Monday, February 25, 2013

Name Calling - The New Yorker


http://newyorker.com/talk/comment/2013/03/04/130304taco_talk_coll

As far as written publications go, the New Yorker is probably my favorite; it consists of some of the most  perceptive, skillful, and cogent writers I've ever read. Though it isn't without its flaws - its leftist political bent is barely concealed, and some of its features are weaker than others - the New Yorker brings extraordinarily unique insight to a wide variety of topics every day, and for that I love it. 
Today is no different. Columnist Steve Coll tackles the issue of Al Qaeda and America, of the so-called war against 'Al Qaeda and "associated forces."' It is, he suggests, a worryingly vague, conceivably indefinite conflict. "The conflict presents a problem of definition: as long as there are bands of violent Islamic radicals anywhere in the world who find it attractive to call themselves Al Qaeda, a formal state of war may exist between Al Qaeda and America," he writes. And worse, it's a war without cause. Coll presents evidence that terrorist cells loosely affiliated with Al Qaeda in name only - Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, for instance, or Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb - in most cases are at best geographically constrained, and at worst mundanely criminal. He concludes, "[…] the empirical case for a worldwide state of war against a corporeal thing called Al Qaeda looks increasingly threadbare."  
"Name Calling" is an excellent example of what makes the New Yorker so compelling. The headline is poignant and double-meaning. The lede is really intriguing. ("We can infer [...] that bin Laden’s comradeseither couldn’t come up with a better idea or didn’t want to annoy him by questioning his brainstorm.") And the writing is of the highest quality. I certainly can't complain about the subject matter and the author's arguments, either. I, personally, was persuaded by Coll's logic: to fight a war in name is to justify its perpetuity by pointing to hypotheticals. (Concededly, I'm almost always persuaded by New Yorker staff writers.) 
What opinions have you all on this article? Did you like the writing style? Do you agree with Coll's point, or disagree? 

12 comments:

  1. I thought this article was good at pointing out the ambiguity of groups associated with Al Qaeda. It shows the indefinite nature that comes along with labeling one terrorist group as being in cohorts with another, demonstrating the long battle ahead as we try to decide what is threatening freedom in the world.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I think the article was very well-written and the author brings up many valid points. If we continue to be fearful of Al Qaeda and anyone who claims to be associated with the terrorist group, then we are going to be involved in a never ending war. This war has already cost us an astronomical amount of money and more importantly, American lives. I also learned a lot from this article about the different affiliates of Al Qaeda, as well as other terrorist groups in the Eastern part of the world.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I agree with Scott. Before this article I had no knowledge of the different affiliates of Al Qaeda and it was fascinating. I also think that remaining fearful of the group will keep us where we're at: in a endless battle. There needs to be an end eventually before more damage occurs. Overall, this was a very well written article. I liked how the writer opened the story up with history of the group and how it was founded, then going to present day. It was a nice touch.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Before I read this article, I too was not aware that there were different factions of Al Qaeda, some in which had no affiliation with the original group. Sometimes I would wonder how the group had such an influence over such a broad area, and now I guess I understand that they do because they actually don't. Though there is a wide range of Al Qaeda from the far east to Africa, all the groups are not usually affiliated. The article was certainly informative and I liked reading it. I like the writing style. The more of these articles, the more I realize how important it is that journalists tell stories so clearly. I agree with the author in that if we continue as a nation the way we are going, that a war with Al Qaeda may never end.

    ReplyDelete
  5. This article was extremely informational and detailed. I honestly learned quite a bit about the most recent additions to "Al Qaeda" and happenings since September 11th. Additionally, as is obvious, the article is very well written. The only thing that I disliked was the lack of other mediums, such as photographs. It is a very long piece and I think some other kind of storytelling, like a visual aid, would have been helpful in keeping one's attention and interest.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I really enjoyed the detailed perspective on this piece as well. I think the New Yorker does a good job bringing out this political issue and where we stand with the War on Al-Qaeda. This inevitable state of "war" that we enter into with the rise of other political groups claimed association with Al-Qaeda is definitely an interesting perspective that a lot of us are not aware of.

    Although I do have criticism on this piece. As James said, they tend to lean towards the left with reporting that I think they left out a significant aspect of this story. As long as we are in a state of "war" with someone, we are under the "rules" of war when it comes to enemy combatants. This gives us more jurisdiction by the UN to use different types of force when we are trying to battle these political forces. Maybe because they lean to the left they did not want to mention this fact. It brings a whole new perspective with Guantanamo Bay and interrogations. They fail to mention that this aspect that occurs because of this "state of war".

    ReplyDelete
  7. The article was interesting and insightful. It made me really question my beliefs and opinions about "the war on terror." I have not read anything about Al Qaeda in the news recently. This may be due to how long the US's fight against them has been going on. It id disheartening to realize that other groups around the world could be calling themselves Al Qaeda and our war with them may never end. I agree with McKenzie about involving mediums. It would have been nice to have something visual to break the article up.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I am certain Mr. Coll makes a very good point. Unfortunately, I could not reach the point where he makes it. I would agree with the other comments that he is obviously very informed - in fact the sheer amount of information is astounding - but I found myself becoming more and more annoyed at his writing style. He gives us lots and lots of information, but it is all presented like he is speaking in an academic journal. Of course, that is probably because he is writing for the New Yorker, which has a reputation for high-brow stuff.

    In any case, I suppose it was already lost to me because political conversations are largely tedious to me.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I think this article does a great point at talking about how ambigious all of Al Quada's affiliates and how we really can't pinpoint who is truly loyal to Al Quada and who is not an affiliate of Al Quada. It was a very interesting article and it has many great points.

    ReplyDelete
  10. I've never been sure whom politicians and people refer to when they use the term Al Qaeda. Mr. Coll's article clears up the confusion and it is now apparent the term loosely defines extremists who are against United States and our allies. The writer took a step back from the normally two-sided argument and looked at the situation from a different perspective. Within the first four paragraphs, the writer chronologically describes how the term Al Qaeda has developed and how it has became popular. Overall, I found this article informative and genuinely different.

    ReplyDelete
  11. I thought the article was well written in a storytelling fashion. And it had simple, to-the-point facts of all the events that have had to do with the US-Al Qaeda interactions. The only issue I have with the article is the length of it, which is hard to adjust seeing the amount of information that the writer is working with. It comes into question what is more important, including all the information or keeping the audience's attention?

    ReplyDelete
  12. I thought the lead was interesting. It was a well written and very informational article. It certainly was different from many I read and was a little long for my liking. I enjoyed the insight it gave and how informative it was. I didn't previously know much about the topic. I didn't really like how much it leaned however, its bias was almost annoying and did nothing to prove his point which I don't understand to begin with. It certainly was insightful however.

    ReplyDelete