't take a huge leap of the imagination to say that if a few degrees can end an Ice Age, a few more degrees can have a similarly great impact. There has been enough discussion of the effect of melting ice caps that it need not be repeated here.

This is more about the politics behind the issue. It is politics that threatens to get in the way of science. President Bush, when talking about climate change, likes to talk about needing "sound science" before he makes a decision. This is supposed to be a nod toward rationality, but it is just the opposite. It is a sop to those on the right who despise science, and scientists.
For some reason science has a very bad name. There are many people who are proud of their ignorance- or even disdain- for science (this is discussed at length in Richard Dawkins' Unweaving the Rainbow , an excellent book about the wonders of science and the fear many people have of it). And the reason they are proud is because it shows they stick to their guns regardless of what mere facts have to say. I don't like those enviro-freaks getting in the way of business- therefore, global warming is a hoax. This is working backward, letting ideology influence how you look at facts, instead of letting facts influence philosophy.

(To be fair, of course, science isn't always correct, and has been used for awful, evil purposes. One has to look at the great evils of the 20th century- Nazism and Bolshevism- to see those who twisted science for their own ill ends. But that is exactly the rub: they used science to fit preconceived notions, and that is what those opposed to global warming are doing. It isn't carried out to the same degree of flagrant cruelty, but the effects on humans could be equally deleterious.)

Sadly, the red herring of "enviro-freaks" is a charge that is easy to conjure. There are many in the environmental movement who seem to have no grasp on reality. The common bogeyman erected is the (admittedly rare, but popular) case of a group of hippies shutting down a factory to save a Three-spotted woodtick (one can insert their own ludicrous sounding animal here. Duckbilled titmouse, firesloth, whatever. The facts are irrelevant). These cases are rare, but happen enough, and it doesn't matter if the "hippies" are the EPA and the animal is actually crucial to the ecosystem- the broadstroke of extremism is easily painted.

As I was writing the last sentence, I struggled to find another word for "ecosystem," which is as good an example of how absurd the debate on the environment has gone. "Ecosystem" just sounded very New Agey, prejudicial, made me sound like I should be carrying around a didgeridoo. And that is ridiculous. It just shows how good the right is at manipulating terms, and how good the left is at letting themselves be painted in ridiculous terms. The stubborn nature of some of the more odious nature-freaks (the Earth Liberation Front being only the most extreme example) lends itself to this caricature and to the bastardization by politics of sound scientific terminology.

Because words like "ecosystem" or "environmentalism" are not political words. They are science. It is ostrich-like to the extreme to pretend that it doesn't matter what humans do to the planet. It is neither liberal nor conservative- it is deadly cold pragmatism. To divorce human actions from the arena in which they are performed is not bold or brave or infused with passionless, worldly, realpolitik: it is stupidity.

The Kyoto Protocols are flawed, and the US had the right not to sign them, as it would be penalized more than any other country (and yes, the US is the largest polluter, but it also drives the global economy). But for the President to use a flawed accord as a means of sidestepping any discussion of the issue is a abdication of his duties. An Administration that presents itself as willing to make tough decisions regardless of politics should be able to tackle an issue that will bring no political gain, but will help billions around the world. Unfortunately, science is a dirty word at the White House, and until it is not, clean skies remain a pipe dream of the fringe.

On Reason and Religion

We'll start with Zindani, and all his contradictions. We'll start with the radical, fire-breathing Yemeni cleric who is obsessed with science. We'll start with the man indicted by the US Treasury Department for supporting international terrorism who remains one of the three most powerful men in Yemen, the country that is the United States' strongest Arab ally in the war against radical Islam. It is fitting to start with him, the learned and respected cleric who sits at the nexus of religion and politics with the intellectual heft that Osama bin Landen and Abu Musab al-Zarqawi only pretend to carry.

And why is Zindani popping up? A little news story in the Yemen Observer, the leading English-language paper in that country hard on the southwestern edge of the Arabian pennisula, announces that Zindani has opened an AIDS clinic, and has already healed three patients of the seemingly incurable scurge. One gets the idea that this was done not by faith alone.

But not by medicine alone, either. Zindani likes to blend cultures, making his own imaginative mix. Don't think, though, that Zindani is a cultural relativist, mixing and matching what he likes about different traditions as a happy, bride-building peace offering: he is not about to form a drum circle. Indeed, Zindani uses the his Salafist (a brand of Isalm that is kising cousins with the Wahabbism practiced by bin Laden) roots to undermine western knowledge, and to convince the faithful of the superiority of his muscular theology.

This is why Zindani can not be dismissed as the cartoonish nutjob the AIDS article suggests. Would that he were so dismissable! It is easy to see why he could be brushed off: with his henna-dyed beard and virulent sermons, Zindani is the archetype a lazy writer for the Tom Clancy Book Factory would dust off when he needed the "Fiery Islamic Preacher" character. The relative obscurity of Yemen only adds to his anonymity with Westerners. But there are many reasons why he can not be brushed off as a third-world freakshow, tempting as it may be.

One is his intellectual respectability, which culminates in his appropiation of Western science to be used against itself. But we'll get to that soon. To put it in context, it is important to understand the role of Yemen is the US-led war on radical Islam. The current author has a broader article on the subject, which will explain Yemeni politics, including the Zindani indictment, in more depth, but here a summary will do. Zindani's indictment on charges of providing material support to al-Qaeda was merely one of the more important moments in the confused and difficult US-Yemeni partnership. After September 11th, Yemen was a country mentioned in the same breath as Afghanistan as a hotbed of terrorism and a possible site for US military intervention. And it was true: Yemen was in many areas lawless and overrun with Islamist sympathizers. But President Ali Abdullah Saleh, nothing if not a survivor, threw himself into the mix and began to root out the criminal element in his society, and has done an excellent job.


Zindani, though, is the wrench in the machine (he might see himself as more of the duex ex machina here; let's hope he is wrong). He is extremely powerful and influential in Yemen, and President Saleh cannot go after him. Zindani is untouchable. And as long as he keeps preaching, and is able to have splashy public appearances, as he still has, he remains the man that can push Yemen back into the "badguy" column. The complicated politics of Yemen leave Saleh with little choice but to continue legitimizing Zindani.

And make no mistake, Zindani is a danger. The Treasury Department, in its indictment, lists him as one of bin Laden's mentors. This is a controversial claim, but it doesn't have to be literal to be true. Zindani was, in fact, a top recruiter for the Afghan war against the Soviets (Yemen sent more jihadis than did any country except Saudi Arabia), and may have ran into bin Laden. But even if he didn't sit down and preach to him, the mark of Zindani's long career as a theologian can be seen in the words of bin Laden.

(A brief aside: Zindani was among many who promoted the notion that Jews were behind the September 11th attacks, in collaboration with President Bush, of course. His best moment may have come, though, when an interviewer for al-Arabiyya asked him about his call to kill Americans in the run-up to the Iraqi invasion. Zindani asked why the interviewer was singling him out, pointing out the many westerners who protested against the war. Yes...but there may be a difference there. This is exactly the kind of tortured mental gymnastics that mark a true fanatic.)

It is in science, though, that Zindani is at his most pernicious. In 1984, the Saudi government welcomed Zindani, who was no longer in Yemen for reasons of domestic politics, into its arms. They founded the Commission on Scientific Signs of Quran and Sunnah. This was to show the compatibility of Islam and modern science- but not in the way that "Intelligent Design" or (worse) "Creation Scientists" try to sneak faith into discussions of reason. Zindani is both more blatant and more sneaky than that. He attempts to show, through twisted metaphor and leading questions to polite scientists, that all of the knowledge in the world is already shown in the Quran. His site, http://www.it-is-truth.com/, is a culmination of his "research."

During the last couple of decades, the Commission has been bringing scholars (sometimes respectable ones) from around the world to read portions of the Quran and various hadiths- sayings of the Prophet- and seeing if they jive with their research. The results are occassionally astounding, and It Is Truth claims It Has Converted many former secularists.

A good example of this is perhaps the most widely quoted one, which I have seen several times throughout the Arab world. There is a hadith where the Prophet tells (and this is with the exact punctuation from the site) "The hereafter will not come...until the lands of Arabs are one again pasture lands filled with rivers." Professor Kroner, Chairman of the Department of Geosciences at Johannes Gutenberg University, explains that a new Ice Age is coming again, and when that happens, yes, Arabia will be lush and green. Professor Kroner's predictions can be disputed, but not by It-Is-Truth. It asks how Mohammed could possibly know this, and one has to answer there is no way he could. However, the ellipses in the quote are crucial. The beginning of the hadith reads "The hereafter will not come until the sun rises in the West." It seems the Prophet's words were less a geo-physical prophecy than a depiction of general fucked-upedness.

Of course, there are some things that can't be justified by torturing science, theology and language in his (sadly not unique) way. But there is an answer for this. When the two obviously contradict, the believer "must take the verse of the Quran without hesitation over any scientific 'fact'". But exactly!

This is not just for laughs. This is actually a terrifyingly seductive mindset, and it is one that can win more Muslims over to radicalism than the stock "enemies are everywhere" lines. It shows the absolute perfection of Islam. And if Zindani can show one how Islam is perfect, than how can we argue with anything he says? It is the zenith of the radical mindset.
Zindani is, sadly, not too different from many people in the west, particularly America. His perfectly rational insanity is similar to, say, Jerry Falwell or James Dobson. It differs only in degree.

But it is a terrifying degree. The reason the article has focused so much on Zindani is not because he is colorful but because he is influential. The Saudis gave him money to fund thousands of schools, all with his curriculum. Many are called, sickeningly, scientific institutions. They all teach the impeccable nature of the Quran, the decadence of the West, the glorious history of the Islamic world, and the path to bring history into the present.

This, then is the ultimate synthesis of science and anti-science, of thought and reaction, of purity and violence. One sees it outcome in the case of Abdul Qadeer Khan, the top Pakistani nuclear scientist who tried to sell secrets to Iran and Libya so that the faithful could level the playing field- so that they could get their own copies of what Pakistan called "The Muslim Nuclear Bomb." This is not a fruitful blend of science and religion: it is the destruction of science, of rationalism, by religious fanaticism.

That is why we need to recognize the intellectual trends of radical Islam. Because it is, at its heart, a theological movement, centuries old, and not a reaction to either America's freedom nor its foriegn policy sins. It is upsetting, then, that so many in America are infected with the same disdain for rationalism. When one becomes a gross parody of the enemy, one can never finally win.