2007 was a good year for me. For some, however… not so much.

Wacky 2007

A large part of me believes Joe Biden should be president. It is not going to happen, therefore I am left with second choices. In an article written by Reza Aslan he explains in detail why we need a president that comprehends the nuances of the Muslim world and outlines what it will take to alter that part of the world’s opinion of us. He doesn’t mention Biden but he certainly could have.

He Could Care Less About Obama’s Story-Reza Aslan

If you are a political junkie like myself, these next two weeks should provide some pretty good theater. The Democratic race is as narrow as a needle and it seems all the candidates are trying everything to sway caucus goers in Iowa. On C-SPAN on Sunday you can hear the top three Democratic contenders throughout the day as they utter their closing arguments before Iowa votes in their caucus on Thursday. Two caucus locations within Iowa will be featured on C-SPAN this Thursday evening. The Republican caucus is straight forward. Voters go in, cast their ballots and leave. The Democratic caucus is much more involved. A candidate at each location must become viable with at least 15% of the vote. If a candidate can’t become viable, those voters must then choose a second candidate. It is a fascinating practice in democracy as those voters whose candidates aren’t viable are then begged, pleaded, and rationalized into voting for candidates by the supporters of candidates who are viable. It becomes a political rugby match with a psychological component. Experts for the Democratic candidates, according to the NY Times, say the “contest could be determined by a swing of as few as 1,000 voters”.

The Democratic caucus in Iowa is made even more interesting due to the manner in which Obama, Edwards, and Clinton cull their support. Obama is said to have amazing organization in the Hawkeye State. His fresh face, representing a step beyond the 1960s culture wars that have defined the past four decades of American politics, provides a chance for significant change. John Edwards has established a network of supporters and a large list of caucus goers from his presidential run in 2004, especially within the vast rural areas. Under the Iowa caucus system, voters in rural areas have more weight than those in urban areas. This is why you see these candidates meander to the smallest locations in the state. Edwards’ “rage against the corporate machine” campaign resonates with many these days. Hillary Clinton has used name recognition and a powerful political machine to establish her support.

What is at stake in Iowa? Most believe Edwards must win Iowa to have any chance in 2008. Some say the same thing about Obama but he is competitive in the New Hampshire polls so second place behind Edwards would not be catastrophic. Pundits believe that both candidates need to finish above Clinton. The Clinton campaign would rather see Edwards finish above her than Obama. They see Obama as a bigger threat. As I said, tune in Thursday and you shouldn’t be disappointed.

There is much talk about Iraq moving off American’s top issues for the 2008 election. American soldiers are still dying, just not like they were before the surge. Iraqis are still dying, just not like they were before the surge. And that is my good news. Juan Cole explains in his blog Informed Comment the situation away from the surge is not going well at all (click here)

_____________________________________________

Supporting Musharraf reminds me of American Foreign Policy during the Cold War. It wasn’t uncommon for the US to support any leader as long as they were anti-communist. The sentiment now is we support leaders as long as they are anti-terrorist. The President of Pakistan took the reigns of power via a military coup. It is always easier to support a pro-US dictator than it is to support an anti-American democratic leader. Look at the US intervention in Guatemala during the Eisenhower administration. One problem we have with General Musharraf is his government was actively supporting the Taliban and thus Al-Qaeda before 9-11 and we know now there are elements in his government that still share pro Al-Qaeda sentiments. Musharraf has changed his tune and has claimed to have “played ball” with the US. The biggest issue we have, however, is Musharraf has many reasons to not track down and kill Osama Bin Laden. Actually he has billions of reasons in the form of US dollars. If Al-Qaeda was neutralized in Pakistan the US would do what they always do. They would turn their attention elsewhere and take their checkbook with them. Musharraf receives billions of dollars in aid, much of it simply disappears into the oblivion of the corrupt Pakistani government infrastructure with little to show for it. The death of Bhutto has shone a nasty little light into the corner of the world where we should be most active. While the nation has been laboring over the Bush war in Iraq, our policy in the eastern recesses of the Middle East has been festering like a bad sore when the wrong medicine is used. It is a shame it took the death of Benazir Bhutto for the nation to reexamine our relationship with Musharraf and Pakistan but it is one that was a long time in coming. Perhaps the surge in Iraq didn’t allow the Iraqi government to get its act together. Rather, it allowed the US public to take a breath and to reassess its lack of attention to the region of the Middle East that brought us September 11.

“I can hear you. The rest of the world hears you, and the people who knocked these buildings down will hear all of us soon.”

            George W. Bush     September 14, 2001

More than likely it was Al-Qaeda that murdered Benazir Bhutto. Her death, however, reveals the weakness in our anti-terrorist strategy since 9-11. The venomous sector of Pakistan known as Waziristan has spread into the rest of the country. Al-Qaeda is alive and well there and in some ways that lawless corner of Pakistan has become the new Afghanistan; a haven for the jihadist group and a base from which to foment their extremist philosophy.

It was revealed tonight that Benazir Bhutto’s return to Pakistan was made possible through US diplomatic efforts. The purpose was to continue the Bush strategy of spreading liberal democracy throughout the region. Pakistan’s instability leaves little room for maneuver and led ultimately to the death of the one true champion of liberalism in the country. In chess terms, we led with our queen; a strategy that seldom works and usually forces you to play the game without your most valuable piece.

The strategy is much more flawed than just sending Bhutto into the snake pit. The best course of action would have been to get rid of the snakes first. The invasion of Iraq has been a harmful diversion on the war against Al-Qaeda. Everyone hails the fact that Al-Qaeda is being driven from Iraq but the terrorist organization was not there prior to 2003. Saddam Hussein’s demise and subsequent power vacuum led to a flood of terrorists into Mesopotamia.

The post-9/11 strategy should have been to go after Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan and Waziristan with not only US forces but also the real coalition of the willing; the vast number of nations who were motivated to eliminate Al-Qaeda in the wake of the series of attacks that occurred in the US, Spain, Indonesia and London. People forget that even Iran was providing assistance in defeating the Taliban and Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan on the basis these two groups were considered a Sunni menace by the Shia state of Iran.

The assassination of Benazir Bhutto has left Pakistan more destabilized and, to make matters worse, there is no liberal figure in the country that can replace her. In a state that possess nuclear weapons and where Osama Bin Laden is viewed favorably, a crisis which would lead to the end of the Pervez Musharraf presidency would not only be bad for Pakistan, it would be dangerous for the world.

Related Links: Groups out to get her

I’m sure many have seen the following video as they take in movies this holiday season but I thought it was worthy to post it here for those who have not. On this Christmas Day there are many around the world who miss home and the things we take for granted. May the calm of this day find moments with them.

When I was a kid if we didn’t eat all the food on our plate our parents would say, “Don’t you know there are people in China that are starving.” That doesn’t apply much anymore.

How much do you think you know about the world? On this Christmas Eve I’m going to start out with a quiz. For each pair tell which nation has the highest infant mortality rate.

Sri Lanka or Turkey

Poland or South Korea

Malaysia or Russia

Pakistan or Vietnam

Thailand or South Africa

Professor Hans Roslings will give you the answers in a fascinating speech about the changes occurring in the developing world. It is about 20 minutes long and divides the Third World into winners and losers. It culminates in a graph that compares the US and China and tells us what we know is transpiring, except in graph form it seems more menacing.

For most, the modern Christmas has more do to with gift giving and materialism than Jesus Christ. That is a reality. There is an unusual phenomenon going on half way around the world that taps into the secular component of the holiday. Just over a hundred years ago, during what was known as the Boxer Rebellion, Christian missionaries were beheaded due to the threat their western religion had on Chinese traditions. When the cultural revolution under Mao took hold in China fifty years later, the communist state became the religion. Just a couple years ago Christians were forced to practice their faith in private for fear of government reprisals. But China is changing dramatically. In an article in the Christian Science Monitor, Peter Ford explores the emergence of consumer Christmas there.

“…China manufactures over 80 percent of the world’s Christmas decorations.
…Those decorations are increasingly brightening the streets, offices, and homes of China itself, as Chinese young people embrace a foreign festival with growing fervor.”

Christians should not get too excited. Most of those who are buying the decorations or are partaking in gift giving on December 25 do not know the significance of the activities. Some Christians may be somewhat appalled by the wholesale secular nature in the way Chinese society is hijacking the holiday. It seems to be a strange byproduct of the monopoly they have in the manufacture of everything Christmas; from the toys to the decorations and even to the artificial Christmas trees themselves. Who knows, maybe the Chinese will grow into comprehending the true meaning of Christmas in a “back door” kind of way. The Lord does work in mysterious ways, so I’m told.

Read the entire article: Click Here

The surge in Iraq is working…sort of. Part of this is due to US General Patraeus’ strategy to stifle violence in Baghdad; a great military impetus that has wilted militants in the war torn city. The other part is the recognition by Sunnis that Al-Qaeda was not interested in their well being, but instead to a wider goal of inciting civil war, at Iraq’s expense, in order to cripple America’s commitment in the region.

The implementation of the US military’s alliance by necessity with Sunni groups in Al-Anbar has created a long term problem. The US has been arming the tribes there and their power and prestige has risen during this period of optimism and peace known as “The Anbar Awakening”. But like sleeping dogs, sometimes you have to worry what happens after they wake up. The Sunni tribes in Western Iraq have not shown loyalty to the new Iraqi government. Many of those in these Sunni groups were formerly insurgents and some were former Ba’athists, the political party of Saddam Hussein. They may have accepted American assistance for the time being to rid themselves of destructive Al-Qaeda elements but they have not found common ground with the Shia dominated government. The question also arises as to what will happen once Al-Qaeda is no longer present in their sphere. Will the next stage be a renewed war against US interests to remove them also?

In the south the British have left Basra in the hands of local authorities. The British had always played a low key role in security operations in southern Iraq and their handover of authority there has created a power vacuum. Feudalism exists in the land south of Baghdad to the Persian Gulf as numerous factions vie for control of the oil rich territory. The significant entities jockeying for power are the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq (ISCI) party run by Abd al-Aziz al-Hakim. Al-Hakim is said to be the most important figure in Iraq who doesn’t hold a political position in the government. Al Hakim is the last survivor of a family of nine boys. Seven were murdered under Saddam Hussein’s government and the eighth was killed in a car bomb blast in 2003. Al-Hakim met with President Bush this month. The US is working closely with him since they view him as a moderate. Al-Hakim is closely aligned with the moderate cleric Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani. ISCI  groups reside both within the Iraqi Security forces and as separate militias outside of it. These units are collectively called the Badr Brigades and are considered the armed wing of ISCI.

The second faction in the south is led by Moqtada al-Sadr, whose Mahdi Army militia is an influential force not only in the Shia dominated south of Iraq but also in the mixed areas farther north. Al-Sadr is the son of the Grand Ayatollah Mohammed Mohammed Sadeq Al Sadr who was murdered by Saddam’s men. Moqtada has gained acclaim for supporting the poor in Iraq. His militia, known as the Mahdi Army, has often clashed with the US military throughout the war. Defining his skills as a politician, Sadr has gone back to school to attain the religious title of ayatollah. Ayatollahs have significant authority in Shia Islam. They are able to issue fatwahs (religious rulings) and not have to defer to higher clerics. Al-Sadr already has political assets in the new Iraqi government which enhances his prestige. Al-Sadr has become a bit of a Doppelganger since he can pose as a fighter of foreign imperialists, of Sunni militias, of Ba’athists, and a champion for the poor.

The final entity in southern Iraq is the Islamic Virtues Party or Fadhila Party. Despite the fact that the Fadhila Party was formed from a student of Moqtada Al-Sadr’s father, the Fadhila Party is actually now a rival of the Mahdi Army. The one single thread that ties all the factions together in Shia dominated southern Iraq is conservative Islamic Fundamentalism. Taking their cue from Iran, the various factions in the south have installed a strict Sharia’ based law code throughout the region. The wild card in the region is Iran. Iran wishes to greatly influence the discussion in Iraq. They have armed various Shia factions and have often worked to weaken the sway of the United States commitment in Iraq.

The final region in Iraq is the Kurdish North. I will address their significant problems in the coming days.

Compounding the situation is the role of the national government in Iraq which seems to be toothless in their ability to influence things in either the Sunni dominated Al-Anbar province or the multi-factional Shia dominated south. What this holds for the US occupation is not known. In some ways it appears the US military is but one other faction vying to influence the course of events in Iraq.

Tonight I’m going to move away from all things political and present you with a concert from London featuring the great Amy Winehouse. It will surely please all, young and old. If you have good speakers on your computer, turn em up. Enjoy.

_________________________________________________________________________

Ok, I couldn’t leave well enough alone tonight. You may remember when the President of Iran came to New York and spoke at Columbia University with great fanfare and suspicion. During that speech you might recall him talking about sexual orientation in his country:

Soon, however, the temptations of the Big Apple proved too much even for the one who denies the Holocaust.

I-Ran