Here is a useful discussion that drives home a couple points I like to make whenever we discuss what “our options” are in Iraq, and in dealing with emerging Islamic powers around the world. Here is a sample, I encourge you to read the whole thing:

It is a familiar situation: News of an exciting military victory for our side against the dangerous Islamists, touted by the readily-available NYT, and a less-exciting account, often not circulated at all in America, having to do with the actual alignment of political forces, which you really have to hunt for. Only if you put the two accounts together can you grasp the way in which the Bush administration is confirming and strengthening the anti-American, pan-Arab view, which is that Somalia is being added as the fifth Arab nation to be attacked in this way, after Iraq, Palestine, Lebanon, and Sudan, just for being Arab and Islamic. Ali Muhammed Fakhro, writing on the Al-Quds al-Arabi opinion page yesterday, warned people in other Arab states not to be complacent in 2007: this could happen to your country too.

There are several useful points raised in this piece I think we should all keep in mind. The first is that as has been so common in the last six years and more in the American “free” press, writers and editors seem to want to go for what is “exciting” and “titillating” rather than just a sober presentation of the facts. The use of military force, rather than diplomacy, is presented as “purposeful” or “strong” or “manly,” and our Decider in Chief and his lickspittles in the higher ranks are lauded for their stout resolve against the evil terrorists. All the while, no one asks the question, “what are the diplomatic options and how might they be better for everyone involved?” As you well know, the reason that other question is important, and excuse me for shouting, is because the cost of the first option is always more dead human beings. Diplomacy may not be blood free, but it certainly has as its primary goal a significant reduction in the violence and bloodshed required to reach a political solution.

Again, I’m wont to say “just drop it” in terms of your subscriptions to major SCLM publications and channels. That seems to be the only way to get their attention, and I was just reading at Avedon’s place that Olbermann is almost singlehandedly responsible for bringing up MSNBC’s ratings to the tune of 25%. So if you can’t give it up, at least be sure to support the right people, perhaps eventually the media execs will get the point.

But getting back to the points in the first post, I also want to add that I don’t hear a lot of Democrats talking about diplomatic options in the world’s Islamic hot spots either. If we’ve learned one lesson these past six years, it’s that the use of military force only creates greater problems for our interests and allies in the long run. This is not to say that military force is always a bad option or never works. But I am saying that so long as clueless, self-concerned, domestic politics interested, racist ideologues are directing our military, they will fail in their goals. Except, of course, the goals of enriching Halliburton, causing destabilization in regions which allow them to extend the “war on terror,” and manipulating the domestic population at key moments. Goals like “peace in the Middle East” and “cheap oil” on the other hand…well, I don’t have to tell you what “progress” we’re making there.

It’s particularly unhappy to read about Muslim and Arab writers making the kinds of warnings the post mentions. I can’t say I really disagree with the logic. I’ve got a lot of reading to do, else I’d link here to a bunch of scary stuff I’ve read about loose nukes and smaller states and leaders, and cooperation between the Mullahs in Iran and organizations that want to do the West and US harm. Our war on Iraq has made the life of the Iranian Mullah that much better, and our unwillingness to do anything about alternative fuels and oil consumption has put a great deal of money into their pockets at the same time.

The short version of this post would be: please make it a point to read non-Western sources for news in the Middle East, and please continue to ask yourself questions about how narratives of the war are constructed, and leave out certain logical elements that should be included.