DI Reprint: 02-04-09 (Part 3 of 3)

Shadowboxing the Bush Doctrine
Part three of a three-part series

"We seek a new way forward, based on mutual interest and mutual respect," proclaimed newly inaugurated President Obama to the world. Specifically, Obama prefaced this statement by addressing "the Muslim world." If Obama can turn his words into policy, then the next four years will be a stark contrast to the last eight. The neocons at the helm of the Bush administration were too focused on their Middle East domino-democracy theory to consider whether their grand plan was respected or in the interest of the people whose countries they occupied. If Obama wants to win the war against the "far-reaching network of violence and hatred" referenced in his speech, then he will have to reclaim the respect our country has lost in the global community, especially in the Muslim world, since our invasion of Iraq.

The cycle of violence and charged rhetoric promulgated by the Bush Doctrine cannot be easily undone. For seven years we have forced our agenda on the world without asking. Our war on terror has pushed the attacks from our shores to the streets of Kabul and Baghdad. The Bush Doctrine has set in motion a cycle of violence that needs to be completely thrown off course, not just held in abeyance, if we are to be safe from the Sword of Damocles that demented men such as Osama bin Laden hold over the free world. If we continue down our current path, there may never be an end to the acts of reprisal, and we may never regain our moral standing in the global theater.

The perfect example of the cyclical war that could continue between the United States and the militant jihadi organizations can be found in the Holy Land. Hamas terrorizes Israel through rockets; Israel bombs Gaza, so Hamas lobs more rockets - rinse and repeat while civilian deaths mount. Israelis insist they are just defending themselves, but killing Gazan civilians only leads to more street-level support for Hamas' defiance of Israel and galvanizes Hamas' recruitment efforts. Israel's pre-emptive and disproportionate responses aren't going to end the cycle of violence; it only adds fuel to the fire.

The United States' foreign policy toward the Middle East must rebrand itself. If Obama's administration aims to truly "reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals," then it's time we stop paying mere lip-service to the ideals of freedom, equality, and tolerance in our foreign policy. The Bush administration promised democracy and freedom in Afghanistan; now, we are considering giving the Taliban back at least a portion of control in the government. As soon as the neocons could fabricate WMD in Iraq, we abandoned a poor and war-torn Afghan populace to their own fate.

We heralded our policy as progress and a battle against evil; meanwhile, we continue to pay the oppressive Saudi government billions. We consider an Egyptian government that has been in "a state of emergency" for decades, led by an "elected president" who aims to pass on the office of president through nepotism, a democratic ally in the region. We snuffed out the democratically elected government in Iran, ushering in the Islamic Revolution.

If we want the people of the Middle East to believe that the United States is more than the "Great Satan," then Obama must follow through on his promise to promote mutual respect and mutual interests. We must supplant hypocrisy with accountability. The Bush administration chastised - even threatened military force - against Iran and Syria for supporting terrorism, yet we continually fail to hold Saudi Arabia and Pakistan accountable for the Salafi and Wahhabist factions within their borders that provide aid to such terrorist groups as Al Qaeda. Why should the Muslim world trust us when we left the Afghans to the warlords, arm Israel's use of disproportionate force, and turn a blind eye to some corrupt governments while admonishing and sanctioning others?

In the end, however, change in the Middle East must be a homegrown movement; it cannot be forced upon the region. Appealing to the virtues and elements that are established in Islamic jurisprudence or a Qur'anic Sura will foment support faster than forcing Western enlightenment philosophy onto the region. Islamic scholars have written volumes on the importance of acting just and fighting corruption. The Prophet Muhammad wrote one of the world's first constitutions in Medina. Democratic principles should be repackaged as the Islamic concepts of ijma (consensus) and shurah (consultation). The rhetoric must be refocused on local terminology and should embrace Islamic values and culture instead of promoting a clash of civilizations.

Hopefully, Obama will heed his own words, "our power alone cannot protect us, nor does it entitle us to do as we please. Instead … our power grows through its prudent use; our security emanates from the justness of our cause."

Originally published in The Daily Iowan

DI Reprint: 02-03-2009 (Part 2 of 3)

Shadowboxing the Bush Doctrine
Part two of a three-part series

The parallels between the Bush Doctrine and Al Qaeda's Islamist jihadi doctrine extend beyond military tactics and strategies. The "war on terror" is more than a physical battlefield; it is an ideological war as well. The no-compromise military strategy used by the Bush administration and Al Qaeda also extends to their rhetoric, once again creating a never-ending cycle of conflict.

The national-security strategies of 2002 and 2006 detailed then-President Bush's long-term and short-term goals regarding the "war on terror"; conversely, Al Qaeda detailed its goals through a series of letters and speeches to the American public. Both sides made it clear through their rhetoric that the final battles in the "war on terror" will be for the minds of the people. Bush commonly referred to this ideological struggle as the "battle of ideas."

The rhetorical tactics, weapons if you will, used in the "battle of ideas" are strikingly similar. The core elements of both parties are dualism, a duty to defend, protection of core values, and triumph through cultural expansion. It is at the point of intersection between these four themes that the rhetoric and propaganda are at their most powerful; it is within this nexus that the "battle of ideas" is being waged.

In a game of persuasion, the advocate must portray her or his side as the morally just or empirically valid position in order to present the most persuasive argument. Without the vilification or invalidation of the adversary, the audience may weigh both sides of the debate equally, a fatal proposition for winning a rhetorical exercise. The "battle of ideas" follows the same road map. The Bush administration and Al Qaeda are quick to condemn the beliefs and actions of their adversaries. Each presents an argument designed to efficiently demonize its "evil" enemy. Thus, the rivals are quick to classify the "battle of ideas," usually by way of historical analogies, as a part in the eternal struggle between good and bad, light and dark, and heaven and hell. Thus, any action taken on behalf of the "good fight" is just; conversely, any action taken against the "good" is malicious and wicked. The brilliance of the duality scheme is that there is no in grey area; neutrality is just as sinful as opposition.

The process of vilification is a prerequisite for the subsequent self-appointed label of "Great Defender" employed both the Bush administration and Al Qaeda. Without a malevolent adversary threatening the core values and people of their respective society, the need for a "Defender" is nonexistent, and the use of a first-strike defense policy is unjust. Both organizations present their cases to the world that they were attacked first; war was brought to their soil, and thus, they must respond to save their respective societies. However, each side is careful to represent itself as more than a legally - be it based on Shariah or the U.N. charter - justified defender. A legal right has a logical and legally defined course of action and conclusion, whereas moral obligations are nebulous appeals to subjective reasoning leaving more room for broad interpretations of what is "necessary" and "warranted" in the face of evil. Water-boarding, extraordinary rendition, and attacking noncombatants are presented as defensible means to a just end, ignoring the fact that they are illegal and no less "evil" than the initial terrorist attacks or economic sanctions that lead to the deaths of Muslim children.

While the Bush administration and Al Qaeda substantially differ on political, sociological, and economic policy, they agree on the fundamental pillars of society. For both organizations, the principles of freedom, justice and human dignity are worth defending even if it means the use of force and a great loss of life. In the end, both adversaries are fighting to "defend" the same core principles of society. Unfortunately, they wage war to defend the principles as interpreted by their respective societies, rather than a global community. Thus, the freedom Al Qaeda fights for means the subjugation of American values. It's not human dignity we "champion" as argued in the 2002 national-security strategy by President Bush, but American dignity. Torture and killing civilians does nothing to further dignity, freedom, or justice within America, the umma, or globally.

Whether it is categorized as "expanding liberty," "advancing freedom," "bringing democracy," "establishing justice," "defending the oppressed," or "enjoining the good," both doctrines present victory to be reliant upon the abrogation of their adversaries core values with their own. If cultural domination is the death blow, then the self-imposed "moral defender" label turns out to be nothing more than a pretext for cultural expansion and homeland propaganda aimed at ensuring popular support for aggressive military policies. In the end, the Bush administration's rhetoric justifies the ridiculous accusation that we are waging a "war on Islam" rather than defending our right to live free from terror.

Originally published in The Daily Iowan

DI Reprint: 02-02-2009 (Part 1 of 3)

Shadowboxing the Bush Doctrine
Part one in a three-part series

In the days after Sept. 11, 2001, then-President George W. Bush and his neoconservative administration developed a modified version of the international anticipatory self-defense doctrine under the precept of self-preservation. The so-called "Bush Doctrine" was designed to eliminate all current and future threats to American military personnel and civilians. However, the "war on terror" as implemented by the Bush administration was not a viable option to accomplish the very goal it continually espoused, protecting the American public from future terrorism. Seven years later, Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri remain at-large; Al Qaeda continues to kill American soldiers in Afghanistan and Iraq; and the threat of harm to American civilians abroad still exists, as demonstrated by the recent Mumbai terrorist attacks.

For the last seven years, the Bush administration has waged a war on its own reflection. While the media and the White House went to great lengths to portray our "war on terror" as an unambiguous battle of good versus evil and a straightforward example of self-defense against provocation, a more in-depth examination of the strategies and tactics employed by both the United States and the jihadi Islamist factions reveals significant similarities between the quintessential adversaries. Militarily and rhetorically, the two foes employed strategies that were mirror images of each other creating a never-ending cycle of violent acts of reprisal.

At their cores, both the Bush Doctrine and the jihadi military doctrine are self-defense strategies; both doctrines are modified versions of an anticipatory self-defense doctrine. The Bush Doctrine is a modern adaptation of the Caroline doctrine; Al Qaeda reinterprets classical jihad jurisprudence to justify its military operations. The common revision in both doctrines is the reshaping of the "threat" element of anticipatory self-defense. A state must face an imminent threat that leaves the state with no time for deliberate or alternative means of defense to justify the use of preemptive military action. Without a threat, an "act of self-defense" is unwarranted. The jihadi defense doctrine requires Muslims must be attacked because of their faith for aggression to be justified.

In order to justify the use of force, both the Bush Doctrine and Al Qaeda's doctrine argue that the threshold is not an "imminent threat" but an "emerging threat." No longer must the United States or the umma, the worldwide community of Muslims, be a victim of an attack to justify the use of defensive measures, a threat of violence is sufficient to justify force; a first-strike policy is portrayed as a defensive response. Thus begins the bloody tit-for-tat cycle of violence in the "war on terror"; reports of a pre-emptive strike by one adversary are viewed as an emerging threat by the other. Unlike the Cold War, in which the threat of an armed response created a stalemate, the "war on terror" uses the threat of an armed response as justification for using "defensive military force."

Perhaps the acts of pre-emptive force could be better contained and force a tenuous Cold-War-like impasse if both doctrines didn't also espouse "guilt by association." Al Qaeda, and other jihadi Islamist factions, continually equates the actions of Israel against the Arab world with those of the United States. This amalgamation is evinced by the recurrent label of "Zionist-Crusader coalition" by bin Laden when he references the United States. The "guilt" is also extended to any of America's allies, as evinced by the bombings in Madrid, London, and Baghdad. No country that aids the United States in their "war" will be safe. According to the speeches of bin Laden and al-Zawahiri, you are either with them, or against them. Sound familiar? Bush said, "We make no distinction between terrorists and those who knowingly harbor or provide aid to them." Rightly, the Bush administration made clear that the United States was willing to defend itself and its allies from terrorist activity. In other words, the United States is willing to defend its "umma" from outside threats.

It is not my intent to argue that the rationale or morality at the foundation of these doctrines is the same. Clearly they are not equivalent. Rather, my comparison rests in the means by which each doctrine intends to achieve victory. Both doctrines are designed to reject compromise and reconciliation; victory is attained only through vanquishing the Great Adversary. If both doctrines espouse a determination to continue their struggle, their jihad, as long as the enemy or threat of harm exists, we must examine whether the means will ever achieve the desired end. Punching your reflection in the mirror isn't going to destroy your mirror image; it will only shatter and fragment the glass. The Bush Doctrine may have kept America's shores safe over the last seven years; however, it failed to secure long-term stability and protection from terrorist threats.


Originally published in The Daily Iowan

U.S. Troops Iraqi Training Update

In an update to a previous post on the training received by U.S. troops in the past on the subject of Iraq, I wanted to let everyone know that instead of the 1940s slightly offensive manual, we now build mini-Iraqi towns for the U.S. troops as cultural training.


We don't just give them pamphlets with drawings anymore. Now they get their own summer camp.

Hear the Roar of the Lions of Mesopotamia

Here is a BBC article on the celebration hosted by Iraqi leaders for the Asian Cup champions.

The victory earned the players a diplomatic passport and a $10,000 bonus. Three players were asbent, including the captain, because they feared for their lives.

The New Boogeyman

Over the last few days al-Qaeda has been linked to three terrorist attacks outside of Iraq: Yemen, Scotland, and London.

Perhaps I under estimate the power and reach of bin Laden and al-Zawahiri but it seems like anything that goes wrong is linked to al-Qaeda. They are the modern day boogeymen. The Yemenese are blaming al-Qaeda for the deaths of Spanish tourists in an attack that echoes the much deadlier attack at Luxor in 1997. An attack that was not committed by al-Qaeda but Al-Gama'a al-Islamiyya and Jihad Talaat al-Fath - while al-Qaeda claims al-Gama'a Islamiyya has since joined the ranks of al-Qaeda they were autonomous in 1997. While the Yemenese government believes "al-Qaeda could be involved" the article also mentions that they are prone to blame unrest on al-Qaeda.

The car bomb threat in the UK is also being linked to al-Qaeda. The UK officials stated that the threat is linked to al-Qaeda personnel or associates in a "general way."

If al-Qaeda is as far reaching and influencial as the media and government agencies tell us then the "war on terror" is going to end up with the "evil" side winning. Al-Qaeda is like The Hand or the Illuminati. They seemingly control the world and are behind every crime committed on the planet. It may be true they al-Qaeda inspires regional groups to cowardly attack civilians but that doesn't mean that al-Qaeda organized it or aided the attack in anyway. If inspiration is enough the United States would be behind every attack linked to al-Qaeda. The United States not only trained and aided some of al-Qaeda's top officials, it inspires them to kill noncombatants through our Israeli support, "immoral" lifestyle, and prescence in the land of Islam's holiest cities.

While linking every terrorist attack on the planet to al-Qaeda certainly rallies the victims to support their repsective governments in their fight against Islamist radicals and the "war on terror", it also has the equally damning result of making al-Qaeda that much more mythic. We are feeding the myth that al-Qaeda can take down the "Crusaders" and the powerful West.

So it begins...

The Bush Adminstration has finally stated that Iran is responsible for the death of American troops in Iraq. NY Times article and a
BBC article on the subject.

Prayer to whomever it is you pray that we don't invade Iran.

Mouse Trap

It appears the Islamists are starting to recruit school children now for their campaign to defend the umma against the "Crusaders and the Jews." The Hamas affiliated TV station in Palestine was using a Mickey Mouse look-a-like to indoctrinate children with Islamist dogma and racism. Farfur's - the Mickey wannabe - last show was Friday after complaints from Israelis and some Palestinians. Of course Farfur couldn't just leave the show to go on a pilgrimage or something benign, oh no. Farfur was stabbed to death by an "Israeli agent" and proclaimed to have died as a martyr.

It's as if Hamas wanted to get the last jab in by making sure Farfar died under the same banner and cause that he lived. It's not bad enough that radical Islamist imams and leaders are indoctrinating poor unemployed young men to kill themselves in contradiction to Islamic law and basic Islamic values, now they are targeting children too. Reaching the disaffected youth of Palestine is hard enough with limited access to a free flow of information about the world. It would be like Big Bird giving speeches about the benefits of waterboarding and why habeas corpus shouldn't apply to the prisoners of Gitmo.

I'm an advocate for free speech as much as the next guy. But using brainwashing techniques on small innocent children to incite them and spread hate speech is not acceptable. If Islamists want to target young adults with their hate filled propaganda, then fine target individuals that have the free will to listen or not. Don't disguise your murder and hatred with giant Mickey Mouse suit. If yours is the "divine" cause then people will be drawn to it because it is the will of Allah not because you are targeting innocent children.

Surf's up

It appears the "religious police" have arrived in Iraq. Internet cafe patrons are being kidnapped, tortured, and even killed for viewing website that a group of vigilante religious police have deemed "offensive to Islam." Most of the cafe owners or patrons are abducted and killed for accessing chat and/or pornography sites.

Prior to the fall of the Baath regime the "offensive" sites were blocked; however now the access is laregly unrestricted in internet cafes. The article discusses how the Iraqi government or law does not officially prohibit the access of any genre of sites. The government has however, refused to comment on requests for protection of its citizens and private business owners. Schools have started to compile lists of banned sites that are blocked on their computers.

Schools and private business owners decision to ban certain sites is an executive decision; the computers and internet service is their's and they can offer it in whatever condition they want for their customers or students. Hopefully the decision is in the best interest of their students, patrons, or their own well being and not just capitulation to the vigilante repression of freedom of speech and freedom of conscience.

It's easy to understand why the Iraqi government cannot respond to cafe owners concerns with police protection given the violent civil unrest present in the country. However, that doesn't preclude the government from standing up for the rights of its citizens. A statement that this type of terrorism is not acceptable and will not be tolerated may be a hollow statement in that enforcement is less important than stablizing the government and nation as a whiole, but it is a statement that needs to be made if the Iraqi government wants to maintain the appearance of and belief in the foundational elements of a democracy. If the Iraqi government refuses to remain strong in the face of Islamist and hardline religious fanatics, the long-term forecast for the Iraqi government is even bleaker than the military threats suggest.

The "Other Iraq"

An advertisement campaign out of northern Iraq is aimed at promoting investment in and travel to the region by English speaking audiences. Erbil is the city that seeks to unseat regional power Dubai as the benefactor of Western travel and entertainment dollars. The campaign refers to the Kurdistan region as "the other Iraq" in order to distinguish itself from its far more violent and unstable sister regions to the south. Millions have been spent to help bring stability and international investors to the region. While the region gives hope that the rest of Iraq may someday turn to multinational investiment in order to provide the Iraqi public with better jobs, social programs, and sanitary conditions, Kurdistan enjoys the luxury of being able to avoid the sectarian strife in the south do to a homogeneous community and having benefited from the no-fly zone established in 1991.

Kurdistan looks to be on the way to a viable economy to compliment it's already existing military force. Many scholars and pundits argue that the Kurds deserve their own country - although none of them are probably Turkish - and if Erbil is any indication of what the Kurds have planned for the future then Kurdistan, not Afghanistan or Iraq, may become the poster child for democracy in the Middle East. The more companies and countries that invest in Kurdistan creates more interests in keeping the region stablized. Even if the Kurds don't establish their own sovereign nation, the work being done in the region should help create a blueprint for the rest of Iraq if the sectarian violence ever stops.

Delicate (Radical) Muslim Sensibilities

Last weekend, Salman Rushdie was honored by the Queen of England for outstanding literary achievement; the Queen had over 900 people on her Birthday Honours list which received an honorific title. Only Mr. -now Sir - Rushdie's knighthood has lead to international protests.

On the following Monday (June 18th), Pakistan's national parliament passed a resolution condemning the award. Pakistani Religious Affairs Minister Ejaz-ul-Haq went so far as to intimate that Rushdie's knighthood was justification for suicide bombings; he argued that actions like Rushdie's knighting are the root cause of terrorism. He also advocated for all Muslim countries should cut off open dialogue with Great Britain if they didn't rescind the honor. Ul-Haq later took the floor and told the parliament that his statement was not promoting or justifying suicide attacks. The British envoy in Islamabad was told that the knighting of Rushdie was contrary to attempts by Pakistan and Britain to build "mutual understanding" and it showed an "utter lack of sensitivity" by the British government.

Iran has called the knighthood "a provocative act" on the part of the Queen and the UK, and claimed the honor was evidence of "Islamophobia" within the British government.The Iranian Foreign Ministry Director for Europe, Ibrahim Rahimpour, stated that the title given to Rushdie was an "obvious example of fighting against Islam. It has seriously wounded the beliefs of 1.5 billion Muslims and followers of other religions." First Deputy Speaker Mohammad Reza Bahonar called Rushdie a "hated corpse" on the floor of the Iranian parliament. His statements were reportedly met with a loud applause. A spokesman for the Iranian Foreign Ministry called the knighthood "a blatant example of the anti-Islamism of senior British officials" and that it showed "the process of insulting Islamic sanctities was not accidental but was being supported by some Western countries."

Britain denies any anti-Islamic sentiment behind the honorific title bestowed upon Rushdie. Salman Rushdie has published over 10 different works since 1975, most of which are fiction. His second novel Midnight's Children earned him literary acclaim. His rise in the literary world occurred seven years before he published The Satanic Verses. He has published seven pieces since 1988. Rushdie isn't a one-trick pony - more on point, he isn't an Islamophobic one-hit wonder who rode his anti-Islamic message all the way to gates of Buckingham Palace.

For those readers that aren't aware of the cause of this international row, many within the Islamic world believe Rushdie to have insulted the Prophet Muhammad and his wives through dream narratives of the protagonist in The Satanic Verses. So incensed were some clerics, that Ayatollah Khomenei actually issued a fatwa condemning Rushdie to death and offering a bounty for his head - Khomenei claimed the offense was in Rushdie's depiction of Muhammad and his wives, but perhaps it was the dream narrative that was very similar to his Parisian exile. Iran refused to remove the fatwa even as recently as 2006. [A fatwa is a legal opinion, it is, therefore, not legally binging in court. It's similar to dictum in American law. It has legal significance, but is nothing more than an opinion of a judge on a certain subject. That doesn't mean of course that some wouldn't use a fatwa for justification after committing a crime. A similar decree was issued against Naguib Mahfouz which lead to a fanatical Muslim man stabbing him in the neck.] Rushdie was forced into hiding for many years. Translators and publishers linked to the text were also threatened or even killed.

I shall leave it to my readers to research the Rushdie's reference on their own if they so choose. However, the Hornbook/Cliff's Notes answer is this: it refers to a highly contested interpolation - a passage added to a text by someone other than the author - within the Qur'an. Rushdie's novel isn't even about the contested Qur'anic passages. For those that want a brief synopsis of the book: here.

Reading the novel I was expecting a depiction of the Prophet and his wives that was teetering on the far edges of bawdy. Now I am not an easily offended person, so perhaps my reaction is invalid. Nor was I raised a Muslim. However, while I am not easily offended I do have a good internal barometer of what is offensive to the general public. I didn't find the allusions to be offensive, and most certainly not to the point of a death sentence. At least with the Dutch cartoons there were images that were easily identifiable as offensive (Muhammad with a bomb in his turban) to those of the Islamic faith. Christians wouldn't like it if Jesus was portrayed flirting with alter boys in a commentary on the Catholic Church. Free speech aside, I can at least understand why the cartoons would be offensive to Muslims. (For an interesting angle on why some Muslims may be offended read Reza Aslan's article)

Regardless of the degree of offense, words and images do not justify violence. Muslims concerned with the West's depiction of their faith as one of radicals and violent young bearded men shouldn't feed the fire with violent protests of cartoons, knighthoods, or novels. Time and time again (from bin Laden to last week's diplomatic dialogue) Muslim's delicate sensibilities are invoked. Most commonly, "Muslim humiliation" is referenced. Instead of mindless protests and violence, read the text, commentary, etc. and then respond in kind with scathing rebukes or reviews of the Western or author's depiction of your faith and culture. Respect is not earned through mob mentality delinquency or by cutting off diplomatic ties with a country because they hurt your feelings. Iran, Pakistan, and other radical clerics may not speak for the Islamic faith, but they do have the loudest voices and receive the most media coverage. It's time to drown them out. The root cause of terrorism is not the knighthood of an author, but a failure to provide economically, socially, and politically for the disaffected Muslim youth. Economic progress is hard without multinational investment; which in turn is hard to secure when national policy is decided by emotion and reprisals against past "humiliations."

Enemies and Friends

Wednesday's repeat attack on the Shi'a al-Askari Shrine in Samarra, and the Shi'a reprisal attacks on at least six Sunni mosques that followed, further evinces that the sectarian bloodbshed between the Sunni and Shi'a is still a constant threat to civilian lives and miltary personnel. While PM Nouri al-Maliki's party blamed al-Qaeda for the attack, the sectarian warfare isn't limited to insurgent groups or terrorist cells. This is a civil war that destroys relgious shrines and places of public worship, and targets non-combatants. Even if an Iraqi cell of al-Qaeda destroyed the minarets of al-Askari shrine, they didn't then bomb, burn, or attack six Sunni mosques overnight.

While the American troops should try to promote peace and the rule of law in Iraq; we do not wanted to be connected with groups that are willing to kill civilians indiscriminately based on whether or not they believe the banu-Hashim should control the caliphate and that the mahdi will usher in the end of days. However, I fear that our current military strategy is going to link us to such sectarian murder.

By funding and arming local Sunni factions we are not only giving them the means by which to fight al-Qaeda, we are also giving them the means to continue the sectarian violence which undermines a unified state and government. If we start arming the Sunnis, how long until the Iranians arm the Shi'a factions for purposes of "self-defense" after claims of United States prejudice and the arming of sectarian factions determined to kill Shi'a civlians? The United States already claims that Iranians are giving arms to the Shi'a factions and the Taleban in Afghanistan. Is our response to arm the Sunni factions? Are we going to ask the Sunni insurgents to wage the war the Bush Adminstration so desparately wants with Iran?

Even if the United States were to arm both sects - of course then we will need to make sure the Kurds are well armed too - and avoid the Iranian arms quagmire, once we pull out of Iraq we will leave trained and armed sectarian factions. These factions aren't afraid to kill each other when we occupy the country, what will they do when we leave? Will the new Iraqi government and police force be able to defend themselves from multiple armed factions trying to gain control of the country? Obviously not. The whole reason we're arming the local factions is because the Iraqi government and police can't control the violence within it's borders as is.

If a civil war is going to happen, we should do our best provide a stable government infrastructre and rule of law, train and arm the government to deal with insurgent groups. and offer whatever aid is necessary to protect the civilans from sectarian violence. We should not, however, start picking sides. How will the next generation of Iraqis respond to the United States for not only occupying their country and failing to provide the government and safety from death and tryanny it promised, but also for giving local factions the means by which to continue the reign of tryanny and sectarian bloodshed. We must becareful proceeding with a foreign policy that espouses: "The enemey of my enemy is my friend." It's not very hard to play this roulette style game before our new allies are Iran and al-Qaeda.

United No Longer: Palestinian Government in Shambles

Hamas fighters in Gaza City increased their attack on Fatah controlled areas and buildings. They overran the headquarters of Fatah's Preventive Security forces in Gaza City today, declaring the "liberation" of Gaza. The BBC reports that the attack led to President Abbas dismissing PM Haniya from his post and declaring a state of emergency.

The dismissal effectively gives the Gaza Strip to Hamas. The West Bank will be controlled by Fatah, at least for the time being. With Gaza City in the hands of Hamas - and soon the Gaza Strip - the response by Israel could be quick and fierce. PM Olmert has already warned of 'regional consequences' if Hamas has complete control of Gaza. Israeli security forces are reporting that Hamas in becoming more sophisticated like Hezbollan in Lebanon and are smuggling weapons into Gaza through Egypt. All of these Israeli comments were during the power struggle over the last few days. Their response to the dismissal of Haniya and the effective hand-over of Gaza to Hamas will be interesting and I fear bloody.

President Abbas will hold elections as soon as the fighting abates. However, if elections in 2006 are any indication of the view of the populace, Abbas may find himself with more Hamas members elected. The power struggle, according to Danny Rubinstein in a NYTimes Article, is the fault of Abbas and Fatah not sharing power with the generally elected Hamas members. If a new election occurs and more Hamas members are elected, Fatah will either have to ignore the voice of the people or they will be no better off than they are now. Time will tell...

A Short Guide to Iraq: 1940's Style

A friend passed on to me a link to this pamphlet produced by the US War and Navy Departments during World War II. It's somewhat entertaining and occasionally bigoted in its views/lessons on life.

I couldn't help but hear a voice like Sam Elliot, John Wayne, or George C. Scott when I was reading it. The Arabic in the back is accurate as far as I can tell. As the pamphlet says, it's an Iraqi dialect so I don't know some of it as I was exposed to an (urban) Egyptian dialect.

Some of the foregin policy/cultural interaction guidelines would be helpful to our troops in the Middle East even today.

Afghan Fighters Version 2.0?

In a previous post I mentioned Reagan's support of the Afghan "freedom fighters" against Cold War nemisis the USSR. It seems my facetious comment about supporting the next version of the Afghan mujahideen may not have been as assinine as I orginally thought.

According to this BBC Article ("US pits Iraqi Sunnis against al-Qaeda") the new "exit" strategy in Iraq is to arm and train local warlords. The article uses the euphemism "Sunni tribal sheikhs" instead of warlords but any time the military trains and arms "local tribes and factions" it is only a matter of time before we - or they - start referring to them as "warlords." Warlord and factional disputes have left Afghanistan an almost completely lawless - in the sense of a formal central government controlling the rule of law - state, with Kubal as the only city the United States has any firm control over.

It is incredibily ironic that we are training local factions and militant groups to fight off a "freedom fighter" faction we helped arm and train 20 years earlier. The Islamist dogma that the Afghan mujahideen propogated didn't seem to bother us 20 years ago when it was focused on fighting and killing Soviets. In 20 years, will these Iraqi factions be the next al-Qaeda?

The U.S. Military is training these factions under the auspices of the Iraqi police force. However, each faction is to "secure their own areas." How long until these factions start a civil war - assuming the Bush Administration's current view that there is no civil war in Iraq - or start killing civilians in a territorial battle when U.S. troops finally leave? General Lynch's words offer little solace. He is quoted as saying:"There are tribal sheikhs out there who say: 'Hey, just allow me to be the local security force. I don't care what you call me. You can call me whatever you want. Just give me the right training and equipment and I'll secure my area.' And that's the direction we're moving out there."

"US commanders on the ground have been authorised and encouraged to enter into truces and agreements with local Sunni factions wherever possible, even if they are suspected of using arms against US forces in the past." (emphasis added) 

The article and US military strategists point to the al-Anbar province as the archetype of success and future stability with this policy. The article points out that al-Qaeda had attacked police recruitment posts, which helped generate more antipathy towards al-Qaeda in the province. Perhaps it is the cynic in me, but I find it hard to believe that the al-Anbar province success will apply to the entirety of the country and recent success doesn't guarantee long-term safety for Iraqi civilians or US troops.

The reason this appears to be a failure to learn from history is that this is exactly what we had with the Afghan fighters 20 years ago: a common enemy that everyone could rally around as unwelcome and a threat to local interests. The problem wasn't getting the Afghan mujahideen to fight the Soviets. The problems was what to do with the armed fighters once the Soviets were defeated and withdrew. (For a fascinating book on the evolution of the jihadi ideology and firsthand accounts of influential members of the movement read The Journey of the Jihadist) We can't untrain these fighters once we give them the means to kill. In the short-term, this new local armenment policy may help suppress al-Qaeda's influence and military operations. I just hope it doesn't come back to haunt our children and grandchildren.

Egyptian Court Rules on Niqab Ban

Today a committee in the High Administrative Court of Egypt upheld a 2001 court ruling to prohibit the American University of Cairo (AUC) from enforcing a complete ban of the niqab on campus. The niqab is a veil worn by a woman that only shows the woman's eyes; as opposed to the hijab which only covers a woman's hair but leaves her face completely visible. Both are garments designed to promote modesty in Islamic women while they are in public. Female Muslims generally begin wearing veils after they reach puberty; although there are varying opinions in the umma - Muslim community - as to the type of veil to be worn by a female Muslim, and even if veils are required by the Shari'a at all.

I first came across the article on the BBC News website entitled "Cairo campus veil ban struck down." After reading it I googled the subject to see if there were any other articles on the subject. The way in which the media outlet portrayed the ruling differed from site to site. Al-Jazeera (English edition) titled their article "Egyptian Court Permits Face-Veil Use"; whereas CBSNews went with the verbose title of "Egyptian Court: University Can't Ban Veils, American University Of Cairo Says Ban Protects 'Personal Safety And Security'". The American source goes immediately for the safety and security concerns AUC used as justification for the ban in an effort, I can only presume, to keep American fears of Muslims and the Middle East alive. Al-Jazeera went with the simple and postive title, choosing to focus on the right to wear the veil. The BBC went with the more negative title, focusing on the court's decision to strike down the ban.

The differences in the articles didn't end with the portrayal of the court's decision. The BBC and Al-Jazeera articles name the claimant as Iman al-Zainy, a former doctoral student at the Islamic Al-Azhar University. CBSNews names the plaintiff as Heba el-Zeini.

Regardless of the differences the articles all discuss that AUC banned the niqab in an effort to promote personal saftey on campus. As the Al-Jazeera article - the only article to mention the campus' current security measures - states students are currently required to pass through a metal detector and show IDs before entering the campus. This is true. We were required to pass through a metal detector, show IDs and they searched our bags every time we entered one of the entrances to the campus; it was the same on the Greek campus as it was on the main campus. Despite the modern security measures, the guards - all male for the entire 7 weeks I was there - paid much less attention to the female's bag and ID as they did the female student. Perhaps it was because I was with American/Western females, but even when female students walked in who where of Middle Eastern ethnicity, the guards smiled more than they searched.

While on the campuses I didn't see any students in the niqab, obviously because this case was still being argued. I did see female students wearing hijabs. I would say the split was about 50/50 on covered and non-covered female students. They same percentage could be said for the young Egyptian women that frequented the restaurants and clubs we visited during our stay. The use of the niqab was even less frequent and was - in my experience - only worn by older women. You may wonder why I think they were older if I could only see their eyes, fair question. I could see wrinkles; moreover, body posture and sometimes hands were indicators as well.

A commentary on the case from December (found here) pointed out that AUC also wanted to ban the niqab to ensure student integrity during exams. A point I hadn't considered but a fair point. Given the pace the guards move students through the gates - it's not wise to keep American, Western, or liberal educated youths lined up near extremely busy and dangerous (traffic laws don't apply unless a guard with a gun is present) streets, especially if you are concerned of attacks from hardline Islamist groups - I doubt the niqab is dispostive on tricking the guards. Just like a bar in the United States, a favorable look-a-like will get the job done.

The Islam Online commentary also mentions the fact that universities rarely enforce the ban. It's probably not coincidence that this case started in 2001. AUC security was quite responsive to world events while we were there, and I don't imagine that year was any different.

Chapter 1, Art 2 of the Egyptian Constitution states "Islam is the Religion of the State. Arabic is its official language, and the principal source of legislation is Islamic Jurisprudence (Sharia)." Notice that the provision states "the principal source..." not "a principal source"; the Constitution was actually changed to the former to reflect a more pro-Islamic stance. This change means that Shari'a has a greater influence in Egyptian law, leaving the ban on veils to be a peculiar ban. Yet Art. 3 states, "Sovereignty is for the people alone who will practise and protect this sovereignty and safeguard national unity in the manner specified by the Constitution". Unlike their Muslim brothers and sisters in Iran, Egyptians place their sovereignty in the people, not the ulema - Islamic law scholars/imams. Of course the power is really lies with the Hoss, but at least on paper it's a socialist democratic state.

Article 40: "All citizens are equal before the law. They have equal public rights and duties without discrimination due to sex, ethnic origin, language, religion or creed."

Article 41: "Individual freedom is a natural right not subject to violation except in cases of flagrante delicto. No person may be arrested, inspected, detained or have his freedom restricted in any way or be prevented from free movement except by an order necessitated by investigations and the preservation of public security."

Article 42: "Any citizen arrested, detained or whose freedom is restricted shall be treated in a manner concomitant with the preservation of his dignity. No physical or moral harm is to be inflicted upon him. He may not be detained or imprisoned except in places defined by laws organizing prisons..."(emphasis added)

The reason I mention articles 40 and 41 is that they are the justification offered by the plaintiff for filing her complaint. 42 was mentioned purely because of the choice of pronoun.

The Egyptian Initiative for Personal Rights (EIPR)quotes the committee as saying

The report recommends that the ban on the niqab be revoked on constitutional grounds. Specifically, Article 41 of the Constitution, according to the report, "prohibits discrimination against citizens on a number of grounds including religion or belief; a Muslim woman's niqab is linked to her religious beliefs." The report likewise invoked Article 41 of the Constitution "which holds personal freedom as a natural, sacrosanct and inviolable right; a woman's dress, which protects and covers her body, is a pillar of personal freedom, as dress is intimately linked to a person's body… and falls under the rubric of bodily freedom."

Actually, Article 41 states exactly when individual freedom can be violated, including public safety. Which is why AUC framed their argument in terms of public safety, even though my experiences tell me that AUC security is only a moderate concern to the actual guards.

In the end, I think wearing of the niqab is a personal choice. So long as AUC staff - female staff if requested - makes sure that jihadi terrorists don't start hiding underneath the veil, the female students should have the right to wear whatever they want so long as it's not threatening the safety of those around them. If you are to believe some Islamic scholars the women who choose to adorn the niqab are protecting the public from the noxious and uncontrollable male libido; a charitable action that should be allowed to continue if the veil-wearer freely chooses to take part in the tradition.

The Hoss Strikes Again

Egyptian Brothers Arrested BBC Article

It seems the Egyptian government is gearing up again for another election. When I was studying in Cairo in the summer of 2005 Hosni Mubarak - the Hoss - had dealt with opposing candidate Ayman Nour in a similar manner just prior to my arrival (see 2005 story).

The National Democratic Party (NDP) prefers to arrest opposition rather than acknowledge public cries for reform or participate in the democratic process. NDP did approve March 2007 constitutional reforms for Egypt - although I am skeptical of any law/doctrine/referendum the heir apparent Gamal "Hoss Jr." Mubarak would promulgate and advocate as "strengthen[ing] political parties" and yet critics are calling a solidification of the Egyptian emergency state of law. If interested, here is the Egyptian Constitution.

The leader of the new party Democratic Front, Osama al-Ghazali Harb, - a former member of NDP's Policies Committee, which is head by none other than the Hoss Jr. - resigned after the referendum was passed; he believes the constitutional reforms will only keep the NDP's firm control on the Egyptian government in place.

When I was staying in Cairo, Condolezza Rice visted in order to talk with the Hoss about the upcoming elections. Near the American University of Cairo's (AUC) campus are areas of immense human and vehicle traffic. In one of these squares, there was a 15ft sign of the Hoss with what looked like Xmas tree lights strung around the edges, creating - what I can only assume was intended - a halo effect around the Hoss' head. There were slogans in Arabic around the cutout as well, although I don't know what they said. We were told it was placed there by a supporter. On the edge of the "Greek campus grounds" of AUC - across the street from the main campus - there was a huge billboard of the Hoss that I had to look at everyday (see picture supra). The reason I tell this anecdote, is because the day that Sec. Rice arrived the gynormous cardboard angelic Hoss magically and conveniently disappeared; just in time for the NDP to talk about fair elections with Sec. Rice. It seems only fair that they had to take down the angelic Hoss in order to talk about fair elections given that I didn't see a single advert for Mr. Nour or any other candidates during my seven week stay. Let alone a giant-sized angelic advert of another candiate erected in an area of substantial daily traffic.

Barnett and Iran

Below is a recent gmail conversation I had with my friend about a Thomas Barnett piece...

The Barnett Piece: KnoxNews Columnist

Julian's comments:
The most worrisome thing about this for me is that Barnett is no dove by any stretch of the imagination. And he has a lot of contacts inside the Pentagon...

My response:
It's not unfathomable. It seems to me a full scale strike on Tehran will only hurt Israel. Any support by Israel of an attack on Iran will lead to an increase in attacks by Hezbollah from Lebanon/Syria. Such attacks will push the destablized conditions in Beruit and Lebanon even further from reconstruction of a stable government and a potential Middle Eastern haven for grassroots reform.

Saudi may privately speak of removing their regional nemisis Persia from rising power, but publicly they will never be able to stand behind an American attack, especially if it becomes an American-Israeli attack. If there is a hated regional nemesis vilified more than Persia, it's the Israelis.

I don't think it's out of the question that Bush will do something as he leaves office to hand a steaming pile off to the next president in the event that it's a Democratic president-elect. Hopefully this time Congress will have the intelligence and testicular fortitude to tell the President "no."

Julian's comments:The fact that the Israelis and the Saudis would both like to see Tehran knocked down a few pegs, but can't get away with trying it themselves may mean, as I think Barnett was arguing, that even now they're both privately pushing the US towards doing it for them. How anyone on Earth could think anything the Israelis or Saudis come up with vis-a-vis Iran is likely to be a good idea is beyond me; however, I doubt it's beyond Cheney and Bush.

What really worries me is that all of the major Democratic presidential candidates are on record as saying that Iran MUST NOT be allowed to get atomic weapons. They probably need to say that in order to be politically viable in the general election, but it could also back them into a corner regarding our policy towards Iran during this next obscenely long year and a half.

My response:
All UN reports I have read state the Iranian program is years away from actualizing the threat of nuclear weapsons. Thus, by the time Bush leaves they - in theory - won't be armed. I understand that we can't wait until they are armed to respond, but do you really think that the Bush adminstration will use "they have the potential of creating weapons of mass destruction" as a justification for invasion? Given the fallout of the last war based on the lack of WMD, a doubt public support will be high for another invasion based on the same justification.

I don't think the view that Iran shouldn't have nuclear weapons necessiates invasion. Perhaps the answer does lie in Riyadh; more Arab pressure may be the answer. Western pressure (I include Israel in this) isn't going to solve anything. Western military pressure will only increase the public support for the jihadists in the area. While the Sunni and the Shia may have bad blood, Saudi pressure could lead to the Arab league pressuring Iran to curtail its weapons program.

I am of the opinion that Iran should be able to develop nuclear power for non-military purposes if they so choose. I understand the line is very thin between non-military programs and being able to nuke Tel Aviv; yet continuing to treat the Arab world as if they are children and can't police themselves isn't going to further relations or allow them the ability to regulate themselves. I seriously doubt that 70 milliion Iranians want nuclear war with Israel. I seriously doubt the Egyptians, Lebanese, Syrains, and Jordanians truly want nuclear fallout on their borders. Let Tehran have their nuclear power, if the Israelis have it why not let the Iranians have it. The Israelis are just as trigger/missle happy as the next guy; yet we trust them with the bomb. Let Iran prove that will do as they say. Closely monitor them, hell allow China and Russia to have a say in it which will allow them to maintain their energy interests and still maintain an open door policy.

If we want Iran to reform, invading is the worst possible option.

Julian's comments:You're preaching to the choir on all of those points. Actually, I'd go as far as to say that Iran and Israel could probably handle Mutually Assured Destruction as well as India and Pakistan have. Hopefully cool heads will prevail, but the nuclear issue is potentially quite inflammatory. I guess we'll just have to wait and see.

Your response??