Here and There, Apr. 3

The San Francisco Chronicle is reporting the story of Marine deserter Stephen Funk as "Marine obeys his conscience". Conscience? I don't think so. Funk, a 19-year-old reservist, showed up at his San Jose base Tuesday, holding his mother's hand, to file a request to leave the Marine Corps as a "conscientious objector". In fact, Funk reveals himself to be either a great fool or a great liar, as he claimed that the military recruiter tricked him into signing up:

"They don't really advertise that they kill people," Funk said. "I didn't really realize the full implications of what I was doing and what it really meant to be in the service as a reservist."

Yes, the benefits of living in a society that places warning labels on cigarette packets, wine bottles and parking garages. Where people grow up believing that the only risks in life are the ones that are disclosed on little labels. "Honest, officer, there was no warning label at the recruiting station to warn me that soldiers are occasionally asked to kill people! How was I supposed to know?". At least poor Stephen Funk figured this out before he was shipped out to liberate Iraq, and not, say, after he was given an order to defend his platoon from enemy fire.

Elsewhere on the pages of Wednesday's San Francisco Chronicle, one finds the weekly psychedelic rant of Robert Scheer. Scheer feels that the word "terror" is just an excuse for the US to commit savagery against Iraqi civilians, and that accidental deaths in wartime is no different from what is properly called terrorism:

The "terrorist" is generally considered such because he is indifferent to the fate of civilians.

No, Bob, terrorists are not indifferent to the fate of civilians, their sole and deliberate objective is to kill as many civilians as they can. The US and British forces, on the other hand, try to minimize civilian casualties even as they target installations of the regime. How disappointing that Scheer doesn't recognize the difference.

Fifth Column Watch: The New York Daily News reports on textbooks used in New York City's Islamic schools, Sowing seeds of hatred:

The books, obtained during a three-month Daily News investigation that included visits to private Muslim schools, are rife with inaccuracies, sweeping condemnations of Jews and Christians, and triumphalist declarations of Islam's supremacy. In Long Island City, Queens, for example, fifth- and sixth-graders at the Ideal Islamic School on 12th St. learn that Allah has revealed that "the Jews killed their own prophets and disobeyed Allah."

Some of the books were published with the financial support of a Saudi Arabian foundation. Read the whole thing.

Arab Media Watch: A reader writes:

I am currently sitting in Kuwait right now reading the english-language Arab Times. Last year at this time, I was also here during the Israeli incursions in the west back. At that time, the Arab Times was reporting on 500 dead in Jenin, Israeli soldiers throwing babies into the streets and raping their mothers, heroic suicide bombers, etc. There were also demonstrations in certain sections of Kuwait city against the war by ex-pat Egyptians. Now, I was somewhat surprised at the tone of the reporting in the paper of the Iraq war.

Today's edition has an opinion written by Ahmed Al-Jarallah, the editor in chief stating there are no compliments for criminals like Saddam Hussein. Another writer, Ali Ahmed Al-Baghli, former oil minister, states that the coverage of the war by Arab media is making all the middle east the laughing stock of nations and drawing parallels between it and the reporting done during the six-day war
in 1967 when Arab stations were reporting that Arab armies were throwing Israel into the sea. They still have some articles talking about the human cost in Iraq, but all in all, the reporting is akin to Fox News Channel. Very balanced for what I had thought would have been like last year.

The Arab Times may be found online here. Contrary to the gloom and doom we keep hearing from some who predict that war in Iraq "will radicalize the region and create a thousand Bin Ladens", this article is refreshing:

Most Kuwaitis want to see the US-led coalition succeed in removing Saddam, but they also suspect his departure would bring to the fore divergences in their own country between powerful Islamists and Western-oriented liberals... Many Islamists fear a US victory against Iraq may boost liberal trends and jeopardise their traditional values ...

"If Kuwait wants to remain a modern, democratic country, we have no choice but to stay close to the Americans," said a senior government official who asked not to be named. "We will not allow them (Islamists) to set the clock back and tamper with our future."

Sounds good to me. More importantly, it sounds good to a lot of Kuwaitis.

Ze'ev Schiff says that the Iraqi Army's latest moves smack of desperation. The movement of northern divisions to defend Baghdad from the south should allow the coalition to take the Kirkuk oil fields. At the same time, the defenders south of Baghdad will either be destroyed, or retreat into the city. And the latter would be seen as a signal of defeat, damage morale and hasten the collapse of the regime.

Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at April 03, 2003 07:21 AM