Rebuilding American Influence in the Middle East is NOT a DIY Project

On the 18th the NY Times published an OpEd by Marwan Muasher, a former Jordanian diplomat. Mr. Muasher asked what can America do to rebuild influence in the Middle East. One suggestion was that our nation (that, by law, cannot have an official religion) must back "a dynamic change toward pluralism". Lets look briefly at pluralism in the east, shall we. In Egypt Coptic Christians are hunted and slaughtered with impunity. In Darfur there is an Arab tribe, Jinjaweed (Arabic for Devils on horseback) that are trying to cleanse the area of Africans so it can be an all Arabian region. Iran and Syria have spent the past several years trying to kill off all the non-Shi'ites within their boarders. Iraq has spent decades torturing and murdering non-Sunni people. This does not fit the definition of pluralistic.

Mr. Marwan acknowledges that there was a time when America had influence on the Arabian Street. He does not say when, in his opinion, that changed. I believe that shift happened during President Ford's time in office. The first sign of that was when the Arab members of OPEC started the oil embargo against America. Those members were, and these should sound familiar, Egypt, Syria, Iraq, Iran, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia. That embargo bled us financially and showed us vulnerable. What does that mean? Consider now these two Arabian proverbs, "A falling camel invites many knives" and "When people see two horses and one is strong and the other weak, people naturally like the strong horse".

The Middle East is a harsh environment that has bred a harsh people. Weakness is a detriment to survival. Only here, in America, do people cheer for the under dog. Culturally, we see even the sickly runt of the litter as valuable. In the Middle East the scarce resources are saved for the strong, not the weak. This is a dichotomy that is completely the opposite of ours.

Fast forward past the list of attacked US Embassies (still an act if war according to Clinton's Stated Departmentt) to the time when Obama met the Saudi King. Obama deliberately did what President John F. Kennedy said that no leader of the free world should ever do. Obama bowed. The Middle East is not a dojo, bowing is a sign of subjugation. By bending over and exposing your neck you are saying that your life is theirs to take or to spare.

Apologizing for aging been a world leader, which is another sign of weakness. It says to them that we should not be better off than they. It makes America look like a falling camel.

So, how do we regain face, rebuild any semblance of power, in the Arabian Street?

Al Jazeera just posted a video, in English so we can clearly get it, that Clinton, Obama, and America are not welcome there. That video is titled "You Are Not Welcome in Egypt". This year alone has seen more than $250 million dollars given to the Egyptian banking sector to prevent a collapse, $90 million for democratic development, $100 million for economic recovery, and not with Obama's yearly $1 billion dollar gift. That comes out to $1.8 billion of our tax dollars given to one government that has openly opposed America for the last 39 years while profiting from us.

How do we regain influence in the Middle East? With backbone, swift, harsh responses to acts of war and opposition, with a clear message that we are stronger than they.

I have no idea how we can do this. We need the likes of Fenerals Abrams, Patton, Schwartzkopf, the business acumen of Lee Iacoca, JP Morgan, Carngie,and Presidents Reagan and Bush senior to formulate that plan. We need, as a nation, to be able to stomach what must be done. This must include developing our own sources of fuel and energy. We must revitalize our industrial souls. Other than that, I must leave it to those with bigger brain pans than I.

 

Threats to Religious Freedom in Post-Revolt Arab Nations

I originally posted this piece on September 4th of 2011. It continues to draw traffic, so I am reposting it today.

Clinton and Obama may appear to be making a statement in support of religious freedom, but do not believe that is so. What I think they are saying is that we should ignore dictators and how they treat their subjects so as not to bring religious intolerance to their countries. They point at the growing levels of intolerance in Egypt and Libya with a gentle nod towards Syria and Iran. They are saying that we should ignore what is going on in Iran, Syria, Lebanon, Yemen, and other similar countries (to include Somalia). Their claims of toppling dictators has opened various religious sects in those countries to intolerance, rather than the bigotry, prejudice, and fanaticism they have faced for generations. Check the timeline, you two, the term “generations” is cutting it kind of short, try centuries.

US Sounds Alarm on Threats to Religious Freedom in Post-Revolt Arab Nations

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration warned Tuesday of growing religious intolerance and violence in Arab nations undergoing popular revolts that could undermine fragile democratic transitions.

While the overthrow of longtime autocratic leaders in the Middle East and North Africa has given millions hope for freedom it has also opened up religious and ethnic minorities to new threats, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said. She urged countries not to “trade one form of repression for another” and to embrace the freedom to worship for all faiths as they embrace political pluralism for the first time in generations.

“In the Middle East and North Africa, the transitions to democracy have inspired the world but they have also exposed ethic and religious minorities to new dangers,”  Really? By bringing down tyrants and dictators and introducing freedom religious minorities are NOW being persecuted? What about the Christians who had their throats slit open on film in Somalia by al-Shabaab? Those attacks did not happen JUST because of “freedom from oppression”. How would she respond to the now six month old slaughter of Syrians sunni muslims by Bashir al-Assad? Is that due to a new found freedom?
“The people of the region have taken exciting first steps toward democracy, but if they hope to consolidate their gains they cannot trade one form of repression for another,” she said. She must have meant this in relation to Somalia. You know, the former al-Shabaab/al Qaeda senior leader turned miitant war-lord Inda Ahde is now openly and unabashedly stealing weapons, money, food, and other supplies from AMISOM forces and the national government of Somalia. To be certain he is also taking aid provided by both Iran and America, right Hillary? Please see http://msmignoresit.blogspot.com/2011/07/clinton-un-et-al-get-called-with-bs.html and http://msmignoresit.blogspot.com/2011/08/n-aid-convoy-looted-in-mogadishu.html for more on this.

Since the beginning of the year, Tunisia, Egypt and Libya have all ousted longtime authoritarian rulers and pledged to move to democracies. Rebellions are also under way in Syria and Yemen. The U.S. has publicly expressed concern about post-revolt sectarian violence and the treatment of religious and ethnic minorities in Egypt and Libya. It has also condemned attacks on religious minorities in Syria as the government continues a months-long brutal crackdown on opponents.

In addition to highlighting concerns in those countries, the report also took aim at abuses of religious freedom in Iran, Iraq and Saudi Arabia.

Iran and Saudi Arabia were identified once again as “countries of particular concern” for their records, meaning that governments there “engaged in or tolerated particularly severe violations of religious freedom.” That designation can bring about U.S. sanctions, but Clinton waived sanctions against Saudi Arabia, a key regional U.S. ally that forbids the public practice of any religion other than Islam. All religious minorities in Iran, particularly Bahais, Sufis, Christians and Jews, were targeted for discrimination in Iran, the report said.

Saudi Arabia, the seat of Wahabism, is now listed as a country of concern? Really? You mean, a country with a history of arresting people for religious views other than islam ( and raping & beating them while in custody) is now a country of concern? Why, then was the State Department warning travelers of the dangers and risks of going there in 2010?

Freedom of religion is neither recognized nor protected under the law and is severely restricted in practice. The country is an Islamic state governed by a monarchy; the king is head of both state and government. Sunni Islam is the official religion. The country's basic law declares the Holy Qur'an is the constitution, and the legal system is based on the government's application of the Hanbali school of Sunni Islamic jurisprudence.

The State Department lists one or two examples of why someone would go to court.

… closed court proceedings in capital cases made it impossible to determine whether the accused were allowed to present a defense or were granted basic due process, and there were reports that the government killed civilians in conflict.

The government reportedly announced 26 executions during the year, all by beheading. Death sentences for two women and one man convicted of witchcraft and sorcery were reportedly vacated.

With the basis of their law being the quran and the law is sharia law, how can she say these things about a society run by the religion of piece? Keep in mind that, while things in Saudi Arabia are dark for travelers, how must it be in Egypt where the Muslim Brotherhood has taken control?

How about other countries where we can see the peace and stability of sharia? Look at all that has been on the Evening News about Syria … or, how about Obama’s success with the Sudan/South Sudan accord? Alright, Iran is there with the regimes while they slaughter their citizens and Obama/Clinton are not vocal about that. Nor have they said anything about the Iranian supported discord in Yemen. Interesting, I have not seen much about Iran in Saudi Arabia, maybe that is because the two countries are at odds?

In earlier posts I made the assertion that Saudi is in a precarious position with Iranian led violence and allies to the north in Syria and Lebanon as well as to the south in Yemen. Not to mention the Muslim Brotherhood is no friend to the House of Saud, either. Saudi Arabia is in a tight spot.

While the Washington Post reports Clinton as saying toppling dictators leads to religious intolerance, I say religious intolerance leads to dictators and the introduction of free speech and press (also the internet) brings awareness of those evils to the world. I encourage you to search my blog for anything and everything to do with Clinton or Obama and their failed foreign policies. Yes, these are their failed foreign policies, they have done it together.

While we are on this, Hillary, Barry, let’s stop sending them money and aid since all that is only going towards further oppressing the rights which our country was built on.

Take a look at some of my earlier postings

http://msmignoresit.blogspot.com/2011/08/religious-intolerance.html

http://msmignoresit.blogspot.com/2011/07/aid-to-somalia-really.html

http://msmignoresit.blogspot.com/2011/08/syrian-slaughter-is-family-tradition.html

http://msmignoresit.blogspot.com/2011/08/sudan-no-longer-terroristic-but-still.html

Bibliography

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/us-sounds-alarm-on-threats-to-religious-freedom-in-post-revolt-arab-nations/2011/09/13/gIQApurlPK_story.html

http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/irf/2010/148843.htm

Discourse or Death, What to do

Bottom Line Up Front

Peaceful discourse, mutually supportive policies, economic growth, and the realization of certain inalienable rights to all peoples is one way of summarizing US goals and diplomatic efforts. Achieving these goals anywhere has proven difficult. Achieving these goals in the Middle East has proven impossible, at least for the past several decades. Dealing with Iran and Syria has been emblematic of this struggle faced by US policy makers.

In short, the Middle East is ruled by iron fisted dictators that visit their sadistic pleasures against their citizens, routinely and violently attack neighbors based on issues as seemingly trivial as what form of religion they practice, and smile too sweetly at the US with their hands extended either for a questionable handshake or for money. Unless the West drastically changes its political will and stands tall with testicular fortitude, the Middle East WILL devolve further from our vision of peace and further into chaos. The problem with deepening chaos is that the entire world will feel that pain. How much oil do we depend on these sanctimonious psychopaths for? How much of the worlds trade travels through their regions? How much are we going to have to pay in our own ransom before there is another knife at our global throat?

My suggestion is to stand strong and respond to a bloody nose with a bloody nose and breaking of the knee.

Background

So, the Middle East is a problem that is worsening. Coercive regime change has, and is still, being tried in Iraq, Egypt, and Libya. While Iraq is currently seeing fewer shootings than in Chicago it is not a stable peace. Egypt and Libya appear to be falling into deeper trouble without their previous rulers in place. The Muslim Brotherhood, which has stated that it is dedicated to the destruction of the West and its allies in establishing a caliphate, is solidifying its grip on Egypt. Libya is still in the death throes of the Qadaffy regime.

As a result of the sour smelling bag of dung the West now has its hands on there is currently a strong resistance towards regime change in places like Sudan, Syria, and Lebanon. Applying any measure of control or trying to urge the leadership in the East to use restraint has resulted in mockery and public chastisement of the West, a serious loss of face and sign of weakness to the cultures we are trying to connect with.

The other obvious option is trying to use sanctions, trade deals, and resolutions aimed at gently turning the despotic leaders towards being kinder and gentler leaders. Will behavior change, rather than forced and violent leadership change, work in either Iran or Syria or anywhere else for that matter?

Diplomatic options might be worth exploring if done with broad regional appeal and allied relationships among friends and allies. The primary caveat to this might be that we need to enter discussions with eyes opened remembering that, even as allies, the regimes are dangerous, untrustworthy allies. Problematic is achieving this without the appearance of appeasing the parties at the table. Appeasement has always proven to be a failure.

How does one negotiate a positive ending, a resolution to longstanding issues? One way, as taught in ivy covered colleges, is to identify what the others want and find a way to achieve that without giving up what you want. What do these governments want? What does a person who trains his own citizens to be suicide bombers want? I say that person wants a totalitarian system of government in which no one is allowed to think for themselves. Listen to what each country says about its neighbors! In the case of religious rule for a country Saudi Arabi, the seat of wahabism, is not considered strict enough. Anyone who does not share their understanding will be executed. If you want to know what a this will look like, contemplate the Taliban in Afghanistan—the only state in recent memory that is considered to have been legitimately Islamic. Consider, also, the rise to power of Stalin and how many millions of people were, and still are, murdered for the communistic regime.

Only after the UN demanded (several times) an end to the slaughter in Libya by Qadaffy did Obama call on NATO to be part of the solution. That should be read as NATO being used as a cover for Obama’s attempt to clumsily effect a regime change. Meanwhile, in Syria Iran sent elite forces, equipment, and money to Bashir al-Assad to use in his continued legacy of killing his own people based on their religious bent.

Thousands of people are dying at the whim of al-Assad, in a manner not too dissimilar to how Qadaffy ruled, and Ahmedinijad declares that he will stand by his ally.

What do we do? Do we depose of the despot or try to charm him? How long did the West try to talk with Osama? What has happened since we killed him? What will come of deposing a terroristic leader? When the West kills or removes a leader in the East it is widely heralded as an act of devilish evil which must, by religious decree, be met with the blood of the people of the West and their leaders.

The options still include regime change and appeasement, but there is also another option. That is to install a benevolent dictator. Look at the culture and the attitudes of the regions and peoples of the Middle East. A harsh environment in which the slightest bit of weakness brings death has created a people who see the world, life and death, in the same way.

There is no simple answer. The only sure thing is, by going in showing timidity and weakness, by apologizing for all wrongs (real and perceived) will dangerously fail.

US FOREIGN POLICY & MIDDLE EAS (Garland Reference Library of Social Science)

http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pdffiles/pub759.pdf

http://www.memri.org/report/en/0/0/0/0/0/0/5592.htm

http://www.memri.org/report/en/0/0/0/0/0/0/5606.htm