Archive for the ‘Critic's Corner’ Category

« Older Entries

Osama- The Taliban’s Oppression of Women

Monday, February 22nd, 2010

Paul Bloemsma

Osama

The film Osama, directed by Afghani Siddiq Barnak, hauntingly portrays the condition of women under the Taliban’s rule in Afghanistan.  The opening scene depicts a demonstration in the street of an unspecified small city in Afghanistan.  Dozens of women dressed in pale blue burqas chant (in Persian translated into English subtitles), “We want work.! We are not political!”  A picket sign reads, “We are widows.”  These women must put their economic needs above their desires for political and social equality.  The Taliban come to break up the demonstration, and they drive the protestors out with a hose.  An image of a blue burqa being sprayed around in the mud is replayed continuously, metaphorically exhibiting how women have been cast down in this society.  Several women are locked in a cage with chickens, revealing the Taliban’s treatment of them as subhuman.

From the onset, the film emphasizes how the Taliban’s oppressive regime incapacitated women, both socially and economically.   All the women must wear burqas, also known as Chadri, to hide their feminine features.  Though the current Afghani government does not require the burqa, many women still wear it due to the influence of the Taliban and political instability particularly in Southern Afghanistan.  Economically, women could not work.  In the film, the Taliban shuts down the hospital where the protagonist, a 12 year-old Afghan girl, and her mother work.   Women’s reliance on men in this society become evident when one night, the mother sobs, “I wish You [God] hadn’t taken my husband in the Kabul Wars.  I wish You hadn’t taken my brother in the war with the Russians.  He could help my mother.”  The female protagonist must disguise herself as a boy to be able to work at a chai teashop to support her mother and grandmother.  “Osama,” as she calls herself, is soon taken to a Taliban training school along with other boys of the village.  At school, the boys make fun of her feminine characteristics and affect.  After the masters discover her first menstrual period, they arrest her.  An elderly respected religious leader in the community, Mullah Sahib, takes her in marriage to the chants of “God is Great.”  Though she is saved from stoning, her ending is grim as she is married off to an evil man.   Sahib’s oppressive nature exhibits the seeming contradiction between piety and the abuse of women so pervasive in the Taliban’s fundamentalist form of Islam.

Though the film centers on the issue of women’s rights in Afghanistan, the movie also displays the cycle of indoctrination in Taliban society.  The “school” that Osama and the other young boys must attend is a madrasa, where a religious leader teaches them the Koran as well as military skills.  Additionally, the film displays the Taliban’s rejection of Western influence.  An American or British cameraman who is caught filming the opening protest scene is executed to the chants of “Death to the Infidel!”  Osama is a difficult, yet beautiful movie that honestly and gruesomely depicts the oppressive nature of the Taliban’s regime in Afghanistan.

Posted in Afghanistan, Arab World, Critic's Corner, Culture, Islam and Politics, Terrorism, Women | 1 Comment »

Return of the Taliban

Tuesday, February 16th, 2010

The Return of the Taliban

The Frontline Special, Return of the Taliban, provided an important depiction of the hardships faced by the United States military in combating Taliban militants. The most compelling story was that of Hayat Ulla Khan, a Pakistani journalist who released photos showing  the destruction of a Pakistani village in Waziristan. These photos captured the remnants of United States hellfire missiles amidst the rubble of an Al-Qaeda operative’s home. Khan’s photos were controversial  because President Musharraf and General Sultan claimed that  precision strikes carried out by the Pakistani army were the cause of the operative’s death and not the United States’ missiles. After the photos were released Khan disappeared and  was found dead six months later in government issued handcuffs. Khan’s death is important because it represents the corruption within Musharraf’s government and the lengths at which Pakistani generals  will go to appear in control of the success  against Al-Qaeda and Taliban militants. Unfortunately, the United States must now combat a three-pronged attack when fighting the Taliban. The Pakistani officials want to appear in control of the situation so they are denying U.S. influence in the region, the ISI is full or corrupted leaders, and the Taliban itself is carrying out suicide bombings in Afghanistan organized by Jalaluddin Haqqani. The irony is that the United States must combat the Taliban by monitoring the lawless tribal regions lawless regions of Pakistan as well as the Pakistani government itself, which is supposed to protect the law. Up to this point it has been difficult to work cohesively with the Pakistani government and this has, in part, led to the reemergence of Taliban groups.

Posted in Critic's Corner, Pakistan | 1 Comment »

Response to “Hidden Iran”

Tuesday, February 9th, 2010

Zainab Doctor

A few weeks ago, I watched the PBS video featuring Jane Kokan called “Hidden Iran,” which was about a journalist’s quest to uncover and expose the truth behind the student movements and uprisings in Iran against the Islamist fundamentalists in the regime. In order to tell this story, she traveled undercover as a tourist. The reason for all of this secrecy was the fact that Zahra Kazemi, another reporter, was beaten to death in 2003 for looking into these same uprisings. I was struck by many of the images presented in this film. As Andover students, we constantly hear about making a difference and being global citizens. The age of these rallying students and the passion in their voices really struck a chord. Their stories of suppression at the hands of the regime were striking. There were images of blood in dormitories from when Iranian guards invaded, locked the doors, and beat and murdered an unknown number of students, and stories of these students being beaten and tortured in jail. Throughout all of this, their determination stood out. These students truly believed in what they were fighting for, and yet their demands were for things that people living in the US might take for granted – free speech, democracy, and no religion in politics. I especially noticed that words ‘free Iran’ and freedom kept coming up. It is clear that they feel trapped, and are searching for a way out, waiting for something to change. By protesting, they have made their mark on Iran. Their voices have been heard, and if change is ever to come about, then this is where it must start.

Posted in Critic's Corner, Iran | 2 Comments »

“A Death In Tehran” Frederick Grace

Wednesday, January 27th, 2010

The film “A Death in Tehran” demonstrated how especially in Iran their are two sides to every story. The immense amount of chaos involving the outcome of the 2009 Iranian presidential elections seems outrageous compared to American politics, where Keith Olbermann and O’reilly create the biggest War Zones in American Polotics. The film showed how the death of neddy can be symbolized in two completely different ways. For one, reformers hoping to end the “Iranian dictatorship” view her death as a complete atrocity. Yet if the elections were truly not rigged, than why should we be sympathetic for Neddy. Although this is rather brash to say, and perhaps insensitive, she was part of a riot who were protesting after thier candidate legitamitly lost. Yet, if the elections were rigged, I view the Iranian goverment in a much more negative light, seeing them as modern day Islam-Facist being ruled by the so called “Hitler of Iran”. This death represents the ambguity of Iranian Politics. Because is impossible for us (americans watching from abroad) to really be sure if the elections were rigged or not, we are not sure to be entirly sympathetic for Neddy. It would be as if Riot police accidentally killed A mondale supporter as they rioted the streets of Minneapolis claiming the 1984 United States election to be a fraud. Obviously we would be somewhat sorry for the person who was killed, but by no means would we view it as the Goverment abusing its power.

Posted in Critic's Corner | 1 Comment »

Global Warfare- The Iran/Iraq War Movie

Wednesday, January 27th, 2010

Will Lindsey

Global Warfare: Iran/Iraq

After yesterday’s discussion regarding the Iran Iraq war I watched the Global Warfare Documentary to provide further context for this conflict.

Although this film was primarily informative with little commentary, the outcome of the War magnified Saddam Hussein’s corrupt rule. With the main objectives of protecting Iraqi oil fields and strengthening his grasp on the Middle East, Saddam Hussein sought to attack seven Iranian cities at one time, demonstrating his faulty skills as a general. Because the Iran-Iraq War resulted in small territorial struggles over a long period in time, this documentary also compared the conflict to the WWI (Takeyh did this as well).  

One of the most devastating attacks on an Irananian city was Iraq’s airstrike on Khorrahmshahr, which killed thousands of civilians and was later named, “The City of Blood.” The city of Khorrahmshahr represented a “martyred populous”, and fueled the retaliation of Iranian forces. A fountain of red water flowed in Tehran, symbolizing the blood lost in this airstrike.  

The Iranian army fought back with thousands of recruited soldiers under the pragmatic rule of Rafsanjani, however, the Iraqi military technology proved superior. The initial retreat of the Iraqi soldiers, which ultimately solidified the Islamic Republic’s legitimacy, was due primarily to Saddam Hussein’s poor leadership abilities which included executing Iraqi generals and maintaining poor supply lines in the fields of battle. Rafsanjani, on the other hand, had the ability to unify the Iraqi soldiers and recruits under one common cause of expelling the Pan-Arabic attack, and defending their Islamic principles.

As the war waged on, it became known as “The War of the Cities” resulting in air-strikes and missile attacks on both Baghdad and Tehran. Alongside these urban attacks an additional constituency that played a large role in this war was the Kurds, living in the Northern portions of both Iraq and Iran, who used this conflict as an opportunity to obtain their own freedom. Fourteen-thousand Kurdish militia supported the Iranian forces by attacking Saddam’s forces with guerilla techniques. This provoked Saddam to use the chemical weapon, cyanide, killing 5,000 Kurdish civilians and enraging a populace. The Kurds accused Saddam of genocide, and Takeyh argues that many Iranians and Kurds are still angered that Hussein was not charged for these war crimes (although his other war crimes have left him unable to be charged with anything else at this point). Throughout the Iran-Iraq war, the Iraqis used chemical weapons to kill Iranian soldiers and civilians alike.

Although there was no victorious state in the Iran-Iraq war, the presence of United States naval ships in the gulf, protecting their oil supplies from the Soviets, ultimately brought a standstill to the fighting. The Iranians knew that they could not win a war with the U.S. presence, and the Saddam Hussein called this war a victory for the Iraqi people. With a 1,000,000 soldier standing army, Saddam Hussein welcomed his troops home and erected statues of his falling generals, all of which point accusingly at Tehran. Additionally, Saddam ordered the construction of various statues in honor of the Iraqi victory.

Although this post glosses over some of the finer points of the Iran-Iraq war, I think it is important to examine Saddam Hussiens’ actions. An unskilled military leader decided to attack the Islamic Republic in order to expand his Pan-Arabian kingdom. With the use of chemical weapons and U.S. aid, Saddam Hussein killed thousands of innocent people, including those who lived in Iraq (the Kurds), only to withdraw his troops and claim victory. No country saw substantial gain from this war, and its only “accomplishment” was its role as the pre-cursor to the Persian Gulf war. As we read through the relationship between Iran and Iraq I believe it is important to remember that the United States supported Saddam Hussein, although we changed our minds 23 years later.

This deadly war was rooted in the fundamental ideological differences of an Pan-Islamic world vs. a Pan Arabian world. Unfortunately, both countries’ actions proved futile in accomplishing their goals, regardless of  what Saddam Hussein would have his people believe.

Posted in Critic's Corner, Iran, Iraq | 3 Comments »

Farah Pahlavi

Sunday, January 24th, 2010

http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/1360

This is a conversation between Charlie Rose and former Empress Farah Pahlavi, the widow of the former Shah of Iran.

After watching this, I want to point out her comments made against the Islamic Regime’s “terrorist” rhetoric. Presently, (in 2004 when the interview was conducted) the Islamic Republic of Iran is seen in the eyes of the US as a manifestation of terrorism ideology; a facet that fuels anti-westernization sentiment in the Middle East. I find it interesting that she can make a case that draws away from Charlie Rose’s questions about the allegations that the Shah wasted billions of dollars of Iranian money since the very regime that overthrew the Shah’s reign is now the focus of attention in the Middle East.

It’s amazing that she has confidence in Iran, in the people, in the women, despite what Iran had done to their reign. I would have expected criticism, at the very least a comment of an “I told you so” nature. However, she wants to serve as an advocate for a new Iran that can serve its people beyond the failures of the Shah’s reign and the failures of the current regime. On a superficial level, I find it amazing that such historical happenings in Iran occurred not long ago and she, the wife of the Shah, is a part of that history.

Now a new generation, not born during the revolution and/or not too familiar with Khomeini’s ideology, hold the key to the future of Iran. Mr. Rose remarks that perhaps this new generation doesn’t remember the Shah or Khomeini at all, if this is so will what the 70% of the Iranian population that is under the age of 30 wants be met?

Posted in Critic's Corner | 1 Comment »

Response to “Frontline: The Dark Side”

Monday, January 11th, 2010

Aditya Mithal

Frontline: The Dark Side offers an insightful, comprehensive, and shocking portrayal of the internal politics within the upper echelons of the United States government. The documentary focuses primarily on Vice President Dick Cheney’s influence and impact on the evolution of the United States’ foreign policy as a result of the September 11th terror attacks. The main issue facing the administration was the alleged involvement of Iraq. As early as September 12th, 2001, the internal struggle within the Bush administration pitted Dick Cheney, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and the Pentagon against the Director of the CIA, George Tenet, and the rest of his agency. As a result of Cheney’s ruthlessness and skill as a political infighter, he became one of the most powerful and feared vice-presidents in the history of the United States. His actions directly led to President George W. Bush’s decision to invade Iraq in 2003, while greatly increasing the power of the Pentagon.

The actions of Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld are indicative of the remnants of a Cold War mindset, which pitted nation states against each other. Frontline pointed out that both Cheney and Rumsfeld were not comfortable with the idea that a band of stateless actors (and not a nation-state) were behind the 9/11 attacks. They were intent of pinning 9/11 to a conventional enemy, and Iraq was the perfect candidate. By blaming Iraq, Cheney and Rumsfeld were also able to settle and old score with Saddam Hussein, finishing the work that they started during the Gulf War. However, not enough attention was paid to the conflict in Afghanistan. The CIA was the only agency prepared to handle the growing terrorist threat in Afghanistan in 2001, and the Pentagon was caught completely by surprise after 9/11. However, under the Bush administration, both the Office of the Presidency and the Pentagon gained vast amounts of influence and sway over policy, signifying a change in the political balance of power in Washington.

I was surprised that George W. Bush’s personal friendship with George Tenet ultimately marginalized the CIA’s role and led the president to invade Iraq under suspect intelligence reports. The CIA’s hastily completed National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on Iraq had many gaping flaws, and much of the intelligence reported in the NIE has since been proven faulty or inconsistent. Tenet was clearly intimidated by Cheney’s influence and compromised his own integrity as an intelligence official by recommending to President Bush that the United States invade Iraq on inconclusive information.

It was astonishing to hear about such ruthless political infighting during a time when the government should have been united against the looming terrorist threat. CIA forces in Afghanistan were not given the full support of the Pentagon, who took over a month to deploy its special forces to Afghanistan after the CIA’s initial actions in September and October of 2001. The rivalry between the CIA and the Pentagon clearly jeopardized ground operations in Afghanistan. If these two forces had been working together, the US may have successfully captured Osama bin-Laden in the fall of 2001. Ultimately, George Tenet was made into a scapegoat, and was “compensated” with a Presidential Medal of Freedom. His lone ally in the administration, Colin Powell, was clearly coerced by Cheney and Rumsfeld to support the invasion of Iraq. I was never aware of the full power exerted by Vice President Cheney and Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld. These men wielded extraordinary authority within the Bush administration, and used it to influence crucial decisions regarding the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. Frontline’s exploration of the “Dark Side” of American politics is astonishing and provokes many questions on the true nature of the political process and its effects on policy and the allocation of power.

Posted in Critic's Corner | 3 Comments »

Response to “No End in Sight”

Sunday, December 6th, 2009

 

Eric Sirakian

            The film “No End in Sight” examines all the reasons why Iraq fell into chaos after 2003. The film focuses on a series of bad decisions made by inexperienced policy makers. But if the problems in Iraq were compounded by a few unmindful leaders, how did the U.S. government, with all its checks and balances, fail to repair the situation? The war continued as a hopeless mess for years, with thousands of U.S. deaths and trillions of dollars lost. If we can now point at a handful of people and say, “these people are responsible,” how could the rest of the nation and the world stand by to watch the disaster unfold? The Iraq war has made me skeptical about the U.S. government and has painted a negative image of America throughout the world.

            First of all, I am appalled by the lack of foresight and preparation by U.S. policymakers. The U.S. entered Iraq without any idea of how to rebuild the country. Furthermore, the reconstruction plan involved inexperienced, unqualified leaders. By giving no thought to the future of Iraq, the U.S. demonstrated that its promise to bring liberty to the Iraqi people was a lie. Few people in the Green Zone spoke Arabic, and many had just graduated from college (their parents had donated to the presidential campaign). 

            Bad decisions were made over and over again. Why did many stay in power even as their faults were recognized throughout the world? Washington continued to encourage looting, for example, even as Iraq fell into chaos. Bremer, who was appointed to lead the reconstruction, made a series of bad decisions that were not opposed or reversed even as the situation in Iraq deteriorated. He decided to disband the Iraqi military apparently without considering the implications or consulting U.S. military experts. Many informed, qualified people opposed his decision, but their voices were not heard. A lack of communication within the U.S. government added to the problem, and many leaders, including the President, did not do their jobs.

             Americans should have overwhelmingly opposed the war in its later stages. Misinformation contributed to confusion at home, and many people did speak out against U.S. policies, but most remained silent when their voices could have made a difference. Rumsfeld and Bush spoke on television as if they were blind to what was happening, and I am surprised that they got away with it. If Americans did not care about the Iraqis, they at least should have cared more about the insufficient resources of the U.S. army, the deaths and casualties of American soldiers, and the unprecedented spending.

            The story of Sergio Vieira de Mello, a UN diplomat, represents the failure in Iraq: he died beneath the rubble of an office building because the U.S. did not have the resources or planning to save him. As Samantha Power explains in her book Chasing the Flame, the UN sent its best to Iraq, but Vieira de Mello had absolutely nothing to do. He tried to work with U.S. leaders, but they were unwilling to hand over any responsibilities. They did not utilize Vieira de Mello’s expertise, even though he was one of the few people in Iraq with any nation-building experience. He expressed his frustration with his colleagues in the UN, and he decided to leave Iraq as soon as possible. He was killed when a bomb was exploded outside the UN building. He remained stuck underneath rubble for three hours, but the U.S. could not save him.

            Fraud, corruption, and waste- that is how we will remember our role in Iraq. The war remains a mystery to us because we let it happen- we accepted the unacceptable. Hopefully Americans have learned a lesson.

Posted in Critic's Corner, USA in Middle East | No Comments »

Iraq In Fragments Response

Friday, December 4th, 2009

Iraq In Fragments exemplifies how it is to be on the receiving end of the U.S. occupation. “It’s for the oil, isn’t it?” Mohammed of Baghdad’s situation is of a poor working class boy raised by his mother and grandmother. To survive, Mohammed would prefer to work instead of going school, however, his boss (whom serves as a father figure) forces him to go to school where Mohammed is drastically four years behind and is gradually learning.

Mohammed’s analysis of the U.S. occupation indicates the blank slate that children have which is easily drawn on by the opinions of men. Mohammed does not seem to convey a strong opinion against the soldiers, yet he is constantly subjected to the diatribes against the soldiers by the men he works with. Considering Iraq’s large child population, this would suggest that children like Mohammed could be molded to despise American soldiers (and America) or they could regard them as help, depending upon who is teaching them. After discussing in class today the response to the Quartering Act prior to the American Revolution, if the British soldiers were ‘exemplary’ and cordial while in the homes of Bostonians, that does not dismiss the nature of their presence—occupation– which is key in the initiation of the response to the Intolerable Acts. The future of the children of Iraq hinges on the future of the war in Iraq. If tensions between American soldiers and Iraqi civilians continue to rise, where would that lead us and what response will the Iraq people give?

“They may stay for a long time. How would I know?” – Mohammed of Baghdad

-T Moone

Posted in Critic's Corner | No Comments »

Control Room Response

Friday, December 4th, 2009

TMoone

The movie Control Room had a deep impact on me. I always knew there are two sides to any story, however I never had access (and I’ll admit that I have never searched for it) into the inner workings of the Iraq media’s view of the war. Control Room is a documentary film about Al Jazeera and United States Central Command whom reported the news of the 2003 US invasion of Iraq.

Al Jazeera’s news network is a major player in reaching the Arab world, as is CNN and NBC for the United States. The central conflict of the movie is how the objectivity of media cannot exist when serving a specific audience, especially while covering a war. When the very medium of television news, images and sounds, can produce explicit opinions and messages, news has a profound influence on public opinion.

I especially like the film for its (ironic) truth that reveals the lies that encompass the media. I felt that the most crucial point in the film was when Lieutenant Joshua Rushing, the press officer for the US Central Command, realizes the impact of media bias. Rushing accused Al Jazeera of a lack of objectivity when Al Jazeera had shown images of American soldiers.

“The night they showed the POWs and dead soldiers, it was powerful, because Americans won’t show those kinds of images. It made me sick to my stomach.”

However, Al Jazeera had shown similar images of Iraqi soldiers and civilians the previous evening.

“I just saw people on the other side, and those people in the Al Jazeera offices must have felt the way I was feeling that night, and it upset me on a profound level that I wasn’t bothered as much the night before. It makes me hate war … but it doesn’t make me believe that we’re in a world that can live without war yet.”

Lt. Rushing’s observation highlights the point of the film. When the very nature of media communication is already difficult to convey objectively, to report truth in war is an impossible task when one is serving an audience, because whichever side one is reporting, the truth too is one-sided. Which leaves me questioning media in general, where is the other side if I have only been hearing one?

Posted in Critic's Corner | No Comments »

« Older Entries