Rooting for Bibi is Rooting for Israel: Friedman revisited

On September 23, 2005 as Sharon and Netanyahu battled for the leadership of Likud, Thomas Friedman wrote an Op-ed entitled "Rooting for Bibi Is Rooting for Israel." In that Op-ed he set out his vision for sidelining the most hawkish and extremist party in Israel (Likud) by having Sharon loose the vote and forming his own party that would fill the center of Israeli politics. Well, it seems Friedman's wish is about to become a reality. Sharon won the vote in September, but could not bring Likud under his stead. As such, this past weekend he announced that he would be calling for new elections to elect a new government, withdrawing from Likud as leader and will likely establish his own party to challenge Likud and Labor for control of the Knesset and the future government. The AP described the move as such

In a bold gamble, Prime Minister Ariel Sharon on Monday asked Israel's president to dissolve parliament, pushing for a quick March election just hours after deciding to leave his hardline Likud Party and to form a new centrist party.

According to most reports Sharon has said he wants to be the leader who finally sets the borders of the Israeli state and he could not do this with all the Likud members who opposed his initiatives to achieve a lasting peace with the Palestinians.

The big bang in the Middle East continues, only this time it is advanced by an unlikely agent, a now "centrist" Ariel Sharon. He just ushered in a system disturbance that will likely impact the whole region for the better, not just Israeli politics.

Update

This happened a few days ago but I was unable to post it until today. As many of you now know, Shimon Peres has left the Labor party to support the candidacy of Ariel Sharon and his new Kadima (Forward) party. As I stated above, everything is going the way Friedman predicted. He got a few things wrong; it was Peres not Sharon who lost his party's election, but in the end both jumped ship and are now working together to settle the borders of the Israeli state and doing so by appealing to the political center (polls show that Kadima will likely win most of the votes, followed by Labor and Likud respectively), sidelining both the extreme doves on the Left and the absolutists Hawks on the right. If only that prescription could work here in the US where our political scene is controlled by both the radical Left and the radical Right, leaving little room for the majority of us who are on closer to the center. As a result of this loss of the center we can't even talk about the problems that our country is facing, and engage in name calling and petty squabbles that in the long run will do nothing but hurt our country. We need to reclaim the center, and sideline the radicals on both sides of the political spectrum, only then will we stand a chance of winning this War on Terror.

Additionally, Sharon's systemic disturbance is being felt all over Israel. The Post reports that even in old Likud strongholds like the town of Yeruham are wavering and moving to other options, signalling perhaps, the slow death of the Likud Party. It remains to be seen how the elections will turn out, Sharon will likely be reelected Prime Minister as the leader of Kadima leaving him with a mandate to finish the work he has begun.

The article on the town of Yeruham is also very interesting because it alludes to something that is not often talked about. This is the division and tension that exists in Israel between Sephardic (Arab and North African) jews and Ashkenazi (European) jews. Sephardim have always felt marginalized and looked down upon by their brethren of European descent. This is one of the divisions that has marked Israeli politics for many decades. The majority of Sephardic jews supported the hardline Likud Party, while Ashkenazi jews supported Labor. The reason for this is that Sephardic jews always saw Ashkenazi jewry as elitist and unconcerned for the plight of the poor. That division, however, has blurred since the collapse of the Soviet Union when a mass flood of Ashkenazi jews migrated to Israel from their European homeland. These new immigrants were given land in Settlements in both the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, as such they supported Likud's hardline stance on keeping these places for the Israeli state. Now, the sands are shifting. Labor has elected as its leader Amir Peretz, who is of Moroccan descent and hence a Sephardic jew. In addition, he is seen as a champion of Israel's poor making him more appealing to both Sephardim and recently arrived Ashkenazi jews. The next few months will be interesting.

Read More...

Snippet only...

The good, the bad and the shameful: post-Taliban Afghanistan and post-earthquake Pakistan revisited

Afghan government begins accountability week 20. November 2005, 14:05 KABUL (Xinhua) - As the part of taking the nation into account and boosting its popularity, Afghan President Hamid Karzai-led administration formally began a week-long accountability on Saturday, Presidential spokesman said. "In line with President's order the accountability week begins today and would continue till November 24," Mohammad Karim Rahimi told reporters at a press briefing. All the ministries and independent directorates, he added, would prepare complete reports on their performances within the stipulated period and present before the nation through media. The decision is taking on the first anniversary of President Karzia's elected government. Karzai, who came to power through direct voting in last year's presidential election, vowed to introduce a transparent system and good governance in the post-war nation. "In the history of our elected government and even in the history of Afghanistan, this is the first time that ministries present their achievements and performances in front of the nation, " said the spokesman.

Transparency in Afghanistan can only encourage FDI to flow into the country. They still have many problems to deal with, including local warlords, poppy seed cultivation, education, healthcare, governance, human rights, the Taliban, etc. but any movement in the right direction, despite the US' failure to follow through on the nation building aspect of the war against the Taliban, is heartening.

Other news, from just accross the border on the other hand aren't as uplifting. According to the article below, many of the Islamic charities performing work in Pakistan's earthquake devastated area are being linked to Extremist groups. Many of you might not remember, but after the earthquake Ayman Az Zawahiri requested that Muslims give to Islamic charities assisting the victims affected by the earthquake that struck Pakistan in October. Some people argued that the call by Zawahiri was unprecendented and that it signaled al Qaeda's recognition of the catastrophy at hand and risked loosing legitimacy if it failed to help. However, the truth seems to be a little more complex. After the International community struggled to catch up and provide Pakistan with the funds it needed to provide aid to the affected zones, Islamic charities with ties to extremist groups moved in to provide said relief, gaining in the process a new found legitimacy in the eyes of Kashmiris and Pakistanis.

Rather than being afraid of loosing legitimacy, it seems that Zawahiri recognized the potential for rebuilding any legitimacy extremists had lost in the region and the potential for winning that legitimacy at the cost of American, and International support (Not to mention the fact that once these charities made their way to the region they could bring relief to a cash strapped al Qaeda for future operations).

After the Tsunami in Southeast Asia, you think we would have learned that the recovery phase of any disaster is pivotal to our campaign for the hearts and minds of the Muslim world. The US, and the world's quick response to the Tsunami disaster ensured that Indonesia under its new President was able to bring the government and the separatist rebels of Aceh to the negotiating table, thereby securing one of the most troubled regions in the world and setting it on a path to reconciliation. In Pakistan, however, the US and the World Community dropped the ball ensuring instead that Islamist (extremist) charities gained the upper hand.We desperately need a Core wide system for processing disaster struck areas, particularly in the Gap. The Red Cross, and other NGOs are not enough. We need to ensure that victims of natural disasters know that the world will be with them every step of the way, to ensure that the world they know after is better than what they had before.

The news is not all bad, as the article notes, "The relief efforts of troops from Australia, the US and Britain are countering Islamist propaganda in the best possible way. Even arch-rival India has challenged negative perceptions among most Pakistanis by sending massive quantities of aid." As the article also notes, however, "with so many having been hurt, displaced or losing their livelihoods, this terrible act of God seems tailor-made to serve the cause of extremists."

That we have not done more for both countries is truly shameful. We leave Afghanistan struggling to grow as a country, and Pakistan open to wider extremist influence. Yes there are positive developments in both cases, but we could be doing so much more. We can't win this war on the cheap, no matter how much we try.

Read More...

Snippet only...

New Rules created by the Iraq war

I just read a column by Victor David Hanson on the current debate regarding whether or not the intelligence was hyped to win support for the Iraq war. While I disagree with Hanson most of the time, on almost everything, there are times when he does hit the nail on the head. For example, I disagree with his argument that democrats or others who now question the reasons we went to war are being hypocrites, mainly because I think and believe that in a democracy it is very important for our elected leaders to question everything; from the "faulty" intelligence that got us into war, to whether after authorizing the president to take us to war, if necessary, he took us to soon. I might not agree with them, but that is their responsibility, it is part of the checks and balances that were built into our system by our forefathers. Sure, the dems fell asleep at the wheel, or rather as Hanson points out, were in such a hurry to out-hawk the President that they failed to question specific aspects of the President's case for war before voting to authorize the use of force, if necessary, against Saddam Hussein. Be that as it may, I do agree with Hanson that although the Iraq war broke a few established rules from the post-Cold war era (i.e. waiting for Security Council authorization before going to war) the war did establish a very important Rule with regard to WMD. As Hanson states, "the onus is now on suspect rogue nations to prove that they do not have weapons of mass destruction, rather than for civilization to establish beyond a responsible doubt that they do." Much of the rest of the article reads like the administration's talking points, hence I will not repeat them here, you may believe them or not, it is entirely up to you (I don't, especially the bit on al Qaeda and Saddam's ties since the 9/11 Commission itself said there was no evidence of such cooperation). Hanson does however, recount many of the other real reasons for war with Hussein ranging from "genocide, violation of U.N. agreements, breaking of the 1991 armistice accords, attempts to kill a former U.S. president, and firing on American aerial patrols," all of which constituted reasons for war on their own since part of the 1991 armistice directly specified that in order for it to continue, Saddam had to prove he no longer had an active WMD or nuclear program. In this respect, Saddam failed since after 12 plus years of inspections the most that anyone, including UNSCOM could say was that they were not sure. As such, although Bush and the neocons overstated their case for war based on WMDs, the most important point of the war was the fact that we established that a regime has to prove to the international community that it no longer has these weapons, and not the other way around.

This said, I do think the argument regarding how we went to war has been overplayed by everyone and now our attention should be on the steps we need to take to avoid another Iraq. Tom Barnett has elucidated on this point, so I will not. The link to his post is here and you can read it at your leisure. The most important part of it, in line with his theory, is that if we don't get better at the post-conflict stabilization phase of war "[i]f we don't get good at it, and I mean all the way through to sustainable economic development (not dependency on aid, mind you, but serious local private entrepreneurship), then we will not see peace nor stability in the region, and we'll end up pulling out the Leviathan again." The democrats to win the trust of the American people have got to start providing alternatives to the manner in which Bush has run this war (which we all agree has been disastrous-at least about 60% of us). Staying in the corner where the democrats win only if we loose Iraq is not an alternative. Withdrawal from Iraq, as called for by Rep. Murtha, as much as I respect him, is not the correct decision, because if we leave now, we will undoubtedly have to come back in the future to establish peace in the region, after countless Iraqi, Iranian, Saudi, Syrian, Kurdish lives are lost. American lives, as tragic as it is when we loose some of our best and finest, should not be the overarching priority. Ensuring that the region is stable and secure should be, because only in this way can we ensure that our men and women no longer have to return to overthrow another dictator who threatens us and the region again.

Revised Thoughts

I've been thinking a bit more about this, and now I think I may have overstated the impact of the Rule(s) created by the Iraq War. While, it is true that the US did indeed set a precedent that it was up to the outlaw regime to prove that it no longer had WMDs, how many other Core members actually agreed? So far, may just Great Britain, and Australia. Apart from these, most have rejected the US's attempt to establish this new Rule. That said, the main test of this hypothesis will be how we resolve the issue of nuclear weapons with Iran and North Korea. Will the International Community have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that either has or is currently working on a nuclear weapon's program? Or will the onus be on these regimes to prove that they are not? Of course, these issues are also impacted by many other considerations, such as Iran's place in the region and any common interests we share. The next few months, if not years should tell us whether the US with its war against Saddam Hussein succeed in establishing a Rule which places the burden of proof on a rogue regime to establish that it is not pursuing WMDs, or whether as a result of this war (which due to the arguments advanced by the administration, which later turned out to be faulty) the rule that will emerge will be one where the International Community will bear the burden of proof. Will the Rule lie somewhere in between? Following PNM it would seem that the US has so far only proposed a rule to the International Community, its acceptance however, is pretty much still in the air.

Read More...

Snippet only...

Much appreciated

I would like to thank Zenpundit for adding me to his blogroll. Being an avid reader of his blog, I am honored.

I would also like to thank Tom Barnett, whom I also read devotedly, for having cited my blog a few weeks ago. I know it's a bit late, but later is better than never as the saying goes. Actually I didn't know how to acknowledge Dr. Barnett's post referencing my blog, I mean how does one react when one of your idols actually notices you! Since then, I've been a bit pressed for time and chose to continue blogging using his theory as a basis for my posts. This post seeks to rectify what I know believe to have been an error on my part.

Thanks to both Tom Barnett and Zenpundit, it is much appreciated.

Read More...

Snippet only...

Al Qaeda- Observations on the War on Terror

Al-Qaeda goes back to base

By Syed Saleem Shahzad Nov 4, 2005

Karachi - Al-Qaeda is in the process of a decisive ideological debate that could see the highly secretive group restructured within a year, with bases in Iraq and Afghanistan, and adopting a more open, centralized, approach.

Two issues lie at the heart of the matter. The first is whether al-Qaeda achieves its aims by "fighting against evil", or whether it "fights against evil and its allies", according to contacts familiar with the group who spoke to Asia Times Online.

The second issue involves al-Qaeda's lack of a physical base, a matter of concern to Islamic scholars, following its retreat from the Afghanistan and subsequently being forced out of hideouts along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border.

Interesting article from the Asia Times Online. While not the most reliable source of news, the article raises some very interesting questions with regard to the inner workings of al Qaeda. First, if true, it points to a lack of central leadership within al Qaeda, or the struggle between competing visions of how to prosecute the Jihad against the West, a struggle which seems to be pulling the organization apart at the seams. The conflict between those elements who want to target the near enemy (US allies in the region) and those who want to maintain focus on the West is telling in that it means that Osama bin Laden has lost some measure of control over the organization. This also points to the fact that pressure from Pakistani troops in the NFWP have made Osama unable to exert his influence to maintain the organization's cohesiveness. As a result, there seem to be many different elements jockeing for power, including it would seem, according to Stephen Ulph from the Jamestown Foundation, Abu Musab az Zarqawi. Additionally the article references Sheik Essa (I don't have any real information as to who he is, if anyone knows anything about him I would appreciate a link to more information) as another person promoting a different vision of the struggle against the infidel West. The relative silence from bin Laden since December of last year only fuels conjecture. As the Miami Herald reported this past week, many analysts have been trying to figure out why bin Laden has not been heard from in almost a year. Adding further fuel to the speculative fire, is an article from Reuters published around September 15 of this year which quoted a US military officer as stating that bin Laden was in poor health and seeking medical attention (the report was later denied by American military officials) yet all the news stories discussed above do seem to point if not to bin Laden's demise, then to his losing some measure of authority or control over the al Qaeda organization. This is also evident from other news reports, and Ulph's post (quoted above) which has Zarqawi positioning himself as a candidate for the leadership of the global jihad. The latest attack by al Qaeda in Iraq in Jordan this past week seems to place Zarqawi in Sheik Essa's camp (hitting the near enemy) and expanding the war to the local tyrants in the region (Yes, yes King Abdullah of Jordan is better than most, but in the end, he is still a dictator). So far, the attack seems to have backfired, and that might strenghten the hand of the bin Laden/Zawahiri faction of al Qaeda which seeks to maintain its focus on the US and its Western allies (including Australia, as recent events will also attest). To be sure, this is not the first time bin Laden has gone silent, as the Herald article points out, previously he wasn't heard from for about 9 months. What makes this interesting now, is that 10 months have passed without any word (video or tape) from him, the longest time period ever without hearing from him. The article also points out that this could also be part of a deliberate strategy by al Qaeda to provide misinformation or lull the West into overconfidence, only to strike when we least expect it. At this point there is not enough information on the al Qaeda leader (here I am referring to bin Laden) to adequately surmise what he is planning, doing, or even if he is alive or dead. My only point in posting this today, is to remind people that in focusing so much on Iraq, we seem to be forgetting about the larger movement we are fighting.

Additionally, the article above brings up another interesting point regarding the legitimacy of al Qaeda's call to jihad. The article places alot of emphasis on two things. According to the piece, "Dawa (Islamic message), hijra (evolution from an enemy state into an Islamic state) and jihad are the three stages based on the life of the Prophet Mohammed to bring about revolution in society." As such, al Qaeda needs to acquire a piece of real estate in the region, because "an Islamic state is a prerequisite before - and from which - jihad can be waged," (a jihad recognized as legitimate by Muslim scholars and clerics alike). Furthermore, once a state is conquered an Emir can be appointed to lead effort and to rally Muslims to Jihad. Once this happens, according to the article, other Muslim groups not affiliated with the al Qaeda movement will flock to it and fight, under the prophets banner for the cause of God.

Whether we believe this or not, the preoccupation shown by al Qaeda members for completing the stages of the prophet's life indicate that they feel a need to legitimize their movement in the eyes of the Muslim World and demonstrates at the same time, part of their strength (in that they are speaking to Muslims through a historical narrative they all understand) and part of their weakness (their inability to complete the stages mentioned above, denying them the legitimacy they so crave). This analysis is in line with Michael Scheuer's argument that al Qaeda as a group or Al Ansr has sought to tap into Muslim consciousness and entwine its struggle with Muslim history to legitimize it the way other revolutionaries have done before it, including Abdulaziz bin Abdelrahman Al-Saud, the first king of Saudi Arabia who "liberated" it from Ottoman rule in the early half of the last century.

This is perhaps one of the most important things to remember in the war against al Qaeda, what makes it so dangerous is not that they are capable of carrying out attacks against us throughout the world, but rather that their message as entwined as it is into the narrative of Islam (albeit a distorted narrative) that the ideology has the potential to spread and appeal to wide swaths of the population, particularly as they seek for answers to their daily toils, or to vent their anger at their seeming inability to do anything to change their lives or circumstances for the better.

In his blog, Thomas Barnett recently posted on the riots in France and said that they were not about "religion, but about economic connectivity." More importantly however, and this goes to the substance of the argument I made above about al Qaeda's ideological appeal, he also states that "when you're radicalized today, the one package that's both anti-capitalist and anti-Western is jihadist Islam," add that to the manner in which the ideology is packaged for mass consumption and you have a very dangerous and combustible combination.

Update

My thanks to a fellow blogger who publishes the al Qaeda blog and the Cyberterrorism blog for the information on Sheik Essa. According to the article he provided me from CBS News Sheik Essa is or at least claims to be Osama bin Laden's spiritual advisor. As such, the article from Asia Times is either making stuff up, or just received some faulty information. The alternative way of looking at this however, is to wonder whether there has been a larger break within al Qaeda than we know about between two different elements vying for power. Regardless of the validity of the article above, certain things are clear. There is a power struggle within al Qaeda between those who think like bin Laden (focus on the far enemy) and those who think like Az Zarqawi (bring the war to the near enemy). The chatter with regard to this matter is increasing. As Michael Scheuer points out, however, al Qaeda will likely endure beyond bin Laden either way. The organization he and the Afghan Arabs built is capable of surviving the death of even its top leader. Rather than provide a summary of the article, I am providing the link so that you can read it for yourselves. Here is the link. It's worth the time spent.

Read More...

Snippet only...

Sistani, Ahmadinejad and our strategy in the Middle East

Today while browsing the web I came accross this news article on the Council on Foreign Relations website. According to the article, Middle East expert Vali R. Nasr argued at a November 2, 2005 meeting that one of the most important developments resulting from the American invasion of Hussein is the rise of Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani. According to the initial news release, Nasr argued at the meeting that:

"Sistani is shoring up the regional power" of Shiites by his insistence that they will gain more by going to the ballot box than fighting in the streets. He has offered his followers a new model for governance and for gaining power, arguing that the road to political preeminence lies in pursuing representative democracy and not a theocracy. And this perspective, unique to Islam, has young men and women listening around the Arab Muslim world.

This is one of the reasons why I have argued that fears of Iraq becoming a puppet of the Iranian theocracy are at best exaggerated. Sistani, due to his stature as a Shia cleric in both Iran and Iraq, has the standing to take on the Iranian theocrats and effect sweeping change in the region. Nasr cautions however, that:

"Everything depends on Sistani's staying in power," according to Nasr. The man that many Americans, including some in the Bush administration, once ignored or treated with casual respect has become the architect of Iraqi democracy and Shiiite revivalism during the post-major conflict period.

Additionally, Nasr argues that "The new political dynamic in the Middle East is the upward trajectory of an ascending power -- the Shiites -- and the descending arc of the Sunnis throughout the region." What's more, the theocracy in Iraq has lost much of its legitimacy, and the new government of President Ahmedinejad has all but isolated itself both within and outside Iran. The theocracy is ripe for connectivity (as Thomas Barnett has argued), the connectivity that will eventually kill the regime and install a truly representative government for the Iranian people. In this contest against Sunni fundamentalism, Iran will become one of our biggest allies, as it has as much to gain from the defeat of this threat as we do. Additionally, as the natural hegemon in the region, it has the capacity to impact change on a region-wide scale. First, however, we need to change our policies against Iran, as they have only prolongued the life of the theocracy by giving it the ability to blame others (i.e. the US and the West) for the clerics inability to provide for their own population.

All in all, a very interesting article, that ties well with the recent Op-ed piece by Afshin Molavi who reminds us that Iran's middle class was as frightened by Ahmadinehad's outburst this past month, as the rest of the world was. He also notes that "Foreign hostility will furnish additional pretexts for the regime to frighten its people and crack down on dissent," echoing some of the sentiments expressed by Thomas Barnett (who also cited Molavi's Op-ed) in his weblog throughout this year.

Iran is an important component of our push to transform the Middle East, military action against the regime however is not an option given our continuing problems in Iraq. What we need is a sensible foreign policy. The fact that these storied have come out recently to counter the agitation from the blogosphere and our political class to overthrow the Iranian mullahs by force is reassuring.

In many ways, our current policy on Iran, as Thomas Barnett recently said, "is the same strategic genius that's brought you the longest-running dictatorship in the world: Cuba's Fidel Castro."

In the Washington Post today, there was a story titled Iran's President Spa