Book Review 17: I is for Infidel

Kathy Gannon's I is for Infidel takes a look at the changes Afghanistan has faced in the last two decades from the perspective of a journalist on the ground. This is a valuable perspective because there are very few people who had the experience of being in Afghanistan from the Soviet invasion to the rise and fall of the Taliban and even through the American occupation. That being said, I don't think she does enough with it.

Gannon does a great job of talking about what happened and how it affected the lives of everyday Afghans, but she doesn't talk about why things happened, why Afghanistan is so susceptible to such change, or how to stop the recurring pattern of outside forces creating inner turmoil throughout the nation.

That brings me to another point. I believe Gannon has developed such a love for Afghanistan in her time there that she is prone to blame outside forces for nearly everything. The Soviets invaded, the Americans occupied, the Pakistanis used the government as a puppet. These things may be true, but she even blames things that occured within Afghanistan such as the mujahedeen and the Taliban on the outside. They were supported by foreign governments, they had foreign fighters, and my favorite - by saying that Taliban leaders came from distant or remote parts of Afghanistan it is almost implied that they even came from outside Afghanistan. Yes, she does go as far as saying Afghanistan is a victim, which may be partially true, but Afghanistan has to be responsible for at least some of the things that have happened there for so long.

Afghanistan is a weak state at the center of a giant land mass. Geopolitically, this country is always going to have problems. It is pinned between 4, soon to be 5 nuclear powers that don't like eachother. (China, Russia, Pakistan, India, and possibly Iran). In this sense, it is always going to victim to alliances that are trying to gain a central Asian edge. With the war on terror, the United States has injected itself into the situation. I'm not saying it is for this reason, but the United States now has some power over the vast resources in the struggling 'stans - all ex-Soviet republics. Because Afghanistan is so weak and its neighbors are so strong, I doubt Afghanistan will have much stability until its neighbors do.

Here is my favorite part.

Why would you name a book "I is for Infidel?" Well, that is how the Americans taught jihadis the alphabet when the Carter Administration decided to train and equip them to fight the Russians. She quotes an English book: I is for Infidel. K is for Kalishnikov. J is for Jihad. And now these guys are turned against the US...

Have a happy Turkey Day everybody. Off to work.

White Phosphorus??

I don't know if you guys caught this in the news today - it was a little under the radar - but it turns out the United States military used chemical agents in the bombing of Iraqi cities earlier in the occupation. i don't want to just rant, i want to know what you guys think about this. i know i have silent readers, but i'm curious.

But, I guess if I get a right to your opinion you should have a right to mine.

there are those that will argue that the white phosphorus bombs were meant just to illuminate the skies like fancy acid flares, but we already know that these bombs have a precedent of being used to get people out of houses, caves, or anywhere else they might be hiding. Since this is the way these bombs have been being used in Iraq and Afghanistan, I think we can presume that this was part of the strategy. That being said, what were they thinking doing this in a city full of innocents/terrorists/insurgents. The argument that getting people out of buildings saved American lives by preventing too much urban warfare, but what about the political implications.

When US forces didn't find evidence of weapons of mass destruction or links to terrorists, it turned to the selling point of giving Iraqi's their freedom. I'm not arguing that any of these arguments is or isn't valid because I believe we're there to have a geopolitical presence in the region PERIOD, but...

if the argument for occupying Iraq is to liberate the country from someone that used chemical weapons against his own people, is it really a good PR move to rain flesh burning acid over an entire city??

While this looks bad, I'm sure the Bush administration will prevail. Off to read my book.

curtis

Better late than never...

Winners of the family pumpkin contest for most creative (it was actually straight out of a book but I'll take it)

I've received a few complaints about the blog being quiet so I'll remove myself from the dual boredoms of working at the DMV and studying for the GRE exam for my graduate school application.

The word of the day, while we're on the subject, is BUXOM. Definition out of the GRE book: fully bossomed. Or - big boobed. BUXOM... that could be the name of Pamela Anderson's new TV show instead of STACKED if she had as big of a brain as she does a chest. Of course, I don't know if silicon has any effects on the brain's ability to retain vocabulary...

I digress...

So this picture isn't here just for fun, I actually finsihed another book. It is about damn time right?

My first observation about this book, which surely stems from my vocab studying, is that John Krakuer could probably do very well on the verbal section of the GRE. Lots of big words, but they're all in context so it doesn't drive you crazy or anything.

The subject of UNDER THE BANNER OF HEAVEN is the fundamentalist/polygamist wing of the Mormon church. I want to be clear right away - this book isn't a Mormon bashing book. These fundamentalists don't represent the mainstream Mormon church any more than the few jihadists represent the billion Muslims. However, just like Islam, perceptions of the extremists are more vivid and subsequently the mainstream gains the stereotypes.

Mormonism is an interesting religion to me because it is a compeltely American construct and whereas other major religions blossomed thousands of years ago, this religion is only about 175. That's old, even for a sea turtle, but not so old that there isn't tons of documentation from both the founders and those who opposed them in the religion's early years. By studying the growth of Mormonism you not only gain perspective on one of the fastest growing faiths in the world, you gain perspective on the growth of organized religion in general. As you read about the conflicts between early church founders and sharp divides within church doctrine, you learn not only about the origin of various Mormon sects, but you also reflect on the intrinsic conflicts that arise in the formation of a human control over an ultimately God controlled dogma.

For these reasons I recommend this book. It isn't going to tell you why Mormons always build their churches right next to high schools or why they baptize people after they are dead but it will make you think about religion and faith in general - and books that make you reflect about your own beliefs rather than illuminate differences between people and reinforce stereotypes always rise to the top in my book.

I'll be back before next month - promise.