Charlie Hebdo - The War Room met last Friday to discuss the context and repercussions of the attacks on the French satire outlet, Charlie Hebdo. A conversation about the limits of satire arose. While the global community almost unanimously condemned the violent actions of Cherif and Said Kouachi, many French citizens were resistant to adopting the popular slogan "Je Suis Charlie” or “I am Charlie”. The phrase was, of course, intended to show singularity with the newspaper. Some protesters rallied to defend Charlie Hebdo’s right to free speech while others were less eager to support the often vulgar and intolerant content displayed in their cartoons.

Another important consideration of the event was the historical context of French colonialism, since it was part of the Kouachi brothers’ justification for adopting violent radicalism. This applies similarly to the United States, where extremist groups use the United States’ expression of political power (soft and hard power) as justification for violent terror tactics.  Below are two articles which give insight into these specific topics. Where do you stand on the issue of free expression vs. offensive comedy? Please feel free to share your thoughts below!

www.nybooks.com/blogs/nyrblog/2015/jan/16/charlie-hebdo-limits-satire 

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/charlie-hebdo-paris-attack-brothers-campaign-of-terror-can-be-traced-back-to-algeria-in-1954-9969184.html

The More Things Change

A quick look at the posting dates for these blog messages reveals that the War Room blog has been dormant for three years or so. But we haven't been sleeping - chameleon that it is, the WR has morphed several times, and now the blog is back and badder than ever. And we want you.

And because the world is what it is some things in the War Room universe have changed only somewhat. War in Iraq over? You wish. Syria? Raging along nicely, thank you. Israel-Palestine? Play me the old hits.

War is Over

The end of the (US) war in Iraq makes it all the way to page 3 of the New York Times. Welcome home to all the brave men and women.

Are we going to actually learn something from this completely unnecessary, unjustified, and criminal war?


Now we can turn our attention to more important issues, i.e., was it appropriate to call Newt Gingrich "zany"?

By the way, the answer is yes, but only because the real words can't be printed.

A Conversation we need to have, but won't

Check out the above link, to Thomas Ricks' blog. It's a lengthy, well-thought-out piece by a combat veteran who was a very good student of mine a long time ago. He makes a compelling case for mandatory military service. (I have half-seriously promoted this idea, too, usually when somebody complains about being "yelled at" - sometimes by me, sometimes by others. I think everyone should have the experience of really being yelled at, preferably by a Marine Corps gunnery sergeant and preferably for no good reason.)

This posting, however, gives a dead-serious, angry, articulate and persuasive case.

Who Are the Libyan Rebels?

It's the question of the day/week/month - especially if, as seems possible, the United States decides to arm them. One thing they ain't, evidently, is a military power. But check out Robert Worth's NY Times magazine article at the above link; some amazing stories out of Benghazi. Jon Lee Anderson also tackles that question in The New Yorker.

World War III Places at Once

Credit: Anja Niedringhaus, Associated Press, at URL above

I have to admit, I'm shocked, stunned, perplexed by the attacks on Libyan forces. Granted, Gadhafi is murderous scum - but whose interests are we serving here? Who are the "rebels" and what do they want? Do we have any reason to think they care about democracy or women's rights? Is there any reason to think that air strikes alone are going to force Gadhafi out? And if he is forced out, what then? Is there evidence I'm missing of massacres of civilians? The news coverage makes me strongly suspect that we're making a false distinction between "civilian" and "rebel," i.e., if Gadhafi kills someone, he's a civilian; if that someone shoots at Gadhafi forces, he's a rebel.

Our US forces and their allies will undoubtedly do a superb job - but are we going to be on the hook to reconstruct a third nation? We've done such a swell job in Iraq and Afghanistan --

Libya

On to Tripoli, I meant to say.

Who could have predicted that the gods love Gadhafi and hate the Japanese?