Are “conservatives” the lackeys of Daesh?

One of the ways that people control a narrative is by defining the terms.  The more the terms are favorable to their narrative, the more they get others to “dance to their tune”.  Both Daesh and “conservatives” have been controlling the narrative to their respective audiences.

What’s this Daesh?  It is the Arabic term for the group that calls itself the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS), the Islamic State in the Levant (ISIL), or just the Islamic State (IS).  Keith Ellison, a member of Congress from Minnesota and a Muslim, refuses to use these “Islamic” descriptions and uses Daesh instead.  One, Daesh does not represent the Islam that Ellison and many others follow.  Two, Daesh does not like this name which is somewhat of a pejorative in Arabic.

Look at this another way.  Daesh represents Islam no more than the Coo Coo Clucks Clan represents Christianity.  By the way, many letter writers say that all Muslims should speak out against Daesh; they forget that many Christians did not openly criticize the Coo Coo Clucks Clan.

Many Muslims are speaking out against Daesh.  See the article about Rep. Keith Ellison and Andre Carson, the other Representative who is a Muslim speaking out against Daesh (see CQ Roll Call, 2015-11-17, also published in the Duluth News Tribune the next day).  The article stated that Ellison and Carson shared the same religion as the terrorists; this is way off the mark.  It is like saying those who call for punishment of gays share Christianity with those who believe “Do unto others as you would have done unto you.”

Also, by the time you read this, my friend M. Imran Hayee should have his own take on Daesh published in the Duluth News Tribune.

Why are “conservatives” the lackeys of Daesh?  Because Daesh wants a war with “Christianity” and anybody else who doesn’t share their corrupted view of Islam.  The “conservatives” think that the U.S. is the Calvary of the movies and will save the wagon train from the bandits or the Indians.  As “Leader of the Free World” with the mightiest army in the world, the U.S. will crush anybody who is not for “freedom”.

But what is the reality of the effectiveness of the U.S. military against a “moral” force such as Daesh?

In 1775, a ragtag army took on a heavily trained army of a distant empire.  It took some years, but with the help of another empire they forced that army to surrender.  Then a much better trained U.S. Army took on lightly-armed groups of a widely-dispersed populace.  In the next century, the U.S. military joined several other countries in defeating an opposing army in a long-drawn out struggle.  That led to the same defeated army being reconstituted under a dictator far worse than the Kaiser of two decades earlier.  Again the U.S. joined several other militaries to defeat this dictator and his army.  Half-way around the world the U.S. military joined several other militaries to defeat an Imperial military.

Then with the confidence from that war the U.S. fought an army that tried to unite a country under its dictator rather than the dictator of the other half of the country.  That other half did move to a democracy that is prospering compared to the invading half which has been living under a brutal line of paranoid dynastic dictators.

These military successes led to a confidence that has not been fulfilled since.

First, the U.S. thought it could fight a guerrilla army that knew the language and had willing and unwilling support from a large portion of the country.  The U.S. could never be sure who was friend and who was foe.  The U.S. had to leave for a variety of reasons.  Ironically, that same country is now a trading partner.  Even though the government is still run by “godless” Communists, it seems to have taken to heart the Christian dictum “forgive those who trespass against you.”

The U.S. did have success in defeating a “ferocious” army that was more bluster than power.  It did leave the dictator in power, but the U.S. did accomplish the goal of getting the dictator’s army out of the country he invaded.

Next, the U.S. took on fighters in a strongly religious country that had a very corrupt government.  The U.S. could never tell for sure who was friend or foe.  That fight still goes on.

Then the U.S. took on the dictator with the “ferocious” army again and sent him into hiding.  However, for a variety of reasons, the country became splintered into several factions and no local politician has made any serious attempt to unify the country.  The U.S. tried supporting the government against its antagonists, but like the army of 1776, the antagonists are scattered throughout the populace.

Out of this chaos has come Daesh.  Who does the U.S. have as allies in the region?  A military dictatorship and the country that promotes Wahhabism, the unforgiving variety of Islam that created Daesh, an Islam that ignores “As Allah forgives you, forgive others.”

Now we have “conservatives” who are “liberal” with dropping bombs in the Middle East.  Are they just playing into the hands of Daesh?  These “Christians” want to keep out Muslims who are fleeing Daesh.  They are afraid that terrorists might come in with the refugees.  But by dropping more bombs and by refusing refugees, might we just reinforce Daesh’s claim that there is a Christian war against Islam?

Also published in the Reader Weekly of Duluth on 2015-11-25 at http://duluthreader.com/articles/2015/11/24/6304_are_conservatives_the_lackeys_of_daesh

Do we reap what we sow?

 History is filled with “what ifs?”  What if the Normans hadn’t invaded England?  What if Columbus hadn’t sailed across the Atlantic?  What if England had included the colonies in Parliament?

We really don’t know how much different actions would have gotten quite different results.  Several authors have written speculative fiction describing outcomes quite different from actual history.  One example is an author who wrote several books on what if the South had won the Civil War.

I don’t really know how things would have turned out if only…, but bear with me as I join the speculators.

Lincoln went to war against the Confederacy because he felt that an un-United States would have left the States open to foreign intervention.  It wasn’t so much that he wanted to free the slaves, but the South did fear the North taking away its slaves.  Lincoln did take away the slaves, but that left so much resentment that “blacks” still are treated as second class citizens in much of the South, to say nothing of the murders committed against blacks in the South (and in the North too).

If the South had successfully seceded, with or without a war, would the slaves eventually be freed?  Probably not.  For example, textile mills in New England would be eager to buy slave-picked cotton from the South.  And manufacturers in the North would be eager to sell all kinds of labor-saving machinery to the South.  Would that machinery be more efficient than slaves?  Thereby reducing the market in slaves?  We really don’t know.

In Europe empires grew to embrace many people of quite different languages and interests.  The empires in turn were distrustful of each other and made treaties with “friendly” empires to protect themselves against “unfriendly” empires.  They thought a balance of power would create a balance of peace.  Then “one leg of the chair” collapsed.  With a single assassination, one group of empires felt the need to attack another group of empires.

If there had been an alliance of all the nations of Europe to settle disputes in a more peaceful manner, would there have been “The War to End All Wars”?  We do know that most of those countries are now at peace with one another.

But at the end of World War I, some victors wanted to punish the losers.  This punishment had two different serious consequences.

In Europe, the injustices perceived by the Germans led to the rise of Adolph Hitler.  Millions died because they were “other” and millions died because of the wars Hitler started.  Consider that not all these deaths were caused by Hitler and his Japanese allies.  The number of innocent people killed in the fire bombings of Dresden and Tokyo and the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki are far greater than the number of people killed in a decade of “Islamic” terrorism.

In the Middle East the Ottoman Empire was broken up willy-nilly without any consideration for the people of the various countries created.  Then oil was discovered and buying countries wanted to make sure they had stable supplies.  It didn’t matter what the form of government was or the what the wishes of the people were.  The buyers supported non-democratic leaders with nary a blink of an eye.  In fact, if a democratic leader tried to change oil contracts to be more beneficial to his country, the buyers sought to overthrow him and replace him with an autocrat.  Remember Mosaddegh and Reza Pahlavi?  Is it any wonder that the ayatollahs took over and had so much animosity to the U.S.?

Then George W. Bush and company decided that they had to do something about Saddam Hussein because of 9/11.  How many Iraqis died because of this war?  It was far more than had died in any number of terrorist attacks before.  And the easy victory that the Bush administration predicted resulted in chaos that still hasn’t settled down either with a stable democracy or a firm dictator.

Into the vacuum came equally hard-nosed militants who believed Allah was on their side.  I find it strange that Allah isn’t booming down from heaven the same message to the rest of us.  And strange that God isn’t booming the same message that George W. Bush received.

All of this religiosity seems to ignore the more gentle wisdom that is in both the Bible and the Koran: do unto others as you would have them to do you, blessed are the peacemakers, the sins of the fathers are passed on to the sons, yea unto the seventh generation, and many more.

“Yet it is in fact militarization that is the cause of the problem in the first place.” - Ben Norton

If you have an hour to spare, read Ben Norton’s “Our Terrorism Double Standard: After Paris Let’s Stop Blaming Muslims and Take a Hard Look at Ourselves”, Salon, 2015-11-14 at
http://www.salon.com/2015/11/14/our_terrorism_double_standard_after_paris_lets_stop_blaming_muslims_and_take_a_hard_look_at_ourselves/ The article doesn’t take an hour to read, but you will want to read many of the related articles in the sidebar.

After the 9/11 attacks, George W. Bush is infamously quoted as advising Americans to “Go shopping.”  I think it was a misguided attempt to ask people to act normally.  My advice to Americans after any of these catastrophes is “Go vote”.  Too often the militant vote and the peacemakers stay home.

Also published in the Reader Weekly, 2015-11-19 at
http://duluthreader.com/articles/2015/11/18/6257_do_we_reap_what_we_sow

Proof that Muslims do speak out

The Huffington Post has a blog by Sophia Jones, “’SNL’ Has Nothing On the Way The Middle East Mocks ISIS”.  See http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/03/03/mocking-islamic-state_n_6790254.html.  Many of the YouTube videos use the music from ISIS videos to mock ISIS.

Oh, yes, many are not anonymous.  The poster’s name and picture accompany the YouTube snippet.

See also “Muslims do speak out.  Are you listening?”

Let's you and him fight!

“There are people who would love to see America fight their war for them,” Kerry said. “But that is not their choice.”

– "U.S. coming under fire from Mideast allies, who see retrenchment", Paul Richter, Los Angeles Times, 2014-01-24.

Finally, the U.S. is recognizing that it is not the world's policeman and it cannot stop every "bad guy" from harming the "good guys".  Generally when we fight the "bad guys", many of the "good guys" resent the U.S. coming in and disrupting their country.

I often wonder why the U.S. has to "train" a government's soldiers and police in counter-insurgency or whatever.  It seems the ragtag bad guys do quite well with AK-47s and IEDs than the government does with it more powerful weapons.  Could it be that the soldiers and police are in it only because it is a job, they can extort people, and they really don't have much faith in the government?

I often wonder why we don't say to corrupt or ineffective leaders "Shape up or we ship out!"

Syria: Let's you and him fight

Why is it that Arab states that don't like Syria and some of its actions want others to resolve the problem?  See "Arab League Endorses International Action", David D. Kirkpatrick, New York Times, 2013-09-01?

Saudi Arabia and Egypt are far stronger militarily than Syria.  Could it be that they don't want to be seen as Arab against Arab?  Turkey is also stronger militarily than Syria.  Could it be that Turkey doesn't want to be seen as Muslim against Muslim?  Or would they rather have a Western power deal with Syria so that if things go wrong then they can blame the outsider?

The U.S. has provided billions of dollars in military sales or aid to several military powers in the Middle East, including "the latest air-to-air missiles and precision-guided air-to-ground missiles" - "U.S. Militarization of the Middle East", Seema Luthra, Fellowship of Reconcilation.  If Saudi Arabia is so concerned about Syria, couldn't it take out whatever targets in Syria that it chooses?  After all, Saudi Arabia's military budget is about 20 times that of Syria.

The attitude of too many in the U.S., that we are a super-power that can police the world, has gotten out of hand.  Too many people believe that we can solve their problems and we are too willing to appear that we can.

George Washington warned us over two hundred years ago: "The Nation, which indulges towards another an habitual hatred, or an habitual fondness, is in some degree a slave. It is a slave to its animosity or to its affection, either of which is sufficient to lead it astray from its duty and its interest." - Farewell Address

Syria – A letter to the President of the United States

I posted the following on "Contact Us" at http://www.whitehouse.gov.

Before you were born, the Department of War became the Department of Defense.  Unfortunately, several times since the Department of Defense has become the Department of Offense with disastrous results for troops, our citizens, the economy, and other countries' views towards us.

If we are truly to have a Department of Defense, what is the threat that dictators like Assad pose towards the U.S.?  Is he going to invade us?  If we invade Syria you can rest assured that action will breed terrorists who will invade us.

If Assad is a threat to the region, don't Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Kuwait have enough U.S. equipment to take on Assad?

If the U.S. sticks its nose into Syria, it will only give these countries cover to not take action themselves, leaving us as the fall guy when things go badly.

A couple of Middle East surprises

When I wrote "Muslims do speak out" I mentioned some newspapers including The Daily Star of Lebanon.  I scanned the headlines and read a story or two.

One story was that the Russian Foreign Minister, Sergei Lavrov, said that Syrian rebels have about 50 Stinger missiles.  Stinger missiles were used quite effectively by Afghani fighters against Soviet helicopters.  I wondered when some would be available to the rebels in Syria against the aerial attacks by the government.  I didn't see any mention of the missiles actually being used.  But Lavrov voiced concerns about the missiles being used against civilian aircraft.  Given the shifting mix of fighters, this should concern all countries.

The other surprise was an ad near the bottom of a page - an ad for Mitt Romney for President sponsored by www.MittRomney.com/Minnesota!  We're being tracked!!

Another reason for a third party

I leave notes to myself by one means or another all over the place. Some never resurface, some pop up but are no longer relevant, and some pop up that are still relevant months or even years later.

One such was a link to a Huffington Post article from mid-May about President Obama's supposed reset on Middle East policy: "Obama's Reset: Arab Spring or Same Old Thing?", Nick Turse, Huffington Post, 2011-05-17.

For all of Obama's talk about supporting the people in the efforts to free themselves of dictatorships and his condemnation against governments that use military force to thwart these efforts, his administration still supplies the tools of suppression - U.S.-made weaponry.

This is another instance of both parties being beholden to the corporatocracy of the U.S. instead of the people of the U.S. You can find a good definition of corporatocracy at Wikipedia.

Personally, I don't think we'll have any hope of world peace until the U.S. stops supporting dictatorships, cuts way back on its own military, and stops exporting so much military equipment. Are jobs here worth somebody dying in another country?

And I think the only way these will happen if a third party arises that really seeks to govern in the long-term interests of the American people instead of the short-term interests of a powerful few. Maybe such a party would take the advice of George Washington and Dwight Eisenhower in their farewell addresses, not as dogma, but as advice.

I'm sort of "ignorant of history" in that I have not read completely either of these. I did put versions of these addresses in my reading backlog file. My copy of Washington's address is from http://www.earlyamerica.com/earlyamerica/milestones/farewell/text.html and Eisenhower's is from http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/dwightdeisenhowerfarewell.html. This latter site also includes the audio; you can find plenty of copies of the TV broadcast by a search for "eisenhower's farewell address".

Freedom and democracy: It's not what you believe but what you do

I find it very hard to read Charles Krauthammer; I think he is very rigid in his thinking.  When he wrote in his latest column, "From freedom agenda to freedom doctrine", Washington Post, 2011-02-10, that George Bush and the neo-cons were the only ones interested in promoting freedom and democracy, I stopped reading.

What he ignores is that the neo-cons solution was to bring freedom and democracy at the point of a gun.  We can see how well that is working in Iraq and Afghanistan where chaos is more the norm.  What he ignores is that the Egyptians have started on a path to freedom and democracy, not with guns but with their gums.  They did it not with outside armies but by themselves.

In writing this, I did go back and skim Krauthammer's article.  He does make a good point with the second point of his Freedom Doctrine, but most of the rest is a call for the world being as we think it should be, not as others may want it.

A much better read is "They Did It", Thomas Friedman, New York Times, 2011-02-12, written in Cairo.  One of the best quotes is, "Because the Obama team never found the voice to fully endorse the Tahrir Square revolution until it was over, the people in that square now know one very powerful thing: They did this all by themselves."

U.S and Iran need each other, to hell with the people

I found an interesting opinion on how the Arab and Muslim people are caught between a rock and a hard place.  Foreign policy of nations antagonistic to each other goes on without consideration of the affected people.  The author of "Green and Jasmine bleeding together", Hamid Dabashi, makes the point that Islamic Republic of Iran needs to demonize the U. S. to hold its power and that the U. S. needs the threat of Islamic terrorism to support autocratic "allies".  Both sides could care less about the people in the affected nations.

Keeping up with events in Egypt

If you are a news freak who couldn't get enough news about Iran in 2009, your best source on Egypt is Al-Jazeera.  The English version on the web is at

http://english.aljazeera.net/

For the latest, check out the blogs.  There is also plenty of commentary from many sources and perspectives.  One I found particular interesting is "The triviality of US Mideast policy" by Robert Grenier, a former director of the CIA's Counter-Terrorism Center.  He relates how the headmaster of his school was unknowingly made irrelevant by an anti-Vietnam War protest.    Similarly, events have made most of U.S. Mideast policy irrelevant and outdated.

P.S. Cairo time is 8 hours ahead of Central Standard Time.

Will North Africa and the Middle East join the democracies of Europe?

People in their 50s and older may remember not only the dictatorships of Eastern Europe, but the dictatorships of Portugal, Spain and Greece. Many of these are now gone.  About the only authoritarian European regimes left are Russia and some of its former "republics".

Many of us had hopes for Iran a couple of years ago, but some of the Ayatollahs, the Republican Guard, and the Basiji put the damper on that.  Now the government of Tunisia has toppled and the situation is in flux.  The Egyptian government has been seriously challenged to a greater extent than Iran was.  In fact, as of today, the people practically rule the streets and have destroyed many government building while protecting popular buildings like museums.

What will the next ten years bring?  The European model or more of the same old self-perpetuation of self-appointed elites?

An old troublemaker as a peacemaker

Muammar Qaddafi has written a very interesting op-ed piece in the New York Times, "The One-State Solution" for Israel and Palestine; he calls the proposed state Isratine.

He argues that there is already much co-operation between Jews and Palestinians with Arabs in politics in Israel and Israeli factories in Palestine.

Judge for yourself if he makes sense.

Peace in the middle east?

Daniel Terdiman thinks that cheaper desalinization might be the most pressing problem to solve (What innovations are most important to world's future?, CNET News, 2008-11-14). He also suggests that water access may be a more important issue between Israel and Syria.

If Israel could desalinate water and sell it cheaply to Syria, Jordan, and Palestine, it may make itself indispensible to the supposed enemies.

See also his Space Station residents to drink recycled urine", CNET News, 2008-11-14.