Reporting over the last few days related to battles around Basra, the Iraqi government’s decision to engage Shiite militias in general and the Mahdi Army in particular has essentially missed the point. The reporting is, as it has typically has been, out of the overall context that applies to specific occurrences on the ground or clouded by political agendas that inhibits or ignores contextual analysis.

The political context refers to one set of circumstances and emulates the tactics of another. The reference is the United States and the emulation focuses on Hamas and Hizb’Allah.

The militias, supported by Iran, have and will continue the effort to impact American public opinion and the American political process. They will do so with renewed violence and the generation of uncertainty over the success of current American and Iraqi efforts to establish overall security. They will further attempt to denigrate the status of Iraqi security forces by exposing their uneven, still embryonic stage of development.

The opposition militias and political organizations will take the example of Hizb’Allah and Hamas as they have, historically, related to Israel. The will continue to apply random violence to insure that positive movement is halted and perceptions altered. They, by now, know well the nature of the reporting from the region and will take advantage of the inherent tendencies of both the Arab, European and American media.

The situations addressed in this case relate to American status of force agreements, American politics, pending elections and Iraqi political reconciliation. The likelihood that Sunni’s will fully participate in the next round of elections is a further concern as extremist Shiite/Iranian factions see their political window of opportunity shrinking.   Add to that a movement in Iraq aimed at creating a new sense of balance between Islamic and secular concerns and extremists are beginning to sweat a bit.

What’s left? The Shiite factions will take the example of Hamas and Hizb’Allah. In each case where a potential peace deal with Israel was possible, terrorist violence exploded. Hamas and Hizb’Allah, committed to Israel’s destruction not to accommodation, insured ongoing political stalemates.  Fatah, unable or unwilling to contain the violence and control the factions repeatedly came to occupy the position of being viewed as a disingenuous peace partner. Violence equaled political instability and no peace deal.

Add the Al Qaeda factor:   Osama has recently extolled Saudi, Lebanese, Syrian and North African Jihadists to join the fight in Iraq NOW! He has defined it as the most important current battlefield for Islamist interests. He recognizes that the combined potential of evolving democracy, ongoing reconciliation, the continued success of the surge and native Iraqi security capabilities as an end game he may not be able to overcome. 

Osama is, once again, attempting to apply the lessons of Vietnam to today’s Iraq and win in the court of public opinion if not on the battlefield. Escalating random violence is his only potentially effective tool at this point in time.

We can expect, and should not be surprised by, increased violence over the next few weeks as the Shiite factions attempt to explode the progress made over the past seven months. This will not be a permanent state of affairs, but it could be a deadly one.

If militias such as the Mahdi Army want to explode progress and perceptions, they have to surface and fight to do so. It may look like a game of “Wack a Mole” for a time but the militias will soon face a choice between being destroyed, going back underground, being blamed for violence against civilians or joining the process of reconciliation. In the course of events, the first three possibilities will seriously damage the Iraqi perception of these militias, even from supporters. The third would add an important component to accelerating the political process. But, one way or another, the militias have to opt in or be dealt with militarily. It appears as if the Iraqi government is, finally, coming to that opinion after months of allowing themselves to be held partially hostage to the whims of Mr. Al Sadr (Mookie to the troops) and his Iranian sponsors.

Arabs, as well as anyone, maybe better, understand winners and losers, power and weakness. Iraqi’s have seen enough over the past five years to be cautious as to how they lay their win, place, show bets. They will be cautions in their judgments this time as well, will we?   

 Now that Fitna by Geert Wilders is available, one has to wonder in what direction Muslim rage will travel and what the spin will be. 

 The vast majority of the film consists of three fundamental elements: Quotes from the Quran, news footage and newspaper headlines related to Muslim violence and threats, film of Muslim Imams preaching, Muslim’s interviewed and a cute as can be, three and a half year old girl that knows who the Jews are and that the Quran calls them apes and pigs. . 

 The direct editorial content is limited to an opening shot of one of the Danish Cartoons that drew such passion and simple statements at the end of the film.  The statements essentially make the point that “we may accommodate Muslims but they have no intention of accommodating you” and that your freedom is at stake.  It makes the point that gays and women are particularly in jeopardy.

 So what is this all about?  It does not appear that anyone was been “edited for effect”.  The events portrayed happened; 9/11, Madrid, London, beheadings, rejection of democratic ideals, praise for Hitler’s holocaust (when we’re not denying that it happened), threats of the “next” holocaust, casual commitments to honor kill mothers and sisters is they stray from the path of Islam, death sentences published for those who criticize radical Islam and public demonstrations by Muslims that threaten “more of the same is coming your way” in the wake of the Theo Van Gogh murder.  The headlines and quotes are public record. 

 The vast majority of what is presented in this film is presented without editorial comment in the body of the film.  The film presents a quote from the Quran, followed by film of an event, a headline or film of an Imam or Muslim speaker whose message is justified by the Quranic quote offered at the outset of each segment.  Did Mr. Wilders choose dramatic quotes that justify mass killing and world domination by Islam? Yes, of course, he did, that is his fundamental point.  Mr. Wilders’ choices do not change the fact that the Quran is replete with statements justifying violence and domination in the name of Allah.

 Assuming for the moment that there is a logic to Muslim rage (questionable and a significant part of the problem) where exactly will Muslim rage over the film be aimed?  These things were, in fact, done and said by Muslims and Muslim leaders.  Will Muslims give in to rage because they are simply pissed off that Wilders’ version of the truth is now more widely disseminated?

 Are the angry because they would rather their true agenda remain firmly within the bosom of European appeasement?  Are they angry that they could not stop distribution of the film?  Is it just inherent anger looking for a target of opportunity where any opportunity will do?

 Alternatively, are they angry as a red herring for joy?  Does the film support the ongoing Muslim public posture that we are all  fascist  hate mongers that deserve to be punished?  Will the film, likely not even seen by most Muslims, spur the lunatic fringe of the lunatic fringe to wage their own personal Jihad and deliver the punishment that Allah demands of them?  Will true believers do whatever then can to punish the societies that have accepted them, one by one by one? 

 For the radical Islamist elite this one by one eventuality would work out just fine, thank you very much.  “See, we told you not to release this film.”  “We told you what would happen when you insult Islam.”  “We didn’t have anything to do with those incidents of violence, you brought this on yourselves, see we told you!”

 However, from another point of view if Muslim leaders can accurately predict violence it stands to reason that they understand that the foundations of that violence have been carefully laid to the point of predictability.  But that calculation may go awry.  Many will likely view this film as not equal to the tempest that preceded it.  Should the film be greeted with violence the potential for a grass roots backlash is, I hope, significant.

 I remain hopeful that our European brothers will awaken from their 30 year sleep of well intentioned acceptance and appeasement in the interest of new tax payers and political correctness.  Geert Wilders is correct, their freedoms and their values are at stake.  Geert Wilders’ life is now, also at stake.

In the something for everyone department, Mr. Obama’s speech was brilliant! 

Senator Obama recognized that nowhere else on earth would his story be possible. He rejects the idea that his candidacy is “somehow an exercise in affirmative action; that it's based solely on the desire of wide-eyed liberals to purchase racial reconciliation on the cheap.”

He rejects the comments but not the man in the person of Reverend Wright and projects that we have all had the exact same experience of disagreement that he claims was the case between him and Reverend Wright. 

He rejects the idea of endemic white racism as “elevating what is wrong with America above what is right with America”. He says the right thing about Israel and radical Islam.

Senator Obama while criticizing the statements of Reverend Wright does not reject the man and explains, reasonably, why he cannot do so. He says the same things he has been saying about Reverend Wright only with more elegance and in larger context.   Mr. Obama criticizes Reverend Wright for failing to recognize progress. He mitigates the impact of what Reverend Wright has had to say by relating his personal experiences with his white grandmother who used ethnic stereotypes and had a fear of black men on the street. The Senator says he could never consider rejecting her despite her failings or Reverend Wright.      

Senator Obama elegantly, brings the argument back to slavery and the institutional segregation of past generations. However, he also speaks to the frustrations of the white community over being held accountable for transgressions they never participated in. Brilliant!

The Senator addresses the reality of what is felt and said in small communities, churches and barbershops compared to what is said in polite company and the impact that this equation has had on prejudice and underlying racism. 

Even a bow to conservatives as Senator Obama said, “Ironically, this quintessentially American - and yes, conservative - notion of self-help found frequent expression in Reverend Wright's sermons. But what my former pastor too often failed to understand is that embarking on a program of self-help also requires a belief that society can change”. He criticizes the Welfare State of the past as contributory to the lack of progress in the Black American community. There is, of course, more but this sampling is reasonable. Brilliant speech!

Nevertheless, questions and concerns persist.

My own personal context for the realities that surround issues of race were informed by a black colleague of mine during the OJ trial. After many hours of animated discussion, he from his point of view, me from mine, he finally said to me “Look I know you’re not a racist, I know you try, but you need to understand that if you don’t wake up black every morning, if you don’t feel that particular pressure you simply cannot relate on an emotional level. You can get there intellectually but you can’t get there emotionally, and it is emotional!” Hard for me to accept at that moment in time but undeniably true.

If the ever-present justification for Reverend Wright and those who share his belief system is the presence of slavery and the injustices of the past, where is the pivot point for changing attitudes? If slavery and Jim Crow are the permanent context of the discussion, as it was in parts of this speech, where do we go? Where does the black community go? We can’t make slavery go away, we can’t make the fact that Jim Crow existed go away. We did, eventually, make them go away, at great cost in lives but we can’t change the fact that they existed. We can’t change the fact that the founders skipped over the issue of slavery over the fear of losing the ability to create a cohesive union. All facts and none can be made to disappear. 

Despite the admirable rhetorical technique of equating his grandmother’s failings with Reverend Wright, there are substantial and obvious differences. The Senator’s grandmother did not maintain a position of leadership and influence. Her prejudice was her own and not the result of a theological belief system. She had no responsibility for informing the attitudes of thousands. This manner of relativism, while clever, is not equivalent and weakens the Senators credibility in the argument. 

If white attitudes, behaviors, and attempts at a change of heart, albeit in the personal context quoted above, have simply resulted in Reverend Wright’s rage and anger going underground or going to church do some quit trying? Does a view of race as an impossible challenge to overcome predominate? Will black rage now be met with white rage or worst white apathy?   

The Senator excuses Reverend Wright’s rage as a result of experience as the Reverend’s generation came of age in the fifties and sixties and faced the injustices of that era. The justification is valid, to a point. But to my white mind, I cannot help but ask, who is better placed to identify the nature progress since then than that generation? Senator Obama recognized the progress but a man that informs his spirituality and his relationship with his God clearly does not.

Black Liberation Theology, clearly, does not recognize progress. In 2004 Dr. James Cone the leading contemporary advocate of this theology wrote that “Black suffering is getting worse, not better….White supremacy is so clever and evasive that we can hardly name it. It claims not to exist even though black people are dying daily from its poison” (Living Stones in the Household of God).Further Dr. Cone opined, “White society is the Antichrist and the white church is uniformly racist” There can be no recognition of progress or pride in country because every event is viewed through a prism of permanent oppression and racism. Dr. Cone says, “All white men are responsible for white oppression”  

Michelle Obama’s statement about pride in country is fully consistent with the outlook of Black Liberation Theology. Lee Cary in American Thinker believes that the very general follow up to the comment by Mrs. Obama will remain general, or absent. To explain further or in detail will simply expose more of Black Liberation Theology with negative effects on the campaign.

Many Black ministers have rallied to the defense of Reverend Wright, leading to the question of how deep this anger goes and how pervasive is it? Each one fell back on past injustice as a reason for contemporary rage. None seemed prepared to acknowledge any fundamental progress and each had a well-constructed rationale for that point of view. Good debaters all but, I fear, the audience is not looking for a good debate. They are looking for some manner of recognition and it is not forthcoming. It will not be forthcoming in the context of this theology. One hopes that what we saw Tuesday was Senator Obama’s true self, but this is hard to know to a certainty.     

The Senator specifically identifies that his condemnations may not be enough for some, that is, unfortunately, true. This statement is unfortunately true, not based on endemic racism, or what conservative talk radio has to say. It is true because all of the questions have not been answered to a logical conclusion. Condemnation of Reverend Wright’s comments are appropriate and predictable. However, can a man that has been a long term member of a church that is a center piece of Black Liberation Theology lead us to a new racial context?  I fear that justifying racist rage while, at the same time, condemning it is just not a strong enough position in this situation.

I find it fairly easy to agree with much of what  Mr. Obama had to say today about why things are the way they are and the need for continued change. Easy to admire how he went about saying it, it was brilliant. The problem is that what he says is diametrically opposed to the theology of his church. It is opposed to the ideas of the minister who informs the context of his faith and by extension his attitudes. That conundrum remains an unanswered question.

The president is right, we’re right, many around the world are right. Democracy is as Winston Churchill said “the worst of all possible systems, except for all of the others.” Democratic systems most closely reflect our inherent desire for self-determination, freedom, application of initiative, and opportunity. Democracy is clearly the winner in the long war of ideas over the last three centuries. 

Nevertheless, questions remain, can or should democracy and the desire for it, function as the basis for an effective for foreign policy? The answer is yes and no. 

As a philosophical question, we can and should promote democratic values at every opportunity. We can identify and support the movements that seek democratic transformation. We should be prepared for sacrifice in the interest of offering to others that which we most value for ourselves, freedom.  Recent history supports the premise that democracy tends to engender peaceful societies and economic progress. Wars between democratic countries are rare. History also illustrates that where democratic institutions are not present totalitarian systems of all types evolve and entrench themselves.

The “no” part of the answer is in evidence where the mistake of equating elections with democracy occurs. Democracy, in a true form, depends on institutions that protect the ideals of the philosophy: transparency, checks and balances and the ability for the electorate, by way of institutions and representatives, to audit and constrain the application of power. 

As a business executive, I would draw the line with my managers between what was possible for them to install versus what must be instilled. Install was about reasonable controls, systems and verification mechanisms. Instill was about leadership, human quality, values, example and commitment. What was installed had to be an extension of what could be instilled.

In the Middle East, we have attempted to “install” democracy in Iraq. Worthy effort but absent leadership that can instill democratic values in the population the attempt is, in all likelihood, chimera.  Democratic movements must be prepared for sacrifice and compromise in the pursuit of the prize of democratic institutions and freedoms. We cannot create the demand for democracy and we cannot define the appropriate form for it. We cannot install it but we can, by example, instill the desire for it as we and others have in so many countries now enjoying the benefits of democratic institutions and the rejection of totalitarianism.

It’s a question of being ready!   

In Iran, there are “democratic” elections. However, reformers who support a more representative form of democracy were cowered in the last election and they will be in this one. There was much analysis in advance of the last election creating expectations that “reformers” were making progress in the Iranian body politic. It did not happen, and it will not happen this time.  The vast majority of “reformer” media has been shut down and the movement is under constant pressure from the central government, despite a restive population. 

The reality is The Iranian Revolutionary Guards have moved from points of civic, military and religious control in Iran to Political control points. The expected presence of Revolutionary Guards candidates in the Parliament will, in all likelihood, be more significant than ever before and will further strangle any “real” role for the Parliament. Democratic “institutions” will be utilized to enhance Theocratic control of Iran.

They’re not ready!

In Egypt, one of the most significant priorities of President Mubarak is securing the Presidency for his son. Democratic institutions are essentially a sham that reel back and forth between the influence of Islamists, the repression of Islamists, a pseudo Judiciary and, to be kind, inconsistent application of security forces . There is no clear movement intent on transparent democratic institutions.

They’re not ready!

In Palestine elections have been held with Hamas the winner. Victory was followed by a military take over of the Gaza Strip and essential separation from their rival, Fatah. Palestinians are fighting each other for political primacy. The only significant economic dynamic is Palestine’s role as the most significant welfare state in history. Despite the presence of elections, Palestine is no one’s idea of transparent democracy.

They’re not ready!

The Lebanese have, at least, proven their ability to take to the streets to apply political pressure, resulting in the “disengagement” of Syria. While Syria never really “disengaged” that’s not the point, the effort is the point. Hopefully, the Lebanese will also reject the extremism of Hezbollah. 

They’re almost ready!

The monarchies in Jordan, the Gulf States, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia are not going anywhere soon. Go they will, but likely not soon. 

They’re not ready!

In Iraq, there is hope. We pressed the elections and whatever the opinion of the results the Iraqi people were committed and brave despite questions of motivation and sectarian allegiance. In the aftermath of those elections, there were, clearly, failings of political leadership but a path to progress has also emerged.   

It was widely reported, despite the election turnout, that the population was “waiting”, waiting to see who was likely to “win”, before proactively supporting a movement toward democracy. Only when they were sure that the U.S. was not leaving and that and democratic Iraqi forces could defeat the Jihadists did progress accelerate. They were not ready for the full scope of responsibility that democracy demands, but they were ready for the conditions that could support it.    

The Iraqi’s seen to be getting ready to get ready. At a February meeting in Copenhagen a wide cross section of the Iraqi body politic, ethnic, religious and political, met to seek agreements and adopt positions that could lead to true democratic institutions in Iraq, the Copenhagen Accord. On what did they agree? No identification of “minorities” only Iraqis, definition of policies for the entire society, elimination of family violence under Sharia, that Sharia may guide policy but that public policy cannot be strictly defined by it, condemnation of extremism, application of the Rule of Law, a Constitutional state, condemnation of corruption.

This accord is important, but it does not represent the end of what the Iraqis must accomplish and they appear to know that. It does not represent the end of ethnic and religious pressures on the process. It does: however, represent a sea change in political thinking in the Middle East.   

Maybe, just maybe, it’s the end of the beginning and the foundation of the leadership values that will lead to political reconciliation, transparency and the grass roots pressure that is critical to that process. The attendees have proven that reasonable, respectful debate in Iraq is possible.

If Iraqis are ready, if these accords form the basis for new permanent democratic institutions The Middle East will never be the same. A transformative, politically stable, reasonably secure (by Middle East standards) Iraq will be a magnet for political support, economic investment and high skill repatriation. Iraq will set the example that the Middle Eastern totalitarians have feared and worked against all along. 

Iraq could be the pivot point on which the Middle East finally turns. There is nothing the U.S. or anyone else could say that would be a more powerful message in the Middle East than a successful, democratic Iraq. When the conflict commenced there was much analysis of Iraqi potential. The most secular, well educated population in the Middle East. Well, they still are those things. It can be effectively demonstrated that democracy unleashes economic potential. This story in Iraq could be sensational.

Iraqis may be ready!

There is an understanding amongst those who rehabilitate drug and alcohol abusers that the point at which the worst cases realize they actually do need help is when they have sunk to the point where they are looking into the abyss. Iraq seems to have looked into the abyss and decided on a better path.

Iraqis may be ready!

Can Iraq develop a secular society that finds a way to “manage” the religious pressures of Islam? A representative political system that honors the Islamic identity, rejects it’s radical elements and refuses to use Islam as a justification for failure?    

No one knows for sure: however, increasing security, structural agreements related to economics, economic growth, long term security agreements and engaging in regional politics indicate a growing Iraqi confidence.

If the results of the Copenhagen Accords come to represent a movement that the Iraqi people see as a reasonable basis for the nation it just could be, that……….

They’re ready!  

I visit, on occasion, opinion sites that take the position that terrorism threats are overblown. As an amateur student of the subject I never fail to be amazed by the opinion that terror reporting has some manner of secret agenda attached to it and is promoted for political purposes such as passing surveillance laws and fear mongering. The opinion prevails that terrorism is little more than criminal gangs and of no serious threat to us. I find it remarkable but there it is. 

However, contrary opinions are important, they should motivate a renewed focus on your point of view. Contrary opinions should force a reconsideration of objectivity and interpretation. So, toward that end, this weeks (partial) terrorism review, judge for yourself.    

Ø      New documents shown at a dramatic closed-door briefing to diplomats in Vienna by the IAEA Chief Inspector Olli Heinonen provided new evidence that Iran continues to work on developing a nuclear warhead for its long-range ballistic missiles, despite a recent report to the contrary from the U.S. intelligence community.   The board room fell silent when Heinonen showed the Iranian produced PowerPoint presentation. Participants sat transfixed by the stunning new evidence of Iran’s secret nuclear weapons work, diplomats present during the briefing told Newsmax. (Ken Timmerman Article Dated March 6, 2008)

Ø      A Palestinian gunman murdered 8 and wounded 11 others in an attack on a library at a major rabbinical seminary in Jerusalem. The murders were followed by celebrations in Palestinian territories where dancing, distribution of candy and prominent displays of Hamas flags were in evidence.

Ø      MI5 identified four British police officers said to be spying for Al Qaeda and to have been acting as moles for Islamic extremist groups in Britain and abroad.

Ø      The Tehran Times reported that senior Iranian officials have advised the EU that Hizbullah has long-range missiles that can reach Israel’s Dimona nuclear center.

Ø      A Turkish news agency reported that an alleged plot to bomb US companies in the country was disrupted.  Authorities seized a remote-controlled toy car prepared to be used in a bombing. Police also seized a list of US companies that the DHKP-C group was targeting, including Coca Cola, Pepsi and Citibank.

Ø      Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad declared that Iran would discontinue all negotiations related to it’s nuclear program.

Ø      Saudi officials announced that they uncovered a terror cell intent on attacking oil installations.

Ø      Mohammed Hamid AKA Osama Bin London was jailed in London following convictions for terrorist related activities. He was advised by the Judge in the trial that he could be held longer than his 7 year sentence if he is judged to be an ongoing national security risk. Hamid has been a prominent figure in the British Islamist movement.

Ø      A top Hamas official has confirmed reports that members of the militant Palestinian political organization have received military training in Iran. The unidentified Izzedine al-Qassam Brigades official said Hamas fighters have been trained in Tehran by members of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard for more than two years, The Times of London reported.

Ø      Islamist insurgents killed five government soldiers while seizing a strategic town in central Somalia. 

Ø      Eight would-be suicide bombers left eastern Algeria and are reportedly heading to the Gaza Strip to commit suicide attacks against Israeli soldiers.

Ø      President George W Bush ordered an investigation to determine whether Venezuela should be placed on a list of countries that support terrorism. Recent disclosures indicate connections between Colombian based FARC and Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez have been significant and ongoing.

Ø      Al-Qaeda claimed responsibility for the kidnapping of two Austrian tourists in Tunisia.

Ø      24 people have been killed and dozens others injured after at least two bombs exploded in the eastern Pakistani city of Lahore on Tuesday. The blasts, believed to have been carried out by suicide bombers, have been connected to al Qaeda operatives in the area.

Ø      House Democrats on Tuesday maintained their refusal to shield from civil lawsuits telecommunications companies that helped the government eavesdrop on their customers without a secret court's permission.

Ø      A Los Angeles court jailed an American of Iranian origin for three years and five months for trying to buy up to 100,000 submachine guns and sell them to Iran. Seyed Mostafa Maghloubi, 50, was arrested in early 2007 by police acting on a tip and pleaded guilty to the charges.

Ø      A Spanish official reported that Al-Qaeda currently maintains a "considerable" operative capacity, with its main base in the frontier area between Pakistan and Afghanistan.

Ø      Law enforcement officials alerted Wall Street firms Wednesday March 12 of a new, non-specific terror threat centering on lower Manhattan.

Ø      Federal prosecutors said two New York residents have been indicted on charges of trying to smuggle $500,000 from the U.S. to Jordan. Both are naturalized U.S. citizens from Jordan residing in Yonkers, New York.

Ø      The United States is fighting a cyberwar and is not prepared to deal with it, top Defense Department and intelligence officials acknowledged this week. A number of these attacks have been reported to “appear" to be coming from China.

Ø      Hamas leader Ismail Haniya reported that Hamas has smuggled Iranian-made Grad rockets into the Gaza Strip via the Mediterranean Sea.

Ø      On Wednesday 37 Qassam rockets were fired from the Gaza Strip into Israel. Just on Wednesday. On Thursday through Saturday the count was down to 30. This after the Wednesday firings broke an Egyptian brokered moratorium on rocket attacks on Israel.

Ø      In Manila security was stepped up following the recent arrest of two men carrying explosives while purportedly on their way to an airport in Mindanao.

Ø      An Al Qaeda cell in Baghdad executed a double bombing in a market. The first detonation drew Iraqi’s to assist the wounded followed by a suicide bomber amongst those who went to assist the wounded, 68 dead over 200 injured.

Ø      A roadside bomb killed at least 16 people traveling on a bus in southern Iraq. At least 22 people were also wounded in the attack.

Ø      Heavily armed Islamist gunmen have raided Baladwayne a town north of the Somali capital of Mogadishu, killing five government soldiers.

These reports cover 6 continents, hundreds of casualties, multiple affiliated organizations and, in most cases, state sponsorship. 

Looks dangerous to me!

Sources:

The controversy over Senator Obama’s pastor, Reverend Wright, created a variety of concerns and led to an equal number of questions; however, are they the right questions?

There should be no surprise or shock at Reverend Wright’s comments. Even a cursory view of the opinions and interpretations of the hard left would eliminate any sense of surprise over his reactions to 9/11 or his harsh evaluation of his own country. So be it, he enjoys the right to his opinions and the right to express them, here in the good old US of KKK A.    

There should be no surprise that Senator Obama distanced himself from Reverend Wright’s comments, Senator Obama backing away from the comments was expected and predictable. You don’t trade in your campaign over your pastor’s sermons.

However, Michelle Obama’s comments about being proud of her country for the first time in her life could take on a bit of a different tint in light of the opinions of her pastor? Having listened live to Mrs. Obama’s speech that contained the comment in question, it was not difficult, in the moment, to write off her comment as maybe trying a little too hard to make a point. Now, one must wonder if this point of view was actually educated by a 17-year relationship with Reverend Wright? It seems fair to assume that Reverend Wright did not reach an epiphany of opinion in the week after 9/11, and it’s clear that he’s not so very proud of his country either.

The central themes of Senator Obama’s campaign have been Judgment and Unity around a new kind of politics. The touchstone for the judgment argument has been his opposition to the war. The pledge of unity based, in large measure, on not engaging in “typically” divisive political behaviors. These themes have been, so far, well executed, Tucker Carlson a noted Libertarian perhaps said it best, “I like him, and I get the feeling from Senator Obama that while we disagree, he doesn’t hate me for it.”. That would be an important change in American politics going all the way back to the antics of the founders.     

Nevertheless, I have this itch related to baseline questions and whether or not there is a larger philosophical context here. The problem with these questions is that they may be unanswerable in the short term. Does Senator Obama truly disagree, on a fundamental level with Reverend Wright, or is this nothing more than an expeditious political position? In light of the extended relationship and the Reverend’s role in Mr. Obama’s life, can we really know what Senator Obama thinks about all of this? Are we seeing a transparent representation of the Senator’s views? To what degree have Senator Obama’s views of race, politics and history been educated by the views of Reverend Wright? Do we get a significantly different President than what we’ve seen as a candidate? 

Whether or not Senator Obama’s representations about Reverend Wright are accepted as true or proven to be no more than political posturing will be a function of a single question and answer. The question came from Major Garrett during an interview: “If you had been sitting in the pew during this type of sermon by Reverend Wright would you have quit the church”? Senator Obama answered “yes”, he would have. That answer could prove to have been a major mistake.   

The politics that Senator Obama justifiably decries will, unfortunately, now descend on him. The dogs will be unleashed to determine whether the Senator made a true representation of what he would have done had he been present at the type of sermon we’ve seen broadcast over and over.  Audio and video tapes by Reverend Wright will be collected and evaluated, efforts to determine when the Obama family was sitting in the pew will be undertaken, donation records pursued and the Senators schedule evaluated for likely attendance dates and, of course matched up with the tapes.

The Senator has enjoyed more support based on brilliant, inspirational rhetoric and personality than any candidate in memory. Avid supporters cannot identify specific accomplishments but to them it’s not about that and that’s OK for now. It’s been about being inspired, it’s been about trust and yes about change. It’s about the point of faith that Senator Obama is the real deal, that what you see is what you get.

Should the bloom go off the flower of inspiration, or the faith shaken, the consequences will be substantial; Disenfranchisement of young voters, cynicism, more polarization in race relations, empowerment of politics as usual. Agree or disagree with Senator Obama, one has to hope that if his candidacy is going to end that it ends at the ballot box.      

Unity and judgment stand in the balance, framed by the Senator’s answer to Major Garrett. If the Senator’s answer is inconsistent with the reality of his relationship with Reverend Wright trouble awaits. The unity theme will disintegrate over the question of how far to the left Senator Obama might really be and the potential that his statements were disingenuous and politically expeditious. The ability to make good judgments and act on them will be critically questioned at level much more basic than taking a political position on the war.

For the politics as usual politician these issues might not be insurmountable, for Mr. Obama they might.

The circular firing squad analogy is much in play for the Democratic campaign.

Bang!……, you’re NOT dead!……., damn, who took the bullets!

The real issue, for Democrats, in this Florida, Michigan controversy, should be the Democratic National Committee. The DNC, clearly, must have assumed that they had their candidate, Mrs. Clinton in advance of the campaign.  No other answer seems to fit the circumstances.   

One would assume that the math would have indicated to the DNC that in the event that “inevitability” failed, a clean nomination without the delegate counts from Florida and Michigan could be a problem. It smells as if the DNC, rhetoric aside, had to have made an assumption as to the eventual winner.

It is also evident that Mrs. Clinton made the same assumption; remember that the early campaign was all about inevitability.  

Enter the opportunity to lay the blame on the Republican Florida Legislature that approved the date change. Had the DNC been truly concerned about the date change they would have brought legal action to challenge the legislature’s decision, or at least a PR campaign. I heard somewhere that legal actions to challenge elections are not all that unusual in Florida. No such litigation was forthcoming. So far, everyone is going along with the program, no campaigns, no lawsuits, no delegates and assumptions of an “inevitable” winner seemingly well in hand. 

Hell, we don’t need those miscreant delegates, screw em! Then, Mr. Obama goes and screws it all up by making it an actual contest. Someone at the DNC does the math. Oops! Houston we have a problem, no one can win!

First up on the search for the answer is the DNC in the person of Mr. Dean. Mr. Dean hopes that the candidates will make it right by coming to an “accommodation, a deal, an understanding”.  No joy on that approach, although Mrs. Clinton does eventually step up to the plate with the proposal that she, the 2^nd place candidate, might agree to put Mr. Obama, the 1^st place candidate, into the VP position on the ticket. Interesting proposal met with the predictable response, HELL NO! 

Ahhh and the fairness issues. If Mr. Obama doesn’t have time to campaign, it’s not fair, If Hillary can’t have her “hard won” delegates that she did not actually campaign for it’s not fair. If voters are disenfranchised it’s not fair. This is carnage, nothing but victims for as far as the eye can see and still no solution in sight.  

Enter the Senate and Congressional representatives insisting on a solution but not actually proposing one. Maybe a “do over”, Mr. Dean says no, too expensive. Representatives struggle to find an answer, still no answer! They agree that the taxpayers should not have to pay for a second election. They intimate that the DNC should begin a special fund raising effort to pay for the “do over”, no occluded front of incoming funds yet reported by the dollar Doppler.

The calls go out for Mr. Gore to don his cape and fly to the rescue. The calls go out for Mr. Gore as a “person of substance” in the party; surely, he can find an answer.  Just a few issues here; Issue one, Mr. Gore lost by running horrible champagne himself! Issue two, exactly what might motivate Mr. Gore to get into this particular catfight and what does he gain by doing so? Issue three, Why would the Clintons agree to, of all people, Al Gore as the Democratic Party court of last resort, no love lost between the Gore’s and the Clinton’s, just in case you forgot.

The campaigns begin to hint at lawsuits, all right! Now we’re talking!

Now, the idea of a “write in” primary. Not too expensive, voters get their voice and no possible opportunity for vote fraud!!! Detroit, Miami, Palm Beach, nah, no possibility for fraud here. Hanging chads replaced by handwriting experts?  All this based on a DNC assumption of a winner in advance of an actual campaign.

It all looked so simple just a few months ago. Amazing how messy this democracy stuff gets. Bang!……, you’re NOT dead!

PS: These are not the folks I am looking forward to making decisions on War and Peace, just saying!

The absence in question specific to organizations representing American Muslims who consistently represent themselves as anti-terrorism and moderate. The history of these organizations is off point for this particular missive, but their lack of response to the carnage in Jerusalem is revealing. A visit to the web sites of four high profile Muslim American organizations reveals a significant absence and remarkable contradictions. 

The Counsel on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), as of this afternoon, makes no mention of the attack in Jerusalem. They do publish press releases related to: Law suits over citizenship delays, letters to Senators regarding the situation in Gaza, bias suits claiming religious and ethnic harassment of Muslims, accusations of civil rights violations over the wearing of the Hijab and calls for police investigations of “hate” crimes related to the presence of graffiti in Alberta Canada. There is also a condemnation of a specific case of anti-Jewish violence in Philadelphia.

However, no CAIR calls for an end to violence against Israeli Jews. There are no calls for an end to anti-Christian ethnic cleansing and persecution of the Copts in Egypt or any of the other garden variety affronts to humanity so common in the Middle East .

There was no renunciation of the “party” Hamas sponsored in Gaza to “celebrate” the murder of Jewish students as they studied in the library at the Mercaz Harav rabbinical seminary in Jerusalem. Not a word, perhaps CAIR was exhausted by the graffiti effort in Alberta.

The Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA) also has nothing to say about the attack. They did find time to decry the situation in Gaza on the day of the attack, but no comment on the terrorism in Jerusalem.

The Islamic Society of North America, (ISNA), in their news briefs this day include a much publicized article about Muslim Scholars decrying terrorism. Of course, if one reads the original translations the only decrying going on is against terrorism directed at Muslims, others are not considered as they are Infidels.

They also take the time to castigate three converts from Islam to Christianity as the “three stooges of the Christian Right”. They hate the Danish Cartoons but publish a strangely worded statement about how beloved Muslims are in the Netherlands. This as the Netherlands braces for potential violence in the event that a film critical of Islam is actually released there. Strange love indeed.

Not a peep about Jerusalem. Not a peep about Hamas.

In fairness, The Muslim American Society (MAS) did have something to say by way of Ibrahim Abdil-Mu’id Ramey, MAS Freedom Civil & Human Rights Director; “Murder, by whomever, is simply a crime against humanity and against the Almighty. And the killing of Jewish students in Jerusalem was exactly that kind of abomination.” 

Good for MAS! Now if we could just get them to abandon their goal of Shari’a in America, disconnect from the Muslim Brotherhood, and renounce past and present associations with terrorist financing we could accept their statement absent the lingering doubt that it is something other than politically expeditious. 

MAS’s mission statement is benign, calling for positive representation of Islam and promoting understanding with non Muslims. MAS sites are, however, very much an exercise in political Islam, American style. MAS’s sites have called for replacing the Constitution with the Koran. These sites call for Muslims to conduct themselves in a manner consistent with the teachings of Hassan Al-Banna. Al-Banna is the intellectual guide for modern Islamic Jihadism and a beloved figure by radical Islamists the world over.  

Three out of four “mainstream” Islamic Groups are silent on the Jerusalem atrocity and one is of questionable motivation. 

In this case, and many others, there is more to be learned from the absence of a thing than there is from its presence. Attention paid to absence and inconsistency is a key to seeing through public posture, talking point repetition and tactics to true motivation.

This is a bit circular so hang in there.

John McCain should at the proper time, post convention, announce that he will serve one term as president. This announcement, assuming he wins, frees him to be himself in office. A John McCain freed of re-election pressures will likely be more effective in pursuit of an effective agenda.

This puts the Vice Presidential selection in exceptionally high profile and creates the potential for a historic confluence of circumstances. 

I suggest that the Vice Presidential candidate be J.C. Watts of Oklahoma; good looking, nice family, great speaker, author, conservative, football star, successful businessman, CNN contributor, eight years in the House of Representatives and Chairman of the House Republican Conference the 4^th highest leadership position within the Congressional Republican structure. He is, as well, an African American.

That scenario creates a number of interesting dynamics. Assuming Mr. Obama beats Mrs. Clinton the race issue will be mitigated by the presence of Mr. Watts on the ticket. There is no question that Mr. Watts is a superior individual and his presence on the ticket will say something about the Republican Party which has never been said before.

More interesting still, assuming the one term scenario, is that the probability of the first African American president four years down the road emerges as a strong likelihood.  It could be that the first African American president will be a conservative Republican. The irony is almost too much to bear.

Michael Steele of Maryland could also fit this scenario although Mr. Watt’s breath of experience is more significant.

The last thing the Republicans need, this year, is to beg for the traditional criticism of being an old, rich, white guy party. It should not be that party, and the need for a dramatic gesture of inclusiveness should be self evident.  

There could be no more dramatic point of,… yes wait for it……..”Change” than for the Republicans to set the stage for a historic sea change in American politics by positioning J.C. Watts as the Presidential successor to John McCain.

The convenient charge of “fear mongering” is beginning to take center stage. Rest assured that the charge will be a convenient and consistent theme in this year’s campaign.

Discussions of national security concerns, threat assessments and terrorism are frequently met with the response that it’s nothing more than “fear mongering”. The retort of “fear mongering” is not typically associated with countervailing evidence or analysis; just the charge seems to suffice. 

Perhaps the real message should be, “Be Afraid, Be Very Afraid!” Why? A small sampling follows. 

In the past 15 months there have been, according to The Terrorism Knowledge Base, 3,490 terrorist attacks representing 27,690 deaths and casualties. The vast majority of incidents where the perpetrator group is known, maintain an Islamic connection.

Canada’s Supreme Court has struck down a law allowing for ongoing detention of terror suspects based on secret evidence.   

In Britain over 2,000 potential terror suspects and up to 200 active terror networks are under investigation.

Russia has returned to strong man rule and has made a renewed commitment to its military and regional hegemony.

China is engaged in the most significant military buildup the world has seen since the end of the cold war.

Indian and Russian officials have stopped attempts to smuggle uranium twice this year, in January and February of 2008.

Venezuela and Ecuador have moved troops to the Columbian border on the heels of a Columbian attack on a FARC base in Ecuador. Columbia is a U.S. ally, Venezuela and Ecuador are decidedly not.

Jihadist influence grows in Africa, especially in the Horn of Africa just across the way from Iran at the Straights of Hormuz.

The CIA reports a growing number of cyber attacks on Utility systems outside of the U.S. with at least one causing a major outage. The report identifies the suspicion of an “inside job”. The National Threat Assessment addresses the potential of cyber attacks as a growing problem and project more aggressive attacks in the coming year.

The National Threat Assessment states “Al Qaeda is improving the last key aspect of its ability to attack the United States: the identification, training and positioning for an attack in the Homeland”. The report further identifies the growing threat of “homegrown” terrorism inspired by the growing number of Islamic websites in English.

Reports from ABC news identify a significant number of foreign students without the proper visas enrolled in flight schools throughout the U.S. Up to 8,000 have received pilot training since 9/11. TSA regional supervisors warn of a repeat of pre 9/11 conditions.

Admiral James Stavridis head of the U.S. Southern Command addressing the threats from the southern boarder said in January of 2008 "I fear greatly that the connectivity between narco-terrorism and Islamic radical terrorism could be disastrous in this region,”

The Investigations Subcommittee of the House Committee on Homeland Security charges that from September 11, 2001, to the present, hundreds of illegal aliens from countries “such as Iran, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Pakistan,…and Afghanistan” were apprehended crossing into the United States over the southern boarder.

According to the congressional report, “Venezuela is providing support, including identity documents that could prove useful to radical Islamic groups…The Venezuelan government has issued thousands of cédulas, the equivalent of Social Security cards, to people from places such as Cuba, Colombia, and Middle Eastern nations that host foreign terrorist organizations.” These documents can be used to obtain Venezuelan passports and American visas, which in turn allow the holder to elude immigration checks and enter the United States.

FBI Director Mueller, Jr. has testified that a Hezbollah cell had been “dismantled” after discovering that the terror organization was smuggling operatives across the U.S. - Mexico border to carry out terror attacks inside the United States.  Individuals from countries with known al Qaeda connections have changed their Islamic surnames and adopted false Hispanic identities in order to escape detection and blend into American society.

Radical Islamic groups that support Hamas, Hezbollah and Islamiya Al Gamat are all active in Latin America.

While there has been very limited reporting of the Latin and South American connection to terrorism in the U.S. media the French media has the story. Agence France Presse took notice that al Qaeda had established a "clandestine travel service," south of the border, to help move operatives into the United States.

The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) and the Muslim Brotherhood sponsored Muslim American Society (MAS), despite regular and ongoing exposure of anti-American activities and successful prosecutions of leaders and associates continue to enjoy access to Federal government departments and a free pass by mainstream media apologists. After all, we cannot be scaring folks.

In the U.S., the early dynamics of Muslim demands for “accommodation” mirror the early stages of these demands in Europe 30 years ago. The resultant problems that have occurred for Europe are well documented and significant.

Iran has executed diplomatic agreements with Venezuela, Nicaragua and hopes to do so with Ecuador.

Iran’s intent to develop nuclear weapons is clear as evidenced by new U.N. sanctions and ever aggressive rhetoric by its President. The results of nuclear development in Iran will further destabilize the entire region and may lead to a Middle East Nuclear arms race. 

Were the threats against Israel to be executed by a nuclear Iran at least three Middle Eastern countries could expect to be the target of an Israeli nuclear counterattack. Assuming considerable damage to Israel as a result of an Iranian attack, we should expect Syria, Southern Lebanon and Egypt to be a part of the nuclear retaliation. A failure to do so on the part of Israel would leave them open to a conventional attack on multiple fronts. Be Afraid, Be Very Afraid!!

U.S. officials are quoted as being advised by European counterparts that they are continually uncovering new domestic terror cells.

Pakistan represents, perhaps, the most significant threat to U.S. security as a haven for Islamist radical activity, philosophical support, Taliban safe havens and for transshipment of weapons and funding.

Intelligence sources report that Cuba maintains WMD and has delivery capability.

Immigrant violence by Muslims continues to plague Europe.

And in an analysis of the underlying causality in the U.K. and by extension broader continental Europe The Royal United Services Institute, warns of: “a loss in the United Kingdom of confidence in our own identity, values, constitution and institutions” and paints a disturbing picture of “a fragmenting, post-Christian society, increasingly divided about interpretations of its history, about its national aims, its values and its political identity.” The report continues: “The deep guarantee of real strength is our knowledge of who we are. Our loss of cultural self-confidence weakens our ability to develop new means to provide for our security in the face of new risks. Our uncertainty incubates the embryonic threats these risks represent. We look like a soft touch. We are indeed a soft touch, from within and without.”  

The interpretation here is clear, mindless multiculturalism, lack of immigration controls, philosophical relativism, the absence of an insistence on immigrant assimilation, political correctness, limitations on free speech and what amounts to cultural appeasement will, unfortunately, send our British brothers down a path to ever growing demands by minorities for accommodation, and eventual abandonment of British values and traditions. This same analysis could be applied to almost any Western European nation. The same analysis could be applied to us.

Be Afraid, Be Very Afraid. Calling it fear mongering does not change the facts.