Can Jihadi Islam Take Root In US, Like Britain?

Separatism, fundamentalist belief can foster intolerance. Virtually all organizations that become terroristic meet these criteria. In a social system where new ideas are rejected because they are new, leaders have undue influence on the young and naive. Salafi Islam as practiced in DC, could foster further trouble, not because it is advocating terror, but because it creates an insular society with rigid beliefs allowing leaders to lead astray. Fundamentalism of any faith is potentially dangerous, particularly in a pluralistic society where diversity and new ideas drive the community to innovation and creativity. The more isolated, the less they participate in the benefits, the more likely resentment and disparity rules, the more threat they could become. Such is what happened in Britain and France.
WaPo

Dar-us-Salaam [is] one of the Washington [DC] area's most conservative Muslim congregations. Many of its members believe that, in order to be true to their faith, they should live apart from secular society as much as possible. The congregation's Web site describes how it hopes one day to become a self-contained Islamic community.


The kind of Islam practiced at Dar-us-Salaam, known as Salafism, once had a significant foothold among area Muslims, in large part because of an aggressive missionary effort by the government of Saudi Arabia. Salafism and its strict Saudi version, known as Wahhabism, struck a chord with many Muslim immigrants who took a dim view of the United States' sexually saturated pop culture and who were ambivalent about participating in a secular political system. It was also attractive to young Muslims searching for a more "authentic" Islam than what their Westernized immigrant parents offered.


But the discovery that 15 of the 19 Sept. 11, 2001, hijackers were Saudi and that their violent al-Qaeda ideology was rooted in Wahhabism had a particularly deep impact on Salafis, whose theology and practices were suddenly suspect. The attacks "shook the foundations of anyone affiliated with Wahhabism or Salafism," said Chris Khalil Moore, 31, of Annandale, a convert who became immersed in Wahhabism while studying in Saudi Arabia before abandoning that approach to Islam. "Because they were fingered, pointed at, as being the ideology that helped foster the mentality of those hijackers," he said, "I think a lot of people got scared." One of the area's most prominent Salafi preachers, Ali al-Timimi, is in prison, convicted on charges that he incited young Muslims to wage war against the United States. Dar al-Arqam Islamic Center in Falls Church, where he preached, is now closed. The Saudi government's proselytizing campaign has also been rolled up. Its preachers were sent home, and a Saudi-run institute in Fairfax that taught a strict Salafi outlook no longer has any students.


Moderate Muslims have become more vocal in warning about the dangers of separatism and fundamentalism while policing rhetoric that could be construed as radical or extremist. In particular, they increasingly take exception to the sharp divide between Muslims and non-Muslims drawn by some Salafis, saying it can encourage intolerance and violence.


[...]Khan believes that Islamic schools are imperative because Muslim children "now are not equipped to deal with mainstream America without compromising their Islamic values." Usually, he says, "a big mixture happens between mainstream America and mainstream Islam, and . . . in most cases . . . Islam loses." He stresses how Muslims are different from non-Muslims, whom he calls "unbelievers." Citing the mistreatment of Muslims, he says, "we must come together so we can ward off all these attacks." Khan adds that by an Islamic community, he means "we begin to buy houses and begin to live right around the [mosque] so we meet each other" during the five daily prayer sessions.


In the hostile environment cited by Khan, Dar-us-Salaam offers a comforting alternative. The congregation has a "real community feel, so a lot of young people are attracted," said Irfaan Nooruddin, 25, of Silver Spring, a financial analyst who is not a member but sometimes prays there. "I don't agree with their Salafi [outlook] at all. But I do respect the fact that they're people who are attempting to understand the religion." Mostafiz Chowdhury said he chose Al-Huda, the congregation's school, because he wants to provide his children with an "Islamic upbringing" and protect them from public-school ills such as drugs and "having free sex."


Ultimately, if American Muslims continue to feel embattled, Salafism itself could become more attractive. When moderate Muslim groups that promote integration feel they are under scrutiny or discredited by the government, said Najam Haider, an adjunct professor of Islamic studies at Georgetown University, "Muslims turn societally inward, and that turning inward gives Salafism more influence because Salafis aren't saying we need to integrate."


What they offer, Haider added, is an alternative: "Muslim identity that is separate from America, grounded in Islamic history, a very demarcated community of Muslims. Those are very separate from American values in a lot of ways." MORE

Remember on This Labor Day

On this Labor Day it's important to remember, the working man has an enemy in the Republican Party. Remember that your property taxes (if you are lucky enough to have some) are going up because of tax cuts to the wealthy. Your wage has been stagnant for the past few years, despite increasing inflation and record profits. Your Social Security fund has been raided by tax cuts for the wealthy. Your pension fund is likely underfunded so may not be around when you retire. Your future health care under Medicare is very much in jeopardy, because of tax cuts for the wealthy. The Republican party has been at war with the working people of this country for over one hundred years. Everything accomplished by the "New Deal" of FDR has been for the most part, rolled back and returned in the form of tax cuts for the wealthy. Most of the billions spent on the war has gone into the pockets of the corporate friends of the Bush family. And the national debt is destined to paid for by your children's and grandchildren's taxes. Worse yet, they will not have Social Security or elder healthcare.
SFGate.com

U.S. Education Secretary Rod Paige labeled one "a terrorist organization." Former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas, called them "a clear and present danger to the security of the United States." And U.S. Rep. Charles Norwood, R-Ga., claimed they employ "tyranny that Americans are fighting and dying to defeat in Iraq and Afghanistan" and are thus "enemies of freedom and democracy," who show "why we still need the Second Amendment" to defend ourselves with firearms.


Who are these supposed threats to America? No, not Osama bin Laden followers, but labor unions made up of millions of workers -- janitors, teachers, firefighters, police officers, you name it.


Bashing organized labor is a Republican pathology, to the point where unions are referenced with terms reserved for military targets. In his 1996 article, headlined "GOP Readies for War With Big Labor," conservative columnist Robert Novak cheered the creation of a "GOP committee task force on the labor movement" that would pursue a "major assault" on unions. As one Republican lawmaker told Novak, GOP leaders champion an "anti-union attitude that appeals to the mentality of hillbillies at revival meetings."

Iran: The New Middle East Regional Super Power

Iran is confident and emboldened by it's new self-concept. Clearly, it believes it's time has come and the US is in decline in it's influence in the Middle East. Clearly, they are not worried about the possibility of war. Hardliners know that for every civilian killed by an Israeli and/or US bombing campaign there will be 10 Iranians willing to die in the fight for Iran.
WaPo

Behind President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's defiant rhetoric lies a conviction that is widely shared here: Iran is a rising power in the Middle East while the United States is in decline -- and now is the moment for Iran to emerge as a regional superpower.


You hear versions of this cocky nationalism in almost every conversation. And when you look around this surprisingly modern metropolis of 12 million people, it's easy to think that Iran's time may indeed have come. The problem is that its national ambitions are wrapped today in the fanatical language of Ahmadinejad, who emerged from among the hardest of this country's hard-core Islamic revolutionaries. He and his followers seem eager for the confrontation that lies ahead.


The situation in Iraq bolsters Iranian confidence in its test of wills against America. As the Iranians view it, the United States has stumbled into a pit from which it cannot easily escape. There is a disagreement here between pragmatists who see in America's troubles an opportunity to open a mutually beneficial dialogue with the Great Satan and hard-liners who would rather let America suffer.


[...]Iran officially embraced this idea of dialogue on Iraq early this year, in a statement from Ali Larijani, Iran's national security adviser. But the Bush administration pulled back, worried that talks with Tehran about Iraq would obstruct the administration's larger goal of containing the Iranian nuclear program. The failure of the initiative undercut the advocates of dialogue and emboldened the hard-liners.


Ahmadinejad dismisses the idea of talks with the United States about Iraq. When I asked the Iranian president at a news conference here Tuesday whether he thought the two countries should discuss ways to stabilize Baghdad, he responded with invective. "The people of the [Iraqi] nation hate you now. You should go out and leave them," he said. Running through all of his statements was the same supremely self-confident theme: Iran's moment has come, and America's has gone.

Israel Use of Cluster Bombs Appalling

Lebanon will be cleaning up from this war with Israel for decades. One of the worst consequences of the war is the indiscriminate use of cluster bombs by Israel in the last 72 hours of the war, after the cease fire was negotiated. Clearly, Israel desperately seeking to retrieve a lost struggle, they started using cluster artillery shells, hardly precisely placed smart bombs, on civilian targets. Admonishing Hizbullah for using "civilian shields" and believing such practices justified killing the civilians. Since when does two wrongs make a right?
WaPo

Clearing unexploded cluster bombs used by Israel in Lebanon during the month-long war, many of them U.S.-manufactured, could take 10 years, a British-based demining group said on Friday. "We will be clearing unexploded cluster munitions from the rubble of the villages of southern Lebanon for another decade," said Simon Conway, director of Land mine Action. "That is the grim reality," he told reporters in Geneva.


Before the recent war between Israel and Hizbollah guerrillas in the south, demining teams were still clearing unexploded cluster munitions from Israel's 1978 and 1982 incursions into Lebanon, according to the advocacy group which is campaigning for an international ban on their use. Such weapons continue to kill and maim civilians, especially children, for years after a conflict, it said. The United Nations estimates that 100,000 cluster bomblets that failed to explode lie in Lebanon, with most landing during the final 72 hours of the war, which ended in an August 14 ceasefire.


U.N. Emergency Relief Coordinator Jan Egeland has called Israel "completely immoral" for using them in residential areas.

AlterNet calls the use of cluster bombs on civilian targets a "war crime" and notes that TV news in the US provided very little coverage of the cluster bomb use.

Could you imagine the coverage this would get if Hezbollah had done this to Israel? There would be endless coverage, pundits would have a much easier time comparing Hezbollah to Nazi Germany, and the Bush administration would certainly consider this grounds for bombing Iran.

Right Wingnuts Rolling Heads For Political Gain

Right wingnuts have been coming out of the woodwork to condemn the two Fox News journalists for converting to Islam under threat of death and making public statements while captive with guns to their heads. It seems that the extreme right would rather they be martyr'd. At RealClearPolitics, David Warren accused them of "Doing the Enemy's Work".

They were told to convert to Islam under implicit threat (blindfolded and hand-tied, they could not judge what threat), and agreed to make the propaganda broadcasts to guarantee their own safety. That much we can understand, as conventional cowardice. (Understand; not forgive.) But it is obvious from their later statements that they never thought twice; that they could see nothing wrong in serving the enemy, so long as it meant they'd be safe.

Majikthise is appropriately indignant noting that handling by Islamofacists, now the mother (Rightwing Fox fans) won't take them back. She appropriately points out the parallels between how Islamic extremists persecute women after rape.

In some societies, women are severely punished by their own communities if they get raped. Their very survival is considered proof of their debasement. It is assumed that a truly virtuous woman would have fought to the death to preserve her honor, and by extension, the honor of the community. The victim is often blamed for the attack itself. There will even be suspicion that she enjoyed it. When she tries to resume a normal life, she's dismissed as dirty, damaged goods...


[...]If they did an about-face in captivity because of overwhelming duress, it's despicable to deride injured men for political gain. The Stockholm allegation is an insurance policy for the right wing. It's a way to discount whatever the victims might have to say about their experiences, or about the Middle East at large.[...]Attacking these liberated journalists is the moral equivalent of spitting on veterans.

Jules Crittenden at BostonHerald.com notes also that Martyrs are wanted.

It’s a fascinating thing to observe, captivity. I remember seeing prisoners come out with their hands on their heads. The GIs made them lie down on the road. One of them sneered at us. I couldn’t believe someone who had just survived an artillery barrage to surrender in his underwear could have that much attitude. Most of them were silent and nervous. One knelt and kissed his Koran repeatedly. A couple of them were crying. The one with part of his foot blown off was going into shock. The one with a chunk of his ass missing wouldn’t stop screaming. A couple of them, not wounded at all, trembled uncontrollably. I’m guessing none of us know which one of them we’ll be until it happens.

Everyone is a victim in war. No one survives unscathed. The heroes happen to be in the right place at the right time to be witnessed by someone with a voice, often a voice with a propaganda message involved.

Climate Is Changing Much Faster Than Thought

One of America's top scientists, John Holdren, says global warming is much worse than anyone has been thinking. The rate at which the ice is melting on Greenland predicts a catastrophic increase in sea levels, swamping cities world wide.
For those who think the prediction that global warming tripping a new ice age will balance the equation, consider this: while Europe may well see colder weather, Bangladesh will lose most of it's arable land forcing massive starvation. Drought, wild fires and strong hurricanes will predominate. The battle over water in south Asia could trigger the first nuclear war.
BBC NEWS

One of America's top scientists has said that the world has already entered a state of dangerous climate change.


In his first broadcast interview as president of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, John Holdren told the BBC that the climate was changing much faster than predicted. "We are not talking anymore about what climate models say might happen in the future. We are experiencing dangerous human disruption of the global climate and we're going to experience more," Professor Holdren said. He emphasised the seriousness of the melting Greenland ice cap, saying that without drastic action the world would experience more heatwaves, wild fires and floods.


He added that if the current pace of change continued, a catastrophic sea level rise of 4m (13ft) this century was within the realm of possibility; much higher than previous forecasts. To put this in perspective, Professor Holdren pointed out that the melting of the Greenland ice cap, alone, could increase world-wide sea levels by 7m (23ft), swamping many cities. MORE

Afghanistan Continues To Destabilize

With the US bogged down in that hopeless cause that is Iraq, NATO leading the stabilization in Afghanistan, the Taliban is on the offensive, attempting to intimidate the NATO forces that have seen little real head to head fighting. Afghanistan remains the world's source of heroin while the government appeases the opium poppy growers because there is little else for them to live on.
Meanwhile Iran continues its bellicose ways now dominating the Middle East.
WaPo

Taliban insurgents attacked a southern town Thursday, sparking intense fighting with government troops that left two guerrillas dead, the Defense Ministry said. A NATO airstrike pushed back the insurgents, who used mortars, rocket-propelled grenades and heavy machine guns in the attack on Naw Zad, in Helmand province, said a ministry spokesman, Gen. Zahir Azimi.

Military To Spend $20 Mil On Outsourced Propaganda

Not surprisingly, the military and the Bush Administration is not happy about the bad press they've been getting these days. So they are outsourcing publica relations professionals to create a database of the news and create "products" to get the "official" story out.
It's an old game called "propaganda" or psychological warfare, what's new is that they are outsourcing to professionals. The problem of convincing a reluctant public that war is right and just is still as big a problem as it was in the Vietnam era. How do you convince people what is wrong it their eyes is actually right? By slanting and selectively withholding and misinforming the public until their choices are moot.
WaPo

U.S. military leaders in Baghdad have put out for bid a two-year, $20 million public relations contract that calls for extensive monitoring of U.S. and Middle Eastern media in an effort to promote more positive coverage of news from Iraq. The contract calls for assembling a database of selected news stories and assessing their tone as part of a program to provide "public relations products" that would improve coverage of the military command's performance, according to a statement of work attached to the proposal.


The request for bids comes at a time when Bush administration officials are publicly criticizing media coverage of the war in Iraq. The proposal, which calls in part for extensive monitoring and analysis of Iraqi, Middle Eastern and American media, is designed to help the coalition forces understand "the communications environment." Its goal is to "develop communication strategies and tactics, identify opportunities, and execute events . . . to effectively communicate Iraqi government and coalition's goals, and build support among our strategic audiences in achieving these goals," according to the statement of work that is publicly available through the Web site http://www.fbodaily.com .


A public relations practitioner who asked for anonymity because he may be involved in a bid on the contract said that military commanders "are overwhelmed by the media out there and are trying to understand how to get their information out. "They want it [news] to be received by audiences as it is transmitted [by them], but they don't like how it turns out," he said. As an example, he said, there are complaints that reports from Iraq sometimes quote Shiite cleric and militia leader Moqtada al-Sadr more than military commanders.

Wounded Pride Keeps Bush From Talking to Iran; Carter Will

The Bush Administration is so stuck in it's pride, it would rather go to war against Iran than talk face to face. Iran is in a strong position, perhaps more so than ever before. It makes no sense to avoid comprehensive discussions because we don't trust them. Granted talks may not solve anything. But then again, war should NEVER be an option until all other options are tried. The Bush Administration is caught in its own wounded pride.
WaPo

For an event that would turn a page in American history, former president Jimmy Carter has agreed in principle to host former Iranian president Mohammad Khatami for talks during his visit to the United States starting this week. Carter's term as president was dominated by the rupture in relations after the 1979 Iranian revolution and the takeover of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran, where 52 Americans were held hostage for 444 days until the day he left office.


[...]The White House said yesterday that Khatami had been invited by private organizations and is not part of the current Iranian government. "Mr. Khatami is free to meet with who he chooses and is able to speak freely in the United States -- the very freedoms that do not exist in Iran," a White House official said on the condition of anonymity. "We expect that Khatami will face tough questions from his audience in the United States about the past and present behavior of the Iranian regime, especially with respect to human rights violations that occurred during his presidency," the official added.


Talks between Carter and Khatami, if they materialize, would be politically poignant. "Carter, who has every reason to be angry about the way in which the Iranian revolution undid his presidency over the hostage affair, is willing to meet, with no hesitation, a person who was president of the Islamic republic and who has never disavowed Ayatollah Khomeini's actions when he was supreme leader," said William Quandt, a national security staffer in charge of the Middle East during the Carter administration.

Fabricating Intelligence On Iran

The Bush Administration has been preparing for war with Iran since 2004 at least. There is no mistake that the US is occupying countries that surround Iran. Iran has always been a primary target, to change it's policies by influence, coersion or by force. Clearly, Iran is the winner in the war in Iraq. Now the US's only course is to isolate Iran as best it can and continue the build up to war. This time however, the Bush Administration may be feeling a well earned sense of impotence.
A new intelligence assessment on Iran was commissioned by Republican leadership. Here is comments by the Newsweek and a former CIA leader on that topic.

Political pressure and sober intelligence analysis don’t mix well. Paul R. Pillar, who served as the CIA’s National Intelligence Officer for the Near East and South Asia from 2000 to 2005, took that as a clear lesson from the Iraq war. So when a House intelligence committee issued a sharply worded report on Iran last week, Pillar had concerns. Authors of the study—“Recognizing Iran as a Strategic Threat: An Intelligence Challenge for the United States”—chastised U.S. spy agencies for “major gaps in our knowledge of Iranian nuclear, biological and chemical programs,” and insisted that intelligence analysts must “not shy away from provocative conclusions.”


The report was immediately controversial. The New York Times said it “seems intended to signal the intelligence community that the Republican leadership wants scarier assessments that would justify a more confrontational approach to Tehran.”


Pillar, who retired from the CIA a year ago, spoke to NEWSWEEK’s Jeffrey Bartholet at the offices of the Security Studies Program at Georgetown University, where he’s on the faculty. Excerpts:


NEWSWEEK: The new intelligence committee report criticizes U.S. spy agencies for not providing enough evidence about Iranian weapons of mass destruction (WMD) programs and ties to terrorism. Does this have echoes of Iraq and what you call the “politicization of intelligence”? Is it happening again?


Paul R. Pillar: I see worrisome signs of it happening again. When you have pressures coming from one place on the political spectrum—which seem to be pressures to come up with evidence to support a conclusion that is already there—I take that as a worrisome sign of the same sort of thing. The bright side here is that the unhappiness of Iraq is still fresh enough in all of our minds … we will all be on our guard.

Apparently there were several statements in the report that were on the face typos. Can you imagine a report with a significant typo getting presented to Congress?

Stagnant Wages Fuel "Golden Era of Profitability"

I've never understood why the middle class, especially those working for wages could vote for Republicans. It was hard to accept they had been consistently manipulated by hot button issues like funding national defense, Ronald Reagan's "unworthy poor", i.e. welfare mothers with too many kids, gay rights, flag burning, etc. But the Republican resurgence was largely based on false premises sold to the working class to get them to vote Republican. But perhaps that legacy will come back to roost with the current stagflation, frozen wages, and record profits and productivity.
Hey, middle class, are you awake? Read this:
New York Times

With the economy beginning to slow, the current expansion has a chance to become the first sustained period of economic growth since World War II that fails to offer a prolonged increase in real wages for most workers.


That situation is adding to fears among Republicans that the economy will hurt vulnerable incumbents in this year’s midterm elections even though overall growth has been healthy for much of the last five years.
The median hourly wage for American workers has declined 2 percent since 2003, after factoring in inflation. The drop has been especially notable, economists say, because productivity — the amount that an average worker produces in an hour and the basic wellspring of a nation’s living standards — has risen steadily over the same period.


As a result, wages and salaries now make up the lowest share of the nation’s gross domestic product since the government began recording the data in 1947, while corporate profits have climbed to their highest share since the 1960’s. UBS, the investment bank, recently described the current period as “the golden era of profitability.”


Until the last year, stagnating wages were somewhat offset by the rising value of benefits, especially health insurance, which caused overall compensation for most Americans to continue increasing. Since last summer, however, the value of workers’ benefits has also failed to keep pace with inflation, according to government data.


At the very top of the income spectrum, many workers have continued to receive raises that outpace inflation, and the gains have been large enough to keep average income and consumer spending rising.


In a speech on Friday, Ben S. Bernanke, the Federal Reserve chairman, did not specifically discuss wages, but he warned that the unequal distribution of the economy’s spoils could derail the trade liberalization of recent decades. Because recent economic changes “threaten the livelihoods of some workers and the profits of some firms,” Mr. Bernanke said, policy makers must try “to ensure that the benefits of global economic integration are sufficiently widely shared.”


[...]Economists offer various reasons for the stagnation of wages. Although the economy continues to add jobs, global trade, immigration, layoffs and technology — as well as the insecurity caused by them — appear to have eroded workers’ bargaining power. MORE

Iran Continues to Posture and Threaten

According to the WaPo, Iran has tested a submarine-to-surface missile. Not only does Iran have the ability to design and build their own missles, they are also turning out submarines capable of launching missiles. There was no reference in the article on whether these missiles could launch a nuclear warhead, but I suspect that if the Iranians can produce their own missiles and submarines, they will eventually build a nuclear weapon and an ability to deliver it. The launch was part of the military exersizes Iran is running through October, apparent to dissuade military action by Israel or the US.
Meanwhile, an Israeli Newspaper,Haaretz, reports that Iranian Parliament Vice Speaker Mohammad Reza Bahonar threatened to build nuclear weapons if pressure to prevent a Iranian peaceful program continues. This is of course assumed to be the case by most people who consider the fact that Iran is now surrounded by countries overthrown by it's arch enemy, the US. The other issue is that Israel has been well known to place disinformation in newspapers to serve it's national security. The Iranian President has been misquoted several times saying he advocated sweeping Israel into the sea, but several sources including Juan Cole have confirmed that he was misquoted in translation.
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was also quoted saying that his country poses no threat to Israel, but that no one can deprive Iran of its right to nuclear technology. To prove his point, the WaPo reported that Iran inaugurated a heavy-water production plant just days before the threat of censure from world powers. Ahmadinejad signaled that the Islamic Republic would not be cowed.
However, he made deliberate efforts to reassure the world, in particular Israel that Iran presents no threat. "We are not a threat to anybody — even the Zionist regime, which is a definite enemy for the people of the region."
There is further evidence that sanctions will not be forthcoming from the UN Security Council. Russia has stated is opposition recently. Analysts believe that China and Russia are unlikely to change their mind. Haaretz says that the Bush Administration no longer believes the Security Council will act and is planning actions of it's own. However, it is clear that sanctions are unlkely to convince Iran anything, it may in fact create more internal support for it's policies and enable Ahmadinejad to continue to consolidate power.

Radical Islamism, Insecurity and Xenophobia Rampant in Middle East

US frustration with the war in Iraq seems to be at it's peak, even the pro-war hawks are beginning to waver: Tom Friedman is saying Iraq was a bad idea and it's time to pull out. Author of the Belgravia Dispatch, Gregory Djerejian is calling for more troops to stabilize Baghdad that there should be "No More American Deaths Just To 'Hang On and Hand Over'" He has been calling for Rumsfeld to resign for months.
WaPo's OpEd Saad Eddin Ibrahim points out that indeed the Bush Administration has given birth to a new Middle East, but it's not the one we had in mind.

According to the preliminary results of a recent public opinion survey of 1,700 Egyptians by the Cairo-based Ibn Khaldun Center, Hezbollah's action garnered 75 percent approval, and Nasrallah led a list of 30 regional public figures ranked by perceived importance. He appears on 82 percent of responses, followed by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (73 percent), Khaled Meshal of Hamas (60 percent), Osama bin Laden (52 percent) and Mohammed Mahdi Akef of Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood (45 percent).


The pattern here is clear, and it is Islamic. And among the few secular public figures who made it into the top 10 are Palestinian Marwan Barghouti (31 percent) and Egypt's Ayman Nour (29 percent), both of whom are prisoners of conscience in Israeli and Egyptian jails, respectively.

A recent Iraqi poll shows that Iraqis are more nationalistic and xenophobic than ever.

The growing sense of insecurity affected all three of Iraq's major ethnic and religious groups. The number of Iraqis who "strongly agreed" that life is "unpredictable and dangerous" jumped from 41 percent to 48 percent of Shiites, from 67 percent to 79 percent of Sunnis and from 16 percent to 50 percent of Kurds. Xenophobia is also pervasive: Ninety percent of Iraqis would not like to have Americans or British as neighbors. Nor were fellow Muslims spared: Sixty-one percent of Iraqis preferred not to have Iranians or Jordanians living next door, while 71 percent hoped to avoid a Turkish neighbor.


There was more bad news for U.S. officials, who have worked hard to convince Iraqis that American intentions in Iraq are noble. The most recent survey, done in April this year, found almost no Iraqis who felt the United States had invaded to liberate their country from tyranny and build a democracy. Asked for "the three main reasons for the U.S. invasion of Iraq," fully 76 percent cited "to control Iraqi oil." That was followed by "to build military bases" (41 percent) and "to help Israel" (32 percent). Fewer than 2 percent chose "to bring democracy to Iraq" as their first choice.

A Vacuum of Global Leadership

The Bush Administration incompetence has unbalenced the global power distribution. The US is all but bogged down in Iraq just when two enemies are flexing their nuclear muscles. The consequences for the world is staggering. While Iran and North Korea don't hold more than a catalytic role in the short term future. North Korea's military might is it's only importance. Iran however sits on 1/3 of the known oil supplies. It's potential power in influencing the events is significant likely throughout the 21st century. All the more reasons to consolidate, build concensus and demonstrate leadership. I have little hope that Bush is up for the job.
Newsweek's Michael Hirsh has similar views.

The world faces more than a security vacuum. What we are suffering is a vacuum of global leadership. That is why the "international community"—always a tenuous concept at best—seems to be coming apart at the seams, why China and Russia are going their own way, why the Europeans are clucking around like headless chickens, why the moderates in the Mideast have fallen silent. Bush must recognize that the world is not following his lead, if it ever did, and that he needs to change his tack. He needs to jump in with both feet.


Despite his "stay the course" reputation, this president has shown he can adapt. For the first year or so of his second term there was a sense that Bush understood how much his first-term unilateralism had cost him. Still, even as he eagerly joined multilateral talks on Iran and North Korea, he remained determinedly disengaged on a personal level. His attitude was: let China take the lead (Korea); let the "EU-3" take the lead (Iran).


Now Bush has a little over two more years left to take the lead himself, to recognize his place in a long U.S. tradition of American presidents who have understood that their global responsibility is to solve the knottiest international problems no one else can master. But to do so Bush must change his whole approach. As he heads off to Kennebunkport, there's reason to doubt that he will.

Israel Cancels Plans to Withdraw from West Bank

A few years ago a series of events made it look like peace was inevitable in Israel and Palestine. The fact that demography and birthrates predicts that Arabs will out number Jews in the territories, and ultimately in all of Israel if the territories are annexed by Israel. Israelis call the captured lands from past Arab Israeli wars the "Territories".
Many a right-wing Israelis have fought for annexing all of the lands that correspond to the Israel of the Torah, the Jewish version of the Old Testament, which includes all of the West Bank and Gaza. Short of the chilling methods of "ethnic cleansing" and even "genocide", Israel has no way of ensuring the country will remain a predominantly Jewish state. This is the only reason Sharon led the political movement to unilaterally give back Gaza and eventually, much of the West Bank.
Therefore, it is inevitable that Israel will revisit this issue eventually. But not now with the major distraction of Lebanon and Gaza in disarray. However, as demonstrated in the unilateral withdrawl of Gaza, Israel must make sure there is an effective government in place before they withdraw to ensure cross border attacks can be contained by the established Palestinian government. Therefore, negotiation with that government, rather than a unilateral withdrawl will be necessary before a West Bank settlement is reached. Many Israelis fear the Palestinians will be much less generous than Olmert could have accompllished unilaterally.
WaPo

The Israeli government's plan to dismantle some Jewish settlements in the West Bank and redraw the country's borders is being shelved at least temporarily, a casualty of the war in Lebanon, government officials said.


The plan, which propelled Prime Minister Ehud Olmert to victory in March elections and was warmly endorsed by President Bush as a way of solving Israel's conflict with the Palestinians, is no longer a top priority, Olmert told his ministers last weekend, according to one of his advisers.


Instead, the government must spend its money and efforts in northern Israel to repair the damage from the war and strengthen the area in case fighting breaks out again, Olmert said.


[...]Even without the financial considerations, the plan for unilateral withdrawal from some settlements is dead, other political figures and analysts said. The seizure of Israeli soldiers and the renewed fighting in the Gaza Strip -- from which Israel withdrew last year -- and in southern Lebanon -- from which Israel withdrew in 2000 -- have left the Israeli public with little appetite for additional pullouts.


[...]Olmert's plan could have required the removal of about 70,000 of the estimated 250,000 West Bank settlers. The exact lines of the proposal were never made public, however, and some in his government talked of evacuating fewer settlers.


[...]Critics said the attacks from southern Lebanon and Gaza showed it was folly to have abandoned those areas without a deal to ensure some authority remained there to curb attacks.

Iran Now Rattling Sabres

The Iranians seem to be prepared for the worst and behaving in provocative ways. They are now consolidating positions, are under full mobilization along the Iraqi and Afghani border. Air defenses are activated around key command and control locations including Tehran. It appears they are planning extended military exersizes that could last well in October.
Today there is news that Iranian military forces have taken an oil platform by force of arms off Iran's Persian Gulf coast. There is no reports of casualties but shots have been fired and the oil platform boarded and seized. Iran has been engaged in a dispute of unclear dimensions with this company for some time. This US friendly Romanian company and oil platform has had ties to Haliburton. It is located near the strategic Straits of Hormuz, through which 20 percent of the world's daily oil supply moves on tankers. Clearly Iran is signaling it's ability to control this vital oil choke point.
Globalresearch.ca

War games and military exercises are now well underway within Iran and its territory. The Iranian Armed Forces—the Regular Armed Forces and the Revolutionary Guards Corps—began the first stage of massive nationwide war games along border areas of the province of Sistan and Baluchistan1 in the southeast of Iran bordering the Gulf of Oman, Pakistan, and NATO garrisoned Afghanistan to the east on Saturday, August 19, 2006. These war games that are underway are to unfold and intensify over a five week period and possibly even last longer, meaning they will continue till the end of September and possibly overlap into October, 2006. It is worth noting that the Iranian war games are taking place within the window of time that has been predicted by analysts for the initiation of an American or of an American-led attack against Iran.

Although the momentous war games are planned to take place in 14 of the total 30 provinces of Iran—most of which are border provinces and simultaneously sensitive and geo-strategically vital positions bordering, some of the most volatile places in the world, adjacent to Anglo-American occupied Iraq, the Persian Gulf, the Caucasus (Armenia and the Republic of Azarbaijan), the Caspian Sea, Turkey, Pakistan, Turkmenistan, and Afghanistan—there have been conflicting reports about the initial stage(s) of the multi-dimensioned war games. Chinese sources maintain that the initial stages of the multi-phased Iranian war games have already started in the “northeastern, northwestern, western and southern parts of Iran,”2 meaning all the border provinces adjacent to U.S., American-led Coalition, and NATO forces—including Turkey, a NATO member and strategic Israeli ally—while Iranian and other Middle Eastern sources maintain that the first stages of the war games have been predominately inaugurated in southeast Iran.

Brigadier-General Mohammad-Reza Ashtiani, the deputy commander of the Iranian Army or Land Branch of the Regular Forces, has specifically accented at a press conference that ‘the war games will take place in the provinces of West Azarbaijan, East Azarbaijan, the Khorasans3, Kurdistan, and the province of Sistan and Baluchestan’4—all of these are Iranian border provinces that would be frontlines in any possible war between Iran and the United States and have been experiencing disturbing episodes of terrorist attacks, kidnappings, violence, and recent instability5—which Iran has held both the United States, Britain, and Israel responsible for.

[...]Participating in the war games, so far, from the Iranian Regular Forces—which are a under a separate command structure from the Iranian Revolutionary Guards15—are twelve land (army) divisions along with the Iranian Air Force, Iranian Naval Forces, and Iranian Missile units, which are all involved as complimentary mechanisms of the military exercise(s), which were initiated in the southeastern province of Sistan and Baluchestan16

Iran has been very conscious for a long time of the hostile American-led forces encircling Iran and on its borders in the occupied territories of its neighbours, Iraq and Afghanistan, and stationed in bases in other Iranian neighbours. It has also reported that the Interior Ministry of Iran also has simultaneously planned to boost border security and all border patrols under the premise of combating smuggling and narcotics trafficking. 17 Military manoeuvres and war games can be multi-faceted and could easily serve many purposes such as being masked military mobilization and formation for an expected attack under the pretext of training and testing.

It seems that the materialization of an escalating level of alert and defensive mobilization of the Iranian Armed Forces is taking place as an inevitable and anticipated showdown over the fate of the Iranian Nuclear Energy Program is drawing nearer and with it are coupled the fates of Palestine, Israel, Iraq, Lebanon, Afghanistan, Syria, Sudan, the Persian Gulf, the direction of Central Asia, he strategic balance in the Caucasus, and so much more.

Truly, should this area ignite in war, the US would be hard pressed to impose it's will. The world economy would suffer a major recession and face the prospects of $100 a barrel oil. The Bush Administration blunders in Iraq has enflamed and put at risks all key interests in this volatile part of the world. And the winner so far has been Iran.

Iran Draws a Line In the Sand

Iran is fresh from the victory of Hizbullah in Lebanon. And they are positioning to divide the UN Security Council on sanctions for it's nuclear program. However, the situation is very complex. WaPo would have us believe the West will interpret the position Iran is taking to avoid immediate suspension of enrichment of uranium as unacceptable.

Iran's semi-official news agency reported today that Tehran has "rejected suspension of its nuclear activities" as demanded by the United Nations Security Council but has proposed a "new formula for resolving the issue through talks."


[...]Diplomats in Washington, Tehran and European capitals had said yesterday that the Iranian government is willing to enter negotiations and to consider a freeze of the program, but it will not accept a freeze as a precondition for the talks.


Earlier this month, the U.N. Security Council passed a resolution giving Iran 30 days to stop the program or face the threat of sanctions. U.S. officials have said they would push for strong financial sanctions against the Tehran government if it does not cooperate and that they expect support from Europe.


[...]President Bush said yesterday that he would wait for the formal reply, but, anticipating the rejection, he urged the United Nations to respond forcefully. "There must be consequences if people thumb their nose at the United Nations Security Council, and we will work with people in the Security Council to achieve that objective," he said. But even some of Washington's closest allies worried yesterday that the effort was becoming more difficult, complicated by the recent fighting in Lebanon between Israel and Hezbollah, which is backed financially and militarily by Iran. "The Iranians are extremely confident following the outcome of the Israel conflict," said one senior European official, who agreed to discuss sensitive details in the matter on the condition of anonymity. "Their Syria-Iran-Hezbollah axis has gone from minority player to lionized hero of the Arab street."


A U.S. official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said senior U.S., French, German and British diplomats agreed during a conference call yesterday to press for sanctions. Even before fighting broke out in Lebanon, many Security Council members seemed skittish about imposing financial measures against a major oil exporter.

The WaPo article could have been cued by White House writers. The NY Times seems to take a more realistic pose, considering the linchpin role of China and Russia on the Security Council.
New York Times

Western diplomats in Tehran said the Iranian reply was lengthy, detailed and would take some time to analyze. They said they were ordered by their home capitals as well as officials with the European Union to keep the details secret. But in the days running up to Iran’s self-imposed deadline to respond to the incentives package, Western diplomats in Tehran said they expected the Iranian response would seek to keep negotiations going, to talk about suspending uranium enrichment rather than actually suspending it. And they predicted that such a strategy would be rejected by the West.


[...]Nasser Hadian, a political science professor at Tehran University, said that if the proposal offers concrete details to ensure that Iran does not divert nuclear material to a weapons program, it is possible that Iran will win some more support from Russia and China. The measures may include intrusive inspections and real-time monitoring of the nuclear facilities with cameras.


[...]But the nuclear issue has also been turned into an important domestic issue, one that has had profound political implications here in Iran. [...]In June 2005, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was elected president, and shortly after taking office he transformed the issue into a matter of national pride. President Ahmadinejad has repeatedly said that peaceful nuclear energy is Iran’s “inalienable right,” and then in defiance of the West in April he announced that Iran had already enriched uranium and would never stop.


The nuclear issue has galvanized the Iranian government, which has been disdainful of the former reformist administration of Mr. Khatami and has slowly moved to consolidate power while promoting a populist, nationalist political ideology, political analysts and diplomats in Tehran said.


[...]The nuclear dispute with the West has helped empower a new administration that trumpets the slogans of the Iranian revolution while cracking down on political descent. The recent war in Lebanon and Hezbollah’s strong showing against Israel has served to further embolden the most radical elements of the Iranian leadership while the United States is bogged down in Afghanistan and Iraq.


“If sanctions are imposed, radical forces will become very happy,” said Hamidreza Jalaipour, a sociologist in Tehran and former government official. “Because no one can breathe when there is the threat of war. Whoever says anything, he will be accused of being a traitor. Intellectuals and wise forces will prefer to remain silent.”

Tehran mullahs will milk this negotiation for everything it can get, even if eventually it may be likely they will compromise. Although the Mullahs would benefit from a massive US airstrike on Iran, the economic consequences would weaken it's role as a regional player with new found influence across the Middle East. And the longer the impasse continues, the more they benefit from the premium price of oil.

Hizbullah’s Leader: Charismatic, Dangerous

Nasrallah, the leader of Hizbullah, was a relative unknown just ten years ago. This man has been credited as twice forcing the pullout of the Israeli army. He has been hailed as a hero for all of Islam, and made a Shiite Muslim for the first time in hundreds of years a leader in an all Arab cause, the Palestinian people and the domination of the Israelis on it's neighbors. Suddenly, the Israeli army looks much less effective. Who is this man?
Sheikh Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah at one time lived in South Beirut with his wife Fatima Yassin and five children: Muhammad Hadi, Muhammad Jawad, Zeinab, Muhammad Ali and Muhammad Mahdi. His eldest son Muhammad Hadi was killed by Israeli forces in Jabal al-Rafei in southern Lebanon in September 1997.

Nasrallah, born in 1960, grew up in a neighborhood of squatters and refugees called Sharshabouk, in the Karantina area on the eastern outskirts of Beirut. There was no running water and no electricity. Houses were often crude shacks made from tin sheets and wood. [...]Nasrallah's father ran a small grocery, and his former neighbors recall the father as a devout, trustworthy man. But Nasrallah's mother was the force in the family, according to Syrian filmmaker Nabil Mulhim, who interviewed her for a documentary about the Hizbullah leader: "The strong words and the soft face, those are hers," says Mulhim. "And the self-satisfaction. And the toughness."


The boy's parents scraped their money together to send him to private school. Khalid Mustafa, a former classmate, remembers Nasrallah at the age of 12: "He didn't talk without thinking. He was mature, like a 35-year-old." Nasrallah often wore an oversize coat and pants to school and didn't play soccer or other sports. Most kids could tell he was poor, and gangs of Sunni bullies tyrannized everyone in the neighborhood. "All the Shiites were afraid," says Mustafa.

In 1975, when Lebanon's long civil war began, one of it's first battlegrounds was the slums of Karantina. The family was forced the family to move to their ancestral home in Bassouriyeh, near Tyre, where Hassan Nasrallah terminated his secondary education at the public school of Sour. It was during this time, Nasrallah and his brother joined the Amal Movement, a political group representing Shiites in Lebanon. Later, "in the mid-1970s, he moved to a Shiite Hawza (Islamic Seminary) in the Iraqi city of Najaf to study Qura’anic divine sciences, completing the first stage of his studies in 1978 before being forced to leave by the Iraqi authorities." He returned to Lebanon, where he studied at the school of Amal’s leader Sheikh Abbas al-Musawi, later being selected as Amal's political delegate in Beqaa, and making him a member of the central political office.
After the Israeli invasion in 1982, Nasrallah joined Hezbollah which had been formed by Iranian Revolutionary Guard who came to fight the Israelis along side their Shi'a brothers. The resistance was focused on the Israeli occupation of southern Lebanon and the Bekaa Valley.

In 1989 Nasrallah, resumed his efforts to become a religious jurisprudent by moving to the sacred Iranian city of Qom to further his studies. Nasrallah believes that Islam holds the solution to the problems of any society, once saying, “With respect to us, briefly, Islam is not a simple religion including only praises and prayers, rather it is a divine message that was designed for humanity, and it can answer any question man might ask concerning his general and private life. Islam is a religion designed for a society that can revolt and build a state.”

Nasrallah never rose high in the scholarly ranks that confer authority on a cleric. "I was mesmerized," remembers a fellow mullah who knew him in Iran but didn't want to be quoted by name criticizing him. "He is more than charismatic if you listen to him—he is mythic. But as soon as you start asking him [theological] questions, you're surprised how little knowledge he has."


Nasrallah's interests were more pragmatic, more political, more rooted in worldly conflict. "He's a very good student of everything to do with Israel: the politicians, the Army," says Timur Goksel, a former senior adviser to the U.N. forces in Lebanon who has met the Hizbullah leader dozens of times. For religious guidance, Nasrallah relied increasingly on the heads of the Iranian revolution: Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, whom he idolized, and Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who in 1989 would become Khomeini's successor as Iran's spiritual leader and supreme political authority.

Hizbullah became a rival with Amal, for the leadership of the Shi'a in south Lebanon. The difference between Sunni and Shi'a beliefs revolve around the role and power of the ayatollahs. So disagreements over the ayatollahs role and which to follow led, in 1988, to skirmishes among the militias broke out into open combat and Nasrallah was on Hizbullah's front lines. This conflict was intensely personal because Nasrallah's older brother, who used the nom de guerre Jihad al Husseini, was on the side of Amal.

"He was injured in the fighting with Hizbullah," says Humayed, his face flushing red from the memory. "You can imagine the suffering of the mother and the father. One son on one side and one son on the other side." The fratricidal battles among the Shiites were savage, with reports of corpses being mutilated. "All of Amal against all of Hizbullah," says Humayed.

To this day, the relationship between Nasrallah and his brother is strained and brother now keeps a low profile.
Nasrallah's conduct in the fight against Amal added to his standing within Hizbullah. When, in February 1992, an Israeli "targeted assassination" killed Hizbullah leader Sheik Abbas al-Musawi, and Nasrallah took over as the group's leader at 32 years old.

Within days of Musawi's death and Nasrallah's ascendancy, Hizbullah launched its first Katyusha rocket attacks on Israel. Within weeks, Israel's embassy in Buenos Aires was blown up by a suicide bomber. Although Nasrallah has always denied responsibility not only for that attack but also for a subsequent hit on a Jewish center in Argentina in 1994, those operations are often cited by Israel and the United States as examples of Hizbullah's long reach as a terrorist organization—and of the group's penchant for revenge.

Under Nasrallah's leadership, Hezbollah became a serious opponent of the Israel Defense Forces in Southern Lebanon, managing to improve the organization's military capabilities and increasing the killing rate to approximately two dozen Israeli soldiers per year. Hezbollah's military campaigns of the late 1990s were believed to be one of the main factors that led to the Israeli decision to withdraw from Southern Lebanon in 2000, thus ending 18 years of occupation. Consequently, Nasrallah is widely credited in Lebanon and the Arab world for ending the Israeli occupation in Southern Lebanon, something which has greatly bolstered the party's political standing within Lebanon.


Nasrallah also played a major role in a complex prisoner exchange deal between Israel and Hezbollah in 2004, resulting in hundreds of Palestinian and Hezbollah prisoners being freed and bodies returned to Lebanon. The agreement was described across the Arab world as a great victory for Hezbollah with Nasrallah being personally praised for achieving these gains

.
Nasrallah, in part, built his leadership by leading Hizbullah into social and educational programs, softening the enforcement of strict dress codes for women and bans against drinking and playing cards.

By 1993, Nasrallah was meeting with the Maronite Christian patriarch and trying to shore up relations with all the communities in a country barely beginning its recovery from 15 years of sectarian war. Nasrallah, even then, was staking out his position as a national leader.


But the cornerstone of his politics and his power remained resistance to the Israeli occupation of Lebanese land—a struggle that had gained little ground in the years before he took charge. The military strategy developed under his leadership was one of guerrilla warfare, decentralized and working closely with the local population. Very closely. In September 1997, Nasrallah's own son, 18-year-old Hadi, was killed in a clash against the Israelis, who took his body away with them. The next night Nasrallah spoke at a Hizbullah anniversary rally. "We, in the leadership of Hizbullah, do not spare our children and save them for the future," he told the crowd. "We pride ourselves when our sons reach the front line. And stand, heads high, when they fall [as] martyrs."


It took Nasrallah almost a year to win the return of his son's corpse. The Israelis also freed 60 Lebanese prisoners and handed over the remains of 39 other fighters. In exchange, Nasrallah delivered the body of an Israeli naval commando who had been killed in a 1997 Hizbullah ambush. In 2000, to gain the freedom of still more prisoners, Hizbullah ambushed and captured three Israeli soldiers and abducted a retired Israeli colonel who had been lured to Beirut. The negotiations, through a German intermediary, lasted more than three years, eventually winning the release of 400 prisoners—not only Lebanese but Palestinians and other Arabs as well.


When Nasrallah captured two Israeli soldiers this July, he may have thought new negotiations would begin. But he also knew that his war with Israel is what gave him his power and prestige.


When Israel withdrew from South Lebanon in May 2000, Nasrallah found himself for the first time a hero of the Arab world, the first to "defeat" the Israelis. He was recognized as the equal of any of Lebanon's constitutional leaders. Goksel even arranged a meeting for him with U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan. Nasrallah also developed a close relationship with the late Prime Minister Rafik Hariri, sometimes meeting him two or three times a week. "You can make business with this guy," the billionaire Hariri would say.

So for Israel to commit itself to containing Hizbullah, they are taking on the leading political organization serving the south Lebanese, an overwhelminingly Shi'a population and 40% of the Lebanese population. Hizbullah functions as the de facto government of south Lebanon and has been adding to it's stature by distributing Iranian money and volunteer labor to the residents of south Lebanon now that the Israelis are withdrawing.

What Really Happened 9/11?

The conspiracy theory regarding 9/11 has been around since 9/12. While I don't believe that a large conspiracy like portrayed in this movie is possible, it does review some compelling evidence that is being officially ignored and not investigated. Some polls have said more than half of American's believe there was a conspiracy to kill Kennedy. Someday I think a similar number of Americans will have compelling questions about 9/11. Currently, an independent investigation of the 9/11 incidents cannot be completed. The Bush Administration has it all locked up. The movie is well done and worth viewing with a critical eye.

Loose Change - 2nd Edition

"As the fifth anniversary of the 9/11 attacks approaches, Loose Change has become a magnet for those who have come to believe the worst about their government. Originally posted in April 2005 and already updated in a "second edition," the entire project cost about $6,000 to produce -- a sum that wouldn't cover a day's catering on the set of Oliver Stone's straightforward drama World Trade Center, which opens Wednesday."


-Mark McGuire, Times Union

Play the movie.

For more Arabs, Islam is the answer

The neocon perspective has always been under heavy influence by Likud party in Israel, partly by reputation due to the what I believe is a mistaken perception that Israel has been highly effective in combating the non-symmetrical warefare of the PLO and Hamas. The truth is that the rules of warfare have changed. The growing effectiveness of hand held weapons combined with the sophisticated propaganda tactics of the PLO, Hizbullah, and Iran, have led to a losing hand for the Neocons in general, the Bush and Olmert Administration in particular. The Neocons have over-estimated the power of the military option and sorely neglected the propaganda and diplomatic efforts. The result is world events and political winds headed in the opposite direction than the Neocons intended. Witness the influence of the Arab on the streets:
International Herald Tribune

"I have more faith in Islam than in my state; I have more faith in Allah than in Hosni Mubarak," Mahmoud said, referring to the president of Egypt. "That is why I am proud to be a Muslim."


The war in Lebanon, and the widespread conviction among Arabs that Hezbollah won that war by bloodying Israel, has fostered and validated those kinds of feelings across Egypt and the region. In interviews on streets and in newspaper commentaries circulated around the Middle East, the prevailing view is that where Arab nations failed to stand up to Israel and the United States, an Islamic movement succeeded.


"The victory that Hezbollah achieved in Lebanon will have earthshaking regional consequences that will have an impact much beyond the borders of Lebanon itself," Yasser Abuhilalah of Al Ghad, a Jordanian daily, wrote in the Tuesday issue.


"The resistance celebrates the victory," read the front-page headline in Al Wafd, an opposition daily in Egypt.


Hezbollah's perceived triumph has propelled, and been propelled by, a wave already washing over the region. Political Islam was widely seen as the antidote to the failures of Arab nationalism, communism, socialism and, most recently, what is seen as the false promise of American-style democracy. It was that wave that helped the banned but tolerated Muslim Brotherhood win 88 seats in Egypt's Parliament last December despite the government's violent efforts to stop voters from getting to the polls. It was that wave that swept Hamas into power in the Palestinian government in January, shocking Hamas itself.


"We need an umbrella," said Mona Mahmoud, 40, Jihan's older sister. "In the '60s, Arabism was the umbrella. We had a cause. Now we lack an umbrella. We feel lost in space. We need to be affiliated to something."


The lesson learned by many Arabs from the war in Lebanon is that an Islamic movement, in this case Hezbollah, restored dignity and honor to a bruised and battered identity. Hezbollah's perceived victory has highlighted, and to many validated, the rise of another unifying ideology, a kind of Arab-Islamic nationalism.


"The losers are going to be the Arab regimes, U.S.A. and Israel," said Fares Braizat of the Center for Strategic Studies at the University of Jordan. "The secular resistance movements are gone. Now there are the Islamists coming in. So the new nationalism is going to be religious nationalism, and one of the main reasons is dignity. People want their dignity back."


The terms Islamic nationalism and pan-Islamism have a negative connotations in the West, where they are associated with fundamentalism and terrorism. But that is increasingly not the case in Egypt. Under the dual pressures of foreign military attacks in the region and a government widely viewed as corrupt and illegitimate, Islamic groups are seen by many people as incorruptible, disciplined, efficient and caring.


"Hezbollah is a resistance movement that has given us a solution," said Yomana Samaha, a radio talk-show host in Cairo who identified herself as secular and a supporter of separating religion and government.


[...][During the] voting in Egypt's parliamentary elections, a months-long process [...] was marred by police officers who were ordered to block voters from getting to the polls in many districts. The government grew concerned after candidates affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood began winning in record numbers. The government says that the police did not fire live ammunition at citizens, but many people were killed and doctors and witnesses - including Western diplomats - said that the police did fire live rounds into people trying to vote.

Even the conservative spectrum foreign policy experts are bemoaning the outcome. The Belgravia Dispatch has an outstanding post outline his view about the Lebanon debacle. He calls it "The Israeli-Lebanese Denouement: A Tragicomedy of Errors".

Beating Hezbollah ultimately must rely more on what might be described as counter-insurgency tactics, not some Dresden redux. To beat back Hezbollah one must moderate the 40% of Lebanese who are Shi’a, by over time having them pledge their primary allegiance to a strong central government, one that is sharing the economic fruits of Lebanon’s revival with all ethnic groups, so as to ultimately render the social welfare arm of Hezbollah largely irrelevant. Given this, it is manifestly clear that Israel’s reaction to Hezbollah’s provocation should have always been limited to targets south of the Litani River (save the very exceptional target to the north of truly imperative strategic value). This is so that the greatest pain would have been inflicted solely on the perpetrators of the rocket attacks and kidnapping themselves, rather than Lebanon writ large. (One might have thought, for instance, that some of Israel’s best commandos might have been air-dropped at the Litani, worked their way southwards so as to catch Hezbollah by surprise, and in conjunction with the judicious use of airpower, inflicted some significant pain on Hezbollah guerillas acting near the border. This would have been more by way of an intense 7-10 day security operation, serving to create a deterrent effect, and with the Americans fully briefed on the details and moving swiftly to put a cease-fire in place a week or so into the Israeli action).


Instead, of course, Israel fought a month long war (mostly a rather brutal, too often indiscriminate air campaign) that involved the death of hundreds and hundreds of civilians, as well as: 1) imposition of a total naval and air blockade on the entire country, 2) the destruction of a very significant number of roads and bridge networks, 3) an environmental disaster in the Mediterranean Sea of worrisome scope, 4) a massive pummeling to much of Lebanon’s infrastructure causing billions of dollars of damage, not to mention 5) reducing large swaths of southern Beirut neighborhoods to rubble, as well as so many towns in the south, including important population centers like Tyre.


Such a strategy was doomed to failure, as it has had precisely the opposite effect than that Israel had (or should have) intended. The population of Lebanon, including Sunnis and even Christians and Druze, stand today united in their disgust at Israel’s tactics. To be sure, this pervasive anti-Israeli sentiment will diminish some in coming weeks, as internal fissures increasingly rise to the fore instead.


[...]There is also the fact, however old fogey-like and apparently drearily Scowcroftian this may sound, that getting at the real “root causes”, as our rather impressionable Secretary of State is so fond of saying, means addressing the Arab-Israeli conflict on a comprehensive basis. As for Hezbollah, it means talking to the Syrians in serious fashion (that is to say, no more of the “they know what they need to do” woeful cop-out), lest Hezbollah arms coffers simply be replenished by Damascus going forward—even if mostly to Hezbollah assets north of the Litani. Put simply, to speak of getting to the "root causes" of Hezbollah, without broaching the overall Arab-Israeli peace process, or the Syrian and Iranian role, well, it's just a joke.


[...]Nasrallah is undoubtedly the winner in this sad affair, having outlasted the combined might of the Egyptian, Jordanian and Syrian armies in a head on struggle with Israel. Israel has been shown to be strategically vulnerable to rockets (to which one might query, what is so important about the Golan when rockets can fly over it?), and Assad and Ahmadinejad have surely taken note of same. The French were somewhat winners, flexing some muscle with boots on the ground in the international force and so having a stronger hand to play going forward (if they aren’t attacked and scared away, that is, as in previous Lebanese deployments).


[...]Condi Rice's unfortunate talk referencing the “birth pangs” of a New Middle East, or presence in Jerusalem amidst the carnage in Qana—well, no one could have really divined better blows to America’s image in the region if they had tried mightily.


[...]And so we had a rather big exercise in futility, a futile little war, as I said, only a tragic one too, with all the blood spilled and damage done. The reality is that Lebanese hearts and minds, certainly Shi'a ones, are going to support Nasrallah even more now, not to mention the many in Cairo and Baghdad and points beyond hailing Nasrallah as a new Nasser. Hezbollah is far further from 'eradication', however absurdly unrealistic a goal that was regardless (particularly given the U.S. and Israeli approaches), than before. What we've just witnessed is a (tragi)comedy of errors, really, featuring incompetence (the bungled Israeli military campaign), fake showmanship (Bush and Olmert finally talking four weeks into the war with Olmert thanking the American President for his help with the UN Resolution, in a butt-covering, farcical coup de theatre par excellence!), historical innocence mixed with hubris (that because Israel unilaterally pulled out of Gaza and south Lebanon, in her self-interest more than anything else, this would mean no attacks from either quarter--in the absence of an overarching settlement--so that any attack would demand a hugely asymetrical response, the better so as to discipline the recently liberated ingrates), another low ebb for America's repute in the region (the disasterous Rome Conference where the world judged, correctly, that only the U.S., and perhaps Tony Blair, to the ire of his government colleagues and people, were willing to give Israel's ill-fated campaign additional time), and more. One that occured, to boot, in the midst of an Iraq debacle that grows worse by the day, where Iranian influence is increasing in lockstep with America's mushrooming impotence there. The entire sad spectacle must look almost amusing from Teheran.

It's time for a major reassessment of foreign policy direction. An about face may well be a good metaphor. The world of Islam is falling into bin Ladin's hands. Hizbullah has become the new Nassar and the greatest hope of Islam world wide. I can't think of a worse disaster for the US or Israel.