"Death to the Dictator"
Posted in: Middle East | Comments (1)
The momentum we are seeing in Iran these last few days is fascinating. Does anyone think this could have happened if President Bush was in office? If you remember Bush classified Iran as one of the “Axis of Evil”. This further isolated Iran and helped lead to a little known hard line mayor of Tehran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, to be elected President of Iran. Just in this year we have seen Barack Obama refer to the Persian nation as the Islamic Republic of Iran and stress through the campaign and now as President that the US should open up dialogue with Iran. No threats, no bullets, just an open hand. What do we see in the streets of Iran? The seeds of rebellion? Perhaps. Time will tell but what we do know is Iran has a very young population. Sixty percent of the population is under 28 years old, thanks in large degree to the devastating impact of the Iran-Iraq War. Iran is also the most pro-American nation in the Middle East. There are as many as 600,000 people living in Los Angeles of Iranian heritage alone (exiles of the Islamic Revolution) and many of them have family living back in Iran. Many don’t know that after 9/11 the only people to hold vigils for the victims in the Muslim world was Iran.
The disputed election has been covered in great detail in the news but the undercurrent of the scorn is much deeper. Though violence is a terrible thing, the misstep made by the Iranian authorities is a good thing from the West’s point of view. Day by day as the protests have continued the people are breaking down the validity of the current government. Despite the outcome of this crisis, Iran will never be the same. The youthful Iranian people are ready for the old guard to crumble and desire a new relationship with the west and especially the United States and there should be no doubt they see in the new US President an opportunity to change the dynamics of the relationship. The election in Iran, for the first time since the 1979 revolution, did not make the US the boogie man. The protesters in the streets are not shouting “Death to America” they are shouting “Death to the Dictators”.
It is true Mousavi is not much different than Ahmadinejad but the protest movement in Iran is much larger than both men. It is a bit premature but if the protests result in a liberal revolution and Iran goes from being an enemy to an ally of the West you can thank mismanagement by the Iranian government, repression of Islamic theocratic rule and the change in tactics by a new US President. The next two days may be crucial. Tomorrow the opposition crowds could be significant as Mousavi has announced a “day of mourning” which was a tactic used by those during the Islamic Revolution to gather unlawfully. Who is going to assault mourners? And Friday, the Islamic Sabbath, is believed to be the largest protest gathering thus far. We will all be watching…and hoping.
Iran’s Latest Protests Are Seen as the Toughest to Stop: NY Times
Iranian protesters’ slogans target Khamenei as the real enemy: Guardian UK
What’s behind Iran’s power struggle: CS Monitor
admin @ June 17, 2009
The Grand Distraction
Posted in: Middle East | Comments (0)
President Obama is giving the speech tomorrow that President Bush should have given on October 11, 2001. Though he won’t alter events on the ground in the Middle East immediately, Obama will cause the minds of many Muslims to shift. America chose to deal with terrorism by blindly flailing with a sharpened spear and in the process wounding many innocents. President Obama understands the Islamic World. Because he has a unique background, the President will be able to say things that his predecessors could not.
The most pressing issue in the Muslim World involves the Holy Land. The Israeli-Palestinian issue, however, is both a serious issue and a chimera in the region. There is no historical doubt that the Palestinians have been wronged in almost every occasion since 1919. Their ancestral homeland has been whittled away from them through peace treaty, League of Nations treaty, British hegemony, United Nations treaty, Jordanian hegemony and finally Israeli aggression. Their recent historical plight is a tragic consequence at being so near land which is of such religious relevance and being unable to defend itself due to poor and fractious leadership. But Palestine’s tragedy is also deeply rooted in the internal politics of her Arab brothers. Palestine’s condition also serves the interest of the despotic leaders who sit on Arab thrones. The images of Arabs being bloodied by Jewish guns, shells and bombs draws the attention away from the ills of the region’s Arab governments. It is a means of redirecting the rage. It serves another purpose also. Not only does it focus Arab passions away from their own failed governments but it also focuses the West’s attention away from the abysmal human rights violations being perpetrated from Arab capitals. America has simply created a new scene into the Middle Eastern production. The spotlights seem to shift these days between Gaza, The West Bank, Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan. Corrupt Middle Eastern governments now have many outlets to direct the attention of their unhappy populace. Instead of spending lavishly within their petroleum empires, could not the rich oil states redirect significant resources into Palestine and lift out of poverty and destitution the 7.5 million Palestinians living in the West Bank and Gaza Strip? If the Arabs were truly concerned about their oppressed brothers in Palestine, this would have been done long ago. Look at how the wealthy Jews in the West have assisted the zionist cause in Israel. Wouldn’t it make sense for the Muslims to do the same for their brethren in Palestine?
I am sure President Obama will bring the failures of the Arab World to light in his speech tomorrow. He will state the fact that America has not always made the best decisions but the Muslim World cannot blame all the ills of the world on Jews and America. Islamic terrorism is being cultivated in the dictatorial petrie dishes in the Middle East (albeit warmed under the light of Zionism and American malfeasance). President Obama has rightly begun to push back on Israel by stating they should freeze construction on West Bank settlements. This stance against Israel has not been greeted warmly by many Congressmen on both sides of the aisle. The Jewish lobby is strong in the halls of Congress. Prior to Obama’s visit with Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu, 76 out of the 100 Senators sent a message to the President advising him to mind the risks to Israel over any Middle East peace accords. President Obama is not just saying what is right, he is doing what is right. It will now be up to Israel, the Arab States and, most of all, the Muslim people now to respond in kind.
admin @ June 3, 2009
Crimes in the Sandbox
Posted in: Iraq War, Middle East, Military Affairs | Comments (0)
You get the feeling this is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to Iraq. So much for loyalty to country.
admin @ May 26, 2009
A Grand Debate
Posted in: Asia, Middle East, Politics, Religion | Comments (0)
CS Monitor
By Tim Sebastian
May 1, 2009
Washington – This story began – as so many do – with a lunch.
While attending a conference in 2004 in the tiny Gulf state of Qatar, I was invited to break bread with the ruler, Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa al-Thani, and his wife, Sheikha Mozah. As a bewildering array of courses came and went, the royal couple talked of their vision for reform and openness and asked me if I had any suggestions.
It was the start of a journey, now entering its sixth year, that led to the formation of the first global free speech forum in the Middle East – The Doha Debates – and last month to a highly controversial session in Washington.
My suggestion to Qatar’s ruler was to stage a series of town hall debates in the country, get people arguing without fear of censorship or repercussions and tackle the hottest political topics in the Arab and Islamic worlds. The key condition was that my team would retain full editorial independence – with no interference of any kind from the state.
admin @ May 2, 2009
The Sweet Smell of Progressivism
Posted in: Conservatism, Economics, Liberalism, Politics | Comments (0)
Under the Bush administration you could just feel the shifting of wealth into the pockets of the wealthy. It started from the very beginning with Bush’s tax cut in 2001. This tax measure lopped off taxes primarily on the very wealthy and the result was an exponential increase in the amount of wealth at the very top of the economic spectrum. The middle class was being squeezed. Despite the wealth being funneled upward, businesses were reducing pensions and raises. Workers’ wages were not running parallel with the increase in inflation. The costs of health care were skyrocketing. The recent economic downturn was simply the heaviest strike from a succession of blows exacerbated by a failed right wing economic policy. In so many ways the 2000s were the faux Gilded Age.
The original Gilded Age occurred in the last half of the 19th century and was fueled by the Second Industrial Revolution. The Gilded Age saw America surge past the great powers of Europe in industrial might. But there were many victims. Child labor, women workers, and new immigrants from Europe’s underbelly and East Asia offered a cheap workforce. Labor laws favored the employers. Sixty hour weeks were not uncommon in factories that held all the brutalities the late 1800s had to offer. This was the era of the Robber Barons of industry. Huge icons of American business ran monopolies in steel, railroads, coal, oil and finance. Wealth, then too, was top heavy. The rich lived in opulence and the poor masses lived in tenements in America’s urban centers or eked out a living on farms. The Gilded Age was known for its corruption, both governmental and private.
The ills of the Gilded Age brought about a period of progressivism. The most famous of the political progressives was the Republican Teddy Roosevelt. Known as the “trust buster” Roosevelt inaugurated a period of fairness to the industrial sector. TR was also famous for his stance on conservation at a time when America’s forests were disappearing at an alarming rate and animals such as the bison were being hunted to near extinction. These progressives that were changing their world during the infancy of the 20th century were considered the pioneers of modern liberalism.
The current age is seeing a similar shift to the left. Government is again taking on the ills of the private sector. Only this time the weight of the nation’s (some would say the world’s) economy is in the balance. You would think by listening to the chorus being trumpeted from the right that what ails America is socialism. What ails America is the overextension of the capitalist powers that be. From delving out loans to those who could not afford them to issuing credit cards to risky users (with every incentive by the companies to snare the consumers in debt). The trading in commodities which created artificial bubbles and subsequent bursts became the name of the game; the last and greatest bubble and burst being the housing market.
For eight years the nation’s infrastructure was sacrificed by President Bush due to his attention to necessary (Afghanistan) and fallacious (Iraq) wars. The government, as a whole, allowed the private capitalist system and the public sector to go unchecked. (see AIG, Citi Group, Bernard Madoff, no bid contracts, Freddy Mac and Fanny Mae, etc…) What is a president to do under such an environment? Barack Obama is a progressive. The right wing may not like his attempt to usher in a period of government intervention but this is what he ran on and this is what he is doing. Letting the banking system collapse or turning one’s back on the car companies would seem wise in the short run but disastrous to the economy in the long run. (Let’s not forget President Bush and the Republicans passed a bill that offered a sizable tax deduction to companies that bought the biggest SUVs and trucks on the market. Not exactly a strategy that helped the long term business plan of the auto makers.) President Obama’s budget contained measures intended to right the wrongs of eight years of neglect, from providing incentives for energy alternatives to giving the middle class a significant tax deduction for their kids’ college education. There is no doubt the cost of this is painful but we are simply paying for the neglect and errors of laissez faire economics. The lesson here is if you don’t want full scale progressivism, sprinkle in a little oversight on your free market capitalism.
admin @ May 1, 2009
Tortured Politics
Posted in: Media, Politics | Comments (5)
I’m not a big fan of fringe blowhards on either side but I have to say it would be a “get your popcorn” moment to see a liberal torture Sean Hannity.
admin @ April 25, 2009
The Obama Doctrine Begins to Take Shape
Posted in: History, Latin America, South America | Comments (3)
The Obama Doctrine is beginning to crystallize in his first 100 days. The fact that both ultra-liberals and conservatives are criticizing him in the fashion they are should give one confidence in the manner in which President Obama is carrying out his foreign policy.
Those on the far left expected Obama to fold up the American military endeavor in Iraq once he became the leader of the free world like one would address and seal an envelope. Obama is a pragmatist and the notion of leaving the fledgling state to their own devices would simply be reckless. In Afghanistan, Obama always stated his focus would be to go after those responsible for 9/11 and his policy in Central Asia has lived up to his promise. Drones continue to strike key figures among those who would do our soldiers harm; most of them hitting targets within the lawless region of Pakistan. President Obama has also increased the forces in Afghanistan.
Obama also doesn’t appear to be the feckless Commander in Chief the right makes him out to be. There is so much banter on the right wing airwaves about Obama disparaging the good ole USA in his recent speeches as if the statements were said in isolation. Each time Obama discussed an American shortcoming he also addressed where the other party has fallen short. So much has been said on the right about President Obama’s dealings with Venezuelan leader Hugo Chavez. Chavez is a whack job. If you haven’t had a chance to watch the Frontline episode about Chavez you can view it HERE. It is a great insight into the nature of the tin-pot leader. Chavez was mugging for his country’s cameras when he presented Obama with a book in Spanish entitled, “Open Veins of Latin America: Five Centuries of the Pillage of a Continent”. It was undiplomatic grandstanding on Chavez’s part. When reporters asked President Obama after the Summit of the Americas was over about his friendly interaction with Chavez and the fact the Venezuelan president handed him a book which highlighted European and US malfeasance in the region, Obama replied:
“Venezuela is a country whose defense budget is probably 1/600th of the United States’. They own Citgo. It’s unlikely that as a consequence of me shaking hands or having a polite conversation with Mr. Chavez that we are endangering the strategic interests of the United States. I don’t think anybody can find any evidence that that would do so. Even within this imaginative crowd, I think you would be hard-pressed to paint a scenario in which U.S. interests would be damaged as a consequence of us having a more constructive relationship with Venezuela.”
To understand the impact Obama’s new expression of tolerance had on the meeting, don’t go to the Carl Roves, Dick Cheneys and Rush Limbaughs of the world. Go to Latin America. How did Obama resonate with the countries with whom he interacted? In Brazil, their President, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, praised Obama and called on the countries of Latin America to be more self reliant and end the habit of needing someone to rescue them.
At times our policies in the region have been atrocious. It seems sometimes as if the flag waving, always love America crowd so prevalent on the right simply refuses to accept history as it was. Have any of these folks studied how the US gained access to Panama through backing an unlawful revolution against the Columbians? Do they have any knowledge of the CIA led overthrow of the democratically elected government in Guatemala which in turn led to a campaign of ethnic cleansing in that nation? How about the US involvement with dictators in South America? One so easily forgets the US annexation of one half of Mexico in the 1840s. Why is it so hard for these people to understand the Monroe Doctrine has led to a blank check for the US to carry out an agenda in the region that has left many Latinos thinking not so kind thoughts of the US? Does anyone think that a kind appearance and handshakes will do harm to American interests in the Latin America? Americans should be proud of the fact we have such a well-spoken man in the White House who is carrying out the office with such good will.
President Obama is also shrewd. After allowing travel by Cuban-Americans to their familial homeland and allowing the sending of remittances there as well, Obama then told the Cuban leadership the ball is now in their court. It is time for you to take a step forward; to free political prisoners and move toward more civil rights. This led the Cuban President Raul Castro to state:
“We’ve told the North American government, in private and in public, that we are prepared, wherever they want, to discuss everything — human rights, freedom of the press, political prisoners — everything, everything, everything that they want to discuss.”
Of course these are just words but if Cuba wants the US to move forward with improved relations it is their turn to act.
For the past eight years the only tool they used in their toolbox was a hammer. It is so refreshing to see the new administration utilize their full complement of tools.
admin @ April 21, 2009
Bagged
Posted in: Conservatism, Economics, Politics | Comments (4)
Conservatives sure lack originality. All the great artists and designers are all liberals and it really showed yesterday. Let us first address the milieu of the protest name: Tea Party. That is no conservative sounding event. Without the Boston in front of it, it sounds, well, kind of dainty. 
Don’t you think? And having the tea bag as the symbol not only opens you up to a wide swath of criticism, from both a locker room humor perspective and from a visual perspective. The real radical patriots of the 18th century were dressed up like savage Indians and tossed entire crates of bundled tea into Boston Harbor. But we must remember, these original protesters were radical liberals not goofy Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity wannabes with a poor attempt at shouting slogans in unison. Let’s face it, conservatives just don’t know how to protest.
And what were they protesting anyway? Their acronym T.E.A. stands for Taxed Enough Already which seems a little out of place since they all got a tax break under Obama; unless of course they make over $250K. And most of the crowd didn’t look like they fit into that category. So they are blaming Obama.
The guy that is trying desperately to right the ship that those before him have forced under water. It seems to me the protesters are just bitter from having lost the election. If they wanted to protest, why don’t they go down to Wall Street and go after the real perpetrators of this disaster. Let’s do this right. Get the left behind you. Let’s go dismantle the corporate offices of AIG, CITI Group, Bear-Sterns, and JPMorgan, et. al. They are the modern day equivalent to what the British Crown did to America. Let’s wheel in barrel fulls of tea and wash out their headquarters. Liberals know how to protest. In the tens of thousands we could surround the companies and demand the government find those responsible for bringing the world economy to the brink of collapse and try them in court. But instead you have a bunch of people who realize their party is a waste of space, no longer represents them and the only thing worse is the new guy in the White House who has them staring reality in the face that change has come to America. Well, over sixty percent of America is with the President. I think I will go have a cup of tea sans the bag.
admin @ April 16, 2009
Learning from the Mog
Posted in: Africa, Military Affairs | Comments (0)
Somalia is no place for President Obama to begin his foreign policy. Given that he inherited wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, Obama will take ownership of any decisions he makes on the pirate menace in the waters of the Gulf of Aden and the Indian Ocean. Unless he gets a significant commitment from a bevy of interested nations, Obama should stay away from committing forces to Somalia. With no true government in the impoverished nation, there is not much reward to military action. The pirates are part of a warlord culture whereby those doing the actual pirating are simply pawns in the business of seizing ships. Though the 90s incursion by US forces was botched due to a lack of heavy weapons, the real lesson was a political one. The warlords of Somalia are like gang leaders. You kill one and another simply takes their place. Unless we are willing to take and hold ground in Somalia we should not commit forces there. And it would be foolish to contemplate such a pointless military endeavor. That was a lesson we should have learned from the Battle of Mogadishu.
For the most part the notion we should do something about Somali pirates is media driven. Just like Bush Sr. got sucked into the humanitarian crisis in Somalia in the early 90s by images of starving people in the Horn of Africa. The threat posed by a rag tag group of undernourished Somalis is not a threat to US security. That doesn’t mean we should do nothing. If insurance risk is keeping the tankers from being armed then do what was done in the World Wars: work out a convoy system. Ships could sail intermittently with destroyers or gunboats as protectors. The companies whose ships are being protected could pay for the maintenance and cost of the protection.
The United States has already bitten off more than is feasible to chew in our military incursions in the the Middle East. Somalia is a nation where military action will never result in long term dividends. Therefore Obama should either use his international clout to form a large coalition to help stabilize Somalia without a significant US presence or create a defensive strategy to combat pirating in the region with minimal US assets.
admin @ April 13, 2009
In the Constitution We Trust
Posted in: Culture, History, Law, Religion | Comments (0)
Recently there was an uproar among Christian conservatives over Obama’s statement stressing the point that the United States is not a Christian nation.
The argument that is created by the statement is in itself antithetical to American governance. Should a Jew living in the United States be obliged to think he lives in a Christian nation? What makes the United States a Christian nation?
Looking back on the history of this nation, one cannot overlook the Puritans. Better known as the Pilgrims they came here searching to not only find a place where they can escape religious persecution but also a place where their strict form of Christianity would not be challenged. Their oppressive form of worship was so offensive to non-Puritans, many fled the Plymouth colony and established splinter colonies. In the pre-Revolutionary days there were but three religions that held any sway: Protestant Christianity, Roman Catholicism and a smattering of Jews. (Islam was found only in a few groups of slaves brought over from Africa in bondage).
It is true, Christianity was an influential element of the history of this country. But those who drew up the foundations of this nation were not using the Bible as a blueprint for law. In fact, the founding architects of the United States were using principles that were running perpendicular to religious concepts. The Enlightenment was in full bloom when America declared Her independence (1776) and when the Constitution was written (1787). Thomas Jefferson, an avowed Deist penned the Declaration of Independence and James Madison, the chief mind behind the Constitution spoke about religion:
Experience witnesseth that ecclesiastical establishments, instead of maintaining the purity and efficacy of religion, have had a contrary operation. During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What has been its fruits? More or less, in all places, pride and indolence in the clergy; ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution. [James Madison, A Memorial and Remonstrance, addressed to the General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Virginia, 1785]
Does that mean there were others influential to the establishment of this great nation that were devout men of the Christian faith? Surely. But to say this nation is a Christian nation simply because the primary religion historically has been Christianity misses the mark. If you believe America is a Christian nation do you also believe it is a White nation? After all, the founders were all White. Most Americans, conservative and liberal, would be uncomfortable with this question. To a Jew or a Muslim or a Buddhist the statement America is a Christian nation has exactly the same sting. Identifying the US with a religion runs contrary to the tenants that makes this nation so great. To do otherwise foments exclusiveness. Therefore, President Obama was correct. America is not a Christian nation. It doesn’t belong to Christians, it belongs to the citizens and we will be a better nation the sooner we all see it is a such.
admin @ April 12, 2009