Freedom Cafe

Looking back at 10-years of War

2011-09-11T23:48:00.006-04:00

It has been ten years since the fateful attacks of September 11, 2001. These attacks had a dramatic impact on the world and fundamentally shifted the direction of international politics. Although I recognize that much ink has been spilt on this issue already, I feel compelled to add my own personal reflections on these events. 911 had a direct impact on my life’s trajectory and through this post I aim to highlight some of its effects on me, America, and the world. I believe that we must reflect on the past if we hope to create a better, more positive future. If we do not, we will continue down our current path of perdition.

On 911, I was in the 10th grade at King High School in Tampa, Florida. I heard about the attacks just as I was about to leave my homeroom class that morning. I had been chatting with the always affable Mr. Carrell when an 11th grader came in and told us that a plane had hit the World Trade Center in New York. We immediately checked the TV and, sure enough, there was footage playing of the burning World Trade Center. With that image in mind and having no idea what was going on, I headed over to Spanish class.

My memory of the rest of the day is a bit foggy but there are a few memorable moments that I do recall. I remember going into Mr. Cimorra’s Spanish class and doing our classwork as though nothing had happened. I remember going into my AP European History class and having an epic conversation on what was going on in the world. I led that discussion, even though I only had – at best – a very rudimentary knowledge of global politics. It seemed to me that something dramatic had happened based on the sketchy information that was available at the time and that this event would have global reverberations well into the future.

The news media and government almost immediately blamed the attacks on a loosely defined organization known as Al Qaeda, led by the former CIA-trained Osama Bin Laden. He was hiding out in Afghanistan at the time and President Bush belligerently declared to the world that “You’re either with us, or you’re with the terrorists.” Although the Taliban had offered to hand over Osama Bin Laden for a trial to a neutral third country, the Bush Administration would hear none of it. Instead, President Bush preferred to entertain a Manichean fantasy in which the good guys – i.e. America – would righteously destroy evil doers all over the world in an epic war of terror.

For me, these events ushered in a period of intense personal growth. To say that I was at an impressionable age is a bit of an understatement. These attacks marked for me an awareness of my “Otherness,” since I was a foreign-born Muslim in a country whose President had decided to launch a “crusade” on evil doers who were exclusively Muslim. But why was the US doing this? And why was it targeting the Muslim world? I did not know the answer to these and similar questions, but I wanted to find these answers. I needed to know how and why this happened, both to satisfy my interest and to also be able to partially answer these questions for others. I thus set off on a multi-year journey to understand the broad arc of global history. What I found was that the more I learned, the more questions I had. After some time, I had managed to pick up a decent amount of history, but I was constantly in need of more answers. I became a sponge trying to understand the world. Every event was interrelated and so I had to keep digging deeper and deeper for more and more knowledge.

The journey for answers has taken me all over the world and I now can make some educated statements about 911, its consequences, and global significance. Although I recognize that it is next to impossible to cover these topics briefly, I will still attempt to grapple with some key themes.

911 was the direct result of terrible American foreign policy choices. By choosing to arm “freedom fighters” in Afghanistan against the Soviet Union in the 80s, we laid the seeds for future attacks against America. By giving Iraq a green-light to invade Kuwait in 1990, we set the basis for the new unipolar world. We went ahead and attacked Iraq for invading Kuwait which, in turn, inspired Osama Bin Laden to launch a global jihad against America. The raison d'être for Osama Bin Laden and his ilk would have been eliminated had the US not based troops in Saudi Arabia and offered unconditional support for all Israeli policies.

As tragic as 911 was, the events of that day pale in comparison to what has happened since then. The US has doubled-down on failed foreign policy positions and has decided to fight fire with fire. The US launched immoral and illegal wars abroad, which caused the needless death of hundreds and thousands of innocent civilians. The hubris of imperial overstretch has drained our treasury and cost us our moral standing in the world. We have seen the evisceration of the rule of law and our government has destroyed core civil liberties in the name of security. Finally, the coup de grâce has been the bipartisan consolidation of the corporate/national-security state.

But how should we move forward? Since we have collectively destroyed the basis of our individual-rights based social compact, should we be like the Chinese and adopt a more collectivist approach to rights? Is it necessary to do so to deal with the myriad of problems that we face, from massive environmental degradation to increased competition over scarce resources? Should we continue to wage endless wars abroad and be distracted by the kabuki theater of electoral politics? Or should we demand more from our leaders, like much of the pro-democracy activists have been across the Middle East? And if we do, will we be coopted by counter-revolutionaries, as is the norm? Is it even possible to expect change, when we fall for craven salesman like Obama who offers us the Madison Avenue type of change that feeds us with the same – albeit more articulate – bullshit?

Honestly, I have no idea the answer to these questions. For America, our government behaves more like an African anocracy rather than a global superpower. And yet, there is hope in other parts of the globe. Much of Latin America has seen the rise of populist governments that have been more receptive and responsive to the needs of their people. Turkey has emerged as a regional power in the Middle East and an inspiration for the entire Muslim world. The so called “rise of the rest” has seen the redistribution of global wealth to many developing countries around the world and the improvement of millions of people’s standards of living. All of these things are positive indicators of change, but we need to do so much more.

We as a species have long since passed the point of no return. We are burning through more resources than our earth can replenish and yet we continue to maim and kill each other around the world. Although it is true that deaths from global conflict have dropped substantially and that there are many positive indicators across the developing world, there are still many changes that need to be made. If we as individuals can resolve to treat each other with respect, humility, and patience our species may yet still have a chance. Most importantly, we must truly want the best for our brothers and sisters around the world, and meet others with empathy and love, not arrogance and hatred. Then perhaps we can begin to make our Eden here instead of waiting for it in the sky above.

Technological Hubris

2011-03-13T12:12:00.001-04:00

As Americans, we are hardwired to believe in technology and progress. We are taught from an early age about how important technology has been to the American experiment, from the cotton gin to the computer. We are told that through technology our lives will inevitably become better.

This technological triumphalism, however, is a myth built on a house of cards. So while technology has the potential to make our lives better, it also has the potential to cause debilitating harm. We have witnessed technological hubris first-hand with the massive oil-spill in the Gulf of Mexico and are currently watching the nuclear meltdown of several power plants in Japan. These accidents were all man-made and a direct result of poor policy choices. What these catastrophes should make clear to policy makers now is that we need to immediately change course, especially on energy issues.

The most important issue that we must first deal with is how to end our reliance on oil. We can only do this by an immediate and rapid switch to renewable energy sources, such as solar, wind, hydro, and thermal power. Each of these requires a great deal of investment in technology, which is the right kind of investment that will benefit us in long run. Yet, as Americans we have fallen behind China on investment in solar technology and other forms of renewable energy. Instead of being at the forefront of positive technological innovation, we’ve adopted some of the worst policy positions on energy using pernicious technology instead.

This fact is best illustrated by President Obama’s abysmal energy record. He opened up offshore oil and natural gas drilling off the coast of the United States in March of 2010. The very next month, the Deepwater Horizon explosion caused the worst oil-spill in our nation’s history. The short-term consequences from this event were a temporary freeze on new offshore drilling permits and the massive ecological devastation of the Gulf. The long-term consequences of this event are still being documented and it has already exacerbated the vast dead-zone in the Gulf of Mexico. Instead of changing course, the Obama Administration has doubled-down on its wrongheaded strategy and has since lifted the ban on offshore drilling. What this tragedy should make clear is that adopting old technology to extract dirty sources of energy is extremely problematic for both us and the environment.

Another failure of Obama’s energy policy was his adoption of nuclear power as a “clean” source of energy. In fact, he supported an $8.3 billion-dollar loan guarantee for the construction of the first new nuclear power plant in United States in over thirty years. He took this position in spite of the fact that there are huge drawbacks to nuclear power, such as the possibility of apocalyptic nuclear meltdowns, there is no safe way to store nuclear waste, and that nuclear power plants are more expensive to build and maintain as compared to every other type of power plant. Furthermore, the nuclear meltdowns in Japan buttress the dangerous nature of this technology. It should be eminently clear that this archaic technology needs to be retired, not encouraged.

What is amazing about the previous two examples is that both offshore drilling and nuclear energy have been hallmark Republican energy proposals for last several decades that Democrats have traditionally opposed. Instead of listening to the saner voices in his caucus, President Obama has adopted bad policy positions from the Republican Party. These policies have been tried before and failed. The great compromiser Obama (well only with the Republicans, not liberals in his own party) would rather adopt failed policies from his political opponent’s rather than chart out a bold new path towards sustainable energy. The continued use of these antiquated, failed technologies is harmful for both us and the environment.

President Obama, Congress, and other policy makers need to rapidly change course on energy policy. Although President Obama has offered tepid proposals on sustainable energy, a lot more needs to be done and fast. Through our hubris, we have challenged the very laws of nature and are now beginning to feel the negative consequences. What all of these various technological disasters should demonstrate to us as a nation is that technology and progress do not necessarily go hand-in-hand. Murphy’s Law often prevails. If there is anything good we can learn from the Gulf oil disaster and the Japanese meltdowns is that technological hubris will cause blowback. We must end offshore drilling and prevent the construction of new nuclear power plants. Instead of sticking to harmful and antiquated technologies, Americans need to rapidly adopt positive technology that will help us achieve a sustainable energy future. As Albert Einstein once put it, “We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them.”

Taking Freedom Seriously

2011-01-29T18:41:00.005-05:00

One of the most important aspects of the demonstrations going on in countries across the Middle East has been that people are willing to challenge tyrannical governments through protest. In Tunisia, Egypt, Yemen, and Lebanon, thousands of people are coming out en masse to protest their governments’ actions. These mass demonstrations have already toppled the regime of President Zine El Abidine Ben Ali of Tunisia on January 14th and are having a dramatic impact on President Hosni Mubarak’s Egypt. But why, after all these years, have people started to protest? Are protests an effective way to bring about positive change? And what implications does this have for other tyrannical regimes in the Middle East?

These protests have generally been explained as mass uprisings by lay people who are fed up with living under despotic and sclerotic governments. Some commenters have explained that the roots of these crises are people’s desire for freedom. Others have argued that these protests have a material basis, and that what people really want are jobs and lower prices for staple goods. A debate rages on about whether these protests are primarily about political liberty or economic security. Although it is unclear which of the two factors is more important, what is preeminently clear is that both of this issues matter and that there is tremendous dissatisfaction within the body politic.

But can protests bring about positive change? The answer again is unclear. There are examples of protests that have led to successful revolutions. For example, American colonists protested British taxation policies which, in turn, led to the successful America Revolution. More recently, decolonization across the world has led to the development of dozens of new countries. Hundreds of millions of people in Africa and Asia have been living in independent states for several decades now with mixed results. Some of these societies—like Malaysia—have prospered and are developing rapidly. Unfortunately, many other postcolonial societies ended up with regimes as tyrannical—if not worse—than their former colonial masters. However, what will ultimately determine the success or failure of these current protests is the degree to which these popular mass movements can gain control of the institutions of power in society and use these institutions for the greater good.

All of this suggests a complex future for the states across the Middle East. Countries like Egypt, with an unpopular government backed by the US, will have to reform or face revolution. At this point, however, it seems that incremental reform has become impossible. With protesters out in force from Cairo to Beriut and everywhere in between, we are entering a new chapter in the history of the modern Middle East. Tyrannical regimes in the region should be worried because they will have to answer to their people. It is my hope that the people of the region will reshape their states and create better societies for their own future.

I am encouraged by the fact that people across the Middle East are protesting and challenging tyranny. Far too often, people are cowed by traditional power-elites and do not take their freedom seriously. So I tip my hat to my brothers and sisters across the Middle East and support their peaceful fight for freedom. Liberté, égalité, fraternité for all!

Why Islamophobia Does Not Matter

2010-09-23T20:15:00.002-04:00

Most Muslim Americans would tell you that there has been a rise in Islamophobia, which is the irrational fear or hatred of Islam. There have been numerous recent events that illustrate this trend, such as the “Ground Zero Mosque” controversy, Qur’an burning, and the bombing of a Jacksonville Mosque. These events and other have come to collectively illustrate that there are people and groups in America that would like nothing more than to denigrate Islam and ostracize Muslims. This growth in Islamophobia has led some Muslims to feel alienated from mainstream society as a nascent awareness of their “otherness” has begun to take root. However, before Muslims begin to accept an inferior status in society, it is important to put Islam in America in context. I believe that by looking at Islam in America, one can see that Islamophobia does not really matter and is only a temporary setback for Muslims in America.

Islam in America is being practiced in a wide variety of ways by the estimated seven to ten million Muslim Americans. This group is comprised of both an indigenous and immigrant communities. The indigenous Muslim community is primarily composed of African-American converts who were first introduced to Islam through the teachings of Elijah Muhammad and the Nation of Islam in 1950s and 60s. That community eventually divided into two segments—one that continued to follow the Nation of Islam and another that moved towards mainstream Sunni Islam. In addition to the indigenous Muslim community, a large group of immigrant Muslims came to America after the passage of 1965 Immigration and Nationality Act. This immigrant Muslim community was largely composed of well-educated professionals who were able to stake out their claims on the American Dream. Currently, Islam is the fastest growing religion in America and the community as a whole is a motley crew of first, second, and third generation immigrants and indigenous Muslims.

With the diversity of Islam in America, it is difficult to gauge the full spectrum of beliefs of the community. However, the most comprehensive research to date of Muslims in America was done in 2007 by the Pew Research Center. The key findings of that report was that Muslim Americans were largely middle-class, assimilated, and hold mainstream political opinions. In addition, nearly two-to-one (63%-32%) do not see a conflict between being a devout Muslim and living in a modern society. Overall what this research proved was that Muslim Americans did not have a problem reconciling their faith with their country and that Muslims are very much a part of the mainstream fabric of American society.

So if Muslims are mainstream members of our society, why has there been such a rise in hate-crimes and anti-Islamic rhetoric on the airwaves? Many people have addressed this issue and the general consensus is that Muslims are being targeted because it is politically convenient to demonize Islam and conflate it with terrorism because of the 9/11 attacks. However, Muslims in America are going through a hazing process that many other religious groups in America—ranging from the Catholics to the Jews—have already gone through only to emerge as stronger community because of it. I believe that this too will happen for Muslims in America.

The future for Muslims in America is bright. The bigots will not prevail and this recent spate of Islamophobia has provided room for a much-needed dialogue in our country. With an expanded dialogue, Americans will be exposed to what Islam in America is really all about. The sensationalist hatemongers will inevitably fall out of favor and Muslims will one-day find their place at the American table.

War is Peace

2010-01-06T15:20:00.005-05:00

I, like everyone else in the world, was shocked when I heard that President Obama had been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. After I realized that he had, in fact, been given the award and that this wasn’t just some elaborate faux news stunt, I tried to figure out what the Swedish Nobel committee could have possibly been thinking when they decided to give him the prize. So while they said they awarded him the prize for “his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples,” I understood the prize to be given to him for basically not being George W. Bush. Believing that Obama deserves the peace prize is utterly ludicrous; I mean Obama himself was shocked to get the award. But to actually give him the prize is, frankly, truly Orwellian. International politics have become so poisoned that perpetual war has become peace and rhetoric is more prized than reality. Obama’s peace prize just illustrates the substantial disconnect between image and reality that has become the norm in international relations.

In Obama’s Nobel acceptance speech, he laid out the circumstances in which war is justified—in self-defense, to come to the aid of an invaded nation, or on humanitarian grounds. A reasonably persuasive case can be made to justify war in each of these circumstances; however, given how Obama justified these premises and the realities that exist in the world, war based on any of three of these premises is unjustifiable. To prove this point, let’s consider the places that Obama is waging war in and whether or not these fit into his theory of a just war.

The two primary areas where the United States is currently waging war are in Afghanistan and Iraq. In terms of Afghanistan, the US invaded shortly after the September 11th attacks, purportedly to attack Al Qaeda. The justification for this invasion came when President George W. Bush declared that he would attack and destroy “terrorists” anywhere in the world and make no distinction between those terrorists and the regimes that harbored them. This Bush Doctrine of preventive war has since been used to justify American attacks in countries across the world in our Global War of Terror, with recent attacks being carried out in Pakistan, Somalia, and Yemen. So if rooting out terrorism was our goal in Afghanistan, and there are less than 100 Al Qaeda members still there, how can the continued occupation of Afghanistan be justified? Theoretically, one could argue that the continued occupation is being done for humanitarian reasons to protect the Afghan people (though this, of course, is an extremely dubious claim since America keeps killing hundreds of civilians in air strikes), but this is not what Obama has been arguing. Instead, he has explicitly stated in his Afghan surge speech that, “Our overarching goal remains the same: to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and to prevent its capacity to threaten America and our allies in the future.” So basically we are staying in Afghanistan on the belief that less than 100 Al Qaeda members can somehow threaten America and our allies. This belief is as preposterous as Obama winning the peace prize and a glaring example of the innate contradiction in his just war theory.

As for Iraq, everyone already knows that the reasons the US went to war in Iraq—because of weapons of mass destruction, a threat from Saddam Hussein, and supposedly a link between Iraq and 9-11—are utterly false and discredited, so why do we continue to occupy that country? Again, according to Obama, our goal is to ensure that “Iraq…is sovereign, stable, and self-reliant.” America continues to occupy Iraq in order to achieve these goals; however, as laudable as these goals may be, they contradict his just-war theory and have more to do with nation building than continued military operations. There is a clear disconnect in his actions. For Iraqis, giving Obama the peace prize while America continues to occupy their country is just adding insult to injury.

Obama has also taken over the Global War of Terror from President Bush and has been proactively expanding this war into Pakistan, Somalia, and Yemen. In using the Bush Doctrine to justify attacking these countries, he has further eroded the line between preemption and self-defense. Using this logic, a million alleged threats could (and have) been invented to wage war and this is the very logic that expansionist military regimes have always used to justify their wars of aggression. For Obama to enthusiastically embrace this position puts him line with the great war criminals of the world, not the great peacemakers.

War is not peace. Regardless of Obama’s slick intellectual arguments, his actions belie his rhetoric. With President Bush, one could clearly see his bellicose actions and intent. However, with President Obama, one could be hoodwinked by his considerable rhetorical finesse to believe that he is a man of peace. The reality is that Obama is even more aggressive than President Bush and to give him The Nobel Peace Prize demeans the very notion of peace and is truly the audacity of hubris.

[Reaction] “Bush’s War”

2009-09-17T11:23:00.001-04:00

Back in March of 2008, I watched a documentary entitled “Bush’s War” on PBS. It gave a timeline of how and why the war occurred. The documentary was an okay retrospective and had a few good points and many flaws.

The strength of the documentary was in its timeline of events and people interviewed. The timeline provided a concise overview of key moments from the lead-up to the war until how the war fell apart. The focus of this series was on the main political actors involved and so it is a top-down recollection of events. However, there were many issues that were ignored.

The flaws in this documentary are numerous. Above all, it was not trying to rock the boat or do any gutsy investigative journalism. For example key issues, such as the US desire for permanent military bases in Iraq or control of Iraqi oil, were ignored. Key figures like Alan Greenspan and Gen. John Abizaid have come out and said the war was about oil. If one looks at the immediate occupation of Iraq, the US only protected the ministry of oil and interior ministry (for WMD claims) from looting, while the rest of Baghdad was a free-for-all for looters. Furthermore, there was no analysis on how the media was instrumental in supporting the war. They also offered the administrations line on some issues—such as WMDs—but left it at that. They didn't give the UN inspectors dissenting voice which said at the time there was no evidence of WMDs in Iraq. In describing the Guantanamo Bay prison complex, they accepted the claim that it housed "Bin Laden's foot soldiers", which is patently false. The vast majority of those imprisoned at Gitmo were/are innocent and only a handful of prisoners had any sort of ties to Al Qaeda. So Frontline seemed to miss some of the glaring issues surrounding the war in favor of a more traditional discussion of it.

These obvious problems with the documentary, on top of the fact that it was released five years after the invasion, make it a weak critique of Bush’s War. While it was a good refresher on the timeline of events in Iraq, it did not probe into the meat of the war. Overall, I would say only watch this documentary if you want a general timeline of significant events that occurred during the Iraq War, but don’t expect any real substantive reporting.

The Great Debaters and Other Thoughts in the Night

2009-09-17T11:20:00.003-04:00

I originally wrote much of this piece back on May the 5th. However, it remained incomplete and I had never gotten around to finishing it until now. Consequently, I am posting this piece which took place a little over half-way into my time in Malaysia.

As I write these words, I reflect on the fact that it’s been fourth months and a day since I landed here in Malaysia. Those four months might have well been four years in terms of the amount of experiences I’ve had. I mean it’s not like I haven’t lived abroad before—I spent a wonderful six months in Sydney in 2005—but this time, I wasn’t just passively experiencing life, I was actively living it. Right now, having just showered after the longest run I’ve been able to do since arriving, and still perspiring from a delightful catharsis, I write these words as though I just awoke after a rejuvenating siesta, the kind that truly refreshes the body and soul. Feeling wide-awake, I’ve decided to pen my thoughts.

Initially I thought I would write about reflections on these past four months. But then I thought, why do that, when I can talk about what I did today—a day that perfectly sums up my life in Malaysia. So instead of a reflection piece, I’m putting some words to paper or, rather, words to my laptop and from there the world wide web to give those who care—or don’t—a snapshot from my life on May 5, 2009.

I woke up today at around 830am. I ate what can only barely be called a breakfast—a pb&chocolate sandwich hardly seems to be what a 23 year old transitioning vegetarian should be eating—and got ready to go to school. I hopped on the internet—the one thing I make sure to do religiously here in anywhere I go—and caught up on the news from around the world and the usual bundle of emails I receive in the morning. After a quick skype conversation with Naumaan and Irfaan—God bless the creators of skype, my link to those most important to me in the world—I hopped in my Kancil—a small, four-door compact that takes me from point A to point B, most of the time…—and headed to school.

The usual seven-kilometer commute to work was no different today, except that I had to stop off at the dobi to pick up and drop off some clothes. When I got to school (I teach at a public high school here in the Malaysian state of Terengganu, in the district of Kemaman, and the city of Kerteh)—on Malay standard time as usual—I looked around for my Form 5 (equivalent of high school seniors) student who would participating in a district-wide public speaking contest. After locating her in the open-air passageway, some of my Form 2 (equivalent of eighth or ninth graders) wanted me to come teach their class. Apparently their teacher wasn’t at school today—unfortunately, an all too frequent occurrence here, and this is supposed to be one of the top schools in the district—so they wanted me to fill in. They were really excited and practically dragged me into my classroom so that I could teach them. I kept saying to no one in particular that I had to go to public speaking competition but the students were in just too ebullient of a mood to listen. So I stepped into class, explained to them that I would have to be leaving momentarily, and decided to briefly play this education “Exploring Malaysia” game with them. Basically, it’s a game with a bunch of flash cards—almost exactly like trivial pursuit—that ask the students trivia about Malaysia. I looked at the class the class and they looked disappointed that I wouldn’t be able to play the entire game with them, as they always seemed to enjoy playing this game more than any lesson plan I’ve ever done. So with a heavy-heart, I had to leave the students because I had to go to the public competition with my other students, the one’s I had groomed in the art of rhetoric.

The public speaking competition was being held in the biggest city in Kemaman, in the city of Cukai. I had to do the half-hour commute alone in my Kancil on a tortuous, but fairly scenic, route to get to the high school where the competition was being held.

I arrived at the school, SMK Cukai, around 1030am. I met another one of the ETAs who happened to be there with her students and we exchanged pleasantries for a bit. I then spoke with my Form 5 Indian student who was participating in the event. Her name was Shamin and she had prepared an excellent speech on Global Warming. In total, there were 18 students who spoke from the different district schools, giving between 5-6 minute speeches on prepared topics. Shamin delivered a fairly good speech which began, “Oh no, the sky is falling! Not really, but global warming…” and the audience seemed to like it. She was clearly in the top segment of the debaters and the students discussed all sorts of things, from the greatness of the tomato to the issue of bullying. The competition seemed to drag on since it got progressively warmer as the day went on—we were under an outdoor, roofed auditorium—and there were so many speakers. Thankfully there was a break before the impromptu round, during which everyone was able to relax and eat.

The impromptu round went by much quicker and the students had only three minutes to speak on a topic that they had 20 minutes to prepare a discussion for. The topic was significance of freedom. I practically jumped for joy when I heard about the topic, since I had done a whole series of classes on various freedoms, such as the freedom of speech and the freedom of religion. When it was Shamin’s turn to perform, she did quite well, except that her speech only lasted a little over a minute. This was quite typical for most of the speakers, or some speakers would just completely freeze and say nothing, so I hoped it hadn’t ruined Shamin’s chances at winning an award. Before the speech, I had mentally ranked her as the third best speaker out of the eighteen students there. After the conclusion of the impromptu speeches, I thought she was definitely still in the top 5 and, hopefully, still number three. Alas, when the award ceremony happened, she didn’t place in the top three and had to go home empty handed. Nevertheless, I know she learned a lot from the various public speaking lessons we had together and her general public speaking confidence had gone up significantly. It was an interesting event and then I started my drive back to Kerteh.

I drove straight to the Mesra Mall. This mall had been my savior throughout my time in Malaysia. I would always go here to eat and I would often go to the Indian restaurant Hameed’s. I went there today and had two dhosa masalas with daal and orange juice. I added some Famous Amos cookies to my meal and my feast was fantastic. The four places I would most frequent in the Mall was Hameed’s, Secret Recipe, Pizza Hut, Starbucks, and Famous Amos. Since I basically ate out every day, I felt like a college student all over again.

I then drove home completely full and quite drowsy. I got into bed to relax for a bit and let my body digest. I then received the now-familiar buzz of an incoming text-message and instantly smiled. Seeing the message woke me up from the daydream and I decided to leave the sloth-like position I had been in and head off for a long run.

I ran for about 45 minutes and my head was full of ideas that I wanted to write about. The run itself was amazing, it was one of those runs that I could have just kept going on and on with, but it got too dark, so I had to come back home. I came in and relaxed; I watched my sweat drip down my eyebrows, nose, and chin, all the droplets collecting in an ever growing pool in front of my contented legs. I grabbed some drinks and then I wrote a few things down on paper on the different thought that were running through my mind. I took a quick shower and then began writing a blog post about my day while the endorphins from running gave me a pleasant high.

One thought that had I been mulling over was how different interpersonal relations are outside of America. Generally speaking, American relationships tend to be superficial and people don’t naturally feel the urge to help people out. While I recognize that this is not true for all of America, I do think that this is very true for urban America. Relationships reflect the consumer society that America embodies—everything is transitory and disposable, both things and people. Relationships in other countries, particularly non-Western societies, tend to be more authentic and real. People care about you for who you are, not what purpose you serve them. While it is true that people will constantly float in and out of one’s lives, I have come to notice that my strongest relationships have been forged outside of the US, or with people who are originally not from the US. Sadly, this is the state of American society today.

I also reflected on the concept of freedom as it had been discussed ad nauseam by the debater’s today. I think that the strength of Western Civilization lies in its respect for basic freedoms—freedom of speech, assembly, religion. I’m definitely no Uncle Barack…errr…Uncle Tom and I despise Kipling’s alleged Burden, but I do recognize that these cherished fundamentals that exist—however much reduced in the post 9-11 era—in the West do not exist anywhere near the degree they need to be in the East. There needs to be more freedom of thought, so that people can pick and choose from the marketplace of ideas what to believe and not believe. This freedom deficit that does exist in non-Western societies needs to be rapidly and radically reduced, so that the benefits of innovation, diversity, and pluralism can flourish and help these societies grow. Freedom is a beautiful, under-utilized asset, and wherever it truly flourishes, so too do those societies.

As I finished up writing and prepared to go to bed, I realized it was the perfect day—well almost perfect minus a particular noun—and I was very happy at this moment in time. I recognize I’m where I need to be and I hope that I captured essence of the thoughts running through my mind. I was glad to pen my thought for a bit and that I did so before they had a chance to forever slip out of my mind. So Malaysia has been fantastic to me so far and I only hope that things will keep getting better.

Originally written on: 5-5-09
Completed on: 9-16-09
-Nausherwan Hafeez

Obama’s Speech to the Muslim World

2009-09-17T10:51:00.006-04:00

The most perfidious politician is one whose rhetoric is in line with what is correct, but whose actions are patently wrong. This is the conundrum that both Americans and the international community face when dealing with President Barack Obama. President Obama’s rhetoric and eloquence tend to give him the benefit of the doubt, that what he is saying is either the truth or will be the truth one-day. However, when one looks beyond rhetoric to the actual actions being taken and plans being made, many of Obama’s policies are as bad—and in some cases worse—as President George W. Bush’s. Obama’s much vaunted speech to the Muslim world delivered in Cairo, Egypt on June 4, 2009 illustrates the wide-gap between rhetoric and reality.

President Obama began his remarks by emphasizing the common connections America has with Islam and the Muslim world. He was right to emphasize that Islam has always been a part of America and that there are mosques in every state of the union. He praised Islamic cultures' contributions to the world as well as American Muslim’s contributions to the United States. He quoted liberally from the Qur’an and made it clear that America was not at war with Islam. All of this served to excite and inspire, but then he turned to America foreign policy in the Muslim world.

He discussed a wide range of topics, and his focus was on seven points:

1. Confronting violent extremism in all of its forms.
2. The situation between Israelis, Palestinians and the Arab world.
3. The rights and responsibilities of nations on nuclear weapons.
4. The issue of democracy.
5. The issue of religious freedom.
6. The rights of women.
7. Economic development and opportunity.

When looking at these points, it is important to note that the more detailed his discussions were the more flaws that were apparent in his positions. Conversely, the more general his discussion, the better his ideas seemed.

Turning to the issue of confronting extremism, he discussed Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Guantanamo. He began by stating that the US was going to be more liberal in giving developmental aid to Pakistan and Afghanistan which, of course, is something to be praised. However, Obama then goes on to say that all American troops will be out of Iraq by 2012. This is a lie. In Obama’s February 27, 2009 speech on ending the Iraq war, he states:

“As I have long said, we will retain a transitional force to carry out three distinct functions: training, equipping, and advising Iraqi Security Forces as long as they remain non-sectarian; conducting targeted counter-terrorism missions; and protecting our ongoing civilian and military efforts within Iraq. Initially, this force will likely be made up of 35-50,000 U.S. troops.”

Obama clearly stated that he plans on leaving behind a “transitional force” that will be “made up of 35-50,000 U.S. troops.” Furthermore, it is true that he has long held this position, as he emphasized this same point when he ran for President. What is clear from his position is that he does not plan a full withdrawal of troops from Iraq and his rhetoric hides reality. America has done this countless times in the past, hence why we still have troops stationed in Japan, Germany, and South Korea, even though conflicts in those regions have been over for many decades. America has strategic interests in Iraq—with the most obvious one being oil—that it will protect through its permanent mega-bases and an imperial embassy. American extremism in regards to excessive militarism should be confronted; instead, U.S. troops will not be out of Iraq by 2012 and it is doubtful that they well ever willingly leave.

Obama also stated that, “I have unequivocally prohibited the use of torture by the United States, and I have ordered the prison at Guantanamo Bay closed by early next year.” This statement is misleading in that it only tells half of the story. The disconnect between rhetoric and reality is eminently clear for both the issue of torture and Guantanamo Bay.

Obama rightly deserved praise for prohibiting torture shortly after he was sworn in as President. While he is to be commended for attempting to bring the US back into compliance with the Convention Against Torture that was ratified by the US in 1988 and is binding US law, he has yet to fully comply with the treaty obligations to prosecute those who have conducted or permitted torture to occur. As Glenn Greenwald points out:

Ronald Reagan, May 20, 1988, transmitting the Convention Against Torture to the Senate for ratification:
The United States participated actively and effectively in the negotiation of the Convention. It marks a significant step in the development during this century of international measures against torture and other inhuman treatment or punishment. Ratification of the Convention by the United States will clearly express United States opposition to torture, an abhorrent practice unfortunately still prevalent in the world today.

The core provisions of the Convention establish a regime for international cooperation in the criminal prosecution of torturers relying on so-called "universal jurisdiction." Each State Party is required either to prosecute torturers who are found in its territory or to extradite them to other countries for prosecution.

Convention Against Torture, signed and championed by Ronald Reagan, Article II/IV:
No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat or war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture. . . Each State Party shall ensure that all acts of torture are offences under its criminal law.

It is clear that Obama is required under the law to prosecute those who have committed torture; however, he has repeatedly stated he will not seek prosecutions against those individuals in the Bush Administration who are alleged to have committed torture.

In terms of Guantanamo, the issue is more complex. Symbolically, Guantanamo has been a very visible stain on the image of justice in America. Obama was able to score a public relations victory by saying he would close the prison, but he still doesn’t abide by the principle that made Guantanamo so terrible, namely the denial of habeas corpus and the creation of kangaroo court-style military commissions. Glenn Greenwald notes that:

Many Democrats -- including Barack Obama -- claimed they were vehemently opposed to this denial of due process for detainees, and on June 12, 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court, in the case of Boumediene v. Bush, ruled that the denial of habeas corpus rights to Guantanamo detainees was unconstitutional and that all Guantanamo detainees have the right to a full hearing in which they can contest their accusations against them.

While the Supreme Court has affirmed the right for prisoners in Guantanamo to challenge their detentions in Court, Obama has done a bait-and-switch and has declared that prisoners in Bagram prison in Afghanistan do not have the right to challenge their detention. By allowing this, Obama is essentially giving blanket approval to the denial of habeas corpus to prisoners detained abroad. So while Obama can no longer indefinitely detain individuals in Guantanamo, he can do so in Bagram or any of the other many US prisons around the world. While it is nice that Obama has decided to end the prison in Guantanamo, he will continue the illegal denial of habeas corpus to prisoners held by the US all over the world.

Although Obama is not using the Bush version of military commissions anymore to try detainees in Guantanamo, he is using a modified system of military commissions rather than using the federal court system to try detainees. Because of this, these trials will lack legitimacy and the detainees will never receive justice. Furthermore, it has been alleged that conditions in Guantanamo have become worse since Obama became President. All of this is unacceptable and puts Obama in line with illegal Bush Administration policies.

On Obama’s discussion on the Arab-Israeli conflict, he clearly reaffirms America’s unshakeable bond with Israel while also recognizing that steps need to be taken to assure a two-state solution. He calls for both sides to abide by treaty obligations and that Israel should stop its settlement activity. He says he is committed to the peace process and will see it through to its fruition; however, many other Presidents have said this same thing and still the Palestinians remain stateless. Obama’s generalized rhetoric is encouraging, but his words need to be backed up with actions.

On nuclear weapons and democracy, Obama struck a positive note. He renewed his call for a nuclear-free world and that is something to be lauded. However, he has yet to take any steps to make this a reality. He called for people world-wide to determine their own way forward and what style of democracy they want to live in. Yet, he decided to deliver his speech in Egypt, a country that is ruled by a repressive dictator. So while Obama’s rhetoric was strong, again the reality of the situation remains starkly different.

On religious freedom and the rights of women, Obama made encouraging statements. He encouraged interfaith dialogue and tolerance between different religions and within religions. He recognized that women play a critical role in all societies and thpse societies with well-educated women tend to be prosperous. He also noted how Muslim countries such as Indonesia, Bangladesh, Pakistan, and Turkey all had elected women leaders and that the rights of women need to be respected. In both of these areas there is very little to disagree with and the hope is that religious toleration increases and the rights of women are respected in both Muslim and non-Muslim countries around the world.

In terms of globalization and development, Obama recognized the challenges in these areas and strongly encouraged development. He recognized that the internet and television can bring both new ideas and loose morality. He said that Muslim countries can retain their heritage and still reach development, but it was up to these societies to do so. I strongly agree with this point as the Muslim world is trying to forge a new path for itself in the future.

Overall, Obama’s speech was meant to rehabilitate America’s image in the Muslim world and try to begin a new chapter. This is grand idea but talk is cheap. Obama will continue to occupy Iraq through at least 2012, he has escalated the war in Afghanistan, and he has expanded the global war on terror into Pakistan. He said, “Palestinians must abandon violence. Resistance through violence and killing is wrong and it does not succeed.” Why can’t Obama turn this statement around and realize that the US must abandon its violence, its extremism, and that killing is wrong and does not succeed?

Obama appears to be the ultimate salesman—he first marketed himself as the everyman and became President and now encourages the Muslim world to look beyond Americas current and historical clashes with them in favor of a nebulous new beginning. He desperately wants to show to the rest of the world that America wants to begin anew and should be trusted. Alas, he is hawking a cheap, superficial product that is breaking apart at its seams. While it is easy to be swept away by grandiose rhetoric, there is significant disconnect between his words and reality. The rosy image painted by Obama is not reality; it is an aspiration riddled with contradictions that necessarily precludes significant advancement in the areas Obama discussed. It would be great for America to turn a new page, but to do so rhetoric must finally begin to match reality.

-Nausherwan Hafeez, 9-15-09

[Book Review] American Pastoral

2009-08-25T16:59:00.001-04:00

The American dream is quite a bit more complicated than the stories you hear. The book American Pastoral written by Philip Roth is an example of the inevitable dysfunction of trying to achieve this mythic concept. Roth, who is Jewish, tells the tale of a paradise lost for the protagonist, Swede Levov, whose hopes for an idyllic life are shattered by a bomb planted by his daughter Merry that killed an innocent doctor. I found this book to have extreme characters and a plot that tried too hard to represent American culture. Overall, I didn’t really find like this book that appealing and I would not recommend anyone to read it.

The plot was very much like an onion; you peel through layer after layer and find no significant substance in the middle. This book does a great deal of character development and the story follows the rise and fall of Swede Levov. Swede tends to follow a predetermined path of success by inheriting the family glove making business and achieves a good deal of initial success. He was a popular All-American kid that grew up in New Jersey and tried to pursue his version of the American dream. He was known for his placid demeanor and his friendly people skills. He was the paragon of moderation and a person who always lived up to his responsibilities.

In his life, he only challenged his family by marrying a genteel beauty queen who gives birth to his daughter Merry. He sets up a life for his family that is a caricature of perfection; he has wealth and status from running a profitable business and he couple’s this with the tranquility of being able to live on a farm. His life is the fusion of small-town America with a more benign version of capitalist America. All in all, he coasts through life by solving all problems and never has to deal with the nastier side of living. That is, until his daughter Merry becomes a radical anti-war activist and bombs a post-office in protest against the war in Vietnam. From this point on, his American dream collapses as Merry runs away. He tries desperately to get in touch with her, but his semblance of normality, of coasting through life without problems, his American dream, has been completely shattered. The veneer is destroyed and when he meets his daughter many years later, he is exposed to the dark-side of America; a land full of exploitation and greed that has basically crushed his daughter. His marriage falls apart and he does, as we find out early on the book, try to recreate some semblance of normalcy through a second marriage; however, his first marriage—which is the period in his life that is primarily discussed in this book—is exposed as hollow and that shit happens even to the people who follow all of the rules and societies norms.

The biggest problem I found with this book was that Roth tried to make the story too stereotypical of American culture and made his characters too extreme and well beyond the realm of believability. While it is true that all human beings are incredibly complex and it’s true that bad things happen can happen to good people, I found his presentation of these themes to be rather hyperbolic and unbelievable. All in all, I did not find this book to be that impressive, nor do I think that this book was really worth reading.

-Nausherwan Hafeez, 8-25-09

[Book Review] Islam: The Natural Way

2009-07-13T13:18:00.005-04:00

Islam is meant to be the golden mean between all extremes. The central argument of Islam: The Natural Way by Abdul Hamid Wahid is to emphasize this point and explain a step-by-step way how Islam is the natural way for all of creation. This book, in general, is good at illustrating all of the basic beliefs in Islam in a very straightforward and easy way. I found the biggest weakness in this book to actually be the first chapter and there were a number of ideas in his book that weren’t explained as much as they should have been, and some concepts also need some more précising. Still, this book is a good way to find out about the basic beliefs in Islam, famous Sunnah and Hadiths, and particularly relevant quotations from the Qu’ran.

To begin with, this book starts on a very shaky foundation. The entire first chapter is aimed at disproving alternative viewpoints, the nature of and the belief in the existence of God, and the roots of Islam. The chapter does a very poor job of countering alternative worldviews and this section should be ignored. In terms of proving the existence of God, the author quickly comes to the conclusion that there is a God, but his reasoning has many holes in it. However, this books goal is not to explain alternative world viewpoints or discuss the more philosophical nuances in relation to the existence of God, but to explain to the reader what the fundamentals of Islam are about. Consequently, this chapter should be taken with a grain of salt, as the rest of the book focuses on Islam.

The second chapter is entitled “You and Your Condition” and gives an excellent discussion on the responsibilities, activities, and learning of man. The chapter quotes the Quranic verse that says, “On no soul does God place a greater burden than it can bear” (2:286, p. 37). This chapter argues that all men face different challenges and everyone has a variety of responsibilities; it is how we tackle these issues that determine whether or not we are successful in this life. This means that the individual should seek useful knowledge—and, of course, Islamic knowledge is sad to be obligatory—and live a balanced life. Everything is supposed to be done in moderation, and we all must be mindful of our sleep, exercise, cleanliness, fasting and personal issues. The emphasis in this chapter, along with the other chapters in this book, is how Islam is a rational path that leads all creatures to harmony.

The next couple of chapters discuss the individual in relation to their livelihood, family, neighborhood, community, and the universal Ummah.

One is supposed to make a livelihood that benefits oneself and is beneficial to the society. In Islam the dualistic concept of fard ‘ayn—duties obligatory on an individual such as prayers—and fard kifaayah—duties obligatory on the whole community—work in concert so that the individual has personal self-worth and is worthwhile to the community. So, for example, it would be a fard kifaayah for Muslim communities in the West to produce individuals in areas where there is a lack of Muslim representation in such as journalism, academia, and politics.

By earning a good livelihood, one is able to support a healthy family. The nuclear family—which is still emphasized in Western cultures—is critical for the process of tarbiyyah, that is the nurturing of the child. But, Islam also puts an emphasis on respect and relationships in the extended family, thereby broadening the social base of the religion. The basic unit of the family is marriage between a man and a woman. The author argues that,

“So far as the interaction between society, morality, and sex is concerned, there are four choice apparently open to any society:
1. an entirely homosexual society;
2. an entirely promiscuous society;
3. a society in which no sexual relations exist except between husband and wife;
4. a laissez-faire society in which all the above forms are tolerated.” (p. 116)

He goes on to argue that an entirely homosexual society would mean the death of our species. An entirely promiscuous society is thought by some to be the best, but he argues:

“ In such a society, it is imagined that everyone will have complete freedom to choose whoever he like at whatever time he prefers. With such freedom will come the deepest enjoyment as well as the reproduction of the species.

The reality will be different and there will be horrendous difficulties. People will become obsessed with sex. Strange as it may seem, sexual deprivation will be a major problem. Incest and deviant behavior will be common as it is in many societies that are promiscuous. Sexually transmitted diseases will spread.

The effects of all of this on human values and behavior are incalculable. Overall, it will have a degrading effect on sex itself and on human relationships. Sex will not be seen in the context of a whole, loving relationship, but will become an end in iteslef and in the process destroy respect, love, care and responsibility in human relationships.” (p. 117)

So he argues that the most natural state for a society is in which sex is regulated between the husband and the wife. In this sort of relationship, sex is actually encouraged by Islam, and sex is an act that is rewarded by God. He goes on to say:

“When you intend to have sexual intercourse with your wife, the noble Prophet advised that you should court her and approach her in a gentle manner, not in a rough way as animals do. And when you have satisfied yourself, you should wait until she is also satisfied.” (p. 122)

So sex is encouraged in Islam and leads to happiness for a married couple. This happiness can then be also employed and used to support the family.

As for the neighborhood, community, and universal Ummah, Islam teaches that you should be involved at all of these levels. It is said that you should not go to bed if your neighbor is hungry. Working within the community helps to foster natural social ties that bind everyone together. All of us are tied to the universal Ummah, as Muslims believe that no race is superior to any other, and that all people are brothers and sisters in Islam. This is why 25% of the worlds Muslims are Arabs and the largest Muslim country in the world is Indonesia. Islam in America exemplifies this fact, as it is the most ethnically diverse religious community in America. The true egalitarian nature of Islam can be seen in Mosques all across America where immigrant Pakistani’s can be seen praying next to indigenous African Americans and White Americans. It truly is the content of one’s character, not the color of their skin really matters.

The rest of the book discusses relationships with other faiths, global issues, and life after death. Islam argues that there is no compulsion in religion, and while Islam is said to be the universal religion for all mankind, people have the free will to believe what they desire to believe. Islamically it is believed at birth, we are all Muslims—i.e. creatures that submit to the will of God—and that through our varied circumstances, we are shaped into Muslims, Christians, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists or nonbelievers. Islam is meant to be a natural way to live a harmonious life and to prepare ourselves for the life after death. The gathering on Mount Arafat during the Hajj is meant to be a microcosm of mankind on the Day of resurrection, with billions of people hoping for salvation and eternal bliss.

All in all, I thought this was a good introductory book for the basics on Islam. Other good introductory books would be Islam: A Short History by Karen Armstrong and Muhammad: The Life of the Prophet by Martin Linges. The former gives a succinct overview of Islamic history and the later tells the story of Muhammad (pbuh) and his life. It is my personal belief that Islam is indeed the natural way and does a good job balancing individual concerns with concerns for the wider community.

-Nausherwan Hafeez, 5-24-09

[Book Review] Of Love and Other Demons

2009-05-02T09:54:00.003-04:00

Love ends tragically. That is the essential point of Gabrial Garcia Marquez’s Of Love and Other Demons. This is only the second book I’ve read of his, the first being Chronicle of a Death Foretold which I read back in high school. I’ve always heard good things about his major two works, One Hundred Years of Solitude and Love in the Time of Cholera, and I had high expectations for this book. While I was not disappointed; however, at times, it was difficult read, as it was written in non-stop linear form. The book reminded me of the some of the other Latin American writers I’ve read in times past; in particular, I thought back to Isabel Allende’s House of Spirits and Juan Rulfo’s Pedro Paramo. As the book was a short, quick read, I would recommend it to those interested in the harsher aspects of love, as illustrated through the world of magical realism that Marquez harrowingly paints.

Each character in this novel experiences the burning flames of love, only to have loved destroyed for one reason or another. The protagonist of this piece was Sierva Maria, the daughter of the Marquis and Bernarda. The Marquis had once fallen madly in love with a woman in an insane asylum, but was forbidden from marrying her by a strict father who wanted him to maintain his noble heritage. Consequently the Marquis entered into a loveless arranged—but never consummated—marriage that ended tragically with the death of his wife by a lightning strike, said to caused by the insane woman who he had initially fallen in love with. After the death of his wife, the insane woman wanted to marry him, but he had sworn to himself that he would never marry again. However, a cruel and manipulative commoner forced herself upon the Marquis, stole his virginity and made him marry her, since she had conceived a child allegedly thought to be his. This loveless marriage was a sham and his wife, Bernarda, gave birth to their daughter Sierva Maria. Bernarda herself was inclined towards a hedonistic lifestyle, but fell madly in love with a man she met in the streets. That man was eventually killed and Bernarda, with a broken heart, fell in a downward spiral without her lover until she became a corpulent shell of woman who eventually isolated herself in preparation for her inevitable death from excess.

Then there is the story of Sierva Maria. She was the child of an unhappy couple who ignored her and she was raised amongst the African slaves. Eventually after being attacked by a rabid dog, she was committed to a convent because the Marquis feared she had rabies. She, of course, did not have rabies, but that didn’t stop the church from thinking she was possessed by the devil. This notion was reinforced by the fact that she spoke multiple African languages and was more comfortable with the African slaves than the Hispanics. Eventually she was put in the care of a pedantic 36-year old priest, Cayetano Dealaura. He was supposed to be in charge of her exorcism but instead fell madly in love with the twelve-year old Sierva Maria. The priest, who had spent his entire lifetime accumulating a vast knowledge through both religious and secular books, had never known the pleasures of the flesh. After confessing his carnal desires to the Bishop, Dealaura was stripped of rank and title and put to work in an isolated leper hospital. In spite of this, Dealaura would sneak into Sierva Maria’s cell every night to talk to her and enjoy furtive kisses. Eventually, as with every other love-story in this book, his love affair ends tragically.

All the while, the sole logical—albeit heartless—figure in this book was the Portuguese Atheist Jewish doctor Abrenucio. He represented the realist in the book, who had read widely, particularly in “heritical” (i.e. books banned by the Catholic Church) books and believed in science and reason. He believed that this existence was the end all be all of existence and commented that, “… love was an emotion contra natura that condemned two strangers to a base and unhealthy dependence, and the more intense it was, the more ephemeral.” Well that’s one way to look at things, that is, if the glass is half-empty I suppose.

This book was enjoyable but a rather bleak, if perhaps honest account, of love in this world. Garcia’s writing screams of heartbreak and the un-fulfillment of love. It was a sad reflection on the agonizing aspects of love. Love can be so passionate, so fierce, and yet be as transitory as the passing wind. I believe that one must seize love, however and whenever it finds you, and enjoy it for as long as it lasts. Love long, love deeply, and love the one you’re with, because who knows what tomorrow will bring.

-Nausherwan Hafeez, 5-2-09

[Book Review] The Brothers Karamazov

2009-04-30T02:14:00.002-04:00

I’ll be honest, this was often a dense read. The book was written in a classical nineteenth century Russian style prose, which made it, at times, a difficult slog to get through. Regardless, I did enjoy reading this book—although it took me several months to complete, as I read other things alongside it and I could never exclusively focus on this book—and I thought it had some interesting ideas and social commentaries. All in all, it was good story to read, albeit one that I had to patiently sift through to find the many gems it contained.

So basically the story is about the Karmazov family and their various escapades. In particular, the story is focused on the murder of the patriarch of the family, Fyodor Karmazov. Karmazov has four children—three legitimate, and one illegitimate, sons—that each represent a different ideological focus. Dimitri was the pleasure-seeking rabble-rouser who often over-indulged in the sweeter things of life, but always maintained a strict code of honor. Alyosha was the religious son, who was loved by all and was naïve as a baby and as patient as a turtle. Ivan was the atheistic intellectual, who had discovered the world of ideas, only to leave himself in perpetual doubt of anything, and his self-professed nihilism masked his innate desire for a simpler black-and-white life-style. Smerdyakov was the illegitimate son, spurned as an outsider and became a household servant; his outsider status allowed him to become wily. Smerdyakov was clever and studied similar things to Ivan, but lacked moral scruples because of his feeling of innate dejection from birth. These characters intermingled in a lively series of events tied to the murder mystery of Fyodor Karmazov and the allegation of parricide against Dimitri.

The one section of this book that I found particularly intriguing was the section on the Grand Inquisitor. This section is often listed as one of the most famous short stories in all of literature and, naturally, for good reason. The story was voiced through Ivan and told to the apprehensive and innocent Aloysha. The subject was the notion of God, good versus evil, and stability versus chaos. The story was set during the time of the Spanish Inquisition and was basically a dialogue between Jesus and the Grand Inquisitor, with the latter being the only one who really spoke. Jesus had come back to save the world so as to speak, but as soon as he began performing miracles, he upset the established order. The Catholic Church could not allow for people to defiantly believe in this Messiah, because they had already created their own Messiah, and the Church had become supreme authority over the land since they vicariously ruled in place of the messiah. For the real messiah to come and usurp the Churches established authority—although Jesus would not have wanted to do that—was both blasphemous and rebellious. So Jesus had to be imprisoned, to maintain order and the illusion of God, rather than see the bleakness in reality and understand the full meaning and responsibility entailed in human freedom. The Grand Inquisitor argued against allowing humans total freedom because what they really needed was just bread. The Grand Inquisitor was a hardcore Hobbesian and after his long diatribe against Jesus—in which he blamed him for believing that humans could have freedom and happiness if given the opportunity—he says that it easier for a select few to guide the ignorant masses and provide for their happiness and eternal salvation. It is the burden of the elite, the chosen few who have to carry the real cross, to guide the ignorant masses through their brutish life. The fact that the Grand Inquisitor was an atheist and knew this world was all that there ever will be caused him to lash out against Jesus and argue against the notion of freedom and religion in favor of bread and stability. And, of course, if there is no God, reasons Ivan, then “everything is lawful.” This entire section is a great discourse on the relationship between man and God and definitely worth reading, even if this only section of the book you read.

All in all, I found the book worth reading, though I would only recommend it to those who have the luxury of time in indulge in a classic piece of literature. I was highly recommended this book in eleventh grade by my Philosophy teacher, Mr. Lukacs, and I told him I would eventually get around to reading it. Six years and many experiences later, I see why he had recommended it to me and am thankfully that he did.

-Nausherwan Hafeez, 4-30-09

Freedom of Speech

2009-03-24T12:27:00.017-04:00

I’ll admit, I was a reluctant convert to the notion of complete freedom of speech. I had always believed that some things people said were so vile, so beyond the pale of respectability, that there had to be some boundaries or limitations to the concept of freedom of speech. In fact, once upon a time I did argue that some things were so extreme that they had to be censored. Over time, however, I have come to appreciate what complete freedom of speech entails and what the responsible exercise of this right means for a society.

The reason why freedom of speech is so important is that it directly leads to the broader, and I do believe more fundamentally important, concept of freedom of thought. What this means is that no higher authority indoctrinates those below with uniform notions and ideas; instead, people are free to choose from the marketplace of ideas and develop whatever belief they want based on the strength of evidence. Rational people can (theoretically) listen to the various opinions on some issue and walk away with a new viewpoint. A society grows and flourishes when people can think independently and critically about different viewpoints.

This, in a nutshell, is why freedom of speech is so important. This uniquely Western concept forged during the Enlightenment strengthened the diversity of thought and belief in the Western world. The concept of critical self-reflection became a hallmark of all liberal Western democracies. Freedom of speech has been used by the press to check government abuses. Locke’s Social Contract would have no defender without the freedom of speech. It is the muckraking journalists that expose abuses of power, the ivory-tower academics that document these abuses, and the politicians who have to deal with the fall out of these exposés. Without journalists exposing the horrors of Abu Ghraib, the world would never have know what it means to have America “justice” meted out to (largely innocent) Iraqis. Thus, freedom of speech is inextricably tied to regulating and exposing those in power, but also it allows people to formulate any independent ideas they so desire.

However, even within the domain of Western freedom of speech, sometimes there are ideas that are so offensive that they have become illegal. For example, across much of Europe holocaust denial is a criminal offence fully prosecutable under the law. In fact the historian David Irving was imprisoned in Austria for thirteen months for committing this offence. It was based on this concept that some ideas are so extreme that they must be outlawed, and I vehemently argued against (for more info see my post entitled "Cartoon Controversy") the publication of the cartoons initially published by Danish newspapers that not only depicted the alleged image of the Prophet Mohammed (pbuh) (In Islam this is blasphemous), but also portrayed him as a terrorist.

This is where the idea of responsible usage of the freedom of speech comes into play. I think that people should themselves realize the consequences of using this freedom and perhaps sometimes delicately discuss sensitive issues. With that being said and while I believe that it was utterly wrong for those images to be published, I now believe that it was within those people’s rights to publish that material. As morally repugnant as I believe those cartoons were, it becomes a very tricky issue to regulate what can and can’t be said. How far will we be willing to clamp down on freedom of speech to protect people’s sensibilities? Either everything can be said, or else too many limitations will be placed on the freedom of speech and, by extension, freedom of thought. This is unacceptable for a society that wants a vibrant debate of ideas and diversity of opinions.

More often than not, however, many Western nations practice self-censorship to provide either ideological cover for a particular agenda, or to prevent incensing some sub-group of people’s sensibilities. In terms of self-censorship, the way the mainstream corporate media portrayed the destruction of Gaza by the Israelis is an excellent example of how self-censorship works; the brutalization of a helpless people becomes not only justified—because of course Israel is, and always will be, the victim—but the right thing to do, since Israel is a frontline state in the War on Islam (often referred to as the War on Terror, but these two monikers could be interchangeable). This portrayal reinforces the ideological belief of the US government that Israel must be defended and supported, no matter the cost or reality of a situation. The fact that this reinforces established authority rather than questions its actions is a failure in the fight for freedom of speech.

The other type of self-censorship is how to deal with a sensitive issue for a particular sub-group in society. The example of the cartoon controversy can be revisited here. The publishing of these cartoons became a rallying tool used across the Middle East to protest Western ideological imperialism. The consequence of the publications of these cartoons (even though they were published months before) was riots in cities across the Middle East, the burning of embassies, and the deaths of dozens of people. In the West, it provided for an example of how sacrosanct the notion of freedom of speech is, no matter the cost. In the East, it provided the masses a distraction to focus on the external enemy (i.e. the brutal, tyrannical, imperialist West) and deflected focus on the terrible governments that rule over these people.

One important distinction to be made, however, is that I have purposely portrayed the Western concept of freedom of speech as more monolithic than it actually is; the reason I’ve done this is for simplicity sake and that for almost all of the major issues, Western freedom of speech is essentially uniform (i.e. anything can be said as long as isn’t a direct threat to a countries sovereignty—like saying, “I’m planning a revolution in so-and-so country, and this is how I’m going to do it.”) amongst liberal Western democracies. However, I must note that the US notion of freedom of speech is still, by far, the most liberal and complete of any Western democracy. There is very little that you can’t say in America. That being said, you should still watch what you say, since your words and ideas will have direct consequences for you, but that is of course patently obvious.

The concept of freedom of speech has still not penetrated Oriental cultures yet. I don’t want to sound like an Orientalist here (I swear Edward Said, I won’t sell out) but there are some generalizations that can be made of the Oriental mindset. One is that Oriental cultures tend to have more deference for authority, are less willing to forcefully speak out, and are circumspect, rather than direct, in their criticisms. While I do believe in cultural relativism as the only realistic way to deal with cultural differences, I feel like the inability of these peoples to freely speak their minds has prevented them from freely thinking. I mean think about it, Google could NEVER have been created in the intellectually stifling and painfully uniform culture of say China.

This independent thinking, the ability to innovate, has been something that Orientalists have criticized the Orient for. Orientalists argue that this inability to innovate prevented the Orient from evolving and challenging archaic, and possibly wrong, norms and values. For example, the Orientalist Bernard Lewis’ central thesis in What Went Wrong? was that Islamic civilization failed because they lacked the capability to create new ideas. Instead the Dar al-Islam was left to wither away and cheaply imitate Western development, but without absorbing the intrinsic meat of the ideas that allowed for the development of the West. I do believe this argument holds some merit, even though the source is obviously suspect.

The list of failures in Orient because of a lack of freedom of speech is long and damning. To use China as an example, Chinese repression of Tibet and East Turkestan (i.e. the Xingxiang province) is not well documented at all. There is only a small drip of news that reaches the West of the brutal repression of Buddhist monks and the destruction of Muslim villages and mosques. Juxtapose Chinese treatment of Uigher Muslims that they capture (those captured in revolt against China are usually never seen again) and the amount of press coverage the American gulag known as Guantánamo Bay has gotten. Yes Gitmo is a deep stain on America’s reputation and is an ongoing tragedy; but at least we are able to document the abuses that have occurred and perhaps one day fix—in however inadequate of a way—some of the mistakes we have made. Then, hopefully America won’t repeat this travesty. But look at China. It disappears people regularly but doesn’t suffer from media agitation against its brutal policies. Hence it never receives moral opprobrium or pressure to change its unjust actions. It, therefore, never has to learn a lesson and can continue to oppress those that deviate from the mandates of the state. I believe that this is not only wrong but that this will hinder China ideologically in the future, thus preventing it from becoming a benevolent world power. Instead, China is on a path of Soviet-like preeminence in the world, except that it has the economic capacity to maintain its (rapidly growing) informal empire and status in the globe while the Soviets didn’t.

Another Eastern example that has relevance to my current situation is Malaysia. People here are programmed to believe certain concepts from an early age and any deviance from those beliefs is seen as heretical. To be heretical in a collectivist society is to be cast out into the wilderness, without protection, and constantly being in fear of slipping up badly so that the vicious wolves can pounce. So to question inane government actions lands bloggers here in jail. To be opposed to the government line, you may be tarnished with sodomy charges. To hold a protest of more than five people, a permit is required (something like 99.9% of these requests are denied). Malaysia—and basically the rest of the developing world—needs to accept and tolerate different opinions other than the normative ones; if these societies do adopt this liberalism, they will flourish and succeed. If they don’t, they will remain intellectually castrated and unable to evolve to a higher degree of civilization.

So pick up the White Man’s Burden and proselytize the righteousness of freedom of speech. Okay so that’s perhaps a bit tongue-in-cheek. But still, I believe that it is critical for Eastern societies to develop a healthy tolerance for the notion of freedom of speech. This will greatly benefit their societies and allow for innovative thinkers to create new technologies and improve on the stagnant status quo. Free thought allows for the gestation of new ideas. Ideas do matter and hold extreme relevance in an idea-driven world. Marx’s concept of communism—although bastardized by the Soviet Union—affected hundreds of millions of people worldwide; so too, a new idea, a new innovation, could revolutionize human society. Freedom of speech is a necessity that could allow for this. This provides for the flowering of the world of ideas and checks governmental abuses of power. To quote the famous American founding father Patrick Henry, “Give me Liberty, or Give me Death.”

The Pakistan Problem

2009-03-23T13:26:00.003-04:00

Pakistan was a nation that was founded based on the radical notion that religion could create a new nation that had never previously existed. Pakistan was the flowering of the dream of a truly pan-Islamic identity. The creation of the country based on religion, as opposed to nationalism, was a truly monumental moment for Muslims internationally. A hope or dream of a country where Islam was the unifying theme, not race, language, or tribe. Alas, this dream has failed.

Pakistan has failed for a myriad of reasons. The country is hindered by extreme poverty, underdevelopment, and misallocation of resources. Add this to the already dominant problems of illiteracy, overpopulation, environmental degradation, internal insurgencies, external threats, terrible political leadership, a shattered economy, a growing domestic Taliban movement and a move towards a more puritanical interpretation of Islam in the public sphere, a selfish middle-class, a still feudal-esque class system and you have a country that is on the brink of disaster.

If one looks objectively at the Musharraf years versus Pakistan’s current situation, there is no doubt that times were better under Musharraf. That’s not to say I endorsed him or his many ridiculous actions—because I did not—but Pakistan was substantively better with him at the reigns than under Zardari. I mean it was under him that the Baluchistan separatist movement grew traction and was brutally suppressed, he took a heavy handed approach to domestic dissidents as was apparent with his sacking of the judiciary, there is the lingering issue of disappeared people from his cooperation with the US in the War on Terror, and a much longer list of failures. But the positives—like consistent economic growth of around 5%, minimal inflation, reducing economic debt, the construction of new highways and other infrastructure, preventing the US from too rapidly expanding the War on Terror into Pakistan—are all things that made Musharraf’s rule tolerable.

Pakistan has always faced cyclical waves of dictatorship followed by democracy. Civilian rule—outside of the first generation of leaders—has always been bad, if not severely unsettling in terms of the country’s best interests. The domestic Pakistani political system is corrupt to the core. The PPP is a feudal party where leadership is dynastic, not democratic. The PML-N ruled over the downward spiral of Pakistan in the late 1990s and Nawaz Sharif continues to unfortunately lead the party. Jamait-e-Islami is a reactionary political force. Imran Khan’s Justice Party has no real following and is still a bourgeois attempt to change the system from within. There is no decent political party that Pakistani’s can vote for; consequently, Pakistan will continue to be led off a cliff by terrible leadership.

On top of all of these problems, Pakistan is increasingly becoming the next theater in the never-ending War on Terror. Many people had hoped that President Obama would try to solve global problems through principled diplomacy; however, as his actions have proven thus far, he is committed to the use of force as a means of achieving peace. President Obama has tried to solve the issue of Pakistan through the use of force. President Bush tried to solve this issue through the ballot box. Bush failed; Obama will fail. President Obama’s actions build upon the failure of the Bush Administration policies and all of these factors taken together paint a bleak picture for Pakistan’s future.

Bush’s Failures
President Bush failed in his approach to dealing with Pakistan. He provided over $10 billion dollars of mostly military aid to Pakistan before having to deal with the ugly aftermath of political trouble that gripped Pakistan in 2008. The crisis in Pakistan during the end of last year exposed both the naivety and fallacy of Bush’s black and white worldview. Bush’s attempts to promote democracy abroad consistently failed and Pakistan was just another in a long-list of foreign policy blunders.

The central problem with Bush’s worldview was that he viewed the world in absolutes. Bush had been a stalwart proponent of exporting democracy; however, his focus had been on promoting procedural democracy where having a round of elections proves that a nation has become ‘democratic’. By promoting procedural over institutional democracy, Bush failed Pakistan and other countries in his grand plan to democratize the world.

In Pakistan, President Bush had pushed hard on former President Pervez Musharraf’s regime to hold free and fair elections. Musharraf, a military general turned statesman, had been forced to accept this Faustian deal last year after facing intense internal dissent over the sacking of judges (some have now been reinstated, including recently the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court Iftikhar Chaudhry), heavy handed tactics in the tribal areas, disappearing people, attempts at privatization of state industries such as the Pakistan Steel Mills, and declaring a state of emergency. Bush’s default antidote for these ills was democracy.

The theory was that the Bush Administration would help engineer a new democratic government in Pakistan vis-à-vis a power-sharing agreement between the former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto and President Musharraf. After Bhutto was assassinated, her Pakistan Peoples Party was elected to rule the country along with former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif’s Muslim League. These two main parties and Musharraf reached a political impasse after several months of political haggling. Eventually Musharraf was run out of town and replaced by the kleptocrat Asif Ali Zardari, the infamously corrupt widower of Bhutto who is derisively known by the moniker Mr. 10%, to try and save Pakistan. However, comparatively speaking, looking at Musharraf’s reign and Zardari’s current position makes it seem that Bush bet (yet again) on the wrong horse.

Since Zardari has taken power, Pakistan has floundered and gone into a great deal of debt. Just to remain solvent, Pakistan has had to request billions of dollars of conditional loans from the IMF and World Bank. The Rupee is facing a strong inflationary trend, the economy is severely contracting, and Pakistan faces the risk of economic collapse. Add to this toxic mix a growing indigenous Taliban movement and constant clashes with Tribesmen in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) and the North-West Frontier Province (NWFP) and you have a recipe for disaster.

Bush’s failure was that he didn’t understand how to deal with Pakistan. He tried to offer largesse to the Pakistani military for as long as it was politically possible and then he switched over to his tried and true method of supporting elections. Of course this is the same Bush who supported democratic elections in countries only to renege on supporting the results of those elections (The most obvious examples that come to mind are in Palestine and in Lebanon—Hamas was ostracized in the international community and Hezbollah was ignored.). The great irony in Bush’s actions is that his support for elections undermined his goals for Pakistan, just as it did in Palestine and Lebanon. His promotion of procedural democracy backfired and his solution for Pakistan failed.

Obama and the Way Forward
With Obama’s decision to expand unmanned aerial bombardment deeper into Pakistani territory, things can only get worse. By bombing Pakistan, Obama is making a huge mistake. Not only are his actions illegal according to international law they add to the violence in the region. By dropping bombs that kill mostly civilians, Obama is creating even greater animosity towards the US. If Obama—the supposed White Knight who is supposed to rescue America from being loathed internationally—continues and expands Bush era policies, America will permanently lose face in the eyes of millions of people in Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Iraq. Obama had the choice to withdraw peaceably from Iraq, gradually withdraw from Afghanistan, and deal with the Pakistan issue through the use of the carrot (i.e. giving development funds for education, for example, is a much more effective use of money than any bomb will ever be); however, he chose to continue the occupation in Iraq until at least the end of 2011, surge the war in Afghanistan, and escalate the War on Terror into Pakistan. Obama has chosen the path of perdition that will not only damn the countries that are on the receiving end of this occupation, but also consign America to lost prestige, power, resource, and efficacy in international affairs. These actions will not address Pakistan’s underlying problems and will fail just as Bush’s attempts at democracy promotion did.

The way forward out of yet another quagmire and possibly a fully failed state is through principled diplomacy and generous developmental funding. Pakistan desperately needs money for basic infrastructure like roads, schools, and hospitals. Pakistan does not need a further militarization of its society and that would be exactly what will happen if Obama continues to attack Pakistan. Pakistan needs stability to attract foreign investment and needs to deal with the crippling illiteracy and poverty that plague the nation. Pakistan received some level of respect in international relations when Musharraf was in power; he helped to improve Pakistan’s economy, built up $15billion dollars worth of cash reserves to insulate the economy (most of these funds have been wasted since he left office), he cooperated in the War on Terror, and did improve Pakistan’s standing in the world. Musharraf is now long gone and Obama has to deal with the kleptocrats that currently rule Pakistan. He needs to offer the carrot to a starving nation that is on the brink of collapse. If there is no radical change soon, Pakistan will fall further into the abyss and the dream of become the leading Islamic country in the world will never be achieved. But if Pakistan fails, the West will deserve some of the blame. Beware a country that has nothing left to lose and Obama must change his approach to Pakistan immediately or else…

Langkawi

2009-03-22T04:07:00.001-04:00

I took a trip to the famous Langkawi Island from January 24th through the 26th. I enjoyed myself thoroughly and below there are some thoughts and reflections on my trip.

General Reflections
My overall impression of the island was that it was nice, but seemed like a tourist trap. The island was quite built-up and the modus operandi appeared to be sucking as much money out of visitors as possible. The island was an escape from what the real Malaysia looks like. In terms of beauty, the beaches were decent but the landscape was fantastic. There were small, lush tree covered hills that were stunning and really put me in awe of nature’s beauty.

The island is worth going to if you want to get a very touristy type of beach experience. Depending on your budget, you could stay at a swanky resort (as some ETAs did) or at some pretty cheap hostels (which I did). Regardless, it’s doubtful that you will spend much time at your place of residence—there are so many things to do on the beach that you will keep yourself very busy. That being said I would only recommend Langkawi to people who want a fully developed tropical island beach vacation; it was definitely not for people who just want a more pristine, underdeveloped island where you can sit back, relax and get in touch with nature (for that type of experience, I would highly recommend Palau Kapas—more on this on some later post).

Food
The one thing that I absolutely loved about Langkawi was the food. There were many different types of foods to choose from—Italian, American, Malay, Thai, Indian, etc.—but I really enjoyed the Indian food. There was an Indian restaurant called the Taj Mahal (go figure) which served some truly authentic Indian dishes. I’m generally a very picky eater but this place had some fantastic dishes. One of the best dishes that I had was the butter chicken—the warm, tender chicken was properly marinated in a thick sauce that was achingly good and made me come back for a repeat visit. It was a great change of pace from all the Nasi-whatever I had been eating and the food did wonders for my famished stomach.

Beware the Seven Wells
On Monday the 26th, I decided that I wanted to head over to the Seven Wells. The Seven Wells is a series of ponds about 200m up a 1200m high mountain. I climbed a series of steep steps up the mountain and reached the scenic top. I arrived at the spot fairly out of breath but normally I wouldn’t have found the climb up so difficult; however, since I was carrying my backpack—that contained all of my travel items and probably weighted about 20lbs.—on my sun-burnt shoulders the climb was a bit of a challenge. The extra weight made the climb up a bit difficult, but the view was worth it.

After enjoying staring out at the scenic vista, we (Neil, Matt, and I) decided to go off on a side-trail. The trail had a sign that said 1000m, so we figured that we didn’t have to go too far. We trekked for fifteen minutes through the jungle, with heavy overgrowth on both sides of trail. We were making a steady climb at about a 40 degree incline up deeper into the jungle. We then saw a sign that said 700m and we were quite confused. We had been walking for quite a while and shouldn’t the distance be decreasing?

At this point, I was starting to feel exhausted. The backpack on top of the sweltering jungle heat was quite taxing. My shirt was completely drenched from sweat and every step I took, little droplets of sweat trickled down my face, passing down my beard, before finally dropping to the ground as I walked further into the jungle. Another fifteen minutes later, we saw another sign that said that there were 500 more meters to go and I was utterly perplexed. Then it finally dawned on me—it wasn’t 500 meters to go, it was 500 meters vertically to the top of the mountain.

So I continued to trudge on in my quest to the top of the mountain. Since I was walking slower, Matt and Neil had walked far ahead of me and I was traveling alone in search of the summit. The further up I went, the steeper the climb. Finally, there was a sign that said the peak was just up another incline. This incline, however, was extremely steep, probably at about a 70 degree angle. There was a rope that you had to use if you wanted to go up to the top. So I started going up and maybe 30m from the top, I saw Matt and Neil coming back down. I asked them what was on the top of the mountain and I was quite disappointed to find out that at the top of the mountain there was only a little sign that said, “Please turn around.” There was no scenic vista, nothing of value at the top, just a little sign telling whatever poor sap had made the journey to turn around. Damn.

So my trip back down the mountain was a race to prevent dehydration. I knew I was on the borderline of exhaustion as my head started feeling light and I had to pull my belt even tighter. I raced to the bottom and ran directly to the small store that offered refreshments. There, I bought three 16oz. bottles of juice, 2 16oz. bottles of water, and then proceeded to drink all of these things in under 10 minutes. The hike had been exhausting, but at least I was able to get my workout in for the day.

I did have a good time in Langkawi—lots of fun in the sun (from which I received my first ever sun-burn), good cuisine, lots of explorations, and some good conversations. Langkawi was a great trip to wrap up my January travels in Malaysia and I was ready to go tackle my “responsibilities” in Kerteh, Kemaman starting Febuary 1. Yay for vacations!

Obama and the Unwinnable Wars

2009-03-11T01:13:00.005-04:00

Never in the past three years have I been this disconnected from the news. One of my most diligent habits since my sophomore year of college has been to closely follow the news and know about what’s going on in the world. These past two months I’ve been quite disconnected from the news and world events. However, from what little I’ve heard and read the world seems to be in increasingly in dire straits. I’m not really surprised about this per se because all of the warning signs have been around for years. But the allegorical shit has hit the roof and America is collapsing under the weight of its own internal contradictions.

Now is a time for a dramatic change in how we live in this world and how our leaders respond to crises. Iraq and Afghanistan are conundrums that the Obama Administration has to deal with. Just as the foolish invasion of a country (i.e. Afghanistan) accelerated and eventually became the catalyst for the death of the Soviet Empire, so too will the America Empire find its death in the sands of Iraq and the caves of Afghanistan. America is bogged down in two unwinnable wars that the Obama Administration has fully committed to continue. Afghanistan was already in terrible shape before the US bombed the country back to the Stone Age. Iraq has been a country that has been devastated by years of internal oppression followed by a brutal occupation that has cost the lives of over a million Iraqis and displaced millions of others. We’ve used depleted uranium bullets to kill “terrorists” and civilians alike, leaving behind a trail of death and cancer-causing pollutants that have already devastated these countries and will continue to plague these people for generations to come. We’ve bombed wedding parties in the mistaken attempt to root out terror. We’ve dropped laser-guided missiles on schools, mosques, and houses where “terrorists” hide. We’ve brutalized and tortured prisoners from Bagram to Abu Graib, Guantanamo, and beyond.

So President Obama has made two significant policy pronouncements on both Iraq and Afghanistan. I will begin by briefly commenting on the Afghan issue before I devote the rest of this piece to Obama’s ludicrous policy statement on Iraq.

President Obama announced on February 17, 2009 that he would be sending an additional 17,000 troops to bolster the 36,000 American troops that are already in Afghanistan. Adding more troops to a lost cause will only cost more money, unnecessary death and destruction, and a further deterioration of America’s prestige and image abroad. Obama is lucky to be following the worst President in US history so any action he takes people would like to give him the benefit of the doubt. However, the US has been in Afghanistan for over eight years now and has not substantively accomplished anything. Yes it is true that some roads have been built, schools have been opened, and the US has made an effort to provide some reconstruction funds to Afghanistan. But it is also true that we are the ones who destroyed the country in the first place (okay so Afghanistan was already in shambles before the US annihilated everything that was still standing), killed thousands of innocent civilians, and our actions have also been motivated by geostrategic and resource-related issues. More troops will not solve the problem; only through principled diplomacy with those figures that we loathe (namely the Taliban which has slowly regained control over much of Afghanistan) can we extricate ourselves from this quagmire. Without an exit strategy, Obama will waste more money, more lives, and fail to achieve a long-term just peace. Adding more fuel to the fire will mean that Afghanistan will continue to die a protracted death over the coming years.

President Obama delivered a major policy speech on Febuary 27, 2009 that outlined his plans for the future of Iraq. This policy speech was quite disappointing for those peace advocates who believed that Obama’s election was a mandate to withdraw troops from Iraq. However many of his points were in line with his pre-election statements although he did make changes for the worse in his position. But that is to be expected from any politician, even the messianic type. Obama’s significant electoral victory should have allowed him to make a bold policy change in Iraq. Instead Obama stated in his policy speech that:

As a candidate for President, I made clear my support for a timeline of 16 months to carry out this drawdown, while pledging to consult closely with our military commanders upon taking office to ensure that we preserve the gains we’ve made and protect our troops. Those consultations are now complete, and I have chosen a timeline that will remove our combat brigades over the next 18 months.

Let me say this as plainly as I can: by August 31, 2010, our combat mission in Iraq will end.

Obama has decided to expand the time-frame for withdrawal and even after the end of the combat mission, “Security Forces” will be left behind to assist the Iraqis. All of this sounds a lot like President Bush and his “Mission Accomplished” notion and is far from what anti-war advocates had hoped for. This is utterly unacceptable and Obama has broken a key promise of his electoral campaign.

Obama continued his speech and explained that:

After we remove our combat brigades, our mission will change from combat to supporting the Iraqi government and its Security Forces as they take the absolute lead in securing their country. As I have long said, we will retain a transitional force to carry out three distinct functions: training, equipping, and advising Iraqi Security Forces as long as they remain non-sectarian; conducting targeted counter-terrorism missions; and protecting our ongoing civilian and military efforts within Iraq. Initially, this force will likely be made up of 35-50,000 U.S. troops.

Through this period of transition, we will carry out further redeployments. And under the Status of Forces Agreement with the Iraqi government, I intend to remove all U.S. troops from Iraq by the end of 2011. We will complete this transition to Iraqi responsibility, and we will bring our troops home with the honor that they have earned.

Obama does not really want to withdraw from Iraq; he just wants to change the parameters for how we remain in the country. Just as before the escalation of the war in Vietnam with President Lyndon B. Johnson where US troops in Vietnam were seen as merely “advisers”, Obama will be leaving “Security Advisors” in Iraq at least until the end of 2011. This is ludicrous since it has been noted that we can fully withdraw from Iraq within six months. The Iraq War is now Obama’s war and he will have to answer for the money wasted, lives lost, and failure in our perpetual occupation of Iraq.

America is at a cross roads. We can either withdraw immediately from the mess that we have created and provide liberal reconstruction funds to Iraq and Afghanistan, or we can continue down our path of perdition and continue these unwinnable wars. We should remember that,

Politicians, by definition, respond to political pressure. Those who decide that it's best to keep quiet and simply trust in the goodness and just nature of their leader are certain to have their political goals ignored. It's always better -- far better -- for a politician to know that he's being scrutinized closely and will be praised and supported only when his actions warrant that, and will be criticized and opposed when they don't.

Obama is no different. Americans must demand an end to these wars now. We can no longer stand by and wait until America collapses because of its imperial hubris. Without swift action America is doomed to collapse like the Soviet Union. This should not happen. Let us remember the wise words of Abraham Lincoln and hope that we can step back from the precipice:

The mystic chords of memory, stretching from every battlefield and patriot grave, to every living heart and hearthstone, all over this broad land, will yet swell the chorus of the Union, when again touched, as surely they will be, by the better angels of our nature.

Stories from KT

2009-02-17T12:11:00.006-05:00

I spent two crazy weeks in Kuala Terengganu from January 9th through the 23rd. I made many memories and had an amazing time. Initially, I was trying to decide whether or not to make this several blog posts, or just one really long post. I’ve decided on the later and will differentiate between the various stories with separate subheadings. What follows are some of the different experiences I had while in KT.

Kuala Terengganu
KT itself was a dramatic change of pace from KL. KL is a cosmopolitan city with lots of eateries and places to visit. KT was a small city with very few sites to see and delicacies to sample. Although KT offered less in the way of attractions, the experiences that I had here more than made up for whatever it lacked.

Seri Malaysia
For our two week stay in KT, the ETAs got to chill and relax in the Seri Malaysia hotel. The hotel was located on a dirty river next to Chinatown in a semi-busy part of town. The food that they served was generally subpar—except for the copious amounts of watermelon that everyone seemed to be thoroughly enjoying—and the rooms were quite basic. There was two simple double beds, a crappy TV that didn’t really to work that often, and a piss-poor excuse for a bathroom (though, on the plus side, there was heated water for the shower). It was a huge step down from the Dorset Regency that we had stayed in while we were back in KL, but as time went by, I became more accustomed to the basic accommodations. Once we got settled into the hotel, it became a second home and a daily part of our lives. Many memories were made here, friendships were forged, and we received what was dubbed an “orientation” for our program.

Locked Up (1-13-09)
One of the oddest experiences that I had was getting locked in my hotel room.

One morning I decided I wanted to show up to class on time for a change. I had already made it a habit of showing up to class late and I figured that I shouldn’t always be the last one to get to class. I woke up at 745am, headed down for breakfast and then headed back up to my room. Unfortunately my room key was still in the room so I had to call maintenance to open the door. Once they opened the door, I went in grabbed my bookbag, arranged some things in the room, and then I tried to leave.

At this point it was only 830am and I wasn’t too late for my morning session. Technically, our orientation classes were supposed to begin around 8am. Realistically, since everything ran on Malaysian standard time, classes would actually begin between 815 and 830. So I figured I was good on time and I yanked hard on the door to open it. I pulled with all my strength but the doorknob would not budge. The door just didn’t want to open. I chuckled at my predicament for a bit and then I thought that maybe I wasn’t turning the door properly. Try as I did, the door would simply not open.

So I decided to call the front desk and ask them to send someone up to open the door. The puzzled operator said someone would come up shortly. In the meantime, I called up Neil, my roommate, and asked if he would try to come upstairs and open up the door. He came up, I slid my keys to him and he tried opening the door. That attempt didn’t work either. I laughed and told Neil that he should explain to the teacher (if she cared) that I was locked in my room and hence I would be late to class.

Now that lame sounding excuse in the bag, I decided to chill around the room until things fixed. After a couple of minutes, the maintenance guy came up and told me he would have to call the locksmith. At this point, I figure I’m going to be in the room for a good while so I turn on my computer and started surfing the net.

Finally around 9am, the locksmith came and said he would have to take the entire knob off. The only problem was that he would have to come to my side to unscrew the doorknob. That was a bit of a problem. I was staying on the third floor and there was only one alternate to enter the room and that was through the very small (for show only) balcony outside of my window. The poor Malay locksmith had to get in so he had no choice but to go through the room next door, out their balcony, and then jump to my balcony. He then had to crawl through the small windows that looked out towards the street and only then could he get into my room. Had this been a different situation, I might have tried my hand at some parkour, but I figured this wasn’t the appropriate time or place.

Once he was in my room, he proceeded to unscrew my doorknob and then let me out of my room. It was rather difficult to try to explain to people how I managed to lock myself into my hotel room and hence why I wasn’t able to get to class on time. It wasn’t a big deal as I didn’t really miss much. Showing up late (or not showing up at all) became a norm for me from here on out…

Mosque Park
The biggest attraction in KT was the Mosque Park. This place had scaled down replicas of something like 20 major Islamic buildings from around the world. There was an amazing replica of the Dome of the Rock which you could actually walk inside of. It was a Muslim version of a theme park and was an interesting concept. I enjoyed seeing architecture from all across the Muslim world and it really represented the transnational heritage of Islam across the word.

Election Madness (1-15-09, 1-17-09)
One of the most memorable experiences I had was observing the by-election for a seat in the national parliament. Apparently some Baricion Nacional (BN) politician had a heart attack and died while playing badminton, so his vacated seat was being contested by the BN and the opposition Pakatan Rakyat (PR). The election held national significance in the sense that it was being framed as a referendum on UMNO’s actions since the last election in 2008. Both sides were bringing the political heavy hitters into town and there were major political figures from both sides actively campaigning for votes. In fact, I was even able to meet with the leader of the opposition, Anwar Ibrahim, for a brief moment. I saw him before a rally and when I spoke to him he spoke softly and with a gentleman’s character. At the rally, however, it seemed as though he had done a complete transformation into a dynamic, charismatic leader that was easily able to captivate a packed audience with both wit and eloquence. I didn’t understand what he was saying the majority of time since he was primarily speaking Bahasa, but I could still feel the electricity in the room. After hearing him speak at the rally for PAS (the Islamist party that was part of the opposition PK), I was fairly convinced that they would win the elections. Sure enough, when Election Day rolled around on the 17th, PAS won.

Election Day was insanity brought to life. Daytime was relatively calm but as soon as the sun went down an eerie aura of anticipation could be felt in the streets. Everyone seemed to be following the news, waiting to hear who had won. I finally heard the news from Salem while I was at KT Bowling and I immediately joined him out on the streets. Though I knew little (and still know very little) about PAS or UMNO, I thought it would be appropriate to join in on the festivities (I figured, “When in Rome, right?”). PAS had won the elections and there was utter mayhem on the streets. The green and white moon PAS flag fluttered out of every passing car and motorcycle. People erupted in the most spontaneous display of political euphoria that I had ever seen. Everyone was taking pictures and a Mercedes S 500 even slowed down to take a picture of Salem, Afua, and me. Naturally I jumped in with the crowds and started walking down the street yelling, “Takbeer!” In response—almost instantaneously it seemed—I would hear a loud chorus of “Allahu Akbars!” I got caught up in the fervor and excitement and night was alive with the sound of car horns and “Allahu Akbar.”

All of sudden an armored tank passed me by on the street and reality began to set in. I looked at Salem in utter disbelief and began to question whether it was wise for us to continue to be on the streets with the large presence of police stating to take positions across the city. There were something like 11,000 additional police brought into the city to maintain order (KT’s population is less than 250,000) and I saw the 5-0 out in full effect. Police in full riot gear—batons and barriers outstretched—seemed to pop up on every street corner. All sorts of wild thoughts began to cross my mind: What would I do if the police confronted me? What if I saw some police brutality? What if the police resorted to using (the many) water cannons that they had? I started vaguely forming an alibi and if I had been confronted, I figured I would keep saying I was an American and just observing what was going on.

We decided to continue walking down any streets that were not blockaded. Consequently, we were forced to take the rather scenic route back to hotel. By scenic route I mean walking by rows and rows of policemen on our way from the main beach in KT to the Seri Malaysia hotel. The walk back to the hotel was a complete 180 degree change from the mood earlier in the night. Irrational exuberance had been replaced by the somber reality of the rule of law and order. Still, the night was an amazing experience and I was impressed by the amount of visceral joy that was brought to the masses merely through the simple democratic process of elections. The democratic socialist in me was very happy that night.

Eating in KT
Apparently Malaysia’s favorite past-time is eating. There is breakfast in the morning (around 7 something), tea time (around 10 something), lunch (noon time), lupper (4ish), and then dinner (8-9ish). Everything that is cooked has to be deep fried, have a ridiculous amount of salt and sugar in it, and basically be terrible for your health. Native Malay cuisine isn’t really that good (in fact, most of the dishes are pretty crappy), but the selection of eateries in KT was limited. We were stuck with eating at KFC, Pizza Hut, or the occasional random roadside restaurant. There was one decent Japanese restaurant but other than that, there was a dearth of ethnic foods. However, all of our meals were already provided for at the hotel. Still anytime we got sick of the hotel food, we would try and hit up some random eatery.

One of the nicest food stalls was the waffle lady. Near our hotel, there was this woman who would serve hot waffles on the side of the road next to a convenient store. The first time I went, I watched curiously as a portly Malay woman buttered up a waffle iron and then proceeded to pour the waffle mix onto it. Once the waffle was toasted to a semi-crisp—but still moist—state, she would lather the waffle with a mixture of peanut butter and chocolate. I would get my steaming waffle and usually wolf it down on my walk back to the hotel.

Obama’s Inauguration (1-21-09)
On January 21st at around 12:30 am KT time, a group of ETAs decided to watch the historic inauguration of America’s first black President. The messiah-in-chief would be sworn in to a country that was collapsing under the weight of its own internal contradictions.

Chalmers Johnson eloquently parallels in his Blowback trilogy the current state of America with that of the former Soviet Union. He argued that the latter’s collapse was broadly caused by internal economic contradictions, inability to reform, and imperial overstretch. He then built up an argument that said America faced these same issues and was bound to go the way of the USSR without dramatic change.

Now I don’t remember all of his specifics, I want to make a few comments along these themes. Without going into a long and detailed rant to support this general thesis, one can clearly see why the American Empire is collapsing.

In terms of internal economic contradictions, there are so many to list that I don’t know where to start. To briefly list a few:

1) The US has tried overwhelming fiscal and monetary intervention in the economy and they haven’t been able to do anything to fix the economy.
2) The Federal Reserve—which has far too little oversight—has decided to cut interest rates to nothing, lent money out of thin air, has increased the inflationary tendencies of the dollar, and wholly has no control over real regulation.
3) The Banking system in America is in shambles and all major banks need to be nationalized to prevent a complete collapse of the economic current economic system.
4) Money is misallocated to things that don’t need money—e.g. imperial wars—and doesn’t go towards improving domestic needs.

In terms of the inability to reform, our sclerotic political system is clearly incapable of change. America will always be controlled by either the Democrats or the Republicans. Effective and popular majoritarian positions (e.g. the desire for universal healthcare) will be constantly ignored either because of apathy or ignorance. Individuals who oppose the two-party hegemony are marginalized and ignored and the people with the best ideas—e.g. Ralph Nader—are ignored in favor of false hopes (i.e. Obama). The Electoral College will continue to prevent any real change from occurring at the executive level and the legislative level will remain neutered except for a handful of legislators who try to constructively change the system (e.g. Feingold, Paul, Ellison, Kucinich, etc.).

In terms of imperial overstretch the most obvious examples are Afghanistan and Iraq. But that’s not all. America has bases or military personal in over 130 countries worldwide. We spend over $1 trillion dollars each year on the military, that is more than the rest of the world combined. Our penchant for hard power has only bred more hatred against America and we can no longer sustain our imperial delusions.

With all of these thoughts in the back of my mind, I sat down to watch Obama speak. We started watching the speech in my room; however, because of the slow internet connection, we headed downstairs to watch the speech on tv in another ETAs room. The speech itself was not substantive but more an attempt to change the tone in Washington. While Obama still held out his cautious optimism, he clearly recognized the challenges that were facing America. His eloquence and charisma make you want to believe him; however his actions temper that enthusiasm. For example, the first attack Obama launched after was elected was an air strike on Pakistani territory. On January 23, 2009, Obama authorized a Predator drone bombing of Pakistan’s Federally Administered Tribal areas in which twenty-three people were killed. Out of this group, allegedly 8 to 10 were Al-Qaeda or Taliban members. The rest were all civilians, including women and children. Violating any countries sovereignty is illegal according to international law and Obama’s actions have made him a war criminal. Three days into his Presidency, the airy rhetoric fell away in favor of the harsh reality of what an Obama Presidency actually means. Twenty-three people—theoretically it could have been any of the twenty-three ETAs here in Malaysia if we had been born in a different place—are no longer on this planet because of Obama’s actions.

As Obama’s true colors show, I am slightly reassured by my own actions in the sense that I did not vote for him. I voted for Ralph Nader. I voted my conscious and am glad that I did not vote for the alleged lesser of two evils.

Still I don’t want Obama to fail. I would like to see him change America for the better. However I know enough about him, his policies, and his advisers to know that he will not realistically bring about a substantive change that people have hoped for.

KT Bowling
One of the coolest places to go in KT was KT Bowling (yes that does say a lot about how “vibrant” the city actually is). At different points in time, I would go bowling with some of the other ETAs and enjoy a typical American past-time. One tradition that we made was to have anyone who gets a strike do a little dance. Strikes were rare, as our skill level in general was quite low, but after one strike I (attempted) to break-dance. I did a little slipping and sliding across the waxed floor and managed to break it down a little bit. I’m sure I’ll visit KT Bowling again at some point.

Top 10 Reasons Why I’m Living in the Ghetto

2009-01-29T22:22:00.005-05:00

As a preface, I've just moved into a small three bedroom, two bath house in Kerteh, Kemaman which is located in Terengganu, Malaysia. I'm supposedly going to live in the house for the next 7-10 months. I moved in on Tuesday and theoretically some of these issues will be taken care of at some point (A big "inshallah")...

10. There is no air-conditioning.
9. There is no separation between the toilet and the shower. And my sink doesn’t have a drain pipe so the water just drains onto the floor.
8. There are no windows that can be shut and I have no curtains (i.e. no privacy).
7. When there are only ants crawling on the walls, it’s a good day.
6. Random cats decide to jump in through my broken windows.
5. All fans must be run on high to reduce the number of mosquitoes in my house.
4. Insects bite me all day.
3. Insects bite me all night.
2. The upstairs water system overflows and leaves the house all wet and leaves me without water.
1. The house I’m living in was abandoned for a year before I moved in.

Man's place in the Cosmos

2009-01-29T04:12:00.005-05:00

The universe is between 13-15 billion years old, there are an estimated 125 billion galaxies in the universe, and there are over 200 billion stars in our Milky Way galaxy. Our planet revolves around the Sun, which is only one star in this Milky Way galaxy.

The earth is 4.5 Billion years old, mankind--homo sapiens--have been around for about 200,000 years. Neanderthals--also from the Homo genus--began to originate around 350,000 years ago and their proper characteristics appeared by about 130,000 years ago although they eventually went extinct 30,000 years ago. Homo sapiens survived and began to dominate the world beginning in 10,000BCE, and 12,000 years later have evolved and developed extensively on this planet.

We have changed and modified this world more than any other species. We have starved, killed, and brutalized everything we've come across. We've voraciously consumed the world's resources and are just beginning to feel the blowback. Mankind has infinite potential, but seems doomed to go the way of the dinosaurs. The major difference, of course, being that the dinosaurs lived for close to 165 million years and were wiped out by a meteor. Relatively civilized society has barely survived 12,000 years on this planet and we seem hell bent on finally pushing ourselves over the cliff. That which we reap, so shall we sow...

A Whirlwind Week in Kuala Lumpur

2009-01-19T23:13:00.002-05:00

My week in Kuala Lumpur (1-2-09 through 1-9-09) was chalked full of activities and things to do. On top the limited official meetings with MACEE, I was able to explore the city, tried out variegated delicacies, checked out the night life, and just had a great time. KL is quite the city and I will definitely be returning to it in the future.

The reason why I was in KL last week was to go through an orientation session with MACEE. Officials from MACEE, namely Jim and Meena, introduced us to the Fulbright program in Malaysia, what we should expect during our stay here, and put us in touch with the US Embassy. Although we had meetings every day of the week, we didn’t achieve too much. At least we were able to get an orientation to the country and take care of some of the more tedious bureaucratic issues that had to get done.

KL itself is quite an impressive city. There is fantastic architecture, all types of eateries, and people from all over the world. The buildings are well-designed and built to last. There is a wide-range of architectural styles, from Western styled skyscrapers to ornate Ottoman-esque mosques. The Petronas Twin Towers are the paragon of the fusion of East and West, with the distinctive Islamic touch.

Walking through the city you can find almost any type of food that you’re heart desires. Food is incredibly cheap in comparison to America and you can get an excellent meal for $5US. The native Malay cuisine is actually not that great. The biggest problem with Malay food is the overreliance on fish and fried goods. I figure that this diet coupled with a general tendency that most Malays have of not doing exercise contributes greatly to the v, but there is a wonderful collection of Indian, Middle Eastern, Asian, and Western food places.

The demographic breakdown of the city seemed to be predominantly Chinese although there was a healthy mix of native Malays, Indians, and foreigners. KL is a truly cosmopolitan city and the epitome of what Malaysia is striving to be. Now whether or not massive development and a vibrant economy on the one hand makes up for the (the typical belief among conservative Malay’s) loss of identity and morality is an issue that is debatable. On the negative side, KL is pretty poorly designed in terms of a street layout and it seems that there was no central planning to the city as it evolved over time. The weather is crap—it’s ridiculously humid—but most people hang out in all of the building, which are fairly cold. Overall the city is quite nice and I could definitely see myself staying here for an extended period of time at some point.

There are lots of different things to do in KL. While most activities revolve around eating, there are actually a lot of sightseeing places. There is the Batu Caves which is a series of caves and cave temples near the city. For those more inclined towards the outdoors, there is a great jungle hiking trail through FRIM. I actually went on a nice excursion through FRIM and was able to climb through the thick bush in a nice long trek through the jungle. There are also many gorgeous mosques worth visiting, especially the awe-inspiring National Mosque. For those more inclined towards the night-life, there are plenty of bars and clubs to check out. If you are into meeting women, there are plenty of attractive Chinese and Indian women (the native Malay girls aren’t that great-looking).

KL is a city that holds many attractions and was a great city to visit. I’m sure I will be making my way back to KL as I spend more time in Malaysia.

The Adventure Begins with a Hiccup

2009-01-06T10:46:00.002-05:00

As my friends know, I will be spending the next year in Malaysia doing a Fulbright English Teaching Assistantship grant. I will be expanding what I post up on my blog from my random political thoughts, reviews, and other things to also talk about my experiences in Malaysia this upcoming year.

January 2-4, 2008
Friday-Sunday
So today was the beginning of my adventure to Malaysia. I went to bed really late last night (6am)—or late, I suppose—because I was busy packing and wrapping up some final things that I needed to get done. So I finally got out of bed around 11:30am and got ready to go to Jummah prayers at the Sligh Mosque. I got ready, made sure that all of my things were packed, and headed off to the mosque with my entire family (Pops, Mom, Naumaan, and Irfaan) except for Zeeshan (who is currently visiting Pakistan).

So we ended up getting to the mosque a bit late, listened to the tail end of the khutbha, prayed, and then did namaz jinaza for some brother who had passed away. Following the prayers, I talked with some friends and then headed over to Philly Steak for some lunch.

At Philly Steak, I got to hang out with some of my friends—Ali, Yousaf, Toyin—and gorge on some halal American food. I was pretty hungry and wolfed down some of a philly steak and a spicy gyro. It was a nice meal and I was glad to hang out with some friends and family before heading off on my trip.

By 4pm, it was time to begin the long-awaited epic journey to Malaysia. We drove from Temple Terrace (where the restaurant was located) out to Tampa International Airport. We got there around 4:30 and I attempted to do an e-check in at the Delta counter. Unfortunately, the machine couldn’t find my reservations so I had to go to the agonizingly slow Delta check-in line. It took the better part of an hour before I finally got to check in my bags and got my boarding pass for the first leg of my journey. This relatively minor inconvenience was just a harbinger to much larger problems that were to come. But at that moment, I was just happy to have my ticket to LAX and said my final good-byes to my family and went over to my terminal.

My flight left Tampa on time at 7pm. From the beginning of the flight I knew it was going to be an quite the trip. After I had just sat down in my aisle seat a tall, blond bombshell walked up to me and said she needed to get into her window seat. One look at her fur-like sweater, curvaceous body, and gaudy jewelry lit up my material goldigging-dar. I could tell this girl was high maintenance and it seemed fitting that she would be on a flight to LA. Almost immediately I could tell that she was in a highly agitated mood. I did my best to ignore her and attempted to keep my head down and read from the book I had brought along (I’ve been reading the rather dense The Brothers Karmazov by Fyodr Dostoyevsky). But then she asked me if I would change seats with her. The immediate thought that ran through my mind was, “Damn, all these attractive girls will ask for—and get—anything they wamt.” And I, being no different, said “sure, you can have my seat.” She seemed really relieved that she was sitting in the aisle and then went on to explain to me that she had difficulty flying. She said that she always felt queasy and that she usually just took some medicine to help her before she flew. I introduced myself and she told me her name was Cynthia and that she had gone to undergrad at Eckerd College in St. Petersburg. One thing led to another and we ended up talking about a wide-range of issues. The biggest shock came to me when she told me that she was in the fifth year of PhD program in Social Psychology at the University of California-Santa Barbara. She was refreshingly intelligent and really killed the stereotype that I had assigned to her. In fact she was a bright liberal who made sure to clarify to me—unasked—that her sweater was not fur but just imitation. I had a generally pleasant conversation with her, took a short nap, and finally arrived at LAX around 12pm (EST).

Once I got off the plane, I saw that it was about 9:20pm (WST) and felt confident that I would be able to get to my 11:10pm flight to Taipei with no difficulty. However, this would definitely not be the case. I first had to make the long walk from the domestic terminal to the international terminal. Once there, I went to the China Airlines representative and asked to have my boarding card printed. The sweet little Chinese girl responded that there was no record of my reservation in their computer. I explained to her that my flight was confirmed and even showed her my confirmation print-out. She searched her computers but finally said that I would have to go back to Delta and have them fix the problem with my ticket.

At this point, it was starting to near 10pm and I knew that I would have to run back to the Domestic terminal to get my ticket issue fixed. So I ran back to the terminal—while lugging along my 25lbs backpack and laptop case—and spoke to a Delta representative. She looked up the information on her computer, said that the whole issue was a misunderstanding, and printed out a confirmation ticket that I would show to China Airlines to clear this issue up.

So I then ran back to the international terminal and saw that the China Airlines people were about to close their ticketing counters. I ran to the same Chinese women—or so I thought—and gave her my new updated ticket from Delta. She went through her computer again and said that there was still no record of my booking. Furthermore, after seeing that I thought she was the same girl I had spoken to earlier, she made a point to say that, “I’m not the same person you talked to earlier, I can go get her if you would like.” So this was my strike two on stereotypes for the day—although I must say that these two Chinese women looked a lot alike. Anyhow, the other Chinese girl came and spoke to me about calling up her manager to fix the ticket issue. A couple of minutes later, her manager came, took my info to Delta, and returned with the same point that there was no record of my flight booking and that I would not be able to board the plane.

So at this point I was starting to feel desperate. I asked the Chinese lady what were options. She basically said that I could either go back to Delta to try and fix the flight issue or I could buy a ticket for the flight. So my options were pretty crappy. I could either: a) go argue with Delta and miss my flight, which would then mean I have to stay in LA for at least a day in a location tbd, or b) pay for a ticket that had already been paid for me. I did not want to stay in LA so I decided to just buy a ticket for the flight. It is only at this point that the Chinese women told me that the flight was fully booked and that I would have to fly on stand-by.

At this point I’m starting to think that it is not in fate to get to KL. I told her I would wait and sometime close to 11pm she said that she would sell me a ticket. I then paid for the flight to KL (with a flight change at Taipei) for the cheap price of $815. This would have been a great price for a flight—that is, of course, if I didn’t have to pay for the same flight twice (technically once, since the Fulbright program bought my original ticket). After having paid for the flight, I ran over to security, surreptitiously skipped a bunch of people and got through security by 11:15pm. I believe I was the last person to board the flight and it finally took off around midnight.

The flight from LAX to Taipei was thankfully uneventful. I sat next to an attractive Hispanic woman who was traveling on to Thailand. The flight was quite long—something like 14 and a half hours—and we ended up arriving in Taipei around 6:30am on the January fourth. I uneventfully switched planes to my flight for KL and we departed around 8:40am.

I arrived in KL after a 4 hour and 45 minute flight (and as a side note, I sat next to a pretty Asian woman on this flight) to a sea of palm trees. Flying into the airport I was amazed at the endless rows of palm trees on the horizon. The KL airport itself was huge and it took a bit of time to travel from our landing zone to the baggage carousel. Once I got through customs and picked up my bag I was supposed to be met by a representative from MACEE (Malaysian-American Commission On Educational Exchange). However, as with everything else on this trip thus far, there was a slight hitch to my plans. The slight hitch, of course, being that no one was there to pick me up. Apparently it seems that it was in my destiny to run into as many difficulties as possible before finally settling into Malaysia.

Anyhow, a car service individual helped me try to connect with the hotel, MACEE, or any of the other Fulbrighter’s who were already in town. After an hour of trying to reach someone, I decided I might as well just get a taxi to the hotel. The car service guy was trying to get me to pay him 150 Ringit ($43) for a cab ride to the hotel. I declined this pretty ridiculous price and found a taxi driver who gave me a better rate (80 Ringit or $23) which was still pretty expensive.

So my taxi driver from the airport, Razali, was a pretty colorful fellow. He was obviously a practicing Muslim and told me some anecdotes about Malaysia and some other small talk. The ride from the airport to the Dorsett Regency Hotel was maybe 45minutes and I finally got checked in around 5pm in the afternoon.

At this point I was utterly exhausted, but I wanted to take a shower and get my things situated. Afterwards, I called up some of the other ETA’s and we decided to head out to find an Indian restaurant at the MidValley mall. We took the metro there and then meandered in search of this elusive restaurant. Allegedly it was supposed to be some of the best Indian food in Malaysia but apparently the shop had just moved to a different location. Instead, we ended up just eating some subpar Malaysian food and took a cab back to the hotel. I finally called it a night a little after 10pm and finally got some much needed rest.

The Attack on Mumbai

2008-12-07T13:40:00.008-05:00

The heinous terrorist attack in Mumbai has received a great deal of media exposure and coverage. This attack has been dubbed “India’s 911” by a sensationalist press that has served to aggrandize the terrorists’ actions and conflate this attack with the global War on Terror. Key questions about this event remain unanswered. Is Pakistan behind the attack? That’s doubtful. Do the perpetrators of this attack have some sort of ties to extremist groups like the Lashkar-e-Taiba? Perhaps, but that doesn’t implicate Islamabad. What is more important to explore than speculating on the specific group responsible for this attack is the causes of this action and what political ramifications it will have.

India itself is a land of contradictions. It is the world’s largest democracy, but the majority of its people suffer from endemic poverty. Over 1.1 billion people call it home, but many groups in society have been marginalized and ignored. India has constantly been plagued by terrorism, but it has also perpetrated acts of terror in Kashmir. This recent attack in India has been claimed by a nascent terrorist organization—called the Deccan Mujahedeen—that is probably a ghost organization “created” solely for this attack. However, what are the grievances alleged by this organization and how will their crime impact India?

This act of terrorism, while completely unjustifiable, has been blamed on radical Islamists who have a wide-range of grievances. The disparities between Muslims—which make up close to 14% of the population—and Hindus—which make up around 80% of the population—in India are vast and are increasingly a cause of conflict. According to the government-sponsored Sachar Commission Report of November 2006, four out of every ten Muslims in India’s cities—and three out of 10 in the countryside—are living below the poverty line. Generally speaking, Muslim Indians have shorter life spans, lower literacy levels, and lower-paying jobs. Muslims face constant discrimination in education, housing, and employment. On top of being treated as second-class citizens and a constantly suspect subaltern group in society, issues such as the destruction of the Ayodha Mosque, the massacres in Gujrat, and the brutal military occupation of Kashmir have deeply affected Muslims in India. If India continues to ignore these grievances the likelihood of the growth of home-grown militants will increase.

The impact of this event is still reverberating across Indian society. On the political level, this terrorist attack could not have come at a more inopportune time for the Congress Party. When Congress came to power in 2004, they made revoking the draconian Prevention of Terrorism Act their top priority. This act—similar to the American Patriot Act—was revoked that year but the Mumbai attack has renewed discussion on it. The Bharatiya Janata Party, which under Atal Bihari Vajpayee had passed this act, has renewed its support for it and has denounced Congress for being “soft on terrorism.” With general elections only a few months away, the BJP could galvanize its right-wing Hindu support base to try to defeat Congress in the upcoming elections. The idea that the government must respond to terrorist attacks by increasing the internal security apparatus is wrong. These actions will just lead to a more repressive state and a clamp-down on civil liberties. India should instead tackle problems such as poverty, lack of education, and unemployment because these issues feed the desperation that can lead to extremism and ultimately terror.

This terrorist attack has also complicated relations between India and Pakistan. It seems rather convenient for Indian to blame Pakistan anytime it has a domestic terrorist attack that involves Muslims. The allegation against Pakistan seems utterly baseless considering the strong denunciation by the Pakistani government and their offer to cooperate with India. Furthermore, Pakistan faces tremendous problems of its own—such as the growth of an indigenous Taliban movement, terrorist attacks against Pakistan, and internal economic problems—that it is trying to fix and stoking tensions with India is definitely not in their best interests. In fact, Pakistan has been aggressively pushing for a détente with India and this terrorist attack occurred during a peace negotiation visit by the Pakistani Foreign Minster to New Delhi. This attack has caused the distracted international media to focus on manufactured tensions between India and Pakistan rather than the root causes of this attack.

One of the important issues raised by this event are its international implications. The media has dubbed this attack India’s “911” which has unfortunately obfuscated a deeper understanding of this event. The media constantly raises the issue of a “911”—whether it is s terrorist attack in the UK, Spain, or Indonesia—type attack anytime there is some senseless act of terrorism. This is done by the media for a variety of reason. One reason is because it creates a simplified narrative, a “good vs. bad” story that is viscerally understandable for an audience. This allows for the audience to moralize the event which then provides justification for whatever actions the governments take during and after the event. Furthermore, it plays up the notion of international terrorism in general, and radical Islamist terrorism in particular, as an existential threat that must be both feared and destroyed. This gross simplification plays into the illusory idea of a “clash of civilizations” in which a “barbaric other” does senseless acts of terrorism for no apparent reason. While this may be able to get ratings for the media and provide cover for government actions, this simplifies a complex narrative and reduces these events to random acts of terrorism. This allows for the justification and continuation of the global War on Terror because all countries around the world have faced these attacks and governments have responded in kind. India has become a victim of terrorism and therefore has received global sympathy for its loss. Needless to say, India’s actions in Kashmir and its treatment of Muslims are ignored throughout this news coverage in favor of painting a simplistic victimization picture. Terrorism gets all of the media attention. State-sponsored acts of terrorism are ignored as are more pressing causes of conflict such as poverty, access to education, and underdevelopment. This skewed narrative will ensure that terrorism will not abate.

The full impact of the Mumbai attack will be seen in the coming months. These tragic acts of terrorism do have causes that need to be urgently addressed. India should not respond by becoming a greater national security-state; instead, it should aggressively tackle the problems that are ripping it apart. It would be wise to recall Gandhi’s sage reflection that “an eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind.”

For further reading:

1. Behind the Mumbai Massacre: India’s Muslims in Crisis, Time Magazine, Aryn Baker 11-27-08
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1862650,00.html?xid=rss-world

2. The Assault on Mumbai, Counterpunch, Tariq Ali, 11-27-08
http://www.counterpunch.org/tariq11272008.html

3. Mumbai, the NYT’s Revisionism, and Lessons Not Learned, Salon.com, Glenn Greenwald, 11-28-08
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/11/28/nyt/index.html

4. Blood in Mumbai, Washington Post, Dileep Padgaonkar, 11-28-08
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/27/AR2008112702049.html

5. Mumbai May Derail India-Pakistan Peace Progress, Washington Post, Shuja Nawaz, 11-28-08
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/postglobal/needtoknow/2008/11/mumbai_may_derail_india-pakist.html

6. The age of ‘celebrity terrorism’, BBC News, Paul Cornish, 11-30-08
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/south_asia/7755684.stm

7. Muslims -- India's new 'untouchables', LA Times, Asra Nomani, 12-1-08
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/sunday/commentary/la-oe-nomani1-2008dec01,0,4043886.story

8. Toll from Deadly, Coordinated Mumabi Attacks Tops 170, Two Top Indian Officials Resign, Tensions Rise Between India and Pakistan, DemocracyNow!, 12-1-08
http://www.democracynow.org/2008/12/1/toll_from_deadly_coordinated_mumbai_attacks

9. A Shadow Falls on Mumbai, The Progressive, Amitabh Pal, The Progressive, 12-1-08
http://www.progressive.org/mag/wxap120108.html

10. A Statement by Concerned Citizens of India and Pakistan, Press Release, 12-2-08
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2008/12/02-15

[Reaction] The New Humanitarian Order

2008-11-18T03:27:00.002-05:00

The article “The New Humanitarian Order” by Mahmood Mamdani is excerpted from the conclusion of his yet to be released book Saviors and Survivors: Darfur, Politics and the War on Terror. This was a fantastic piece that discussed the politicization of the Darfur conflict, the concept of humanitarian intervention, subverting the language of genocide, the International Criminal Court (ICC), law and politics in transitional societies, and survivors justice. I will briefly review each of these discussions followed by some general thoughts on this topic.

Mamadani begins by rightly pointing out that the conflict in Darfur has become unnecessarily politicized and is widely misunderstood in the West. He notes that the conflict in Darfur began as a civil war in 1987-89. He notes that the two key sides of the conflict—the Fur people and the Arabs—both committed crimes against each other. However, when the ICC began to consider this conflict it put the onus of blame on the Arabs. It falsely argued that this was a racialized conflict stoked by the Arabs. In fact, the problems in Darfur were related to resource conflicts and had little to do with ethnic tensions. The three points that drove this conflict were: 1) the colonial system which reorganized Darfur into a series of tribal homelands that designated the largest areas for settled peasant tribes and none for nomadic tribes. 2) Environmental degradation has seen the Sahara Desert expand by 100 kilometers in four decades and reached a critical point in the mid-1980s in that it pushed all tribes of North Darfur—Arab and non-Arab—further south in search of more fertile land. 3) The brutal counterinsurgency by the Bashir regime in 2003-04 in response to an insurgency backed by peasant tribes. Essentially the Darfur conflict stems from a series of internal problems which have pitted some members of society against the state. Even when there was a rise in the death rate of noncombatants from 2003-04 the World Health Organization traced 80 percent of deaths to drought-related diarrhea and only 20 percent to direct violence. So for the ICC to indict President Bashir for being behind this violence is not only the wrong approach but it also doesn’t address the real problems in this conflict. For the ICC to take a politicized action undermines it as an institution and hurts the cause of peace in Darfur.

Mamdani continues by discussing the concept of humanitarian intervention. He rightly notes that the international system that was set up after World War II made state sovereignty essentially inviolable. Humanitarian intervention does not abide by the rule of law and undermines the concept of state sovereignty. Furthermore, which conflicts are dealt with through this venue (e.g. Iraq, Darfur, etc.) often have ulterior motives that are more important than any concern for protection of civilian lives. Humanitarian intervention is a breach to state sovereignty and undermines our Westphalian system. State sovereignty has traditionally been sacrosanct and it is a political concept that is almost universally accepted. Humanitarian intervention does not care for state sovereignty.

So Defenders of humanitarian intervention argue that it is an apolitical concept since the protection of a protection of an innocent “other” is paramount. Furthermore, the concept of humanitarian intervention has been used throughout history to justify intervention to protect vulnerable peoples. For example, Western powers used to intervene in areas under the control of the Ottoman Empire under the guise of protecting minority religious groups. Similar concepts of protection of innocents were used by all the eighteenth and nineteenth century powers to justify their imperial ambitions. Our time is no different. It seems that the generalized “West” would like the right to intervene in other countries whenever the “West” considers a minority group to be in trouble (and is shouldn’t be surprising that resources often make these innocent civilians more important). The cries of “genocide” have been used to galvanize support for humanitarian intervention. However, these calls are almost always politicized and thus undermine the gravity of genocide.

Genocide is defined by extreme violence that targets for annihilation a civilian population that is marked off as different "on grounds of race, ethnicity or religion" from the dominant population. Now genocide has become a term used as a political tool to describe something that has become so reprehensible that action must be taken to stop its continuation. All modern wars are total wars and these wars are typically one of either an insurgency (liberation war), counterinsurgency (suppression of civil war or of rebel/revolutionary movements), or an inter-state war. Many civilians necessarily die in these conflicts and there are numerous crimes committed by all sides in modern conflicts. However, raising the specter of genocide in a particular country is used to justify the other type of war, i.e. humanitarian intervention. With the onset of the War on Terror, the concept of intervention as a positive idea to prevent genocide has gained traction even though indiscriminate bombings have been a hallmark of this war that has left thousands of civilians dead. So the term genocide is used to rationalize the illegal violation of state sovereignty. But to use the term genocide to describe the conflict in Darfur is not only incorrect but it also obfuscates the facts on the ground. This is unacceptable and the ICC has reinforced this misperception.

The ICC has become a politicized organization that indicts some individuals (such as Bashir) and ignores others (such as President Bush) that commit crimes. The ICC appears to be going after targets that are of interest to Western powers but does not pass judgment uniformly. This will ultimately undermine this institution and make it increasingly irrelevant.

The right approach to resolving difficult conflicts is through principled diplomacy and the flexible application of law in transitional societies. Justice for victims has to be put in context within the reconstitution of the society. Human rights abuses need to be dealt with but not necessarily through punitive justice. The example of South African and its Truth and Reconciliation movement is an excellent case in point. By absolving perpetrators of their crimes by demanding an open detailing of their crimes was an excellent way to resolve Apartheid-era injustices. This flexible model of justice brought stability and reconciliation to South Africa, not continued violence and retribution. As Mamdani noted, “Nuremberg may have been the paradigm for victors’ justice but South Africa’s post-apartheid transition is the paradigm for survivors’ justice.

Overall this is an excellent article worth considering and I’m looking forward to reading the book. Distinguishing between crimes against humanity and genocide is important and conflict prevention should be employed at all levels to prevent war. The issue of genocide is grave and innocent civilians need protection. However, dropping bombs and indictments often hurts civilians more than it protects them.

[Book Review] I Am America (And So Can You!)

2008-11-16T23:47:00.006-05:00

I am a fan of Stephen Colbert and I try to watch his show anytime I get a chance. Reading I Am America (And So Can You!) felt very much like watching an episode of his self-titled show. It was a quick read meant to entertain and poke jest at what America has become.

Essentially, the book reads like an infomercial. It is an idiot’s guide to life according to Stephen Colbert. He breaks up the book into three segments: one on childhood, another on adolescence and the final on maturity. Interspersed throughout the book are small tangents written in the margins that add to the feel that this book was written in a stream-of-conscience style which mimics his show perfectly. While reading, I often had the feeling that Colbert himself was speaking to me as I peered into his faux reality. Each section of this book has its moments and, as the whole, it provided a cheap thrill ride and commentary on the state of our society.

In his childhood segment, I had my biggest laugh when he was talking about religions. Of course he made the typical spiel about how Jesus is the way to go but he went on to critique the fallacies and inadequacies of all non-Christian religions. When he came to Islam, he wrote (p. 60): “Islam is a great and true religion revealed in the Holy Koran which was dictated by the angel Gabriel to the final prophet Mohammed, Blessing and Peace Be Upon Him.” He followed this up with a footnote that said the exact same thing. This point was hilarious on multiple levels. First, if you juxtapose how he talked about Islam with any of the other religions mentioned (e.g. he really has a good time with Hinduism concept of reincarnation and humorously describes the idiocies of Scientology) the matter-of-fact description of Islam just begs for a laugh. But if you also follow his show, he always goes out of his way to show deference to Islam in a way that is meant to lampoon the seriousness of the religion. Why? Because anytime Islam is perceived to be slighted by someone, riots erupt and protests occur. His humor is in his non-humor. That is he is showing the lighter side to how serious Muslims take their religion and I applaud him for this. Humor is indeed a needed remedy, particularly for Muslims in this day and age.

In his adolescence segment, I thought the funniest part was when he “sold” the naming rights of his chapter on sports to different corporations. Of course he was playing on a number of themes, namely how closely tied sports and corporations are and the fact that sports is used essentially as a huge advertising medium with consumers. By selling everything to the highest bidder this chapter exemplified what sports in America are really about, i.e. the bottom-line.

His final segment on maturity was very typical Colbert. His discussion of science began with his oft-quoted statement that “reality has a well-known liberal bias”. He lampoons the politicization of science in a not-so-subtle manner that would be sure to rile up those who take actions based on their “gut” instincts or are staunch believers in Creationism. The jokes seem to almost write themselves.

I would say this book should be treated like McDonalds: it’s cheap, quick, and not so satisfying. The book was just like a Colbert episode but provided a comprehensive discussion on issues that he likes to discuss. Frankly, I know that the book sold well but I doubt many people actually read it. But I think that is the point. We Americans are willing to buy any popular piece of crap as long as it provides some quick entertainment. After all, isn’t that the American Dream?

-Nausherwan Hafeez, 11-16-08

Criticize Obama? You’re a Racist!

2008-11-07T04:38:00.001-05:00

Ralph Nader finally caught a break and the mainstream media is actually covering him. Unfortunately it is for a statement that touched on the the polarizing issue of race. The reaction to his remark indicates that we may see the issue of race being brought up anytime someone is critical of Barack Obama.

The controversy began when Nader said in an interview with Fox News on Election Day that “[Obama’s choice] is whether he's going to be Uncle Sam for the people of this country, or Uncle Tom for the giant corporations.” There was a huge outcry of indignation against Nader for not only making these remarks, but also for refusing to retract them. However, one should consider his point before rushing to crucify him. He argued that Obama would be an Uncle Tom if he used the Presidency to continue Washington’s support for corporate interests over the interests of the people. To illustrate the gravity of the situation he invoked the memory of Uncle Tom. The response by the media was to focus entirely on the Uncle Tom remark and not the substance of Nader’s criticism. Nader did not call Obama an Uncle Tom; rather, he said he had the choice to become either an Uncle Tom or Uncle Sam depending on his policy actions. This point—regardless of how ineloquently he made it—is worth considering. However, his substance has been obscured in favor of just calling Nader a racist.

The bigger issue here is not whether Ralph Nader is a racist, but whether or not criticism of Obama can remain independent of racial issues. What if the race card is played when Obama tries to push for a controversial act? Will his detractors be labeled closet racists? This tactic has been seen before with Zionists who rebut any criticism of Israel with charges of “anti-Semitism”. Will supporters of Obama resort to this strategy? Only time will tell.

The reaction to Nader is indicative of how profoundly sensitive issues of race continue to be in this country. Let us hope that we will enjoy the right to be critical of Obama without being dubbed racists.

Reflections on the 2008 Election

2008-11-06T02:54:00.012-05:00

This was the so called “most-important” election we have had in years. America primarily had the choice between two paradoxical candidates. One offered a “change” from the status quo and yet his actions and policies spoke otherwise. The other—who had once shown remarkable independence within a party that holds party filial piety sacrosanct—morphed into a caricature of a conservative Republican. There were independent candidates—such as Ralph Nader, Cynthia McKinney, Bob Barr, and Chuck Baldwin—who campaigned to get their voices heard and were completely ignored by the mainstream media. Their voices were ignored in a concerted effort that severely limited the discussion of important issues that only they were discussing. The news media covered this election ad nauseam as if there were no other major news worthy stories to be covered. Forget the fact that the government has illegally spied on us, that we are actively engaged in at least two wars abroad, and that we operate gulags from Guantanamo Bay to Bagram. The issue that fixated and enamored the media was only the election. There are many stories to be told from this election but perhaps one of the least discussed has been the Democrats capacity to silence others the way that the Republicans were once so infamous for doing. I’ll attempt to explain this phenomenon and provide some general reflections on where we are at now.

In previous elections, the Republicans have been very successful in labeling their opponents and making the elections an emotion-driven affair. In Drew Westen’s recent book, “The Political Brain: The Role of Emotion in Deciding the Fate of a Nation”, he argues that that emotion-driven decision making is the key to understanding how the electorate votes. He extrapolates this argument to America’s Presidential politics. He argued that Democrats have been losing elections because they have generally been appealing to rational policy issues rather than emotion. He then argues that Republicans have been successful in using emotion-driven politics by effectively labeling their opponent and making rational issues ancillary to gut-level decisions. This argument appears attractive to some extent. Naturally it would appear that rational logic and emotion complement each other to inform a voter’s decision making process. However, it appears to me that emotion plays a more important role than I had initially thought.

I believe that this election was driven largely by irrational exuberance. On the Democratic side, there was a particularly aggressive form of this exuberance and I argued that,

“Those Muslims campaigning for Obama or who are supporting his candidacy need to understand that if he is elected, it will be a Pyrrhic victory. Those who argue in favor of Obama most often steep their arguments in a negative premise. The argument goes that you have to vote for Obama because his opponent, i.e. McCain, is so much worse. This flawed logic then goes on to say that if you don’t vote for Obama, you are essentially voting for McCain. This is a fallacy perpetuated by those in power who only want to maintain their grip on power.”

This is essentially what was repeated over and over again by those who supported Barack Obama. People argued this with such religious devotion that if you choose to argue against their logic, they would immediately denounce you as a heretic. A common look of frustration would cross their faces followed by anger and then when/if their passions subsided, they would look at you like an alien and write you off as some starry-eyed idealist who “doesn’t understand the way the world works.” I like to think that I understand how the world works (at least to some extent) and that one should take a stand on issues that one is unwilling to compromise on. Remember, those who stand for nothing fall for anything. Alas, it was nearly impossible to engage in a dispassionate critique of Obama. Even if you chose to do so (as I too often did), you were generally ignored and ostracized for not seeing the light.

These actions spoke to a number of things. One obvious issue was that Muslims and progressives were more than willing to vote out of fear. People spoke in hushed tones about what would happen to America if Sarah Palin became Vice President and—God forbid!—possibly the President. This message and others like it was repeated over and over again to the tune of well over $600 million dollars by the Obama campaign. Fear-mongering drove both the Democrats and Republicans in this election. The potency of the Democratic fear-mongering was particularly egregious. If you didn’t tote the party line you would be treated like a leper. A rabid emotionalism overtook many Muslims and progressives that ignored logic and instead prayed on fear. The argument almost seemed as though if Obama lost the election, the sky would fall and the world as we know it would come to an end. Everyone seemed to have forgotten Franklin D. Roosevelt’s sage declaration that “we have nothing to fear but fear itself.” This collective dementia was frightening to observe.

Another issue is that many people were not only willing to unconditionally support Obama but also to rationalize his actions/statements. For example, one of the most ridiculous assertions that I heard before the election was that Obama wasn’t actually threatening to attack Pakistan. Obama has said, “If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets in Pakistan and the government is unwilling or unable to act, we will do so." Obama’s language in this statement is crystal clear and is a ringing endorsement of the Bush Doctrine. I was told to ignore this illegal threat against the territorial integrity of Pakistan. This in spite of the fact that the Bush Administration has already launched at least one cross border raid into Pakistan on top of the seventeen airstrikes in the past two months that have killed at least 100 people. Other than the fact that I think this policy is ludicrous and illegal, the main problem I had was that Muslims went out of their way to rationalize this irrational policy for Obama. This was shocking. Sure you should support a candidate but that doesn’t mean unconditional support for all of his policies. I would like to believe that most voters qualify their support for the candidate of their choice, but statements like this were perturbing. Blindly following whatever the President—whether Bush or Obama—believes to be right will lead to unjustifiable support for unjust policies. Isn’t this what the Democrats have been complaining about with Bush supporters for the last eight years?

One other issue (although there are others I will stop with this one) is the role that the media has played in supporting Obama. As everyone knows, I neither supported Obama or McCain but I clearly saw a media bias in favor of Obama. As problematic as that was, the greater issue lies in what will happen in the future. Justin Raimondo, the editorial director of the website Anti-war.com, noted that:

Another danger that looms large on the horizon of Obama World is the prospect of a ovesick media corps, one so enamored of their Messiah-in-the-White-House that, while failing to examine his policies overseas, they swallow his explanations too readily. It is all too easy to imagine our besotted press corps capitulating to a new era of political correctness in Washington, where all criticism of the Dear Leader is deemed "reactionary" and implicitly racist. When the Obama administration assures us Iran is building "weapons of mass destruction," how many in the mainstream media will be inclined to question them? I'm very much afraid of the answer to that question.

The central issue here is that we must continue to question our President’s actions and not blindly support him. The cult-of-personality that has surrounded Obama is disconcerting. This has, in the recent past, led to catastrophic demagoguery that the world is still trying to recover from. Realize that he is just a man and only a politician at that.

So Obama has won the election in a landslide. With his election, he has won a considerable mandate crafted through a savvy political campaign in which millions of dollars were spent to manufacture consent. People should qualify their support for Obama and urge him to take better policy positions. People should not blindly follow his actions or rationalize for his errors. This election showed that neither the Muslims nor the progressives were willing to support those who had supported them (namely Ralph Nader and Cynthia McKinney). Ralph Nader commented on DemocracyNow! that:

I think the big story for us, Amy, in the progressive world is the hardcore progressive voter in the slam-dunk McCain and Obama states, like Massachusetts and New York, Obama, and Texas, for example, McCain, didn’t turn out for the progressive candidates, for Nader-Gonzalez, for Cynthia McKinney. They didn’t turn out. The real problem in this country is the voters are in a two-party prison. They don’t get access to other candidates on the presidential debates, which are controlled by the two parties. The candidates are blacked out by the national media. They’re drained for five months in the presidential year just trying to get on the ballots because of the hurdles that the two parties have placed in front of their potential competition.

Chris Hedges, the indefatigable journalist, commented back in April that:

The failure of the left is the failure of well-meaning people who kept compromising and compromising in the name of effectiveness and a few scraps of influence until they had neither. The condemnations progressives utter — about the abuse of working men and women, the rapacious cannibalization of the country by an unchecked arms industry, our disastrous foreign wars, and the collapse of basic services from education to welfare — are not backed by action. The left has been transformed into anguished apologists for corporate greed. They have become hypocrites.

Overall this election was determined by irrational exuberance and a degree of emotionalism that is unhealthy for our consensual democracy. I really applaud John McCain for an honorable concession speech and can only wonder if Obama would have done the same.

Finally, I would strongly encourage everyone to always challenge your leaders and push them in the correct direction. It was interesting to engage in various debates this election season and I would specifically like to thank those people who read or helped spread my article on Obama. This piece can be used as a reference for ways to challenge Obama’s policy in the future. Links to it can be found in the numerous places listed at the end of this article.

As a final thought, I would say that it was very fitting that an atheist of Jewish origin (i.e. Norman Finkelstein) was the most helpful in disseminating my article. I also appreciate the friends who did pass along my piece to others. It is interesting how some Muslims discouraged my dissent, while a Jew both helped and supported my effort to spread information that challenges the status quo. That, in essence, is the true beauty of America.

“In the end, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends.”
-Martin Luther King Jr

See also: Obama and the Muslim Vote
On my blog:
http://freedomcafe.blogspot.com/2008/11/obama-and-muslim-vote.html

On my facebook:
http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=43220798331&id=76400257&index=3
http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=43270838331&id=76400257&index=2

On the Muslimmmatters blog (at the end of the debate portion and made available as a pdf):
http://muslimmatters.org/2008/11/02/debate-transcript-muslims-for-mccain-vs-muslims-for-obama/

On Norman Finkelstein’s website:
http://www.normanfinkelstein.com/article.php?pg=11&ar=2105

On the Campaign against Sanctions and Military Intervention in Iran website:
http://www.campaigniran.org/casmii/index.php?q=node/6775

Obama and the Muslim Vote

2008-11-01T01:07:00.007-04:00

Obama and the Muslim Vote
By: Nausherwan Hafeez
With Senator Barack Obama’s sizeable lead in the polls a deeper analysis of his policies and what they entail is needed before you cast your vote. The goal of this piece is to specifically call out the weaknesses in Obama’s campaign. I recognize that it is very long, but please read it in its entirety. I hope it provides a comprehensive and easily accessible critique of Obama. I strongly encourage you to take this piece and distribute it widely.

“Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it's time to pause and reflect.”
-Mark Twain

Barack Obama has been extensively vetted during the past twenty months of his campaign. During this time, Obama has effectively managed to mobilize a diverse group of supporters ranging from young voters, to African-Americans and liberal professionals. He has steadily gained support through a savvy campaign and charismatic charm. He comes from a diverse ethnic background and purportedly offers a “change we can believe in.” With Election Day just around the corner a close analysis of his policies and track record will indicate what kind of President Obama would actually be. In particular, what would an Obama Presidency mean for American Muslim interests? A close look at his record paints a disturbing picture of a future Obama Presidency.

Before turning to Obama, it is important to understand that the American Muslim community is no monolithic group. The estimated seven-million American Muslims are a diverse community that consists of both an indigenous African-American and immigrant population. American Muslims are an under-represented constituency in political affairs even though the Muslim vote could play a critical role in determining who becomes President. There are large clusters of Muslims in key swing states such as Florida, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Virginia. In the 2000 election, Muslims played a critical role in getting George W. Bush elected. Delinda C. Hanley, a News Editor at The Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, wrote that:

After surveying the community and making overtures to both Bush and his opponent, Vice President Al Gore, the American Muslim Political Coordinating Council Political Action Committee (AMPCC-PAC), comprising the four major American-Muslim organizations—the American Muslim Alliance (AMA), American Muslim Council (AMC), CAIR, and Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC), recommended that its members vote for Bush.

According to CAIR figures, that recommendation resulted in 78 percent of Muslims voting for George W. Bush. In Florida, the most crucial state in the last elections, exit polls showed that 91 percent of the 60,000 Muslim Americans who voted supported Bush.

Muslims were attracted to Bush for his stance on civil liberties, foreign policy, and social values. Muslims turned their support away from Bush after he reneged on his campaign promises and turned out to be a bellicose warmonger. Hanley went on to note that a “June CAIR poll of Muslims who had voted for Bush in 2000 found that 50 percent planned to vote for Kerry, 26 for Nader, only 3 percent for Bush, with the rest not yet sure.” In 2004, the Muslim Electorate Council of America conducted a study that found that there are more than 2 million Muslims eligible to vote in the United States and about 57 percent of them were registered to vote. This election cycle the Muslim vote appears headed towards Obama with the tacit—though not explicit—endorsement by both CAIR and MPAC.

In spite of this, American Muslims need to temper their enthusiasm for Obama. A close look at his record on civil liberties, foreign policy, economic policy, and personal actions indicate that support for Obama is misplaced.

Civil Liberties
Over the past eight years, civil liberties have rapidly declined and this has been a cause for consternation amongst American Muslims. Issues such as the National Security Agency’s (NSA) illegal warrantless wiretapping program, the Patriot Act, and Faith-Based initiatives have curtailed basic rights. Obama’s stance on these issues has been both highly pernicious and seriously misplaced. Furthermore, he slighted the Muslim community during his March 18, 2008 Speech on Race.

NSA Wiretapping
The NSA wiretapping is arguably the most blatant government intrusion on American citizens in a generation. This secretive program was exposed in December 2005 by the New York Times and allowed the Bush Administration through to illegally monitor—without warrants—phone calls, e-mails, Internet activity, text messaging, and other communications involving any party believed by the NSA to be outside the U.S. In May of 2006, the USA Today exposed how the NSA had been secretly collecting the phone records of millions Americans with the help of AT&T, Verizon, and BellSouth. This program went above and beyond the legal method to monitor the electronic communication of Americans which was to obtain a warrant from the secret court authorized by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). Russel Tice, an NSA whistle-blower, explained:

The FISA court—it’s not very difficult to get something through a FISA court. I kinda liken the FISA court to a monkey with a rubber stamp. The monkey sees a name, the monkey sees a word justification with a block of information. It can’t read the block, but it just stamps “affirmed” on the block, and a banana chip rolls out, and then the next paper rolls in front of the monkey. When you have like 20,000 requests and only, I think, four were turned down, you can’t look at the FISA court as anything different.

So, you have to ask yourself the question: Why would someone want to go around the FISA court in something like this? I would think the answer could be that this thing is a lot bigger than even the President has been told it is, and that ultimately a vacuum cleaner approach may have been used, in which case you don’t get names, and that’s ultimately why you wouldn’t go to the FISA court. And I think that’s something Congress needs to address. They need to find out exactly how this system was operated and ultimately determine whether this was indeed a very focused effort or whether this was a vacuum cleaner-type scenario.

With the government and telecommunications companies involved in an explicitly illegal wiretapping program, this should have been something that was easily opposed. Since listening in on the private conversations of American citizens without warrants is a felony under U.S. law—punishable by up to 5 years in prison and/or a $10,000 fine for each offense—this program should have been opposed and the criminals involved prosecuted. James Bamford, author of several books on the NSA, explained how the program worked:

[The NSA] picks up communications from satellites, it taps undersea and underground fiber-optic cables, it gets information any way it can, and then some of the information is encrypted, and it’s responsible for breaking those codes and then sending the information that it gets from these intercepts to other agencies.

The massive amount of information that the government has obtained illegally is a serious intrusion on all Americans civil liberties. However, Barack Obama opposed prosecution for the criminals involved in this program and, in fact, endorsed the White House’s illegal actions.

So how did Obama do this? After the NSA illegal wiretapping program was exposed, the Bush Administration called for an overhaul of the FISA Act. They temporarily received the fix that they wanted in the Protect America Act, but a permanent fix was more elusive. The two major issues that held up a revised FISA bill were the issue of prosecution for those involved in this program and how the new act should be structured. A spokesman for Barack Obama initially stated on October 24, 2007 that:

“To be clear: Barack will support a filibuster of any bill that includes retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies.”

This was the right stance to take. Yet when the final FISA bill came to a vote in the Senate—which included retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies—not only did Obama NOT filibuster the bill, he voted in favor of cloture—a technique that closes discussion on a bill and brings it up for vote—and voted in FAVOR of the revised FISA bill. This was a two-part flip-flop by Obama; he sold out both civil rights activists and did the exact opposite of filibuster this flawed act. The New York Times editorialized that:

[This bill would make it] much easier to spy on Americans at home, reduce the courts’ powers and grant immunity to the companies that turned over Americans’ private communications without a warrant.

…The real reason this bill exists is because Mr. Bush decided after 9/11 that he was above the law…

Proponents of the FISA deal say companies should not be “punished” for cooperating with the government. That’s Washington-speak for a cover-up. The purpose of withholding immunity is not to punish but to preserve the only chance of unearthing the details of Mr. Bush’s outlaw eavesdropping. Only a few senators, by the way, know just what those companies did.

So Obama voted for a severely flawed FISA bill that reduces our civil liberties. The major problems with this bill are that the government can tap any communications Americans have with people overseas and that it granted telecommunication companies retroactive immunity. The criminal activities of the telecommunications companies and the government officials will not be prosecuted. Our constitution will be weaker because of this and Obama is both an enabler and complicit in this government cover-up.

Patriot Act
The Patriot Act is the infamous law that was passed shortly after the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks which radically expanded the government’s domestic law enforcement capabilities. The American Civil Liberties Union noted that the act: “Allows FBI Agents to investigate American citizens for criminal matters without probable cause of crime if they say it is for ‘intelligence purposes.’” Some of the effects of the Patriot Act have been:

• 8,000 Arab and South Asian immigrants have been interrogated because of their religion or ethnic background, not because of actual wrongdoing.

• Thousands of men, mostly of Arab and South Asian origin, have been held in secretive federal custody for weeks and months, sometimes without any charges filed against them. The government has refused to publish their names and whereabouts, even when ordered to do so by the courts.

• New Attorney General Guidelines allow FBI spying on religious and political organizations and individuals without having evidence of wrongdoing.

The Patriot Act was an ill-conceived piece of legislation that was rammed through Congress in the immediate aftermath of a national tragedy. Joe Biden voted for both the initial act and subsequent reauthorizations of it. Obama was not in the Senate when the initial bill passed but was in the Senate for the reauthorization of the act. Obama voted for the reauthorization of the Patriot Act. There have been some courageous individuals who have stood up against this attack on our civil liberties, such as Wisconsin Senator Russell Feingold who was only senator to vote against the initial bill. The American Muslim community’s position against this severely flawed bill directly contradicts both Obama and Biden’s position. Their position is unacceptable and must be revised.

Faith-Based Initiatives
President Bush created this controversial program with the intent to give federal money via the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives to religious organizations for charitable social-service projects. While this sounds good in theory, in practicality much of the funds have gone to just a handful of Christian religious organizations that only serve the interests of their parishioners and not the broader community. By 2005, the program had an annual budget of $2.15 billion dollars and former President Jimmy Carter noted that:

"The policy from the White House has been to allocate funds to religious institutions, even those that channel those funds exclusively to their own particular group of believers in a particular religion. Those things in my opinion are quite disturbing," Carter said. "As a traditional Baptist, I've always believed in separation of church and state and honored that premise when I was president, and so have all other presidents, I might say, except this one."

The separation of church and state is sacrosanct in America and the faith-based initiatives are a dangerous overstep of this boundary. However, Obama has come out in favor of expanding faith-based initiatives. An article in the New York Times noted:

[Obama] thus embraced the heart of a program, established early in the Bush administration, that critics say blurs the constitutional separation of church and state. Mr. Obama made clear, however, that he would work to ensure that charitable groups receiving government funds be carefully monitored to prevent them from using the money to proselytize and to prevent any religion-based discrimination against potential recipients or employees.

In spite of Obama’s stated desire to prevent funds from going towards particular religious groups this program itself is highly questionable. Keith Ellison, the first Muslim elected to Congress, commented on faith-based initiatives and said:

“This [program] is basically the Department of Religious Outreach ... it's essentially a public-relations outreach arm for the Bush administration to reach out to the far right of the evangelical Christian movement. That's really all it is.”

The expansion of the faith-based initiative program that Obama has proposed is unacceptable. Our constitution explicitly separates church-and-state and this program should be opposed.

Speech on Race
Obama, in the midst of a controversy over remarks made by his former Pastor Reverend Jeremiah Wright, delivered a Speech on Race that received widespread praise and the New York Times editorialized that, “What is evident, though, is that he not only cleared the air over a particular controversy — he raised the discussion to a higher plane.” I disagree. While Obama did make some encouraging remarks, he clearly slighted Muslims and displayed a callow understanding of America’s policy in the Middle East. Obama may have raised the discussion of race to a different level but he most certainly lowered the conversation on religion.

When Obama discussed Americans’ relationships with their religious advisers, he explicitly mentioned “pastors, priests and rabbis” while leaving out any reference to imams. By framing his discussion in this way, he paints a picture of American that is exclusively Protestant, Roman Catholic, or Jewish. Perhaps leaving out Muslims was unintentional; however, considering Obama’s other remarks and statements it does fit into a pattern. For example, Obama said that:

“But the remarks that have caused this recent firestorm weren’t simply controversial. They weren’t simply a religious leader’s effort to speak out against perceived injustice. Instead, they expressed a profoundly distorted view of this country – a view that sees white racism as endemic, and that elevates what is wrong with America above all that we know is right with America; a view that sees the conflicts in the Middle East as rooted primarily in the actions of stalwart allies like Israel, instead of emanating from the perverse and hateful ideologies of radical Islam.” [Emphasis added]

There are two primary problems with this statement. First, he argues that the conflict in the Middle East is caused by “radical Islam” not Israel; this statement shows a perverse understanding of the conflict of the Middle East. His statement is basically blaming the victims not the perpetrator. Last I checked it was Israel who forcibly expelled hundreds of thousands of Palestinians in contravention of international law and has refused the Palestinians unalienable right of return. Obama grossly misunderstands the conflicts in the Middle East and his specific policies will be discussed in length later on in this piece.

The second flaw is that he used the term “radical Islam”. There is no such thing as “radical Islam”. This term impugns the religion of Islam itself rather than the small group of radical Muslims. To use this term is to give credence to the idea that there is something radical about Islam when that is simply not true. There are some individuals who take a skewed interpretation of the religion but Obama is denigrating Islam by using this phrase. Just as there is no such thing as “radical Christianity” or “radical Judaism” there is no such thing as “radical Islam.” Obama must stop using this phrase which is an insult to the religion of Islam.

Obama’s speech was consistent in terms of how he and his campaign have dealt with Muslims. Throughout his twenty months of campaigning, he has spoken at various churches and synagogues but not a single mosque. When a photo emerged of Obama in traditional Somali garb he was quick to denounce Senator Clinton for allegedly distributing the picture. His campaign said that “[Clinton's] campaign has engaged in the most shameful, offensive fear-mongering we’ve seen from either party in this election.” Furthermore his campaign said, “It is unfortunate ... that her campaign would be involved in putting out a photograph that is in its very nature designed to be divisive.” The subtext of these statements is clear: Barack Obama is in no way shape or form a Muslim and that calling him such, or insinuating it, is equivalent to a slur. He even explicitly stated on his website that calling him a Muslim was a slur. His vehement denials of being a Muslim gave off the impression that somehow it is bad to be a Muslim. While its fine that Obama has denied rumors that he is a Muslim, he should respond by asking, “What’s wrong with being a Muslim?” Being called a Muslim has become a slur in American politics that Obama is perpetuating by his vehement denials and inability to say that there is nothing wrong with being a Muslim. His actions make it appear that being a Muslim is something that is abnormal and unacceptable. That is a very bitter pill to offer the seven million Muslims in America today, who constitute as large a community as Jews do in America. Obama has clearly snubbed American Muslims.

Foreign Policy
With the numerous foreign policy blunders of the Bush Administration one should hope that an Obama would take a different route in international relations. Unfortunately that is not the case. Obama will have to deal with a wide variety of issues such as the military budget, his advisers, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Lebanon, Iraq, Iran, India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Sudan. In all of these areas, Obama’s policy positions are severely flawed.

Military budget
Obama is in favor of increasing funding for the military and he wants to add 65,000 troops to the Army and 27,000 to Marines. This is in spite of the fact that Congress has allocated $612 billion for the year 2009, although this cost doesn’t take into account further supplemental funding bills that will be needed to fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan as well as military costs that are hidden in other departments. Defense-related spending for fiscal 2008 will exceed $1 trillion for the first time in history and 2009 defense spending will be larger. America already spends more on its military than the rest of the world combined. America cannot afford to continue in this profligate spending. Obama’s position is dead wrong and the military budget must be reduced.

Advisers
A key indication of how Obama’s foreign policy would look like is by considering his advisers. He initially had the liberal interventionist Samantha Powers as an adviser but after she made some unflattering comments about Hillary Clinton she was dropped from his campaign. The military General James Jones has advised Obama’s campaign and so too has Republican Senator Dick Lugar. The most important adviser, however, is his Vice Presidential running mate Joe Biden.

Joe Biden is a Beltway politician who does have foreign policy experience, just not the right kind. His cheerleading of the war in Iraq, skewed understanding of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and threats of crisis are deeply disturbing.

One cannot over-estimate how critical of a role Biden played in making the Iraq war possible. As Professor Stephen Zunes has noted:

In Washington, by contrast, Biden was insisting that Bush was right and Obama was wrong, falsely claiming that Iraq under Saddam Hussein - severely weakened by UN disarmament efforts and comprehensive international sanctions - somehow constituted both “a long term threat and a short term threat to our national security” and was an “extreme danger to the world.” Despite the absence of any “weapons of mass destruction” or offensive military capabilities, Biden when reminded of those remarks during an interview last year, replied, “That’s right, and I was correct about that.”

…Rather than being a hapless victim of the Bush administration’s lies and manipulation, Biden was calling for a U.S. invasion of Iraq and making false statements regarding Saddam Hussein’s supposed possession of “weapons of mass destruction” years before President George W. Bush even came to office…

…As far back as 1998, Biden was calling for a U.S. invasion of that oil rich country. Even though UN inspectors and the UN-led disarmament process led to the elimination of Iraq’s WMD threat, Biden - in an effort to discredit the world body and make an excuse for war - insisted that UN inspectors could never be trusted to do the job. During Senate hearings on Iraq in September of that year, Biden told Ritter, “As long as Saddam’s at the helm, there is no reasonable prospect you or any other inspector is ever going to be able to guarantee that we have rooted out, root and branch, the entirety of Saddam’s program relative to weapons of mass destruction.”…

…In the face of widespread skepticism over administration claims regarding Iraq’s military capabilities, Biden declared that President Bush was justified in being concerned about Iraq’s alleged pursuit of weapons of mass destruction. Even though Iraq had eliminated its chemical weapons arsenal by the mid-1990s, Biden insisted categorically in the weeks leading up to the Iraq war resolution that Saddam Hussein still had chemical weapons. Even though there is no evidence that Iraq had ever developed deployable biological weapons and its biological weapons program had been eliminated some years earlier, Biden insisted that Saddam had biological weapons, including anthrax and that “he may have a strain” of small pox. And, even though the International Atomic Energy Agency had reported as far back as 1998 that there was no evidence whatsoever that Iraq had any ongoing nuclear program, Biden insisted Saddam was “seeking nuclear weapons.”

Said Biden, “One thing is clear: These weapons must be dislodged from Saddam, or Saddam must be dislodged from power.” He did not believe proof of the existence of any actual weapons to dislodge was necessary, however, insisting that “If we wait for the danger from Saddam to become clear, it could be too late.” He further defended President Bush by falsely claiming that “He did not snub the U.N. or our allies. He did not dismiss a new inspection regime. He did not ignore the Congress. At each pivotal moment, he has chosen a course of moderation and deliberation.”

Biden was clearly wrong on Iraq. His understanding of the Iraq’s capabilities was severely flawed and he helped enable the war to occur. This enabler has also ratcheted up rhetoric against Iran and it would not be at all surprising if he stretched evidence against them as well.

On the Israeli-Palestinian conflict there is no doubt where Biden’s sympathy lies. He has openly declared that, "If I were a Jew, I would be a Zionist. I am a Zionist. You don't have to be a Jew to be a Zionist." During the Vice-Presidential Debate, Biden said, “…no one in the United States Senate has been a better friend to Israel than Joe Biden.” He went on to say:

“I argued against the elections being held for the Palestinian parliament. Who insisted on it? George W. Bush. I predicted that Hamas would win, and they won. Now we've taken a terrorist organization and legitimized it in the eyes of the world -- and why? Because they won an election. It's been a disastrous policy for Israel.”

The two major problems with this statement are that he is opposed to the democratic process in Palestine and that Hamas is an illegitimate terrorist organization. Being opposed to elections just because they don’t turn out the way you want them is highly undemocratic and is a slap down against the pro-democracy movements in the Middle East and the world. Calling Hamas a terrorist organization and refusing to negotiate with them is not a strategy for peace. Hamas’ Prime Minister Ishmael Haniyeh wrote:

We present this clear message: If Israel will not allow Palestinians to live in peace, dignity and national integrity, Israelis themselves will not be able to enjoy those same rights. Meanwhile, our right to defend ourselves from occupying soldiers and aggression is a matter of law, as settled in the Fourth Geneva Convention. If Israel is prepared to negotiate seriously and fairly, and resolve the core 1948 issues, rather than the secondary ones from 1967, a fair and permanent peace is possible. Based on a hudna (comprehensive cessation of hostilities for an agreed time), the Holy Land still has an opportunity to be a peaceful and stable economic powerhouse for all the Semitic people of the region. If Americans only knew the truth, possibility might become reality.

Haniyeh offers both the carrot and the stick. Hamas has to be dealt with therefore it is better to engage with them in negotiations rather than through continued isolation.

Commenting on a possible Israeli strike on Iran, Biden said, “You can't tell Israel not to launch a pre-emptive strike. You can't tell Israel what's in their own interest.” This is a dangerous statement to make because if Israel were to attack Iran we would inevitably be drawn into the conflict. The hawks need to be challenged, not given a free pass to do as they please.

Clearly Biden has thrown overwhelming support behind all of Israel’s action. This is unacceptable since American needs to play a mediating role in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, not exclusively back the Israeli side. Furthermore, Israel must be prevented from launching a preemptive strike against Iran and instead we should focus on resolving the Iranian nuclear issue.

Finally, Biden made an extremely troubling comment at a fundraiser in Seattle. He said:

“Mark my words, it will not be six months before the world tests Barack Obama like they did John Kennedy. The world is looking. We’re about to elect a brilliant 47-year-old senator president of the United States of America. Remember I said it standing here . . . we’re gonna have an international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the mettle of this guy.”

Either Biden knows something that the rest of us don’t, or he believes that a major crisis will begin or be generated soon after Obama takes office. Would this be an expansion of the global War on Terror into Pakistan, an attack on Iran, or perhaps something else? With Biden’s known hawkish tendencies it is quite troubling to think about what would happen if there was another international crisis, whether real or manufactured. Biden has shown poor foreign policy judgment and this reflects ill on an Obama Administration.

Israeli-Palestinian Conflict
Obama’s deep misunderstanding of this conflict has already been briefly touched on. But it was Obama’s speech at AIPAC that truly displayed how wrong he is on the conflict. Before analyzing his speech, it is important to consider Israel’s record.

Israel has instituted a concerted effort of colonization and expulsion in the West Bank. The most visceral example of this is the “apartheid” wall that has been built throughout the West Bank in violation of the International Court of Justice’s ruling that its construction is illegal. Former President Jimmy Carter noted in Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid that, “[The Wall] is projected to be at least three and a half times as long as Israel’s internationally recognized border and already cuts directly through Palestinian villages, divides families from their gardens and farmland, and includes 375,000 Palestinians on the “Israeli” side of the wall, 175,000 of whom are outside Jerusalem.” This land grab has allowed for the de facto creation of bantustans for Palestinian people.

Israel has used the tactic of extrajudicial killings to eliminate those it deems a threat. One of the most heinous of these killings occurred in March of 2004 when an American-supplied Israeli Helicopter gunship bombed and killed the quadriplegic Sheik Ahmed Yassin. The “collateral” damage from this bombing was 9 innocent bystanders, including 6 children. The assassination of alleged criminals is a gross violation to the rule of law.

Israeli policies in Gaza exemplify the idea of collective punishment. Israel has blockaded most imports and exports in Gaza by declaring it a “hostile territory”. Consequently, about 70% of Gaza’s workforce is now unemployed or without pay, according the United Nations, and about 80% of its residents live in harsh poverty. About 1.2 million of them are dependent for their day-to-day survival on food handouts from the UN or other international agencies, without which the population would starve. This deliberate attempt to destroy Gazan livelihood is in direct violation of the Geneva Convention—which Israel is a signatory to—obliges an occupational force to ensure the well-being of the occupied peoples.

Israel has set up over 500 different checkpoints throughout the West Bank. These checkpoints prevent Palestinians from moving freely within their own territory. To add insult to injury, there are numerous “Jew-only” roads throughout the West Bank that the native Palestinians are denied access to. This process of restricting Palestinian movement and access to roads throughout their territory is chillingly reminiscent of Nazi Germany’s policy towards their Jewish population during the early part of the 1930s.

Israel continues to violate of numerous U.N. resolutions. Israel continues to violate the Geneva Conventions regarding settlement of occupied territory, forbidding refugees from returning to their homes, and using collective punishment. Israel continues to violate the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which states:

(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state.
(2) Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and return to his country.
-- Article 13

(1) Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others.
(2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.
-- Article 17

These systematic violations of international law leave the Palestinians with little recourse. Palestinians are forced to ask for aid from the international community and Israel often prevents this aid from reaching them.

Consider how Israel treats Nobel Peace Laureates. Israel shoots them, bars them from entry, denounces them as anti-Semitic, or slowly suffocates them. On April 20, 2007, Mairead Maguire was shot in the leg with a rubber bullet by the Israeli army who opened fire at a peaceful demonstration in the West Bank village of Bilin. On November 8, 2006, the Israeli army shelled the Gaza Strip town of Beit Hanoun which killed 19 Palestinians. The United Nations sent Desmond Tutu on a fact-finding mission to Gaza but he was barred from entry until this year. When he visited Gaza on May 28, he described the Beit Hanoun attack as a "massacre" and he later delivered a full report on this event to the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva. In 2006, former President Jimmy Carter wrote the book Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid in an attempt to shed some light on the current Israeli-Palestinian conflict and encourage debate on the topic. For his efforts, Carter was labeled an “anti-Semite” and roundly attacked by supporters of Israel. Yasser Arafat spent the last years of his life in an Israeli-destroyed compound in Ramallah choked off from the international community until his mysterious death in 2004.

Obama plans to continue this special relationship with Israel. In his AIPAC speech, Obama began by stating, “Friends who share my strong commitment to make sure that the bond between the United States and Israel is unbreakable today, tomorrow and forever.” This statement sounded reminiscent of Alabama Governor George Wallace’s 1963 inaugural address in which he stated, “Segregation today, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever!” I’m sure that the Palestinians understand this parallel. But it got worse. Obama went on to say:

“That starts with ensuring Israel's qualitative military advantage. I will ensure that Israel can defend itself from any threat — from Gaza to Tehran. Defense cooperation between the United States and Israel is a model of success, and must be deepened. As president, I will implement a Memorandum of Understanding that provides $30 billion in assistance to Israel over the next decade — investments to Israel's security that will not be tied to any other nation. First, we must approve the foreign aid request for 2009. Going forward, we can enhance our cooperation on missile defense. We should export military equipment to our ally Israel under the same guidelines as NATO. And I will always stand up for Israel's right to defend itself in the United Nations and around the world.”

So Obama is in favor of increasing the military aid to a rogue state that has already received hundreds of billions of dollars in aid. He continued and said:

“The long road to peace requires Palestinian partners committed to making the journey. We must isolate Hamas unless and until they renounce terrorism, recognize Israel's right to exist, and abide by past agreements. There is no room at the negotiating table for terrorist organizations. That is why I opposed holding elections in 2006 with Hamas on the ballot. The Israelis and the Palestinian Authority warned us at the time against holding these elections. But this administration pressed ahead, and the result is a Gaza controlled by Hamas, with rockets raining down on Israel.”

Obama is in complete agreement with Biden on this issue. He is opposed to Palestinian democracy. Hamas leader Mahmoud al-Zahar commented on the Palestinian election by writing:

The U.S.-Israeli alliance has sought to negate the results of the January 2006 elections, when the Palestinian people handed our party a mandate to rule. Hundreds of independent monitors, Carter among them, declared this the fairest election ever held in the Arab Middle East. Yet efforts to subvert our democratic experience include the American coup d'etat that created the new sectarian paradigm with Fatah and the continuing warfare against and enforced isolation of Gazans.

In spite of this, Obama refuses to negotiate with Hamas until it meets his preconditions. This is rather ironic because Israel continues to terrorize the Palestinians, doesn’t recognize the Palestinians right to exist (i.e. Palestine should be an independent sovereign state), and doesn’t abide by past agreements. He continues this hypocrisy and states:

“Let me be clear. Israel's security is sacrosanct. It is non-negotiable. The Palestinians need a state that is contiguous and cohesive, and that allows them to prosper — but any agreement with the Palestinian people must preserve Israel's identity as a Jewish state, with secure, recognized and defensible borders. Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided.”

The fact that Obama later modified his statement on Jerusalem by saying that “Jerusalem is a final status issue, which means it has to be negotiated between the two parties…” doesn’t mitigate the impact of this statement. He knew how contentious an issue of Jerusalem was before he made his speech and by making that statement, he delivered a clear indication that he would support Israel’s illegal annexation of Jerusalem. Furthermore, he argued vehemently for maintaining Israel as a “Jewish” state which is a rather odd idea to defend for an alleged liberal democracy. What about the Muslims in Israel? Are they not to be treated as equal citizens and excluded for not being Jewish? There have been many states in the past that have decided to ensure that their states were homogenous for a particular religion or race and sometimes this has led to disastrous results. Perpetuating the notion of a “Jewish” state is not helpful.

Some say that perhaps Obama does have a deeper understanding of the conflict. These observers point to Obama’s statement that “nobody has suffered more than the Palestinian people.” After coming under pressure from the Israel lobby, he massaged his statement and said, “Nobody has suffered more than the Palestinian people from the failure of the Palestinian leadership to recognize Israel [Emphasis added].” By turning the statement into a condemnation of Palestinian leadership proves that he doesn’t understand the conflict.

Consider how Obama reacted to the situation in Gaza. He came out against a proposed UN Security Council statement that expressed concern over the Israeli blockade. He described Israel’s siege as “forced” by the Palestinian rocket attacks. Obama callously ignored the fact that Israel’s blockade was equivalent to collective punishment on all of Gaza. Collective punishment against civilians is a breach of international law, but Obama doesn’t appear to care about that.

Probably the most appropriate part of Obama’s speech at AIPAC wasn’t anything that he said but what he wore. Earlier in his campaign, Obama had decided to stop wearing the American flag pin because it had become a substitute for “true patriotism.” Obama went back on this statement when he wore an Israeli-American flag-pin at this speech. That symbol really sums up Obama’s belief in the deep American-Israeli alliance. Obama’s rhetoric has allowed him to capture the support of the Jewish vote, with the latest Gallup poll shows Obama with 74% of support among Jews and McCain has 22%. Obama’s policies towards this conflict must be opposed because his policies will only lead to more conflict and suffering.

Lebanon
During the summer 2006 Lebanon War, Israel ruthlessly bombed Lebanon. Israel attacked key infrastructure across the country and reduced much of Beirut to rubble. During this wanton bombing campaign, Obama co-sponsored Senate Resolution 534 [109th] that pledged unqualified support for Israel's bombing campaign. This green light from Congress allowed Israel to continue to bomb Lebanon in one of the grossest display of aerial bombardment since the War in Iraq. Obama should not have supported giving Israel a carte blanche for its attack on Lebanon.

Iraq
Obama’s policy on Iraq, while somewhat encouraging, is also quite troubling. It is good that he opposed the Iraq War before it began and that he has called for a withdrawal of troops from Iraq, but a closer look at his policies tells a different story.

Obama has been praised for being opposed to the War in Iraq before it began and stated, “I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences.” He nailed this point on the head. However, in that same speech he said:

“Let me begin by saying that although this has been billed as an antiwar rally, I stand before you as someone who is not opposed to war in all circumstances. The Civil War was one of the bloodiest in history, and yet it was only through the crucible of the sword, the sacrifice of multitudes, that we could begin to perfect this union, and drive the scourge of slavery from our soil. I don’t oppose all wars. My grandfather signed up for a war the day after Pearl Harbor was bombed, fought in Patton’s Army. He saw the dead and dying across the fields of Europe; he heard the stories of fellow-troops who first entered Auschwitz and Treblinka. He fought in the name of a larger freedom, part of that arsenal of democracy that triumphed over evil, and he did not fight in vain. I don’t oppose all wars.”

He is not opposed to all wars and even speaks in gushing terms about some wars. While it is fine not to be opposed to all wars this statement qualifies his opposition before the War in Iraq. The War in Iraq was not in the best interests of America, hence he opposed it. However, in other cases—such as the nebulous Global War on Terror—he believes that warfare is necessary (see the later discussion on Pakistan). So Obama is no pacifist, he just opposed dumb wars.

His opposition to the war was easier said than actually done. When he came to the Senate, he voted to continue funding the war. His previous opposition to the Iraq War really doesn’t mean as much as his vote to continue to fund the war. His actions speak louder than his words and those actions are quite deleterious.

Obama has laid out a plan for Iraq. He wrote that:

As I’ve said many times, we must be as careful getting out of Iraq as we were careless getting in. We can safely redeploy our combat brigades at a pace that would remove them in 16 months. That would be the summer of 2010 — two years from now, and more than seven years after the war began. After this redeployment, a residual force in Iraq would perform limited missions: going after any remnants of Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, protecting American service members and, so long as the Iraqis make political progress, training Iraqi security forces. That would not be a precipitous withdrawal. [Emphasis added]

The sixteen month time-frame seemed to go over well with the Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki who said, “US presidential candidate Barack Obama talks about sixteen months. That, we think, would be the right time frame for a withdrawal, with the possibility of slight changes.” More recently, Iraq has said that the US should withdraw within 12 months. However, there was a rather large caveat that Obama made. He argued that the US would leave behind a “residual force” in Iraq. So although he says he’s going to withdraw all troops from Iraq, he’s actually going to leave some behind. How big would this residual force be? Obama did not say, but advisers leaked that it could reach 50,000.

This shouldn’t be surprising to anyone that has closely followed the war. America has built permanent mega-bases in Iraq and does not appear to be willing to completely withdraw. America will stay in Iraq despite the fact that we are hemorrhaging money at an unsustainable rate to maintain an unpopular occupation of an oil-rich country. The Iraqi’s want us out and Obama arrogantly talks about leaving behind “residual forces.” Furthermore, Obama refuses to rule out the controversial use of contractors in Iraq. Jeremy Scahill, author of the book Blackwater, has said:

The reality is, and Barack Obama knows this very well, his Iraq plan could not be implemented if he was against the use of Blackwater or other private security forces. And the reality is, he’s probably going to have to use these companies for two to three years at a minimum, unless he makes it an aggressive point of trying to shut them down. He might even have to use Blackwater for the first year of his administration.

Blackwater is the infamous mercenary group contracted by the US military to provide security in Iraq and has perpetrated numerous crimes against innocent civilians such as in the Nisour Square Massacre.

Obama’s continued support for funding the war, his plan to leave a residual force, and his probable use of contractors in Iraq is highly suspicious. Obama is not in favor of a unilateral withdrawal in Iraq and he must be pressured to adopt a better Iraq policy.

India
Arguably the most important issue between Indian-American relations has been the Indian Nuclear Agreement. In 2005, George W. Bush put forward a plan to transfer nuclear technology and materials to India. He wanted to make this deal with India in spite of the fact that India had not signed the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and has an active nuclear weapons program. Bush argued that the deal was needed to strengthen the America’s relationship with India, it will provide a “green” source of energy for India, and that it will provide billions of dollars of trade in nuclear technology. Detractors of this flawed agreement noted that it would increase nuclear proliferation, it would be a disincentive for countries to join or remain party to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, and that it would spur a nuclear technology race between India and Pakistan. The negatives far outweigh any gains and this agreement should be opposed. When this Indian Nuclear Agreement came before the Senate this October, Obama voted in favor of it. He has basically voted to increase nuclear proliferation and the true irony of this piece of legislation is seen when it comes to the issue of Iran.

Iran
Obama’s policies towards Iran are terrible. While he offers to talk with the leaders of Iran with some preconditions, he has resorted to bellicose rhetoric on Iran. He has consistently stated that all options are on the table in dealing with Iran and that America should put more sanctions on the Iranian regime. Why? Because they have a suspected nuclear weapons program.

Of course, all of the evidence points to the fact that Iran is not pursing a nuclear weapons program; rather it is pursing the use of nuclear energy, a right guaranteed to Iran since it is a signatory to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. The National Intelligence Estimate (NIE)—a report that represents the consensus view of all 16 American spy agencies—released in December of 2007 states with “high confidence” that Iran is not running a nuclear weapons development program. The International Atomic Energy Agency has said that Iran has made “substantial progress” in addressing the issue of nuclear enrichment. There have already been four UN Security Council resolutions passed against Iran’s nuclear energy program although Iran insists that it is only for peaceful means.

So what is Obama’s position? In his address to AIPAC, Obama said:

The Iranian regime supports violent extremists and challenges us across the region. It pursues a nuclear capability that could spark a dangerous arms race and raise the prospect of a transfer of nuclear know-how to terrorists. Its president denies the Holocaust and threatens to wipe Israel off the map. The danger from Iran is grave, it is real, and my goal will be to eliminate this threat.

There are a number of errors in this statement. As Stephen Zunes noted:

[The President of Iran Mahmoud] Ahmadinejad, never actually threatened to “wipe Israel off the map” nor has he demonstrated a newly hostile Iranian posture toward the Jewish state. Not only was this oft-quoted statement a mistranslation – the idiom does not exist in Farsi and the reference was to the dissolution of the regime, not the physical destruction of the nation – the Iranian president was quoting from a statement by Ayatollah Khomeini from over 20 years earlier. In addition, he explicitly told our group on September 26 that there was “no military solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict” and that it was “not Iran’s intention to destroy Israel.”

Furthermore, Iran is not pursuing nuclear weapons technology. What would a handful of nuclear weapons do in comparison to Israel’s 150 or more nuclear weapons? Israel holds an overwhelming nuclear deterrent over Iran, a country which hasn’t attacked anyone in over two hundred years. Why is Israel—which is not a signatory to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty—allowed to have nuclear weapons and Iran—which clearly does not have nuclear weapons—receive sanctions for a peaceful nuclear enrichment program? Why does India get American nuclear technology and Iran is isolated for its miniscule attempts in comparison to develop a peaceful nuclear energy program? Obama expanded on his hypocrisy during his AIPAC speech by also stating:

“…We should also pursue other unilateral sanctions that target Iranian banks and assets.

Finally, let there be no doubt: I will always keep the threat of military action on the table to defend our security and our ally Israel. Sometimes there are no alternatives to confrontation. But that only makes diplomacy more important. If we must use military force, we are more likely to succeed, and will have far greater support at home and abroad, if we have exhausted our diplomatic efforts.”

Further sanctions will antagonize Iran and hurt the Iranian people. Obama’s threat against Iran violates Article 2 of the UN Charter that explicitly states that “All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state [Emphasis added].” Obama’s sanctimonious policy towards Iran will ensure further tensions in the Persian Gulf, not rapprochement and peace.

Pakistan
Obama’s policy towards Pakistan can be potentially catastrophic. Obama has said, “If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets in Pakistan and the government is unwilling or unable to act, we will do so." This statement flouts the very premise of the international system set up in the aftermath of World War II. That is that state sovereignty is inviolable minus UN approved action. The threat of attacking a country, as seen before, is a violation of international law. The US has already made cross border raids into Pakistan and this strategy is endorsed by Obama. This isn’t the first time that America has decided to attack a neighboring country to deal with an insurgency. President Nixon launched bombing attacks into Cambodia during the Vietnam War to cut off the supply line of the Vietcong. Eventually, the US bombed deeper and deeper into Cambodian territory. In the aftermath of this bombing, a dictator by the name of Pol Pot rose to power and committed one of the most tradgic genocides of the twentieth century. What would an expansion of the War on Terror into Pakistan look like?

Cross border raids into Pakistan is a disastrous policy. Obama appears willing to accept the Bush Doctrine of preventive war and his threat to attack inside Pakistan is a foolish idea. On the most basic level, attacking Pakistan contravenes the UN charter. An attack on Pakistan would be defined as a war of aggression which the Nuremberg trials list as the supreme international crime. Unilateral intervention in Pakistan would mean that Pakistan has the right—under Article 51 of the UN Charter—to “exercise self-defense.” Of course Pakistan doesn’t have the capacity to attack America but this action is a crime nonetheless. Inside Pakistan, militants will be emboldened and strike out against both America and Pakistan. Events such as the Marriot Bombing will increase in frequency and the power of the central government to reign in militants will decrease. Separatist tensions will be stoked further in Baluchistan and the North West Frontier Province will continue to fall to the Talibanization effect. Chaos will reign and Pakistan will be further destabilized. Obama must renounce this policy and end his bellicose rhetoric against foreign countries.

Afghanistan
Obama is in favor of expanding the war in Afghanistan to defeat Al Qaeda and the Taliban. This policy has tried and seven years later, it has failed. Obama has promised to send 10,000 more troops to Afghanistan to “win” the war. Looking at Afghanistan right now, Obama’s surge plan looks doomed to fail.

The dramatic increase in US troops in Afghanistan in the past year has not stabilized the situation on the ground. The journalist John Nichols noted that “…US military officials acknowledge that attacks in eastern Afghanistan — the sector of the country where the majority of US forces currently operate — are up by 40 percent so far in 2008.” Activist Sonali Kolhatkar has said:

In fact, things are getting worse and worse. How many of you know about the fact that violence is up 50 percent since last year in Afghanistan? Afghanistan is a country that’s, by the way, 50 percent bigger in size than Iraq, has a population four million more than Iraq. This is not about a hierarchy of oppression; it’s simply for comparison purposes. So, last year, violence up by 50 percent; 140 suicide bombings in a country that had never really seen suicide bombings as a phenomenon before December 2005; over 50,000 NATO troops, of which about half are US soldiers; US soldiers dying at a rate higher than dying in Iraq, that is, per soldier, more US soldiers dying in Afghanistan than in Iraq.

The cycle of violence has intensified. The journalist Nir Rosen noted that:

Officials on the ground in Afghanistan say it is foolhardy to believe that the Americans can prevail where the Russians failed. At the height of the occupation, the Soviets had 120,000 of their own troops in Afghanistan, buttressed by roughly 300,000 Afghan troops. The Americans and their allies, by contrast, have 65,000 troops on the ground, backed up by only 137,000 Afghan security forces - and they face a Taliban who enjoy the support of a well-funded and highly organized network of Islamic extremists. "The end for the Americans will be just like for the Russians," says a former commander who served in the Taliban government. "The Americans will never succeed in containing the conflict. There will be more bleeding. It's coming to the same situation as it did for the communist forces, who found themselves confined to the provincial capitals."

Afghanistan is the graveyard for empires. The Afghans defeated the British in the nineteenth century, the Soviets in the twentieth century, and the Americans in the twenty-first century. One of the central reasons behind the collapse of the Soviet Union was imperial overstretch. America will suffer the same fate if we continue down imperial path of hubris. In Afghanistan, Kabul has become President Hamid Karzai’s fiefdom under the aegis of US-led NATO forces. If Obama expands the war in Afghanistan, collateral damage will increase which will serve as a recruiting tool for Al Qaeda, the conflict will intensify, and the process of reconstruction will be hampered. The only solution to Afghanistan is at the negotiating table. Obama must stop his pugnacious efforts to escalate the war in Afghanistan and begin serious negotiations with all elements of Afghan society.

Sudan
Obama doesn’t appreciate the complexities of the problems in Sudan. Obama has said that “Genocide is underway in Darfur, Sudan.” He has called for sanctions on Sudan and for more international peacekeepers to be deployed to Darfur. While the 28,000 strong hybrid African Union-United Nations peacekeeping forces have been a positive development for Darfur, the conflict itself cannot be resolved by threatening further sanctions. The conflict can only be resolved through principled diplomacy, as the Second Sudanese Civil War proved. Furthermore, the UN has found that “crimes against humanity” have been committed in Darfur, not genocide. There is an important distinction to be made here, particularly since it is important to emphasize that there is a resource-based conflict between an insurgency and alleged government supported militias. That’s not to take away from the gravity of the situation there; however, the issue of Darfur can be resolved through peaceful means. Hyperbolic language and threats of sanctions will not help. Obama needs to revise his approach to Sudan.

Economic Policy
The financial crisis has catapulted economic issues to the top of many people’s minds. What follows is a brief discussion of the weaknesses of Obama’s economic policies as seen by his choice of advisers, views on free trade, green issues, and the Wall Street bailout package.

Advisers:
Obama has picked a variety of economic advisers to help him craft an economic policy. He has advisers such as billionare investor Warren Buffet, former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volker, and economist Jason Furman. Of this group, Furman appears to be the weakest pillar, as he has been described as a prominent defender of Wal-Mart and he labeled it a “progressive success story.” Wal-Mart has come under attack for being anti-union, paying low-wages, and becoming a monopoly that has shut down hundreds of mom-and-pop stores. What is more troubling, however, than Furman is Obama’s stance on free trade.

Free trade
Free trade has come under increasing scrutiny for its deleterious effects on workers’ rights, exporting of jobs abroad, and encouraging a poor environmental record. The major free trade agreement that has put hundreds of thousands of Americans out of their manufacturing jobs is the North American Free Trade Agreement. This agreement was crafted by President Clinton in an effort to create a free trade zone for Mexico, America, and Canada. During the primaries, Obama correctly argued that NAFTA had been “devastating” and “a big mistake” and suggested that he would unilaterally opt-out of it to make the agreement more favorable for workers. Once he had clinched the Democratic nomination for President, Obama backtracked and said, “Sometimes during campaigns the rhetoric gets overheated and amplified.” This statement, however, fits into his repeated claims that he is a “free trader” and he has backed this position up by voting for a free trade agreement with Peru. Obama should not have changed his position on NAFTA and should demand fair trade agreements. Furthermore, he should oppose the infamous anti-labor Taft-Hartley Act (1947). Obama needs to stand up for workers rights and stop coddling corporate interests.

Green Issues:
On a generalized level, Obama has a pretty good approach to green issues. However, his approach to the use of ethanol and nuclear energy is flawed.

Obama has embraced the use of ethanol in spite of its high costs environmental costs. An article in the New York Times noted:

Many economists, consumer advocates, environmental experts and tax groups have been critical of corn ethanol programs as a boondoggle that benefits agribusiness conglomerates more than small farmers. Those complaints have intensified recently as corn prices have risen sharply in tandem with oil prices and corn normally used for food stock has been diverted to ethanol production.

Corn ethanol generates less than two units of energy for every unit of energy used to produce it, while the energy ratio for sugar cane is more than 8 to 1. With lower production costs and cheaper land prices in the tropical countries where it is grown, sugar cane is a more efficient source.

So why does Obama support the energy inefficient ethanol? Because he is from a corn-producing state and believes that it is a good alternative energy source. An article in the Guardian/UK has noted:

…ethanol has been blamed for contributing to the devastating global rise in food prices. The huge demand for corn to feed the 178 US distilleries that now pockmark the mid-west has diverted the supply from food markets and distorted international trade. About a third of American corn is now gobbled up by the industry, and the price of corn more than doubled to a peak of $5 (£3.15) a bushel earlier this year.

Yet Obama has continued to back the $33bn spent by the federal government every year to subsidise ethanol at the pump…

Ethanol is a poor idea in the approach towards finding alternative energy sources. Obama’s ethanol policy needs to be opposed.

Obama has also called for the building of new nuclear power plants to deal with America’s growing energy demand. This idea is severely flawed. Nuclear energy is a bad idea because there has been no solution for how to store nuclear waste, the plants provide a target for terrorist attacks, it is uneconomical in comparison to other sources of energy, and reactors have had problems before (e.g. Chernobyl and Three Mile Island). The Yucca mountain waste storage facility remains in abeyance. The Wall Street Journal has reported that the estimated cost of nuclear reactors has doubled, tripled, or quadrupled in recent years to an average ranging between $5 billion to $12 billion per plant. The opportunity cost of nuclear energy is too high and Obama needs to oppose nuclear energy.

Bailout:
Obama supported the $850 billion dollar Wall Street bailout plan. The initial plan was conceived by the government to buy back toxic securities from banks so that they could continue to function. The plan that was eventually adopted ensured that the government would buy a stake in companies that needed to be rescued. According to one poll, the bailout plan was opposed by 55% of Americans, largely because the perception was that this program bailed out the fat cats on Wall Street and socialized their losses. People opposed this plan because it seemed a little too much like the failed policy of trickle-down economics. Alternatives to this plan existed and some offered to freeze mortgage defaults or help directly to American’s with bad mortgages. Obama decided to stick to the trickle-down approach and the effects are yet to be seen. What is abundantly clear, however, is that Obama was willing to fund Wall Street but has only offered modest funding increases for Main Street. His vote in favor of this bill indicates a willingness to side with corporate interests over those of everyday Americans.

Personal Actions
Obama’s personal actions and statements give an insight into his character and how this will reflect on his policy judgments. Obama’s actions towards Reverend Wright, campaign-financing, and political opportunism indicate a defect in his character.

Reverend Wright
The Reverend Wright issue was a manufactured controversy to attack Obama for guilt by association. Reverend Wright did make some controversial remarks and Obama rightly defended him in saying that old sermon clips don’t mean much. Eventually, he had a Sister Soulja moment and denounced his former pastor. This is the same pastor who had consecrated Obama’s marriage, baptized his children, and been a close friend of Obama’s. In spite of all this, Obama sold him out. Instead of defending Reverend Wright’s right of free expression and explained that he disagreed with him, Obama took the next step and completely renounced him.

The two major issues with this action are that Obama could not stand up to the scrutiny of the right-wing attack dogs and he outright rejected what his pastor was saying even if part of his statements were true.

Obama’s inability to stand up to smear campaign is indicative of how he would act when he has to make tough decisions. Obama has been very incrementalist thus far in his politics, always preferring to avoid controversy (as seen by his FISA and Bailout votes) rather than make a principled stand. If Obama couldn’t stand up for someone who was a close friend of his, how will he treat Muslim Americans who he has quite clearly snubbed?

Also, consider the Reverend Wrights arguments on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Wright was correct to put the onus of blame on the Israeli aggressor, not the Palestinian victim. Obama’s statement on this issue, as discussed before, is clearly flawed. Perhaps Obama should have just defended his friend’s right to freedom of speech rather than selling him out because of political pressure.

Campaign-Finance
Obama’s flip-flop on this issue has spelt the death-knell for campaign finance reform. Obama initially promised to accept public financing for his Presidential election but later reneged on that promise. Consequently, Obama has raised over $600 million for his campaign and has outspent McCain by 4-to-1. The overwhelming majority of his campaign contributions have come from big donors (donations of more than $200). Amy Goodman, the host of DemocracyNow!, wrote that:

Obama's campaign is credited with receiving an unprecedented number of small donations from among its historic 3.1 million donors. Campaign manager David Plouffe says the campaign's average donation is under $100. A Washington Post analysis of Federal Election Commission data shows, though, that only a quarter of this vast number of donors fall into the "small" category (under $200), which is a smaller percentage than that achieved by George Bush in his 2004 run.

According to the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonprofit group that tracks campaign contributions, the funds raised in presidential campaigns has skyrocketed. The 1976 campaign, the first campaign that included public financing, saw a total of $171 million raised (about $570 million, adjusted for inflation). The current campaign weighs in at close to $1.6 billion, and the group expects the total to reach $2.4 billion. While donations to candidates are supposed to be limited to $2,300 for the general election (an additional $2,300 is allowed for the primary season, per candidate), huge loopholes exist. Most notable are the "joint fundraising committees," in which the presidential candidate partners with his party to form a fundraising organization. McCain and the Republican National Committee's is called McCain Victory 2008 and can receive donations as high as $70,000, which then get distributed to the presidential campaign, the national party and to key state parties. Obama and the Democratic National Committee created the Obama Victory Fund, to which donors could give $28,500. As The Washington Post just reported, the Democrats found that sum too limiting, so they created the Committee for Change, which allows donors to give up to $65,500. That's a helluva lot of change.

Obama has decided to buy his way into the White House and his big donors expect that their interests will be heard if he becomes President. The ethanol industry and agribusiness clearly hold sway over Obama and he is more than willing to give kickbacks to those who support him, as his $740 million dollars in earmark requests attest to. Every Presidential candidate since 1976 has accepted public financing for their campaigns except for Obama. This forebodes ill for grassroots democracy in America and Obama has set a terrible precedent.

Political Opportunism
Obama’s opting out of public-financing should come as no surprise to anyone who has followed his political career.

In Obama’s 1996 run for State Senate, he received the support of Alice Palmer who held the seat but had decided to run for Congress. Palmer wasn’t able to pass her primary battle and ended up trying to run for her old seat in the State Senate. Obama was able to get her disqualified from being on the ballot because of invalid petition signatures and ran unopposed in the primary. He then easily won the State Senate seat in a heavily Democratic district.

Obama learned quickly about what greased the wheels in Illinois politics. He viewed his spot in the State Senate as a stepping stone for bigger and better things. A New Yorker article described Obama’s development:

E. J. Dionne, Jr., of the Washington Post, wrote about this transition in a 1999 column after Daley was reëlected. Dionne wrote about a young Barack Obama, who artfully explained how the new pinstripe patronage worked: a politician rewards the law firms, developers, and brokerage houses with contracts, and in return they pay for the new ad campaigns necessary for reëlection. “They do well, and you get a $5 million to $10 million war chest,” Obama told Dionne. It was a classic Obamaism: superficially critical of some unseemly aspect of the political process without necessarily forswearing the practice itself. Obama was learning that one of the greatest skills a politician can possess is candor about the dirty work it takes to get and stay elected.

Obama understood that he could win an election with enough money. After he lost badly while running for Congress, Obama decided to reorder his political strategy. When Democrats took over the Illinois Senate in 2002, Obama moved quickly to gerrymander his Senate district so that he could receive funding and support for his anticipated run for the U.S. Senate. The article continues:

Like every other Democratic legislator who entered the inner sanctum, Obama began working on his “ideal map.” Corrigan remembers two things about the district that he and Obama drew. First, it retained Obama’s Hyde Park base—he had managed to beat Rush in Hyde Park—then swooped upward along the lakefront and toward downtown. By the end of the final redistricting process, his new district bore little resemblance to his old one. Rather than jutting far to the west, like a long thin dagger, into a swath of poor black neighborhoods of bungalow homes, Obama’s map now shot north, encompassing about half of the Loop, whose southern portion was beginning to be transformed by developers like Tony Rezko, and stretched far up Michigan Avenue and into the Gold Coast, covering much of the city’s economic heart, its main retail thoroughfares, and its finest museums, parks, skyscrapers, and lakefront apartment buildings. African-Americans still were a majority, and the map contained some of the poorest sections of Chicago, but Obama’s new district was wealthier, whiter, more Jewish, less blue-collar, and better educated. It also included one of the highest concentrations of Republicans in Chicago.

With the ability to raise lots of money for a Senate race, Obama ran against a tough opponent, Republican Jack Ryan. However, after a sex-scandal destroyed Ryan’s political career, Obama easily won the election. After Obama’s keynote speech at the 2004 Democratic National Convention, he became the party's rising star. In this election, he has utilized the knowledge of his previous elections—that it is easier to run against a weak candidate and you can win an election with enough money—to run a very smooth campaign. The fact that you can buy your way into political office is an indictment against the American political system. Obama knows how to work the system like a crafty politician to buy an election.

Conclusion
Obama is a politician who does not offer any substantive change; rather he offers more of the same, albeit in a different look. I would finally like to consider the two-party system in this country, considerations for Muslims who are voting, thoughts on Ralph Nader, and some final remarks.

Two-party system:
Many people gripe about the two-party system and how both parties are increasingly similar with only some differences. The two-party system has hurt democracy in America and particularly in the Presidential elections. The Electoral College is an antiquated system that needs to be abolished. We did not have direct elections of our senators until the 17th Amendment was passed in 1913. A new amendment is desperately needed so that we can have a direct popular vote decide the President. The late Green Party activist Peter Camejo commented:

“When I ran for governor in the recall, I got seven percent of the vote in San Francisco. We just got 47 percent of the vote last night. And what that means is people are perfectly willing to vote for a Green, and I think they would be perfectly willing to vote for a Dennis Kucinich or any of the candidates that are simply being rejected, but the electoral system doesn’t allow it when you don’t have a runoff system in place, where you don’t have IRV, instant runoff voting, a form through which people can vote. People are forced into trying to calculate their lesser evil choice and throw their support in that direction. Now, the Democrats do have in some states proportional representation, and people will feel free to vote for whoever they want. The electoral system isn’t set up right. That’s one thing that’s hurting those candidates that are expressing a more definitive antiwar view. The truth is, in the debate of the Democrats, it that the major candidates, the Democratic Party leadership, is not against what Bush has done; it’s how he’s done it. They wanted the UN to be the one that invades and takes over Iraq, and they want to share the spoils with Germany and France. They want more international allies when they do their illegal international creations of the empire. And, you know, I think in America we need to debate this. And one of the things, once the primaries are over, is there will be no voice against George Bush unless a Green runs.”

The system needs to be revised so that candidates wouldn’t have to just go to delegate rich states and ignore others. Additionally, third party candidates would have much better shot at winning the Presidency and getting their voices heard. We should demand that this archaic system—designed in the 18th century for 18th century needs—be abolished.

Considerations for Muslims:
Muslims should remember what the great labor union and perennial Presidential candidate Eugene Debs said: “It is better to vote for what you want and not get it - than to vote for what you don't want and get it.” Debs would later remark when asked by a reporter what his biggest regret was: “My greatest regret is that, under our Constitution, the American people can have almost anything they want, but it just seems they don’t want much of anything at all.” We must demand more of our leaders. Believing that Obama will benefit Muslims is wishful thinking.

Those Muslims campaigning for Obama or supporting his candidacy need to understand that if he is elected, it will be a Pyrrhic victory. Those who argue in favor of Obama most often steep their arguments in a negative premise. The argument goes that you have to vote for Obama because his opponent, i.e. McCain, is so much worse. This flawed logic then goes on to say that if you don’t vote for Obama, you are essentially voting for McCain. This is a fallacy perpetuated by those in power who only want to maintain their grip on power. Muslims who vote for Obama are enabling a severely flawed candidate and are voting out of fear. Remember what President Franklin D. Roosevelt said, “My fellow Americans we have nothing to fear but fear itself.” Vote for who you believe to be the best candidate for President, NOT who is most electable.

If Obama is elected President, Muslims should demand several things from him. First, Obama should make it eminently clear that there is nothing wrong with being a Muslim. Second, he should ensure there remains a clear separation of church and state. Third, that he revises his foreign policy to a more balanced and less bellicose position. Finally, it might be a bit of a stretch, but it would be nice to see a qualified Muslim be appointed to a cabinet level position.

Ralph Nader
Clearly the most pro-Muslim candidate out who is running for President is Ralph Nader (although Cynthia McKinney of the Green Party has also been very pro-Muslim). So why vote for Nader? He addresses a whole range of specific issues (e.g. Single payer health insurance, cutting the military budget, no nuclear power rather solar energy and adopting a carbon tax, cracking down on corporate crime and welfare, a rational Middle East policy, etc.) and offers substantive ways for positive change. Furthermore, he has a long history of consumer advocacy, and was instrumental in getting airbags and seatbelts in cars, helping to establish the Environmental Protection Agency, and a wide range of other consumer protections. Learn more about his candidacy at votenader.org.

We should support Nader because he supports us. If we don’t support those who support us, what kind of constituency would we be? We will continue to be ignored, attacked, and marginalized if we don’t show to politicians that they need to earn our vote. We must not give it away to the least bad candidate. We need an electoral revolution like the kind that has swept across Latin America. Revolutionaries founded this nation in the pursuit of liberty. The only way to correct an injustice is to denounce it and not support it.

Nader was on Meet the Press and commented on why he is running for President:

“One feels an obligation, Tim, to try to open the doorways, to try to get better ballot access, to respect dissent in America in the terms of third parties and, and independent candidates; to recognize historically that great issues have come in our history against slavery and women rights to vote and worker and farmer progressives, through little parties that never ran--won any national election. Dissent is the mother of ascent. And in that context, I have decided to run for president.”

He went on to rebut those who argue that he might be a spoiler candidate by stating: “If the Democrats can't landslide the Republicans this year, they ought to just wrap up, close down, emerge in a different form.”

Final thoughts:
In this election season, we must remember Frederick Douglass famous saying that “Power concedes nothing without demand.” Obama may be a post-race candidate but he most certainly is not a post-prejudice candidate. Obama would most certainly damage Muslim interests. A cult of personality has emerged behind him and this has allowed otherwise rational beings to be swayed by sweet nothingness. The putative success of an Obama Presidency is far from determined. Support someone that supports you. Obama, through a savvy political campaign and by spending hundreds of millions of dollars to gain support, has effectively been able to manufacture consent from a nation grown accustomed to the idea of “the lesser of two evils”. Obama most assuredly does not support Muslim interest and definitely does not deserve the Muslim vote.

Everyone gripes about the corruption of the two-party system and yet tacitly endorse the system by constantly picking the lesser of the two evils. Muslims who vote for Obama are doing a double-disservice by supporting someone person who doesn’t support us and by not supporting those who support us.

There is no doubt that we need change. But are we to be like Judas, selling our ideals short for marginal gain? Are we to be a harlot, selling ourselves out for no real gain? The lesser of two evils is still evil.

A vote for Obama, based on the evidence presented, means the formal acceptance of many flawed policy positions. A vote for Obama hurts your civil liberties. A vote for Obama is a vote to continue unquestioned US support for the Israeli occupation. A vote for Obama is a vote for the continuation of the war in Iraq. A vote for Obama is a vote for an escalation of the war in Afghanistan. A vote for Obama is a vote for the expansion of the Global War on Terror. A vote for Obama is a vote for free trade. A vote for Obama is a vote for the perpetuation of the two party system. Muslims who support Obama are severely delusional.

America is burning. The pillars of sand that this country has been built on are finally being exposed to the wind. America is declining and our imperial escapades have left us overstretched and exposed. The empire must end and be supplanted by a true democracy. America desperately needs a new direction. We need authentic change, not the illusion of change. I would like to thank you for reading this lengthy article and will end by quoting Saul Bellow: “A great deal of intelligence can be invested in ignorance when the need for illusion is deep.”

[Book Review] The Shia Revival

2008-10-03T12:04:00.009-04:00

The Shia Revival is a book first published in 2006 by Vali Nasr and is an attempt to describe the revival of Shiite influence in both the Islamic world and beyond. This easy to read book does a pretty good job of briefly covering the historical evolution of Shi’ism and its nascent political/religious revival in the last several decades.

Nasr’s introduction to Shi’ism is fairly traditional. He correctly notes that the Sunni-Shiite split is the biggest division in Islam and began right in the aftermath of the death of the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh). He notes that at the time of the Prophets death, most Muslims followed the tribal tradition of picking a leader best qualified to rule the Ummah. Abu Baker was the consensus choice for the first Caliph; however, a small minority of believers argued that Ali ibn Ali Talib, the Prophet’s son-in-law, was more qualified and that he had been chosen by the Prophet. In the end, Abu Bakr’s rule was accepted including by Ali.

Following Abu Bakr’s death, the next three Caliphs were Umar, Uthman, and finally Ali. The era of the Rightly Guided Caliphs, or Rashidun, spanned three decades from 632 to 661 and was filled with tumult. Both Umar and Uthman were assassinated. Ali took over the Caliphate in 656 and the murder of Uthman plagued his administration. During this period of time, known as the First Fitna, Ali faced a number of mutinies—such as one from Abu Baker’s daughter and the Prophets wife, Ayesha—with the most significant being the rebellion of Uthman’s cousin Muawiyah who wanted Ali to seek justice for Uthman’s assassination. Eventually, Ali was assassinated by an independent group of extremists and the Caliphate was turned over to Muawiyah.

Muawiyah established the Umayyad dynasty with a base in Damascus. Under the Umayyads the caliphs became both pope and caesar, delegating authority over religious matters to professional religious scholars and functionaries, the ulema (Nasr 36). The Umayyad rule was accepted by the majority of Muslims, i.e. the Sunni Muslims, and Sunni Islam became the dominant version of Islam throughout the world of Islam. However, not all Muslims accepted this new order. Ali’s murder, the transformation of the caliphate into a monarchy, and the de facto separation of religious and political authorities under the Umayyads led a minority of Muslims to argue that what had come to pass was the fruit not of God’s mandate but of man’s folly (Nasr 36). These dissenters rejected the legitimacy of the first three Rightly Guided Caliphs and believed that the leaders of Islam should come directly from Muhammad’s family. They believed that Ali should have been the Prophet’s successor and for support they argue that the Prophet anointed Ali during his last pilgrimage to Mecca while at Ghadir Khumm. The Sunnis, however, argued that the Prophet had said to choose the best leader from among the Muslims and hence the succession process was acceptable.

It is at this point that I expected a deeper analysis of the roots of the conflict between the followers of Ali and those of Muawiyah. Unfortunately, Nasr does not cover this vital conflict at all and does not discuss this critical issue. First off, the first conflict between Muawiyah and Ali had initially been over gaining justice for Uthman. But more broadly, other aspects—such as doctrinal issues in Islam—also played a part. After Ali’s death, there appears to have been an agreement made between Muawiyah and Ali’s son Hasan that when Muawiyah died, the Caliphate would return to the family of the Prophet. However, Yazid, the son of Muawiyah, became Caliph in 680 after his father’s death. Hussein, the brother of Hasan and son of Ali, challenged Yazid’s legitimacy based on the agreement made between Hasan and Muawiyah. Yazid refused to accept Hussein’s legitimacy and his soldiers massacred him and seventy-two of his companions and family members at Karbala. The Ashura festival, celebrated by Shittes, marks this vicious event. This affair officially split the Sunnis and Shiite’s and the people of Kufa, Ali’s former capital, rose up in revolt against Yazid. The period between 680 and 692 is known as the Second Fitna and these revolts were eventually suppressed when the Umayyad Caliph Abd al-Malik ibn Marwan killed the major revolt leader Ibn al-Zubair.

This discussion would have helped but what would have helped even more would have been a discussion about the final split between the Sunni’s and Shiitees. In 747, a revolt broke out across the Muslim world. Various groups joined together to challenge the Umayyads, most notably Shiite Arabs and Abbasids. The Abbasids had some lineage to the Prophet and were supported by the Shiites who thought that they would eventually gain ascension to the Caliphate if their combined forces defeated the Umayyads. The Shiites were led by their sixth imam, Ja’far al-Sadiq, and the Abbasids were led by As-Saffah. In 750 during the critical Battle of Zab in Egypt, the Umayyads suffered a crushing defeat and the entire Umayyad lineage was wiped out except for Abd ar-Rahman I who escaped to Al-Andulas (Spain) and established and independent Caliphate there.

The new Caliphate in the Muslim world was established by the Abbasids in Baghdad. The Shiites had hoped to gain the Caliphate under Ja’far, but Al-Mansur (who succeeded As-Saffah in 754) refused. This ensured a permanent split between the Shiites and Sunnis across the Muslim world.

The Shiites had some limited political success (for example, the Fatimid Dynasty in Egypt was Shiite) but, for the most part, did not hold much political sway until the rise of the Safavid dynasty in the 16th century. The Safavid dynasty adopted Shi’ism in a strategic political move to distinguish itself from the Sunni Ottoman Empire. Shah Ismail I established the dynasty in 1501 and made Shiite Islam the state religion. As a result, current day Iran is Shiite and some parts of Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iraq have large Shiite populations.

Nasr also describes some of the key doctrinal differences between the Sunnis and Shiites. The Sunni’s do not believe in any hierarchical interpretation of God’s message while Shiites believe that the Imams interpret God’s message. The Shiites believe in shrines while Sunnis do not. There is a long and varied list of differences between the two branches; suffice it to say that Nasr does a good job of appreciating the nuances between the two groups and within the Shiite community itself.

With all of this being said, the focus of his book is not on the historical record but rather on the impact of Shi’ism on the current political dynamics in the Muslim world. He notes that there has been a Shiite ascendancy across the Middle East, from Lebanon to Iraq, and all of this culminates with Iran. This “Shiite Crescent” has meant that the Shiite religion and its politics have gained a new height across the Muslim world that has never been seen. That means that of the estimated 1.3 billion Muslims of the world, the 10 to 15 percent that are Shiite (roughly 130 million to 195 million people) have a new say on global and regional politics (Nasr 34). Since so much of the world oil resources are in Shiite hands, their influence on global events is significant. In regional terms, Israel and the United States have tried to work to reduce their influence, particularly by ratcheting up pressure on Iran and attacking Hezbollah in Lebanon. The Sunni Arab autocracies have voiced some concerns about their ascendancy as well, both because of some misplaced religious concerns as well as strategic interest. Since Iran has gained a lot of influence as a result of the Iraq and Afghanistan War’s, and Hezbollah defeated Israel in their 2006 war, the impact of Shiites on global events will determine a lot of issues in the future.

While I think there are some deficiencies in terms of this books discussion of history as well as some analysis, it is still a good introduction to the impact of Shi’ism on contemporary politics. It’s a good, quick read that I would recommend to those interested in the impact of Shi’ism on the world today.

-Nausherwan Hafeez, 10-3-08

[Reaction] Is Google Making Us Stupid?

2008-10-02T08:19:00.007-04:00

Is Google Making Us Stupid? is a fantastic article, written by Nicholas Carr, whose central premise is that our technologies change us, often in ways we can neither anticipate nor control. In particular, with the advent internet and Google which provide massive amounts of information on demand have reduced our capacity to think and read deeply. The net distributes information swiftly and so the brain comes to expect information via this way. Hence the capacity to read deeply diminishes in favor of strict utilitarian efficiency.

One of the most important points is that many people who have traditionally been big book readers are now finding it difficult to get through books because of the way we have become accustomed to reading on the Internet. I consider myself a big book reader and I too have found it to be increasingly difficult to read books; so if it is this difficult for me, it must be infinitely more difficult, perhaps nigh on impossible, for the layman to read books nowadays.

Another point that Carr makes is that anytime there has been an evolution in the way we think, there have been tradeoffs. In ancient times, Socrates railed against writing because it diminished one’s capacity to remember and gain wisdom. With the advent of the printing press, the value of books decreased in favor of mass distribution and what used to be the abode of the few now gained mass consumption. The typewriter, as shown by the example of Friedrich Nietzsche, made his writing style more utilitarian. With the advent of the computer and word processor, the entire way we write has changed.

I think that the overall point Carr is making is that the internet is a mixed blessing. Yes it is great to get massive amounts of information at the click of your fingertips but sometimes this information doesn’t provide enough necessary depth and insight. Thus the internet often lacks both the need and capacity for deep contemplation. The point he makes about Frederick Winslow Taylor is excellent in that the maximization of efficiency in factory production inevitably turned workers into automatons. Similarly, I have come to notice that anytime I have an intellectual discussion with someone, I often hear parroted back to me arguments that I have either already or heard or read somewhere on the internet. The need to create new lines of argument supported by facts is, more often than not, too cumbersome of an activity for most people to do and hence most discussions have become echo chambers for the discourse that is going on in the Internet. This is troubling and I think the example of HAL from Stanley Kubrick’s 2001: A Space Odyssey is a very telling indicator of how we, as a society, are losing many aspects of what makes us human in favor of quick and immediate gratification.

All that being said, I think (rather ironically) that I will not have the time to read the book that this article was adapted from: The Big Switch: Rewiring the World, from Edison to Google. Still, definitely read the article Is Google Making Us Stupid?

[Fiction] My Falafel Journey

2008-09-29T01:33:00.002-04:00

I had just finished watching my fourth hour of television when I noticed a deep grumbling in my stomach. All that TV had made me hungry and I had a strong craving for some greased-up falafel. Perhaps this primal craving had begun when I was watching the Simpsons, or maybe when I watched Batman Begins, but for whatever reason I knew that I had to get some low-quality falafel fast. And I knew just the spot.

I hopped into my Toyota, put the windows down, turned the Flobots up and was off. I coasted down US-41 while contemplating how bloody hot it was in November and why Florida had no winter when I noticed the car next to me was trying to get my attention. I wasn’t in the best part of town and the person in the other car didn’t look very educated (his lack of a shirt and shave spoke volumes…) but I turned to listen to him anyways. “Ey boy, how you get to the Wal-Mart?” As I attempted to stifle my laughter I told him how to get there and he headed out. My thoughts of Falafel had now moved on to a reflection on Wal-Mart and all the things that it represented.

Wal-Mart was really the epitome of America. It is a behemoth of a store with cheap, disposable goods at a low-price. I strained hard to think back to the last time I had come to Wal-Mart. It had been in the midst of another snack-driven delirium and I ended up finally going there at 2 in the morning. When I got there I was shocked to see that the parking lot was completely full and that people were trudging along buying various trinkets and novelties as if it were 3 o’clock in the afternoon. This small-town sized building held the cheapest goods money could buy and the lowest paid workers money could afford. I couldn’t help but feel a pang of sadness for all of those people I had seen in Wal-Mart—all of them looked overworked and completely burdened down by their own troubles. Was this really what the American Dream was all about?

I was jolted back from my daydream to find that I had finally arrived at Uncle Mo’s Kebab Palace. I went in and immediately looked for something to quench my thirst. I couldn’t find any crab juice so I grabbed a Mountain Dew instead and then finally ordered a falafel. As I took my first bite into the sub-par sandwich I couldn’t help but wonder what life would be like without falafel.

What to do after Graduation?

2008-09-17T16:43:00.003-04:00

At the end of one’s undergraduate education, many students face the difficult question of what to do next. Almost overnight, graduates enter into what is deemed the ‘real world’. For many people, the only charted territory is to directly continue their studies in some graduate school. However, I think that—for the majority of people—this is a mistake. I believe that it is critically important for people to take at least a year off in between undergrad and graduate school to get a full taste of the ‘real world’.

Time off from school allows an individual to explore their ancillary interests and expand their horizons. Far too often, people are in a rush to finish up their formal education so that they can begin working. It is believed that by rushing to get into the work force, one’s true life begins; however, the important journey in between work and school is often shortchanged in favor of an end product. This journey should not be ignored because it is critical for both personal development and learning. Part of one’s journey through life should be time away from school gainfully employed toward one’s interests.

One way to usefully spend a year off is to pursue some form of research. For example, I graduated last May from New College of Florida and will be doing a Fulbright in Malaysia this year. The Fulbright Program is run through the State Department and it funds scholars to pursue research abroad for a year. Anyone can apply for scholarship to virtually any country in the world and in any field of interest. For example, my research proposal was focused on International Relations and Foreign Policy. Specifically, I plan to study the impact of Islam on the development of Malaysian foreign policy. Through the Fulbright Program, I’m going to enjoy spending my year off from school to pursue this research and teach in Malaysia.

Instead of rushing to become a doctor, lawyer, engineer, or other professional, I think almost everyone should take some time off from school to pursue their other interests. The Fulbright Program is but one example of many things that graduates can do with their time off. Many people decide to take a year off to volunteer, work, or pursue independent study. I would highly recommend upcoming graduates to look into a variety of options, including Teach for America, teaching English abroad, pursuing lab research, studying a foreign language, volunteering in the community, working for an NGO or non-profit organization, doing an internship, joining the Peace Corps, getting a job, or any of the thousands of other options that you have. The bottom line is to take time off and do something that you enjoy. It will make your journey more pleasant and will be an excellent time off for personal fulfillment. Don’t rush through life—it is definitely better to stop and smell the roses.

Hate Not Heritage

2008-09-01T00:08:00.008-04:00

I am angry. Every morning during my commute to work, a giant Confederate flag greets me like a slap in the face at the junction of I-4 and I-75. This virulent symbol is a constant remainder of the South’s failed attempt to defend the unconscionable practice of slavery.

The Confederate flag is a powerful symbol of both slavery and segregation. When the South seceded from the Union to defend the institution of slavery, all slaves in the South came to fear the Confederate battle flag. To slaves, the flag represented the cruelty of the slave system and the idea of the indefinite bondage of human beings. The flag still carries this historical baggage and by 1948, the Dixiecrat party used it as a symbol to galvanize support for segregation. The flag has thus morphed into a potent symbol for slavery and oppression.

Some proponents of the flag argue that it merely represents heritage not hate; however, this statement is flawed considering the flag’s historical usage. It represents a racist call to the Old South in which both slavery and lynching’s were the norm. The Confederate flag is similar to the Nazi flag in that they both represent an evil past in which the hatred and subjection of a peoples was acceptable. Proponents of the flag merely appear to be couching their thinly-veiled prejudice behind the Confederate flag.

This flag is unacceptable in our society. Our country has made incredible strides towards healing some of the wounds from our checkered past. My drive to work reminds me that there is still much work that needs to be done to overcome our difficult heritage.

A version of this article was published on September 12, 2008 in the St. Pete Times:

http://www.tampabay.com/opinion/letters/article804896.ece

And in the Tampa Tribune on September 13, 2008:

http://www2.tbo.com/content/2008/sep/13/na-battle-flag-seen-from-different-perspectives/news-opinion-letters/

Causes of the Food Crisis

2008-05-05T16:01:00.002-04:00

There are a number of reasons for the ongoing food crisis, that has set off riots in such disparate places like Haiti, Cairo, Cameroon, Senegal, and Bangladesh. A few of the key reason are:

-Bad weather

-Decline in agricultural investment by governments

-Opening of markets in a variety of countries b/c of various trade agreements that have hurt small farmers and favored international agribusiness

-Rising “protein” demands of large populations in India and China

-fertilizer shortages

-the higher price of oil

-the transfer of countless acres of farmland from the growing of food to the production of bio-fuels

Understanding the Iraq Conflict

2008-04-01T21:00:00.013-04:00

While reading the news on Iraq, I find that the information provided can often times be misleading, contradictory, and uninformative. For this piece, I intend to briefly explain the various factions in Iraq that are vying for power.

On the most basic level there are the Sunnis, who make up 40% of the population, and the Shiites, who make up 60% of the population. Before the current war in Iraq, there was an estimated 30 million Iraqis. The current estimate is around 28 million.

Of this population, 5 million people have been displaced because of this conflict, and one million have died. It is estimated that 2.5 million Iraqi's are internally displaced, while the more well-off professional class of Iraqis, also numbering 2.5 million, have taken refuge abroad, mostly in other Arab states. The largest exodus was to Syria, which currently hosts 1.5 million Iraqis.

Now within the Sunni population, there are multiple groups. The first distinction can be made ethnically, where 20% is Kurdish and the other 20% is Arab. The Kurds generally identify more with their ethnicity than with their religion, hence why they typically have not identified with the Sunni Arab minority. The two major Kurdish political parties are the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK) and the Kurdistan Democratic Party (KDP). These two parties, both of whom are ideologically democratic socialists, have been in an alliance since 2003. These two main parties--who once militarily fought each other in the 1990s--made up the Democratic Patriotic Alliance of Kurdistan in the January 2005 elections. They won the overwhelming majority of the vote. The current President of Iraq is Jalal Talabani, the leader of the PUK, and Massoud Barazani, the leader of the KDP, is the President of Iraqi Kurdistan.

Within the Sunni Arab community, there are at least four segments that exist. One group is the members of the old regime--the Ba'athists who have largely been ostracized from the government and society. Many former Ba'athists have at various point fought against the occupation forces. Another group is the 80,000 strong tribal alliance movement centered in Anbar provice called the Sahwa, or Awakening, Council movement. This movement is made up of tribes that once fought the occupation forces and now have decided to collaborate with the Americans in a strategic alliance. They recognize that they cannot fight the Shiites and Americans at the same time and hence have traded their violent ways for a tenuous peace in which they are receiving money which sometimes goes to procuring armaments for a future battle. Another group that doesn't really wield much power right now is the Iraqi expatriates community that has returned to Iraq. The two most notable figures are Ayad Allawi, who was the interim Prime Minister until after the 2005 elections, and the infamous Ahmed Chalabi. These expatriates are secular nationalists who largely agree with following the Washington Consensus as a basis for the future of Iraq. The fourth group is the insurgents in Iraq, loosely called "Al-Qaeda" in Iraq, that is the grouping of both radical Islamists--who are ideologically similar to Al-Qaeda though operationally independent--and any other insurgents. The "Al-Qaeda" in Iraq are largely drawn from outside of Iraq and have lost significant operational capability due to the American alliance with the Awakening Councils. The regular Sunni insurgents still make sporadic attacks, but these attacks too have declined in size and scope.

Then there are the varying Shiite groups in Iraq, particularly three major groups. One group are the followers of the current Prime Minister Nuri Al-Maliki's Islamic Dawa Party. They are allied to the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq (ISCI)which is sometimes referred to as the Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council (SIIC), both were formerly known as the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI). This is headed by Abdul Aziz al-Hakim, a Shiite cleric with ties to Iran. The PM is in control of the rag-tag Iraqi Army, and al-Hakim is in control of the paramilitary Badr Corps. The other major Shiite group is that of the populist Moqtada al-Sadr, a Shiite cleric who once was at odds with Iran but has increasingly formed ties with them. Al-Sadr's Shiite group helped to get the Maliki government elected in 2005, but withdrew their support in 2007, largely because of al-Sadr's vehement opposition to the American occupation. Al-Sadr controls the paramilitary group known as the Mahdi Army. Al-Sadr is increasingly gaining political clout, at the expense of the ruling Dawa-ISCI alliance, which forebodes trouble for the future. Al-Sadr is a staunch nationalist vehemently opposed to the American occupation, though tactically he has avoided conflict with them for the last couple of months due to a unilateral cease-fire. The Dawa-ISCI Alliance, meanwhile, strongly backs the American occupation because America provides them with militarily, financially, and politically support.

Overall, these are the various groups within Iraq vying for power. Then there are the Americans. There are 161,000 private contractors [53% (~85,300) Iraqi, 17% (~27,400) American, 30% (~45,500) Other] in Iraq, alongside the current 166,000 (incl. ~10,500 non-U.S.) troops. Thats a an incredible 327,000 coalition forces, including a minimum of around 200,000 Americans. The Americans, of course, are employing a traditional 'divide-and-conquer' strategy, all the while establishing permanent bases outside of the cities so that they can maintain order from a distance via their Iraqi proxies.

Presidential Dream Team

2008-03-21T00:21:00.004-04:00

In an ideal world, this is what my subjective Presidential Dream Team would be:

President- Ralph Nader
Vice President- Cynthia McKinney
Secretary of State- Scott Ritter
Secretary of the Treasury- Joseph E. Stiglitz
Secretary of Defense- Ron Paul
Attorney General- John Edwards
Secretary of the Interior- Winona LaDuke
Secretary of Agriculture- Peter Camejo
Secretary of Commerce- Keith Ellison
Secretary of Labor- Noam Chomsky
Secretary of Health and Human Services- Russell D. Feingold
Secretary of Housing and Urban Development- Michael Bloomberg
Secretary of Transportation- Chris Paine
Secretary of Energy- Al Gore
Secretary of Education- Howard Zinn
Secretary of Veterans Affairs- John Conyers
Secretary of Homeland Security- Dennis Kucinich

This post was originally posted by me on facebook on Thursday, February 28, 2008

Cartoon Controversy

2008-03-20T23:45:00.006-04:00

Over the course of the past three years, there has been a considerable controversy over the various Danish newspapers (and, subsequently other newspapers) decision to publish highly offensive cartoons that negatively depicted the Prophet Muhammed (pbuh). The controversy over this, from the Muslim perspective is that, first the depiction of images is discouraged. Specifically, the depiction of the Prophet Muhammed (pbuh) has been traditionally prohibited. Beyond that, to depict the Prophet (pbuh) AND do so in a highly offensive manner angered many Muslims. I have written two Op-Ed pieces on this topic, which I will post below, and beyond that, I will post some additional information.

Freedom of Speech?
Nausherwan Hafeez, 2-14-08, Op-Ed

The decision by Denmark’s leading newspapers to reprint a cartoon that depicts the Prophet Mohammed wearing a bomb-shaped turban displays a gross misuse of the liberal ideal of freedom of speech. This ideal, enshrined in the US as sacrosanct through the first amendment, has been misused to couch hate-speech within the legitimate framework of acceptable discourse. It increasingly appears acceptable to denigrate Islam in the press and to defend these attacks as freedom of speech. Yet when it comes to other topics, such as say race or sex, the use of freedom of speech appears to be restricted.

The most recent example of this is the case of Don Imus. When Imus referred to Rutgers University women’s basketball team as “nappy-headed hos” there was a huge outcry by the press and general public. Many people questioned how Imus could say such racist and sexist filth. What followed was a concerted campaign by civil and women’s rights groups to get Imus off of the air for his hate-speech. Time magazine even did a cover story that probed the extent to which freedom of speech can be legitimately exercised without crossing the line. After all was said and done, Imus publicly apologized for his comments and had his show taken off of the air.

Now consider the reaction to the publishing of this cartoon in some US newspapers last year. Almost clear cross the political spectrum people defended the cartoon as an example of freedom of speech. There was no apology or significant outcry against the cartoons by either the press or the general public. This inequity between what Americans and Westerners consider freedom of speech feeds the perception that there is a cultural war going on between the West and Islam. This cultural war adds fuel to the idea of a “clash of civilizations” and increases the divide between Islam and the West.

The legitimization of attacking Islam under the guise of free speech and the delegitimization of racist and sexist speech smacks of hypocrisy. These double-standards serve to increase tension with the Muslim world and hurt our image abroad. To defend the use of freedom of speech as a tool to attack a religion or group of people is certain to cause more anger and resentment in the future. While it is important to defend the right to free speech we must also understand the consequences of exercising this right.

The Art of Hypocrisy
Nausherwan Hafeez, 2-17-06, Op-Ed

Recently, there has been a huge uproar across the Muslim world about the appalling depictions of the Prophet Muhammad. Many countries have experienced violent protests and have called for a formal apology from Denmark. Meanwhile, most Western governments have responded to these protests by saying that the portrayal of the Prophet is legitimate and cannot be stopped based upon the idea of freedom of speech. However, this depiction of the Prophet goes well beyond the legitimate use of freedom of speech and is, in effect, a hate crime purported against a quarter of the world's population.

This depiction is a hate crime because it unfairly portrays the Prophet of Islam as a terrorist. Muslims view any portrayals of the Prophet as blasphemous, much less the depiction of him as a terrorist. To make this suggestion and then stand by and not expect a violent response from the Muslim world is ludicrous. How would the Right-wing Christians of America respond to the depiction of Jesus as a terrorist? How would the world respond to a cartoon claiming that the holocaust was a fraud? Incidentally, a similar event has recently occurred and the response was far from shocking.

In the middle of last December, Iran's President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, denied the holocaust and called its portrayal a "myth". What was the West's response to President Ahmadinejad's use of his freedom of speech? The response was harsh and swift. The Western world quickly condemned the statement and even convened an emergency session of the UN Security Council to further condemn the statements. That resolution was passed and the world stood united against this callous exercise of Ahmadinejad's freedom of speech. So my question now is this: Why can't the West react the same way they did to Ahmadinejad's statements and condemn these vicious cartoons? If there is no apology or condemnation of these cartoons by the West it will only go to reinforce Islamic anger and distrust against the West.

Ultimately, this defamation was libelous and illegal under articles 19 and 20 of the International Covenant on Civil Political Rights. After September 11, everyone in America wanted to know why the Muslim world "hates us so much". The answer to that question is exemplified by the West's response to these blasphemous cartoons.

http://www.itsyourtimes.com/?q=node/564

Danish Law, and Debates over the Cartoon Issue

February 2006

Denmark has laws regarding blasphemy as well as racism. Both of these laws have been violated in the current case, the assertion of the newspaper that it broke no laws, notwithstanding. Section 266b of the

Danish Criminal Code provides:
Any person who, publicly or with the intention of wider dissemination, makes a statement or imparts other information by which a group of people are threatened, insulted or degraded on account of their race, colour, national or ethnic origin, religion, or sexual inclination shall be liable to a fine or to imprisonment for any term not exceeding 2 years.

And its section 140, which deals with blasphemy, reads:

Those who publicly mock or insult the doctrines or worship of any religious community that is legal in this country, will be punished by a fine or incarceration for up to 4 month.

Similarly section 142 of the Norwegian Penal Code provides for punishment for any person "who publicly insults or in an offensive manner shows contempt for any religious creed...or for the doctrines or worship of any religious community lawfully existing here."

My friend, after reading my article and the Danish law stuff, posed a question concerning the violent response to the cartoons across the muslim world. My response:

Nicely put...I agree, the violence must end, b/c those who perpetrated this act will eventually be punished (according to Islamic belief, in the afterlife). Its a shame that western govts, wouldnt condemn the cartoons...I mean look at what happened to the Historian David Irving for challenging the holocaust (he got sentenced to 3 years in prison for saying that the statistics of the holocaust are exaggerated, and other such things). The media performs self-censorship everyday; they won't print pornography, excessive use of curse words, or racial epithets. And yet, these foolish Danes feel that they what they did was okay? When Bush announced after 9-11 that the US would go on a "crusade", Muslims around the world took heed. This modern crusade against Islam has taken the form of political ( e.g. international pressure on multiple Muslim countries around the world...think of Iran), military (e.g. Afghanistan, Iraq, alleged "war on terror"), psychological (e.g. Danish Cartoons), and cultural (e.g. Western Cultural influences on traditional Islamic societies...including many western criticisms about the treatment of Women in the Islamic world...while I recognize that some Islamic countries are at fault, the West cannot expect the rest of the world to hold to the same cultural/religious traditions that they do…think cultural relativism) attacks against Islam. 5 years after 9-11 and the Muslim world is very apprehensive. How many more ways will the West attack Islam...Only time will tell.

Following this, Someone asked me about the things going on in Iraq and Radical Islamists. Below is how I answered:

This issue is when you get into very tenuous grounds. Above all, I think the sectarian violence that is gripping Iraq is wrong. Muslims should not be fighting other Muslims. Unfortunately, this has been a impossibility throughout Islamic History. To give you on example (I'll give you more and discuss this issue further when we meet up), think about the breakup of the Ottoman Empire in the beginning of the 20th century. Arab Muslims fought Turkish Muslims for independence...which in reality never really came (first there was colonialism, then despotic home rule, and now neocolonialism). It is sad when their is so much interreligious warfare. Unfortunately, that is the situation of today. Hopefully, it will get better.

On your other question, "How many ways will Radical Islamists attack Islam"?, we enter even more mudied waters. There are so many issues and ideas brought up with this question that it would be an injustice to discuss this over an email. The topics are too broad, the definitions extremly nuanced, and the portrayals always slanted. Hence, I will also defer this question to a face to face meeting. Nonetheless, to indirectly answer your question, I don't think their are that many "radical Islamists" out there right now; rather, there is a media concoction of hobgoblins which make it APPEAR that there are many "radical Islamists". Furthermore, some of the greivances that these "radical Islamists" hold to are completly legitimate; e.g. occupation of their countries, attacks against their peoples, etc. However, I do not want to seem like an apologist for some of their actions, nor should you construe that I am justifying some of their actions. What you should gather, though, is that this is an extremly complex issue due to its sensitive nature in the modern day. We will discuss this later.

Also, the only major Newspaper in the US to publish these cartoons was the Philadelphia Inquirer. It was obviously stupid for them to print it, and I sent this preface to them along with my editorial. They never gave me a response:

After hearing about your newspapers decision to run the cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad, I was quite shocked. Out of all of the major newspapers in the US, you guys were the only ones who choose to run these insensitive cartoons. Just as you would not print cartoons lampooning the holocaust, or print something condoning African-American slavery, I feel that you guys should not have run these cartoons. Since you all have, I have written a short editorial piece concerning this issue. If you all wish to show multiple sides of this debate, I would like you all to consider running this piece. Thank you for your consideration and, in the future, try not to run articles which offend peoples sensibilities.

"When Hitler attacked the Jews, I was not a Jew, therefore, I was not concerned. And when Hitler attacked the Catholics, I was not a Catholic, and therefore, I was not concerned. And when Hitler attacked the unions and the industrialists [sic!], I was not a member of the unions and I was not concerned. Then, Hitler attacked me and the Protestant church--and there was nobody left to be concerned."
-Martin Niemöller
To add to this, when they came after the Muslims....

The Muslim Vote in 2008

2008-03-20T23:43:00.004-04:00

The Muslim Vote in 2008
Nausherwan Hafeez, 2-4-08, Op-Ed

The Muslim vote in Florida could very well determine who will become the next President of the United States. President George W. Bush won the infamous 2000 Presidential elections in part because of overwhelming support from the Muslim community in Florida. In an election that was won by less than 100 votes, the Muslim swing voters gave Bush the election. Bush appealed to Muslim voters largely because of his social conservatism and promises to protect civil liberties. Since Bush clearly did not live up to his campaign promises and instead launched attacks across the Muslim world, the vast majority of Muslim voters turned to John Kerry in 2004. So where does the Muslim vote look like it is headed this year and what are the key issues that Muslims care about?

The Muslim vote appears to be headed towards the Democratic Party. In this current election, the two top priorities for Muslim voters are foreign policy and protection of civil liberties. With the primary season in full swing, a closer look at both party’s candidates and platforms indicates why the Muslim vote will be go to the Democratic Presidential candidate in 2008.

The GOP candidates for President have largely attacked Muslims and their interests throughout this campaign season. Rudy Giuliani has complained that the Democratic candidates, “never mentioned the word ‘Islamic terrorist,’ or ‘Islamic extremist’”. Why the Democrats have not resorted to this strategy is obvious: labeling a religion as having tendencies towards terrorism is completely baseless and shameful politicking. This sort of Islamophobia has had a blowback effect on many GOP candidates, and has been one cause of why Rudy Giuliani and Tom Tancredo have been forced out of the race. Mitt Romney has been criticized by civil rights group for his stated objective to double the size of Guantanamo Bay. John McCain, the current front-runner, responded to an inquiry about what should be done about Iran by stating, “Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran” to the tune of the Beach Boys song Barbara Ann. Attacks against the religion and threatening future attacks against Muslim countries is a self-defeating strategy that will ensure that the Muslim vote does not go to the Republican nominee.

The Democrats, on the other hand, have shown more sensibility towards the concerns of Muslim voters. Barack Obama has shown particular strength in galvanizing Muslim support due to his emphasis on a balanced foreign policy that relies upon engagement rather than the threatened use of force. Obama has said he would be willing to meet with Iranian leaders to discuss their nuclear program without conditions attached. His emphasis on diplomacy and multilateralism makes him the ideal candidate for Muslim voters on foreign policy. Hillary Clinton, meanwhile, has shown a hawkish tendency by both voting to authorize the war in Iraq and for voting in favor of the Kyl-Lieberman amendment targeting Iran, which called for the United States to declare the largest branch of Iran’s armed services a terrorist organization. This vote, which has been harshly criticized by Obama, has been interpreted by many political observers as providing the Bush administration with a rationale for going to war with Iran. In terms of civil liberties, both Clinton and Obama have indicated a willingness to change the Patriot Act to correct some of its most egregious abuses.

It appears likely that regardless of who the Democrats end up nominating, they will get the Muslim vote. The Democrats have been more responsive to Muslim concerns about a balanced foreign policy, protection of civil liberties, and because of Republican Islamophobia. Democrats will likely have a greater chance of winning the general election especially because of the Muslim vote in the key swing state of Florida.

Lions for Lambs

2008-03-20T23:40:00.002-04:00

For those who have not seen this movie, I would highly recommend that you do. It is an absolutely fantastic movie that is a critique of both American society and our War of Terror. The movie is heavy on dialogue, so don't expect much action. The movie does an excellent job raising some contemporary questions facing America, but does not preach a particular solution.

The movie did poorly in the theaters (it only grossed $15 million) and received mostly negative reviews. Regardless, I think it was the best political drama of 2007. The reason I think it did poorly is because:
a) people didn't understand the movie
b) it is not a typical "war movie" in the sense that the central emphasis is on dialogue, rather than action. This film feels like an indy film and failed trying to be mainstream
c) poor release date--it would have done better in the box offices if they had released it as a summer movie
d) People don't like Tom Cruise, which I think is ridiculous. His personal politics are his own and he should be viewed in light of his performance in the movie, not outside of it.
e) people are sensitive to challenging the traditional narrative of these past six years. Again, this is why I think it did poorly here in the US; its interesting, though, because it has done much better internationally. I suppose its hard for many Americans to take a critical look at the state of their nation...

This post was originally posted by me on facebook on Monday, Jan 28, 2008

Excerpt from "Outsourcing Torture"

2008-03-20T23:34:00.001-04:00

We are losing the war in Iraq. We are an isolated and reviled nation. We are pitiless to others weaker than ourselves. We have lost sight of our democratic ideals. Thucydides wrote of Athens' expanding empire and how this empire led it to become a tyrant abroad and then a tyrant at home. The tyranny Athens imposed on others, it finally imposed on itself. If we do not confront our hubris and the lies we tell to justify the killing and mask the destruction carried out in our name in Iraq, if we do not grasp the moral corrosiveness of empire and occupation, if we continue to allow force and violence to be our primary form of communication, if we do not remove from power our flag-waving, cross-bearing versions of the Taliban, the despotism we empower abroad will become the despotism we soon experience at home.

Taken from:
Outsourcing Torture, Truthdig.com, 10-15-07, Chris Hedges
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/10/15/4538/

Boycott Israel

2008-03-20T23:30:00.001-04:00

Boycott Israel?
Nausherwan Hafeez, Op-Ed
At what point does a citizen-led boycott of a state become morally justified?

This question has been raised with regards to the growing academic, cultural, and economic boycott of Israel. In 2004, the Palestinian Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel (PACBI)—a coalition of more than 50 Palestinian civil society organizations—called for a program of boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) in response to Israeli actions in the Occupied Territories. This movement has gained support from trade unions, churches, and academic institutions based in the US, Canada, Europe, and South Africa. In reaction, a growing number of American academic institutions have come out against the boycott. This leads one to question: Why was the boycott called? Is there merit to a boycott? And what is the way forward?

The boycott was called in response to Israeli policies of illegal annexation and colonization of territories, extrajudicial killings, collective punishment, and the restriction of movement of native Palestinians throughout the region. In addition, America has a unique relationship with Israel that requires us to analyze the logic of a boycott critically. Each of these areas deserves further explanation.

Israel has instituted a concerted effort of colonization and expulsion in the West Bank. The most visceral example of this is the “apartheid” wall that has been built throughout the West Bank in violation of the International Court of Justice’s ruling that its construction is illegal. Former President Jimmy Carter noted in Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid that, “[The Wall] is projected to be at least three and a half times as long as Israel’s internationally recognized border and already cuts directly through Palestinian villages, divides families from their gardens and farmland, and includes 375,000 Palestinians on the “Israeli” side of the wall, 175,000 of whom are outside Jerusalem.” This land grab has allowed for the ghettoization of the Palestinian people in violation of international law.

Israel has used the tactic of extrajudicial killings to eliminate those it deems a threat. One of the most heinous cases of such killings occurred in March of 2004, when an American-supplied Israeli Helicopter gunship bombed and killed the quadriplegic Sheik Ahmed Yassin. The “collateral” damage from this bombing was 9 innocent bystanders, including 6 children. The assassinations of alleged criminals are a gross violation of the rule of law.

Israeli policies in Gaza exemplify the idea of collective punishment. Israel has blockaded most imports and exports in Gaza by declaring it a “hostile territory”. Consequently, about 70% of Gaza’s workforce is now unemployed or without pay, according the United Nations, and about 80% of its residents live in harsh poverty. About 1.2 million of them are dependent for their day-to-day survival on food handouts from the UN or other international agencies, without which the population would starve. This deliberate attempt to destroy Gazan livelihood is in direct violation of the Geneva Convention—which Israel is a signatory to—which obliges an occupational force to ensure the well-being of the occupied peoples.

Israel has set up over 500 different checkpoints throughout the West Bank. These checkpoints prevent Palestinians from moving freely within their own territory. To add insult to injury, there are numerous “Jew-only” roads throughout the West Bank that the native Palestinians are denied access to. This process of restricting Palestinian movement and access to roads throughout their territory is chillingly reminiscent of Nazi Germany’s policy towards their Jewish population during the early part of the 1930’s.

These Israeli policies have incited widespread international disapproval and formal criticism from many countries and international organizations. These policies have significantly isolated and discredited Israel in the global political arena. American policies, however, directly support and aid Israel in its transgressions in the Occupied Territories. Our unique relationship with Israel thus makes the idea of boycott more relevant. The American-Israeli alliance has benefited Israel tremendously. The US has given Israel more than $140 billion in direct economic and military assistance. Israel receives about $3 billion in direct assistance annually and is exempt from accounting for how this aid money is spent. Funds are often siphoned off to build Jewish colonies in the West Bank and provide funding for the “apartheid” wall. The fact that we, as American taxpayers, fund Israeli programs that actively oppress the Palestinians is something that needs to be questioned.

Just as in the 1970’s when boycott campaigns were mounted against Apartheid South Africa, it seems that the actions of Israel meet the criteria of a boycott. Yet, the opposite has occurred. Academic institutions—led by Columbia University President Lee Bollinger—have launched a counter-boycott to show solidarity with their Israeli counterparts. However, this action deflects the point of the boycott, which is an attempt to protest the inhumane policies carried out by Israel against the Palestinian peoples and to change these policies toward ones in line with international law. The American Jewish Committee—which is notorious for attacking anyone critical of Israel—has provided funds for the counter-boycott. Ultimately, this action is not helpful. Instead, what is desperately needed is an active debate on how we should approach our relationship with Israel. The knee-jerk defense that most American institutions give towards Israel is both unhealthy and counterproductive in the sense that it deters from the long-term objectives of pressuring Israel to modify its unjust actions.

I believe that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is one of the great moral issues of the twenty-first century. America’s unconditional support for Israeli actions has directly led to an increase in international terrorism in addition to an increase in anti-Americanism across the world. The American population, who I believe is reasonable and compassionate, lacks a holistic understanding of the complexities of this conflict due to misinformation and political spin. Thus, we have allowed our government to implement policies that exacerbate the tensions in the Middle East and hurt the cause of peace. We, as a democratic society, need to debate our special relationship with Israel and decide upon a just action for the future. Hopefully, our act of civic engagement can prevent the powder keg in the Middle East from erupting into what would most certainly be a cataclysmic explosion.

This post was originally posted by me on facebook on Thursday, Oct 11, 2007

Depleted Uranium

2008-03-20T23:26:00.002-04:00

The Truth About Depleted Uranium, 1-8-01, The Independent (UK), Robert Fisk
http://www.commondreams.org/views01/0108-05.htm

America's Perpetual Nuclear War, 3-11-07, Commondreams.org, Robert Weitzel
http://www.commondreams.org/views07/0311-21.htm

Study Suggests Cancer Risk from Depleted Uranium, 5-8-07, The Independent (UK), James Randerson
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/05/08/1059/

An in depth look at DU by the BBC
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/europe/2001/depleted_uranium/default.stm

A website that links to lots of articles concerning DU
http://www.stopnato.org.uk/du-watch/

This has some good links
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Depleted_Uranium

This post was originally posted by me on facebook on Thursday, May 10, 2007

Slow Down Culture

2008-03-20T23:23:00.003-04:00

An interesting reflection : Slow Down Culture
Author Unknown

At Swedish company, Volvo, any project here takes 2 years to be finalized, even if the idea is simple and brilliant. It's a rule.

Globalize processes have caused in us (all over the world) a general sense of searching for immediate results. Therefore, we have come to posses a need to see immediate results. This contrasts greatly with the slow movements of the Swedish. They, on the other hand, debate, debate, debate, hold x quantity of meetings and work with a slowdown scheme.

At the end, this always yields better results.

Said in another words:
1. Sweden is smaller than Thailand
2. Sweden has 2 million inhabitants
3. Stockholm has 500,000 people.
4. Volvo, Scania, SAAB , Ericsson, Electrolux, are some of its renowned companies. Volvo supplies to NASA.

The first time I was in Sweden, one of my colleagues picked me up at the hotel every morning. It was September, bit cold and snowy. We would arrive early at the company and he would park far away from the entrance(2000 employees drive their car to work). The first day, I didn't say anything, either the second or third. One morning I asked, "Do you have a fixed parking space? I've noticed we park far from the entrance even when there are no other cars in the lot." To which he replied, "Since we're here early we'll have time to walk, and whoever gets in late will be late and need a place closer to the door. Don't you think?" Can you imagine my face.

Nowadays, there's a movement in Europe named Slow Food. This movement establishes that people should eat and drink slowly, with enough time to taste their food, spend time with the family, friends, without rushing.

Slow Food is against its counterpart: the spirit of Fast Food and what it stands for as a lifestyle. Slow Food is the basis for a bigger movement called Slow Europe, as mentioned by Business Week.

Basically, the movement questions the sense of "hurry" and "craziness" generated by globalization, fueled by the desire of "having in quantity"(life status) versus "having with quality", "life quality" or the "quality of being". French people, even though they work 35 hours per week, are more productive than Americans or British. Germans have established 28.8 hour workweeks and have seen their productivity been driven up by 20%.

This slow attitude has brought forth the US's attention, pupils of the fast and the "do it now!".

This no-rush attitude doesn't represent doing less or having a lower productivity. It means working and doing things with greater quality, productivity, perfection, with attention to detail and less stress. It means reestablishing family values, friends, free and leisure time. Taking the "now", present and concrete, versus the "global", undefined and anonymous. It means taking humans' essential values, the simplicity of living.

It stands for a less coercive work environment, more happy, lighter and more productive where humans enjoy doing what they know best how to do.

It's time to stop and think on how companies need to develop serious quality with no-rush that will increase productivity and the quality of products and services, without losing the essence of spirit.

In the movie, Scent of a Woman, there's a scene where Al Pacino asks a girl to dance and she replies, "I can't, my boyfriend will be here any minute now". To which Al responds, "A life is lived in an instant". Then they dance to a tango.

Many of us live our lives running behind time, but we only reach it when we die of a heart attack or in a car accident rushing to be on time. Others are so anxious of living the future that they forget to live the present, which is the only time that truly exists. We all have equal time throughout the world. No one has more or less. The difference lies in how each one of us does with our time. We need to live each moment. As John Lennon said, "Life is what happens to you while you're busy making other plans".

Congratulations for reading till the end of this message. There are many who will have stopped in the middle so as not to waste time in this globalized world.

This post was originally posted by me on facebook on Saturday, March 31, 2007

Detainee Interrogation Bill, Illegal Wiretapping & The Silent Coup

2008-03-20T23:18:00.003-04:00

The passage of the Detainee Interogation Bill today has terrible implications for American Democracy. This law- passed by the senate today- among other issues, eliminates the most fundamental premise of the American constitution; i.e. the writ of habeaus corpus. This writ guarantees that individuals will have the right to a trial and NOT be arbitrarily detained without a day in court. For shame...
[The House resolution is HR 6166. The Senate bill is S 3930.]

In addition, the House has passed a bill that would legalize the illegal domestic wiretapping program in the US. This is also terrible; Amy & David Goodman comment on this issue in their book Static-
" There has long been a legal way to monitor the electronic communications of Americans: Obtain a warrant from the secret court authorized by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). The warrants are readily given as Russel Tice [NSA whistle-blower] explains "I kinda liken the FISA court to a monkey with a rubber stamp....It just stamps 'affirmed'...and banana chip rolls out, and then the next paper rolls in front of the monkey. When you have like twenty thousand [eavesdropping] requests and only, I think, four were turned down, you can't look at the FISA court as anything different."
He continued, "So, you have to ask yourself the question: Why would someone want to go around the FISA court in something like this? I would think the answer could be that this think is a lot bigger than even the president has been told it is, and that ultimately a vacuum cleaner approach may have been used....That's ultimately why you wouldn't go to the FISA court." "
(p.59)
[The House bill is H.R. 5825; the Senate bill is S. 3931.]

The Silent Coup
Op-Ed, Nausherwan Hafeez, 9-28-06

Ever since the Supreme Court handed down its ruling in the landmark Hamdan v Rumsfeld case- which, in effect, put a check on the Bush administrations ability to detain prisoners indefinitely- civil liberty groups have hailed the success of our judiciary system in its move to check the powers of our President.

Undeterred, President Bush made it clear that he would go above the judiciary to receive approval for how detainees held by the US can be treated. He was able to circumvent the courts and receive approval of the Detainee Interrogation Bill from Congress after a charade of compromise. This “compromise” was pushed for by three Republican senators who felt that allowing the President the ability to revoke the writ of habeas corpus and reinterpret the Geneva Conventions went beyond the Presidential mandate; however, through closed door political wrangling, the President was able to receive essentially everything he was asking for. In an election season, no member of Congress wanted to seem weak on security. Consequently, the largely-unimpeded abrogation of the fundamental legal premise of habeas corpus-i.e. protection from indefinite detainment without trial- has further undermined our constitution and will prove to be a Faustian deal in years to come.

Ultimately, a coup has occurred in the American system of federalism; Congress has rubber stamped away its authority to President Bush. How far will our constitution be destroyed in the name of "security"?

This post was originally posted by me on facebook on Thursday, September 28, 2006

Articles of Impeachment

2008-03-20T23:14:00.003-04:00

source: http://www.impeachbush.org/site/PageServer

Articles of Impeachment

of

President George W. Bush

and

Vice President Richard B. Cheney,
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice,
Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld, and
Attorney General Alberto Gonzales

The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors. - - ARTICLE II, SECTION 4 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

President George W. Bush, Vice President Richard B. Cheney, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld, and Attorney General Alberto Gonzales have committed violations and subversions of the Constitution of the United States of America in an attempt to carry out with impunity crimes against peace and humanity and war crimes and deprivations of the civil rights of the people of the United States and other nations, by assuming powers of an imperial executive unaccountable to law and usurping powers of the Congress, the Judiciary and those reserved to the people of the United States, by the following acts:

1) Seizing power to wage wars of aggression in defiance of the U.S. Constitution, the U.N. Charter and the rule of law; carrying out a massive assault on and occupation of Iraq, a country that was not threatening the United States, resulting in the death and maiming of over one hundred thousand Iraqis, and thousands of U.S. G.I.s.

2) Lying to the people of the U.S., to Congress, and to the U.N., providing false and deceptive rationales for war.

3) Authorizing, ordering and condoning direct attacks on civilians, civilian facilities and locations where civilian casualties were unavoidable.

4) Instituting a secret and illegal wiretapping and spying operation against the people of the United States through the National Security Agency.

5) Threatening the independence and sovereignty of Iraq by belligerently changing its government by force and assaulting Iraq in a war of aggression.

6) Authorizing, ordering and condoning assassinations, summary executions, kidnappings, secret and other illegal detentions of individuals, torture and physical and psychological coercion of prisoners to obtain false statements concerning acts and intentions of governments and individuals and violating within the United States, and by authorizing U.S. forces and agents elsewhere, the rights of individuals under the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Eighth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

7) Making, ordering and condoning false statements and propaganda about the conduct of foreign governments and individuals and acts by U.S. government personnel; manipulating the media and foreign governments with false information; concealing information vital to public discussion and informed judgment concerning acts, intentions and possession, or efforts to obtain weapons of mass destruction in order to falsely create a climate of fear and destroy opposition to U.S. wars of aggression and first strike attacks.

8) Violations and subversions of the Charter of the United Nations and international law, both a part of the "Supreme Law of the land" under Article VI, paragraph 2, of the Constitution, in an attempt to commit with impunity crimes against peace and humanity and war crimes in wars and threats of aggression against Afghanistan, Iraq and others and usurping powers of the United Nations and the peoples of its nations by bribery, coercion and other corrupt acts and by rejecting treaties, committing treaty violations, and frustrating compliance with treaties in order to destroy any means by which international law and institutions can prevent, affect, or adjudicate the exercise of U.S. military and economic power against the international community.

9) Acting to strip United States citizens of their constitutional and human rights, ordering indefinite detention of citizens, without access to counsel, without charge, and without opportunity to appear before a civil judicial officer to challenge the detention, based solely on the discretionary designation by the Executive of a citizen as an "enemy combatant."

10) Ordering indefinite detention of non-citizens in the United States and elsewhere, and without charge, at the discretionary designation of the Attorney General or the Secretary of Defense.

11) Ordering and authorizing the Attorney General to override judicial orders of release of detainees under INS jurisdiction, even where the judicial officer after full hearing determines a detainee is wrongfully held by the government.

12) Authorizing secret military tribunals and summary execution of persons who are not citizens who are designated solely at the discretion of the Executive who acts as indicting official, prosecutor and as the only avenue of appellate relief.

13) Refusing to provide public disclosure of the identities and locations of persons who have been arrested, detained and imprisoned by the U.S. government in the United States, including in response to Congressional inquiry.

14) Use of secret arrests of persons within the United States and elsewhere and denial of the right to public trials.

15) Authorizing the monitoring of confidential attorney-client privileged communications by the government, even in the absence of a court order and even where an incarcerated person has not been charged with a crime.

16) Ordering and authorizing the seizure of assets of persons in the United States, prior to hearing or trial, for lawful or innocent association with any entity that at the discretionary designation of the Executive has been deemed "terrorist."

17) Engaging in criminal neglect in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, depriving thousands of people in Louisiana, Mississippi and other Gulf States of urgently needed support, causing mass suffering and unnecessary loss of life.

18) Institutionalization of racial and religious profiling and authorization of domestic spying by federal law enforcement on persons based on their engagement in noncriminal religious and political activity.

19) Refusal to provide information and records necessary and appropriate for the constitutional right of legislative oversight of executive functions.

20) Rejecting treaties protective of peace and human rights and abrogation of the obligations of the United States under, and withdrawal from, international treaties and obligations without consent of the legislative branch, and including termination of the ABM treaty between the United States and Russia, and rescission of the authorizing signature from the Treaty of Rome which served as the basis for the International Criminal Court.

This post was originally posted by me on facebook on Wednesday, September 20, 2006

Impeach King George!

2008-03-20T23:05:00.003-04:00

It is past time that we, the people of the United States, join together and impeach one of the greatest tyrants of our time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Movement_to_impeach_George_W._Bush

http://www.impeachbush.org/site/PageServer

The Case for Impeachment: The Legal Argument for Removing President George W. Bush from Office
by Dave Lindorff, Barbara Olshansky
Editorial Reviews
Book Description
It's time for the American people and Congress to act. With so much at stake, we have a president whose administration stands out in its criminality and disdain for the rule of law. The Case for Impeachment explains the legal history and grounds for impeaching George W. Bush and brings forth more than a half dozen articles of impeachment the likes of:*Lying and inducing Congress and the American people into an unjust war.*Allowing his friends and business cronies to profiteer off the war in Iraq.*Authorizing torture and rendition of prisoners of war and suspected terrorists--a complete violation of the Geneva Conventions, a treaty the U.S. has signed and is therefore part of our law.*Stripping American citizens of their Constitutional rights--holding people with no charge, wiretapping them illegally, offering them no trial, and never allowing them to face their accusers.*Failing in almost every way possible to defend the homeland and our borders.Hard hitting and persuasive in its argument, The Case for Impeachment will be one of the most talked-about political books for the pathetic remainder of the Bush Presidency.

About the Author
DAVE LINDORFF is a journalist for over three decades who has written for numerous publications including, BusinessWeek, Salon, and The Nation. He's also the author of three books, This Can't Be Happening!, Killing Time, and Marketplace Medicine. BARBARA OLSHANSKY is the Director Counsel for The Center for Constitutional Rights who is currently managing habeas litigation on behalf of 300 detainees held at Guantanamo Bay.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0312360169/commondreams-20/ref=nosim

This post was originally posted by me on facebook on Sunday, September 10, 2006

A Return to Blogging

2008-03-20T22:52:00.001-04:00

I have not actually taken to blogging over these past couple of years, outside of a few random posts. I do intend to start uploading various pieces of writing that I have written in the past, and will probably start regularly blogging latter on this year. I plan on importing a some material from my facebook, which will add some data to this blog.

Islam, Law, and Human Rights

2006-04-21T15:34:00.000-04:00

Currently I am enrolled in a course entitled Islam, Law, and Human Rights. The fundamental aim of the course is to illustrate the importance of Islamic Shariah Law, as well as to compare/contrast its approach to Western constructs of Law. The goals of the class are to discuss the role of individual rights within the Shariah, Womens rights, Univeral v. Cultural relativism, and contemporary Islamic judicial issues.

On this note, are primary sources for the class are the books International Human Rights and Islamic Law (2003),by Mashood A. Baderin, and Liberal Islam: A Sourcebook (1998), ed. Charles Kurzman, and Islamic Jurisprudence: An International Perspective (1988), by Judge CG Weeramantry.

The course is a fascination discussion/lecture seminar, with lots of class interaction and debate. I've been enjoying the class thus far, and have furthered my own knowledge of Islamic Jurisprudence. On that note, if anyone cares to discuss this issue outside of class I would be more than happy to do so.

2006-02-02T18:12:00.000-05:00

Books

2005-01-26T17:45:00.000-05:00

Hello all. In this publishing I intend to describe a few books that you should read.

The first series of books that you need to read is the Dune series. So far there has been 12 books in this series. 6 of the books were written by Frank Herbert. 6 of the books have been written by his son Brian Herbert and Frank Anderson. There are also 3 short stories written by Brian Herbert and Frank Anderson. These books have to be the greatest series of science fiction novels ever written. Although his father was a better writer than Brian, he was still able to capture the essence of the Dune series. This series of books deals with the complex interplay of religion, politics, economics, society, and science to create a wonderful universe of thought and fiction. These books create an entire universe which spans millenia, and are fun and easy to read. These books are a must read, and I recomend them to everyone.

Another book is Brave New World by Aldous Huxley. This world describes a place where everyone is in there own nook dependent on there genetics. Each nook of people are happy with there circumstances and hence it is supposed to be a eutopia. There is free love and various indulgences into anything that anyone fancies. The book, while meaning to be a depiction of a eutopia, is actually a critique of such an idea. It is a book which shows the flaws in humankind, as well as the way people are easily indoctrinated. A great book and a must read.

Well, I may write about some other books some other time. Until then, this is a good baisis from which you should take whatever you please.

Iraq

2004-10-06T10:42:00.001-04:00

The war in Iraq is a continuing quagmire. I, like many of you, opposed this War. Yet, it occurred anyways. Furthermore, the US needs to urgently change its relationship with its favorite Middle Eastern country: Israel.

I'm sick of Israeli terrorism and I think it would be best if we stopped giving Israel a carte blanche for its actions. Fix the relationship with Israel and the rest of the Middle East will follow.

Now if Israel wanted to be a respected member of the international community, they would first have to stop there deplorable actions in the West Bank and Gaza strip. In addition, they would need to find a way to make peace with Palestine. The Palestinians have a new regime and it is important for Israel to start up the peace process again.

If Israel can't find a way to make peace, then the Americans need to reevaluate there relationship with this rogue nation.