Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Federal Judiciary Blogs -> Bench Memos - National Review Online

Federal Judiciary

: Bench Memos - National Review Online

Marrakech Journal, Part IV

Friends, welcome to the fourth installment of these jottings from Morocco, where I'm attending 'Davos in the Desert' -- more formally, the World Economic Forum on the Middle East and North Africa. Here are links to the preceding parts: I, II, and III.

There is a session called 'Meeting Expectations in U.S.-Muslim Relations.' Hard to know what that means. The panelists are mainly American, and they include two representatives of the Obama administration. It quickly becomes clear that there are certain assumptions in this session:

The burden is on the United States to prove that it is not hostile to Muslims. American society is teeming with racism and intolerance. Opposition to the 'Ground Zero Mosque' is simply hateful, bigoted, and wrong. There could be no good reason to oppose the construction of that mosque. It is simply anti-Muslim bias. The ongoing wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are an affront to Muslims everywhere.

Does anyone say that the overthrow of the Taliban and the overthrow of Saddam Hussein were righteous acts? Does anyone say that we are in Afghanistan and Iraq in order to prevent the return of monstrous rulers -- and that this is of some benefit to many Muslim people? Not that I hear, no.

#ad#A video is shown, and a young American woman is speaking. She is saying that, when 9/11 occurred, she had to know what 'led to the violence.' She had to get to the 'root of these tragedies.' The tone is clear, at least as I perceive it: What did America do to deserve it? (You remember that man, that San Francisco politician, who spoke at a ceremony in that city, a few days after 9/11? 'Oh, America, what did you do?')

Repeated mention is made of that one kooky pastor who threatened to burn the Koran. Obama did a great and glorious thing, we are told, by making clear that this was unacceptable. Does anyone say that, in free countries, people sometimes do reprehensible things, but that freedom is good for all, and that the Muslim world could definitely use a stronger dose of freedom? Not that I hear, no.

I do hear something I have never heard before: America must do more than 'securitize the relationship' -- 'securitize' the relationship between the United States and Muslims around the world. We have to 'get away' from 'securitizing' this relationship, you see?

'Securitizing'? You mean, preventing people from being blown to bits? You know, people who are threatened with physical violence can use a little 'securitization.'

I think you have heard enough about this particular session. You know which way the wind blows when there are tornado-like gales.

#*#I meet a Frenchman whose name is Patrick. There are many French Patricks -- an Irish name, bestowed on many French boys. I bring up Jack Lang, the notorious French culture minister from the 1980s (I think). He was the one who made war on the introduction of English words into French. A lot of people thought it was funny that his name was Jack -- not 'Jacques,' but 'Jack.'

The Frenchman here in Marrakech says, 'Oh, yes. And he pronounced his name in the English way' -- with the English 'J,' not a 'zh' sound.

The man says to me, 'Does the United States have a ministry of culture?' He says this with a bit of a twinkle -- a bit of mischief -- if I have read him right. I say, 'No -- there is a National Endowment for the Arts. But Americans generally think that culture should be left to people and their various organizations, not to the government.'

An American interjects that this is not true: that this is merely a Republican view, not the view of liberals and Democrats. I guess so. But would Americans really go for a ministry of culture? Would they stand for a culture minister? Wouldn't most people think of a culture minister and a ministry of culture as . . . not very American?

Anyway, perhaps Gallup or someone could give us the answer.

#*#There is a soirée to end all soirées -- a big Moroccan bash, with all the bells and whistles. We walk down a long, long red carpet -- I don't know about you, but I don't do that every day. At National Review, we just come through the door. On either side of the red carpet, there are scores -- more like hundreds -- of candles. Candles in glasses. And there is a hell of a spectacle, with a hell of a racket.

Dancers are dancing, singers are singing, blowers are blowing, flame-throwers are throwing -- are they also swallowing? I don't think I see that. Men sit erect on white horses. It is sheer Arabian fantasy, all Disneyesque.

I feel we have been invited to Malcolm Forbes's 70th birthday or something. Where is Elizabeth Taylor?

Inside the vast tent, a bona fide feast is served. There is a fish bastilla -- or p'stilla, if you prefer that transliteration -- to die for. And then comes a lamb -- it looks practically like a whole one, served on a very large silver platter. You know the cliché 'succulent lamb'? ('Arrant pedantry,' 'grievous error,' 'voracious reader,' 'succulent lamb'?) This was one -- a succulent lamb to end all succulent lambs.

Before dessert, the belly dancers come out, shimmying like mad. You don't have to dream of Jeannie, she is right here. The dessert is not so good -- not as good as the belly dancers. But that's okay. Who can complain, given what has come before?

#page##*#The next morning, there is a session on Iraq, and it features Barham Salih, the prime minister of Kurdistan, a famously urbane and capable man. I have long wished that Americans from coast to coast could hear him. I think they, we, would understand things a lot better. I will get to Salih in the next installment of this journal.

Here, I would like to tell you something about a young Iranian-American man, who is also a speaker in this session. He is billed as an expert on Iran, and on Iranian-American relations. He is with the Carnegie Endowment. Say no more? (Oh, the uses of that great man's money!) No, say a little more.

#ad#He says, 'Iran is to the Middle East what the Tea Party is to the United States.' The audience thinks this is terribly clever and true. It is beyond disgusting, of course -- a moral obscenity. But perfectly par for the course.

Bear in mind that, apart from everything else, the Iranian regime is one that stones girls to death for the crime of having been gang-raped.

Our Carnegie guy also refers to the time, a few years ago, 'when Israel was bombing Lebanon.' When Israel was bombing Lebanon. Is that the way you would put it, my friends? How about 'when Israel was pursuing Hezbollah, which would not stop killing innocents'? That is not something you would be likely to hear, in this setting.

But this fellow does say a couple of things that make me smile. He says, 'In the Middle East, there are too many rulers and too few leaders.' A tad trite, maybe, but nice: and true. He also says (and I paraphrase), 'They have a saying in the State Department: There are only two countries in which you don't get clientitis. Only two countries in which an American diplomat doesn't become overly sympathetic to the government. Only two countries in which, the more you are exposed to the government, the less sympathetic you become to it. And those countries are Russia and Iran.'

I'm going to give you a lot of Salih in the next installment, but let me relate just one thing now. He is asked about the impending execution of Tariq Aziz. He says, 'I'm personally opposed to capital punishment, and Iraq does not need more executions. It needs to move on.' But these matters are properly dealt with by the courts, and politicians should stay out of them.

I wonder whether he opposed the execution of Saddam Hussein. For consistency's sake and all . . .

#*#When I was a kid, and first went to Buckingham Palace, I wondered how the guards could stand it: How could they just stand there and stare for all that time, until finally relieved by a changing of the guard? What did they think about? I knew that I couldn't handle it for one minute.

I have a similar thought here. Along the main road, outside the compound where our conference is being held, there are soldiers standing sentry, keeping a watch: a lone soldier every 125 yards or so. What do they think about? What would I think about? (I shudder to think.) A real discipline must be involved.

#*#There are lots of camels about, and plenty of people riding them. Not me, though. I swore never again. Of course, I have broken that pledge. After the camel at the Pyramids, I said, No, never again. And I went and did it again: in India, because friends were going for a ride, and because of the principle 'When in Rome . . .'

There was that terrible moment when, atop that Indian camel, I checked my BlackBerry: Then I knew I had a problem: a problem with my BlackBerry. But my rationalization and consolation is this: I was just trying to distract myself from the ordeal of the camel and the pestiferous, conniving young man leading it. The object of a camel ride, for the driver, is to extract from you as much money as possible.

Is that capitalism? I don't think so, but it is something. Anyway, gotta go -- though not on a camel. See you for Part V? I've got stuff.
 

#JAYBOOK#

Full post as published by Bench Memos - National Review Online on October 28, 2010 (boomark / email).