It has been said that President Bush’s push for democracy in Iraq and elsewhere in the Muslim world is a result of Natan Sharansky's book “The Case for Democracy”. For those not familiar with Mr. Sharansky, he is a highly respected soviet dissident who spent years in captivity because of his activities promoting democracy in the old Soviet Union. His book argues that true security in the Middle East and the world can come only with ballot boxes. President Bush has pressed the book on his top advisers and has been known to reccomend it outside of his inner circle. Of course, Mr. Sharansky’s argument in favor of democracy is not original. Former Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu wrote a book 10 years earlier entitled “A Durable Peace” that articulated a similar message, but with a twist – democracy might not be compatible with a truly Islamic state. In other words, in an Islamic state, Islamic law will always trump the ballot box. Islam and government are not separatable – they are inseparatable - one and the same.
Even if Islam and Democracy were somehow compatible, how can democracy bridge the gap between Muslim Sects? Sunni and Shi’a are both Muslims, but they are distinctly different and their followers fall in line behind their religious sects as single-mindedly as the rest of the world identifies itself by national geographical boundaries. Even within the Sunnis or Shi’a, there and literally hundreds of tribes whose power rests on controlling small geographical areas throughout the Mideast.
If anything, the case for spreading democracy across the Mideast will not take 5 years or 10 years…it will require that at least 4 generations to come and go (the living grandfather, father, son and the yet unborn) before tribalism and sectarianism can be eliminated from the collective memory of the Muslim world. How is the world going to judge the success of this push for democracy in the Mideast – in the short term, in which the outcome is predetermined to not be fast enough, or in the long-term, in which small incremental advances are made at tremendous cost in both lives in dollars?
There are those in the US who want to bring the troops home ASAP. To them I ask, what is your plan after the troops come home? There will be a sectarian civil war in Iraq where millions will surely die. Iran can be expected to encroach, if not take over much of Iraq – and the Kurds and Sunnis will surely be slaughtered. The entire region will become de-stabilized and chaos will ensue. Add to that scenario the fact that the removal of American forces will not stop Al-Quada from pursuing their agenda against America (the world trade center was first attacked on February 26, 1993). Even if Israel packed up and moved to Europe as Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad suggested, it would not put an end to Islamic terrorism – after all, the Islamic terrorist acts in Bali, Moscow and Spain had nothing to do with Israel.
Plan B can only be a continuation of a US foreign polciy that supports brutal dictatorships that know how to handle these types of populations. This policy served US interest well until the fall of the Shah of Iran, when we took note of Islamic extremism and moderated US foreign policy away from supporting military governments. The Jordanian monarchy under King Hussien, Egypt’s Mubarak, Pakistan’s Musharraf, and Afghanistan’s Karzai are examples of how US interests can be served at the cost of our own self-image. As pathetic as this type of foreign policy strategy may be, it is the only viable option left to critics of President Bush’s attempt to protect American interests in the region by bringing democratic change to the Mideast. I am not judging plan B as an unreasonable foreign policy alternative - I am just articulating what others refuse to say because of it’s unseemly nature. Americans tend to think of themselves as occupying the moral high ground on the world stage, and while advancing democracy in the Mideast is an act that supports that self-image, I have doubts about our ability to give this matter the long-term resources and political support that it will need to succeed.
Wednesday, December 28, 2005
Wednesday, December 21, 2005
Palestinian Moderation - The Myth Buster
Israeli PM Ariel Sharon’s decision to totally withdraw Israeli settlers and soldiers from the Gaza Strip (to the 1967 border) was seen by many as a tangible act meant to jumpstart a stagnant peace process. To others it was capitulation to 38 years of terrorism, and a surrender of Israeli real estate for absolutely nothing in return. In reality, it was a test of Palestinian intentions…to back up their talk of peaceful co-existence and moderation with tangible acts of nation building.
Fast-forward 100 days after the pullout: Instead of building hundreds of badly needed houses for a suffering Palestinian population, they have fired hundreds of rockets into Israel proper (this rarely happened before the pullout). The only tangible result of the Israeli withdrawal is that the Palestinian people no longer feel the need to pretend to want peace. The people have spoken in their latest election, and Hamas is the winner in almost every major enclave - with a 90%+ majority. The Hamas manifesto specifically calls for the destruction of Israel, and their election should not leave any doubt that Palestinian aspirations are anything but moderate.
When the twin towers came down on 9-11, the Palestinians danced in the streets. When Iraqi scuds hit Israel in the first Iraq war, they danced in the streets. Since Palestinians fighters are having a hard time getting into Israel, so they have swarmed to Iraq to fight against the USA and Iraqi interests. That should confirm to all that Palestinian aspirations are anything but moderate.
A phycological awakening is often called a “moment of clarity”, where an issue that was confusing and disturbing - all of a sudden is seen from a clear perspective. The silver lining of the Israeli withdrawal is that the world is coming to the realization that any Palestinians state in Gaza or the West bank will end up like Somalia or Afghanistan – a terrorist state.
Hopefully, the New Year will bring a “moment of clarity” where the world realizes that to create a Palestinian state from Gaza and the West Bank will only destabilize the region further. Even better, maybe the world – including Presidendt George Bush - should forget about creating a Palestinian state out of the West Bank and Gaza, and consider acknowledging that Jordan is aready a a functioning Palestinian country. Better yet, instead of Iranian President Ahmadinejad’s reccomendation that Israelis move to Europe, maybe the Palestinians should move to Jordan.
Fast-forward 100 days after the pullout: Instead of building hundreds of badly needed houses for a suffering Palestinian population, they have fired hundreds of rockets into Israel proper (this rarely happened before the pullout). The only tangible result of the Israeli withdrawal is that the Palestinian people no longer feel the need to pretend to want peace. The people have spoken in their latest election, and Hamas is the winner in almost every major enclave - with a 90%+ majority. The Hamas manifesto specifically calls for the destruction of Israel, and their election should not leave any doubt that Palestinian aspirations are anything but moderate.
When the twin towers came down on 9-11, the Palestinians danced in the streets. When Iraqi scuds hit Israel in the first Iraq war, they danced in the streets. Since Palestinians fighters are having a hard time getting into Israel, so they have swarmed to Iraq to fight against the USA and Iraqi interests. That should confirm to all that Palestinian aspirations are anything but moderate.
A phycological awakening is often called a “moment of clarity”, where an issue that was confusing and disturbing - all of a sudden is seen from a clear perspective. The silver lining of the Israeli withdrawal is that the world is coming to the realization that any Palestinians state in Gaza or the West bank will end up like Somalia or Afghanistan – a terrorist state.
Hopefully, the New Year will bring a “moment of clarity” where the world realizes that to create a Palestinian state from Gaza and the West Bank will only destabilize the region further. Even better, maybe the world – including Presidendt George Bush - should forget about creating a Palestinian state out of the West Bank and Gaza, and consider acknowledging that Jordan is aready a a functioning Palestinian country. Better yet, instead of Iranian President Ahmadinejad’s reccomendation that Israelis move to Europe, maybe the Palestinians should move to Jordan.
Friday, November 11, 2005
The difference between physical pressure and torture
On more than one occasion, I’ve read that one of the bedrock beliefs in the United States is our assumption that we treat captured enemies humanely, and any deviations represent a lack of fidelity to American ideals. In other words, there is a faulted assumption a policy of “zero tolerance” exists when it comes to physical pressure. The concept that the USA has to fight the war against Islamic extremists without the ability to use pysical pressure under the most pressing circumstances is the same as tying our hands behind our backs. This moral arrogance is totally absurd.
The gratuitous use of physical pressure of the Abu Garib prison variety should (and is) be against regulations and punishable to the full extent of the law. Obviously, this was a perverted abuse of Iraqi detainees by US soldiers who were not formally trained to work in this type of environment. If one were to contrast the video tapes of Saddam’s henchmen throwing people off of 10 story buildings (just for laughs), agaisnt the Abu Garib scanadal, it’s like comparing apples and oranges. Saddam committed political torture as part of a long term strategy. That is torture with a capital “T”.
They say that more atheists are converted in foxholes than in Churches, and that saying probably would be true if critics of physical pressure were responsible for handling a “ticking bomb” scenario. What would critics of physical torture suggest if their son/daughter was kidnapped by the likes of Al Quida’s Al-Zarqawi, who has a messy habit of decapitating his prisoners on video? What would critics of physical torture suggest the police do if they knew that a live dirty nuclear bomb was in Manhattan, and had captured someone that was in a position to help - but they refused? Would they put them in time out?
The Geneva Conventions are still relevant, in so far as they outline our virtues - how we wish we could act under a perfect situation, but coventional explosive devices, as well as weapons of mass destruction in the hands of Islamic extremists are an insane combination. The enemy we face today may be crude in his methods, but his faith makes him extremely lethal, hard to contain, and he has no “rules of war” to constrain him. This enemy perceives us as weak minded and without resolve, and part of their strategy is to exploit our democracy to promote their cause. Those who propose a “zero tolerence” to physical pressure are projecting their virtues and morals in a hyothetical world, leaving those who deal in reality to pick up the body parts. Our enemies speak our language and they understand us too well. They know our Achilles heel – it’s our innocence.
No one in their right mind would support “torture”, but under a “ticking bomb” scenario, I would expect our governemt to use whatever physical pressure needed to produce results. We just have to make sure that when we ski down this slippery slope, we are very, very carefull.
The gratuitous use of physical pressure of the Abu Garib prison variety should (and is) be against regulations and punishable to the full extent of the law. Obviously, this was a perverted abuse of Iraqi detainees by US soldiers who were not formally trained to work in this type of environment. If one were to contrast the video tapes of Saddam’s henchmen throwing people off of 10 story buildings (just for laughs), agaisnt the Abu Garib scanadal, it’s like comparing apples and oranges. Saddam committed political torture as part of a long term strategy. That is torture with a capital “T”.
They say that more atheists are converted in foxholes than in Churches, and that saying probably would be true if critics of physical pressure were responsible for handling a “ticking bomb” scenario. What would critics of physical torture suggest if their son/daughter was kidnapped by the likes of Al Quida’s Al-Zarqawi, who has a messy habit of decapitating his prisoners on video? What would critics of physical torture suggest the police do if they knew that a live dirty nuclear bomb was in Manhattan, and had captured someone that was in a position to help - but they refused? Would they put them in time out?
The Geneva Conventions are still relevant, in so far as they outline our virtues - how we wish we could act under a perfect situation, but coventional explosive devices, as well as weapons of mass destruction in the hands of Islamic extremists are an insane combination. The enemy we face today may be crude in his methods, but his faith makes him extremely lethal, hard to contain, and he has no “rules of war” to constrain him. This enemy perceives us as weak minded and without resolve, and part of their strategy is to exploit our democracy to promote their cause. Those who propose a “zero tolerence” to physical pressure are projecting their virtues and morals in a hyothetical world, leaving those who deal in reality to pick up the body parts. Our enemies speak our language and they understand us too well. They know our Achilles heel – it’s our innocence.
No one in their right mind would support “torture”, but under a “ticking bomb” scenario, I would expect our governemt to use whatever physical pressure needed to produce results. We just have to make sure that when we ski down this slippery slope, we are very, very carefull.
Thursday, November 10, 2005
Muslim Terrorism: Those who live by the bomb, die by the bomb
For longer than I wish to remember, Israel has repeatedly been the victim of Palestinian suicide bombers, while the world reacted with condescending condolence calls. The bombers knew that their final act wasn’t going to “defeat” Israel. The goal was to undermine the Israeli public’s sense of security, with the hope that over time, the Israeli people would just give up and move to other places where they felt safe. True to the Israeli national motto – Never Again - the Israelis weren’t gong to stand idly by and play the victim to Arab aggression. They built security walls, resumed targeted killings of known terrorists, perfected unmanned defensive technologies and developed surveillance technologies – while at the same time the whole world condemned them for basically defending themselves. Never, at any time, did ANY Arab governments condemn Palestinian suicide bombers. To the contrary, the Arab press consistently explained away these bombings as justified expressions of an oppressed Palestinian people.
Fast forward to today: Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the al-Qaeda linked leader of the Iraqi insurgents, has killed thousands of innocent civilian Arabs through suicide bombings and gruesome beheadings, as well as having claimed responsibility for the November 9th, 2005 bombings of 3 hotels in Amman Jordan that killed 56 Arabs (many of them Palestinian).
The Arab world always said that at the center of their anger is the Palestinian/Israeli conflict. If only Israel would pull back to the indefensible 1967 borders, or better yet just disappear, then peace and goodwill would descend on the Mideast and the world. Al-Zarqawi’s Iraqi atrocities have nothing to do with Israel. The bombings in Amman, Jordan have nothing to do with Israel.
Now, the Arab world is a victim of it’s own inventions. Various groups, like the secular ex-Saddam fascist Baath Party or extremist Islamists like al-Qaeda have led the way for any group in the Arab world with any kind of grievance – no matter how minor – to make their point by blowing up someone or something. Even the French, who championed the Palestinians cause as a way to pacify Arab anger, are learning that their complacency has a price.
The sickness that is afflicting the Muslim world is not about Israel, and it’s not about something the West has done to deserve their anger. What we are seeing are a people who have lived in relative ignorance for the past 200 years, while the rest of the world became “enlightened” and “civilized”. Missing that boat is hard to take, and the Muslim world is coping with it by trying to bring the West back in time to the medieval era, rather than acknowledging their need to play catch up. If they can’t blow us up, then evidently they are content to blow themselves up.
If that’s the case, then so be it.
Fast forward to today: Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the al-Qaeda linked leader of the Iraqi insurgents, has killed thousands of innocent civilian Arabs through suicide bombings and gruesome beheadings, as well as having claimed responsibility for the November 9th, 2005 bombings of 3 hotels in Amman Jordan that killed 56 Arabs (many of them Palestinian).
The Arab world always said that at the center of their anger is the Palestinian/Israeli conflict. If only Israel would pull back to the indefensible 1967 borders, or better yet just disappear, then peace and goodwill would descend on the Mideast and the world. Al-Zarqawi’s Iraqi atrocities have nothing to do with Israel. The bombings in Amman, Jordan have nothing to do with Israel.
Now, the Arab world is a victim of it’s own inventions. Various groups, like the secular ex-Saddam fascist Baath Party or extremist Islamists like al-Qaeda have led the way for any group in the Arab world with any kind of grievance – no matter how minor – to make their point by blowing up someone or something. Even the French, who championed the Palestinians cause as a way to pacify Arab anger, are learning that their complacency has a price.
The sickness that is afflicting the Muslim world is not about Israel, and it’s not about something the West has done to deserve their anger. What we are seeing are a people who have lived in relative ignorance for the past 200 years, while the rest of the world became “enlightened” and “civilized”. Missing that boat is hard to take, and the Muslim world is coping with it by trying to bring the West back in time to the medieval era, rather than acknowledging their need to play catch up. If they can’t blow us up, then evidently they are content to blow themselves up.
If that’s the case, then so be it.
Wednesday, November 02, 2005
What parents should teach (but don’t) their kids about car repair/maintenance
I remember the day that I said to myself that I had to learn the basics of car repair. It was at the tender age of 17, and my best friend and I were heading back to Memphis after a wild weekend in New Orleans. John’s 1966 Pontiac GTO began overheating on Interstate 55N. We pulled off the road at the next exit in an effort to find a gas station that could fix the problem. As we pulled off the road, we realized that there was nothing at the exit. Meanwhile, the car was so overheated that it looked like we were on fire. As the car limped deeper into the countryside, we realized that we had to stop. We saw a trailer on a hill about a mile away, and figured that we could get some water there. We walked up and knocked on the trailer door, and it slowly opened. We were in total shock. A toothless unshaven guy in dirty overalls (no –shirt) opened the door with a shotgun. He could have been in the movie “Deliverance”. As it turned out, he was a nice guy. He looked at our car and determined that it was only a burst radiator hose. I wouldn’t want my daughter to be in that situation, much less my son.
As crazy as parents have become about keeping their kids active with school, sports, and cultural activities like ballet, etc. – we somehow have not had the common sense to teach them the basics of car repair and car maintenance. While I don’t particularly want my child to grow up to change oil at the local gas station, I also don’t want him/her stuck on the side of a lonely stretch of highway at night in the middle of winter – because they ran out of gas. Basic car repair /maintenance isn’t brain surgery. There are some things that can be done easily, some things that are more difficult, and some things that can only be done at a qualified service station. I want to focus on the things that EVERYONE can do.
For starters, one must understand that a car is like a living human being. We need food, exercise, water, clean air, and good shoes. The most basic of car requirements that we have control over are fuel, oil, water, tires, battery, various hoses and various belts. If any of these seven items are not working or not present – then you will end up sitting by the side of the road. If you don’t know how to fix them, then you are stuck.
Make sure that the tires are in good shape, make sure that you have a good spare, make sure that you have a complete tire jack – and that you know how to change a tire. Know how to check you fluids – the water level in the radiator, and the engine oil and transmission oil. Check your hoses and belts for wear, and keep spares in your trunk – along with the necessary tools – just in case you need to do a repair on the side of the road. Keep a couple of gallons of water and a flashlight in the trunk too. If a radiator hose breaks and you fix it, you will have to replace the water BEFORE you can continue on your journey. The flashlight is because this kind of thing does happen at night.
Lastly, keep your AAA card up-to-date and hope your cell phone can pick up a signal. There are some car problems that you just can’t fix on the side of the road.
As crazy as parents have become about keeping their kids active with school, sports, and cultural activities like ballet, etc. – we somehow have not had the common sense to teach them the basics of car repair and car maintenance. While I don’t particularly want my child to grow up to change oil at the local gas station, I also don’t want him/her stuck on the side of a lonely stretch of highway at night in the middle of winter – because they ran out of gas. Basic car repair /maintenance isn’t brain surgery. There are some things that can be done easily, some things that are more difficult, and some things that can only be done at a qualified service station. I want to focus on the things that EVERYONE can do.
For starters, one must understand that a car is like a living human being. We need food, exercise, water, clean air, and good shoes. The most basic of car requirements that we have control over are fuel, oil, water, tires, battery, various hoses and various belts. If any of these seven items are not working or not present – then you will end up sitting by the side of the road. If you don’t know how to fix them, then you are stuck.
Make sure that the tires are in good shape, make sure that you have a good spare, make sure that you have a complete tire jack – and that you know how to change a tire. Know how to check you fluids – the water level in the radiator, and the engine oil and transmission oil. Check your hoses and belts for wear, and keep spares in your trunk – along with the necessary tools – just in case you need to do a repair on the side of the road. Keep a couple of gallons of water and a flashlight in the trunk too. If a radiator hose breaks and you fix it, you will have to replace the water BEFORE you can continue on your journey. The flashlight is because this kind of thing does happen at night.
Lastly, keep your AAA card up-to-date and hope your cell phone can pick up a signal. There are some car problems that you just can’t fix on the side of the road.
Cell Phone Etiquette
When the issue of “cell phone etiquette” is brought up, the first impulse is to quote the obvious, like “don’t drive and talk on your phone”, or obvious breaches of decorum like “put your phone on vibrate when in Church” etc. I have a problem with when, where – and how much cell phones are used. In my world, cell phones are irritating nuisances rather than conveniences.
Theoretically, one would assume that the proliferation of cell phones would bring increase the level of communication between family members, but the flip side to that “convenience” is that it also has the potential to decrease inter-family communications. In today’s fast paced world, families just don’t spend enough time together. It is the exception, not the rule that the average American family sits down around the family dinner table ala “Leave it to Beaver”. Face to face talk time between family members is rare, and consequentially, one would think that when they are sitting down together – either at the dinner table or in the car, family members would agree to use the cell phone judiciously.
Judiciously? Sensibly, thoughtfully, prudently, wisely – get the picture? When a cell phone rings, it is the equivalent of someone knocking on a door. Would ANYONE answer a door without knowing who was on the other side? Even if you knew who was on the other side of the door, just because they are there – uninvited – are you obligated to let them in without taking into consideration the other person in the room (or car)? Keeping it in perspective, the person actually with you made an effort to be with you, while the person on the cell phone just lifted and depressed their finger seven times. That is some Herculean effort.
How many times have you waited in line at a cash register, and after 20 minutes you finally arrive at the front of the line - just in time for the phone next to the register to ring - and the store clerk answers the phone and say “may I help you”? Of course, you are saying to yourself that the clerk should have not answered the phone, or answered it and immediately put the caller indefinitely on hold.
A cell phone can be used to convey an important message, or it can be used for innocent chitchat. In my world, you can keep your chitchat with someone else - to yourself. When using a cell phone, be considerate to those around you and use your cell phone thoughtfully – your friends, family and/coworkers will appreciate it.
(To my 16 year old daughter, Molly - this was written with you in mind)
(PS - I love you!)
Theoretically, one would assume that the proliferation of cell phones would bring increase the level of communication between family members, but the flip side to that “convenience” is that it also has the potential to decrease inter-family communications. In today’s fast paced world, families just don’t spend enough time together. It is the exception, not the rule that the average American family sits down around the family dinner table ala “Leave it to Beaver”. Face to face talk time between family members is rare, and consequentially, one would think that when they are sitting down together – either at the dinner table or in the car, family members would agree to use the cell phone judiciously.
Judiciously? Sensibly, thoughtfully, prudently, wisely – get the picture? When a cell phone rings, it is the equivalent of someone knocking on a door. Would ANYONE answer a door without knowing who was on the other side? Even if you knew who was on the other side of the door, just because they are there – uninvited – are you obligated to let them in without taking into consideration the other person in the room (or car)? Keeping it in perspective, the person actually with you made an effort to be with you, while the person on the cell phone just lifted and depressed their finger seven times. That is some Herculean effort.
How many times have you waited in line at a cash register, and after 20 minutes you finally arrive at the front of the line - just in time for the phone next to the register to ring - and the store clerk answers the phone and say “may I help you”? Of course, you are saying to yourself that the clerk should have not answered the phone, or answered it and immediately put the caller indefinitely on hold.
A cell phone can be used to convey an important message, or it can be used for innocent chitchat. In my world, you can keep your chitchat with someone else - to yourself. When using a cell phone, be considerate to those around you and use your cell phone thoughtfully – your friends, family and/coworkers will appreciate it.
(To my 16 year old daughter, Molly - this was written with you in mind)
(PS - I love you!)
Sunday, October 30, 2005
Where to start fixing the City of Memphis's finances
Yes, we have been Shlinkered, schnooked, and bamboozled by a totally incompetent Herenton administration, so what are we going to do about it, trust him to fix it up? I hope not. Unfortunately, the story of Mayor Herenton’s financial mismanagement extends deeply into the City’s pension plan, and probably has infected MLG&W - if Joseph Lee’s “financial expertise” is contagious.
Having read what is on the table for cost cutting are the “usual suspects”, sell this, raise taxes on that, cut the pay of the police and firemen – but what is most interesting in what wasn’t even mentioned: The City Pension Plan and adminstion pay scales. For too long, our government officials have justified pay scales and benefits in how they relate to the national competitive landscape, which in my opinion is a laughable logic. If they are going to continue using that logic, I would suggest that they compare Memphis only to other bankrupt cities, not Atlanta, or Nashville (Washington DC and New Orleans come to mind).
Just from the bits and pieces that I have read about the City of Memphis Pension System, it is generous to it’s participants in ways that private pension plans would never consider unless they could print their own money. The printing press that has financed the Memphis government employees pension plan just had its plug pulled. The Pension plan (and every job at city hall) needs to be evaluated by a competent third party who could easily quantify significant abuses and significant potential areas where the city can make cuts.
The pension plan needs to mirror the private sector, and while we’re at it, so does the government. If a CEO came to Wall Street and admitted such serious mis-management and financial deception, he would be looking for a new job and the SEC would have him under investigation. Maybe that’s asking too much of “the system”.
Having read what is on the table for cost cutting are the “usual suspects”, sell this, raise taxes on that, cut the pay of the police and firemen – but what is most interesting in what wasn’t even mentioned: The City Pension Plan and adminstion pay scales. For too long, our government officials have justified pay scales and benefits in how they relate to the national competitive landscape, which in my opinion is a laughable logic. If they are going to continue using that logic, I would suggest that they compare Memphis only to other bankrupt cities, not Atlanta, or Nashville (Washington DC and New Orleans come to mind).
Just from the bits and pieces that I have read about the City of Memphis Pension System, it is generous to it’s participants in ways that private pension plans would never consider unless they could print their own money. The printing press that has financed the Memphis government employees pension plan just had its plug pulled. The Pension plan (and every job at city hall) needs to be evaluated by a competent third party who could easily quantify significant abuses and significant potential areas where the city can make cuts.
The pension plan needs to mirror the private sector, and while we’re at it, so does the government. If a CEO came to Wall Street and admitted such serious mis-management and financial deception, he would be looking for a new job and the SEC would have him under investigation. Maybe that’s asking too much of “the system”.
Thursday, October 27, 2005
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s called for Israel to be wiped off the map
From looking at the various governments that have condemned Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s called for Israel to be wiped off the map, you would think that his statement was unexpected. The surprise wasn’t his statement, after all, the Arab world has been calling for Israel’s total destruction since it's birth in 1948, and Iran has been calling for Israel's demise ever since Ayatullah Khomeini led a coup that deposed the Shan of Iran back in 1978. Ever since then, the Iranian government has been waging a low level war against Israel, through it’s surrogates in Syria and Lebanon, directly via Iranian revolutionary guards based in Lebanon, and through various Palestinian terrorist groups. What was surprising was his honesty, his willingness to not continue playing the game of diplomatic duplicity. The Muslim world wants Israel destroyed. How can anyone mis-understand that statement? In a world where leftist drum-beating pacifists are willing to believe any lie as long as it agrees with their point of view, it must have been a sobering wake-up call.
Now that Ahmadinejad has removed the mask of Arab moderation and revealed the face of Iran's hate to the world, Israel should act under the well-established customary prerogative of “Anticipatory Self-Defense” under International law. Iran’s clandestine development of a nuclear weapons program, and Ahmadinejad’s overt threat make Iran the single most urgent danger to Israel’s existence.
Israel has always lived in a neighborhood where enemy Arab (and Iranian) states and their non-state surrogates have used whatever means they could to destroy tiny Israel. There are 22 Arab (plus Iran) countries lined up against Israel. Under the likes of Iran’s Ahmadinejad, the possibility of him turning Iran into an irrational nuclear suicide state - just to rid the world of Israel is not inconceivable, and it is a risk that Israel cannot allow to exist. Losing one Arab state may be a price worth paying in the Arab world if it means ridding the Mideast of Israel.
Israel, however has options, none of which are particularly good: They have to prevent - for as long as possible - their enemies from acquiring WMD, and they have to make it clear to their enemies that if attacked with non-conventional weapons, Israel will make sure that none of them will be left unscathed.
Hopefully, the day will come when Israel is accepted by the Arab world. Until then, Israel has a duty to protect itself. Thanks to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s called for Israel to be wiped off the map, maybe the world will understand Israel's distrust of Muslim intentions. After all, of the countries that protested Ahmadinejad’s comments, not one was an Arab country. Their silence is deafening.
Now that Ahmadinejad has removed the mask of Arab moderation and revealed the face of Iran's hate to the world, Israel should act under the well-established customary prerogative of “Anticipatory Self-Defense” under International law. Iran’s clandestine development of a nuclear weapons program, and Ahmadinejad’s overt threat make Iran the single most urgent danger to Israel’s existence.
Israel has always lived in a neighborhood where enemy Arab (and Iranian) states and their non-state surrogates have used whatever means they could to destroy tiny Israel. There are 22 Arab (plus Iran) countries lined up against Israel. Under the likes of Iran’s Ahmadinejad, the possibility of him turning Iran into an irrational nuclear suicide state - just to rid the world of Israel is not inconceivable, and it is a risk that Israel cannot allow to exist. Losing one Arab state may be a price worth paying in the Arab world if it means ridding the Mideast of Israel.
Israel, however has options, none of which are particularly good: They have to prevent - for as long as possible - their enemies from acquiring WMD, and they have to make it clear to their enemies that if attacked with non-conventional weapons, Israel will make sure that none of them will be left unscathed.
Hopefully, the day will come when Israel is accepted by the Arab world. Until then, Israel has a duty to protect itself. Thanks to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s called for Israel to be wiped off the map, maybe the world will understand Israel's distrust of Muslim intentions. After all, of the countries that protested Ahmadinejad’s comments, not one was an Arab country. Their silence is deafening.
Friday, October 14, 2005
The Gandhi Institue for Non-Violence.........
As much as I respect the intentions of those who follow in the footsteps of Mahatma Gandhi within the M.K. Gandhi Institute for Nonviolence (GINV), I feel compelled to disagree with a few points in Dr. Manoj Jain’s 10/14/05 guest column (and no, I’m not with the Institute of Violence).
How did Dr. Jain comes up with factoid #1- “In the 21st Century, violence has become standard issue”? Violence has been around since man crawled out from under a rock - and the 21st century is no more violent than the 20th century (or the 19th, 18th, 17th, etc).
Factoid #2 is equally as mysterious. While inequality, injustice, poverty and racism can cause violence, I am mystified why didn’t he include religious extremism as THE major source of violence (The Crusades, Holocaust, Muslim Extremism). I don’t remember any poor people hijacking airplanes, much less blowing themselves up in restaurants.
The far left (of which I include the Gandhi Institute) in the past has had a habit of being apologists for those who wish to advance their grievances through the use of violence. In the world of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) like the Gandhi Institute, violent acts against innocent civilians are considered acts of “desperation” that deserve to be understood, rather than meted out a measure of justice.
One day the world may be better situated to accept the concept of non-violent resistance as the means to conflict resolution, but until then, I prefer to keep both feet planted in reality.
How did Dr. Jain comes up with factoid #1- “In the 21st Century, violence has become standard issue”? Violence has been around since man crawled out from under a rock - and the 21st century is no more violent than the 20th century (or the 19th, 18th, 17th, etc).
Factoid #2 is equally as mysterious. While inequality, injustice, poverty and racism can cause violence, I am mystified why didn’t he include religious extremism as THE major source of violence (The Crusades, Holocaust, Muslim Extremism). I don’t remember any poor people hijacking airplanes, much less blowing themselves up in restaurants.
The far left (of which I include the Gandhi Institute) in the past has had a habit of being apologists for those who wish to advance their grievances through the use of violence. In the world of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) like the Gandhi Institute, violent acts against innocent civilians are considered acts of “desperation” that deserve to be understood, rather than meted out a measure of justice.
One day the world may be better situated to accept the concept of non-violent resistance as the means to conflict resolution, but until then, I prefer to keep both feet planted in reality.
Thursday, October 06, 2005
Pan-Arab/Muslim Military Strategy: Plausible deniability and the use of surrogates
The difficulty that the United States is experiencing in Iraq – fighting an enemy with no address, no uniform, and who is unwilling to fight a conventional face to face battle – is a product of our military/political leaders imposing our Western value system against an enemy that is playing by another set of rules. The sooner we acknowledge the real boundaries and the real rules of the battlefield, the sooner we can win the war in the Mideast.
I didn’t say win the war in “Iraq” on purpose, because the reality is that the war is about pan-Arabism and militant Islam. No, it’s not a “war on terror” anymore than WW2 was a war on execution squads (it was a war against Nazi fascism). Muslim/Arab terrorism is a tactic, a military strategy, and the motivation is both Pan Arab Nationalism and extremist Islam – and the epicenter of this movement (as it relates to the war in Iraq), runs from Iran, through Iraq, Syria and Lebanon. So until we acknowledge that the formal joint military pact between Damascus and Theran is playing itself out on Iraqi turf against coalition forces and the Iraqi people, we will be fighting this war with one hand behind our back.
How is it that Iran and Syria can send fighters and munitions into Iraq and we don’t do anything about it? Because the US has spent decades allowing surrogate fighters in Lebanon, trained by Iranian/Syrian military experts, to fight against Israel. Once the US accepted this strategy, it blossomed around the world. As long as Iranian/Syrian fighters weren’t pulling the trigger, as long as there was no “smoking gun” that could provide evidence of their involvement, they could deny it. Our political establishment demands “irrefutable proof” so we back off. This strategy of “plausible deniability” has proven hugely successful for the Saudis. They have financed Islamic terrorism for decades and financed the exportation of their Wahhabi extremist version of Islam around the world. They continue to supply fighters against US forces in Iraq. They even made up the majority of the 9-11 hijackers, they paid cash under the table to Palestinians suicide bombers…. yet our politicians consistently refused to connect the dots.
The West can win the war against Islamic terrorism by using precise military strategies that reflect the reality on the battlefield. Terrorism will never be reduced to zero. There will always be the “deranged individual” willing to strap on a bomb. But at least he won’t have a bomb expert supplying the c4 explosives and the know-how to execute his mission. If the politicians were to back off and allow the US military to demonstrate to the world that they are playing by a “new set of rules” that doesn’t recognize surrogates and plausible deniability, we will see our troops come home a lot quicker, and the world will be a safer place.
I didn’t say win the war in “Iraq” on purpose, because the reality is that the war is about pan-Arabism and militant Islam. No, it’s not a “war on terror” anymore than WW2 was a war on execution squads (it was a war against Nazi fascism). Muslim/Arab terrorism is a tactic, a military strategy, and the motivation is both Pan Arab Nationalism and extremist Islam – and the epicenter of this movement (as it relates to the war in Iraq), runs from Iran, through Iraq, Syria and Lebanon. So until we acknowledge that the formal joint military pact between Damascus and Theran is playing itself out on Iraqi turf against coalition forces and the Iraqi people, we will be fighting this war with one hand behind our back.
How is it that Iran and Syria can send fighters and munitions into Iraq and we don’t do anything about it? Because the US has spent decades allowing surrogate fighters in Lebanon, trained by Iranian/Syrian military experts, to fight against Israel. Once the US accepted this strategy, it blossomed around the world. As long as Iranian/Syrian fighters weren’t pulling the trigger, as long as there was no “smoking gun” that could provide evidence of their involvement, they could deny it. Our political establishment demands “irrefutable proof” so we back off. This strategy of “plausible deniability” has proven hugely successful for the Saudis. They have financed Islamic terrorism for decades and financed the exportation of their Wahhabi extremist version of Islam around the world. They continue to supply fighters against US forces in Iraq. They even made up the majority of the 9-11 hijackers, they paid cash under the table to Palestinians suicide bombers…. yet our politicians consistently refused to connect the dots.
The West can win the war against Islamic terrorism by using precise military strategies that reflect the reality on the battlefield. Terrorism will never be reduced to zero. There will always be the “deranged individual” willing to strap on a bomb. But at least he won’t have a bomb expert supplying the c4 explosives and the know-how to execute his mission. If the politicians were to back off and allow the US military to demonstrate to the world that they are playing by a “new set of rules” that doesn’t recognize surrogates and plausible deniability, we will see our troops come home a lot quicker, and the world will be a safer place.
Wednesday, September 28, 2005
The Israeli/Palestinian Conflict: Both sides have obligations under the Roadmap
Israel has unilaterally left the Gaza strip. No more occupation, no more settlers, no more soldiers, no more roadblocks. The decision to leave Gaza by Israeli PM Ariel Sharon was a bold move that was welcomed by the entire world as the first step in the long road to possibly resolving this conflict. The next step was up to the Palestinians. Under the terms of the “Roadmap” (http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2003/20062.htm) the Palestinians were obligated to:
1) Palestinians declare an unequivocal end to violence and terrorism and undertake visible efforts on the ground to arrest, disrupt, and restrain individuals and groups conducting and planning violent attacks on Israelis anywhere.
2) Rebuilt and refocused Palestinian Authority security apparatus begins sustained, targeted, and effective operations aimed at confronting all those engaged in terror and dismantlement of terrorist capabilities and infrastructure. This includes commencing confiscation of illegal weapons and consolidation of security authority, free of association with terror and corruption.
Instead, Palestinian PM Abbas not only indicated that he will not confront the armed terrorists, but has allowed them to re-arm and shoot over 100 Kassem missiles into pre-67 Israel proper. Adding insult to injury, the 3-way agreement between the Egyptians, the Palestinians and the Israelis regarding security along the Gaza/Egypt border has become a mockery. Instead of enforcing strict border controls, the Egyptians have allowed the unfettered smuggling of high-grade weaponry into Gaza. The only supervision by the Egyptian military is to collect $50 per container entering Gaza.Every time an opportunity arises to make peace between Israel and the Palestinians, the Israelis have always reached across the table to make a deal. The Palestinian response is that they never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity. They lost the chance to get 80% of Israel in 1937, 65% in 1948, 50% plus ½ of Jerusalem under the Barak offer. Every time the Arabs or Palestinians have fought the Israelis instead of making peace, they have lost territory. Now they are given the opportunity – maybe for the last time %u2
– to set up a legitimate country starting in Gaza – and what do they do? Choose to fight a losing battle once again.
1) Palestinians declare an unequivocal end to violence and terrorism and undertake visible efforts on the ground to arrest, disrupt, and restrain individuals and groups conducting and planning violent attacks on Israelis anywhere.
2) Rebuilt and refocused Palestinian Authority security apparatus begins sustained, targeted, and effective operations aimed at confronting all those engaged in terror and dismantlement of terrorist capabilities and infrastructure. This includes commencing confiscation of illegal weapons and consolidation of security authority, free of association with terror and corruption.
Instead, Palestinian PM Abbas not only indicated that he will not confront the armed terrorists, but has allowed them to re-arm and shoot over 100 Kassem missiles into pre-67 Israel proper. Adding insult to injury, the 3-way agreement between the Egyptians, the Palestinians and the Israelis regarding security along the Gaza/Egypt border has become a mockery. Instead of enforcing strict border controls, the Egyptians have allowed the unfettered smuggling of high-grade weaponry into Gaza. The only supervision by the Egyptian military is to collect $50 per container entering Gaza.Every time an opportunity arises to make peace between Israel and the Palestinians, the Israelis have always reached across the table to make a deal. The Palestinian response is that they never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity. They lost the chance to get 80% of Israel in 1937, 65% in 1948, 50% plus ½ of Jerusalem under the Barak offer. Every time the Arabs or Palestinians have fought the Israelis instead of making peace, they have lost territory. Now they are given the opportunity – maybe for the last time %u2
– to set up a legitimate country starting in Gaza – and what do they do? Choose to fight a losing battle once again.
Tuesday, September 27, 2005
Why the US should stay in Iraq
Should the US government set a target date for getting out of Iraq? Of course there are the pacifists who were against the war from the beginning, and want the USA out ASAP - no mater what the consequences. There are those who were against the war from the beginning, but understand that a US troop withdrawal will create a killing field between the majority Shia Muslim population, the Sunni Arab minority, and the Sunni Kurdish minority. There are those who were against the war, but understand that a US troop withdrawal, will be viewed by our enemies as an admission of defeat, and will serve to encourage them to move their suicide bombings and car bombings Westward in the hope of spreading their perverted version of Islam. Lastly, there are those who don’t believe that the general Arab/Muslim population are capable of grasping the Western value system that is essential to fertilize a real democracy, namely freedom of speech, the rule of law, and the concept that all men (and women) are created equal - and therefore we are fighting a lost cause and should pull out.
On the other hand, there are those of us who believe that it is no “coincidence” that over the past 5 years, Muslim extremists have committed horrendous acts against humanity (terrorism) across the globe (Moscow, Bali, New York, Philippines, Turkey, Spain, etc.) where there are no obvious Muslim territorial grievances, just a barbaric quest for religious and political dominance. There are those of use who believe that we have no choice but to drag a majority of the Arab/Muslim world into the 21st century in the hope that they are capable of intellectualizing and adopting the civilized values that define our modern world - and will eventually police their own extremists. I don’t think anyone is envisioning an Iraqi democratic country to resemble Norway, much less the USA, but something more along the lines of Turkey or Indonesia.
What would we risk by withdrawing from Iraq with our tail between our legs? Take a look at Israel’s heavily debated withdrawal from Lebanon. The general Arab world considered it an Israeli defeat, rather than a strategic withdrawal, and the same fighting tactics used by the Lebanese (car bombs, etc.) were exported to areas in the Gaza and the West Bank. The US should stay in Iraq until the Iraqi armed forces are capable, and then we should declare victory and bring our boys home.
On the other hand, there are those of us who believe that it is no “coincidence” that over the past 5 years, Muslim extremists have committed horrendous acts against humanity (terrorism) across the globe (Moscow, Bali, New York, Philippines, Turkey, Spain, etc.) where there are no obvious Muslim territorial grievances, just a barbaric quest for religious and political dominance. There are those of use who believe that we have no choice but to drag a majority of the Arab/Muslim world into the 21st century in the hope that they are capable of intellectualizing and adopting the civilized values that define our modern world - and will eventually police their own extremists. I don’t think anyone is envisioning an Iraqi democratic country to resemble Norway, much less the USA, but something more along the lines of Turkey or Indonesia.
What would we risk by withdrawing from Iraq with our tail between our legs? Take a look at Israel’s heavily debated withdrawal from Lebanon. The general Arab world considered it an Israeli defeat, rather than a strategic withdrawal, and the same fighting tactics used by the Lebanese (car bombs, etc.) were exported to areas in the Gaza and the West Bank. The US should stay in Iraq until the Iraqi armed forces are capable, and then we should declare victory and bring our boys home.
Monday, September 26, 2005
Why Sharon shouldn't give Hamas any breathing room in Palestinian elections
Israeli PM Sharon has announced that Israel would attempt to “obstruct” the upcoming Palestinian elections if the terrorist organization Hamas is on the ballet. Quite predictably, the usual defenders/apologists of Palestinian terrorism are attempting to portray this as a brazen attempt to torpedo a fair and democratic process from taking place. Nothing could be further from the truth.
First and foremost, Hamas is designated by the U.S. Department of State as a terrorist organization. Secondly, their manifesto openly calls for the destruction of Israel. Thirdly, the Hamas organization is responsible for the murder of hundreds of Israeli civilians (in the eyes of Hamas, all Israelis are legitimate targets, including babies and grandmothers).
With that said, what would the United States do if Al-Quada said they were going to start putting their members on the ballot in Mexico? What would be the logical consequence if Al-Quada won in Mexico? The USA would put pressure on the Mexican government to not let Al-Quada run, with the understanding that if they did run – and won, it would be tantamount to a declaration of war that was democratically endorsed by the people of Mexico. All of a sudden, we would find ourselves in border skirmishes and eventually an all out war.
If the Palestinians are allowed to vote for Hamas and they won, any pretense of Palestinian political moderation would be declared DOA, and Israeli would have no choice but to view the general Palestinian population as endorsing the Hamas call for Israel’s total destruction - and that could easily send the conflict into another frenzy of violence. There are those who defend Hamas by making a distinction between its military wing and it’s political/humanitarian wing. I don’t remember anyone making a distinction between the Nazi’s humanitarian organizations that ran their hospitals, or the political Nazis that held power over the military wing that actually did the murdering.
In order for peace to have a chance, both parties have to at least give lip service that they want peace. Electing Hamas kills that chance.
First and foremost, Hamas is designated by the U.S. Department of State as a terrorist organization. Secondly, their manifesto openly calls for the destruction of Israel. Thirdly, the Hamas organization is responsible for the murder of hundreds of Israeli civilians (in the eyes of Hamas, all Israelis are legitimate targets, including babies and grandmothers).
With that said, what would the United States do if Al-Quada said they were going to start putting their members on the ballot in Mexico? What would be the logical consequence if Al-Quada won in Mexico? The USA would put pressure on the Mexican government to not let Al-Quada run, with the understanding that if they did run – and won, it would be tantamount to a declaration of war that was democratically endorsed by the people of Mexico. All of a sudden, we would find ourselves in border skirmishes and eventually an all out war.
If the Palestinians are allowed to vote for Hamas and they won, any pretense of Palestinian political moderation would be declared DOA, and Israeli would have no choice but to view the general Palestinian population as endorsing the Hamas call for Israel’s total destruction - and that could easily send the conflict into another frenzy of violence. There are those who defend Hamas by making a distinction between its military wing and it’s political/humanitarian wing. I don’t remember anyone making a distinction between the Nazi’s humanitarian organizations that ran their hospitals, or the political Nazis that held power over the military wing that actually did the murdering.
In order for peace to have a chance, both parties have to at least give lip service that they want peace. Electing Hamas kills that chance.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)