"the Infidel review is still unfinished... "

{lies}Really? Hardly noticed.{/lies}

I'm oddly semi sympathetic to Hughes insofar as I understand she had no policy power, and thus could not address the core issues.

But then I am not up to date with policy details in US Gov.

Video games! So that's what's kept you away from 'Aqoul. Mystery solved.

And, this one, on Saudi money financing wahhabi/Deobandi crap in brit mosques.

from my knowledge of King Abdullah - and the admittedly byzantine (or arabesque?) royal family structure - Abdullah is on board with ditching the Wahhabi extremist elements, and keeping the bedouin/conservative culture in the deserts; basically a paleo-conservative vs. the neo-conservative elements, represented in the banu Sa'ud by groups like Prince Nayef, the minister of the Interior (alternatively, 'torture, fear and maiming') and the radical clerics, who used to congregate around radical firebrands like Salman al-Awdah and Safar al-Hawali - you may want to look at a Navy intelligence article on the relationship between the radical Wahabi imams, 'the Sahwa' and the Saudi state ('the Sahwa' means 'the awakening' (generally to indicate the Wahabbi revival since the late 60s, but particularly after the seizure of the Masjid al-Haram in Mecca by Juhayman in '79, and particularly after the Gulf War in '91, when a great number of Saudis started to share a dissatisfaction with the ruling class)

http://www.ccc.nps.navy.mil/si/2005/Mar/jonesMar05.asp

Since someone brought up nerdiness, I'd like to note that I went as a Moderate Muslim Reformer (composite of Irshad and Ayaan) for Halloween.

Et vous?

SP, I would have dressed up but October has been hell for me.

BTW Irshad held a talk at my favourite bookstore the other day and I wandered in completely unaware. Bloody ruined my evening.

Interested in what the crowd here thinks of this:

http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/2007/11/glubbs-guide-to-the-arab-tribe/

Give it up Miss eerie - what is your Xbox360 player name ?

Interesting article, but this statement was irksome:

King Hussein, responding to these depredations and influenced by the negative pan-Arab reaction to the British and French invasion of the Suez Canal in 1956, fired Glubb on March 1, 1956.

This requires a time machine as the Canal company wasn't nationalized until July and the invasion wasn't til October 1956.

The effect was the other way -- the pan-Arabists' success in getting rid of Glubb in Jordan resulted in Britain's determination to go-all-the-way after the Canal company (not the Canal itself which was indisputably Egyptian, being pedantic here) was nationalized.

The Small Wars site is interesting and serious.

One piece of information (not the fine Site just a useful piece of information it provides) is very depressing. I don't speak for Aqoul but it expresses everything I fear and am against in a nutshell:

More and more of our strategic judgments are being built upon the untested edifice of two books: Bernard Lewis' The Crisis of Islam: Holy War and Unholy Terror and Samuel P. Huntington's The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order. . . .For the most part they have become the basic canon of 21st century strategic thought . . . . In military publications and briefings these works are now cited repeatedly and uncritically as authoritative support for developing strategic concepts. . . .

Good Lord, it's worse than I imagined.

Matthew-

Yes, impressive quote isn't it?
I do not recommend reading the whole article. It's basically rubbish.

I just saw the whole article (the Collapse one) and its second half is silly and xenophobic. The first part, though harsh, is basically factually and analytically correct. And anything that challenges the idiocies and prominence of Lewis and Huntington gets partial credit.

Cute concept, might check that game out. When you say "frothing" gamers, do you mean they're aching to play, or seething about the subject matter, or both?

Because although gamers do not typically have much problem with playing "the bad guy", this might strike v. small-minded types as apologetics for terrorists. It seems one can guarantee dozens of blog entries awaiting the release of Suicide Bomber for PS3.

Curiously, I wonder how well that would sell...

along with a slew of Peace-making games, which probably don't sell very well outside of Peace and Conflict study departments... you can see one at www.gamespot.com/pc/adventure/globalconflictspalestine/index.html

there have been online games to play Palestinians surviving, and there's even been a PC game where one played a Palestinian militant, "Tahta al-Hisar (Under the Siege)," released by a Damascus-based programming company, Afkar media:
http://www.oman3d.com/features/interview_afkar/

and Hezbollah has released a game to replay the war in Lebanon, as a Hezbollah fighter attempting to capture Israeli soldiers and fire rockets into Israeli towns, named Special Force 2:
http://www.gamertell.com/gaming/comment/militant-islamic-group-markets-second-video-game/

Please look to the book "On killing" by Col. Dave Grossman, formerly instructor at the US Naval Academy - a brilliant book on how media and videogames are now used as part of the psychological preparation for war: http://www.killology.com/books.htm

as to the relative value of these games, I think I would agree with a quote from a review of the Special Force 2:
"... the game won’t be winning any awards, but that’s not really the point. The point is to win the hearts and minds of Islamic youth. Special Force 2 raises important questions not only about the nature of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, but also about the nature of video games and what we use them for. ... the United States Army has a long and storied history of marketing and developing military shooters to impressionable youths right here at home."

Grossman's book (he's not to be confused with the Israeli author) is excellent even if I am unsure of his basic premise - namely that *most* humans have a powerful natural aversion to killing other people and have to be carefully taught and conditioned. He may be right but it's a tough sell.

There's that famous study that claims only about 10% of all soldiers do the actual killing, the rest just fuddle with their rifles and keep their heads down. I think it may come down to the impersonal nature of modern warfare, as opposed to the tribal ooga-booga of ages past, where you actually knew everyone you fought for and against. Conflict and war is an essential part of group identity creation and solidification, I think it's here to stay. Like sex.

Grossman's book is one of a few that I got 50-100 pages into before setting aside. I'll pick it up again at some point.

But I was not referring to crappy political games (esp. that apply to local audiences) - rather, I was thinking of mass-marketed, mainstream fare (such as the game that Eerie points out). There have been plenty very popular games where one's character is morally questionable (to say the least). Gamers tend to be rather amoral when it comes to having fun, so when it comes to making money, it's largely a matter of "cool" gameplay.

Usually the most controversial (JFK assassination FPS, White Pride shooters, school-shooter sims, etc.) are very fringe and have a reputation for being complete wastes of time, but within the culture there is definitely room for being thieves, pirates, gangsters, and, obviously, assassins.

Blue: Yes, in fact gamers are terribly excited about being able to play a superhuman crusader-killing assassin. Why? Because the gameplay looks awesome.

Same deal with Prince of Persia: Sands of Time and Battlefield 2 (my ex always played the Mideast Coalition, but perhaps he was biased).

Looking at all the xenophobic blogs out there, it's easy to forget that most Americans aren't rabidly anti-Muslim. Certainly not the gamers I've played with (incl. US military). Most of them don't know my background either (some didn't even realize I was a girl).

eerie -- Yes, in fact gamers are terribly excited about being able to play a superhuman crusader-killing assassin. [...] Same deal with Prince of Persia: Sands of Time and Battlefield 2 (my ex always played the Mideast Coalition, but perhaps he was biased). Looking at all the xenophobic blogs out there, it's easy to forget that most Americans aren't rabidly anti-Muslim.

True, but I don't know if computer games are a good example. After all, most people also prefer playing Nazis, Commies, Orcs, brutish dictators and sniper-rifle psychopaths over whoever the good guy happens to be.

Well, I made 2 points there. The first was about gameplay, the second was about American gamers in general.

Re your example: yes, people are willing to play amoral/anti-hero characters if the game is awesome. However, there is a big difference between Orcs and Nazis. In the WW2-themed Call of Duty series you can play the Red Army, but recall they were "good guys" back then. I can't think of any mainstream game off the top of my head where you can play a Nazi, since games with Nazi symbols in them generally get banned in Germany and elsewhere, etc. Truly evil characters are generally not as attractive as anti-heroes or good guys (unless, say, the game concept is a Good/Evil choice, e.g. Fable)

Second point: It's easy to assume that most average middle-America types are xenophobic, but my (online gaming) experience suggests otherwise. I once played with a Marine who'd recently been stationed in Iraq. He posted a photo of himself in his evangelical Xtian mother's apartment (Mary/Jesus bric-a-brac everywhere). He was charmingly dim, yet had very nuanced views about the Iraq war, and Muslims in general. This sticks in my mind.

"evangelical Xtian mother's apartment (Mary/Jesus bric-a-brac everywhere)."

Evangelicals with Mary/Jesus bric-a-brac? Sounds uncommon.

Because the gameplay looks awesome.

Absolutely - for gamers, the play's the thing. Usually. Politics does find it's way in sometimes. And I'm sometimes curious if there is a line that will end up triggering a larger social response, perhaps even partially within the group.

...it's easy to forget that most Americans aren't rabidly anti-Muslim.

I didn't mean to imply as much (mass hysteria about Dubai port management withstanding), but even casual observers will recognize there are heavy doses of parental over-reactions with respect to the industry. Although long-time participants will know that there's always more heat over which system is "better", there are, on occasion, some (semi-)serious discussions that happen within the gamer group about topical situations. This includes (but is not limited to) wanton violence (GTA, Postal, et al.), the sometimes not-so-latent sexism (recall Lara Croft discussions), and politics (Balance of Power, Balance of the Planet, SimEarth, etc.).

I would not be surprised to hear this game mentioned in political rallying to the American parental base. Such things are admittedly hit-or-miss, but the success of a "controversial" game tends to increase the probability. While I personally don't have a problem with it, you just know there are a bunch of morons who are going to think this game is some sort of brain-washing tool, yadda, yadda.

I can't think of any mainstream game off the top of my head where you can play a Nazi, since games with Nazi symbols in them generally get banned in Germany and elsewhere, etc.

There are indeed some, though typically we're talking vs. mode FPS.

Notable examples from the past are flight sims such as Secret Weapons of the Luftwaffe (complete with swastika-bearing fighters) and the standard grognard fare (Panzer General perhaps having been the most visible, though of a less hard-core wargaming bent). I remember some argument about the Waffen SS appearing as a unit in one game or another (circa early 90's), but then most children at the time were hardly excited about accurate attrition rates on the leading Mark IV elements in their Panzergruppen at Kharkov...

I haven't paid as much attention to the industry as once did, but one presumes there are more recent gaming methods of "defending the Fatherland" as it were.

MH, there are Catholic evangelicals too.

I don't want to be pedantic, but it may be of some relevance. I don't usually hear the phrase "Catholic evangelicals", at least here in the US of A, as "evangelical" tends to usually mean specifically a branch of Protestantism, emphasizing the fact and necessity of a personal conversion experience and the aggressive proselytizing of same.

There are Catholics who do that and there are some who follow the Pentecostal stream -- demonstrative prayer, speaking in tongues, "prophecy" etc. -- they are usually called Pentecostal.

The reason it might be useful to be pedantic is that our Ms. Belated-Infidel-Reviewer, excuse me, Ms Eerie, was noting the religiosity of her friend's mom, but the specific religion (which sounds Catholic or Orthodox with the Mary stuff)would make a difference.

Catholic institutional outlook is less Islamophobic (even despite Pope Benny's comments of yesteryear) and certainly far less End-Timesy/Christian Zionist, and less ignorant about the Middle East than American (especially white-rural) evangelicals.

Thus, if Catholic, the risk of the guy having knee-jerk Islamophobia via religious bias, even if a Pentecostal-or "evangelical" style Catholic worshipper, is generally lower than plain old fashioned Bible-thumping and/or tongue-praying evangelical Protestants.

Whoa, I just meant there were little statues/crucifixes of Jesus and some images of Mary holding Jesus. Hard to pick a "sect" from a photo, but none of the iconography struck me as Catholic. Plus he was a down-home Southern boy, so my guess would be born-again Protestant evangelical.

"statues/crucifixes of Jesus and some images of Mary holding Jesus. . . . Hard to pick a "sect" from a photo, but none of the iconography struck me as Catholic. "

That iconography (in fact just about any Xtian iconography), except maybe at Christmas time, strikes me as usually only Catholic, Orthodox, or maybe Episcopalians. Evangelicals really don't like statues. Even of Jesus. Especially not of Mary (just to show they aren't catholic). Again, except maybe Christmastime.

Even crucifixes (crosses with a live or dead Jesus on it) are frowned on.

Also, there are down-home good ol'boy Catholics.

(Either way, it still will be possible to do a review of Infidel, by AHA.)

matthew, it may be optomistic to think that we aren't inclined to kill each other - and I think that despite the evidence of centuries of war, it's largely desperation and frustration that causes us to hate someone else enought to kill, and that only a small minority - I don't know how large - that actually enjoys killing, whereas the majority of us would rather 'live and let live,' finding the thought of killing someone human like us repellent to our conscience.

I would hope so, at any rate.

as for eerie's 'evangelical' - I don't know how many down-south evangelicals have iconography, but I think it's a bit much to condemn eerie's lack of assessment of American evangelicals, I don't think she should be expected to have a good analysis of Christian sectarianism or to have a snap assessment of some Xbox player based solely on a photo; my parents are protestant and wouldn't put up iconography, but do have several paintings and books from their Russian Orthodox colleagues and Catholic friends...

methinks people are taking out some frustration on poor eerie, largely because they're expecting her to play less Xbox and write here more often... ;)

I'm not picking on our esteemed site-goddess at all; well, ok, yes a little, for the non-review, but not for the assessment of the iconography; I just think it's not accurate.

Such iconography is more probably evidence of the *lack* of evangelical Protestantism rather than its presence.

That iconography (in fact just about any Xtian iconography), except maybe at Christmas time, strikes me as usually only Catholic, Orthodox, or maybe Episcopalians. Evangelicals really don't like statues.

Hm. While I agree that prolific Christian iconography is far more typical amongst Catholic and Orthodox followers, evangelicals are hardly immune.

That's a real mega-Jesus! Yeah, there is the occasional temptation for the gaudy especially in the mega churches. Still, it's rare and more significantly, Mary iconography is still a Protestant no-no, and that was Ms. Eerie's impression of the bric-a-brac. Madonna and child? More papist than Guy Fawkes with a fuse, man.

I personally prefer the nominal "Touchdown Jesus".

Yes, Madonna imagery does indeed point significantly toward Catholicism, but one should keep in mind that American religion is not so heavily delineated such that one picture might allow easy pronouncements about any specific individual within a household. I know at least one married couple that was a Catholic/Baptist pairing--not sure how (or if) a negotiation happened on that front.

Further, with the "mega-church", populist theology trend there has been a rather significant rearrangement of dogma. Not unlike the virtual 180 on Jewish opinion, a fairly large number of modern Christians don't care nearly as much about the Protestant/Catholic divide as has been the historic norm--even to the point of disregarding (or minimizing) the subtext of Madonna & Child and the Ave Maria. Obviously many congregations still seek to distinguish themselves from those other, "wrong-thinking" brethren, but hard-core Protestants often feel much closer to certain Catholics now than they do to their more moderate (they would read: liberal) cousins, even within what ostensibly is the same sect.

Sixty years ago you could have been much more certain on such a judgment call. Nowadays you're probably getting closer to 60-70%.

MH, I've read about two kinds of Catholic 'evangelicals' in the US, those who want to bring some charismatic practices into the Catholic tradition + emphasize proselytising, and a teeny, recent trend of evangelical protestants who are more "traditionalist" (for lack of a better word) being drawn to the ritualism of Catholicism and Orthodox Christianity. I thought Pentecostals were more likely to have made a break from Catholicism and to identify as Protestant (particularly in Latin America) even if some of the charismatic practices like speaking in tongues have crossover appeal. There's religious pop culture crossover too - the Left Behind series was apparently very popular among large sections of American Catholics (I heard Melani McAlister talk about this once).

But getting back to the original point I'd agree with seeing Jesus and Mary iconography as more Catholic than evangelical.

I should have specified that Mary and Jesus bric a brac iconography was the most telling as probably not being evangelical; but even still, despite the recent rapprochement trends, any imagery, other than the spectacular -- a movie like passion or giant Jesus' in a pool -- still is frowned on.

Catholic Pentecostals have actually been around for a while (not even counting St. Francis of Assisi who is honored in a local Pentecostalish nondenominational megachurch as a founder of a revival), in the 1970s there were regular Pentecostal Masses in churches, and I recall an event in the 1970s where a huge stream of bullet-hatted bishops said an outdoor Mass while a priest narrated like a televangelist and broke into prayer in tongues.

Mel Gibson's the Passion was a conscious attempt, he said so in so many words, to introduce --- with obvious success -- evangelical Protestants favorably to Catholic imagery.

Still at home imagery, most especially of Mary, seems a bit too remote.

This incident, though not typical and not representative, represents a part of Protestant evangelical spectrum attitudes on Mary stuff, and is not that long ago.

Request: Could someone give a brief summary of PKK vis-a-vis KDP and PUK in the 80's to the present, or provide a link to someone who does? Blank spot of knowledge I'd like to fill in.

This incident, though not typical and not representative, represents a part of Protestant evangelical spectrum attitudes on Mary stuff, and is not that long ago.

Um, you do realize that Brazil is not (yet) an U.S. controlled territory? That historical Catholic influences in Latin/South America are not very analogous to recent U.S./Canadian religious history?

The simple fact of the matter is this: If you have little statues of Mary or pictures of Mary alone or rosaries or Saint Christopher medallions or a giant robotic Pope buddy that runs around the house forcing you to do your Hail Marys and acts of contrition, then yes, you are probably are a Catholic. But it is not unheard of (nor improbable) for American Christians who are of the Not-Roman-Catholic persuasion to have pictures of Mary w/Jesus hanging in their homes. Most Americans who say they believe in "God" don't attend church, and even those that do are rarely well-versed in their sect's specific dogmas, especially those regarding more esoteric notions such as the difference between icons and idolatry. Indeed, a fair number of the new "re-born" evangelicals come from the background of lapsed Catholicism.

Beware routing your generalizations to specifics, grasshoppa.

I want a giant robotic Pope buddy. But only if he looks like the real Pope, and not the Darth Sidious-looking guy they have now.

To the Blue one --

In context of the original discussion my main point is that alot of bric a brac iconography, most especially if of Ms. Virgin Mary, is specifically evidence weighing *against* being evangelical Christians. So I wanted to caution against that being a premise for a conclusion drawn about the belief patterns about Muslims of a specific Merkin individual.

Nothing is impossible but speaking in general terms.

But no, Mary and especially Mary iconography is a big dividing line still between RC's and evangelonians, across all geographical boundaries. (In Ethiopia, the Orthodox denounce the evanglical missionaries and many converts as "Mary-haters"; evangelical pro-life marchers write of their discomfort at marching along with Catholics praying a Rosary.)

Also, ex-Roman Catholics among evangelicals are most strident about showing their disdains for papal paraphernalia and practice, especially prayers to saints and Mary, and yecch, idolatrous statutes.

A painting of Ali in a devout Sunni home doesn't fit.

Basic point, I thought the description of hte home suggested specifically non-evangelical identity and being raised in a religious Catholic or religious evangelical home (espeically if schooled that way) would lead to quite different perspectives on Muslims.

Hier steh’ ich, ich kann nicht anders.

You know, his actual sect has nothing to do with the point I was making.

I've played with guys from every branch of the US military (even some oddballs like navy submariners, army rangers and "I can't tell you what I do" types). Officers, soldiers, religious, non-religious. This has made me extremely sensitive to generalizations re: devout Xtians or US military and Islamophobia.

We can sit here all day and speculate about whether or not Southern Catholics are generally less Islamophobic than Southern evangelical Protestants, but it doesn't make any bloody difference re that point above.

PS - I DID THE INFIDEL REVIEW!

"We can sit here all day and speculate about whether or not Southern Catholics are generally less Islamophobic than Southern evangelical Protestants, but it doesn't make any bloody difference re that point above."

Actually it does or did. Now that you specify what it implied in terms of preconceptions about attitudes held by devout Christians generally it may not make a differnece, but in the original you specified "evangelical", and they do have measurably more prejudices about Muslims, rooted in specific religious environment, than other Christians on that score.

I think the nuance is significant, as I suspect that devout Christians who are NOT evangelical are LESS likely to be knee-jerkedly Islamophobic than "secular"/non-devout self-identified Christians.

But no, Mary and especially Mary iconography is a big dividing line still between RC's and evangelonians, across all geographical boundaries.

Sigh. The original description was "little statues/crucifixes of Jesus and some images of Mary holding Jesus". Pedantic rambling about riots in Brazil and Ethopian opinions is all so very interesting, but once one puts aside the furious hand-waving there's a very significant difference between solitary Mary pics/statues and Mary w/baby Jesus. Although, as previously stated, I will grant the Madonna and Child pose is more typically Catholic, it is certainly not exclusively so, nor would it be nearly as likely to fall into the verboten iconography concept as would--ahem--"Guy Fawkes with a fuse". Here, for example, is an evangelical Lutheran church which proudly states that its Madonna has been hanging in the vestry since 1953.

As far as I'm concerned, the scene as actually described by the only witness available is not a particularly definitive demonstration of Catholicism in any specific detail. Yes, presumption of southern boy = evangelical may be potentially dangerous, but it is little different from icons = Catholicism, and at least one opinion as presented smacks considerably less of childish whining on.

Excuse me if I yawn in advance of the reply.

"childish whining on."

No, I must childishly whine on. My point was that even the cursory the description of Mary and Jesus bric a brac didn't reflect the presumed evangelical Christianity and tends to contradict it, and that would be a major factor in expectation of levels of Islamophobia where devout Christians in the background influences opinion on the subject.

That is all.

"Evangelical Lutheran" isnt evangelical despite the word, they are somewhat Catholics who used to think the Pope is the antiChrist and have a thing about the works and faith formula. They're close to that gray area like Anglicans.

But your overall point that the differences in dogma and even to a degree iconography are melting a bit like the Wicked Witch of the West.

The Brazilian incident is representative of a more prevalent strain of thought, however, among aggressive evangelicals.

(Also, off this discussion and more to an Aqoul purpose, it's kind of telling about how hostile attacks on images of things held sacred, especially can still get mobs in the street; it's not just a Muslim cartoon thing. I'm glad all this prompted the recollection, I have to use it at some point.)

Oops -- "But your overall point that the differences in dogma and even to a degree iconography are melting a bit like the Wicked Witch of the West..."

didnt finish:

.... is correct".

The Financial Times (free registration now gets you 30 articles a month, I registered just so I could follow the occasional Lounsbury link) has a good review of the "Eurabia" literature by Simon Kuper. Closing paragraph:

But the many factual errors in most of these books may be beside the point. The “Eurabia’’ genre does not belong to the “reality-based community’’. Rather, it exists to meet emotional needs. Its anti-Europeanism is a satisfying retort to European anti-Americanism. It also has a political message: if the Europeans, America’s traditional allies, have folded before Islam, then the US must go it alone.

Before: Madonna and child? More papist than Guy Fawkes with a fuse, man.

After: "Evangelical Lutheran" isnt evangelical despite the word, they are somewhat Catholics who used to think the Pope is the antiChrist and have a thing about the works and faith formula.

So Madonna and Child is papist, curiously embraced by anti-papists. Loverly. Somehow your saving grace is that they're conveniently not semantically "evangelical" enough for you. Neither, I suppose, would be Methodists. And I suppose [Southern Baptist] Billy Graham's movement, which sells Mary and Jesus cards, is also immune because they're "just for Christmas".

My personal favorite tradition-bending oddity is this gentleman who claims Southern Baptist identity but has Sacred Heart and Virgin Mary tattoos on his chest.

Weirdo body art is obviously atypical, and I will yet again state my agreement that Madonna and Child images *are* far more typically Catholic than not.. the interiors of most modern Protestant evangelical churches and homes are more likely to be more austere (human icon-wise) than their RC cousins. But then if we're talking probabilities in the "Southern" US states, Baptists alone usually outnumber Catholics 3 or 4 to 1. (Exceptions being Louisiana via French influence, Texas via Mexico, and Florida with its transplanted populations.) If the boy's Creole or Puerto Rican, fine...

Let's be real. Some of the most popular faces of the evangelical movement are extremely broad-based and wishy-washy, much to the dismay of a fair number of fundamentalists. Anyone who doesn't recognize that the Billy Graham/Rick Warren mix-and-match Christianity is far more representative of American evangelicals than ridiculous Brazilian icon protests is just being wantonly ignorant.

If you want to demonstrate otherwise, cite me incidents where thousands of Americans have taken to the street recently to violently voice their sectarian grievances about some truly internicene dispute. That might actually be interesting.

blue92, matthew's got it right about the "Evangelical Lutherans." They're not "evangelicals" as the term is normally used in the United States. I drew a paycheck from them for a while, I should know.

(Methodists are closer to the line, but generally not.)

Need the esteemed reader-/bloggership's opinion on the following:

(1) Is Michael Scheuer a loon or a genius or a little of both?
(2) Whichever it is, are any of his books worth reading -- thinking mostly of Imperial Hubris?

"I will yet again state my agreement that Madonna and Child images *are* far more typically Catholic than not.. the interiors of most modern Protestant evangelical churches and homes are more likely to be more austere (human icon-wise) than their RC cousins."

That's pretty much my point in a nutshell, thank you.

on the subject of Turkish trade with the Kurdish area of Northern Iraq, there's an interesting review in an (english-language) Turkish newspaper here:

http://www.todayszaman.com/tz-web/detaylar.do?load=detay&link=126796

'Likewise, Turkey is an important economic partner in the foreign trade of the region. According to 2006 figures, the volume of trade between Turkey and the region is $3 billion. Some $2.7 billion consists of imports from Turkey, including basic necessities, petroleum products, water, electricity and cement to the region.'

Klaus, not on your question but on the general subject of Turkish trade with the Kurdish area of Northern Iraq (brought up two weeks ago), there's an interesting review in an (english-language) Turkish newspaper here:

http://www.todayszaman.com/tz-web/detaylar.do?load=detay&link=126796

'Likewise, Turkey is an important economic partner in the foreign trade of the region. According to 2006 figures, the volume of trade between Turkey and the region is $3 billion. Some $2.7 billion consists of imports from Turkey, including basic necessities, petroleum products, water, electricity and cement to the region.'

Scheuer is worth reading, but he's something of an unhinged American security loon.

The Lounsbury -- That's about what I suspected, so he's now officially on the ever-lengthening reading list. Thanks!

All -- Abu Aardvark has a series of great guest posts by Messrs. Colin Kahl and Brian Katulis on what the US should do about Iraq, to the extent it still can do anything. Haven't read it all yet, but it's some of the best commentary I've seen in a long while. I hadn't heard of either gentleman before, but if the Aardvark is right that they both have some pull in Democratic foreign policy thinking, that is very good news indeed. (Republican thinking on Iraq seems to have degenerated to debating wether the Defensive Jihad against Islamofascism is Fard Ayn or not.)

thanks, dawud. Trying to divine precisely how Barzani feels about PKK, I understand PKK fought with the PUK against the KDP in the nineties.

klaus -- I don't think either the PUK or KDP feel anything for the PKK. They're totally cynical about it, and vice versa. Their only concern is to retain US backing and stave off a Turkish attack, or at least make it hit the other party instead. At the same time, their room for maneouvre with the PKK is pretty limited; it is popular in its own areas, and after the civil war in the 90s, Kurd-on-Kurd fighting is the ultimate red line, and would reflect very badly on the party that initiated it. Even more, the PKK are superb guerrillas with absolutely nothing to lose -- if anything, they stand to gain from both Turkish and Iranian attack as long as it doesn't destroy them. And the terrain alone says it won't. So it's not as if the local Kurdish commanders could just tap them on the shoulder and show them the door.

In the 1994-98 fighting, KDP was backed by Iraq and Turkey, while PUK got support from Syria and Iran, so it followed that the PKK (then with its HQ in Syria) was hostile to KDP. I don't know if they did any really substantial service for the PUK, but they were fighting with KDP quite a bit for their own reasons -- not least because KDP was fighting with them, on behalf of Turkey. On the other hand, PUK had also been flirting with Turkey, and did not want to antagonize it more than necessary. The US role in those years was basically to try to patch together ceasefire agreements and cat-herd all local parties into an alliance against Saddam, with occasional anti-PKK pressure on behalf of Turkey. I imagine there was much sighing and rolling of eyes in Washington over their Kurdish allies at the time.

PKK's main HQ in Iraqi Kurdistan today is in Qandil, which is in PUK territory right on the border with Iran (and from where the PJAK, PKK's anti-Teheran wing, is operating with US backing). That would be quite a trek for Turkey, if they decide to go all the way, but I'm sure they could if they wanted. It would of course be easier for Iran, but that would invite US retaliation. In any case, Turkey's interest is not only PKK, but also to establish a presence, secure the means to discipline the Iraqi Kurds, and get a foot in the door for the Kirkuk referendum process.

Bottom line: it's mixed up beyond all belief.

thanks, alle. I suspected Barzani couldn't actually do much about PKK, even if he wanted to. In a way a parallel of the Lebanese government that doesn't really have any authority in southern Lebanon. I also gather the winter's snow will be a huge impediment to the Turkish military, but with the Kirkuk referendum around the corner and PKK happily killing Turks whenever they can, the pressure on Erdogan to do something really stupid must be colossal.

interesting article on al-jazeera and the directions it seems to be taking.
http://www.islamicamagazine.com/Issue-20/Al-Jazeera-and-the-information-warfare.html

Will someone please vet this hit piece on Qatar.

Klaus --

For righties the problem is evil A-rabs; for lefties it's rich evil A-rabs.

That's left-wing nuance, probity and sagacity!!

I think you're right, this has a ring of Dubai Ports to it.

I love the bit castigating al-Thani for (allegedly) refusing to lean on Al Jazeera to get it to broadcast pro-American propaganda.