New Media

I grew up in the aftermath of the Vietnam War and in the final decades of the Cold War. The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and proxy wars in Latin America, Africa and Asia kept the genuine threat of a worldwide nuclear war part of everyday life in a way that we don’t see as much today. Even though there are still enough nuclear weapons to make our planet inhospitable to most life except cockroaches, and keeping in mind the potential of Taliban or Al Queda fanatics acquiring nukes, the threat has definitely receded from most current-events watchers’ field of vision. But many legacies of the Cold War do remain with us even today. In some ways, the terrorist threat and the foreign conflicts we see today in Afghanistan, the Middle East and elsewhere are just part of the next phase from a continuum from that era.

Robert McNamara was a walking legacy of the Cold War during and after the USA’s involvement in Vietnam. The documentary Fog of War was an extremely compelling story of a tragic and remorseful soul who nonetheless seemed to have come to terms with his involvement and his place in history. While the 11 lessons from the film are a bit vague out of context, the 11 lessons from the Vietnam War he provides in his memoir seem very relevant for today’s world when we talk of war and relations with adversarial nations. The lessons (as listed in his Wikipedia entry):

1. We misjudged then — and we have since — the geopolitical intentions of our adversaries … and we exaggerated the dangers to the United States of their actions.
2. We viewed the people and leaders of South Vietnam in terms of our own experience … We totally misjudged the political forces within the country.
3. We underestimated the power of nationalism to motivate a people to fight and die for their beliefs and values.
4. Our judgments of friend and foe, alike, reflected our profound ignorance of the history, culture, and politics of the people in the area, and the personalities and habits of their leaders.
5. We failed then — and have since — to recognize the limitations of modern, high-technology military equipment, forces, and doctrine.
6. We failed, as well, to adapt our military tactics to the task of winning the hearts and minds of people from a totally different culture.
7. We failed to draw Congress and the American people into a full and frank discussion and debate of the pros and cons of a large-scale military involvement … before we initiated the action.
8. After the action got under way, and unanticipated events forced us off our planned course … we did not fully explain what was happening, and why we were doing what we did.
9. We did not recognize that neither our people nor our leaders are omniscient. Our judgement of what is in another people’s or country’s best interest should be put to the test of open discussion in international forums. We do not have the God-given right to shape every nation in our image or as we choose.
10. We did not hold to the principle that U.S. military action … should be carried out only in conjunction with multinational forces supported fully (and not merely cosmetically) by the international community.
11. We failed to recognize that in international affairs, as in other aspects of life, there may be problems for which there are no immediate solutions … At times, we may have to live with an imperfect, untidy world.

While the conflict in Iraq would seem to repeat many of the errors identified above, I’m heartened that the Afghanistan mission where Canadians have sacrificed much seems to have avoided some of the worst mistakes. I believe we went in with a fair understanding of the geopolitical intentions of our adversaries. The mission has been pursued with eyes wide open as to the cultural aspects; the gulf is wide, but not unbridgeable, and universal principles of human rights and the desire for freedom are genuine objectives of both the soldiers in the field and the people we are trying to protect. And it has broad support in the international community as well as a UN mandate.

We may have to live with an imperfect, untidy world. But that doesn’t mean we have to remain on the sidelines when we have the power to intervene in a just cause.

He’s been disowned by a panicked Canadian Arab Federation in damage-control mode, threatened with grievous bodily harm by a predictable slew of blog-trolling rednecks and was presumably pressured to resign his executive position yesterday. But the unrepentant Omar Shaban, who has cursed his adopted country, is not hiding in a cave somewhere near Vancouver or leaving for some distant shore where both radical propagandists and narcissistic idiots are more welcome (Britain, perhaps?). He’s actually trying to defend his words.

According to Mr. Shaban’s blog from “Occupied Canada”:

My facebook status did read “F*** Canada Day”, and it was followed by a few other comments in response to some of the questions that people posted. Some consider that taking this position is disgraceful and shameful but I tend to disagree.

Canadian citizens may not be given to showy displays of patriotism (well, except maybe on Canada Day), but cursing the land where you were born, where your parents came to give you a better life (at least until they decided to go back to Lebanon and raise him in the Nahr El-Barid refugee camp) – is certainly disgraceful. No doubt, Mr. Shaban relishes the infamy that has come unto his reputation. He breathes in the contempt of his fellow citizens. He feels no shame. Perhaps he even feels a sense of moral superiority. In any case, as he says, he tends to disagree with the prevailing view that he’s a vile and irredeemable embarrassment.

Moving on, Mr. Shaban claims that:

First of all, my statement clearly did not reflect CAF’s position; it was my own personal opinion.

Clearly? How does this statement “clearly” not reflect CAF’s position? CAF has been describes as making decidedly un-Canadian statements including “the promotion of hatred, anti-Semitism and support for the banned terrorist organizations” (NP). Why should Canadians expect that the rest of the executive of the CAF has done anything more with their tepid and uninformative press release (CAF Disassociates Itself from Recent Comments) than stop the bleeding after one of their own said what they were all thinking?

But now we get to Omar’s rationalization for his actions:

Secondly, I said “F*** Canada Day” and I regret the dark history that this country has. On our silent government’s behalf, I apologize to the indigenous people for this, and sincerely wish it had not happened to you. I apologize to the indigenous people of Canada because their feelings are not taken into consideration at “Canada Day” celebrations.

Of course! Mr. Shaban isn’t a tactless slimeball! He’s practically a hero. Oh, wait a second…

Omar never bothered to actually see what First Nations people might have to say about Canada Day before he decided to speak for them. For instance, here we have Mike Pinay, an elder from the Peepeekisis First Nation, talking about how Canada Day is a time for everyone to celebrate being a Canadian:

“We acknowledge what our forefathers have said, that we agreed to share the land with all the newcomers,” Pinay explained. “So we acknowledge that today on Canada Day. I look at it as a commemoration of all the good things that have happened.”

And then we have the words of Phil Fontaine, national chief of the Assembly of First Nations, following Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s apology for the terrible abuse of Natives at the residential schools (Edmonton Journal):

But it signifies something even more important: a respectful and, therefore, liberating relationship between us and the rest of Canada. Together we can achieve the greatness our country deserves.

The apology today is founded upon, more than anything else, the recognition that we all own our own lives and destinies, the only true foundation for a society where peoples can flourish.

First Nations people have not forgotten their history. And both aboriginals and non-First Nations Canadians are also well aware that the state of Canada’s aboriginals is a national disgrace. The clear message here is that Canadians of all backgrounds want to see positive change come to aboriginal communities. Remember the past. Build a future – together.

Yet on the day when Omar took his “stand”, his supposed allies failed to show. There were no mass protests against the “occupier”. The Native artists and musicians in the Aboriginal Village at Major’s Hill Park and elsewhere were not forcibly conscripted into performing at Canada Day celebrations. Funny, that.

Omar’s statement that he would not celebrate Canada Day “until it is accepted as legitimate by the indigenous people” is a red herring that might be seen as akin to Brad Pitt’s forgotten declaration that he would not get married until all Americans – gay, straight, whatever – could get married.

But there may be a more nefarious motive at work in Mr. Shaban’s latest meandering yet defiant declaration; his explanation of his actions – which attempts to weave in Gaza and Afghanistan with the issues on Canadian reserves into a confusing diatribe – could make more sense if we see them as part of the standard tactic of Islamist fundamentalist propagandists, what Ed Hussain describes in the Islamist as the linking of a myriad of issues in the hopes of radicalizing an anti-imperialist, anti-democratic mass of permanent radicals. Burning his bridges, perhaps Mr. Shaban has decided exactly where he wants his “career” to go.

One can only hope that one day this poor deluded soul will understand what he has done and ask forgiveness. Canadians may not want to give it. But that’s not the point.

A little humility here, Mr. Shaban. A little shame.

The uprising changes everything.

From Terry Glavin in his Tyee column, “Iran: Whose Side Are We Really On?”:

The uprising changes everything, and not just inside Iran. No matter what happens next, the uprising will cause convulsions in contested fields of struggle from Afghanistan to Palestine.

Already, the spectacle of angry masses thronging the streets of Iranians cities is holding out the promise of a great awakening in “progressive” politics from Berlin to Seattle. In Canada, what was once unspeakable is now unavoidably central to any serious discussion of the Iranian cause and what it demands of us.

Happy birthday to you.
Happy birthday to you.
Happy birthday dear Canada…
Happy birthday to you.

And many more.

Social hacktivists armed with little more than Twitter accounts, web browsers and an earnest desire to stick it to their perceived oppressors are hitting out at the Iranian regime’s online presence. It’s going to take much more than cyber warfare to bring down the mullahs, but it is an intriguing sideline in this protest against a regime accused of subverting democracy.

So far, official Iranian government websites and propaganda outlets including Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s Official Blog, Office of the Supreme Leader, Sayyid Ali Khamenei, the vile scab-ridden Iranian Press TV and a long list of others are either under attack, unresponsive, or providing only “Service Unavailable” messages (Zero Day). The hacktivists’ tactics are simple: use Twitter to organize and enable large groups of instant hackers through use of automated tools that overload websites with repeated web-page refresh requests.

It’s far from clear whether the cyber-offensive, supposedly launched by the Iranian opposition and supported by hackers outside Iran, will cause enough disruption to give the regime real cause for concern. The leadership and government bigwigs that have already shown willingness to shoot, jail and torture protesters who are demonstrating against a perceived electoral miscarriage (NP), may not feel overly inconvenienced by the online disruption.

Hijacking online communications as a means to spread the opposition message is a tactical victory. The question is whether they’ll be able to do far more. If hackers are able to shut down critical infrastructure, and if it turns out that there’s a mass movement of protesters across the country, not just in Tehran, just waiting for the chance to beat down the leadership, then this initial hacktivism could turn out to be a historic victory of Web 2.0 tools over tyranny.

By way of comparison, those who know a bit about the increasing capabilities of cyber-warriors point to attacks on critical infrastructure and government sites in Georgia last year, leading up to Georgians going toe-to-toe with the Russians (AFP). But the reality is that Georgia was not deterred from sending forces into South Ossetia after the cyber attacks started. And Georgia didn’t ultimately give up because the hackers killed the electricity. It was an overwhelming mass of Russian army soldiers, airpower and tanks that brought the tiny Eastern European country to its knees. The cyber-attacks were a sideshow while the real blood-and-guts war was happening.

The point is that even if the hacktivists in and outside Iran can step up the pace and severity of attacks to do things like disable police and military infrastructure, these tactics won’t have lasting effect without a mass movement willing to face down attacks with their own brand of violence.

Riot cops with clubs and guns don’t need much technology to do the dirty work of the regime. It’s not at all clear that the Iranian opposition will have the stomach for the kind of knock-down, drag-out fight required to oust a thuggish government.

Mind you, the regime is doing an excellent job of creating a resistance movement willing to spill blood through its harsh crackdown, and undoubtedly social media tools are helping incite the masses with live reporting of atrocities against protesters. The question is whether Iranians in the rest of the country, particularly the countryside, will also be seeing these images.

The mullahs won’t be brought down by a ragged band of hackers, bloggers and Tweeps. But there is a chance that Web 2.0 will make this protest against the government go viral in a way that the leadership – and quite possibly, the opposition – never expected.