Tuesday, March 31, 2009
Shadid article on Baghdad to Basra train ride
Just noticed a Shadid article to be put out in the Wash Post 4/1 on the train from Baghadad to Basra , "A Journey into the Iraq of Recollection: Baghdad to Basra train offers Respite from Divisions and Pain."
Monday, March 30, 2009
Yes! Seymour Hersh article New Yorker on Syria and diplomacy.
Seymour Hersh article in recent New Yorker, Syria Calling: The Obama Admin's Chance to Engage in Middle East Peace read it on the website.
Also, Mr. Hersh was on Olberman tonight all talking bout a Cheney led assassination ring. Exciting. I want more.
I lived in Syria in the summers of 2006 and 2008 and am interested in the opportunity for dialogue with the government there.
Also, Mr. Hersh was on Olberman tonight all talking bout a Cheney led assassination ring. Exciting. I want more.
I lived in Syria in the summers of 2006 and 2008 and am interested in the opportunity for dialogue with the government there.
Excellent new book about Darfur (&COIN criticism??)
This is an informative (about the book and about Darfur) review of a new book by Mahmoud Mamdani, Saviors and Survivors: Darfur, Politics and the War on Terror.
I am not tooting my own horn, but from the review, I am proud to say that the causes of the conflict he lists in the book (toward the end of the review) are the same as those I argued for in my thesis which was entitled "Genocide in Darfur: Economic Degradation, State-building and Ethnic Politics"
I will expand more on the causes of the conflict in Darfur at a later time bc it is late and I am busy with work stuff. But I have been wanting to do a posting on it for a while and this book is motivating me.
Understanding Darfur is crucial bc it so reflects many of the problems of the region - hollow ethnic politics, the nation state, exclusive governance, resource based conflicts. And of course it was veiled as an Arab v. African conflict which couldn't be further from the truth. Everyone there is Arab and African, and more importantly no one there identified themselves in ethnic terms. (Parallel here to Iraq and that the conflict there was never about Sunni and Shii hatred.)
I was particularly intrigued by the following claim:
"At his most provocative Mr. Mamdani questions the distinction between what is often labeled counterinsurgency and genocide, saying the former, even when it kills more people, is deemed “normal violence” while the latter is considered “amoral, evil,” and typically it is the West that does the labeling.
I wonder what Abu Muqawama and his fellow COIN (counterinsurgency) experts at CNAS (Center for New American Security) would think of this?
COIN (counterinsurgency) has become the fad of the day (I don't mean that in a bad way) - even for liberals, some academics, and development/ aid workers who need the security it is believed to be able to provide to do their work. Also, COIN methodology is humanitarian in the sense that its ultimate and only goal really is to protect the local population and pick/ rescue the good guys (David Kilcullen's 'accidental guerrillas') (see below) from the bad guys' (AQ, Taliban) troops.
Looking to know more about COIN? Here are some resources for starters: (list will grow)
Abu Muqawama (Andrew Exum) blog (includes a reading list)
CNAS
Small Wars Journal
Read David Galula Counterinsurgency:Theory and Practice (written by French officer with experience in Algeria, Greece, SE Asia...) and Pacification in Algeria
Read David Kilcullen's 28 Articles: Fundamentals of Company Level COIN (link to the pdf)
Read Kilcullen's Accidental Guerrilla
Read Army/USMC COIN Field Manual
I am not tooting my own horn, but from the review, I am proud to say that the causes of the conflict he lists in the book (toward the end of the review) are the same as those I argued for in my thesis which was entitled "Genocide in Darfur: Economic Degradation, State-building and Ethnic Politics"
I will expand more on the causes of the conflict in Darfur at a later time bc it is late and I am busy with work stuff. But I have been wanting to do a posting on it for a while and this book is motivating me.
Understanding Darfur is crucial bc it so reflects many of the problems of the region - hollow ethnic politics, the nation state, exclusive governance, resource based conflicts. And of course it was veiled as an Arab v. African conflict which couldn't be further from the truth. Everyone there is Arab and African, and more importantly no one there identified themselves in ethnic terms. (Parallel here to Iraq and that the conflict there was never about Sunni and Shii hatred.)
I was particularly intrigued by the following claim:
"At his most provocative Mr. Mamdani questions the distinction between what is often labeled counterinsurgency and genocide, saying the former, even when it kills more people, is deemed “normal violence” while the latter is considered “amoral, evil,” and typically it is the West that does the labeling.
I wonder what Abu Muqawama and his fellow COIN (counterinsurgency) experts at CNAS (Center for New American Security) would think of this?
COIN (counterinsurgency) has become the fad of the day (I don't mean that in a bad way) - even for liberals, some academics, and development/ aid workers who need the security it is believed to be able to provide to do their work. Also, COIN methodology is humanitarian in the sense that its ultimate and only goal really is to protect the local population and pick/ rescue the good guys (David Kilcullen's 'accidental guerrillas') (see below) from the bad guys' (AQ, Taliban) troops.
Looking to know more about COIN? Here are some resources for starters: (list will grow)
Abu Muqawama (Andrew Exum) blog (includes a reading list)
CNAS
Small Wars Journal
Read David Galula Counterinsurgency:Theory and Practice (written by French officer with experience in Algeria, Greece, SE Asia...) and Pacification in Algeria
Read David Kilcullen's 28 Articles: Fundamentals of Company Level COIN (link to the pdf)
Read Kilcullen's Accidental Guerrilla
Read Army/USMC COIN Field Manual
Sunday, March 29, 2009
Hometown Baghdad: The one reality TV you'll catch me watching
Global youth dialogue organization 'Chat the Planet' had three young Iraqis film themselves and is showing their tapes in various episodes. Each is of their average daily lives in Baghdad. You can watch them here on the website.
It has gotten a lot of press and was on the Sundance Channel last week in a condensed two hour version.
Here is another way for us to understand what Iraqis go through, and how 'our' war has affected them.
(Also don't forget to watch Hard Way Home about Iraqi refugees, follows three family in Syria, if you haven't yet!! You can watch it for free on the website!!)
It has gotten a lot of press and was on the Sundance Channel last week in a condensed two hour version.
Here is another way for us to understand what Iraqis go through, and how 'our' war has affected them.
(Also don't forget to watch Hard Way Home about Iraqi refugees, follows three family in Syria, if you haven't yet!! You can watch it for free on the website!!)
Ten Million and Counting - Frontline on the Economy
EVERYONE should watch the Frontline, Ten Trillion and Counting, that aired on PBS Tuesday of last week. If you missed if you can watch it here on the Frontline website.
I do not understand intricacies of the economy and this show made it all clear. It was comprehensible and comprehensive.
(I was out of town and without internet or I would have posted earlier it is truly an amazing look at how we got where we are today economically.)
I jotted down some notes during it and will type them up later.
I do not understand intricacies of the economy and this show made it all clear. It was comprehensible and comprehensive.
(I was out of town and without internet or I would have posted earlier it is truly an amazing look at how we got where we are today economically.)
I jotted down some notes during it and will type them up later.
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
Wars, Guns and Votes: Democracy in Dangerous Places. Best book I've heard about in months!
Wash Post reviewed the new book by Paul Collier, Wars, Guns and Votes: Democracy in Dangerous Places. The Guardian did too.
It sounds amazing and I cannot wait to read it when I am done with Tom Ricks' new book The Gamble about the surge, which so far (on page 150) has given an extremely thorough analysis of how the surge was decided upon. Thrilling.
Collier is a World Bank economist, and apparently one of the best. He lately has used his economic background for the good of political field - using empirical evidence, data and stats, to prove his theses about WHY people are violent, why individuals are radical. He debunks that it is because of religious or ethnic reasons and argues it really has to do with economics, among other more practical reasons - politics. This is why I dig him.
There are so many interesting angles this book covers....
Basic point is when you half ass democracy building (just have elections) in countries that have NO other democratic/ civil society institutions it creates more violence, therefore giving democracy a bad name. (This is exactly what has happened Iraq and has happened in other countries in the region.)
Also voter turnout is the equivalent of 'wearing football scarf' (great line) and doesn't mean much when all civilians are doing is casting a ballot and are not to the slightest extent engaged in their societies. (They don't know the candidates platform (also, the candidates don't have one) and vote based on ethnic or religious group or tribal and family connections.)
Civil society makes democracy real: rule of law, free press, free speech, freedom of assembly, transparent ballot counting, political parties based on ideas and ideology not ethnicity or religious orientation, security.
Elections without rules, checks and balances, traditions become just like warfare – war to see who wins. As warring parties are forced to transfer/ funnel their violence into elections, the election is rife with fraud, violence, threats, assassinations, bribes.
Elections are also a horrible idea during sectarian bouts and times of ethnic tension because they simply cement these identities instead of working to erode them and create a national identity. This is so exactly what happened in Iraq. Sectarian, Sunni Shii identities created after the invasion because of the security vacuum were artificial and could have been done away with, but instead we called for elections right in the middle of the height of their rise - and what do you get? Sunni boycott of the elections, Shii win power and Shii militias start to cleanse neighborhoods of Sunnis, further entrenching sectarianism.
More later.
It sounds amazing and I cannot wait to read it when I am done with Tom Ricks' new book The Gamble about the surge, which so far (on page 150) has given an extremely thorough analysis of how the surge was decided upon. Thrilling.
Collier is a World Bank economist, and apparently one of the best. He lately has used his economic background for the good of political field - using empirical evidence, data and stats, to prove his theses about WHY people are violent, why individuals are radical. He debunks that it is because of religious or ethnic reasons and argues it really has to do with economics, among other more practical reasons - politics. This is why I dig him.
There are so many interesting angles this book covers....
Basic point is when you half ass democracy building (just have elections) in countries that have NO other democratic/ civil society institutions it creates more violence, therefore giving democracy a bad name. (This is exactly what has happened Iraq and has happened in other countries in the region.)
Also voter turnout is the equivalent of 'wearing football scarf' (great line) and doesn't mean much when all civilians are doing is casting a ballot and are not to the slightest extent engaged in their societies. (They don't know the candidates platform (also, the candidates don't have one) and vote based on ethnic or religious group or tribal and family connections.)
Civil society makes democracy real: rule of law, free press, free speech, freedom of assembly, transparent ballot counting, political parties based on ideas and ideology not ethnicity or religious orientation, security.
Elections without rules, checks and balances, traditions become just like warfare – war to see who wins. As warring parties are forced to transfer/ funnel their violence into elections, the election is rife with fraud, violence, threats, assassinations, bribes.
Elections are also a horrible idea during sectarian bouts and times of ethnic tension because they simply cement these identities instead of working to erode them and create a national identity. This is so exactly what happened in Iraq. Sectarian, Sunni Shii identities created after the invasion because of the security vacuum were artificial and could have been done away with, but instead we called for elections right in the middle of the height of their rise - and what do you get? Sunni boycott of the elections, Shii win power and Shii militias start to cleanse neighborhoods of Sunnis, further entrenching sectarianism.
More later.
Women in the Middle East - Iranian reformists
Haleh Bakhash, daughter of Haleh Esfandiari, outspoken human rights activist and director of the Middle East Center of Woodrow Wilson Center for International Scholars, reminded readers of an important point - "The silver lining to this harassment [article is about women scholars journalists and activists thrown in jail in Iran] is the reminder that women have been at the forefront of the struggle for freedom and rights in Iran. They have overcome adversity in the past. In an environment of threat and intimidation they are enduring, and they need and deserve all the international support that can be mobilized for them."
It is important to realize that women of the Middle East, as I have mentioned in previous postings, are not poor, helpless victims. They are actors, agents of change, in parliaments, in the workplace, forming organizations, starting businesses and advocating for their own rights in their own societies. That these reform movements are occurring indigenously is key to their success.
The women I spent time with as a Peace Corps volunteer in Morocco were the exact opposite of the stereotype of the oppressed Muslim or Arab woman. They were strong - physically, emotionally and psychologically. They were intelligent and had the most endearing cynical senses of humor I've ever encountered. They had sound judgment. They were strong and motivated and resourceful.
A history of women's rights movements in the region is a longer post for another day, but there were women's rights movements in the Middle East in the early and mid 20th Century. Women had more rights in the Ottoman Empire (in the eyes of courts...see Judith Tucker's In the House of the Law: Gender and Islamic Law in Ottoman Syria and Palestine and her Restoring Women to the Middle East) than in Europe. Anyone seen pictures of women un Egypt in the 50s and 60s? Short skits and tanks!
Unfortunately women's rights became tied to an imperial 'West' particularly after the fall of the Ottoman Empire and the implementation of the mandate system and the COld War manipulations. One thing led to another and kerplop.
Women's rights in the Middle East will be successful as indigenous movements aided by foreign groups, and only as part of more comprehensive social, economic and political reform in the region - such as the end of dictators and opening of political space for expression (to protest and write about their desire for rights!) and economic opportunities (jobs for women!)
It is important to realize that women of the Middle East, as I have mentioned in previous postings, are not poor, helpless victims. They are actors, agents of change, in parliaments, in the workplace, forming organizations, starting businesses and advocating for their own rights in their own societies. That these reform movements are occurring indigenously is key to their success.
The women I spent time with as a Peace Corps volunteer in Morocco were the exact opposite of the stereotype of the oppressed Muslim or Arab woman. They were strong - physically, emotionally and psychologically. They were intelligent and had the most endearing cynical senses of humor I've ever encountered. They had sound judgment. They were strong and motivated and resourceful.
A history of women's rights movements in the region is a longer post for another day, but there were women's rights movements in the Middle East in the early and mid 20th Century. Women had more rights in the Ottoman Empire (in the eyes of courts...see Judith Tucker's In the House of the Law: Gender and Islamic Law in Ottoman Syria and Palestine and her Restoring Women to the Middle East) than in Europe. Anyone seen pictures of women un Egypt in the 50s and 60s? Short skits and tanks!
Unfortunately women's rights became tied to an imperial 'West' particularly after the fall of the Ottoman Empire and the implementation of the mandate system and the COld War manipulations. One thing led to another and kerplop.
Women's rights in the Middle East will be successful as indigenous movements aided by foreign groups, and only as part of more comprehensive social, economic and political reform in the region - such as the end of dictators and opening of political space for expression (to protest and write about their desire for rights!) and economic opportunities (jobs for women!)
Red meat is bad in mass quantities: Worst news I've heard in years.
I know some seriously bad stuff goes down in the Middle East, but THIS is the worst news I've heard in years. ("Daily Red Meat Raises Chances of Dying Early")
It's so bad and heeding the results would so detrimental to my lifestyle, I'm actually going to forget I ever read it, after I write this posting.
I'm seriously pissed at whomever conducted this study. I'm also pissed at the Wash Post editors who chose to run it, and on the front page. Can't you hide in that random Tuesday Health section?
OK, why am I mad? I eat red meat and pork all the time. (In fact, no less than 5 people emailed me this article today.) For breakfast this morning I had two sausage patties. (Granted they were from the local organic meat farm down here.) I had two yesterday morning. I also eat a lot of bacon. The other night I had pork chops. I have pork chops a lot. Don't even get me started on my fondness of pork belly. I am obsessed with charcuterie: I eat a little bit/ a lot of prosciutto and sopprasetta almost every night. I don't eat pork loin though bc it doesn't have enough fat. My story with red meat is even more romantic. I am obsessed with burgers with american cheese and mayonnaise I eat them at least 3 times a week. I also eat a lot of ribeyes (not NY strips, like pork loin, not enough fat) and lamb chops, and rack of lamb. My favorite dishes are sweetbreads (no study needed to show how bad these are for you, they're like little fried (or occasionally not fried) cholesterol balls) (try the ones at Bistro Bis on E ST in DC, delicious.) Have you ever had beef cheeks? They are divine. I'm over Central (restaurant in DC), but I'd go there any day for their beef cheeks. I also love veal cheeks and veal chops and veal scallopini.
Because I am equally obsessed with full bodied red wine, I am banking on this counteracting the red meat and pork thing. Looking for a good wine? Drink Avalon.
Last obsession, just because I already listed pork and read meat and red wine: Raw Oysters.
I feel like a more personal, fun posting telling you all (not that anyone reads my blog) a little bit about me good for this blog and our relationship.
It's so bad and heeding the results would so detrimental to my lifestyle, I'm actually going to forget I ever read it, after I write this posting.
I'm seriously pissed at whomever conducted this study. I'm also pissed at the Wash Post editors who chose to run it, and on the front page. Can't you hide in that random Tuesday Health section?
OK, why am I mad? I eat red meat and pork all the time. (In fact, no less than 5 people emailed me this article today.) For breakfast this morning I had two sausage patties. (Granted they were from the local organic meat farm down here.) I had two yesterday morning. I also eat a lot of bacon. The other night I had pork chops. I have pork chops a lot. Don't even get me started on my fondness of pork belly. I am obsessed with charcuterie: I eat a little bit/ a lot of prosciutto and sopprasetta almost every night. I don't eat pork loin though bc it doesn't have enough fat. My story with red meat is even more romantic. I am obsessed with burgers with american cheese and mayonnaise I eat them at least 3 times a week. I also eat a lot of ribeyes (not NY strips, like pork loin, not enough fat) and lamb chops, and rack of lamb. My favorite dishes are sweetbreads (no study needed to show how bad these are for you, they're like little fried (or occasionally not fried) cholesterol balls) (try the ones at Bistro Bis on E ST in DC, delicious.) Have you ever had beef cheeks? They are divine. I'm over Central (restaurant in DC), but I'd go there any day for their beef cheeks. I also love veal cheeks and veal chops and veal scallopini.
Because I am equally obsessed with full bodied red wine, I am banking on this counteracting the red meat and pork thing. Looking for a good wine? Drink Avalon.
Last obsession, just because I already listed pork and read meat and red wine: Raw Oysters.
I feel like a more personal, fun posting telling you all (not that anyone reads my blog) a little bit about me good for this blog and our relationship.
FYI
Again, not that many people read my blog, I wanted to let all of you out there (Liz, my mom) know that I am out of town for a few days sans internet. The local coffee shop in town does have it though, thankfully, because it was driving me a bit crazy not being able to post stuff. Especially when I read the red meat article. (See below.)
Top of my s--t list: John Ensign. (DC gun control in the DC Voting Act)
I am going rogue for a second here (OK, I know this expression was ruined, well it was in my book at least, by the SNL parody of Pain/McCain campaign but I can’t think of a better phrase right now.) (To tell you the truth, I actually want to go rogue a lot on this blog because I somtimes have a temper, which I have learned to control with maturing age, especially when it comes to injustice. (I don’t think it’s necessarily a bad thing to get fired up over injustice though.)
I know that representatives have for a long time been legislating in DC, its become a tradition I guess - using the District as a guinea pig for their own constituents' and big donors' (NRS in this case) programs, this issue is particularly worthy of criticism.
Who does this John Ensign, Nevada senator (R, like you couldn’t guess) think he is? He and a bunch of his fellow friends wrote in a clause to the DC Voting Rights Act that would repeal DC gun control law that prohibits people who have a history of violence from buying guns. Nice. These out-of-touch politicians oppose any gun registration as an unnecessary burden on the 2nd Amendment. (Which, by the way, Justice Scalia disagreed with in Heller.) I am a DC native – born and raised on Capitol Hill and live there now – and I am peeved. This is honestly the epitome of corrupt legislative maneuvering and the hypocrisy of the Republican party. These two points are highlighted nicely in the Wash Post Sunday by DC council member at large Phil Mendelson.
On the first point, what does this Nevada Senator know about DC? If he has a place here, it’s in Georgetown or Spring Valley where the only guns people own are million dollar antiques in the family's hunting room next to a elephant head they shot on the last safari to Africa. Clearly they know nothing about the severity of gun related violence in DC. (I know the argument, outlawing guns and gun registration isn’t a guarantee to stop gun violence, but you know what it can’t hurt.) I mean, I can’t believe he cares this much (read: gets that much money from the NRA) that he wouldn’t advocate registration, especially with all the recent school related gun violence. And the shooting the Largo on the front page of the Post today. And the list could go on.
On the second point don’t republicans advocate for local rule – states rights? Less government? Oh wait, that doesn’t apply to women’s bods and guns or anything those out of touch social conservatives care about.
This idiot sits in his ivory tower, built by NRA contributions and a total divorce from reality of inner city urban America.
I know that representatives have for a long time been legislating in DC, its become a tradition I guess - using the District as a guinea pig for their own constituents' and big donors' (NRS in this case) programs, this issue is particularly worthy of criticism.
Who does this John Ensign, Nevada senator (R, like you couldn’t guess) think he is? He and a bunch of his fellow friends wrote in a clause to the DC Voting Rights Act that would repeal DC gun control law that prohibits people who have a history of violence from buying guns. Nice. These out-of-touch politicians oppose any gun registration as an unnecessary burden on the 2nd Amendment. (Which, by the way, Justice Scalia disagreed with in Heller.) I am a DC native – born and raised on Capitol Hill and live there now – and I am peeved. This is honestly the epitome of corrupt legislative maneuvering and the hypocrisy of the Republican party. These two points are highlighted nicely in the Wash Post Sunday by DC council member at large Phil Mendelson.
On the first point, what does this Nevada Senator know about DC? If he has a place here, it’s in Georgetown or Spring Valley where the only guns people own are million dollar antiques in the family's hunting room next to a elephant head they shot on the last safari to Africa. Clearly they know nothing about the severity of gun related violence in DC. (I know the argument, outlawing guns and gun registration isn’t a guarantee to stop gun violence, but you know what it can’t hurt.) I mean, I can’t believe he cares this much (read: gets that much money from the NRA) that he wouldn’t advocate registration, especially with all the recent school related gun violence. And the shooting the Largo on the front page of the Post today. And the list could go on.
On the second point don’t republicans advocate for local rule – states rights? Less government? Oh wait, that doesn’t apply to women’s bods and guns or anything those out of touch social conservatives care about.
This idiot sits in his ivory tower, built by NRA contributions and a total divorce from reality of inner city urban America.
Saturday, March 21, 2009
Article on Kurdish political parties
Interesting article on the dominance of the two political parties (PUK and KDP) in Kurdish Iraq in Wash Post today.
I've died and gone to diplomacy heaven. (Iran)
Obama sends a video message to Iran on Nowruz - the Persian New Year.
He said he seeks a relationship 'based on mutual respect' and this is a 'new day' between countries. I think the respect part of this statement will be particularly well received - respect is something Iran has always wanted (and at times deserved, like when they reached out to us after 9/11) from the US and on the international stage.
He even quoted a 13th Century Persian poet: "The Children of Adam are limbs of each other/Having been created of one essence" and ended by saying "Eid-eh Shoma Mobarak" Happy New Year in Farsi.
I mean it just doesn't get much better than that.
Iran's rejectionist response will only marginalize the hardliners in Iran, whereas Bush's policy united them behind a common cause, a common 'enemy.'
This argument is expressed by Iran expert Karim Sadjadpour of Carnegie Endowment for International Peace:
“What this message does is, it puts the hard-liners in a difficult position, because where the Bush administration united disparate Iranian political leaders against a common threat, what Obama is doing is accentuating the cleavages in Iran,” Mr. Sadjadpour said. “It makes the hard-liners look increasingly like they are the impediment.”
He said he seeks a relationship 'based on mutual respect' and this is a 'new day' between countries. I think the respect part of this statement will be particularly well received - respect is something Iran has always wanted (and at times deserved, like when they reached out to us after 9/11) from the US and on the international stage.
He even quoted a 13th Century Persian poet: "The Children of Adam are limbs of each other/Having been created of one essence" and ended by saying "Eid-eh Shoma Mobarak" Happy New Year in Farsi.
I mean it just doesn't get much better than that.
Iran's rejectionist response will only marginalize the hardliners in Iran, whereas Bush's policy united them behind a common cause, a common 'enemy.'
This argument is expressed by Iran expert Karim Sadjadpour of Carnegie Endowment for International Peace:
“What this message does is, it puts the hard-liners in a difficult position, because where the Bush administration united disparate Iranian political leaders against a common threat, what Obama is doing is accentuating the cleavages in Iran,” Mr. Sadjadpour said. “It makes the hard-liners look increasingly like they are the impediment.”
Friday, March 20, 2009
Juan Cole on Colbert!
Watch Juan Cole on Colbert last night! Scroll to about minute 19 or 20. Funny and informative. He is out promoting his new awesome book Engaging the Muslim World.
Kurdish elections in May??
Musings on Iraq reports that elections will be held in May in the 3 Kurdish provinces (Dohuk, Suleimaniya (wher ei am going in September!!!), Irbil) that did not have elections in January. The posting includes tallies from the 2005 elections and an analysis of PUK and KDP. (The two main Kurdish political parties.)
Afghanistan - National Solidarity Program
I love this program.
The main goal of this blog (while, I know, it gets all cloudy and muddled in tangents) is to advocate feasible, pragmatic, realistic possibilities for reform, good governance (local and state levels), and solutions to conflicts the Middle East region. (And Afghanistan/ Pakistan.)
The Center for a New American Security (CNAS) released a new policy brief about the National Solidarity Program (NSP) in Afghanistan; this program seems to me to epitomize successful reform and good governance:
You can even put in a little equation: indigenous + gradual = legitimate = success.
Here is little blurb form the brief:
"The NSP has become one of the government’s most successful rural development projects.4 Under the program, the Afghan Ministry of Rural Rehabilitation and Development (MRRD) disburses modest grants to village-level elected organizations called Community Development Councils (CDCs), which in turn identify local priorities and implement small-scale development projects.5 A limited number of domestic and international non-governmental organizations (NGOs) then assist the CDCs. Once a CDC agrees on a venture, $200 per family (with a ceiling of $60,000 per village) is distributed for project execution.6 Afghans contribute 10 percent of project costs through cash, labor, or other means.... "
What the US does is support these operations from a distance: "A renewed U.S. commitment to funding grassroots development and governance in Afghanistan must therefore accompany the influx of troops."
The main goal of this blog (while, I know, it gets all cloudy and muddled in tangents) is to advocate feasible, pragmatic, realistic possibilities for reform, good governance (local and state levels), and solutions to conflicts the Middle East region. (And Afghanistan/ Pakistan.)
The Center for a New American Security (CNAS) released a new policy brief about the National Solidarity Program (NSP) in Afghanistan; this program seems to me to epitomize successful reform and good governance:
You can even put in a little equation: indigenous + gradual = legitimate = success.
Here is little blurb form the brief:
"The NSP has become one of the government’s most successful rural development projects.4 Under the program, the Afghan Ministry of Rural Rehabilitation and Development (MRRD) disburses modest grants to village-level elected organizations called Community Development Councils (CDCs), which in turn identify local priorities and implement small-scale development projects.5 A limited number of domestic and international non-governmental organizations (NGOs) then assist the CDCs. Once a CDC agrees on a venture, $200 per family (with a ceiling of $60,000 per village) is distributed for project execution.6 Afghans contribute 10 percent of project costs through cash, labor, or other means.... "
What the US does is support these operations from a distance: "A renewed U.S. commitment to funding grassroots development and governance in Afghanistan must therefore accompany the influx of troops."
Another unevidenced strategy for Afghanistan in the form of an oped.
This is such a hollow argument: We will win bc we have to. That is basically what Lieberman and McCain argue in a Wash Post oped on Thursday.
I have many problems with their oped, like I had with Robert Kagan's article in the NYTimes last week that I wrote about.
"Let there be no doubt: The war in Afghanistan can be won. Success -- a stable, secure, self-governing Afghanistan that is not a terrorist sanctuary -- can be achieved. Just as in Iraq, there is no shortcut to success, no clever "middle way" that allows us to achieve more by doing less. A minimalist approach in Afghanistan is a recipe not for winning smarter but for losing slowly at tremendous cost in American lives, treasure and security." (Wow that sounds like the neocon argument pre and during Iraq...)
This claim (we can win) above is premised on falsities. Things improved in Iraq BECAUSE we lowered our expectations and because locals decided to fight AQI NOT because of the surge. (It's absolutely unbelievable that Lieberman and McCain write that we can't take a 'minimalist' 'reductionist' approach in Afghanistan; this is EXACTLY when we did in Iraq in the end!)
Just like with Kagans' article, I do agree wth their latter part of their oped, that it will be difficult to gather intell without boots on the ground and that civilians and moderate (accidental - see below) insurgents are not going to join us if they think we are leaving. (They all think we are going to cut and run and therefore logically sticking with the Taliban.)
Again, the problem with McCain, Lieberman, the Kagans argument that 'we must win' and 'we can win' is that they give no evidence for this and no effective strategy to reach achieve a 'win'. Everything they suggest failed in Iraq, or worked in IRaq but could never work in Aghanistan.
We need to listen to people like David Kilcullen and Andrew Exum (Abu Muqawama) and Andrew Bacevich and Tom Ricks not neocons and politicians who got us into Iraq.
This, by the way, comes from someone who really really wants to join a PRT (Provincial Reconstruction Team) (I've been applying, please hire me!!) and believes in capacity building and encouraging civic engagement. In Afghanistan you have to focus on defeating the really bad guys (non-accidental insurgents, this is where minimalists/reductionists think it should end) but then also on protecting civilians and helping them engage in legitimate local and regional structures, social, political and economic. The latter will take both military and civilian operations.
David Kilcullen argues this - for balanced engagement - in his crucial new book, Accidental Guerrilla which David Ignatius wrote about in an oped right beneath McCain and Lieberman's in the Thursday Wash Post. Mr. Ignatius is not the first to report on this book or the most weighty (no offense) - experts from various fields have commented on it and reviewed it - such as Andrew Bacevich and the Economist; Small Wars Journal and Abu Muqawama have discussed it on their sites/ blogs. It has been universally (pretty much) hailed as the the best guide to success in Afghanistan for Afghans and for the US. His basic argument is that the US needs to remove the 'accidental' (defined as those who had NO gripe or grievance with the US before the invasions) combatants from the battlefield with carrots and sticks. It is not just about giving 100000% or nothing at all. It is not black and white.
I imagine, though I have not yet read it, that Tom Ricks' new book The Gamble will also be useful.
I have many problems with their oped, like I had with Robert Kagan's article in the NYTimes last week that I wrote about.
"Let there be no doubt: The war in Afghanistan can be won. Success -- a stable, secure, self-governing Afghanistan that is not a terrorist sanctuary -- can be achieved. Just as in Iraq, there is no shortcut to success, no clever "middle way" that allows us to achieve more by doing less. A minimalist approach in Afghanistan is a recipe not for winning smarter but for losing slowly at tremendous cost in American lives, treasure and security." (Wow that sounds like the neocon argument pre and during Iraq...)
This claim (we can win) above is premised on falsities. Things improved in Iraq BECAUSE we lowered our expectations and because locals decided to fight AQI NOT because of the surge. (It's absolutely unbelievable that Lieberman and McCain write that we can't take a 'minimalist' 'reductionist' approach in Afghanistan; this is EXACTLY when we did in Iraq in the end!)
Just like with Kagans' article, I do agree wth their latter part of their oped, that it will be difficult to gather intell without boots on the ground and that civilians and moderate (accidental - see below) insurgents are not going to join us if they think we are leaving. (They all think we are going to cut and run and therefore logically sticking with the Taliban.)
Again, the problem with McCain, Lieberman, the Kagans argument that 'we must win' and 'we can win' is that they give no evidence for this and no effective strategy to reach achieve a 'win'. Everything they suggest failed in Iraq, or worked in IRaq but could never work in Aghanistan.
We need to listen to people like David Kilcullen and Andrew Exum (Abu Muqawama) and Andrew Bacevich and Tom Ricks not neocons and politicians who got us into Iraq.
This, by the way, comes from someone who really really wants to join a PRT (Provincial Reconstruction Team) (I've been applying, please hire me!!) and believes in capacity building and encouraging civic engagement. In Afghanistan you have to focus on defeating the really bad guys (non-accidental insurgents, this is where minimalists/reductionists think it should end) but then also on protecting civilians and helping them engage in legitimate local and regional structures, social, political and economic. The latter will take both military and civilian operations.
David Kilcullen argues this - for balanced engagement - in his crucial new book, Accidental Guerrilla which David Ignatius wrote about in an oped right beneath McCain and Lieberman's in the Thursday Wash Post. Mr. Ignatius is not the first to report on this book or the most weighty (no offense) - experts from various fields have commented on it and reviewed it - such as Andrew Bacevich and the Economist; Small Wars Journal and Abu Muqawama have discussed it on their sites/ blogs. It has been universally (pretty much) hailed as the the best guide to success in Afghanistan for Afghans and for the US. His basic argument is that the US needs to remove the 'accidental' (defined as those who had NO gripe or grievance with the US before the invasions) combatants from the battlefield with carrots and sticks. It is not just about giving 100000% or nothing at all. It is not black and white.
I imagine, though I have not yet read it, that Tom Ricks' new book The Gamble will also be useful.
Thursday, March 19, 2009
Iraq from an Iraqi's perspective
Great article by Anthony Shadid (author of my favorite book Legacy of the Prophet: Despots, Democrats, and the New Politics of Islam) in the Wash Post. The article captures how Iraqis are thinking today through a conversation with a schwarma stand owner.
Israeli troops speaking out on IDF conduct during war on Gaza
Watch the Al Jazeera special on Israeli troops speaking out.
IDF soldiers are speaking out against their treatment of Palestinians in Gaza. Reports filed by Israeli soldiers state killing civilians and destroying houses was allowed. Specific incidents are described in the video; articles below show quotations from reports. The IDF will be conducting an investigation and the UN Human Rights council is doing the same.
Here is an article on Haaretz - IDF probe into Gaza War.
Front page article in the NYTimes today.
Some excerpts from reports:
"The platoon commander let the family go and told them to go to the right. One mother and her two children didn't understand and went to the left, but they forgot to tell the sharpshooter on the roof they had let them go and it was okay, and he should hold his fire and he ... he did what he was supposed to, like he was following his orders." "The sharpshooter saw a woman and children approaching him, closer than the lines he was told no one should pass. He shot them straight away. In any case, what happened is that in the end he killed them. "I don't think he felt too bad about it, because after all, as far as he was concerned, he did his job according to the orders he was given. And the atmosphere in general, from what I understood from most of my men who I talked to ... I don't know how to describe it .... The lives of Palestinians, let's say, is something very, very less important than the lives of our soldiers. So as far as they are concerned they can justify it that way," he said.
"You do not get the impression from the officers that there is any logic to it, but they won't say anything. To write 'death to the Arabs' on the walls, to take family pictures and spit on them, just because you can. I think this is the main thing: To understand how much the IDF has fallen in the realm of ethics, really. It's what I'll remember the most."
IDF soldiers are speaking out against their treatment of Palestinians in Gaza. Reports filed by Israeli soldiers state killing civilians and destroying houses was allowed. Specific incidents are described in the video; articles below show quotations from reports. The IDF will be conducting an investigation and the UN Human Rights council is doing the same.
Here is an article on Haaretz - IDF probe into Gaza War.
Front page article in the NYTimes today.
Some excerpts from reports:
"The platoon commander let the family go and told them to go to the right. One mother and her two children didn't understand and went to the left, but they forgot to tell the sharpshooter on the roof they had let them go and it was okay, and he should hold his fire and he ... he did what he was supposed to, like he was following his orders." "The sharpshooter saw a woman and children approaching him, closer than the lines he was told no one should pass. He shot them straight away. In any case, what happened is that in the end he killed them. "I don't think he felt too bad about it, because after all, as far as he was concerned, he did his job according to the orders he was given. And the atmosphere in general, from what I understood from most of my men who I talked to ... I don't know how to describe it .... The lives of Palestinians, let's say, is something very, very less important than the lives of our soldiers. So as far as they are concerned they can justify it that way," he said.
"You do not get the impression from the officers that there is any logic to it, but they won't say anything. To write 'death to the Arabs' on the walls, to take family pictures and spit on them, just because you can. I think this is the main thing: To understand how much the IDF has fallen in the realm of ethics, really. It's what I'll remember the most."
Iraq Public Opinion Poll
Musing on Iraq (excellent blog on Iraq) posted the results of a very informative public opinion poll conducted in Iraq. Musing states an American Turkish company interviewed over 2,000 Iraqis, asking questions such as 'Has security gotten better or worse or stayed the same in your neighborhood?' Results are compared to those from 2004, 2006 and 2007. There are charts on the site. Seems to be some improvement and limited but increasing optimism.
Bin Laden speaks out against new ISLAMIST Somali government!
Bin Laden (OBL) urges extremist group Al Shabaab to overthrow the new legitimate indigenous and even ISLAMIC Somali president Sharif Ahmad. (I commented on this new government a few days ago.)
I think OBL is marginalizing himself - and proving to the world that there is a HUGE difference between AQ and your average 'Islamists.'
I think OBL is marginalizing himself - and proving to the world that there is a HUGE difference between AQ and your average 'Islamists.'
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
Juan Cole's new book "Engaging the Muslim World"
Outtakes from Juan Cole's timely and highly anticipated book, Engaging the Muslim World, on salon.com.
I can't wait to read this book; I hope Obama and other policy makes have pre-ordered their copies as well.
I can't wait to read this book; I hope Obama and other policy makes have pre-ordered their copies as well.
New doc - Heavy Metal in Baghdad
There is a new documentary out on an Iraqi heavy metal band, "Heavy Metal in Baghdad." The name of the band Acrassicauda means Black Scorpion in Latin. The kids have been through a lot - they were together in Iraq under Saddam and after the invasion were forced to leave because of threats. They went to Syria, then Turkey, and are now in the US.
It was shown at Toronto and Berlin Film Festivals and will be on Sundance channel on Thursday, March 19th at 9:00 PM and on the 23rd at 9:30 AM and 3:15 PM. You can watch a bit of it on the website. There are also several viewings being set up around the country and it will be released in theatres on May 23.
Terry Gross interviewed the band today on Fresh Air .
It was shown at Toronto and Berlin Film Festivals and will be on Sundance channel on Thursday, March 19th at 9:00 PM and on the 23rd at 9:30 AM and 3:15 PM. You can watch a bit of it on the website. There are also several viewings being set up around the country and it will be released in theatres on May 23.
Terry Gross interviewed the band today on Fresh Air .
Abdi Kadir Ali and I think alike. Who knew?
In a Wash Post article today on the brain drain in Somalia, there is a section on discussions exiled Somalis are having in Eastleigh, Kenya.
Abdi Kadir Ali, who earned a political science degree in London and returned to Somalia to start a think tank (ambitious) to promote dialogue, states in the article "People became so suspicious, --they'd say [to him] maybe you're a spy or you're promoting Western ideologies...So I started taking about bottom-up economics instead of of globalization. Instead of human rights I'd say 'Islamic human rights.'"
Go Abdi! You rock. And you're a smart man.
I've written posts now and again about the importance of placing the word Islam in front of democracy or feminism in the region. People are suspicious of these movements not because they see them as western, but as ideas that were forced upon them over the past half century. (Like in Somalia - when US backed Ethiopian troops came in and overthrew the Islamist government and said they were establishing a 'democracy.' Please.) See, for example, my post below on Karen Armstrong on Bill Moyers. Better yet please please please (I'm begging) watch the interview here on the website, it is the most enlightening 15 minutes ever.)
Islam is the most revered respected institution in the region. Just as extremists have used it to justify their radicalism (and it clearly has been effective), moderates and reformists should - many already are - use it to justify their struggle for peace and democracy and women's and human rights.
Abdi Kadir Ali, who earned a political science degree in London and returned to Somalia to start a think tank (ambitious) to promote dialogue, states in the article "People became so suspicious, --they'd say [to him] maybe you're a spy or you're promoting Western ideologies...So I started taking about bottom-up economics instead of of globalization. Instead of human rights I'd say 'Islamic human rights.'"
Go Abdi! You rock. And you're a smart man.
I've written posts now and again about the importance of placing the word Islam in front of democracy or feminism in the region. People are suspicious of these movements not because they see them as western, but as ideas that were forced upon them over the past half century. (Like in Somalia - when US backed Ethiopian troops came in and overthrew the Islamist government and said they were establishing a 'democracy.' Please.) See, for example, my post below on Karen Armstrong on Bill Moyers. Better yet please please please (I'm begging) watch the interview here on the website, it is the most enlightening 15 minutes ever.)
Islam is the most revered respected institution in the region. Just as extremists have used it to justify their radicalism (and it clearly has been effective), moderates and reformists should - many already are - use it to justify their struggle for peace and democracy and women's and human rights.
Collateral Damage: America's War Against Iraqi Civilians
This book, by Chris Hedges and Leila AL Arian, tell the stories of Iraq civilians through the eyes of several US soldiers who served there. It is D-pressing. I talks of the general disrespectful and discriminatory attitude toward Iraqis but also more serious acts against them. (I know not ALL soldiers are like this by the way - there are many honorable men and women serving over there.)
You all should read it (it's a quick read); here are a few memorable excerpts.
1. This excerpt speaks to the fact there was No SUNNI SHII divide, which it is my life's quest to prove to people. (See my post 'There is no Sunni Shii Divide" from last year.)
"We weren't providing what was needed,' said Captain Powers, who deployed to Iraq over two months after the invasion. "Let me put it this way. If you were in Washington and basically everyone had an AK 47, and no one had picked up sewage and waste in six months, people would get pretty upset and start having a resistance. That's really what we saw there." (p. 97)
2. We might have out coloring books and pencils at the schools during the day, " Specialist Middleton said. "But that night we were arresting their older brothers and killing their dads. So it just seemed kind of pointless." (p. 98)
3. "You go on missions and people launch RPGS at you, and you see where they come from, and you go to the house, and you ask people int he house 'Where's the guy on the roof that was hooting the RPG at us?' And they're like 'No Ali Baba, no bad guy, you know, no boom boom explosions....So it just gets frustrating...So there becomes a rift and the soldiers stop trusting the Iraqi people and start hating them, and you generally get to the point where if you have to kill someone, have have to almost dehumanize the enemy...and a lot of times it's too much power for like an eighteen year old kids straight out of high school put in a fearful war situation to be able to handle and compute, materially process..." (p. 102-103)
4. Specialist Englehart said the line between insurgents and civilians in Iraq became indistinguishable. "...It was a lot easier by having that black and white attitude toward them [Iraqis] like they're with us or against us." (p. 103)
As I said in my post below on the post article on Iraq Civilians and Forever War and Brother at War - I don't blame soldiers for their behavior toward Iraqis. (In most all cases.) I know there are good soldiers and bad soldiers, just like there are insurgents and non insurgents in Iraq. I know war is a totally different environment. I really mostly blame the policy makers for putting them in this impossible unmanageable situation totally unprepared with few resources.
You all should read it (it's a quick read); here are a few memorable excerpts.
1. This excerpt speaks to the fact there was No SUNNI SHII divide, which it is my life's quest to prove to people. (See my post 'There is no Sunni Shii Divide" from last year.)
"We weren't providing what was needed,' said Captain Powers, who deployed to Iraq over two months after the invasion. "Let me put it this way. If you were in Washington and basically everyone had an AK 47, and no one had picked up sewage and waste in six months, people would get pretty upset and start having a resistance. That's really what we saw there." (p. 97)
2. We might have out coloring books and pencils at the schools during the day, " Specialist Middleton said. "But that night we were arresting their older brothers and killing their dads. So it just seemed kind of pointless." (p. 98)
3. "You go on missions and people launch RPGS at you, and you see where they come from, and you go to the house, and you ask people int he house 'Where's the guy on the roof that was hooting the RPG at us?' And they're like 'No Ali Baba, no bad guy, you know, no boom boom explosions....So it just gets frustrating...So there becomes a rift and the soldiers stop trusting the Iraqi people and start hating them, and you generally get to the point where if you have to kill someone, have have to almost dehumanize the enemy...and a lot of times it's too much power for like an eighteen year old kids straight out of high school put in a fearful war situation to be able to handle and compute, materially process..." (p. 102-103)
4. Specialist Englehart said the line between insurgents and civilians in Iraq became indistinguishable. "...It was a lot easier by having that black and white attitude toward them [Iraqis] like they're with us or against us." (p. 103)
As I said in my post below on the post article on Iraq Civilians and Forever War and Brother at War - I don't blame soldiers for their behavior toward Iraqis. (In most all cases.) I know there are good soldiers and bad soldiers, just like there are insurgents and non insurgents in Iraq. I know war is a totally different environment. I really mostly blame the policy makers for putting them in this impossible unmanageable situation totally unprepared with few resources.
Go Home Pope; Pope to Africa, "Only Chastity can save you from AIDS"
Barf.
What an elitist, out of touch rant. I personally am disgusted by the unrealistic and hypocritical RC Church. Guess what - people are dying bc they have sex with other people. Look, they're not going to stop having sex no matter how much you tell them to.
"The traditional teaching of the church has proven to be the only fail safe way to prevent the spread of HIV AIDS." Hmmm, really? That doesn't seem to be working out too well in Africa, (or anywhere) where Catholicism (RC) and Christianity are on the rise and AIDS doesn't seem to be going anywhere. Abstinence (the traditional teaching of the church) alone has never proved to be anything but ineffective. (look at the stats) Everyone and every study from pragmatic Catholic priests on the ground to public health studies to aid organization to the World Health Organization reveals that condom usage combats the spread of HIV/ AIDS.
It is true that programs in Uganda that were effective emphasized ABC - Abstinence, Be Faithful and Use Condoms. Promoting being smart and safe is great: "Don't have sex, but if you do use a condom" works. But the latter part is the key: studies showed that the ABC program in Uganda worked because it included condoms. (This article shows the findings of doctors from Columbia's Mailmen School of Health and Johns Hopkins University.)
Most important, just because you decided not to have sex before marriage doesn't mean your partner made that decision = even though you practiced abstinence you could still get AIDS!!
I blame the Pope for the continuing spread of AIDS Africa because he could do something to stop it and does not. Blood is on his holier than thou little hands. I can't speak for God (if there is one) but I guarandamntee that Pope Abstinence IV would have a HELL of a time making his argument in front of him/her.
If the RC church advocated condoms use in Africa it could decrease the spread of AIDS. People trust the church there and it might help convince those who are usually opposed to wearing a condom wear them.
This is my favorite line: "The problem cannot be overcome by distributing condoms. It only increases the problem." Condoms = more AIDS, this is really helpful for Africans being infected everyday.
GO HOME POPE, and take your abstinence garble with you, it's hard to do this but you have left Africa worse off than when you arrived.
What an elitist, out of touch rant. I personally am disgusted by the unrealistic and hypocritical RC Church. Guess what - people are dying bc they have sex with other people. Look, they're not going to stop having sex no matter how much you tell them to.
"The traditional teaching of the church has proven to be the only fail safe way to prevent the spread of HIV AIDS." Hmmm, really? That doesn't seem to be working out too well in Africa, (or anywhere) where Catholicism (RC) and Christianity are on the rise and AIDS doesn't seem to be going anywhere. Abstinence (the traditional teaching of the church) alone has never proved to be anything but ineffective. (look at the stats) Everyone and every study from pragmatic Catholic priests on the ground to public health studies to aid organization to the World Health Organization reveals that condom usage combats the spread of HIV/ AIDS.
It is true that programs in Uganda that were effective emphasized ABC - Abstinence, Be Faithful and Use Condoms. Promoting being smart and safe is great: "Don't have sex, but if you do use a condom" works. But the latter part is the key: studies showed that the ABC program in Uganda worked because it included condoms. (This article shows the findings of doctors from Columbia's Mailmen School of Health and Johns Hopkins University.)
Most important, just because you decided not to have sex before marriage doesn't mean your partner made that decision = even though you practiced abstinence you could still get AIDS!!
I blame the Pope for the continuing spread of AIDS Africa because he could do something to stop it and does not. Blood is on his holier than thou little hands. I can't speak for God (if there is one) but I guarandamntee that Pope Abstinence IV would have a HELL of a time making his argument in front of him/her.
If the RC church advocated condoms use in Africa it could decrease the spread of AIDS. People trust the church there and it might help convince those who are usually opposed to wearing a condom wear them.
This is my favorite line: "The problem cannot be overcome by distributing condoms. It only increases the problem." Condoms = more AIDS, this is really helpful for Africans being infected everyday.
GO HOME POPE, and take your abstinence garble with you, it's hard to do this but you have left Africa worse off than when you arrived.
Monday, March 16, 2009
Pakistan: Chaudry resinstated, a win for Sharif
Zadari caved to opposition and protesters and reinstated Chief Justice Iftikar Chaudry today and lifted security restrictions on Sharif (opposition leader) and the Punjab province.
This is a win for the independent judiciary and democracy in Pakistan. But Sharif should make sure he tempers his own ambitions and puts the people of Pakistan first. Nonviolent democratic opposition is great. But at the end of the NYTimes article on Pakistan today he states, "This is a prelude to revolution." He should be careful destabilizing the country if PM Zadari is willing to cooperate and reform.
This is a win for the independent judiciary and democracy in Pakistan. But Sharif should make sure he tempers his own ambitions and puts the people of Pakistan first. Nonviolent democratic opposition is great. But at the end of the NYTimes article on Pakistan today he states, "This is a prelude to revolution." He should be careful destabilizing the country if PM Zadari is willing to cooperate and reform.
What We Don't Know About Iraq. And Filkins' Forever War. And new doc Brothers at War.
Much needed, thought provoking article by Philip Bennett today in the Wash Post Outlook section on the lack of coverage of Iraqi civilians in the media and hence our general lack of knowledge of the impact of this war on Iraqis. We think of it as 'our' war, Bennett states, America's war, and are only concerned insofar as it directly impacts American lives.
What got us into this war was this narrow minded Amerocentric thinking.
Bennett mentions Dexter Filkins' book Forever War as one exception. It really is just about the best thing to happen to this war. I read it in 4 hours. It is amazing. Put down whatever you are reading right now and read it. It captures the war on the ground and the interactions between Iraqis and soldiers and the lives of Iraqis affected by the US. I will do a separate post on it eventually. Bennett quotes my favorite line from the book: "there were always two conversations in Iraq, the one Iraqis were having with the Americans and the one they were having with themselves."
He also quotes one of my other favorite lines from George Packer's Assassins' Gate: "The war's meaning would be the sum of all the ways that all of them understood one another and the events that had thrust them together."
Other options for learning about impact of war on Iraqis:
Night Draws Near: Iraq's People in the Shadow of America's War by Anthony Shadid
Collateral Damage: America's War Against Iraq Civilians by Chris Hedges and Leila Al Arian
My Country, My Country - documentary
Iraq in Fragments - documentary
Read Human Rights Watch and International Crisis Group reports
Hard Way Home (which I posted on below about Iraq refugees - whole move can be watched on the website)
Iraq Body Count http://www.iraqbodycount.org/
I read Collateral Damage a couple weeks back. It is a depressing and devastating condemnation of how soldiers have treated Iraqis. I will write a separate post on it.
A few hours after reading the Bennett article I went to see the newly released documentary "Brothers at War" by Jake Rademacher. Interesting juxtaposition - it definitely fit Bennett's bill, another story of soldiers. But it was a moving film and one that left me conflicted.
I was reminded of the honorable and amazing sacrifice that young men and women make for this country. People serve in the military for different reasons, and many are truly out there because they believe in America, which is great. I admire their service. The kids and men in this movie were brave and funny.
My conflict arises with this admiration and the treatment of Iraqis by US soldiers during this war - the record of indiscretion and atrocities committed by US soldiers is long. In addition to these indiscretions the general attitude toward Iraqis was that they were not equals, they were dirty, violent, they were others, in some cases inhumane creatures, not fellow human beings. (See Iraq Body Count and read Collateral Damage.) I know not all soldiers think of Iraqis like this, but some do, and the Iraq population has the scars and stories to show. These are just coming out in the works listed above. They are what Bennett reveals are missing from the Iraq war narrative. And they can be implied in places in the film.
Overall I blame soldiers' indiscretions and discriminatory attitudes on policy makers sending these troops into an unplanned and unmanageable (from afar and on the ground) war. They were put into an impossible situation. Many of these were young kids with little to no college education, even those with higher education probably hadn't studied the Middle East. They had little to no knowledge of the region - its history and culture - how people there live and interact with one another, how they look at foreigners, especially westerners, especially those in uniform with guns.
In addition to lacking knowledge the region, I think age was an issue. A 30 year is going to have FAR better perspective (social skills) on how to treat others, especially those he or she doesn't understand, than a 19 year old. I saw these kinds of issues when I was a Peace Corps volunteer in Morocco - in general (not always) younger volunteers there just didn't get how to culturally integrate, their insecurities due to inexperience and youth made them aggressive and unwilling to learn from others. I can't imagine adding a gun and uniform into this equation. That really scares me. This is something I have thought about hundreds of times over the past few years.
Some of these issues came out in the movie to an extent. Isaac, the older brother seemed calm and collected and rational, thoughtful and tempered. Joe, the younger brother, talked during the film about loving to kick down doors, the adrenalin rush and excitement of war. This was a bit disturbing. Maybe he didn't mean it, I don't know. Because when you are that young maybe you don't think about or care about WHOSE door you are blasting down. (I am sure there they are older soldiers who don't think about that either. I am also sure there are soldiers who don't love breaking down doors.) Also soldiers in the film discussed getting kills as a sniper, and that when one of their own is shot the urge to fire indiscriminately.
This is the type of behavior that drives some of the kids over there - it is why Joe says he goes - and that is a problem. It is why Iraqis don't like us. Maybe some of these attitudes changed as of late, after Patraeus' decision to win over the population - to protect them. But I don't know, I am fairly pessimistic, we think they like us because we build a hospital here and there - and that stuff is going on and is great - but it doesn't make up for the fact that bc of our invasion, 5 of their family members are dead.
What got us into this war was this narrow minded Amerocentric thinking.
Bennett mentions Dexter Filkins' book Forever War as one exception. It really is just about the best thing to happen to this war. I read it in 4 hours. It is amazing. Put down whatever you are reading right now and read it. It captures the war on the ground and the interactions between Iraqis and soldiers and the lives of Iraqis affected by the US. I will do a separate post on it eventually. Bennett quotes my favorite line from the book: "there were always two conversations in Iraq, the one Iraqis were having with the Americans and the one they were having with themselves."
He also quotes one of my other favorite lines from George Packer's Assassins' Gate: "The war's meaning would be the sum of all the ways that all of them understood one another and the events that had thrust them together."
Other options for learning about impact of war on Iraqis:
Night Draws Near: Iraq's People in the Shadow of America's War by Anthony Shadid
Collateral Damage: America's War Against Iraq Civilians by Chris Hedges and Leila Al Arian
My Country, My Country - documentary
Iraq in Fragments - documentary
Read Human Rights Watch and International Crisis Group reports
Hard Way Home (which I posted on below about Iraq refugees - whole move can be watched on the website)
Iraq Body Count http://www.iraqbodycount.org/
I read Collateral Damage a couple weeks back. It is a depressing and devastating condemnation of how soldiers have treated Iraqis. I will write a separate post on it.
A few hours after reading the Bennett article I went to see the newly released documentary "Brothers at War" by Jake Rademacher. Interesting juxtaposition - it definitely fit Bennett's bill, another story of soldiers. But it was a moving film and one that left me conflicted.
I was reminded of the honorable and amazing sacrifice that young men and women make for this country. People serve in the military for different reasons, and many are truly out there because they believe in America, which is great. I admire their service. The kids and men in this movie were brave and funny.
My conflict arises with this admiration and the treatment of Iraqis by US soldiers during this war - the record of indiscretion and atrocities committed by US soldiers is long. In addition to these indiscretions the general attitude toward Iraqis was that they were not equals, they were dirty, violent, they were others, in some cases inhumane creatures, not fellow human beings. (See Iraq Body Count and read Collateral Damage.) I know not all soldiers think of Iraqis like this, but some do, and the Iraq population has the scars and stories to show. These are just coming out in the works listed above. They are what Bennett reveals are missing from the Iraq war narrative. And they can be implied in places in the film.
Overall I blame soldiers' indiscretions and discriminatory attitudes on policy makers sending these troops into an unplanned and unmanageable (from afar and on the ground) war. They were put into an impossible situation. Many of these were young kids with little to no college education, even those with higher education probably hadn't studied the Middle East. They had little to no knowledge of the region - its history and culture - how people there live and interact with one another, how they look at foreigners, especially westerners, especially those in uniform with guns.
In addition to lacking knowledge the region, I think age was an issue. A 30 year is going to have FAR better perspective (social skills) on how to treat others, especially those he or she doesn't understand, than a 19 year old. I saw these kinds of issues when I was a Peace Corps volunteer in Morocco - in general (not always) younger volunteers there just didn't get how to culturally integrate, their insecurities due to inexperience and youth made them aggressive and unwilling to learn from others. I can't imagine adding a gun and uniform into this equation. That really scares me. This is something I have thought about hundreds of times over the past few years.
Some of these issues came out in the movie to an extent. Isaac, the older brother seemed calm and collected and rational, thoughtful and tempered. Joe, the younger brother, talked during the film about loving to kick down doors, the adrenalin rush and excitement of war. This was a bit disturbing. Maybe he didn't mean it, I don't know. Because when you are that young maybe you don't think about or care about WHOSE door you are blasting down. (I am sure there they are older soldiers who don't think about that either. I am also sure there are soldiers who don't love breaking down doors.) Also soldiers in the film discussed getting kills as a sniper, and that when one of their own is shot the urge to fire indiscriminately.
This is the type of behavior that drives some of the kids over there - it is why Joe says he goes - and that is a problem. It is why Iraqis don't like us. Maybe some of these attitudes changed as of late, after Patraeus' decision to win over the population - to protect them. But I don't know, I am fairly pessimistic, we think they like us because we build a hospital here and there - and that stuff is going on and is great - but it doesn't make up for the fact that bc of our invasion, 5 of their family members are dead.
ICRC detainee reports
I don't know how the NYTimes and others got their hands on these ICRC (International Committee of the Red Cross) reports because usually they are confidential - this factor permits the ICRC to do its work - they visit detainees in the deepest darkest corners of the world because they do not publicize their reports.
These stories are the firsthand account from Abu Zubaydah, Walid bin Attash and Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. They are indeed telling in their consistency and brutality.
These stories are the firsthand account from Abu Zubaydah, Walid bin Attash and Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. They are indeed telling in their consistency and brutality.
Sunday, March 15, 2009
SIGIR report - Hard Lessons
Hard Lessons, the report on pre war planning and reconstruction efforts from the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction (SIGIR) Stuart Bowen, has been released. You can download it here on the SIGIR website or purchase a hardcopy.
This page has all of the reports released to date by the SIGIR.
This page has all of the reports released to date by the SIGIR.
Saturday, March 14, 2009
Is Zadari sleeping with the Iranians?
Juan Cole posted an interesting piece (scroll down to "US urges freedom...Zadari rejects...") about Zadari potentially being the the sack with the Iranians. He just returned from a trip there, Bhutto's family was Shii and people suspect he is too, and Sharif is supported by Saudi. Perfect.
New Documentary on Iraqi Refugees
"Hard Way Home" is a new documentary on Iraq refugees that follows the stories of three families, you can watch it on their website!!!, which also has information on the Iraqi refugee situation.
The documentary is so amazing I can't even mention all the parts...
One important stat is I cannot not mention though is that 1 of every 3 marriages in Iraq was 'mixed' meaning between Sunni and Shii, WOW, great evidence that there was sectarian hatred pre invasion. Iraqis have NEVER thought of themselves as Sunni and Shii before the security vacuum post invasion. (See one of my first posts on this blog for more about this...)
I love this documentary bc the commentator knows his s--t, like when he says "The NEW sectarian hatred cuts to the heart of Iraqi society..." (Bc of all the mixed marriages) Thank you!
The documentary is so amazing I can't even mention all the parts...
One important stat is I cannot not mention though is that 1 of every 3 marriages in Iraq was 'mixed' meaning between Sunni and Shii, WOW, great evidence that there was sectarian hatred pre invasion. Iraqis have NEVER thought of themselves as Sunni and Shii before the security vacuum post invasion. (See one of my first posts on this blog for more about this...)
I love this documentary bc the commentator knows his s--t, like when he says "The NEW sectarian hatred cuts to the heart of Iraqi society..." (Bc of all the mixed marriages) Thank you!
Wash Post article on Pakistani Opposition
Wash Post article on understanding the many different motivations within the Pakistani opposition.
Muslim activist story on This American Life
Interesting argument voiced today on This American Life (second story) on NPR - story on a Muslim activist in the US who was falsely labeled an extremist with terrorist ties. The story proves the accusation to be false, then makes a very interesting point:
"People here cannot imagine that there is a moderate Muslim...Muslims active in the US political community are immediately named extremists and terrorists."
"People here cannot imagine that there is a moderate Muslim...Muslims active in the US political community are immediately named extremists and terrorists."
Somalia...Hope for an Islamic democracy? Moderate Islamic rule?
I think Somalia will be an interesting place to watch with newly elected president and moderate Islamist leader Sharif Ahmad in office.
Here is a Wash Post article about it. I am looking for others.
He might be one of the 'good' Islamists, and is already starting to confront - through violence and diplomacy and reconciliation - the more extremist Shabaab movement.
We'll see - he has stated that democracy and Islam are NOT incompatible and the women can serve in Parliament. He has the respect of Somali cleric which the past secular leader did not.
As I have said before, Islam, gives democratic movements in the ME legitimacy. A democratic party has zilch standing (as it is usually associated with Western imperialism, force and imposition, more so after Iraq) but an Islamic democratic party, wooohoo, now we're getting somewhere.
Here is a Wash Post article about it. I am looking for others.
He might be one of the 'good' Islamists, and is already starting to confront - through violence and diplomacy and reconciliation - the more extremist Shabaab movement.
We'll see - he has stated that democracy and Islam are NOT incompatible and the women can serve in Parliament. He has the respect of Somali cleric which the past secular leader did not.
As I have said before, Islam, gives democratic movements in the ME legitimacy. A democratic party has zilch standing (as it is usually associated with Western imperialism, force and imposition, more so after Iraq) but an Islamic democratic party, wooohoo, now we're getting somewhere.
Friday, March 13, 2009
Karen Armstrong on Bill Moyers "in this context secluarism doesn't seem the benign privilege that it has been for you and me it feels like an assault"
Everyone interested in understanding Islam and Muslims distaste for what we think of as benevolent Western foreign policies should listen to Karen Armstrong on Bill Moyers tonight. MOST OF ALL LISTEN TO HER LAST PORTION OF THE TALK!! In which she discusses secularism (and I think implies democracy) in the Middle East.
She does an amazing job of explaining that many Muslims do not take to secularism and democracy bc it has always been imposed violently and suddenly today and throughout history. Usually what happens on the ground there is not democracy but dictators talking about democracy (Nasser, Mubarak.)
Here are some quotes - some words might be slightly off.
"They have experience secularism as an assault."
"We had the chance for it (secularism, modernism, democracy) to trickle down slowly...It was forced upon them."
She gave examples of Ataturk's forceful sudden removal of Islam (still has some negative implications on Turkey today), how the Shah's troops tore off women's veils and ripped them to pieces and shot the peaceful demonstrators at the mosque before the revolution.
MOST IMPORTANTLY recounts how Sunni extremism was born in the context of torture in Egyptian prisons, where men were tortured and executed for handing out pamphlets (ie Qtub)...so this is going on, from his jail cell these men heard Nasser vow to secularize Egypt...secularism didn't seem so great...
"...in this context secularism doesn't seem the benign privilege that it has been for you and me it feels like an assault..." (I love this line.)
What do Muslims like about West? Freedom
What do they fear about West? Disrespect for Islam. When they hear uneducated comments on Islam. (See my pose on the forum held at AU on Islam and the Media..never any experts on Islam included on news programs on Islam...ridiculous.)
Where is the burden?
We have our part. They have their own.
Survey 35 Muslim countries: Just 7% said 9/11 justified, for political reasons.
She does an amazing job of explaining that many Muslims do not take to secularism and democracy bc it has always been imposed violently and suddenly today and throughout history. Usually what happens on the ground there is not democracy but dictators talking about democracy (Nasser, Mubarak.)
Here are some quotes - some words might be slightly off.
"They have experience secularism as an assault."
"We had the chance for it (secularism, modernism, democracy) to trickle down slowly...It was forced upon them."
She gave examples of Ataturk's forceful sudden removal of Islam (still has some negative implications on Turkey today), how the Shah's troops tore off women's veils and ripped them to pieces and shot the peaceful demonstrators at the mosque before the revolution.
MOST IMPORTANTLY recounts how Sunni extremism was born in the context of torture in Egyptian prisons, where men were tortured and executed for handing out pamphlets (ie Qtub)...so this is going on, from his jail cell these men heard Nasser vow to secularize Egypt...secularism didn't seem so great...
"...in this context secularism doesn't seem the benign privilege that it has been for you and me it feels like an assault..." (I love this line.)
What do Muslims like about West? Freedom
What do they fear about West? Disrespect for Islam. When they hear uneducated comments on Islam. (See my pose on the forum held at AU on Islam and the Media..never any experts on Islam included on news programs on Islam...ridiculous.)
Where is the burden?
We have our part. They have their own.
Survey 35 Muslim countries: Just 7% said 9/11 justified, for political reasons.
Talk about a surge.
There has been a ton of articles on what to do about Afghanistan lately.
One I already wrote on (see below) - last weekend's article on Talking to the Taliban in Week in Review section of NYTimes by Helene Cooper.
A VERY CONVINCING argument in an op ed NYTimes, In Afghanistan Less Can Be More about an ex CIA officer, Bill Lair, who worked with local Laotians to fight communist insurgents there. He states that training these indigenous actors in Laos was effective in fighting insurgents; when the US stopped doing it there - and started sending thousands of troops and a bombing campaign - they lost Laos.
As US Weighs Taliban Negotiations, Afghans are Already Talking
Oped #1 today by Leslie Gelb (no intro needed, pres CFR) How to Leave Afghanistan in NYTimes.
Oped #2 today by Robert Kagan (no intro needed, neocon patriot extraordinaire, AEI) and Max Boot (CFR) and Kimberly Kagan How to Surge the Taliban in NYTimes today.
As per the last two I mention (Gelb and Kagan) I found Robert Kagan (arrogant neocon that he is, totally blinded by his unrealistic faith in the US power overseas and lacking in understanding and knowledge about facts on the ground and the history of other peoples, or at least unwilling to consider that it should play a role in our policies) profound.
Mostly bc I disagreed with many of his points: I mean the most glaring deficiency being in his third paragraph and the basis of his whole article: WOW he went to Afghanistan on a tour organized by Patraeus and every Afghan he met said they were winning!! Well then they must be. Horrendous evidence. You've got to be kidding.
Also he aimlessly advocates more detentions. COME ON. I mean, yes, detain the bad people but extended detentions turn local public opinion against us.
Aslo he annunciates unrealistic idealistic arrogant neocon line even though every piece of historical and expert evidence proves this wrong: "There is now question that we can succeed against these (Taliban) weaker foes." MOST importantly he gives NO evidence for this claim. He might want to ask the USSR about that, oh, or ANY EXPERT in the field, liberal or conservative. And the 'weaker foe', I wouldn't call the Taliban (including all its tentacles) weak.
Also he cites recent polls that Afghans don't like the Taliban - but these polls would have been the same when the Taliban were in power in the 90s. Yes, Afghans hate the Taliban, and this is a great, hopeful stat, but that unfortunately does not mean they cannot win.
But also bc a couple points he made poke legitimate holes in Gelb and others' argument about pulling out. If there are only sparsely placed US troops, how do we get intelligence for drone strikes, Kagan questions. We only get intell now bc we get it and then protect the civilians and wouldn't have sufficient troops to do that if we pull back.
I also found it interesting, to say the least, that you have a conservative (albeit a neocon which means he is kind of like an aggressive bleeding heart liberal when it comes to international interventionism) for nation building in Afghanistan - tons of troops and econ devel and helping their justice system and then a liberal, Gelb, saying get the F out of there!
Gelb lies out an evidenced argument for withdrawal - we can't win - and a strong 4 point plan for leaving Afghanistan - scale back, limit goals. This is why we are doing better in Iraq now - bc we scaled back goals. Biggest lie ever told that we are 'winning in Iraq bc of the surge' we are doing better in terms of US Public opinion bc we SIGNIFICANTLY lowered our goals there. Anyway, I don't have as much analysis of this one right now that I did Kagan's.
**Also things turned in Iraq NOT because of the US troop surge, but bc locals decided to turn against AQI - this is what needs to happen in Afghanistan en masse, Pashtun tribes rejecting the Taliban.
(Listen to Bing West's (retired USMC, been to Iraq 17 times, author of The Strongest Tribe)lecture at Middle East Institute on this.)
One I already wrote on (see below) - last weekend's article on Talking to the Taliban in Week in Review section of NYTimes by Helene Cooper.
A VERY CONVINCING argument in an op ed NYTimes, In Afghanistan Less Can Be More about an ex CIA officer, Bill Lair, who worked with local Laotians to fight communist insurgents there. He states that training these indigenous actors in Laos was effective in fighting insurgents; when the US stopped doing it there - and started sending thousands of troops and a bombing campaign - they lost Laos.
As US Weighs Taliban Negotiations, Afghans are Already Talking
Oped #1 today by Leslie Gelb (no intro needed, pres CFR) How to Leave Afghanistan in NYTimes.
Oped #2 today by Robert Kagan (no intro needed, neocon patriot extraordinaire, AEI) and Max Boot (CFR) and Kimberly Kagan How to Surge the Taliban in NYTimes today.
As per the last two I mention (Gelb and Kagan) I found Robert Kagan (arrogant neocon that he is, totally blinded by his unrealistic faith in the US power overseas and lacking in understanding and knowledge about facts on the ground and the history of other peoples, or at least unwilling to consider that it should play a role in our policies) profound.
Mostly bc I disagreed with many of his points: I mean the most glaring deficiency being in his third paragraph and the basis of his whole article: WOW he went to Afghanistan on a tour organized by Patraeus and every Afghan he met said they were winning!! Well then they must be. Horrendous evidence. You've got to be kidding.
Also he aimlessly advocates more detentions. COME ON. I mean, yes, detain the bad people but extended detentions turn local public opinion against us.
Aslo he annunciates unrealistic idealistic arrogant neocon line even though every piece of historical and expert evidence proves this wrong: "There is now question that we can succeed against these (Taliban) weaker foes." MOST importantly he gives NO evidence for this claim. He might want to ask the USSR about that, oh, or ANY EXPERT in the field, liberal or conservative. And the 'weaker foe', I wouldn't call the Taliban (including all its tentacles) weak.
Also he cites recent polls that Afghans don't like the Taliban - but these polls would have been the same when the Taliban were in power in the 90s. Yes, Afghans hate the Taliban, and this is a great, hopeful stat, but that unfortunately does not mean they cannot win.
But also bc a couple points he made poke legitimate holes in Gelb and others' argument about pulling out. If there are only sparsely placed US troops, how do we get intelligence for drone strikes, Kagan questions. We only get intell now bc we get it and then protect the civilians and wouldn't have sufficient troops to do that if we pull back.
I also found it interesting, to say the least, that you have a conservative (albeit a neocon which means he is kind of like an aggressive bleeding heart liberal when it comes to international interventionism) for nation building in Afghanistan - tons of troops and econ devel and helping their justice system and then a liberal, Gelb, saying get the F out of there!
Gelb lies out an evidenced argument for withdrawal - we can't win - and a strong 4 point plan for leaving Afghanistan - scale back, limit goals. This is why we are doing better in Iraq now - bc we scaled back goals. Biggest lie ever told that we are 'winning in Iraq bc of the surge' we are doing better in terms of US Public opinion bc we SIGNIFICANTLY lowered our goals there. Anyway, I don't have as much analysis of this one right now that I did Kagan's.
**Also things turned in Iraq NOT because of the US troop surge, but bc locals decided to turn against AQI - this is what needs to happen in Afghanistan en masse, Pashtun tribes rejecting the Taliban.
(Listen to Bing West's (retired USMC, been to Iraq 17 times, author of The Strongest Tribe)lecture at Middle East Institute on this.)
Thursday, March 12, 2009
Zadari = Musharraf? (= Dictator)
Arrests of opposition party members (Nawaz Sharif's Pakistan Muslim League) and other assorted political activists and lawyers, those who support independent judiciary and the reinstatement of Iftikar Chaudry (the ex Supreme Court Justice) continue in Pakistan.
Juan Cole also had an extremely informative posting (scroll down) yesterday on the ins and outs and history of Pakistan regional politics - allegiances and alliances. He argued (predicted) that the real fight in Pakistan will be between Nawaz Sharif (Pakistan Muslim League) and PM Ali Zadari (Pakistan People's Party), not the govt and the Taliban.
Nawaz Sharif, political rival, and his brother, minister of Punjab province, were banned from running for office and holding positions in the government. Their provinces were placed under emergency rule - no gatherings of over 4 persons. Acts like these from Zadari remind people of Musharraf and rightly so. (Musharraf arrested hundreds of lawyers and democracy advocates and declared emergency rule.) Hopefully Obama will remind not us of Bush and continue to hail Zadari as a 'beacon of democracy in the region.'
Economist book review
Review of David Kilcullen (counter insurgency master) new book Accidental Guerrilla and Tom Ricks (Wash Post military correspondent) The Gamble. Ricks' book is on the surge; he is also author of Fiasco, on the Iraq war 'planning'.
http://www.economist.com/books/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13272076
http://www.economist.com/books/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13272076
Louise Richardson on political violence
Story of ex Harvard government professor Lousie Richardson, the new head of St Andrews, in Financial Times.
She is a terrorism expert and wrote one of the, if not the, definitive book on terrorism, What Terroists Want.
She is a terrorism expert and wrote one of the, if not the, definitive book on terrorism, What Terroists Want.
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
Palestinan natural resources
Yesh Din op ed in Jerusalem Post on Israeli expropriation of Palestinian natural resources (rock) in West Bank that could be the building blocks (ha ha) but seriously of the future state (natural resources = economic viability)
This echos the article in the NYTimes a few days back that I wrote about - see post below.
This echos the article in the NYTimes a few days back that I wrote about - see post below.
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
Turkey - Good work on Kurds what about the Armenians
Turkey seems to be kind of sort of trying to make amends with Kurds....coming to terms with the atrocities it committed aginst them in the 80s and 90s.
But not so much with the Armeninas; the Turkish State still denies the genocide happened, saying 'bloody things occurr during war' but it will be more difficult after Talat Pasha's (orchestrator of genocide) wife passed on primary documents about the massive decrease (disappearence) of Armenian population during WWI just before she died.
(Article in NYTimes)
But not so much with the Armeninas; the Turkish State still denies the genocide happened, saying 'bloody things occurr during war' but it will be more difficult after Talat Pasha's (orchestrator of genocide) wife passed on primary documents about the massive decrease (disappearence) of Armenian population during WWI just before she died.
(Article in NYTimes)
Encouraging Indigenous Participation: The Best Chance for Reform in the Middle East
I will occasionally update this post. It is a work in progress.
In my humble opinion, civil society building, realistic not idealistic, unobtrusive not aggressive, is the the way foreigners can help reform in the Middle East. Encouraging (building frameworks) not enforcing.
Only through civic engagement (building relations with leaders, political party building, etc) will will governing structures be legitimate - the KEY attribute of a government. (This is a point espoused by many academics and activists.)
Through civic engagement, locals can then demand services - jobs, social - their community needs.
Encouraging indigenous participation is where its at.
Bets organizations working on this:
National Democratic Institute
Freedom House
Project on Middle East Democracy
America's Development Foundation
In my humble opinion, civil society building, realistic not idealistic, unobtrusive not aggressive, is the the way foreigners can help reform in the Middle East. Encouraging (building frameworks) not enforcing.
Only through civic engagement (building relations with leaders, political party building, etc) will will governing structures be legitimate - the KEY attribute of a government. (This is a point espoused by many academics and activists.)
Through civic engagement, locals can then demand services - jobs, social - their community needs.
Encouraging indigenous participation is where its at.
Bets organizations working on this:
National Democratic Institute
Freedom House
Project on Middle East Democracy
America's Development Foundation
Women in the Middle East
I have written a post on this before (see one from a while back on Fatima Mernissi, Islamic Feminism, Women in Islam Arab culture/ Middle East), but this article on the appointment of a female Saudi education minister and the Freedom House (great org that promotes democracy, governance, civil society building in the region) study that shows small gains int he past few years in the Christian Science Monitor, reminded me of the importance of understanding and working to improve the position of women in the region.
Women are not oppressed in the Middle East bc of religion or bc of a certain ethnic of cultural group. They are oppressed bc they are no jobs, little chance for political expression, little access to effective lasting education (not everywhere of course), dictators, and lastly bc of a still existing taint on women's rights as 'western' and therefore imperialist and unwelcome.
Women are not oppressed in the Middle East bc of religion or bc of a certain ethnic of cultural group. They are oppressed bc they are no jobs, little chance for political expression, little access to effective lasting education (not everywhere of course), dictators, and lastly bc of a still existing taint on women's rights as 'western' and therefore imperialist and unwelcome.
Open letter to Obama on democracy in the Arab World
This is the best news I have read in a WHILE!
Freedom House reports that more than 80 activists and scholars of the region are calling on Obama not to abandon democracy building via an open letter to the President issued this afternoon at the Press Club.
It is an amazing (4 page long) list of signatures, really a who's who in Middle East everything and anything - individuals from ALL fields: policy groups, activist orgs, academics, journalists, state dept officials (Morton Halperin, former dir of policy planning). Very comprehensive.
Among them are Saad Eddin Ibrahim, who spoke in the Fall at a POMED (Project on Middle East Democracy) panel at GWU with academic activist Marc Lynch. While he was here he also lobbied congress to attach reform requirements to funding that goes states like Egypt, his home country where he (a democracy advocate) was imprisoned for many years.
POMED, by the way, is one of the best organizations out there advocating serious democratic reform in the region.
Freedom House reports that more than 80 activists and scholars of the region are calling on Obama not to abandon democracy building via an open letter to the President issued this afternoon at the Press Club.
It is an amazing (4 page long) list of signatures, really a who's who in Middle East everything and anything - individuals from ALL fields: policy groups, activist orgs, academics, journalists, state dept officials (Morton Halperin, former dir of policy planning). Very comprehensive.
Among them are Saad Eddin Ibrahim, who spoke in the Fall at a POMED (Project on Middle East Democracy) panel at GWU with academic activist Marc Lynch. While he was here he also lobbied congress to attach reform requirements to funding that goes states like Egypt, his home country where he (a democracy advocate) was imprisoned for many years.
POMED, by the way, is one of the best organizations out there advocating serious democratic reform in the region.
Obama Backs Teacher Merit Pay
Reports the Wash Post . Merit based pay is a great idea for teachers in my opinion. (I have taught for two years.)
Article Obama Doctrine
Richard Cohen op ed in Wash Post on the Obama Doctrine - which msut be a realistic, not a moral, policy toward the ME
I don't think you have to abandon morality with realism though.
I take issue with the last line of this paragraph:
"For the most part, this is good. Even George Bush was starting to realize that he had overreached, overdreamed, underthought and underanalyzed. The war in Iraq is coming up on its seventh year, and the one in Afghanistan has lasted even longer. The Taliban have gone and come, and the democracy movement in the Middle East has withered from an utter lack of enthusiasm, not to mention a lack of democratic leaders."
BS. There are democratic leaders in the Middle East, we just don't support them. Read Anthony Shadid's Legacy of the Prophet: Depots, Democrats and New Politics of Islam for starters. There are groups in Morocco, Iran, Egypt especially, Jordan, Iraq, Syria (to an extent - all in jail and on trial) and Lebanon.
We should not give up on democracy promotion in the region - just the way that Bush did it!
I don't think you have to abandon morality with realism though.
I take issue with the last line of this paragraph:
"For the most part, this is good. Even George Bush was starting to realize that he had overreached, overdreamed, underthought and underanalyzed. The war in Iraq is coming up on its seventh year, and the one in Afghanistan has lasted even longer. The Taliban have gone and come, and the democracy movement in the Middle East has withered from an utter lack of enthusiasm, not to mention a lack of democratic leaders."
BS. There are democratic leaders in the Middle East, we just don't support them. Read Anthony Shadid's Legacy of the Prophet: Depots, Democrats and New Politics of Islam for starters. There are groups in Morocco, Iran, Egypt especially, Jordan, Iraq, Syria (to an extent - all in jail and on trial) and Lebanon.
We should not give up on democracy promotion in the region - just the way that Bush did it!
Surge of attacks in Iraq
Particularly bad times in Iraq...
Today - Attack on tribal reconciliation conference in Abu Ghraib district kills 33, wounds 46
Sinday - Suicide bomber killed 28 police recruits in Diyala Sunday
Last Thursday a bomb killed 10 at a cattle market in Babel province
Today - Attack on tribal reconciliation conference in Abu Ghraib district kills 33, wounds 46
Sinday - Suicide bomber killed 28 police recruits in Diyala Sunday
Last Thursday a bomb killed 10 at a cattle market in Babel province
Monday, March 9, 2009
Pic from Morocco (where I was in the Peace Corps)
I just found this picture in my old Morocco albums from Peace Corps days and thought I'd post it. Women work hard in the Middle East. (I am generalizing a bit here I know, I know every village in the region or even in Morocco isn't like my village.) But in Morocco I was among the funniest, smartest, hardest working women I've ever met. It gives me a better perspective on how to discuss the position of women in the region. These are wonderfully powerful women who do great things. More on this later. 
Where's the Muslim Outrage Over Darfur???
Thank you Ahmet Alibasic! This is exactly what I've been trying to say!
Sudaese President Omar Bashir has killed hundred of thousands of Muslims in Darfur, sending more to refugee camps, even burning mosques!
Great op-ed in WSJ from a Bosnian Muslim on this.
Again, it's not about religion.
Sudaese President Omar Bashir has killed hundred of thousands of Muslims in Darfur, sending more to refugee camps, even burning mosques!
Great op-ed in WSJ from a Bosnian Muslim on this.
Again, it's not about religion.
Other things I care about that I am going to post about.
Being a DC native living in DC for the time being, there are some other local and national issues I care about that I am going to start posting about:
(I love how I wrote things like this as if people actually read my blog. Sad isn't it.)
1. The ineffective prison system in this country.
- We spend an average $29,000 on a prisoner a year
- 1 in every 31 adults (7.3 million Americans) is in jail
- Rehabilitation is a much more effective policy than imprisonment which hardens criminals
Here is the first article on this topic: Pew study in NYTimes "Study Shows High Cost of Criminal Corrections"
2. Public School/ Education reform, DC's successful charter schools and Michelle Rhee
3. DC Restaurants bc I am a connoisseur
4. This list might grow
(I love how I wrote things like this as if people actually read my blog. Sad isn't it.)
1. The ineffective prison system in this country.
- We spend an average $29,000 on a prisoner a year
- 1 in every 31 adults (7.3 million Americans) is in jail
- Rehabilitation is a much more effective policy than imprisonment which hardens criminals
Here is the first article on this topic: Pew study in NYTimes "Study Shows High Cost of Criminal Corrections"
2. Public School/ Education reform, DC's successful charter schools and Michelle Rhee
3. DC Restaurants bc I am a connoisseur
4. This list might grow
Article - WSJ on Islam and Peace
Islam Needs to Prove It's a Religion of Peace in WSJ
Tawfiq Hamid (a former member of an Islamist terrorist group, is an Islamic reformer and senior fellow at the Potomac Institute for Policy Studies) calls on Islamic scholars to stop teaching about violent practices in Islam and to speak out against traditional practices with no place in this world.
He argues that..."we [Muslims] must blame the leading Islamic scholars for having failed to produce an authoritative book on Islamic jurisprudence that is accepted in the Islamic world and unambiguously rejects these violent teachings."
He reminds us that stoning of women exists in the old testament and in the Sunna (Islamic tradition), the difference being that Jewish scholars have spoken out successfully against the practice, discontinued long ago, while Muslims have not.
WHY won't many Muslims give up these traditions? I think one answer is, broadly speaking, that they feel under threat - that their religion is under threat by local dictators and international actors. This pressure - be it real or perceived - must be relieved.
Tawfiq Hamid (a former member of an Islamist terrorist group, is an Islamic reformer and senior fellow at the Potomac Institute for Policy Studies) calls on Islamic scholars to stop teaching about violent practices in Islam and to speak out against traditional practices with no place in this world.
He argues that..."we [Muslims] must blame the leading Islamic scholars for having failed to produce an authoritative book on Islamic jurisprudence that is accepted in the Islamic world and unambiguously rejects these violent teachings."
He reminds us that stoning of women exists in the old testament and in the Sunna (Islamic tradition), the difference being that Jewish scholars have spoken out successfully against the practice, discontinued long ago, while Muslims have not.
WHY won't many Muslims give up these traditions? I think one answer is, broadly speaking, that they feel under threat - that their religion is under threat by local dictators and international actors. This pressure - be it real or perceived - must be relieved.
Dealing with Hamas and Hizbullah
Article in Time - "Dealing With Hamas: Can the US Avoid It?"
Roger Cohen op-ed in NYTimes - "Middle East Reality Check"
Cohen urges the govt to follow Britain's lead and open talks with Hezbollah's political wing. The same should be done with Hamas' political wing. Both organizations have moderate political players (and provide social services and have major constituencies that support them...) Coopt coopt coopt.
It is important to see Hezbollah and Hamas for what they really are - mutifaceted organization with a militant wings fighting an occupation. (See Olivier Roy post below.)
He also reminds us that as long as Palestinians are divided peace efforts will fail.
Cohen mentions a most important point: "The 1988 Hamas Charter is vile, but I think it’s wrong to get hung up on the prior recognition of Israel issue. Perhaps Hamas is sincere in its calls for Israel’s disappearance — although it has offered a decades-long truce — but then it’s also possible that Israel in reality has no desire to see a Palestinian state."
Hamas could very well give up its advocacy of the destruction of the state of Israel if it is allowed at the table - they have already offered to do so in the past, to Jimmy Carter among others.
Sure Hamas officials say dumb, incendiary crap - but most important is - why do they use such rhetoric? (Frustrations of occupation and their treatment by international community. Shoot, if I won an election and was then cut off by the world I'd be pissed too.) AND, can the US and Israel be the bigger person (act like legitimate countries) and look beyond this hollow rhetoric?
Cohen also makes a nice point about war in Gaza:
"At this vast human, material and moral price, Israel achieved almost nothing beyond damage to its image throughout the world. Israel has the right to hit back when attacked, but any response should be proportional and governed by sober political calculation. The Gaza war was a travesty; I have never previously felt so shamed by Israel’s actions. No wonder Hamas and Hezbollah are seen throughout the Arab world as legitimate resistance movements."
Roger Cohen op-ed in NYTimes - "Middle East Reality Check"
Cohen urges the govt to follow Britain's lead and open talks with Hezbollah's political wing. The same should be done with Hamas' political wing. Both organizations have moderate political players (and provide social services and have major constituencies that support them...) Coopt coopt coopt.
It is important to see Hezbollah and Hamas for what they really are - mutifaceted organization with a militant wings fighting an occupation. (See Olivier Roy post below.)
He also reminds us that as long as Palestinians are divided peace efforts will fail.
Cohen mentions a most important point: "The 1988 Hamas Charter is vile, but I think it’s wrong to get hung up on the prior recognition of Israel issue. Perhaps Hamas is sincere in its calls for Israel’s disappearance — although it has offered a decades-long truce — but then it’s also possible that Israel in reality has no desire to see a Palestinian state."
Hamas could very well give up its advocacy of the destruction of the state of Israel if it is allowed at the table - they have already offered to do so in the past, to Jimmy Carter among others.
Sure Hamas officials say dumb, incendiary crap - but most important is - why do they use such rhetoric? (Frustrations of occupation and their treatment by international community. Shoot, if I won an election and was then cut off by the world I'd be pissed too.) AND, can the US and Israel be the bigger person (act like legitimate countries) and look beyond this hollow rhetoric?
Cohen also makes a nice point about war in Gaza:
"At this vast human, material and moral price, Israel achieved almost nothing beyond damage to its image throughout the world. Israel has the right to hit back when attacked, but any response should be proportional and governed by sober political calculation. The Gaza war was a travesty; I have never previously felt so shamed by Israel’s actions. No wonder Hamas and Hezbollah are seen throughout the Arab world as legitimate resistance movements."
Morocco cuts ties with Iran
Morocco cuts ties with Iran...In Arabic. I will translate later and report back.
Sunday, March 8, 2009
Talks with the Taliban - Is the classic colonialist policy of divide and conquer a good idea?
Helene Cooper discusses the potential US strategy in Afghanistan of divide and conquer in her article, "Dreaming of Splitting the Taliban," in the Week in Review section of today's NYTimes.
Historically, divide and conquer (D&C) has caused years of conflict. Used by European colonialists in Africa to suppress local opposition movements, local tribes and groups were turned against one another and are still fighting today. One of the most famous examples of this policy is the Rwanda, where the minority Tutsi group was favored and put in power while the majority Hutus were oppressed and barred from governance.
There are definitely differences between the D&C of colonialists and D&C today - back then entire populations were turned against one another while today the US considers turning two groups against one another. The local population doesn't even like the Taliban, especially the extremists, so they wouldn't be any hard feelings.
But that is if and only if they are eradicated. The colonialists fomented hated and then left the groups to duke it out - if the US eradicates extremist Taliban and AQ elements, maybe things could turn out better. Not sure.
I don't know, generally, these manipulations of local forces, picking a group and arming them, most recently done in Iraq in Anbar, while it works in the short term, always ends up HORRIBLY in the long run.
Another important point raised in the article is legitimacy (see below post on Olivier Roy and the importance of legitimacy). Clare Lockhart, former adviser to the Afghan govt and author of How to Fixed Failed States says "The key to winning back the population is to establish legitimate government...If you give people a government with sufficient credibility - and basic jobs - you can win back their trust."
I wonder how this would play out in Afghanistan where a strong legit centralized state really isn't possible - I guess you would have to have legitimate local/ provincial administrations tied to the central state but one that has some sort of legitimacy.
Historically, divide and conquer (D&C) has caused years of conflict. Used by European colonialists in Africa to suppress local opposition movements, local tribes and groups were turned against one another and are still fighting today. One of the most famous examples of this policy is the Rwanda, where the minority Tutsi group was favored and put in power while the majority Hutus were oppressed and barred from governance.
There are definitely differences between the D&C of colonialists and D&C today - back then entire populations were turned against one another while today the US considers turning two groups against one another. The local population doesn't even like the Taliban, especially the extremists, so they wouldn't be any hard feelings.
But that is if and only if they are eradicated. The colonialists fomented hated and then left the groups to duke it out - if the US eradicates extremist Taliban and AQ elements, maybe things could turn out better. Not sure.
I don't know, generally, these manipulations of local forces, picking a group and arming them, most recently done in Iraq in Anbar, while it works in the short term, always ends up HORRIBLY in the long run.
Another important point raised in the article is legitimacy (see below post on Olivier Roy and the importance of legitimacy). Clare Lockhart, former adviser to the Afghan govt and author of How to Fixed Failed States says "The key to winning back the population is to establish legitimate government...If you give people a government with sufficient credibility - and basic jobs - you can win back their trust."
I wonder how this would play out in Afghanistan where a strong legit centralized state really isn't possible - I guess you would have to have legitimate local/ provincial administrations tied to the central state but one that has some sort of legitimacy.
Kilcullen Response to Bacevich (Small Wars Journal)
Kilcullen's response to Bacevich's critique of his new book Accidental Guerrilla. (Link to Bacevich's critique is below.)
It is written in Small Wars Journal, a great site for informed articles on, yep, you guess, small wars. They also have roudups of all articles written in major newspapers on, yep, small wars.
It is written in Small Wars Journal, a great site for informed articles on, yep, you guess, small wars. They also have roudups of all articles written in major newspapers on, yep, small wars.
Psychological Impacts of War on Iraqis
Depressing article in NYTimes on the detrimental mental impact of war on Iraqis, especially women.
Here is another from BBC World news about the implications of being a widow.
War has left at least 740,000 widows.
Here is another from BBC World news about the implications of being a widow.
War has left at least 740,000 widows.
Syria talks...
I really want to know what went on in acting asst sec of state for Near Eastern Affairs Jerffrey Feltman and Daniel Shapiro's, senior dir National Security Council, 3 hour conference with Syria's foreign minister, deputy prime minister and other officials. Now.
Pressure on Israel
Interesting argument by David Aaron Miller in NYTimes article ,"On Middle East Trip, Clinton Turns up the Caution," that might (not sure) to quell some of us that are getting nervous about the lack of pressure on Israel to stop settlements and the destruction of Palestinian homes in East Jerusalem: "Pressuring Israel because we're frustrated with them or we want them to make nice with the Arabs is a dumb policy...Pressuring Israel at the right during a peace negotiation that actually promises to produce a breakthrough is much smarter."
Darfur and Beshir's ICC arrest warrant
While I am a firm believer that a country and a people can only move forward if those responsible for genocide and violence and perpetrating civil war and conflict are brought to justice, this justice must be timed to minimize civilian casualties and maximize effectiveness. I do not think this was the best time for the International Criminal Court (ICC) to issue a warrant for Sudanese President Omar Beshir's arrest.
(This, by the way, comes from a humanitarian, someone who wrote their Thesis on the history of Darfur - showing that the conflict was based on resources due to desertification rather than 'Arab' and 'African animosities. But I am also, as I said above, a firm believer that justice brings lasting peace.)
Truth and Reconciliation commissions in South Africa and Rwanda and Liberia and Sierra Leone have been helpful in improving relations among former warring parties. After conflicts end (or toward the end) in these countries, and when other nations can secure the safety of civilians, arrest warrants for war criminals are also effective and necessary.
There have been a boatload of great op eds on this - an interesting one today from Nicholas Kristof who is fearful of the humanitarian outcome of the warrant as aid agencies are kicked out of Darfur - leaving 100s of thousands vulnerable to disease and without access to water and food.
He also mentions that no one he spoke to in the camps a week ago favored a delay in ICC proceedings.
He echos General Merrill McPeaks advocacy in an oped in in the Wash Post last week for a no fly zone in Darfur.
The worst thing about Darfur is to read that other Muslims (Sudanese Muslims out in the streets supporting Beshir, Hamas citicizing the warrant) speak out against this warrant as another western imperialist strategy in the region. Beshir and his cabal have killed thousands of MUSLIMS in Darfur.
(This, by the way, comes from a humanitarian, someone who wrote their Thesis on the history of Darfur - showing that the conflict was based on resources due to desertification rather than 'Arab' and 'African animosities. But I am also, as I said above, a firm believer that justice brings lasting peace.)
Truth and Reconciliation commissions in South Africa and Rwanda and Liberia and Sierra Leone have been helpful in improving relations among former warring parties. After conflicts end (or toward the end) in these countries, and when other nations can secure the safety of civilians, arrest warrants for war criminals are also effective and necessary.
There have been a boatload of great op eds on this - an interesting one today from Nicholas Kristof who is fearful of the humanitarian outcome of the warrant as aid agencies are kicked out of Darfur - leaving 100s of thousands vulnerable to disease and without access to water and food.
He also mentions that no one he spoke to in the camps a week ago favored a delay in ICC proceedings.
He echos General Merrill McPeaks advocacy in an oped in in the Wash Post last week for a no fly zone in Darfur.
The worst thing about Darfur is to read that other Muslims (Sudanese Muslims out in the streets supporting Beshir, Hamas citicizing the warrant) speak out against this warrant as another western imperialist strategy in the region. Beshir and his cabal have killed thousands of MUSLIMS in Darfur.
Book: 'Kill Khalid The failed Mossad Assass Attempt of Khalid Meshal and the Rise of Hamas'
By Paul McGeough. I'm going to buy this immediately! Link is a review in the Wash Post today.
Article - Desert's Sand and Rocks Become Precious Resources in West Bank Dispute
In a NYTimes article, Ethan Bronner reveals Israeli expropriation of resources (sand and rocks) crucial to a future Palestinian state. This is the kind of counterproductive move that prevents a Palestinian state (natural resources are key to a viable economy) and therefore Israel's own security.
These expropriated West Bank natural resources account for nearly a quarter of the sand and rock Israel uses every year.
I wonder if they are using this to build settlements? (And then employing Palestinian laborers to do the work...) Talking about twisting the knife in the wound...or in this case, driving the knife in the peace talks.
In legal terms - the Fourth Hague Convention states that occupying powers may not remove natural resources and that any gain obtained from their exploitation must be kept in a designated fund for the local population.
While of course this was not Bronner's intent - there is a parallel to colonial practices of exploitation of natural resources in Africa.
Israeli rights group Yseh Din is bringing the case to the Israel Supreme Court next week.
These expropriated West Bank natural resources account for nearly a quarter of the sand and rock Israel uses every year.
I wonder if they are using this to build settlements? (And then employing Palestinian laborers to do the work...) Talking about twisting the knife in the wound...or in this case, driving the knife in the peace talks.
In legal terms - the Fourth Hague Convention states that occupying powers may not remove natural resources and that any gain obtained from their exploitation must be kept in a designated fund for the local population.
While of course this was not Bronner's intent - there is a parallel to colonial practices of exploitation of natural resources in Africa.
Israeli rights group Yseh Din is bringing the case to the Israel Supreme Court next week.
Saturday, March 7, 2009
AUIS - American University of Iraq at Suleimaniya
I have decided to go work at the two year old American University of Iraq at Suleimaniya next year. I cannot wait.
I went over to visit a couple weeks ago and once I figure out how to put a link to a slideshow up I will post pics.
The kids there are fabulous - funny, motivated, driven and smart. It is a mix of Kurds from the region and Arabs from Baghdad and surrounding provinces. They all have interesting stories - a kid who worked with troops in Baghdad, a nephew of a leader of the Iraqi Islamic Party (I don't want to say who, not sure if it would be right). It is living history up there.
I love working directly with others - I love teaching - and want to contribute to helping Iraq get back on its feet.
In the long term (in coming years) I really want to do civic engagement work/ civil society building (not the idealistic kind) like at National Democratic Institute, I have even been trying to finagle my way into the government - Foreign Service and Civil Service, Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs and Democracy Human Rights and Labor.
But it is very very hard to get into State I have found, even if you know people and even if you speak some Arabic and have some knowledge of the Middle East. My friend Andrea suggested going down there with huge signs saying "Hire me I speak Arabic," which is becoming more and more appealing each day.
I went over to visit a couple weeks ago and once I figure out how to put a link to a slideshow up I will post pics.
The kids there are fabulous - funny, motivated, driven and smart. It is a mix of Kurds from the region and Arabs from Baghdad and surrounding provinces. They all have interesting stories - a kid who worked with troops in Baghdad, a nephew of a leader of the Iraqi Islamic Party (I don't want to say who, not sure if it would be right). It is living history up there.
I love working directly with others - I love teaching - and want to contribute to helping Iraq get back on its feet.
In the long term (in coming years) I really want to do civic engagement work/ civil society building (not the idealistic kind) like at National Democratic Institute, I have even been trying to finagle my way into the government - Foreign Service and Civil Service, Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs and Democracy Human Rights and Labor.
But it is very very hard to get into State I have found, even if you know people and even if you speak some Arabic and have some knowledge of the Middle East. My friend Andrea suggested going down there with huge signs saying "Hire me I speak Arabic," which is becoming more and more appealing each day.
The road to Iran is through Afghanistan
Admin using an Afghan conference to talk to Iran.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/06/world/06diplo.html?_r=1&ref=asia
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/06/world/06diplo.html?_r=1&ref=asia
Salem Fayyad, Fatah PM, submits resignation
Interesting development - Salem Fayyad, PM of Palestinian Authority, who Hamas demanded depart from the before a unity govt could be orchestrated - submitted his resignation.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7929927.stm
Interesting conciliatory step by Fatah to Hamas.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7929927.stm
Interesting conciliatory step by Fatah to Hamas.
Wednesday, March 4, 2009
US sending officials to Syria: PLEASE don't just try to isolate Iran
The US is sending two high level officials - apparently one from State and one from White House - to Syria. Here is the NYTimes piece from this morning. (I love how they have a picture of Shimon Peres kissing Clinton before the article. Maybe this is an attempt to say Hillary bringing Syria and Israel together, but I think it would have been better to have a pic of her handshake with the Syrian Foreign Minister from the other day...)
There was a very interesting talk on Syria last night on On Point on NPR. (3/3/09, On Point with Tim Ashbrook, NPR DC 88.5) What does Syria want? Golan Heights and a little respect...oh and a Palestinian state. What does the US admin probably want? To isolate Iran, and for Syria to stop meddling in Lebanon, and supporting Hezbollah and Hamas.
Careful, said foremost Syria expert Jon Landis last night (again - 3/3/09, On Point with Tim Ashbrook, NPR DC 88.5), in merely talking to Syria with the hope of isolating Iran (just approaching Syria in terms of US interests) because that will only create more animosities and suspicions in the region which will not serve US interests in the long term. (We cannot simply play countries in the ME off one another - as Condi Rice et al did in trying to isolate Iran through emphasizing this Sunni Shii divide. (Horrible, horrible idea.)
Landis also has a great article - "Why Syria Will Not Get Golan Back" - next week he will argue the opposite.
US policy is always so shortsighted - we must think bigger and longer. We must realize that what is in the best interests of each country in the ME region (return of Golan) is also in our interests.
Isolating countries and organizations - Sudan, Hamas, etc - like we are currently dealing with Iran never works, engagement does.
There was a very interesting talk on Syria last night on On Point on NPR. (3/3/09, On Point with Tim Ashbrook, NPR DC 88.5) What does Syria want? Golan Heights and a little respect...oh and a Palestinian state. What does the US admin probably want? To isolate Iran, and for Syria to stop meddling in Lebanon, and supporting Hezbollah and Hamas.
Careful, said foremost Syria expert Jon Landis last night (again - 3/3/09, On Point with Tim Ashbrook, NPR DC 88.5), in merely talking to Syria with the hope of isolating Iran (just approaching Syria in terms of US interests) because that will only create more animosities and suspicions in the region which will not serve US interests in the long term. (We cannot simply play countries in the ME off one another - as Condi Rice et al did in trying to isolate Iran through emphasizing this Sunni Shii divide. (Horrible, horrible idea.)
Landis also has a great article - "Why Syria Will Not Get Golan Back" - next week he will argue the opposite.
US policy is always so shortsighted - we must think bigger and longer. We must realize that what is in the best interests of each country in the ME region (return of Golan) is also in our interests.
Isolating countries and organizations - Sudan, Hamas, etc - like we are currently dealing with Iran never works, engagement does.
Article - Saudi Reforms
Saudi reforms analysis in NYTimes.
On the appointment of a new female education minister and the removal of conservative hardliner from posts of chief of religious police and senior judge.
On the appointment of a new female education minister and the removal of conservative hardliner from posts of chief of religious police and senior judge.
Monday, March 2, 2009
Andrew Bacevich reviews David Kilcullen
Andrew Bacevich, who definitely has 'the man' status x5 for his always tempered and evidenced arguments against the war in Iraq, reviewed counterinsurgency master David Kilcullen 's book The Accidental Guerrilla: Fighting Small Wars in the Midst of a Big One.
Kilcullen will be at the Middle East Institute discucssing his book on April 7, 12-1.
(Both, by the way, kind of have double legitimacy out the wazoo, Bacevich is ret. military and a professor at BU and Kilcullen did doctoral research among insurgents in Indonesia and is Australian military. Bacevich might be more of a heavyweight than Kilcullen though...)
I discvered this review via Abu Muqawama's blog. It is, along with Marc Lynch (Abu Ardvark) and Musings on Iraq, I think the top blog for information on public diplomacy, foreign policy, Middle East info., Iraq and Afghanistan.
Kilcullen will be at the Middle East Institute discucssing his book on April 7, 12-1.
(Both, by the way, kind of have double legitimacy out the wazoo, Bacevich is ret. military and a professor at BU and Kilcullen did doctoral research among insurgents in Indonesia and is Australian military. Bacevich might be more of a heavyweight than Kilcullen though...)
I discvered this review via Abu Muqawama's blog. It is, along with Marc Lynch (Abu Ardvark) and Musings on Iraq, I think the top blog for information on public diplomacy, foreign policy, Middle East info., Iraq and Afghanistan.
Gallup Poll - Muslim Americans Thrive
New Gallup Poll shows Muslimsare thriving in the US, especially relative to their lives in other Western societies.
Some more analysis of the poll by the AP.
While I'm at it - the Gallup Center for Muslim Studies is awesome in general - they do tons of studies to belying false stereotypes and generalizations out there about Islam.
Wait, I thought Islam and democracy were incompatible? That 'Muslim culture' could not exist with 'western' ideals. Wrong again. Islam is based ideas of liberty, equality and justice - it's just power hungry, oppressed politicians and extremists who pervert it, using it to legitimize their dictatorial militaristic agendas.
Some more analysis of the poll by the AP.
While I'm at it - the Gallup Center for Muslim Studies is awesome in general - they do tons of studies to belying false stereotypes and generalizations out there about Islam.
Wait, I thought Islam and democracy were incompatible? That 'Muslim culture' could not exist with 'western' ideals. Wrong again. Islam is based ideas of liberty, equality and justice - it's just power hungry, oppressed politicians and extremists who pervert it, using it to legitimize their dictatorial militaristic agendas.
Article - All Quiet in Pakistan's Swat Valley - Veil vs. The Suicide Belt
Fareed Zakaria's article in the Wash Post today is a tough sell. I agree that Islamic Democrats should be given a chance at power - hopefully some of their radical conservative social mores will be tempered by their populace when election season comes around. (Maybe, I am not 100% about this, maybe Islamic democrats will take power and be authoritarians, but they couldn't be much worse then what we have now - Mubarak - and if they are not given the chance - if they are not allowed to participate in society and in government through nonviolent political channels - their measures will be worse.)
But the Taliban is not an Islamic democratic group. (Though the past administration would have liked you to believe that ALL Muslim groups are on in the same...) The deal between the govt and the Taliban in the Swat region makes me nervous especially when there are reports of 1000s of girls' schools closed and bombed. Can these extremists be swayed and tempered? Is their terror means to an end - good governance - or aimed at establishing a totally new system? (See post below on Olivier Roy's differentiation between the two in his book Politics of Chaos of the Middle East.) If the former, possibly these extremists can be reasoned with, but if they are the latter negotiations are not possible.
But the Taliban is not an Islamic democratic group. (Though the past administration would have liked you to believe that ALL Muslim groups are on in the same...) The deal between the govt and the Taliban in the Swat region makes me nervous especially when there are reports of 1000s of girls' schools closed and bombed. Can these extremists be swayed and tempered? Is their terror means to an end - good governance - or aimed at establishing a totally new system? (See post below on Olivier Roy's differentiation between the two in his book Politics of Chaos of the Middle East.) If the former, possibly these extremists can be reasoned with, but if they are the latter negotiations are not possible.
Article - Muslim Sent Home and a personal story on discrimination against Muslims and Arabs at airports
Muslim Sent Home in the Wash Post describes how Rashad Bukhari, a Pakistani citizen with a multiple entry visa to the US and works for the organization Search for Common Ground (works to solve conflicts around the world), was denied entry to the US the other day.
The author, John Mark, a colleague describes well how detrimental these kinds incidents are the the US reputation abroad and to individuals (like Mr. Bukhari) and organizations who are trying to help in build and repair bridges between the US and the Muslim world. Mr. Bukhari is quoted in the articles describing how it is a blow to him on many levels - personally (insulting and will make it more difficult for him to travel int he future) and professionally (exactly the kind of discrimination and misunderstanding he works to end.)
Last summer when I studied Arabic at the French Institute for Near East Studies in Damascus, Syria. It was a great program and one of my professors, who I will not name as I did not ask his permission to recount this story, told us one day in class that he had been to the US and would never go back. Of course we asked why. The story he told was deeply saddened me and still does to this day.
This professor, by the way, is a jolly old, curmudgeonly, insightful Syrian man, really great sense of humor. He also started one of the first human rights organizations in Syria (you'd think the US might want to welcome him here...) and is a well known and well respected scholar, published on many topics. He came to the US for the MESA (Middle Eastern Studies Assoc) annual conference and was detained and interrogated at Dulles. He did not go into the details of his detention, I think it was just too embarrassing and sad for him. He wasn't angry about his incident - rather disappointed, I think. He will never try to come back to the US and no one here will benefit from his activism and knowledge on the Syria and the region.
These policies hurt the US and the world on many levels. My professor and Rashad Bukhari are individuals who are trying to build relationships between the US and the Muslim world - they are our best diplomats and the US government immigration policies are inhibiting their work. Secondly, these discriminatory policies hurt our reputation in the region. This has happened to countless other individuals, students, scholars, activists (Tariq Ramadan's Notre Dame experience...) and each one returns to their home to tell their story of rejection. It's like the effects of our torture policies.
The author, John Mark, a colleague describes well how detrimental these kinds incidents are the the US reputation abroad and to individuals (like Mr. Bukhari) and organizations who are trying to help in build and repair bridges between the US and the Muslim world. Mr. Bukhari is quoted in the articles describing how it is a blow to him on many levels - personally (insulting and will make it more difficult for him to travel int he future) and professionally (exactly the kind of discrimination and misunderstanding he works to end.)
Last summer when I studied Arabic at the French Institute for Near East Studies in Damascus, Syria. It was a great program and one of my professors, who I will not name as I did not ask his permission to recount this story, told us one day in class that he had been to the US and would never go back. Of course we asked why. The story he told was deeply saddened me and still does to this day.
This professor, by the way, is a jolly old, curmudgeonly, insightful Syrian man, really great sense of humor. He also started one of the first human rights organizations in Syria (you'd think the US might want to welcome him here...) and is a well known and well respected scholar, published on many topics. He came to the US for the MESA (Middle Eastern Studies Assoc) annual conference and was detained and interrogated at Dulles. He did not go into the details of his detention, I think it was just too embarrassing and sad for him. He wasn't angry about his incident - rather disappointed, I think. He will never try to come back to the US and no one here will benefit from his activism and knowledge on the Syria and the region.
These policies hurt the US and the world on many levels. My professor and Rashad Bukhari are individuals who are trying to build relationships between the US and the Muslim world - they are our best diplomats and the US government immigration policies are inhibiting their work. Secondly, these discriminatory policies hurt our reputation in the region. This has happened to countless other individuals, students, scholars, activists (Tariq Ramadan's Notre Dame experience...) and each one returns to their home to tell their story of rejection. It's like the effects of our torture policies.
Iraq Elections
This is the best summary of the Iraq elections I've seen. From the blog 'Musings on Iraq', which also happens to be one of the, if not the, best blogs analyzing Iraqi politics and US FP there.
Nationalists came out on top, those favoring a strong centralized state. Also winners were those who have proven in the past they can deliver services, rather than parties with platforms based on religious affiliation. Hmm, I wonder if all the violence in Iraq was about a lack of services and employment and security rather than 'religious hatred.' (I know this is simplistic and in a nutshell - see my much older post on how there was no Sunni Shii divide among the Iraqi population before the war.) No, that would be way too rational, reasonable and undramatic. It would also implicate the US in the problems. So let's stick with the ahistorical 'sectarian hatred' - it's much more fun (and easier for idiot politicians who know nothing about the Middle East) to paint Iraqis (and all Arabs) as wildly religious, ethnically charged crazies. Just bc someone yells Allah Akbar before blowing himself/ herself up doesn't mean that's WHY he or she is doing it.
Nationalists came out on top, those favoring a strong centralized state. Also winners were those who have proven in the past they can deliver services, rather than parties with platforms based on religious affiliation. Hmm, I wonder if all the violence in Iraq was about a lack of services and employment and security rather than 'religious hatred.' (I know this is simplistic and in a nutshell - see my much older post on how there was no Sunni Shii divide among the Iraqi population before the war.) No, that would be way too rational, reasonable and undramatic. It would also implicate the US in the problems. So let's stick with the ahistorical 'sectarian hatred' - it's much more fun (and easier for idiot politicians who know nothing about the Middle East) to paint Iraqis (and all Arabs) as wildly religious, ethnically charged crazies. Just bc someone yells Allah Akbar before blowing himself/ herself up doesn't mean that's WHY he or she is doing it.
Sunday, March 1, 2009
Article - Egypt’s Critics Have a Voice, but Never the Last Word
Egypt’s Critics Have a Voice, but Never the Last Word
The Egyptian government continues policy of the past - giving opposition groups (like the Muslim Brotherhood) enough room to breath so they don't revolt, but not enough to be viable players in the government and society. They can speak but not act, this article says. Throughout history Egyptian govt has used this push and pull, bringing groups in and out of favor. They hold elections but arrest opposition groups and their supporters before them. Alongside these tactics is the intimidation and fear the govt instills in the population and political players through mass arrests and torture in their prisons.
The Egyptian government continues policy of the past - giving opposition groups (like the Muslim Brotherhood) enough room to breath so they don't revolt, but not enough to be viable players in the government and society. They can speak but not act, this article says. Throughout history Egyptian govt has used this push and pull, bringing groups in and out of favor. They hold elections but arrest opposition groups and their supporters before them. Alongside these tactics is the intimidation and fear the govt instills in the population and political players through mass arrests and torture in their prisons.
Article - An End to Baghdad's 'Dark Era'
Nightclubs are reopening in Baghdad.
Interesting in this article is also the brief history it gives of the nightclubs - opened for most of Saddam's reign then closed in the 90s as he tried to gain favor of the religious leaders.
I am particularly excited about this bc I am going to work in Suleimaniya (up the NE, Kurdish region) next year at the two year old American University of Iraq at Suleimaniya (AUIS). I took a trip over there last week to get the lay of the land and liked what I saw. More on this to come.
Interesting in this article is also the brief history it gives of the nightclubs - opened for most of Saddam's reign then closed in the 90s as he tried to gain favor of the religious leaders.
I am particularly excited about this bc I am going to work in Suleimaniya (up the NE, Kurdish region) next year at the two year old American University of Iraq at Suleimaniya (AUIS). I took a trip over there last week to get the lay of the land and liked what I saw. More on this to come.
Article - What Iran's Jews Say
Roger Cohen had a great op ed in the NYTimes on Iran last week.
The article reveals that Iran's rhetoric toward Israel is not at all racist (directed at Jews) but rather political and nationalist (directed at struggle for Palestinain state.) I love the opener of this article, Cohen writes about a sign he saw, "Congratualtions on the 30th Anniversary of the Islamic Revolution from the Jewish Community of Esfahan." He also mentions Jews in Iran who protested against the attacks on Gaza. (This article must have really sent Avigidor Lieberman off the deep end.)
Conflicts are so rarely (never really) at their core about religion and ethnicity, but about land and politics and power. Only when people realize this (thanks to Cohen for helping us down this road) will we be able to solve the problems of the region. Blaming suicide attacks on Islam just doesn't pay the bill.
The article reveals that Iran's rhetoric toward Israel is not at all racist (directed at Jews) but rather political and nationalist (directed at struggle for Palestinain state.) I love the opener of this article, Cohen writes about a sign he saw, "Congratualtions on the 30th Anniversary of the Islamic Revolution from the Jewish Community of Esfahan." He also mentions Jews in Iran who protested against the attacks on Gaza. (This article must have really sent Avigidor Lieberman off the deep end.)
Conflicts are so rarely (never really) at their core about religion and ethnicity, but about land and politics and power. Only when people realize this (thanks to Cohen for helping us down this road) will we be able to solve the problems of the region. Blaming suicide attacks on Islam just doesn't pay the bill.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
