Iraqi Ghosts in the Heart of America: Rajiv Joseph's Bengal Tiger at the Baghdad Zoo

What has perplexed critics and audiences about Rajiv Joseph’s Bengal Tiger at the Baghdad Zoo (2009) – its seemingly apolitical and ruminative second act – in fact signals why the play is rightful heir to an earlier generation of Broadway productions with postcolonial concerns. While plays such as David Henry Hwang’s M. Butterfly were indebted to Edward Said’s understanding of the orientalist binary of east/west, Joseph’s play makes a post-structuralist turn midway through its plot, moving beyond familiar territory to offer pictures of intercultural conflict in the Iraq War. This conflict is complicated by the complexities of internal and cultural multiplicity and hybridity, as described in the writings of Homi Bhabha and Arjun Appadurai. Nevertheless, Bengal Tiger at the Baghdad Zoo simultaneously reflects a humanist desire for reunion and a fear of violent refraction, arguing that, in the confusingly heteroglossic arena of twenty-first-century global warfare, the work of translation offers some hope of social coherence.

Rajiv Joseph's Bengal Tiger at the Baghdad Zoo is among the plays which represent the Iraqi war— a prominent event in postmodern history. The play is based on a real story which happened in the Bagdad Zoo when some American soldiers killed a rare Bengal tiger. It is a documentation of this real story and it includes real names and historical places and characters, which make it qualified as a documentary play. The present paper employs the new historicist method in its attempt to show how much the play is a representation of the culture that motivates the actions, whether it is the culture of the author or that of the characters concerned, Arabs and Americans. Thus, the play could be seen both as a product of the interaction of the American culture and the Arab culture that it came in touch with. The American soldiers first saw this war as a mission of freedom, while the Iraqis saw it as ruin of their culture. However, the dramatic method reflects changes in perspectives as the characters come into contact. In this way, the present reading is a chance to understand cultural and intellectual history through literature and mutual influence of cultures.

Abstract: This essay examines ways in which aspects of Roman Catholic doxology are represented in Rajiv Joseph’s 2009 Bengal Tiger at the Baghdad Zoo , a finalist for the Pulitzer Prize for Drama. Although the play is often read from a psychological lens, as a historical text outlining the United States’s invasion of Iraq in the early 2000s, or as a poststructural/postcolonial work that emphasizes binarism, anthropomorphism, and abstract issues of religion like eschatology, this essay studies how Joseph explores ideas related to the physical and spiritual works of mercy and other tenets of Roman Catholic doctrine.

In his chapter on the ‘Theatre of War’ in The Great War and Modern Memory (1975, ch. 6), Paul Fussell notes a consanguinity between the participant’s view of warfare and of theatre: ‘Seeing warfare as theatre provides a psychic escape for the participant: with a sufficient sense of theatre, he can perform his duties without implicating his “real” self and without impairing his innermost conviction that the world is still a rational place’ (p. 192). The participant’s position provides the fulcrum of Fussell’s discussion of theatre and the First World War from a range of perspectives: wartime audiences escaping the reality of war by immersing themselves in theatre, those with experience of war (the equivalent of soldier-poets) writing theatrically (but not necessarily only plays), representations of war participants in drama, the theatrical language of war participants (particularly class-conscious British soldiers). The catch-phrase ‘theatre of war’, in this view, is effective because it captures a double bind of location and participation in war. On the one hand, the war zone is like a stage and those in it become self-conscious performers who are displaced from the everyday life of ‘real’ selves and located in an ‘irrational place’. On the other hand, the theatre stage and actors materialize an experience which temporarily draws audiences away from their everyday existence and ‘real’ selves — and under those conditions the dislocations of war can be effectively represented and conveyed, even if war is distant or past. Of course, the same could be said of cinema or television drama. Theatre and war zone meet in the locations and dislocations of participation in Fussell’s view, and indeed that is the dominant sense in which a ‘theatre of war’ is understood both in literary terms and in the metaphorical plethora of the catch-phrase.

The article analyzes the US strategy in the nonproliferation field during three decades (in 1990s – 2018) and during the presidency of four US presidents (Bill Clinton, George Bush, Barack Obama, and Donald Trump). The author considers the key guidelines of US nonproliferation strategy that are described in four Nuclear Posture Reviews (NPR) issued by each post-Cold War presidential administration. These documents describe the US nuclear policy in general, but the author focused on analysis of those their sections that were devoted to dealing with the risks of proliferation of nuclear weapons. The National Security Strategies of 1996 and 2002 were also analyzed in the article to clarify the nonproliferation aspects of US strategy that were not explained well in the published excerpts of the first two Nuclear Posture Reviews of presidents Bill Clinton and George Bush. As George Bush faced with the new challenges that required developing updated nonproliferation strategy like he terroristic acts on 11 September 2001, war in Iraq - the nonproliferation policy had to change too and focus more on preventing the terrorists from acquiring the nuclear bomb and nuclear materials. The last two NPRs of 2010 and 2018 were published fully and considered in the article as the primary source for understanding the nonproliferation policy of presidents Barack Obama and Donald Trump. All four post-Cold War presidential administrations faced with the new proliferation challenges, and the author examines how these new challenges were described in the US strategic documents and how the US nonproliferation strategy evolves. In addition, the article studies the practical implementation of the proclaimed nonproliferation strategies of four presidents and compares the efficiency of this implementation by each presidential administration. The author also assesses the consequences of realizing the US nonproliferation strategy for the international security and its influence of the future development of the global nonproliferation regime.

The narrative of Rajiv Joseph's play Bengal Tiger at the Baghdad Zoo intricately weaves the city of Baghdad into its fabric. Baghdad becomes a half-character, playing an important part in enhancing our understanding of the play's thematic elements. Set during the Iraq War, the play delves into the intricate interplay of trauma, morality, and the absurdity of conflict. It uses Baghdad as a stage upon which to demonstrate these elements and as a key to unlocking their internal complexities. This paper examines both the historical significance of the city and its portrayal as a decaying urban landscape, as well as how both of these factors intensify the characters' internal conflicts. This paper interprets the battered condition of the city of Baghdad to be an accurate reflection of the emotional and moral state of the characters in the play. This study contends that the play's setting is integral to understanding the play's narrative and characters. It also arms us, as an audience, with heightened engagement to confront the play's existential themes with our sense of humanity in times of perceived unfathomable chaos. Rajiv Joseph depicts the layers of history and the city's psychological toll on its inhabitants, leaving us to question how free we are to make the right choices for the betterment of all.

Reviewed by: Contemporary Plays from Iraq transed. by A. Al-Azraki and James Al-Shamma Hesam Sharifian CONTEMPORARY PLAYS FROM IRAQ. Translated and edited by A. Al-Azraki and James Al-Shamma. London: Bloomsbury Methuen Drama, 2017. xviii + 204 pp. Paperback, $24.95; cloth, $74.00; E-book, $22.45. Images of the Middle East and Middle Eastern peoples in the western imagination include visions of never-ending wars, an unstoppable parade of dictatorships, tyranny fueled by religious dogma, and omnipresent chaos. These images, perpetuations of colonial discourse, were emboldened in the past few decades after the 9/11 attacks, the Bush administration's "War on Terror," geopolitical alliances between the west and Middle Eastern dictatorships, and the presidency of Donald Trump with his open xenophobia and Islamophobia. One way to counter this hegemony is a profound representation of the life and culture of the Middle Eastern countries as reflected in local literary traditions, cultural artifacts, and dramatic works. Ideally, an informed reader encounters Al-Azraki and Al-Shamma's anthology of nine Iraqi one-act plays with this very expectation. Unfortunately, despite all its merits and significant contributions to the field, the anthology fails to present an image of the Iraqi life outside the realm of the abovementioned formulas. It would have been more suitably titled "The Theatre of War in Iraq," as the main governing theme of every play in the collection is the devastations of the disastrous and continuous wars in Iraq. This might not reflect an Iraqi culture that is shocking to an uninformed reader—a shock that is urgently needed in our time—but at the very least, provides a humanized and tangible portrayal of the Iraqi sufferings in the past few decades. [End Page 535] The significance of this anthology is evident in sheer numbers, as the editors remark as such in the opening of their introductory notes: "To the best of our knowledge, only four plays by Iraqis have previously been translated from Arabic into English, representing just two dramatists. … This volume will increase that number by eight plays translated from the Arabic, plus one written by an Iraqi in English" (p. xi). The numbers, however, are inaccurate—Salih J. Altoma's seminal bibliographical study, Iraq's Modern Arabic Literature: A Guide to English Translations Since 1950 (published in 2010) lists seven more plays that appeared in English translation between 1977 and 2008 (Altoma 2010: 39–40). Nevertheless, the publication of these nine plays is a welcome addition and is a significant attempt in introducing a lively and vibrant theatrical tradition to the English-speaking audience. The volume opens with a preface by Marvin Carlson, in which he briefly overviews the significance of Iraqi theatre in the Arab world. His foreword is followed by brief biographies of the playwrights that lead the readers to the editors' introduction. In their remarks, the editors give an overview of the history of Iraqi theatre in modern times. Unfortunately, the essay suffers from one of the most damaging and commonplace historiographical problems of the theatre in the Middle East—the editors, it appears, subscribe to the notion that "theatre" was a western import into the Middle East and any indigenous tradition that came beforehand is not worthy of scholarly scrutiny. Al-Azraki and Al-Shamma, however, are clear about the scope and expectations from this volume, stating "[t]he political drama represented in these pages is, to a great extent, a theatre of trauma, reflective of the Iraqi experience under invasion and occupation" (p. xi). And as such, the volume represents the recent traumatic history of the Iraqi people in a candid way, rather than a full historical overview of the Iraqi stage. The first two plays, Hoshang Waziri's "The Takeover" and Abdul-Kareem Al-Ameri's "A Cradle," are the only representatives of Iraqi theatre before the American occupation. Both plays, the former by a playwright from the Iraqi Kurdistan, were written during the brutal dictatorship of Saddam Hussein, and, therefore, navigated a complicated labyrinth of signs and symbols in order to bypass the regime's censorship. Erik Levi, a veteran musicologist and an authority on German music under the Third Reich, noticed a pattern...

Rainbow Blindness: Same-Sex Partnerships in Post-Coalitional Australia

On 23 August 2005, John Howard, then Prime Minister, called together Muslim ‘representatives’ from around the nation for a Muslim Summit in response to the London bombings in July of that year. One of the outcomes of the two hour summit was a Statement of Principles committing Muslim communities in Australia to resist radicalisation and pursue a ‘moderate’ Islam. Since then the ill-defined term ‘moderate Muslim’ has been used in both the political and media discourse to refer to a preferred form of Islamic practice that does not challenge the hegemony of the nation state and that is coherent with the principles of secularism. Akbarzadeh and Smith conclude that the terms ‘moderate’ and ‘mainstream’ are used to describe Muslims whom Australians should not fear in contrast to ‘extremists’. Ironically, the policy direction towards regulating the practice of Islam in Australia in favour of a state defined ‘moderate’ Islam signals an attempt by the state to mediate the practice of religion, undermining the ethos of secularism as it is expressed in the Australian Constitution. It also – arguably – impacts upon the citizenship rights of Australian Muslims in so far as citizenship presents not just as a formal set of rights accorded to an individual but also to democratic participation: the ability of citizens to enjoy those rights at a substantive level. Based on the findings of research into how Australian Muslims and members of the broader community are responding to the political and media discourses on terrorism, this article examines the impact of these discourses on how Muslims are practicing citizenship and re-defining an Australian Muslim identity.

‘Moderate Islam’

The study aspired to investigate the human trauma of a society in wartime and thereafter. It focuses on literature that seeks to reflect life as it should be. However, literary works here deal with catastrophic dramas that depict Iraqis who generally suffer from the negative repercussions of the American Crisis and the extreme underdevelopment and poverty at that time. In this paper, the audience faces the disaster in two dramatic works: Baghdadi Bath (2005) by Jawad al-Asadi and Bengal Tiger at the Baghdad Zoo (2012) by Rajiv Joseph. They are a good example that depicts the nightmare experienced by all Iraqis during the war. Speaking about the disaster of war, we guess that the disaster may have human roots. The disaster of war on Iraq, in particular, is taken for analysis. The researchers try to denote the nature of man at the time of the disaster. The paper explores the relations between the ideas of war and the world we face and refers to Baghdad’s brutal past and its confused present. It also inspects the real reasons behind the war and records the human condition in the consequences of the American invasion of Iraq. To narrow the field of investigation, the researchers have chosen disaster at war, especially the American war on Iraq in 2003, and its results for the study. The paper steps down war and violence and assures peace for people depending on different perspectives.

The US presidential hopefuls' health policies

Nine years ago, the editors of the first special issue of The American Review of Canadian Studies on the of the Canada-U.S. asserted that the relationship best described as calm (Leyton-Brown and Jockel 1994, 449). Indeed, the volume was subtitled Weathering the Calm. Six years later, in 2000, Stephane Roussel remarked in the lead article of the Special Issue of ARCS, since renamed the Thomas 0. Enders Issue on the of the Canada-United States Relationship, that nothing had occurred in the intervening period to contradict the earlier characterization of the relationship by Leyton-Brown and Jockel (2000, 135). The usual irritants such as softwood, wheat, and culture remained, and there were signs of future challenges having to do with defense relations, border security, and the somewhat different priorities and personalities of President Bush and Prime Minister Chretien. But all in all, despite the usual annoyances, observers and officials assessed the bilateral agenda as one of co nsiderable harmony. What a difference a few years makes. In an aptly titled column, They're Mars, We're Venus, Jeffrey Simpson wrote in the spring of 2003 that not since the Second World War has such tension existed between the two countries (2003, A17). Following the terrorists' attacks of September 11, it became clear that continental issues would henceforth be shaped and largely defined by security concerns, and this would place a new set of pressures on the relationship. After 9/11 there could be no doubt that in the eyes of Washington, security trumps trade. Canadians found themselves struggling to try to find a way to reconcile their vital need for open borders for trade with the American preoccupation with security. The atmospherics of the relationship were also changing due to post-9/11 imputations that those terrorists had slipped across a porous Canadian border, slights by the Bush Administration, the messy handling of the accidental friendly fire bombing of Canadian troops, and the frosty relationship between Bush and Chretien and ensuing comments by those surrounding the Prime Minister. But the lead-up to the Iraq war and Canada's refusal to join with the United Kingdom in the U.S.-led coalition has shown there to be a much deeper divide developing between these North American neighbors. Canada's non-participation in the Iraq war evoked an unprecedented dressing down by U.S. Ambassador Paul Cellucci in which he noted that Canada's action did not go unnoticed in Washington and there would be short term strain in consequence. The Iraq war and the increasing unilateral geopolitical stance of the Bush administration reveal basic differences in international outlook. Canada's commitment to multilateral institutions is deeply held and transcends partisan governments. U.S. foreign policy, at least since September 11, is sharply focused on pursuing American security interests with the direct use of military power, preemptively if necessary. The changing character of the relationship and the concerns expressed by close observers are reflected in the articles in this special State of the Relationship issue. The goal remains that of past Enders special issues: to provide a survey of the bilateral relationship as it currently stands and to stimulate fresh thinking about critical issues of concern. To that end, we have enlisted a group of highly respected scholars from both countries to analyze current issues and future prospects. John Herd Thompson's opening essay is devoted to an overview of bilateral relations with particular emphasis on developments since the election of President Bush in 2000. Thompson's analysis focuses on the impact of the unilateralism that he sees characterizes the Bush administration's foreign relations and its changing relationship with Canada. He argues that the relationship has deteriorated since George Bush became president and that the relationship will be played by the new Washington rules. …

Blood vessel trauma leading to hemorrhage or ischemia presents a significant cause of morbidity and mortality after battlefield injury. The objective of this study is to characterize the epidemiology of vascular injury in the wars of Iraq and Afghanistan, including categorization of anatomic patterns, mechanism, and management of casualties. The Joint Theater Trauma Registry was interrogated (2002-2009) for vascular injury in US troops to identify specific injury (group 1) and operative intervention (group 2) groups. Battle-related injuries (nonreturn to duty) were used as the denominator to establish injury rates. Mechanism of injury was compared between theaters of war and the management strategies of ligation versus revascularization (repair and interposition grafting) reported. Group 1 included 1570 Troops injured in Iraq (OIF) (n = 1390) and Afghanistan (OEF) (n = 180). Mechanism included explosive (73%), gunshot (27%), and other (<1%) with explosive more common in OIF than OEF (P < 0.05). During this period, 13,076 battle-related injuries occurred resulting in a specific rate of 12% (1570 of 13,076), which was higher in OIF than OEF (12.5% vs 9% respectively; P < 0.05). Of group 1, 60% (n = 940) sustained injury to major or proximal vessels and 40% (n = 630) to minor or distal vessels (unknown vessel, n = 27). Group 2 (operative) comprised 1212 troops defining an operative rate of 9% (1212 of 13,076) and included ligation (n = 660; 54%) or repair (n = 552; 46%). Peak rates in OIF and OEF occurred in November 2004 (15%) and August 2009 (11%), respectively and correlated with combat operational tempo. The rate of vascular injury in modern combat is 5 times that reported in previous wars and varies according to theater of war, mechanism of injury and operational tempo. Methods of reconstruction are now applied to nearly half of the vascular injuries and should be a focus of training for combat surgery. Selective ligation of vascular injury remains an important management strategy, especially for minor or distal vessel injuries.

In recent years, and especially with the war in Iraq, the U.S. military's reliance on private contractors as forces in the theater of war has grown and become increasingly clear. We critically evaluate some of the best literature on the emergence of this phenomenon – especially Ken Silverstein's Private Warriors and P. W. Singer's Corporate Warriors: The Rise of the Privatized Military Industry – and find a neglect of the historical path-dependent character of the rise of the new corporate armed forces. In particular, we concentrate on American experience and two silences that are integral to understanding the path-dependent character of this process: (1) earlier historical reliance on private armed force to suppress the labor movement in America, the template for this new form of irregular armed force and (2) the ghost of Vietnam as a continuing political liability in the mobilization of sufficient troop levels under neo-imperialist aspirations and “the global war on terror,” as the main condition for the rise of the new private military form. Both elements suggest the theoretical importance of state strength/weakness in any explanation of private armed force. We discuss several important political implications of our findings.