Super Star

In the US, we call the show American Idol. The Arab world has its own wildly popular version called Super Star. The idea is about the same: the public watches individual performances, and then vote on their favorite singer.

So is this Democracy, or anything like it? Writing in the WSJ Opinion Journal, Tyler MacKenzie, who teaches English in Syria, thinks Super Star quenches a thirst for participatory government in the Middle East. He writes:
"Thanks to the Internet, mobile phones and satellite TV stations operating beyond the sphere of government control, Arabs from every nation can watch a Lebanese television show and take responsibility for its outcome. In effect, "Super Star" provides the only common platform for popular participation in the Arab world--the only accessible, properly "democratic" institution in a region dominated by authoritarian elites."
Is this the yearning for freedom that beats in the heart of every human?

Possibly, but that's quite beside the point. There's a whole lot of steps a nation needs to take between voting for the cute babe with the seductive soprano voice, and taming armed Islamofascists to not kill cute babes with seductive soprano voices. It's like saying if I can carry an egg from the refrigerator to the kitchen sink without dropping it, then that proves I can raise kids.

At the heart of every argument that Democracy can be forced on the Middle East is the assumption that people will always act in their best interest. They don't. People, including Americans, can be wildly irrational and selfish. If Super Star was truly representative of the Mid East political culture, then Arab Paula Abdul wouldn't be allowed to talk at all, Arab Randy Johnson would opely solicit bribes for favorable comments, and Arab Simon Cowell would shoot bad singers instead of insulting them. Then he would shoot their families, too.


Reviving the draft

There's only one thing that terrifies George Bush more than having to explain himself to the American people, and that's talk of a military draft. The Bushies insist that the all-volunteer forces are adequate to meet the challenges of fighting Islamofascism. Donald Rumsfeld has gone so far as to say draftees add no value to the military, that they are effect more trouble than they are worth.

Now, along comes David Hackworth, decorated Korean and Vietnam War veteran and contributing Newsweek writer, who says the draft is a certainty:
Right now, with both our regular and Reserve soldiers stretched beyond the breaking point, our all-volunteer force is tapping out. If our overseas troop commitments continue at the present rate or climb higher, there wonít be enough Army and Marine grunts to do the job. And thin, overworked units, from Special Forces teams to infantry battalions, lose fights.

Clearly, this war against worldwide, hardcore Islamic believers will be a massive military marathon, the longest and most far-flung in our countryís history. By Christmas, more troops could be needed not only in Iraq and Afghanistan, but wherever the radical Islamic movement is growing stronger, from the Horn of Africa to Morocco, Kenya, Somalia, Yemen and across Europe ñ remember Spain?! ñ to Asia.

Accordingly, we need to bring our ground-fighting and support units to about the strength they were before the Soviet Union imploded, especially since the proper ratio of counterinsurgent-to-insurgent in places like the Middle East should be around 15 to 1. You don't have to be a Ph.D. in military personnel to conclude we need more boots on the ground.

The Bushies' real problem with a draft is it forces accountability for the administration's abysmal foreign policy, which will turn more people against the war. It's easy for country club Republicans to support the Iraq war when when they have no skin in the game. But nothing dulls that hawkish glow like watching your 18-year-old son leaving for boot camp instead of college.

Old hands like Rumsfeld and Cheney remember that opposition to the Vietnam War dropped off considerably in the early 1970s when Nixon discontinued the draft. College students in the sixties were talking give peace a chance, but what they really meant was "give us a chance to finish college and get a job."

The Republican faithful will support Bush's war as long as someone not related to them has to fight it.
5.10.04 16:39
 


To date 2 Comment(s)     TrackBack-URL


blogenlust / Website (5.10.04 21:22)
 Word. On the one hand, we are up shit creek without a paddle in that we definitely do not have enough troops in Iraq. If we want to do this right, we'll need troops from somewhere (i.e., draft?) On the other hand, I'm not sure how in the hell they would implement a draft after the beginning of an already unpopular war. The Vietnam draft was sneaky because it took a while for people to realize how bad it was. Now, though, the majority of the country thinks Iraq is a mess and questions our being there. To implement a draft in spite of these beliefs would be a huge political gamble. The whole situation fucking sucks. Part of me wants to scream "Told you so!", while the other part of me wants to cry.


(5.10.04 22:10)
 It would take a supreme act of arrogance to institute a draft for such an ill-advised military adventure. And George Bush is just the guy to do it.

Name:
Email:
Website:
 Email me when further comments are posted
Save information (cookie)


 Insert emoticons