Trial or Tribunal?

It has been determined by the FTM editorial board that staging a military tribunal for the 9-11 defendants (or perpetrators) only serves to kick the end of the “War on Terror” down the road for years.

By holding a military tribunal instead of civilian trial denies the victims (and their families) the possibility of a cathartic moment. A civilian trial will give an official public voice for the victims of 9-11. This voice could lead to healing in the public’s sharing its story of the tragic events. These stories can symbolically bring victims to life, hereby ameliorating the public and private pain of 9-11. Apparently, this is counterproductive to the interests of war, as the wound of 9-11 must be kept open for its continued persecution.

Most opponents of a civilian trial base their opposition to giving Khaleed Sheikh Mohammed (KSM) a ‘platform to air his abhorrent views.’ I find this very strange, as defendants voice their views in court all the time without any damage to society. What can KSM say that can be harmful to our social fabric? Can their greatest fear be if KSM and co-defendants appear as ordinary defendants in a civilian court?

Would holding a civilian trial will be in itself a victory? Could this victory be secured simply when the defendants sit meekly through the legal proceedings ? After all, their presence in civilian court is their public display of fealty and subservience to our system of justice. Could a civilian trial permit the public to see the defendants as weak, damaged, evil, and misguided human beings? Could this weaken the public perception of the enemy as an inhuman ‘Other’ to be subject to the application of tools like bombs, missiles, and US Marines? The public must be denied a false feeling of ‘Victory’ before the war is over. Especially a long war with many battles yet to come…

Interview with General of Afghan Army

Interviewer:
What do you think of Obama’s surge?

General (through translator):

I think it is great idea. We are looking forward to all the weapons and training that the greatest army in the world, yours, will bestow on us. And we relish the day we wage war on the Taliban, and take over the entire country in the name of the Afghan people. There is one thing we can’t do: we will not do it now.

I:

What do you mean? What thing? What won’t you do?

G:

When we, Afghans, fight amongst ourselves, whoever we fight today or tomorrow, we live with tonight or the day after tomorrow. And we have traditions here, certain customs as you say…that must be observed.

Break in interview. Tea and cookies are brought out by the general’s 10 year-old son. The tea is drunk relining on a pillowed rug. Cookies are eaten carefully, so as not to get crumbs on the rug.

I:

Which custom is that?

G:

There are many customs in our country. Some can be followed some of the time, others have to be followed all of the time. Some customs have exceptions to them, some don’t. Some customs are for certain tribes and not others, and other customs apply to all tribes equally. We also have customs for men and for women, and different set of customs for chickens and goats. What USA and Obama want is for us Afghans to fight and to win the fight against each other. You want Afghan Army to defeat Taliban, right?

I:

I think Obama said ”We will support the Afghan government in its campaign to expand government sovereignty over all of Afghanistan” in one of his speeches on the topic.

G:

He is very much correct. To accomplish this we train and develop the Afghan Army to fight and win against the Taliban. And we (if I could speak to your readers for the brave men of our army) will win this fight. But we have one custom in this country we always try to follow: don’t fight too hard with your brother when you must conserve your strength to fight the foreigner. When foreigner leaves, no problem. I hope America gives us good weapons, and body armor. American equipment is the best, superior to Russian or Pakistani.

Press Clips

The following statements were assembled from recent articles on Afghanistan. In all cases the words "Afghans", "Afghanis"" and "Afghanistan" were replaced with historically appropriate alternates.

Enjoy

• "Our goal is to keep Bolivians safe by providing security, but we also want to help them get started in the right direction to be able to take care of themselves," said Reyes, a 23-year-old from Mesquite, Texas. "A lot has changed for the better. The men that were paid to dig the wells understand that we are here to help them, but they have to learn to do things on their own, too.”

• Placing American combat advisers and troops alongside the Liberians will help address the governance problem as well.

• The American public and its politicians may be unwilling to keep American troops in Eritrea for another decade if casualties continue at present levels.

• Shortly after taking up his post, he called for a revised military strategy, focusing on protecting the Peruvian people against the Shining Path.

• According to American officers in East Timor today, tribal elders will gladly take US money and assure the US that they are eradicating insurgents, but will not really take up arms against the insurgents, or even share where improvised explosive devices are located, unless the counterinsurgents can protect them and their families from reprisals.

• "Given the real problems with the existing Bangladeshi judicial system, the US and Bangladeshi governments must immediately begin to establish a long-term solution that respects the rights of the detainees to have their cases heard in a court of law."

An Apologia of Pol Pot?

As some of you may know, my work was included in a recent exhibition called "Art & Democracy IV". It has been brought to my attention that several members of the Visual Artist Guild, the organization which sponsored the exhibit, felt that one of my paintings was a glorification of Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge. My instant reaction was that it was not true. It could not be! My feelings toward Pol Pot are absolutely negative. I studied the history, visited Cambodia on one occasion, and in no way support the goals and tactics of the Khmer Rouge.
When I examined the process by which the painting was created, I realized that the VAG may have interpreted the painting correctly. And further investigation revealed that the painting’s title and premise were modified prior to its most recent exhibition.
The painting, now titled “Retreat from Ankar, 1979” (above) was begun in November 2008. I came upon the subject matter as such: I found a photograph of Pot Pot and other KR marching out of the jungle (middle image) and saw that it could be combined with one of the great paintings of 19^th century Russian realism—“The Bargehaulers” by Ilya Repin (top image). I reworked the composition at approximately twice the size of the original, while keeping the same horizon, color scheme and vanishing point.

Now for the big question: What was I doing?

The image was obviously a socialist realist heroic scale history painting—a formulation of propaganda, style and visual aggrandizement no longer in style. The biggest problem was that subject of the painting, Pol Pot, could never be (nor ever should be) celebrated. Therefore, a world in which such a painting could exist had to be created. To cryptically articulate this world, I wrote a provenance and auction estimate for this painting. When it was originally exhibited, in a show titled "Convergence" at 25th Street Armory (March 2009) the following paperwork was displayed prominently alongside:

Since the object of this painting is elucidated by this document, it should be examined as a primary source.

The following assumptions can be made:

• It is an auction form. The painting was put up for sale, and authenticated by the auctioneer.
• The title: In this respect VAG’s critique is wholly accurate.It is a celebration of Pol Pot’s and Nuon Chea’s achievements. But who is HK and why is he so prominently mentioned?
• The provenance is the biggest clue to the painting’s meaning. Hint: the PDRK did not exist in 1997, and when it existed, it did not have a Ministry of Fine Arts and Letters.
• The choice of artist (Boris Kaganoff-Roche) to execute the work is based on era, experience, style, likely international connections, and a tiny autobiographical reference: my grandmother’s maiden name was Kagan.

It is up for the audience to fill in the missing gaps of information. They may fill it with history, memory, primary sources, or a careful examination of the object for additional clues. I believe that in the end, the revelation is of a dark and tragic historical antithesis.

The piece may be seen until December 31st, 2009 at Gallery H, 222 E. 34st, NYC.

Afghanistan: The War Dossier

The talking heads are in another world. This is taking up so much attention. I am incredulous when I hear discussions of strategy for this war. They clasp their hands, all grave and serious and whole-hearted in their assessments. They ponder the General’s requests (As if any general would not request more troops!) with painful pontificated addendums and conditions. Afghanistan is like a sick child in our care. They need us, we can’t leave it. We must ‘protect’ and ‘develop’ and ‘establish’ something or other in it. Our enemy was there, we must not allow them a ‘safe haven’. We must wage war in Afghanistan so the enemy can’t come back there. So they can’t plot any more attacks on our homeland…

We’ve got to call a timeout and think about it. We need to get out the wide-angle lens. We need to take look at Afghanistan. And we need to look at ourselves. And to help us, the editors at FTM have prepared a brief Q&A:

1. Why are we in Afghanistan? This is the simplest question to answer, and all answers are a variation of one number: 911.
2. Why are we still in Afghanistan? The media parrots the reasoning and response from the previous question. But let’s look back on the hazy days of October from 108 moons ago, when we rounded up a posse against the villain in our national tragedy. We acted within the bounds of international law: to re-establish a UN recognized government, and hunt down Osama Bin Laden. We failed at the latter for various reasons, and succeed at the former (more or less). But since our valiant Tajik allies, some on horseback and some in Russian tanks backed by Navy F-16s and Tomahawk missiles broke through the Taliban lines on the plains of Kabul, we learned a few things. We learned that the attackers on 911 were Saudis and Egyptians, who hatched the plot in Hamburg, who trained in Florida, who lived in Paterson and Phoenix and Minneapolis, who entered that morning from Canada, who passed through the screeners at Logan and Newark, whose leader was scion of a wealthy Saudi family, who studied in London, who may be on kidney dialysis, who is no longer in Afghanistan, who may be hiding in a mountain lair, and who may be dead.
3. What is Afghanistan? It is a country where our troops are fighting to root out Al Quaeda and prevent the Taliban from taking over and we are there to build up the local army and police forces and establish an honest and effective government which gives women their rights and educates its children.
4. What is wrong with the above answer? It does not say anything about Afghanistan, it is about our objectives and actions.
5. What is Afghanistan, Part II? Afghanistan is a mountainous resource-poor country in Central Asia, with no access to the sea, no large lakes, and no navigable rivers. The area had long been a transit point for marauding armies and trade (via the Silk Road). Afghanistan, as it looks on a map today, was created in the 19^th century as an administrative entity to separate the frontiers of the Russian and British Empires. Much of its recent history is comprised of wars among competing kings and leaders, with occasional assistance and interference from outside powers. Needless to say, Afghanistan’s social development has not fared well over the last 150 or so years, as most of its population lives in pre-modern conditions due to prolonged periods of war, agricultural exhaustion and isolation.
6. Who are Afghans? They are members of various tribes. Some are the Taliban.
7. Who do the Afghans think they are? People who live in Afghanistan, and belong to one of the tribes, work for the government, eek out a living, and some are members of the Taliban.
8. Who are the Taliban? They are predominantly Afghans of the Pushtun tribe. Some of the tribe lives across the border in Pakistan. They are fundamentalist and want impose their version of Islam on the entire country.
9. Why are we opposed to the Taliban? They may let Osama and his followers to come back and live in Afghanistan. The Taliban will let Osama plan more attacks against us. And we are opposed to their vision of government.
10. Why does the above make no sense as a reason for this war? A wanted man will not hide in a place where everyone is looking for him. It is hard to plan an attack on NY, or DC or LA, or Cedar Rapids, Iowa from a place with no electricity or WiFi (for e-mail and bank transfers and Google maps), few flights and four roads leading out. It is much simpler to mastermind a terrorist attack when one has access to a major port, an electric grid, ATMs and thrice daily connections to London, Dubai and Kuala Lumpur. As for the third point—our ideological opposition to the Taliban—we must calculate how much of our blood and treasure to expend so that a tribe 12,000 miles away fails to take over a mountainous resource-poor country in Central Asia. A country with no access to the sea, no large lakes, no navigable rivers, with nothing to trade, and no common interests.

What I've been up to during the holiday season...

Feces-throwing monkey on the loose in Tampa Bay

Wed Jan 14, 8:33 pm ET

CLEARWATER, Fla. – Wildlife officials said a rhesus monkey known to throw feces when mad is on the loose in Tampa Bay. Authorities have been trying to capture the primate since Tuesday afternoon, but it managed to evade a bucket truck and tranquilizer dart.

Gary Morse with the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission says the adult male is thought to have escaped from an unlicensed source. It was last seen in Clearwater.

The monkey is not considered dangerous.

A Special Shout-Out...

To white men for maintaining a streak of 44 elected presidents who are either all-white or half-white. Your success in our democracy is duly commended.

To president-elect Barak Obama for not forgetting the contributions of the 'non-disabled' members of our community. As a non-disabled (god willing) person, I sometimes feel overlooked by society due to my lack of disability. Simply mentioning us in your victory speech last night warmed the hearts of non-disabled people everywhere.