Buried beneath coverage of pro- and anti-Syria demonstrations in Lebanon, the Pillow Fight Club rally in Tel Aviv, and the bare-breasted protest of Prince Charles in New Zealand is yesterday's march in Pakistan decrying the acquittal of five accused gang-rapists. Mukhtar Mai, the woman leading the protest, was raped by a group of men in 2002 on orders from village elders. The directed sexual attack came in response to allegations that Mai's twelve-year-old brother had sex with a woman of higher social status.

The case of Mukhtar Mai is extreme, even for Pakistan, but it represents a pattern. "Human rights groups estimate that anywhere from 70 to 90 percent of women are victims of domestic violence," the 2000 State Department report on human rights notes about Pakistan. Marital rape is legal, the literacy rate for women stands about half of the rate for men, several hundred "honor killings" occur annually, and rape victims occassionally find themselves jailed for "adultery." The judiciary system halves the value of female testimony in certain cases. Dowry killings and, among one Muslim sect of 100,000, female genital mutilation persist.

How do feminists, immersed in doctrines of cultural relativism, reconcile the mantra "all cultures are equal" with reality in South Asia? How does the Bush administration, which asked for and received $600 million in foreign aid for Pakistan, mesh its Carteresque rhetoric on human rights with its ally's abominable cultural and legal practices?

"How does the Bush administration, which asked for and received $600 million in foreign aid for Pakistan, mesh its Carteresque rhetoric on human rights with its ally's abominable cultural and legal practices?"

The same way another revolutionary President, Ronald Reagan, did. It's the doctrine of the lesser evil, as Dinesh D'Souza dubbed it. We've done it for years (e.g. Stalin's USSR during WWII), but the modern version of the theory was developed by Jeane Kirkpatrick.

-ben

Are you conceding the point, Ben? That is, realpolitik comes before lofty rhetoric. I too understand the necessity of states to partner up with unsavory allies for the greater good. But Bush said in his second inaugural that spreading democracy is the "urgent requirement of our nation's security." Yet he is bankrolling a dictatorship to the tune of $600 billion. One can make a strong case that the war on terrorism requires a partnership with Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, etc. But to make that case, you necessarily expose the rhetoric of Bush's 2nd inaugural as a bunch of utopian nonsense.

Of course Realpolitik comes before lofty rhetoric. The democratization of the Middle East is a demonstration of realpolitik at its finest. A democratic middle east will be less inclined to attack us, and more inclined to sell us oil. The moral righteousness of the democratization plan is an added bonus.

Hey Flynn, do you know much about the federal reserve act of 1913???

Bush's inaugural speech was just a grand rationalization for not uncovering any WMD in Iraq.

Ben,

Making assertions is no substitute for sound anlysis

"The democratization of the Middle East is a demonstration of realpolitik at its finest."

Honestly, I have no idea what this statement is supposed to mean. It's not an anlysis of any kind. It does not present a realistic scenario of the future Middle East.

". A democratic middle east will be less inclined to attack us, and more inclined to sell us oil. "

When has the Middle East ever attacked us? The United States has had to intervene in democratic governments -- Iran (1953), Algeria (1954), Guatemala (1954) -- to preserve our economic interests.

"The moral righteousness of the democratization plan is an added bonus."

How can it be morally righteous if it's the finest example of Realpolitik?

Unfortunately for Lebanon, the future holds: a Hezbollah that is now FAR and completely out of control of the Syrian government, and a subsequent reign of terror by said terrorist organization once the troops maintaining the peace leave the country. This is reckless and insane policy, and I fear many lives will be lost so that the State Department can make the world "safe for democracy".

The worst is that our chest-thumping and demands to Syria (they're very near ultimatums) only serve to draw us into this inevitable conflict. Once Syria leaves, Hezbollah will run roughshod over these people, there is no way we'll just sit there and watch. Certainly not after we got them into such a mess. If they get the Palestinians (10% of the population) involved, and they will, we'll be in a nice little war right on the border of Israel. What the hell are we doing? I don't even know what to call this. Is it going to turn into some kind of surreal secular-democratic crusade when we reach the gates of Jerusalem? I hope my gloom and doom is wrong, of course, but I don't like the looks of this.

Morals and Realpolitik do not have to be mutually exclusive.

Secondly various Middle Eastern nations have been using terrorism as a proxy with which to attack the United States for decades, and you know it. Your deliberately pretending ignorance to help your argument, it ridiculous.

Aboriginal women in New Zealand are being slighted?? Who knew?!

asdf: Since your comment is almost criminally irrelevant, I can only assume you're making light of the serious assaults on human dignity built into Pakistani culture and government.

I agree with our country's decision to deal with the Pakies despite this fact. But wouldn't a lot of these realpolitik people see it differently if the institutionalized evil in Pakistan was white-on-black or gentile-on-jew instead of men-on-women? Am I even allowed to say this?

"That is, realpolitik comes before lofty rhetoric."

As Ben-T said, both are necessary for any real change to occur. Reagan proved this. He didn't simply accept the fact that we would have to ally with authoritarians in order to defeat the greater threat. He also called this greater threat an "evil empire", opted for a confrontational approach to foreign policy (which was criticized just as it is today), and even sent troops into countries that did not directly attack us in order to restore and defend democracy. After the barrage of criticism and doomsaying on the part of his ideological foes, he was vindicated. The same will be true of Bush.

"When has the Middle East ever attacked us?"

This is an asinine question. Fanatical Muslims have killed Americans on dozens of occasions. The problem is that we did nothing in response. September 11 was the straw that broke the camel's back, and fortunately we have a visionary leader in office who is brave enough to defend this country.

"But wouldn't a lot of these realpolitik people see it differently if the institutionalized evil in Pakistan was white-on-black or gentile-on-jew instead of men-on-women?"

They wouldn't, for reasons of prudence. Their outlook is basically that we can't afford to care about the plight of the oppressed in the world. To paraphrase some politician whose name I've forgotten, my view is that just because we can't do everything doesn't mean we shouldn't do anything.

Ben L,

But isn't the point, that if we support countries such as Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt, countries that we know harbor terrorists, yet claim to be our allies, that later down the line, they will piss on us? If we support them in an effort to suppress more radical regimes (at least those that we perceive to be more radical) like Iran and Syria, then these countries in due time will also come back to strike us?

For all the love that I have for Reagan, I can't help but admit that his support for rogue states and terrorist-like organizations in the 1980s to defeat Communist Russia, may be one of the reasons that we are dealing with the terrorist problems that we are today.

Come on Brigid: lighten up! I was commenting specifically on the 'bare-breasted protest' piece.

Truth is that this a was pretty funny article in that these women had a host of obscure items that they were supposedly protesting against and seemed to have no one clear idea of why they were exposing their breasts.

So, they dropped brassiere to protest slighted Aboriginal women; unknown reasons on behalf of mothers; to condemn the monarchy and colonialism; to represent the tangata whenua (??) honoring some native treaty. Oh, and the selling of non-alcoholic beer at cricket matches.

They were not acting as serious protesters but like a couple of nutty flashers.

Would just like to know why we never see the S.I. swimsuit models taking stands like this?

Is that out of line??

Brigid, on second thought, my apologies if my postings have offended you. I really was only trying to make light of that specific offering as it struck me as not that serious.

However, the overall topic is.

Dan: if my postings truly appear to be as offensive as Brigid would seem to be taking them, please remove them.

Thanks.

ASDF: sorry sorry sorry! Rare feminist moment from me. I didn't understand that you were referencing the bi-zarro anti-Prince Charles protests, and thought you were making fun of the idea (worth making fun of) that mistreatment of women in a given country should keep us from making deals in pursuit of our national interests. My fault. I think we agree here, actually.

On the other hand I don't believe Ben L. I think that if this type of institutionally sanctioned violence were directed against Blacks or Jews instead of women, then our dealing with Pakistan would get much more serious opposition from left and right in this country.

I think you are right Brigid, Ben L is trying to have it both ways with his conflation of realpolitik and moral idealism.

If the conflict within Pakistan's borders that makes them an unjust society, or a violator of human rights, was a conflict between Muslims/Arabs and Jews instead of between men and women we would be hearing an entirely different tune from him.

But note how radical feminists, being of the left, have generally been rather silent about these human rights issues in Muslim culture, which they normally harp on, in their opposition to all things Bush and thus opposition to the War in Iraq. Just goes to show that all politics is still local.

Of course, the liberal establishment is actually behind Bush's crusading, the elite establishment in this country is of one mind, Republican or Democrat.

"If the conflict within Pakistan's borders that makes them an unjust society, or a violator of human rights, was a conflict between Muslims/Arabs and Jews instead of between men and women we would be hearing an entirely different tune from him."

Brian, I see what you're thinking, but you're completely misunderstanding my views. Why do you think I supported the war in Iraq? I like the idea of the United States toppling evil, oppressive regimes, and I would support measures to do so. All I'm saying is that it's not realistic to suggest we can fight *every* evil in the world on our own.

"But isn't the point, that if we support countries such as Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt, countries that we know harbor terrorists, yet claim to be our allies, that later down the line, they will piss on us? If we support them in an effort to suppress more radical regimes (at least those that we perceive to be more radical) like Iran and Syria, then these countries in due time will also come back to strike us?"

I absolutely agree that a tyrannical regime will eventually come back to strike us. So we must use them for what they're worth at the moment, as we defeat what we perceive to be greater threats, and then we can focus on eliminating them. The thing about spreading freedom and democracy is that, when the time comes to shift our focus to some brutal temporary ally, we will have additional nations to support our measures. Also, the idea of democratic reforms will (and already is) spreading through the Muslim world, which will also help to cripple the governments.

I just re-read Brian's comment, and it seems much more insulting in retrospect. As expected from a person like him, he's basically suggesting that I only have compassion for Jews. To clarify my last post -- if Bush decided to pulverize the misogynist Pakistani regime, or any other awful Muslim country, to give women and all of the inhabitants hope and freedom, I would completely support it.

"I can't help but admit that his support for rogue states and terrorist-like organizations in the 1980s to defeat Communist Russia, may be one of the reasons that we are dealing with the terrorist problems that we are today."

It isn't, though -- you're buying into the Buchanan/Chomskyesque "Blame America" argument. Bin Laden and his ilk loathe the west and seek its destruction. They want to spread their hateful, backwards, totalitarian sect of Islam across the world. They simply cite these reasons (American interventionism) in order to gain sympathy for their evil cause. The ultimate cause of the problem is tyranny, which allows such fanaticism to grow while suppressing classical-liberal thinking.

Terrorists actually have reasons for disliking our country. It isn't spontaneously generated. How come nobody ever mentions this? Are people afraid of seeming unamerican or something? It is ok to stand up for a cause, it is not unamerican to do so.

"Terrorists actually have reasons for disliking our country. It isn't spontaneously generated. How come nobody ever mentions this?"

What are you babbling about? In fact, my last post addressed two men on opposite sides of the political spectrum who believe that some of the terrorists' arguments are legitimate. Also, absolutely no one involved suggested that the hatred in the Middle East is "spontaneously generated." The argument is simply over what generates it. God, you are annoying.

"It is ok to stand up for a cause"

One last thing -- what "cause" are you "standing up" for? Islamofascism?

Yea, keep fighting the good fight.

Good point by Mr. Jones,
Everyone likes to say, "Hitler did this", and, "Hitler did that". But the truth is Hitler did very little. He was a world class tyrant, but the evil actually done by the Third Reich, from the death camps to WW2 was all done by German citizens who were afraid to question if what they were told by their government was the truth or not, and who because they did not want to admit to themselves that they were afraid to question the government, refused to see the truth behind the Reichstag Fire, refused to see the invasion by Poland was a staged fake, and followed Hitler into national disaster. Hmmm could we be experiencing a little deja vu here?

A few fun facts about Our misnomered pal Truth. Assuming that we can derive his beliefs from the website he links us to in his name, the following things are true.

-Truth is a Pagan
-Truth believes in the Illuminati, or at least a Shadow Government/New World Order of some kind
-Truth believes in UFOs
-Truth believes rock and roll music is a form of mind control. No, I dont mean a brainwashing/marketing technique, I mean literal mind control.

Click on Truth's name for some more fun theories.

Oops, I did it again...

hhaha Truth you really are a COMICAL character. Is there a conspiracy theory you DONT accept?

Yes in fact, there are a many. Sometimes false conspiracies are contrived just to act as double blinds to events that really transpired. For example, it is theorized that America staged the moon landing, all in the context of winning the space race in the "cold war". People said that astronauts could not withstand the radiation exposure while passing through the Van Allen radiation belts that surround the Earth. In truth the dose of radiation in minimal and equivolent to getting x-rayed a few times. This conspiracy theory however is false.

We did make it to the moon. What really happened there, is kept highly classified. A few things have leaked however.

"It isn't, though -- you're buying into the Buchanan/Chomskyesque "Blame America" argument. Bin Laden and his ilk loathe the west and seek its destruction. They want to spread their hateful, backwards, totalitarian sect of Islam across the world. They simply cite these reasons (American interventionism) in order to gain sympathy for their evil cause. The ultimate cause of the problem is tyranny, which allows such fanaticism to grow while suppressing classical-liberal thinking."

Ben L,

I'm not buying into Buchanan's rhetoric, I think he's an ultra radical conservative, and he doesn't represent me. My questions to you were my thoughts and perceptions, and my attempt to seek the truth.

As far as Bin Laden, I agree with your comments. He would have hated America regardless if Reagan's policies did or did not help his terrorist organization, or terrorist organizations like his, defeat Communist Russia. There is a good book about this tactic called "Victory: The Reagan Administration's Secret Strategy that hastened the collapse of the Soviet Union", by Peter Schweizer.

But in retrospect, by funding and arming terrorist organizations, we hurt ourselves in the long run. I mean, it's like cutting off a finger from your left hand in order to give your right hand some extra help. Although your right hand is more functional now, over time, you realize that it was a misuse of resources. We helped solve a problem back then, but we also helped fuel organizations to come back and piss on us now.

"We did make it to the moon. What really happened there, is kept highly classified. A few things have leaked however. "

rofl.

Bin Laden is dead.

(The "rofl" was, again, Mr. T [this time from a school computer]).

"I'm not buying into Buchanan's rhetoric, I think he's an ultra radical conservative, and he doesn't represent me."

Ah, nice to hear I have some allies on this site.

"There is a good book about this tactic called "Victory: The Reagan Administration's Secret Strategy that hastened the collapse of the Soviet Union", by Peter Schweizer."

Thanks for the tip, I'll check it out.

"I mean, it's like cutting off a finger from your left hand in order to give your right hand some extra help. Although your right hand is more functional now, over time, you realize that it was a misuse of resources."

But it is never possible to have things turn out exactly as you want, of course. While you may see it as a misuse of resources, I think of it as an economic use of resources. By that I mean we made the best decision we could, considering the choices, at the time. Again, you just have to think of the alternative, and what the consequences may have been.