(no subject)
But Fox News Promised Us more Muslim Rage to Scare White Folks for Ratings!
The failure of #Muslimrage
Last week's wave of protests and attacks on U.S. embassies launched a million op-eds (along with an instantly notorious Newsweek cover) about the return of "Muslim rage," the failure of the Arab uprisings, the collapse of Obama's foreign policy, and the inevitability of the clash of civilizations. When a satirical French newspaper leaped forward to run some more hopefully offensive cartoons, everyone braced for another round of violent protests across the region. But a funny thing happened on the way to the apocalypose: almost nothing. There were a few tiny demonstrations, but most Arab countries (in contrast to Pakistan and Lebanon) saw no mass rallies, no burning embassies, no screaming for the television cameras.
The fizzling of the protests against that awful YouTube film was obvious before today, of course. As has been widely noted, the protests last week were actually quite small -- vastly inferior in size and popular inclusion to the Arab uprisings protests last year, and small even in comparison to the ongoing pro-democracy or other political demonstrations which occur on a weekly basis in many Arab countries. The killing of Chris Stevens and his colleagues, and the dramatic images of broached embassy walls and al Qaeda flags, radically inflated Western perceptions about the magnitude of the protests.
By far the biggest story of popular mobilization today came in Libya, where tens of thousands came out in Benghazi in an inspiring rally against militias and against the attack on the U.S. consulate. Thus far, millions of opeds have failed to be produced in response. That's a pity. The failure of the Arab world to follow its assigned script really deserves as much attention as did last week's outburst. I wish that the relative fizzle of today's protests and today's large rally in Benghazi denouncing the attack on the U.S. consulate and militia violence would get even one-tenth of the media attention lavished upon the supposed meaning of last week's embassy attacks.
The fizzling of the protest wave and the Benghazi counter-demonstration suggests better questions than the popular choices such as "why do they hate us" or "why are Muslims so angry" or "how badly has Obama failed." For instance, why were these demonstrations so small? Why did they peter out so quickly when the Danish Cartoons crisis went on for months? Why did they fail to attract broad-based support outside of their core constituencies? And why have so many leaders of Arab countries in transition, Islamists included, rushed to apologize and to reassure the United States? I don't have all the answers, but here's a few possibilities.
First, the interests of key Islamist actors at this time pushed them toward restraint rather than escalation. This is not to say that the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood, for instance, should be seen as "moderate" (an endless, if somewhat futile, debate). There's little reason to believe that the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood is less keen to protest offenses to the Prophet or to create a more Islamic society now than they were six years ago. Their ideology hasn't much changed, nor their membership, nor their willingness to take offense at perceived slights. But their interests have changed and they found themselves forced to adapt when their initial instincts backfired. As president, Mohamed Morsi has to worry about Egypt's international alliances and reputation, not least with the United States. As the leading political party in the country, the Muslim Brotherhood's Freedom and Justice Party needs to worry about how it is perceived in the country at large, and about competition for conservative votes from Salafi rivals. Their initial instincts were to jump on the protest bandwagon, but they were quickly forced to adapt when confronted with political and structural pressures from at home and abroad. And so they call for legal measures against blasphemy and for peaceful protests but denounce violence, make the necessary apologies, and seek to tar their Islamist rivals as irrational extremists.
Second, the Arab uprisings make it harder for a single issue to dominate the public agenda than in the past. In 2006, the Danish Cartoons could dominate politics for weeks on end because it provided a useful political issue for a variety of Islamists, and most Arab regimes found it convenient to have popular anger directed at Western targets. But now there are so many other issues competing for space, and far less patience for any attempt to monopolize the arena. Syria demands attention at the regional level, of course, but local issues are the most potent challengers for attention. In Yemen a few days ago, for example, more than 10,000 came out to demand an end to the immunity for prosecution granted to former President Ali Abdullah Saleh. Jordanians are protesting about new internet restrictions. Egyptians and Tunisians have a lot on their political mind. What is more, intense domestic political competition means that other political forces have little interest in allowing one Islamist trend to define the public agenda. A sign seen in Benghazi today reading "Our Revolution Will Not Be Stolen" could have stood in for the attitude across many of the region's now well-entrenched activist communities.
The dominance of the local political arena is often missed in analysis which lumps all the protests, large and small, together into a single narrative of "Muslim rage." Almost every well-reported account of last week's protests in particular countries emphasized the local political issues in play. In Egypt, Salafis were jockeying with Islamists for political attention, while the actual battles outside the embassy seem to have mostly involved young toughs rather than ideologues. In Yemen, general anger at U.S. policies combined with a concentration of angry young toughs seemed to be the key. In Lebanon, the greater violence in today's protests than in most other places likely has to do with Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah's attempt to focus on religious affronts rather than his unpopular stance on Syria.
Third, while I don't think it's a major factor, perhaps Obama's outreach to the Muslim world hasn't actually been the dismal failure declared in a thousand (oddly similar) opeds after all. It's true that his Cairo speech and subsequent policies have not granted him enduring popularity or magically generated universal love for America. But that was never really the expectation or the point. The Danish cartoons protest wave was sustained by the broader international "clash of civilizations" atmosphere of the middle of that decade, a seamless narrative of conflict between Islam and the West fueled by the toxic legacies of the high rhetoric of the war on terror and the occupation of Iraq. Obama's outreach efforts sought to break that spiral toward a clash of civilizations between Islam and the West, by focusing on issues of "mutual interest and mutual respect." Last week showed that the extremists hoping to spark a clash of civilizations are still there. Who thought they weren't? But their relatively poor showing suggests that something has changed. And part of that may be that even if U.S. policies remain unpopular, there's no longer a seamless narrative of a war on Islam which makes sense to ordinary people.
Of course this doesn't mean that we won't see more cycles of outrage and protest over these issues. A lot of people genuinely care about them, and they have the ability to organize protests, spread their message, and capture local and international media attention. Sometimes, the interests of key actors will align differently and they will gain more momentum rather than petering out. In Pakistan and Lebanon, for instance, things are far uglier than in most of the Arab countries -- likely for reasons related to the domestic political situation.
I eagerly await the rush of opeds and cable news talk shows sure to come soon explaining the real meaning of the relative calm in Cairo and today's rally in Benghazi. I'm sure I've misread some of the cases here, and that the next week or two might lead to different dynamics playing out. But questions about these political dynamics, the failure of the mobilization to take hold into a sustained protest, the shifting calculations of key Islamist actors, and the responses by other powerful social forces in places like Libya would be far better questions to be asking than the ones which have dominated the discourse for the last week.
Benghazi Anti-Militia Protest: Libyan Protesters Drive Islamist Militia From Country's 2nd-Largest City
BENGHAZI, Libya, Sept 22 (Reuters) - A Libyan Islamist militia was swept out of the eastern city of Benghazi in a popular protest against the armed groups that ran into the early hours of Saturday morning, Reuters witnesses said.
At least one person was killed and 20 wounded, a hospital source said, as militias tried to fight the demonstrators from a heavily fortified base. Gunfire could be heard in the area before the fighters were forced out.
Looters carried weapons out of the vacated Ansar al-Sharia military base compound as men clapped and chanted: "Say to Ansar al-Sharia, Benghazi will be your inferno."
Ansar al-Sharia has been linked to the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi last week in which the U.S. ambassador to Libya and three other Americans died. It denies involvement.
The action against the group appeared to be part of a coordinated sweep of militia headquarters buildings by police, government troops and activists following a mass public demonstration against militia units on Friday.
Chanting "Libya, Libya," hundreds of demonstrators entered, pulling down militia flags and torching a vehicle inside Ansar al-Sharia's headquarters in Benghazi - once the base of forces of former leader Muammar Gaddafi, which tried to put down the first protests that sparked last year's uprising.
The crowd waved swords and even a meat cleaver, crying "No more al Qaeda!" and "The blood we shed for freedom shall not go in vain!"
"After what happened at the American consulate, the people of Benghazi had enough of the extremists," demonstrator Hassan Ahmed said. "They did not give allegiance to the army. So the people broke in and they fled."
"This place is like the Bastille. This is where Gaddafi controlled Libya from, and then Ansar al-Sharia took it over. This is a turning point for the people of Benghazi."
Adusalam al-Tarhouni, a government worker, who arrived with the first wave of protesters, said several pickup trucks with the group's fighters had initially confronted the protesters and opened fire. Two protesters were shot in the leg, he said.
"After that they got into their trucks and drove away," he said, adding protesters had freed four prisoners found inside.
As protesters left Ansar al-Sharia's headquarters, the crowd swelled, reaching thousands as it headed toward its military base, which was shared with another militia group.
Protesters said the militiamen opened fire as they arrived and several people were wounded.
"We came as peaceful protesters. When we got there they started shooting at us," student Sanad al-Barani said. "Five people were wounded beside me. They used 14.5 calibre machine guns."
After the crowd entered that compound, Libyan army trucks sped away from the base carrying government troops cheering in victory and crying out, "God is greatest."
Vigilantes armed with machetes and clubs blocked the highway leading away from the compound, stopping cars to prevent looters from driving off with heavy weapons.
"We went into the camp and we didn't find anyone. We just took these Kalashnikovs," said one youth, holding rifles.
The demonstrators also took over a compound belonging to the Abu Slim brigade and another Ansar al-Sharia compound.
"RESCUE BENGHAZI"
Thousands of Libyans had marched in Benghazi on Friday in support of democracy and against the Islamist militias that Washington blames for the assault on its consulate. Hundreds of Ansar al-Sharia supporters held their own protest.
Friday's "Rescue Benghazi day" demonstration called for the government to disband armed groups that have refused to give up their weapons since the NATO-backed revolution last year.
"It's obvious that this protest is against the militias. All of them should join the army or security forces as individuals, not as groups," student Ahmed Sanallah said. "Without that there will be no prosperity and no success for the new Libya."
Although the main demands of the marchers did not mention the attack on the U.S. consulate, it seems to have provided a strong impetus for the authorities to rally support behind the country's weak government.
U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens was well liked, and many Libyans condemned the attack on the consulate despite being angered by the anti-Islamic U.S.-made film that triggered it.
Some protesters' placards read: "We demand justice for Stevens" and "Libya lost a friend." Others had mixed views.
"I am out today to defend Benghazi. Killing the ambassador is a completely separate thing," said 26-year-old Amjad Mohammed Hassan, a network engineer. "I don't give a damn about the killing of the ambassador because the Americans offended the Prophet. I am just here for Benghazi."
Benghazi, 1,000 km (600 miles) from Tripoli across largely empty desert, is controlled by various armed groups, including some comprised of Islamists who openly proclaim their hostility to democratic government and the West.
Some are identified by local people as being among those who were at the consulate protest last week. U.S. officials have described the violence as a "terrorist attack."
Abu Al-Qaa, a demonstrator at the Ansar al-Sharia demonstration, said Stevens had been "preparing for the entry of American troops into Libya."
"The will of the Prophet was to expel infidels from Muslim lands so that Muslims prevail. Terrorizing your enemy is one of Islam's tenets." He said he had fought U.S. troops in Iraq where he was arrested, sent back to Libya and jailed for three years.
One banner at the Ansar al-Sharia demonstration read: "Day to rescue Benghazi or day to rescue America?"
The failure of #Muslimrage
Last week's wave of protests and attacks on U.S. embassies launched a million op-eds (along with an instantly notorious Newsweek cover) about the return of "Muslim rage," the failure of the Arab uprisings, the collapse of Obama's foreign policy, and the inevitability of the clash of civilizations. When a satirical French newspaper leaped forward to run some more hopefully offensive cartoons, everyone braced for another round of violent protests across the region. But a funny thing happened on the way to the apocalypose: almost nothing. There were a few tiny demonstrations, but most Arab countries (in contrast to Pakistan and Lebanon) saw no mass rallies, no burning embassies, no screaming for the television cameras.
The fizzling of the protests against that awful YouTube film was obvious before today, of course. As has been widely noted, the protests last week were actually quite small -- vastly inferior in size and popular inclusion to the Arab uprisings protests last year, and small even in comparison to the ongoing pro-democracy or other political demonstrations which occur on a weekly basis in many Arab countries. The killing of Chris Stevens and his colleagues, and the dramatic images of broached embassy walls and al Qaeda flags, radically inflated Western perceptions about the magnitude of the protests.
By far the biggest story of popular mobilization today came in Libya, where tens of thousands came out in Benghazi in an inspiring rally against militias and against the attack on the U.S. consulate. Thus far, millions of opeds have failed to be produced in response. That's a pity. The failure of the Arab world to follow its assigned script really deserves as much attention as did last week's outburst. I wish that the relative fizzle of today's protests and today's large rally in Benghazi denouncing the attack on the U.S. consulate and militia violence would get even one-tenth of the media attention lavished upon the supposed meaning of last week's embassy attacks.
The fizzling of the protest wave and the Benghazi counter-demonstration suggests better questions than the popular choices such as "why do they hate us" or "why are Muslims so angry" or "how badly has Obama failed." For instance, why were these demonstrations so small? Why did they peter out so quickly when the Danish Cartoons crisis went on for months? Why did they fail to attract broad-based support outside of their core constituencies? And why have so many leaders of Arab countries in transition, Islamists included, rushed to apologize and to reassure the United States? I don't have all the answers, but here's a few possibilities.
First, the interests of key Islamist actors at this time pushed them toward restraint rather than escalation. This is not to say that the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood, for instance, should be seen as "moderate" (an endless, if somewhat futile, debate). There's little reason to believe that the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood is less keen to protest offenses to the Prophet or to create a more Islamic society now than they were six years ago. Their ideology hasn't much changed, nor their membership, nor their willingness to take offense at perceived slights. But their interests have changed and they found themselves forced to adapt when their initial instincts backfired. As president, Mohamed Morsi has to worry about Egypt's international alliances and reputation, not least with the United States. As the leading political party in the country, the Muslim Brotherhood's Freedom and Justice Party needs to worry about how it is perceived in the country at large, and about competition for conservative votes from Salafi rivals. Their initial instincts were to jump on the protest bandwagon, but they were quickly forced to adapt when confronted with political and structural pressures from at home and abroad. And so they call for legal measures against blasphemy and for peaceful protests but denounce violence, make the necessary apologies, and seek to tar their Islamist rivals as irrational extremists.
Second, the Arab uprisings make it harder for a single issue to dominate the public agenda than in the past. In 2006, the Danish Cartoons could dominate politics for weeks on end because it provided a useful political issue for a variety of Islamists, and most Arab regimes found it convenient to have popular anger directed at Western targets. But now there are so many other issues competing for space, and far less patience for any attempt to monopolize the arena. Syria demands attention at the regional level, of course, but local issues are the most potent challengers for attention. In Yemen a few days ago, for example, more than 10,000 came out to demand an end to the immunity for prosecution granted to former President Ali Abdullah Saleh. Jordanians are protesting about new internet restrictions. Egyptians and Tunisians have a lot on their political mind. What is more, intense domestic political competition means that other political forces have little interest in allowing one Islamist trend to define the public agenda. A sign seen in Benghazi today reading "Our Revolution Will Not Be Stolen" could have stood in for the attitude across many of the region's now well-entrenched activist communities.
The dominance of the local political arena is often missed in analysis which lumps all the protests, large and small, together into a single narrative of "Muslim rage." Almost every well-reported account of last week's protests in particular countries emphasized the local political issues in play. In Egypt, Salafis were jockeying with Islamists for political attention, while the actual battles outside the embassy seem to have mostly involved young toughs rather than ideologues. In Yemen, general anger at U.S. policies combined with a concentration of angry young toughs seemed to be the key. In Lebanon, the greater violence in today's protests than in most other places likely has to do with Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah's attempt to focus on religious affronts rather than his unpopular stance on Syria.
Third, while I don't think it's a major factor, perhaps Obama's outreach to the Muslim world hasn't actually been the dismal failure declared in a thousand (oddly similar) opeds after all. It's true that his Cairo speech and subsequent policies have not granted him enduring popularity or magically generated universal love for America. But that was never really the expectation or the point. The Danish cartoons protest wave was sustained by the broader international "clash of civilizations" atmosphere of the middle of that decade, a seamless narrative of conflict between Islam and the West fueled by the toxic legacies of the high rhetoric of the war on terror and the occupation of Iraq. Obama's outreach efforts sought to break that spiral toward a clash of civilizations between Islam and the West, by focusing on issues of "mutual interest and mutual respect." Last week showed that the extremists hoping to spark a clash of civilizations are still there. Who thought they weren't? But their relatively poor showing suggests that something has changed. And part of that may be that even if U.S. policies remain unpopular, there's no longer a seamless narrative of a war on Islam which makes sense to ordinary people.
Of course this doesn't mean that we won't see more cycles of outrage and protest over these issues. A lot of people genuinely care about them, and they have the ability to organize protests, spread their message, and capture local and international media attention. Sometimes, the interests of key actors will align differently and they will gain more momentum rather than petering out. In Pakistan and Lebanon, for instance, things are far uglier than in most of the Arab countries -- likely for reasons related to the domestic political situation.
I eagerly await the rush of opeds and cable news talk shows sure to come soon explaining the real meaning of the relative calm in Cairo and today's rally in Benghazi. I'm sure I've misread some of the cases here, and that the next week or two might lead to different dynamics playing out. But questions about these political dynamics, the failure of the mobilization to take hold into a sustained protest, the shifting calculations of key Islamist actors, and the responses by other powerful social forces in places like Libya would be far better questions to be asking than the ones which have dominated the discourse for the last week.
Benghazi Anti-Militia Protest: Libyan Protesters Drive Islamist Militia From Country's 2nd-Largest City
BENGHAZI, Libya, Sept 22 (Reuters) - A Libyan Islamist militia was swept out of the eastern city of Benghazi in a popular protest against the armed groups that ran into the early hours of Saturday morning, Reuters witnesses said.
At least one person was killed and 20 wounded, a hospital source said, as militias tried to fight the demonstrators from a heavily fortified base. Gunfire could be heard in the area before the fighters were forced out.
Looters carried weapons out of the vacated Ansar al-Sharia military base compound as men clapped and chanted: "Say to Ansar al-Sharia, Benghazi will be your inferno."
Ansar al-Sharia has been linked to the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi last week in which the U.S. ambassador to Libya and three other Americans died. It denies involvement.
The action against the group appeared to be part of a coordinated sweep of militia headquarters buildings by police, government troops and activists following a mass public demonstration against militia units on Friday.
Chanting "Libya, Libya," hundreds of demonstrators entered, pulling down militia flags and torching a vehicle inside Ansar al-Sharia's headquarters in Benghazi - once the base of forces of former leader Muammar Gaddafi, which tried to put down the first protests that sparked last year's uprising.
The crowd waved swords and even a meat cleaver, crying "No more al Qaeda!" and "The blood we shed for freedom shall not go in vain!"
"After what happened at the American consulate, the people of Benghazi had enough of the extremists," demonstrator Hassan Ahmed said. "They did not give allegiance to the army. So the people broke in and they fled."
"This place is like the Bastille. This is where Gaddafi controlled Libya from, and then Ansar al-Sharia took it over. This is a turning point for the people of Benghazi."
Adusalam al-Tarhouni, a government worker, who arrived with the first wave of protesters, said several pickup trucks with the group's fighters had initially confronted the protesters and opened fire. Two protesters were shot in the leg, he said.
"After that they got into their trucks and drove away," he said, adding protesters had freed four prisoners found inside.
As protesters left Ansar al-Sharia's headquarters, the crowd swelled, reaching thousands as it headed toward its military base, which was shared with another militia group.
Protesters said the militiamen opened fire as they arrived and several people were wounded.
"We came as peaceful protesters. When we got there they started shooting at us," student Sanad al-Barani said. "Five people were wounded beside me. They used 14.5 calibre machine guns."
After the crowd entered that compound, Libyan army trucks sped away from the base carrying government troops cheering in victory and crying out, "God is greatest."
Vigilantes armed with machetes and clubs blocked the highway leading away from the compound, stopping cars to prevent looters from driving off with heavy weapons.
"We went into the camp and we didn't find anyone. We just took these Kalashnikovs," said one youth, holding rifles.
The demonstrators also took over a compound belonging to the Abu Slim brigade and another Ansar al-Sharia compound.
"RESCUE BENGHAZI"
Thousands of Libyans had marched in Benghazi on Friday in support of democracy and against the Islamist militias that Washington blames for the assault on its consulate. Hundreds of Ansar al-Sharia supporters held their own protest.
Friday's "Rescue Benghazi day" demonstration called for the government to disband armed groups that have refused to give up their weapons since the NATO-backed revolution last year.
"It's obvious that this protest is against the militias. All of them should join the army or security forces as individuals, not as groups," student Ahmed Sanallah said. "Without that there will be no prosperity and no success for the new Libya."
Although the main demands of the marchers did not mention the attack on the U.S. consulate, it seems to have provided a strong impetus for the authorities to rally support behind the country's weak government.
U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens was well liked, and many Libyans condemned the attack on the consulate despite being angered by the anti-Islamic U.S.-made film that triggered it.
Some protesters' placards read: "We demand justice for Stevens" and "Libya lost a friend." Others had mixed views.
"I am out today to defend Benghazi. Killing the ambassador is a completely separate thing," said 26-year-old Amjad Mohammed Hassan, a network engineer. "I don't give a damn about the killing of the ambassador because the Americans offended the Prophet. I am just here for Benghazi."
Benghazi, 1,000 km (600 miles) from Tripoli across largely empty desert, is controlled by various armed groups, including some comprised of Islamists who openly proclaim their hostility to democratic government and the West.
Some are identified by local people as being among those who were at the consulate protest last week. U.S. officials have described the violence as a "terrorist attack."
Abu Al-Qaa, a demonstrator at the Ansar al-Sharia demonstration, said Stevens had been "preparing for the entry of American troops into Libya."
"The will of the Prophet was to expel infidels from Muslim lands so that Muslims prevail. Terrorizing your enemy is one of Islam's tenets." He said he had fought U.S. troops in Iraq where he was arrested, sent back to Libya and jailed for three years.
One banner at the Ansar al-Sharia demonstration read: "Day to rescue Benghazi or day to rescue America?"