Archive | March, 2009

Obama’s Afghanistan: Is it deja vu? Obama may not be Talking the [Bush] Talk, but he is surely Walking the Walk!

28 Mar

Perhaps President Obama is not talking the talk, but he surely is walking the walk: Where is the change we can believe in?  How does President Obama’s Middle East policy differ from that of President George W. Bush?

Obama’s surge in Afghanistan, is it the George W. Bush Iraq’s surge policy all over again, a deja vu, if you will? Or, is it the beginning of an overwhelming force which the region will require before all is said and done?

Is this the beginning of extending George W. Bush’s policy of an protracted stay by the United States military in the Middle East? If it is, it is not necessarily a bad approch to the world problems…

Obama’s Afghanistan actions exonerates Bush’s Iraq war!

27 Mar

There is little or no doubt that President George W. Bush was a very marginal president. President Bush mademany mistakes, but, as President Obama’s recent actions in the region are proving,  starting the war against Sadam Hussein was not a mistake.

As America’s role in Iraq is winding down, leaving the country free of the regional threat that was there before Sadam Hussein was removed from office, the United States role in Afghanistan is continuing to expand.

President Bush mistake in Iraq was in listening to his civilian ( Rumsfeld, et al) rather than military advisers. who suggested that an overwhelming force should have been committed to Iraq. The civilians who suggested that the the Iraq war should be conducted like a business were responsible for the poor US second stage (after Hussein and his forces were removed, and before the surge) performance. The surge was paramount to an overwhelming force since it came after the military confrontation was over, and only an insurgery type of conflict remained.

President Obama has now prepared the nation to a protracted military engagement in Afghanistan. The hope is that Obama does not underestimate the magnitude of the commitmentand is prepared to an eventual need for an overwhelming force, a force that, with its allies, may well come near in size to the Iraq commitment at its peak.

Even though during the election process, President Obama, then candidate Obama,  promised to bring the troops home and is now only commitment to re-deploying many of these troops to Afghanistan, all indications are that he is doing the right. thing!

Due to Muslim birthright, the gravity of humiliating Islam adds significant fuel to the engine of Global terrorism: Or, can archaic Islam function without modernizing in the Twenty-first Century?

25 Mar


Since it is a generally known, and mostly indisputable, that Muslims represent the major source of terrorism in the early part of the Twenty-first Century, neutralizing the threat is an important role of the United States government. This is especially important because Muslims expect that Barak Hussein Obama, a bretheren  by birth, should be particularly sensitive to Islamic needs, culture, religion, and More’s.  The large expectations should not go unnoticed by the young United States Administration. or consequences could be extremely unpleasant. 

The following article was published by in early 2008. The  blogdecided to reprint the material since early issues of the Obama Administration are a continuation of the situation in question.

President Clinton appointed Madeline Albright to be his Secretary of State. There is little or no doubt of Secretary’s Albright credentials andability, but, since one the largest single foreign body that the United States is associated with is made up of Muslim nations who, by tradition, culture, and religion, are led by men, andmenare not supposed to deal with women, appointing a woman to be the spokesperson for the United States, was an insult. In the case of Secretary Albright, the fact that she was a Jew, added fuel to the fire.

President Bush added to the insult by telling the Muslim world in the person of Sadam Hussein, to bring it on. Then. By appointing another woman as Secretary of State, President Bush poured salt on an open wound creating by the initial easy defeat of Iraq, the pride of Arab [military] pride, at the time. Not only was Secretary of State Rice a woman, her international expertise in foreign affairs were in dealing with Russia and Eastern Europe, not with Islamic nations with whom the United States was heavily engaged at the time of her appointment.

President Obama, for sake of political expediency appointed Hillary Clinton as his first Secretary of State. Not only did Barak Obama appoint a woman to the role of chief Unites States interface to the Islamic world, the lady picked to the job came from a state wit a heavy Jewish population, and was on record as a strong supported pf Israel, Zyonism, and the Jewishcause. In view of the fact that problems with the Islamic world are the most pressing foreign policy issues of the Obama Administration, demonstrating the insensitivity it did by appointing Secretary Clinton, is a bad beginning.

 Even though President’s Obama’s lslamic birth endears the man to many Muslims who simply look at his stature and say to themselves: If he can do it, why, can’t I do it? Obama’s action speaks louder than words. In addition to the Clinton appointment, President Obama’s video to the Iranian people, trying to bypass the leadership, andhisinterview with Al-Arabia, insulted many of the people that he was trying to reach.

Humiliation is still a major issue with the West and Islam, we, at decided that redistributing he article would be appropriate and. Timely.

Humiliation of Islam, a significant part of the engine for Twenty-first Century terrorism:

Table of contents:




Causes of Islamic-terrorism: Humiliation:

Causes of Islamic-terrorism:


Causes of Islamic-terrorism: Religion.

An Oxymoron: Islam is a Peaceful Religion.

Islamic-terrorism: Elevating Islam’s stature.

The Need for Restoring Islamic Pride:

The use of surrogates and other means for attempting to restore Islamic Pride.

     Ahmadinejad, the Non-Arab Muslim, and Iran’s role in terrorism:

    The Surrogate Approach.

The Middle East, Iraq, and Islamic pride.

A Missed Opportunity to Restore Iraqi Pride.

Will restoration of Muslim Pride Eliminate the Conflict?.


Partial bibliography:



Ever since the [Jewish] Matriarch Sara used deception to humiliate and deprive Ishmael[i][i] of his rightful birthrights, Ishmael’s offspring’s felt cheated and deprived by offspring’s of Isaac.  

In recent years the Jewish offspring’s of Isaac who by virtue of Sara’s deception became Abraham’s heirs, reclaimed [a part of] Palestine as their homeland. The vehicle used by the Jewish people was a movement called Zionism. In 1887 a group of European Jews declared that: “Zionism seeks to secure a public ally recognized, legally secured home in Palestine for the Jewish people.” The mission of Zionism ended in 1948 when the State of Israel was established.

The fact that the mission of Zionism was completed notwithstanding, the term itself became a rallying term of Islam for condemning Isaac’s offspring. The Arab world contended that the State of Israel, and thus Zionism, took away from them what rightfully belongs to their people. For example, as recently as October 16, 2006, Saddam Hussein told a Kurdishprosecution witness at his trial that he, the witness, was splitting the Iraqi people and playing into the hands of the Zionists.

When in 1948 the upstart State of Israel defeated and humiliated the Arab states that attacked it in an attempt to end its existence, a deep routed desire for revenge developed. Zionism became a term of evil, in the mind of Muslims it became all that is evil, it included Israel and all who supported it.    



A great deal of human conflict results from a desire for retribution. Those who seek vengeance are doing so mostly to make up for being humiliated. Humiliation is a trigger for conflict, be it among individuals, nations, or other human entities.

When President George Walker Bush of the United States called on the Iraqi insurgents to “Bring it on!” it was like waving a red flag in front of a bull. The President’s statement suggested, at least by implication, that the Iraqis were inferior to the Americans.

One may never know how much fuel was added to the Iraqi insurgency by the president’s statement; one does know, however, that President Bush now publicly admits that the statement was ill conceived.

Since the president’s statement applied to Iraq and to the Iraqi people without distinguishing between factions of that society, it likely contributed to uniting many splinter groups that otherwise would be opposing one another. 

President Bush’s words caused many Iraqis and other Muslims to feel humiliated. More recently, President Bush and other public figures in America are referring to the insurgence as parts of fascist Islam, another perceived humiliating description to many Muslims. Since humiliation is a powerful motivation for action, Muslim terrorism was additionally fueled by the insensitivity demonstrated by this choice of words.

Humiliation can also occur when a perceived superior power fails to defeat one vastly inferior. The French experience in Vietnam, that of the USSR in Afghanistan, and of the USA in Somalia, Vietnam, and Korea, are but a few examples of humiliation of “superpowers” by [militarily] inferior nations. Most recently, when Israel anditssponsor, the United States, did not win a scrimmage with Hezbollah, it was a significant case of humiliation to the [perceived] militarily superior Israel, and a boost to Islam. It is likely that due to the humiliation Israel suffered, its government will be replaced andagreat deal of public relations effort will be forthcoming to try andrestore its pride.

Causes of Islamic-terrorism: Humiliation:

Present day international terrorism is in large part an Islamic movement. There are a number of motives to Islamic terrorism: One is a need for respect after a number of humiliating events Islam suffered in the 20th and 21st centuries.

One of the principal causes of Muslim terrorism is the archaic nature of the Koran, and Islam. Without modern interpretations, the Koran calls for its followers to commit acts that are not compatible with behavior of the civilized world.

Some of the most powerful r4ecent events that contributed to Islamic humiliation started in 1948 with the Israeli War of Independence. They were followed by four other wars (1956, war over Israeli access to the Suez Canal; 1967, the Six-Day War; 1973, war with Egypt; 1982, Israel into Lebanon,) between the State of Israel and its Arab neighbors. The much smaller and poorer[ii][ii] Israel defeated all its surrounding Arab neighbors (including Iraq with which it has no common border). Israel’s consistent wins against Arab neighbors clearly constituted Muslim-Arab humiliation.

Adding to humiliation by Israel, the ease at which United States twice defeated Saddam Hussein, the most [militarily] powerful of all Arab nations added fuel to Arab-Muslim humiliation.

In addition to tangible causes of humiliation, words are often added sources of embarrassment. President Bush choice of words is a case in point. Humiliation often occurs when one participant in a conflict demonstrates open disregard for the opponent’s capabilities. An example of such a situation was an off-the-cuff remark attributed to Israel’s General Moshe Dayan. While serving as a war correspondent in Vietnam, Dayan was asked what was the secret to his military success? As the story goes, his reply was immediate and spontaneous. Allegedly, he said that he was blessed by a choice of enemy.

Consistent with Dayan’s reply is Raphael Patai’s description of Arabs as people who engage in rhetoricism, not action. In his book, The Arab Mind(New York: Hatherleigh Press, 2002 revision; 1stedition, 1973, Scribner), Patai states that Arabs characteristically substitute words for action, and offers an example of that part of their nature. In The Arab MindPataiquotesfrom a response by an Egyptian official to a Time interview in 1971:

When Arabs argue, they start on opposite sidewalks and shout at one another, “I will carve you into pieces!” And “you’ll never live to see another sunset!” Then, after ten or fifteen minutes, they walk away and nobody gets hurt.

Moshe Dayan’s response may have been demeaning and humiliating, but it was based on his personal experience; studies of the subject and my personal experience convince me that Dayan’s response appears to be a consistent reflection of the real world, and of Patai’s views.

Causes of Islamic-terrorism:

Economics, though it does not influence terrorists as does religion and humiliation, is without a doubt a significant cause of conflict, and of terrorism.

Looking forward (likely to the end of time/history), economic competition will likely remain a cause of conflict among nations. Geoffrey Kemp and Robert E. Harkavy, in their Strategic Geography and the Changing Middle East (Washington, DC: BrookingsInstitution Press, 1997) deal withthesubject of strategic geography, which they define as “The control of, or access to, spatial areas (land, water, air, including outer space) that has an impact—either positive or negative—on the security and economic prosperity of nations.”

Presently, the Western industrialized democracies charitably refer to Islamic nations as potentially peaceful partners. Reasons for such generous reference to the unquestionably violent Islam have their roots primarily in economics. Since Islamic nations control one of the largest oil reserves known to man, their economic value to the industrial democracies is significant beyond measure.

Geoffrey Kemp and Robert Harkavy in the aforementioned article have a quotation from Aaron Wildavsky and Max Singer which suggests that, relating to the “end of history, there will likely be permanent peace among the industrialized democracies of Europe, North America, Asia, and Oceania, juxtaposed against increasing chaos, bloodshed, andethnic-racial fragmentation within what used to be called the third world.”

Since future global conflict is not likely to end in the mutual annihilation of mankind through the use of nuclear or other weapons of mass destruction (WMD’) a two-adversary model seems to have significant credibility. The Greater Islam movement, primitive as it is, would likely continue to challenge the industrial democracies using terrorist tactics to accomplish its main mission, to gain respect, and to acquire additional economic power. Greater Islam may also be in a position to use economic weapons, and economics play a major role in the world.

Kemp and Harkavy state the following:

The United States continues to have vital interests in the Middle East, the survival of allies, especially Israel, and the denial of Persian Gulf energy resources to hostile powers.

Substituting in the above statement the words industrialized democracies for the United States the term, explains in part how the two-culture model of global conflict has an integral economic element that cannot be ignored.

In democracies, what constituencies accept and how they vote, are in large part controlling elements of their behavior and actions. In general people will not accept undue economic hardship in order to support cultural ideology, and this hard fact causes the economic elements of a two-culture conflict to be an important factor with which to reckon.

Causes of Islamic-terrorism: Religion

Religion is just as critical, perhaps even more critical an element in Islamic-terrorism, as is humiliation and the need for respect. Islam, though the newest of monotheist religion, is the religion that fourteen hundred years since its inception did not changed its rules to keep up with the time. The most appropriate term for describing those Muslims who commit terrorist acts is that they are followers of archaic-Islam. 

Islam, except for attempts by a few leaders[iii][iii] has not undergone significant efforts to advance beyond an archaic culture based directly on the Koran.

Ataturk, whose goal was to modernize Turkey, succeeded in making Turkey, an Islamic nation, into a secular country. However, Ataturk had no discernable success[iv][iv] in modernizing Islam or reducing its effect on the country. Ataturk’s efforts to modernize Turkey did succeed in creating the only Muslim nation with a secular government. That notwithstanding, Turkey still remains a country controlled by Islamic law.

Mohammed RezaShahPahlavi was able to bring significant social change to Iran. Not the least important of his efforts was suffrage for women and rules for certifying the clergy. Pahlavi also brought about land reform and other socially important advances, only to be ousted by the clergy in 1979.

Almost fourteen hundred years have passed since Muhammad received the Koran. It is fair to assume that Koranic laws are outdated and that they now create a chasm of culture between Muslims and the rest of the [civilized] world.

Since the Koran on its face states that non-believers must be converted or punished, preferably by death, it serves as a significant part of the cause for Islamic terrorism.

 An Oxymoron: Islam is a Peaceful Religion

On February 21, 2006, Al-Jazeera TV interviewed WafaSultan(an Arab-American psychologist) regarding his understanding of today’s global conflict. Sultan spoke of the fact that the term “clash of civilizations” was originated by Muslims to justify their deeds but he dismisses the concept on its merit.

Sultan’s views contradict the notion that Islam is a peaceful religion. Sultan proposes the hypothesis that today’s principal global conflict is between past and present, in other words, between Islam and “the West.”

Sultan advances the view that with its roots in the Koran, Islam is a violent religion that in order to satisfy Allah’s dictates must destroy all those who are not willing to embrace it. Reading the Koran supports Sultan’s general hypothesis, particularly as it applies to the Sunnis, the major Muslim sect who does not allow its imams broad flexibility in interpreting the Koran and its edicts.

Sultan’s suggestion, that today’s global conflict is between civilized people of the twenty-first century and uninformed people who still live in the past, seems right on target.

Islamic-terrorism: Elevating Islam’s stature

Early on, Osama bin Laden suggested that contemporary global conflict is a clash of civilizations. Equating Islam to a civilization, bin Laden uses words to elevate the status of his cause to the level of the rest of the civilized world.

Islamic definitions of rights and wrongs are different from those adopted by Judeo-Christian cultures. As long as Islam continues to accept the Koran as the actual word of Allah, a word that calls for actions unacceptable to the civilized word, a clash of civilization, as Samuel P. Huntington calls such a phenomena, remains inevitable. 

In Samuel P. Huntington’s article, “The Clash of Civilizations” that appeared in the Summer 1993 (v. 72, n. 3, p. 22 [28]) edition of Foreign Affairs, Huntington advances the thesis that in the “new world” one should expect culture to be the dominating source of [international] conflict. Huntington suggests that: “Conflict between civilizations will be the latest phase in the evolution of conflict in the modern world.”

Huntington states that the difference between civilizations is not only real but also basic. In his view “Civilizations are differentiated from each other by history, language, culture, tradition and, most important, religion.”

Huntington suggests that the present alignment of civilizations is in many ways based on religion. Even though this thesis may be correct, religion alone offers a very weak link among people, not a bond that can maintain unity. This principle can be witnessed in Northern Ireland, and in the most recent insurgency in Iraq. Sects or denominations within any given religion are often the cause of strife and disunity.

The Need for Restoring Islamic Pride:

Added to the complex equation of Islamic pride is the strange phenomena that, as feared anddespised as Saddam Hussein was because of his brutalactions, the man with his “spit-and-polish” military was a source of Arab [military] pride. The two military defeats of Sadam Hussein at the hands of the United States and its allies were major blows to Arab-Islamic pride, defeats that left a chasm in Islamic pride.

To make up for its loss of pride, Muslims latched on to everything that could explain their failures. An instrument of regaining Arab pride was the declaration that Zionism is the foundation of Middle East unrest. Carried to its extreme, in 2006, Iran’s Mahmmud Ahmadinejad (a non-Arab Muslim) declared that the western democracies, including the United States and Europe, created Zionism. Ahmadinejad, in an attempt to become the savior of Islamic pride, declared that the cause of Islamic loss of pride is Zionism, and that Israel, the offspring of Zionism, will be destroyed.

In the latter part of the twenty-first century, Mahmmud Ahmadinejad was elected president of Iran. Upon being elected Ahmadinejad decided to seize the opportunity of filling that chasm in Islamic pride. Even though Iran is not an Arab country, it is a Muslim nation to which the Arabs can relate to a considerable degree.

When Ahmadinejadtook over the reins of government in Iran, he immediately attempted to establishhimselfas the Islamic force to withstand the West, and to convert the chasm of Muslim shame to the pinnacle of Muslim pride.

With Saddam Hussein in power, many Arabs, including Kuwaitis, Saudis, andotherGulf nations who feared his aggressive intentions, started to believe that they had a savior who could militarily withstand the United States and, of course, its client state, the upstart Israel.

President George Herbert Walker Bush dispelled that myth by soundly defeating Saddam Hussein during the first Gulf war. His son, President George W. Bush, did it again in the second Gulf war, bringing about a source of complete humiliation to many Muslims.

 The use of surrogates and other means for attempting to restore Islamic Pride

 Ahmadinejad, the Non-Arab Muslim, and Iran’s role in terrorism:

Mahmmud Ahmadinejad is a case in point. Iran anditsvastly influential clergy would suffer a significant loss of power and influence should its boastful president yield to modernization. Nonetheless, in his search for power and his march towards immortality as Islam’s savior, Ahmadinejad may give in to the temptation of modernization.

Ahmadinejad desire to advance Iran’s technology base, as can be witnessed by his nuclear activity, his missiles, and his torpedoes, opens the door for modern education, andadvancingthe state of education brings general modernization. An engineer by trade, Ahmadinejad, in spite of his rhetoric, is a man of the 21st century who may use his outlandish boasting to gain attention and respect in Iran. 

A nationalist who even decreed that foreign words be moved from Farsi, Ahmadinejad must be careful not to follow the example of Iran’s failed Shah. The shah of Iran faced the ire of Iran’s clergy andwasremoved from office. A secular populist, RezaShahPahlavi overstepped his bounds when he attempted to lend legitimacy on his terms to the clergy. The Shah’s attempt to control the certification of the clergy through governmental testing (somewhat like our civil-service examinations) was perhaps the largest single action that led to his downfall.

Voids in nature are nearly always filled. Mahmmud Ahmadinejad counted on that fact and started to move in the direction of filling the chasm in Muslim pride by making an attempt to become the pinnacle of Muslim pride.

Iranians are not Arabs and they do not speak Arabic. Iranians are, and strongly insist that they are, an Indo-European people, neither Semite nor Arabs. Culturally, by virtue of language and ethnicity, Ahmadinejad is an outsider to the Arab world. That fact notwithstanding, Ahmadinejad seeks to fill the void in Arab pride. If he does, it could be a short-lived phenomenon because by no account can he be considered an Arab.  

Ahmadinejad started his quest for creating the pinnacle of Muslim pride to replace the chasm of shame, by making volatile statements that made the rest of the world cringe. From stating that the Holocaust never took place to stating that Iran was intent on destroying the State of Israel Ahmadinejadmade pronouncements that were clearly designed to cause friction with the non-Islamic world.

From all indications, Ahmadinejadcalculated that the more outlandish his rhetoric, the more attention it would bring. Though he is not an Arab, his action and speeches make Ahmadinejad fit well into the Patai model of being a rhetoricism’ist[v][v].

Recently Ahmadinejad informed the world that Iran had developed a missile that can avoid radar and that can attack multiple targets at the same time. The missile, the Fajr-3, is capable of carrying significant payloads, likely including nuclear warheads. Ahmadinejad made it clear that the missile could indeed represent a danger to Israel, as well as to all other neighboring countries.

Ahmadinejadalsoinformed the world that his scientists developed the fastest torpedo known to man (except for one Russian model) and that the torpedo was successfully tested. By implication, and by virtue of Iran’s position on the Gulf, the Iranian leader informed the world that his country is in a position to disrupt the major source of oil to Western countries.

Muslims (20% of the human race) in recent years kept suffering military humiliations at every turn, yet pride and strength remain important elements in that culture. Could Iran, or some other entity yet to emerge, assume the burden of restoring Muslim pride, or could means be devised to do so without hurting the rest of civilization?   

 The Surrogate Approach

Ahmadinejad, using Sheik Nasrallah and his Hezbollah (a group that is primarily made up of Shiites) to engage Israel (the “Zionist client” of the United States) in a Lebanon military conflict was not looking for a win, which he did not expect. Ahmadinejadwas cognizant of the fact that a stalemate withthe most powerful army in the Middle East would restore a great dealofArab pride. Not only would the conflict show Islamic strength, it was timed to divert attention from Iran’s nuclear problem withtheUnited Nations. His scheme in both ways seemed to have succeeded.

In addition to the Hezbollah action, Ahmadinejad continues to encourage the insurgency in Iraq, as does Osama bin Laden. It is interesting to note that the two leaders are of two competing Islamic sects. The issue of Sunni versus Shiites is on one hand a cause for Iraqi unrest, which may lead to a civil war, yet on the other hand; it may be good for the western civilizations since the Sunnis and Shiites are not likely to fully unite in an anti West terrorist movement.

When on September 11, 2001, nineteen young Muslim Arabs were able to force the family of [civilized] nations to adjust its way of life Muslim-Arab pride received a major boost. The fact that the events of 9/11 forced the United States to take away from its citizens some of their freedoms was a significant accomplishment by those who initiated the 9/11 events.

The Middle East, Iraq, and Islamic pride

Before one can approach the issue of stabilizing Iraq one must understand the whole picture, the issue of the need for Islamic pride and its effects on other Arab, and non-Arab, Islamic nations.

 The present Iraq insurgency is in large part a movement of Jordanian, Libyan, Syrian, Iranian, Pakistani, and other Islamic nations; any long-term solution must include these nations. Additional perspective suggests that Iran’s nuclear standoff with the international community is an extension of the Iraqi insurgency and must be dealt with in that manner.

 If Iraq, under the auspices of the United States and its allies is to become a stable and viable democracy, all segments of the population must be taught that they are part of one nation and that they are first and foremost Iraqis, not Sunnis, Kurds, or Shiites[vi][vi].

Islam is the only existing andprominent culture with socialvaluestotally intertwined withreligion. Islam is the significant group with a substantially different set of beliefs from the Judeo-Christian model regarding rights and wrongs.

 The fact that Islam did not advance its teaching since Muhammad (in the name of Allah) founded it around 622 CE puts the Islamic model in an ongoing conflict with the rest of society. Because it remained stagnant through all these years, Islam puts expectations on its believers that are considerably different from the expectations placed on members of other religions and cultures, whose rules evolved to keep up with the times.

 A Missed Opportunity to Restore Iraqi Pride


On June 8, 2006 the most wanted terrorist in Iraq was killed. Abu Mosab al-Zarqawi, a man with a twenty-five-million-dollar bounty on his head, was killed by a United States air strike.

President Bush gave a short and generally positive statement about the elimination of al-Zarqawi. The President gave praise to all those involved in the mission, but primarily to the American forces. 

In large part, however, the success of the mission was due to Iraqi intelligence.Rather than seizing the opportunity for restoring some Iraqi pride, the United States president used the occasion to boast of American accomplishment with acknowledgment of Iraqi and coalition support merely as an aside.

With an elected Iraqi government in place, this might have been a good time to begin the practice of having Iraq speak for itself and on behalf of “the coalition” in its country. In this specific case, a wise course might have been to have the announcement and explanation of the al-Zarqawimissioncome from the Iraqis with background (as “footnotes”) provided by the Americans.

 Even though within the United States having a foreign power speak on behalf of American military might have caused a political backlash, globally, and in the long term, a demonstration of Iraq’s independence could have played a very positive role in the war on terror.

Let us give credit where credit is due. After the fact, in numerous briefings, the United States military did make it clear that Iraqi intelligence was an indispensable part of the operation. 

The conflict in Iraq, and the war on terror, cannot end on a positive note if the conclusion includes a strong message that Muslims, and particularly Muslim Arabs, are “losers.” Those Muslim Arabs who gloat at America’s pain must be made to believe that, even though less advanced economically, they are the equals of the most advanced members of the family of nations. 

For a unity government in Iraq to include the Sunnis, Sunni pride must also be restored: Important roles within the government will have to be given to some of their people. Since Sunnis reduce the role of imams in governance, Shiites may find that an all- inclusive government may not be easy to assemble and maintain.

Those devout Muslims who wield political power in Iraq, those leaders who through democratic processes are attempting to bring the country into the 21st century are walking a very tight rope. By the strictest of Islamic teaching, those who liberated the country of its “brutal dictator[vii][vii]” are infidels and must be either converted to Islam or destroyed. Notwithstanding that the elected leaders of Iraq are cooperating with the infidel-liberators, while fighting their religious brethren for control of the country. Can these fundamental and unyielding differences be reconciled?

Words to the contrary notwithstanding, the numerous “coalition-of-the-willing” troops in Iraq appear to be an occupying force, especially to Sunni Iraqis. Since perceptions in the minds of most people are paramount to reality, it is very important that the coalition make clear its intentions to leave, and leave very soon. This is not to say that a scheduled withdrawal is required. A good start may be a move to get the Iraqi military leadership to start speaking on behalf of the whole military in the country.

As long as the United States military continues to hold press conferences, Iraq appears to be controlled by the Americans. Continuing to maintain responsibility is one thing; appearances are another. The United States should start a move forward to let the Iraqi military speak for all troops in Iraq. The allies should also let the Iraqi civilian authorities speak to all other issues of government. The Americans and the coalition should start moving into the background and letting the Iraqis assume control, or at least appear to do so.

Will restoration of Muslim Pride Eliminate the Conflict?

Since Islam constitutes the second-largest group of people on earth (some 1.5 billion people), its impact on the future of humankind is likely to remain significant into the 22nd century. Even the most optimistic views of Islam’s future cannot dismiss the idea that Islam will remain a source of international terrorist activities.

Assuming that President Bush and Prime Minister Blair did the world a favor by creating a democratic Iraq, a country that may move away from archaic-Islam into a more secular nation, threat from Islam will remain, though it may be reduced.  

There is no doubt that Iraq will remain an Islamic nation, but through economic incentives and other benefits one can hope that its religious zeal would make room for a more secular nation. Should Iraq, as it appears to be doing, introduce educational reforms that will generate more modern future generations, the Bush/Blair legacy would be looked at by [Western] history as a positive advancement of humankind. This is a great deal to expect, but it could become a reality.

As long as Muslim children are taught that the Koran in its exact original form is the ultimate law and that its model of rights and wrongs applies, Islam will remain a threat to world peace. Advancing Islamic education to take into account that the words in the Koran represent guidelines, not absolute values, will likely allow Islamic nations to become peaceful members of the family of nations.

Following Israel’s model, a country with a very strong Orthodox voice, an Islamic nation could also update its thinking and accept the idea that the written words in the Bible (be it the Koran, the Old Testament, the New Testament, or some other writings) are guidelines rather than absolute dictates. Such a move, one that could hopefully start in the new Iraq, may help create a more peaceful community of nations.

Even if Iraq becomes the torchbearer of Islamic reform, its example will not necessarily spread to all other Islamic nations. Having a Shiite majority, not the largest sect of Islam, an Iraqi model may not be very effective. However, since Shiites allow a much larger role to imams and ayatollahs than does the majority Sunni sect, getting the clergy to accept change could be very significant. The clergy has the most to lose if Islam changes, its power could be vastly reduced, as would be its political and economic stature.

Establishment of a secular government in Shiite land where the clergy is powerful may make it easier to move this model into Sunni nations where the clergy has less influence.  

Arab-Muslim modernization in Iraq does not mean that other Muslim nations would follow. Power in many cases depends on the status quo, and the likes of Syria, Saudi Arabia, Libya, Iran andothernations, both Arab andnon-Arab states, may elect to lag behind and maintain the power structure of their leaders and their clergy.

In Iraq today, the Shiite majority is influenced by the Iranian clergy and is likely to remain an ally of Ahmadinejad who is attempting to gain [some] control in Iraq and a voice regarding Iraq’s future. Some of his rhetoric is clearly designed to influence the Arab people, in particular the people of Iraq. Singling out Zionism and the United States as major enemies plays to the insurgents in Iraq and is likely to continue. Playing on Saddam Hussein and Iraq’s military humiliation is another tool the Iranian leader uses and it appears quite effective.

Should Iraq’s constitutional democracy take hold, and should it allow for reform in education and basic law, Ahmadinejad’s influence will likely be reduced. If his efforts in the area of nuclear-fuel enhancement continue, and should they bring upon him effective economic sanctions that prove instrumental in reducing the standard of living of the Iranian people, his days may be numbered. Rhetoric alone can carry a tyrant for only a short period before delivery of promises is expected; Ahmadinejad’s days may be numbered especially should Iraq emerge as a proud and functioning democracy.     


 In 1983 Hezbollah blew up a US Marine Corps barracks killing a large number of American servicemen; the United States identified the source behind the act as Iran. In 2006 Hezbollah attacked Israel, an act that from all indications was also initiated on orders from Iran.

President Reagan intended to retaliate for Hezbollah’s act, but for some unclear reason, the Department of Defense did not follow through and no retaliation took place. In 2006, Israel, a close ally of the United States, did take retaliatory action. 

In 1983 Iran did not admit the connection to Hezbollah that was a small organization without a credible voice. In 2006 Iran still denies any connection to Hezbollah (except for morale support) but Hezbollah in 2006 has a voice to which the international community listens. Hezbollah can credibly claim victory against Israel and its United States sponsor.

Israel is a parliamentary democracy. Its leadership, by admitting a humiliating defeat to what is conceived to be a weaker enemy such as Hezbollah, will suffer significant political harm. That notwithstanding, admitting that the smallest of all Arab countries was able to hold off the mighty Israel may be a significant step towards the restoration of Muslim-Arab pride.

If Israel does not insist on claiming that it achieved its military goals against Hezbollah and agree to deal with Hezbollah as part of the Lebanese government, a great stride towards reducing Islam’s need for proving its worth to the world may have been taken.

Israel has another window of opportunity Israel is in a position to elevate the Hammas politicalwing to an equal negotiating partner. This may be a difficult undertaking as long as Hammasisset on destroying Israel; however, a great deal may be accomplished through economic incentives. Allowing Hammas to feel that Israel and its allies do not look down at it could be the key to establishing a Palestinian state.

Finally, a success in Iraq may well be the bell-weather that could get Islam to feel that its pride has been restored and that it is indeed accepted as an equal member of the international community.

When Iraq’s democratically elected government starts to speak for the Iraqi people and when the perceived occupation by the allies starts to show signs of nearing an end, Iraq would likely become the Islamic pioneer of cultural, industrial, and legal modernization.

Here too, just as in the case of Israel and Hezbollah, the United States government, at the risk of losing [domestic] political favor, may be well advised to admit that it may have won the battle against Saddam Hussein, but giving credit to the Iraqi people for winning the terrorist war was the key to establishing a democracy in their country.

In spite of progress in Iraq, its cultural mores and archaic legal system will have to be brought into the twenty-first century. Most notably, modernization must include a significant updating of Islamic laws, in particular its system of rights and wrongs.

Pride back in place and democracy practiced are but two of many steps Iraq must take in order to be the most positive force within Islam. Iraq could be the vehicle that will start to steer Islam toward equal membership in the family of nations.

Iraq, one hopes, will not follow the Afghanistan model of an Islamic Republic bound and controlled by Islamic law, but will rather become a more modern state and be guided by a forward-looking secular constitution. Unlike Afghanistan, a nation poor in natural resources Iraq can succeed in its entry into the modern world and become a significant player in the world economy. In addition to vast oil reserves, Iraq can develop and maintain other industries that use petroleum as their base; it can also build on a thriving agricultural economy.

One cannot expect miracles. Iraq, however, is blessed by having many well-educated and talented politicians and professional people. Many Iraqis who studied in the West are now bound and determined to bring their nation into the twenty-first century.

If the Iraqi model succeeds, it will not be because of farsighted Western leadership; it will be more because times are changing. The West must recognize that cultural differences will remain but are acceptable as long as the basic values are brought in line with the fundamental model of rights and wrongs employed by the rest of the civilized world.

 If the coalition is to leave Iraq as the Islamic torchbearer for Arab-Muslim advancement into the modern 21st century, it could cause history to consider the two embattled leaders, Blair and Bush who led the effort to remove Saddam Hussein, as two men who collectively advanced the cause of mankind in the 21st century. 

 Partial bibliography:

 The Clash of Civilizations, Samuel P. Huntington, Foreign Affairs, Summer 1993, v. 72, n. 3, p. 22 (28)

 The Clash of Civilizations: Asian Responses,edited by Salim Rashid, New York: Oxford University Press, 1997

 Strategic Geography and the Changing Middle East…Geoffrey Kemp and Robert E. Harkavy, Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press, 1997




i Ishmael is the [Biblical] ancestor of Muslims, and his half-brother, Isaac, is the forbearer of the Jews and Christians.

ii In spite Biblical promises of a land “of milk and honey,” the land of Israel, especially when compared to its Arab neighbors is very poor in natural resources, unless one accepts the Jewish cerebral prowess to be Israel’s natural resource.

iiiMost notably Mustafa Kemal Ataturk (1881-1938,) who on 1935 assumed the name Ataturk (“Father of the Turks”) in Turkey, and Mohammad Reza Pahlavi (1919-1980) in Iran

iv Studies and personal observations, coupled with inputs from this author’s father(who was a world-renowned forester with expertise in reclaiming arid zones and who spent many years in Turkey advising its government). He did not observe any significant modernization in Turkey. The late Dr. A. Y. Goor described the Ataturk effort as one that was largely limited to men wearing berets rather than the traditional Islamic head- dress…

v Throughout years in Iran, my personalobservationsuggests that Iranians in general, and Iranian politicians in particular, are very boastful people who fit the Patai model of rhetoricism’ists.



Obama unleashing Geithner, his secret weapon for fixing the economy!

24 Mar

The part of his economic recovery plan that Secretary Geithner presented on March 23, 2009, silenced many critics, forced others to change tactics, and gain the maligned Secretary a great deal of respect, while also adding to President Obama credibility for his steadfast support of Secretary Geithner.

Build-up for Geithner was enormous; he was to be such an asset that even his personal tax problems did not deter the Obama Administration from pushing his nomination to a successful end. Geithner was built up as the best person to get the United States out of its economic problems. The build-up reached a crescendo with his TARP II presentation during which time he was to tell the nation, and the world, how he was going to fix the economy.

Geithner presentation was a disaster! Audiences that were getting used to Geithner’s boss, President Obama the world-class oratory that he is, were let down by a lack-luster Geithner who neither spoke well, nor offered any meaningful information about an economy recovering plan. Geithner became the laughing stock of the media, especially to conservative voices who smelled red meat, or an Achilles-hill within Obama’s Administration.

Politicians and members of the media kept  taunting President Obama, asking when he would replace Geithner. Obama’s political rivals were having a blast, they thought that they found a big weakness in the Obama team.

In spits of all the ridicule, President Obama stood fast behind his choice and insisted that Tim Geithner is the right man for the job.

On March 23, 2009, President Obama unleashed a Tim Geithner with a plan to present to a desperate nation. Obama is a great orator, but not a good communicator. Obama deals with generalities, with ideology, and with motivational items; Tim Geithner, not nearly the speaker that Obama is, but refreshingly a better communicator who is quite good at presenting details.

The economic recovery plan that Geithner presented on March 23, 2009, was not only enough to silence many of his critics, it was enough to satisfy the financial community which rewarded him by a 497 point increase in the stock-market.

The public, the politicians, and the media which had reduced expectation in Geithner, reduced to the point that when he showed himself on March 23 as  a self-assured, well prepared, and knowledgeable operative, the Obama Administration got an enormous boost.

Look for more positive, even great things from the real Tim Geither, not from the one who presented TARPII in early February. but rather from the one who excited the nation and the stock market, the one who spoke on March 23, 2009.

VP’s do matter! A [often] Republican disaster:

23 Mar

United States Vice Presidents do matter!

For some reason, or another, the Republican party, within my memory, seems to often select Vice Presidents who could at best make very marginal Presidents, and perhaps even not very good dog catchers!

Leading the charge, of course, is Dick Cheney, with his WMD’s, and other positive yet questionable pronouncents that proved less than accurate.

Following was the disgraced Spiro Agnew (who I met in an elevator in Tehran,)  the Vice Presidential candidate, Sarah Palin (the conservative mother who cannot even keep a a daughter from having a baby out of wedlock,) and, of course, there was, under George Herbert Walker Bush,  Dan Quayl of potatoes fame. 

There are, of course, exceptions. All exceptions, for some reason, advanced at later dates to become President. George Herbert Walker Bush was a good Vice President, and then highly respected President. Gerald Ford, and Richard Nixon were two other Republican Vice Presidents who did well as Vice Presidents, and also served as Presidents.

Cheney, like Linbaugh, is flirting with treason!

23 Mar

For Dick Cheney, with the authoritative words of a recent Vice President, to say words which suggest that President Obama’s actions make the United States more vulnerable to terror, is to offer an invitation for terrorists to act. Here is a man who had access to the deepest of United States secrets suggesting that the country is vulnerable, what an opening, what an inviting suggestion for terrorists to strike!

Words that when  said by the man in the street are protected by the First Amendment, but when they provide incitement,  and when they are spoken by a voice of authority, could be as damaging as shouting fire in a crowded theater. Mr. Cheney, even though out of office, is a man with inside knowledge of United States secrets, and who still speaks with authority, must guard his words and start to act in a responsible manner.

Limaugh, speaking for one of only two influential political parties in the United States, statements that he wants the President to fail may be allowable in a democracy, but, never-the-less, they are treasonous! Limbaugh explains that he means that he wants Obama’s policies to fail, but that is still like suggesting that the baby be allowed to go down the drain with the bath water, or that the country governed by the President, be allowed to fail!

Even though Limbaugh and Cheney are two meaningless individuals they appear to speak for the powerful Republican party, they may represent some hard-core members, but they are hurting the party, and what it stands for.

By keeping quite, George W. Bush is setting a fine example. the previous President refraining from criticizing those in power demonstrates maturity and responsibility. Unlike the behavior of his Vice President, Cheney, and Limbugh, the voice of American conservatism, the ex-President behavior is to be commended.

Telling terrorist  that they have an opening, and suggesting that the President should fail, are not words of patriots, these are word of appeasers, perhaps even words of, traitors!

We now know the “virtual” Barak Hussein Obama; when will the actual Obama appear?

21 Mar

March 21, 2009; two months into the Barak Obama Administration, the question that we posed in late November: Who is the real Barak Obama;  still requires an answer.

In November, 2008, we posted the following write-up:

There is no Barak Obama!

The handsome tallish Mulatto with his captivating smile, a voice made in heaven, and oratory skills second to none, is a figment of the public collective imagination; or perhaps, a gift from the Creator to the world, his crumbling creation!

The person that is Barak Obama, the one that the American public elected, is not the person you see, it is rather: JFK, Superman, the Massiah (a la Louis Farrrakahn, and others,) Winston Churchill, and the Christ Himself, all rolled into one…

In desperate times people resort to desperate measures, electing Barak Obama is such a measure. The Obama election could prove an act of the Creator and “save” the Nation, or turn out to be just another blimp on the radar secreen of history.

The “Change” promised as is demonstrated by early selection of staff, will not come from Obama. If a change occures it will come from the minds, and possibly actions, of the American public.

Let us hope for the best realizing that Obama is not a panacea, but that he is very likely to be a great improvement of President George W. Bush, one of the worse Presidents in the history of the United States.

Good luck Barak Hussein Obama, let the Creator be with you!


We now, two months into the Ibama Administration, must still pose (but rephrase) the question: Where is the real Barak Hussein Obama?

Is there a real singular Barak Obama? If there is, is he the greatest orator of all times, or is he the socialist being portrayed on Fox News? Is President Obama the showman on Jay Leno, or is he the person of Islamic birth who is trying to appease Iran and the Islamic world? Does Barak Obama march to Nancy Polesi’s orders, or does the speaker do President Obama’s bidding?

We don’t know who Barak Obama is, or what makes him tick. We know that Barak Obama is Charismatic, Handsome, athletic, and an outstanding public speaker who gives a very positive face to the United States in the world. We don’t know how deep the positive goes, we do know that performance to date leaves a great deal to be desired.

Let’s give room to those who say that two months is too short a period for judging the performance of an Administration and agree that Barak Hussein Obama and his Administration are still an enigma. As enigmatic as Obama may be, based on his performance to date, one thing we can be sure of: Barak Hussein Obama is not the Messiah, the reincarnation of Martin Luther King, or or JFK, we can be sure, after two months in office, that President Obama is human, that President Obama makes mistakes, but that President Obama works very hard at the job the people elected him to do.  

Obama’s Iran appeasement; a systematic sacrifice of friends? (Text shared:

20 Mar

Appeasement is not diplomacy!

With a strong mandate, President Obama roared in like a lion in January, but is approaching April as a lamb, a lamb whose words are load and strong, its deeds lack knowledge, conviction, or authority.

President Barak Hussein Obama is a great orator, yet a very weak communicator. Obama does not understand that communication include action, not just words.

Granting his first television interview to an anti-Israel, anti-Jewish news outlet, was a clear demonstration that Obama’s Islamic roots are deeper than he is openly admits; it shows that in his case, blood is indeed thicker than water.

On Christmas Eve, 2008, President Ahmadinejad of Iran arranged for Hamas, by breaking a cease fire, to cause an Israeli attack on Gaza. Attacking on Christmas Eve, the Iranian President demonstrated that he has no respect for Christianity; Ahmadinejad is a koranic person who believes in Islamic world domination, with a complete disregard to any other religion, or human beliefs.  

Obama’s approaching the Iranian people under  Ahmadinejad, and his even more militant superior, Ayatollah Khamenei, is not only a sign of weakness, it is a demonstration that Obama is an opportunist who would do anything, sacrifice friends and allies, in order to get his way.

In the US-Iran conflict, Obama was the first one to blink, he essentially agreed to reduce the long standing US commitment to Israel in order to ease energy concerns, and help the United States economy. By his overtures to Iran, President Obama also sends a signal to Iran that when the US leaves Iraq, it will become fair game for adding it to an Iranian controlled Shiite region.

It is either naivete, or deeply rooted Islamic commitment that seem to drive President Obama to take reckless steps, and throw allies (i.e Wright, Israel, Ayers, etc.) under the bus, when they cease to be useful to him.

Please remember, President Obama, sacrificing old friends to advance new causes is a sure way to self-distraction.

Scenario: 100000+ Allies troops for Afghanistan. McCain’s campaign suggestion that: “100 year US troops overseas, is OK,” may be a prophecy with its fulfillment starting in Iraq, continuing in Afghanistan, and spreading (reprinted with permission from

19 Mar

Short of deploying an overwhelming force in Afghanistan, McCain’s “100 years troops overseas is OK campaign rule;” may well become a prophecy in Afghanistan.

Before starting the George W. Bush Iraq war, General Shineki, then the Army Chief of Staff, told Congress that an overwhelming force of about 500,000 would require to do the job right. Shineski was summarily fired by Donald Rumsfeld, who with Paul Wolfovitz wanted do do the job with a minimal force. It is obvious who was right; not Rumsfeld and Wolfovitz! One can say that the Afghanistan situation could turn to be: De-ja vu all over again!

Afghanistan is a challenging country situated on a uniquely difficult terrain. The difficulties start with archaic religion and culture. The Islamic democracy that Afghanistan is, has its laws based on, and subservient to, the Shariah (Islamic law.)  The total Afghanistan legal, social and religious structure is based on outdated laws from the Koran, comprising of many rules that are not compatible with the modern world of the Twenty-first Century..

In addition to the intangible issues, Afghanistan’s terrain is so difficult to manage. It is a haven for renegades, terrorists, and/or any outlaw trying to elude the authorities. The landscape is not only hard to manage, the weather combines to make the land in many spots essentially uninhabitable. The fact that Afghanistan shares some of its rough terrain with Pakistan would force the United States and its allies to include in their efforts in Afghanistan, means to deal with Pakistan with its very complex politics, and nuclear capabilities. 

The religious backbone of Afghanistan is much more prominent and less yielding than the one in Iraq, anyone trying to compare the two countries is likely to be very disappointed. Communication with the people of Afghanistan will prove a much more difficult task than is the task dealing with the people of Iraq. President Obama desire to use diplomacy in Afghanistan has minimal chance of succeeding, while his commitment to add troops, even before leaving Iraq, is an early sign of what may be actually the beginning of a very long journey, a venture with no end in sight.

President Obama before getting truly initiated into the office of President, committed 17,000 more troops for Afghanistan. It is known that at least 30,000 more troops are also slated for Afghanistan before the Iraqi withdrawal is complete. These known deployments will leave over 100,000 US and NATO troops in Afghanistan; how many more will be added in the future, is too early to say.

Consistent with President Obama’s projection that Afghanistan will need to have some 400,000 military and police personnel before it can take care of its security needs, for the US to clean-up the tougher parts of Afghanistan (including an area across the border in Pakistan,) in preparation for Afghanistan to take over the security responsibility, will require an overwhelming force, likely MORE troops than were committed to Iraq at the peak of that campaign.

With a lesser force, which may be dictated to President Obama by the American public, the Afghanistan/Pakistan mission is likely be protracted, well into the tenure of President Obama’s successor; the McCain 100 year in the region may well proved to be a prophecy, not just a campaign mis-statement.

Technorati Tags: , , ,

Hillary Clinton a Politician in Diplomat’s shoes: An Oxymoron!

10 Mar

Appointing women as spokespersons to a world with many nations, many of whom have cultures that disallow their men representatives to deal face-to-face women, is simply wrong! In face of the fact that the United States must deal with many Islamic nationd, appointing Secretaries Albright, Rice, and Clinton, as an insult to all Muslims.

In the case of Hillary Clinton, it is worse. Mrs. Clinton is a politician, not a diplomat, and politicians make poor diplomats. Where diplomats must use facts to make their point, politicians make up facts to support their views, and Mrs. Clinton is a proved master of that art.

Hillary Clinton, politician may prove another poor selection by President Obama.