Well, that was depressing. Seriously. How, after the worst first term of any President ever, could Obama have won a second term? Well, despite constant talk all day of "the longest lines we've ever seen" at polling locations, it turns out that the number of people who actually voted were at historic lows, much lower than the number of people who voted in 2008. What's done is done, and whining won't change what happened. Instead of asking why people didn't show up or what Romney could have done differently (or if rampant corruption screwed up the system so thoroughly the truth will be lost in the mist), I will instead be looking forward. It's not a pretty picture, but it's one we must all face if we are to move on to better days.
For those of us in the United States, the future isn't rosy. Even if Romney had won in a landslide, the nation's debt, entitlement problems, and foreign relations would have made the next four years difficult at best. But instead we have more Obama (Mo-bama?) and, instead of putting our political will into stemming the tide of potential disasters the Democrats will be doubling down. Now they are free to do whatever they please without needing to worry about petty things like what the American people think about them. That may seem politically short-sighted (Obama will not be the last Democrat to run for President. Probably. Maybe. Actually, I'll get back to you on that), but the thinking goes that if the administration can push through enough legislation, regulation, and appointments to the Supreme Court it will ensure that any future administrations will be forced to play inside a sandbox the Left controls. Fortunately, the Republicans held control of the House of Representatives, so we will not see a total repeat of the 2008-2010 time frame when Washington was a one-party town. I urgently pray that it will be enough to slow the bleeding before the nation goes into a shock from which we may never recover.
For our friends who live outside the United States, please remember one thing: the President is not the people of this country. Obama has said that a second term would give him more "flexibility" on foreign policy matters (to the Russian government. Not exactly our best friends in the world. Heck, not even our best friends in Russia), though what exactly what that will mean remains unclear for the time being. Even if our President abandons you, know that you still have friends here. But I want to warn you that the days when the United States would come in to save the day may have passed into the history books. The world is growing darker by the hour, and the unfortunate truth is that many of you will have to stand and fight for freedom without our support.
Finally, I want to make one thing clear. God Almighty is not asleep at the wheel. No matter how dark things will get, no matter how much blood is shed, the Creator of the universe is still in control. He will not give anyone a burden they cannot handle. Remember this simple fact and do not fall into despair.
The Middle East is on fire. The Caliphate is re-emerging. The economy is on the verge of collapse. Old hatreds are rising anew. Monsters though long banished are creeping back onto the world stage as eager for blood as ever. But remember this: when monsters arise, so do heroes. It is up to each of us to determine which path we will choose.
Wednesday, November 7, 2012
Sunday, November 4, 2012
Thanks For Your Patience
Thank you all for your patience. I have been forced to deal with a myriad of other matters, and my posting has suffered as a result. But there will be a post-election (for those of us in the States) post on Wednesday and, hopefully, next weekend I will be back to my usual schedule. Again, thank you for being patient with me over the past month or so.
Better Dead than Dhimmi!
Better Dead than Dhimmi!
Thursday, September 13, 2012
Remembrance and Rage on 9/11
Tuesday was the eleventh anniversary of the September 11th terrorist attacks. It was a solemn day for America and our allies, a day to remember boundless courage and sacrifice as well honor the victims and their families. Elsewhere in the world, however, Tuesday was the day of massive anti-American protests across the Middle East. In the midst of America's most solemn day of remembrance, ruthless animals in Cairo climbed the walls of the American embassy and tore down the American flag, replacing it with the black flag of al-Qaeda. The protesters claimed that it was in response to a film which defamed Mohammed (right, and the al-Qaeda flag on the anniversary of al-Qaeda's greatest triumph was just a coincidence). During the (completely illegal) assault upon sovereign U.S. soil by the same crazed Islamist mobs the Obama administration helped put in charge of the country, the State Department just could not apologize fast enough to the lunatics ripping the Stars and Stripes into thin strips of cloth. The Cairo embassy staff tweeted a condemnation of "the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims" while those same poor, sweet Muslims were committing an act of war against the United States. Granted, once word of that degrading act got out to the concerned (read "voting") public, the administration quickly slapped on the old cowboy boots and... kind of, sort of walked back the apology. But recent statement from Hillary Clinton walked back that walk-back, condemning the movie and praising Islam as a great religion that is, like, deep and thoughtful and stuff. The State Department has also come under fire for reportedly ordering the Marine guards to carry weapons without ammunition in them, a charge that the Pentagon has denied. However, the State Department has remained silent on the matter.
But as bad as the events in Cairo were, they were nothing compared to what happened in Benghazi, Libya. The embassy staff in Cairo knew that something was coming and were evacuated shortly before the riots began. The consulate in Benghazi was not so lucky. While the mob in Cairo destroyed government property and trespassed on American soil, the assault in Libya had far more devastating results. During protests that echoed those in Cairo, a heavily armed mob laid siege to and then stormed the United States Consulate. In the course of the evening the mob murdered four American citizens, including the Ambassador to Libya J. Christopher Stevens, Foreign Service information manager Sean Smith, and two Marines (possibly part of the ambassador's security detail) who attempted to break the siege but found themselves vastly outnumbered and outgunned. Intelligence experts are highly suspicious of the timing of the attack as Stevens, who is based out of Libya and not Benghazi, should not have been at the consulate at a time when serious riots were expected. What makes it even worse is that virtually no extra security was in place at the "interim facility" that was housing the consulate for the ambassador's visit, which is particularly unusual considering that the consulate did not actually have any Marine guards on staff and was instead relying upon the kindness of strangers, whoops, I mean Libyan security officers (who, according to reports, promptly told the violent mob exactly where the ambassador was hiding). Originally, it was believed that the ambassador had died as a result of the rocket blast that leveled the main building in the embassy compound. Unfortunately, it now appears that the ambassador did not go out so mercifully and may have even been raped before he suffocated to death. I truly hope that this was not the case.
In the days since, the threat of violence has spread even further. Protesters in Yemen stormed the U.S. Embassy on Thursday, burning cars and smashing windows while chanting, "We will sacrifice ourselves for you, Messenger of God." The U.S. Embassy in Algiers, Algeria (the least creative name combination since New York, New York, which I actually think is a more recent city) has warned all American citizens to avoid non-essential travel as protests take root across North Africa. A Shia group in Iraq (that is all but certainly backed by the Iranian government) has threatened American interests in the region as retribution for supposedly defaming Mohammed. The protests even reached Indonesia as a group named "Sharia for Indonesia" demonstrated outside the U.S. Embassy in Jakarta with signs that celebrated the 9/11 attacks. How charming.
Despite the destruction of property and the loss of life, perhaps the most dangerous aim of these attacks was to prohibit the exercise of free speech, especially when it comes to criticizing Islam. A spokesman for the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt said that it is America needs to do a better job of defending Islam's honor. "It isn't a matter of freedom of speech," Mahmoud Gozlan said. "It's a matter of a holy Islamic symbol." Oh, well, if it's a matter of protecting symbols, how about the Egyptian government apologize to America for defaming the holiest symbol we have: our flag. Of course, this event is not the first time that Islamists have excused horrific actions using the good ol' fashioned rapist's excuse of, "She was asking for it." But this was different, with our attackers operating from a greater position of power than they had ever previously known. Now that they have power, the Islamists are focused on one goal: to make the act of "slandering" Islam illegal on an international level. Tuesday's attacks were particularly severe, especially considering the attacks were carried out by the same people that the U.S. helped in their struggle for "democracy." When al-Qaeda struck the U.S. eleven years ago, the media couldn't shut up about how America had "created" Osama bin Laden by training him, his followers, and the Taliban to fight the Soviet Union. Never mind that it actually wasn't true, and that bin Laden and the Taliban both stemmed from the Pakistani ISI and not the CIA, but where is that sort of outcry and "we caused this" attitude when the perpetrators went from ally to murderer within the space of a year?
Finally, I have to say that the media's manipulation of the coverage has been nothing less than disgusting. Instead of demanding answers from the Obama administration and Hillary Clinton's State Department (aka, the guys who ignored the threats, failed to put adequate security in place, and then scrambled to lick the boots of the monsters who killed Americans on sovereign U.S. soil), the American media has pounced at the throat of Republican Presidential hopeful Mitt Romney. Romney said, "It's disgraceful that the Obama Administration's first response was not to condemn attacks on our diplomatic missions, but to sympathize with those who waged the attacks." And the media have hammered Romney for those statements. Here is just a brief run-down on the articles a quick Google search for "Romney embassy attacks" brought up (I'd link to the sites, but frankly I don't want to give them traffic. Feel free to search for yourself, though): "FactCheck: Romney gets it backward on embassy attacks," "Foreign Policy Hands Rip Romney's Cairo Statement" (from the always fair Huffington Post), "Romney on Embassy Attack Is No Ronald Reagan in 1980," then we go to, "Embassy politics: the eerie similarities between 1980 and 2012," and finally the piece-of-crap de resistance "The Mohammed movie and the embassy attacks: Romney betrays free speech" which actually says that the rioting, murdering Islamists are protecting free speech by limiting it, or some crap. When you look at the headlines, some truly eerie similarities emerge, with different authors sometimes using the same supposedly "catchy" phrase word-for-word (yes, I know that happens sometimes, but I'm going somewhere with this). All of this anger and animosity toward Romney makes a lot of sense in light of a "hot mic" moment caught on tape at Romney's press conference on Wednesday when reporters were recorded coordinating questions to focus on Romney's "tone" and then the follow-up questions based on that line of reasoning. The thinking by the media was to control the course of the press conference and put Romney on the defensive from the beginning, no matter who he called on to ask a question. To be fair, this happens quite often, according to experts, but it also goes to show that the mainstream media have simply become conformist lapdogs to the administration instead of honest, bold journalists willing to break from the pack to get the scoop.
But as bad as the events in Cairo were, they were nothing compared to what happened in Benghazi, Libya. The embassy staff in Cairo knew that something was coming and were evacuated shortly before the riots began. The consulate in Benghazi was not so lucky. While the mob in Cairo destroyed government property and trespassed on American soil, the assault in Libya had far more devastating results. During protests that echoed those in Cairo, a heavily armed mob laid siege to and then stormed the United States Consulate. In the course of the evening the mob murdered four American citizens, including the Ambassador to Libya J. Christopher Stevens, Foreign Service information manager Sean Smith, and two Marines (possibly part of the ambassador's security detail) who attempted to break the siege but found themselves vastly outnumbered and outgunned. Intelligence experts are highly suspicious of the timing of the attack as Stevens, who is based out of Libya and not Benghazi, should not have been at the consulate at a time when serious riots were expected. What makes it even worse is that virtually no extra security was in place at the "interim facility" that was housing the consulate for the ambassador's visit, which is particularly unusual considering that the consulate did not actually have any Marine guards on staff and was instead relying upon the kindness of strangers, whoops, I mean Libyan security officers (who, according to reports, promptly told the violent mob exactly where the ambassador was hiding). Originally, it was believed that the ambassador had died as a result of the rocket blast that leveled the main building in the embassy compound. Unfortunately, it now appears that the ambassador did not go out so mercifully and may have even been raped before he suffocated to death. I truly hope that this was not the case.
In the days since, the threat of violence has spread even further. Protesters in Yemen stormed the U.S. Embassy on Thursday, burning cars and smashing windows while chanting, "We will sacrifice ourselves for you, Messenger of God." The U.S. Embassy in Algiers, Algeria (the least creative name combination since New York, New York, which I actually think is a more recent city) has warned all American citizens to avoid non-essential travel as protests take root across North Africa. A Shia group in Iraq (that is all but certainly backed by the Iranian government) has threatened American interests in the region as retribution for supposedly defaming Mohammed. The protests even reached Indonesia as a group named "Sharia for Indonesia" demonstrated outside the U.S. Embassy in Jakarta with signs that celebrated the 9/11 attacks. How charming.
Despite the destruction of property and the loss of life, perhaps the most dangerous aim of these attacks was to prohibit the exercise of free speech, especially when it comes to criticizing Islam. A spokesman for the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt said that it is America needs to do a better job of defending Islam's honor. "It isn't a matter of freedom of speech," Mahmoud Gozlan said. "It's a matter of a holy Islamic symbol." Oh, well, if it's a matter of protecting symbols, how about the Egyptian government apologize to America for defaming the holiest symbol we have: our flag. Of course, this event is not the first time that Islamists have excused horrific actions using the good ol' fashioned rapist's excuse of, "She was asking for it." But this was different, with our attackers operating from a greater position of power than they had ever previously known. Now that they have power, the Islamists are focused on one goal: to make the act of "slandering" Islam illegal on an international level. Tuesday's attacks were particularly severe, especially considering the attacks were carried out by the same people that the U.S. helped in their struggle for "democracy." When al-Qaeda struck the U.S. eleven years ago, the media couldn't shut up about how America had "created" Osama bin Laden by training him, his followers, and the Taliban to fight the Soviet Union. Never mind that it actually wasn't true, and that bin Laden and the Taliban both stemmed from the Pakistani ISI and not the CIA, but where is that sort of outcry and "we caused this" attitude when the perpetrators went from ally to murderer within the space of a year?
Finally, I have to say that the media's manipulation of the coverage has been nothing less than disgusting. Instead of demanding answers from the Obama administration and Hillary Clinton's State Department (aka, the guys who ignored the threats, failed to put adequate security in place, and then scrambled to lick the boots of the monsters who killed Americans on sovereign U.S. soil), the American media has pounced at the throat of Republican Presidential hopeful Mitt Romney. Romney said, "It's disgraceful that the Obama Administration's first response was not to condemn attacks on our diplomatic missions, but to sympathize with those who waged the attacks." And the media have hammered Romney for those statements. Here is just a brief run-down on the articles a quick Google search for "Romney embassy attacks" brought up (I'd link to the sites, but frankly I don't want to give them traffic. Feel free to search for yourself, though): "FactCheck: Romney gets it backward on embassy attacks," "Foreign Policy Hands Rip Romney's Cairo Statement" (from the always fair Huffington Post), "Romney on Embassy Attack Is No Ronald Reagan in 1980," then we go to, "Embassy politics: the eerie similarities between 1980 and 2012," and finally the piece-of-crap de resistance "The Mohammed movie and the embassy attacks: Romney betrays free speech" which actually says that the rioting, murdering Islamists are protecting free speech by limiting it, or some crap. When you look at the headlines, some truly eerie similarities emerge, with different authors sometimes using the same supposedly "catchy" phrase word-for-word (yes, I know that happens sometimes, but I'm going somewhere with this). All of this anger and animosity toward Romney makes a lot of sense in light of a "hot mic" moment caught on tape at Romney's press conference on Wednesday when reporters were recorded coordinating questions to focus on Romney's "tone" and then the follow-up questions based on that line of reasoning. The thinking by the media was to control the course of the press conference and put Romney on the defensive from the beginning, no matter who he called on to ask a question. To be fair, this happens quite often, according to experts, but it also goes to show that the mainstream media have simply become conformist lapdogs to the administration instead of honest, bold journalists willing to break from the pack to get the scoop.
Monday, September 10, 2012
The Haqqani Network
The Obama administration has made it very clear that they intend to improve America's image in the Muslim world. They are doing this, of course, by not closing Guantanamo Bay, launching a record number of drone strikes, killing the most notorious Islamist in world history in the middle of Pakistan without Pakistan's permission, and making a public spectacle of the accidental Koran burnings that should have been handled discreetly (not that I have a problem with the first three). Now the administration is taking further steps to make friends in Pakistan by declaring the politically connected Haqqani network as a terrorist organization because of their continued support of the Taliban and al-Qaeda.
So who exactly are the Haqqani network? Many officials in the United States government, particularly within the military, have called the Haqqani network the greatest threat to continued operations (and eventual peace) in Afghanistan. The Haqqani network, named after the influential Haqqani clan, operate out of North Waziristan in Pakistan and has thrown their impressive weight behind the Taliban. They provide a level of coordination and sophistication to the Taliban fighters that otherwise might not be possible. The Haqqanis run their own training camps for foreign fighters, secure financial support from wealthy donors in the Persian Gulf as well as money funneled from any number of legitimate (and illegitimate) businesses, engage in kidnappings and smuggling, and extort local tribal leaders to provide resources and to support the Taliban. The Haqqani network has extensive connections within the Pakistani government, especially the Pakistani army (who have refused to launch offensives into Haqqani territory even with concrete evidence of the presence of senior al-Qaeda leaders) and other security services. Pakistan also views the Haqqani network as a useful proxy to push Pakistani interests in the ever-shifting political landscape of Afghanistan. In that way, the Haqqani network could be seen as Pakistan's version of Hezbollah, taking advantage of the chaotic situation in a war-torn region (Lebanon for Hezbollah, Afghanistan for the Haqqani network) for the benefit of a nearby Islamist state. The Haqqani network has been accused of targeting Indian construction projects in Afghanistan as well as attacking NATO forces on the ground. For example, the Haqqani network has been blamed for recent suicide bombing in Kabul carried out by a young man believed to be only 14 years old.
The decision to declare the Haqqani network a distinct terrorist organization, intended to give counter-terrorism officials more authority to shut down Haqqani military operations in Afghanistan and cut off funding, was hotly debated within the administration. While counter-terrorism experts and military analysts praised the move, many officials within the State Department and the White House warned that it would make the eventual withdrawal from Afghanistan even more difficult. That is not an idle worry. According to officials, the attack in Kabul was only the opening salvo in response to the declaration (because the best way to prove that you're not a terrorist group is to organize a suicide bombing). In addition, the declaration has angered many members of the Pakistani government who have connections with the Haqqanis, further eroding an already tenuous diplomatic relationship with Pakistan. The situation within Pakistan is growing increasingly dangerous, as well. Last week a car filled with explosives crashed into a vehicle operated by the United States Consulate in Peshawar and detonated, leaving several members of the consulate staff and dozens of bystanders injured.
In the end, the debate comes down to this: should diplomatic or military options take priority in Afghanistan? Let me know what you think in the Comments and by answering this week's poll.
So who exactly are the Haqqani network? Many officials in the United States government, particularly within the military, have called the Haqqani network the greatest threat to continued operations (and eventual peace) in Afghanistan. The Haqqani network, named after the influential Haqqani clan, operate out of North Waziristan in Pakistan and has thrown their impressive weight behind the Taliban. They provide a level of coordination and sophistication to the Taliban fighters that otherwise might not be possible. The Haqqanis run their own training camps for foreign fighters, secure financial support from wealthy donors in the Persian Gulf as well as money funneled from any number of legitimate (and illegitimate) businesses, engage in kidnappings and smuggling, and extort local tribal leaders to provide resources and to support the Taliban. The Haqqani network has extensive connections within the Pakistani government, especially the Pakistani army (who have refused to launch offensives into Haqqani territory even with concrete evidence of the presence of senior al-Qaeda leaders) and other security services. Pakistan also views the Haqqani network as a useful proxy to push Pakistani interests in the ever-shifting political landscape of Afghanistan. In that way, the Haqqani network could be seen as Pakistan's version of Hezbollah, taking advantage of the chaotic situation in a war-torn region (Lebanon for Hezbollah, Afghanistan for the Haqqani network) for the benefit of a nearby Islamist state. The Haqqani network has been accused of targeting Indian construction projects in Afghanistan as well as attacking NATO forces on the ground. For example, the Haqqani network has been blamed for recent suicide bombing in Kabul carried out by a young man believed to be only 14 years old.
The decision to declare the Haqqani network a distinct terrorist organization, intended to give counter-terrorism officials more authority to shut down Haqqani military operations in Afghanistan and cut off funding, was hotly debated within the administration. While counter-terrorism experts and military analysts praised the move, many officials within the State Department and the White House warned that it would make the eventual withdrawal from Afghanistan even more difficult. That is not an idle worry. According to officials, the attack in Kabul was only the opening salvo in response to the declaration (because the best way to prove that you're not a terrorist group is to organize a suicide bombing). In addition, the declaration has angered many members of the Pakistani government who have connections with the Haqqanis, further eroding an already tenuous diplomatic relationship with Pakistan. The situation within Pakistan is growing increasingly dangerous, as well. Last week a car filled with explosives crashed into a vehicle operated by the United States Consulate in Peshawar and detonated, leaving several members of the consulate staff and dozens of bystanders injured.
In the end, the debate comes down to this: should diplomatic or military options take priority in Afghanistan? Let me know what you think in the Comments and by answering this week's poll.
Saturday, September 8, 2012
Canada Breaks Ties With Iran
Because I missed the previous two weeks due to increased duties at work (and the weekend-long black hole that was Star Wars Celebration VI), I will be putting up a triple-header tonight and throughout this week to get back on schedule. With that bit of housekeeping out of the way, let's begin.
Canadian Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird shocked the diplomatic world when he announced that Canada was officially closing its embassy in Tehran. The reasons range from Iran's support for the mass-murder in Syria to its nuclear weapons program. Reaction to the news has been mixed. The Israelis, of course, loved the show of support (however indirect). Meanwhile, a number of former ambassadors for Canada have been highly critical of shutting down Canada's "window" into a highly unstable region. The Iranians, meanwhile, have shown that they are masters of irony by declaring the "extremist government" of Prime Minister Stephen Harper to be engaged in a "radical foreign policy." Of course, the Iranians have also accused the Israelis as the masterminds of the move, encouraging Harper's government to put the interests of Jews ahead of those of Canadians (because everybody knows how vital the Canadian-Iranian relationship has been).
So, as many have asked, why evacuate embassy personnel now? Baird told reports that the primary reason for the move was to protect the diplomatic staff. That begs the question of what type of threat has the Canadian government spooked. It would not be the first time that an embassy in Tehran has experienced trouble. Last November a horde of protesters stormed the British Embassy, destroying government property and holding seven members of the diplomatic staff hostage until their uneventful release a short time later. And, of course, there was the siege of the American embassy in 1979 that saw over fifty Americans held captive for 444 days. But there have been no apparent threats of such actions against the Canadian embassy. Some regional experts, such as University of Toronto professor Ramin Jahanbegloo (winner of U of T's prestigious "coolest name" award) believe that the evacuation was a preemptive move to protect Canadian diplomats in the event of an Israeli strike against the Iranian nuclear program. If (at this point, it's more like when) the Israeli's strike, any country that has shown significant support will be targeted by Islamic terrorists with ties to Tehran. Hassan Nasrallah, the chief of Hezbollah, has threatened that the United States will be targeted whether it assists the Israelis strike Iran or not, in essence playing a game of political chicken that could very well blow up in his face (though, as a terrorist, it's a hazard of the job). The Canadians are in the same boat, and Prime Minister Harper's government is taking precautions to mitigate the hazards. Meanwhile, in Washington, President Obama is spending his time coming up with a story to either take credit for a successful Israeli strike or place the blame for a failed attack on the Republicans. When he's not golfing, that is. That man loves his golf.
In an unrelated (but shockingly upbeat) story out of Iran, Iranian pastor Yousef Nadarkhani has been released from prison. For those of you who have not been following the story, Nadarkhani was arrested and sentenced to death for apostasy. His case sparked international outrage. It is unknown how influential the outcry was in the decision to release the pastor, but it certainly didn't hurt. While this is truly great news, there are still many Christians and others (including Muslims) who continue to languish in jails in Iran and other Muslim-majority countries like Saudi Arabia for the ambiguous crime of "apostasy." But Nadarkhani's release is a step in the right direction. One down, hundreds more to go.
Canadian Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird shocked the diplomatic world when he announced that Canada was officially closing its embassy in Tehran. The reasons range from Iran's support for the mass-murder in Syria to its nuclear weapons program. Reaction to the news has been mixed. The Israelis, of course, loved the show of support (however indirect). Meanwhile, a number of former ambassadors for Canada have been highly critical of shutting down Canada's "window" into a highly unstable region. The Iranians, meanwhile, have shown that they are masters of irony by declaring the "extremist government" of Prime Minister Stephen Harper to be engaged in a "radical foreign policy." Of course, the Iranians have also accused the Israelis as the masterminds of the move, encouraging Harper's government to put the interests of Jews ahead of those of Canadians (because everybody knows how vital the Canadian-Iranian relationship has been).
So, as many have asked, why evacuate embassy personnel now? Baird told reports that the primary reason for the move was to protect the diplomatic staff. That begs the question of what type of threat has the Canadian government spooked. It would not be the first time that an embassy in Tehran has experienced trouble. Last November a horde of protesters stormed the British Embassy, destroying government property and holding seven members of the diplomatic staff hostage until their uneventful release a short time later. And, of course, there was the siege of the American embassy in 1979 that saw over fifty Americans held captive for 444 days. But there have been no apparent threats of such actions against the Canadian embassy. Some regional experts, such as University of Toronto professor Ramin Jahanbegloo (winner of U of T's prestigious "coolest name" award) believe that the evacuation was a preemptive move to protect Canadian diplomats in the event of an Israeli strike against the Iranian nuclear program. If (at this point, it's more like when) the Israeli's strike, any country that has shown significant support will be targeted by Islamic terrorists with ties to Tehran. Hassan Nasrallah, the chief of Hezbollah, has threatened that the United States will be targeted whether it assists the Israelis strike Iran or not, in essence playing a game of political chicken that could very well blow up in his face (though, as a terrorist, it's a hazard of the job). The Canadians are in the same boat, and Prime Minister Harper's government is taking precautions to mitigate the hazards. Meanwhile, in Washington, President Obama is spending his time coming up with a story to either take credit for a successful Israeli strike or place the blame for a failed attack on the Republicans. When he's not golfing, that is. That man loves his golf.
In an unrelated (but shockingly upbeat) story out of Iran, Iranian pastor Yousef Nadarkhani has been released from prison. For those of you who have not been following the story, Nadarkhani was arrested and sentenced to death for apostasy. His case sparked international outrage. It is unknown how influential the outcry was in the decision to release the pastor, but it certainly didn't hurt. While this is truly great news, there are still many Christians and others (including Muslims) who continue to languish in jails in Iran and other Muslim-majority countries like Saudi Arabia for the ambiguous crime of "apostasy." But Nadarkhani's release is a step in the right direction. One down, hundreds more to go.
Sunday, August 19, 2012
Iran's Connections in the Middle East
As the threat of war looms larger over the Middle East thanks to Iran's continued pursuit of nuclear weapons, the various actors in the region are beginning to pick sides. Well, to be honest, hardly anyone in the Middle East with any significant power is willing to openly back Israel. More accurately, the various actors in the region are beginning to settle on whether or not they would be involved in such a conflict. Hatred for Israel still burns brightly in the hearts of many of the Jewish nation's neighbors, but other political forces, such as the Arab Spring, are influencing the decision-making of the region's leaders.
As perhaps the poster-boy for the Arab Spring, it seems most appropriate to begin by discussing Egypt's President Mohammed Morsi. Morsi is planning to attend a summit in Iran sometime this month. Since 1979, the year of both Egypt's peace treaty with Israel and Iran's Islamic Revolution, diplomatic relations between the two Muslim nations have been frosty. But Morsi apparently intends to reverse many of the policies of ousted President Hosni Mubarak which threw Egypt's political weight behind other predominantly Sunni regimes such as Saudi Arabia. Whether Morsi's decision to reach out to Shiite Iran indicates worsening relations between Egypt's new leadership and their Sunni neighbors is not yet clear, but Morsi has made several statements attempting to reassure the monarchies of the Arabian Peninsula. Only time will tell which side Egypt will commit to joining, but the thawing relationship between Cairo and Tehran should not be ignored.
Meanwhile, it is not exactly news that the economic sanctions against Iran have accomplished something between diddly and squat. Now new reports have been released indicating that two countries, in particular, have been instrumental in providing a way for Tehran to skirt the tough sanctions leveled against the regime: Iraq and Afghanistan. Yes, the two countries in which the United States has been fighting for the past decade and whose governments live and die based on economic aid from Washington have betrayed American efforts to maintain order in the region. The Iraqi banking sector has done shady business with Iranian companies for years despite explicit sanctions prohibiting such activity, helping Tehran maintain a steady cash flow while smuggling oil out of Iran. Afghanistan, meanwhile, has become a popular center for Iranian currency traders looking to get rid of devalued rials in exchange for American dollars, dollars that flow freely as a result of the war and subsequent reconstruction projects paid for by American taxpayers.
On the other side of things, it appears that Hezbollah's stranglehold on Lebanon may be weakening, thanks in no small part to the Syrian civil war. An alleged plot by Syrian leadership to ignite a new civil war in Lebanon by using a campaign of targeted bombings has been discovered. This fact is not unusual given Syria's confrontational and expansionist attitude toward Lebanon, but what is surprising is that the Lebanese have made several stunning arrests, including a friend of Syria's President Bashar al-Assad, and indictments of two other Syrian officials. It represents a fundamental shift in Lebanese politics: Lebanon is no longer content to be the errand boys of a regime that may not be in power this time next year. Members of Hezbollah, the country's ruling party and puppet of Iran's Revolutionary Guard, have been strangely quiet about the case. It is likely that even Hezbollah is unwilling to commit to Iran unconditionally until the situation in Syria has stabilized.
As perhaps the poster-boy for the Arab Spring, it seems most appropriate to begin by discussing Egypt's President Mohammed Morsi. Morsi is planning to attend a summit in Iran sometime this month. Since 1979, the year of both Egypt's peace treaty with Israel and Iran's Islamic Revolution, diplomatic relations between the two Muslim nations have been frosty. But Morsi apparently intends to reverse many of the policies of ousted President Hosni Mubarak which threw Egypt's political weight behind other predominantly Sunni regimes such as Saudi Arabia. Whether Morsi's decision to reach out to Shiite Iran indicates worsening relations between Egypt's new leadership and their Sunni neighbors is not yet clear, but Morsi has made several statements attempting to reassure the monarchies of the Arabian Peninsula. Only time will tell which side Egypt will commit to joining, but the thawing relationship between Cairo and Tehran should not be ignored.
Meanwhile, it is not exactly news that the economic sanctions against Iran have accomplished something between diddly and squat. Now new reports have been released indicating that two countries, in particular, have been instrumental in providing a way for Tehran to skirt the tough sanctions leveled against the regime: Iraq and Afghanistan. Yes, the two countries in which the United States has been fighting for the past decade and whose governments live and die based on economic aid from Washington have betrayed American efforts to maintain order in the region. The Iraqi banking sector has done shady business with Iranian companies for years despite explicit sanctions prohibiting such activity, helping Tehran maintain a steady cash flow while smuggling oil out of Iran. Afghanistan, meanwhile, has become a popular center for Iranian currency traders looking to get rid of devalued rials in exchange for American dollars, dollars that flow freely as a result of the war and subsequent reconstruction projects paid for by American taxpayers.
On the other side of things, it appears that Hezbollah's stranglehold on Lebanon may be weakening, thanks in no small part to the Syrian civil war. An alleged plot by Syrian leadership to ignite a new civil war in Lebanon by using a campaign of targeted bombings has been discovered. This fact is not unusual given Syria's confrontational and expansionist attitude toward Lebanon, but what is surprising is that the Lebanese have made several stunning arrests, including a friend of Syria's President Bashar al-Assad, and indictments of two other Syrian officials. It represents a fundamental shift in Lebanese politics: Lebanon is no longer content to be the errand boys of a regime that may not be in power this time next year. Members of Hezbollah, the country's ruling party and puppet of Iran's Revolutionary Guard, have been strangely quiet about the case. It is likely that even Hezbollah is unwilling to commit to Iran unconditionally until the situation in Syria has stabilized.
Sunday, August 12, 2012
The Ignored Plight of Egypt's Christians
Before I begin, I want to apologize for my lengthy absence. Another project popped up unexpectedly and demanded my attention throughout the past month or so. Well, I'm back and will do my best to get back to the normal schedule of posting. With that out of the way, let's begin.
As the Muslim Brotherhood continues to expand its influence in Egypt, the Christian minority have begun to feel the pressure. During the Mubarak years, the Coptic Christians would see occasional acts of brutality committed against them, but it was generally limited because of Mubarak's efforts to slow the growth of the Islamist movement in Egypt. Mubarak had good reason to try to retain the loyalty of the Coptic minority. Egypt's Christians are among the best educated in the country, many having reached positions of influence in politics, business, and finance. Ironically, Mubarak's successors among the military, who do much of the work of ruling the country, have been assaulting Christian communities and using the chaos to secure their power.
Recently, a nasty incident occurred in which an angry mob (is there any other kind?) of Muslims burned down the homes of Christians close to Cairo. What instigated this violence? It all started when a Muslim man accused a Coptic laundry worker of improperly ironing his shirt and leaving it singed. The next day, the Muslim man gathered up a couple dozen friends and assaulted the Christian's house. The Copt, however, must have suspected something was going to go down because he was prepared for the mob, even injuring another man with a Molotov cocktail. The day after that, over 2,000 Muslims went on a rampage, burning and looting the homes of any Christians they could find.
This is only the most recent act of violence targeting Egypt's Coptic population. Tragically, the Obama administration seems more interested in making nice with the "mostly secular" Muslim Brotherhood as it takes over key positions within the government. There is a popular feeling among the Egyptian expatriates in the West, particularly the United States, that the world is ignoring the plight of the Copts because they feel the Copts will not organize to protest like radical Islamists do. But the reality is actually far worse than simply ignoring evidence. Legislation designed to create a special envoy for religious minorities in the Near East and South Central Asia that passed in the House of Representatives by a large margin has been stalled by Senator James Webb of Virginia.
As bad as Congress may be, the U.S. State Department is leading the charge when it comes to hiding the truth about persecution of Christians around the world. It was the State Department that labeled anti-Christian violence in Nigeria a simple case of tribal rivalry. But the worst (so far) came when the U.S. State Department released their "Country Reports on Human Rights" on May 24. Not only was the report three months behind the Congressional deadline, they had also removed the sections covering freedom of religion (you'd think a shorter report would get out faster!). The State Department, instead, directed its readers to the 2010 International Religious Freedom Report. In other words, the State Department is actively covering up the conditions of the Christian minorities throughout the Middle East in the aftermath of the Arab Spring. If you have trouble wrapping your head around that, trust me when I say you're not the only one. Thomas Farr, a former U.S. diplomat who served under Presidents Clinton and George W. Bush and was the first director of the Office of International Religious Freedom, said, "it is important to note here that I do not know-I have no personal knowledge of the logic that went into removing religious freedom from the broader human rights report; but I also have observed during the three-and-a-half years of the Obama administration that the issue of religious freedom has been distinctly downplayed." He pointed out that while some positions at the State Department, like the ambassador-at-large for global women's issues, were filled only a few months into the new administration, the ambassador-at-large for international religious freedom "did not even step foot into her office until two-and-a-half years were gone of a four-year administration."
"Four-year administration." I like Mr. Farr's optimism.
As the Muslim Brotherhood continues to expand its influence in Egypt, the Christian minority have begun to feel the pressure. During the Mubarak years, the Coptic Christians would see occasional acts of brutality committed against them, but it was generally limited because of Mubarak's efforts to slow the growth of the Islamist movement in Egypt. Mubarak had good reason to try to retain the loyalty of the Coptic minority. Egypt's Christians are among the best educated in the country, many having reached positions of influence in politics, business, and finance. Ironically, Mubarak's successors among the military, who do much of the work of ruling the country, have been assaulting Christian communities and using the chaos to secure their power.
Recently, a nasty incident occurred in which an angry mob (is there any other kind?) of Muslims burned down the homes of Christians close to Cairo. What instigated this violence? It all started when a Muslim man accused a Coptic laundry worker of improperly ironing his shirt and leaving it singed. The next day, the Muslim man gathered up a couple dozen friends and assaulted the Christian's house. The Copt, however, must have suspected something was going to go down because he was prepared for the mob, even injuring another man with a Molotov cocktail. The day after that, over 2,000 Muslims went on a rampage, burning and looting the homes of any Christians they could find.
This is only the most recent act of violence targeting Egypt's Coptic population. Tragically, the Obama administration seems more interested in making nice with the "mostly secular" Muslim Brotherhood as it takes over key positions within the government. There is a popular feeling among the Egyptian expatriates in the West, particularly the United States, that the world is ignoring the plight of the Copts because they feel the Copts will not organize to protest like radical Islamists do. But the reality is actually far worse than simply ignoring evidence. Legislation designed to create a special envoy for religious minorities in the Near East and South Central Asia that passed in the House of Representatives by a large margin has been stalled by Senator James Webb of Virginia.
As bad as Congress may be, the U.S. State Department is leading the charge when it comes to hiding the truth about persecution of Christians around the world. It was the State Department that labeled anti-Christian violence in Nigeria a simple case of tribal rivalry. But the worst (so far) came when the U.S. State Department released their "Country Reports on Human Rights" on May 24. Not only was the report three months behind the Congressional deadline, they had also removed the sections covering freedom of religion (you'd think a shorter report would get out faster!). The State Department, instead, directed its readers to the 2010 International Religious Freedom Report. In other words, the State Department is actively covering up the conditions of the Christian minorities throughout the Middle East in the aftermath of the Arab Spring. If you have trouble wrapping your head around that, trust me when I say you're not the only one. Thomas Farr, a former U.S. diplomat who served under Presidents Clinton and George W. Bush and was the first director of the Office of International Religious Freedom, said, "it is important to note here that I do not know-I have no personal knowledge of the logic that went into removing religious freedom from the broader human rights report; but I also have observed during the three-and-a-half years of the Obama administration that the issue of religious freedom has been distinctly downplayed." He pointed out that while some positions at the State Department, like the ambassador-at-large for global women's issues, were filled only a few months into the new administration, the ambassador-at-large for international religious freedom "did not even step foot into her office until two-and-a-half years were gone of a four-year administration."
"Four-year administration." I like Mr. Farr's optimism.
Sunday, June 24, 2012
Political Chaos in Egypt
When last we met, I discussed the consequences of Mubarak's prison sentence. With the one-time dictator out of the picture (and even recent rumors that Mubarak had died of a stroke), the issue of political succession has taken on renewed importance. Ever since Mubarak left office, a showdown between the old guard of Mubarak supporters and the populist Muslim Brotherhood has loomed large over every political act. Now that showdown has come to a head.
Muslim Brotherhood candidate Mohammed Morsi was officially declared the winner of Egypt's heated election. The election, between Morsi and Mubarak's final prime minister Ahmed Shafiq, bitterly divided the nation. Many Egyptians, faced with the choice of supporting what they see as an illegal military-led government or a dangerous theocratic terrorist group, simply boycotted the vote altogether. Reports of domestic violence shot upward as family members physically assaulted (or even killed) one another because of political differences.
Morsi already has an uphill political battle ahead of him. In an unexpected move, the Egyptian military issued a declaration that transferred significant powers from the office of president to the Supreme Council of Armed Forces just hours after the polls closed but before the results had been fully counted. Among these powers include control over the country's budget as well as sweeping legislative authority. Needless to say, that move has sparked a tremendous outcry among the populace of Cairo.
So we have serious tension building in the streets of Cairo. Again. Somewhat worryingly, Muslim Brotherhood member of Parliament Saad al-Katatni declared that the declaration was "null and void" and that it was time for the Egyptians to protect their revolution. Language like that smacks of the theocratic revolution of Iran in 1979, an event that had bad results for the American presence in the Middle East. And I'm not the only one noticing the similarities. Congressman Allen West called on President Obama to cut off all foreign aid to Egypt to protest the Muslim Brotherhood's near-total domination of Egypt's government. "A year ago there were those of us who warned the Obama administration of a Muslim Brotherhood takeover in Egypt," Congressman West wrote on his Facebook page. "Today our predictions have come to reality and the ominous specter reminding us of the Iranian revolution is evident." West also called President Obama "the second coming of President Jimmy Carter..."
Have I mentioned how much I like Congressman West?
Muslim Brotherhood candidate Mohammed Morsi was officially declared the winner of Egypt's heated election. The election, between Morsi and Mubarak's final prime minister Ahmed Shafiq, bitterly divided the nation. Many Egyptians, faced with the choice of supporting what they see as an illegal military-led government or a dangerous theocratic terrorist group, simply boycotted the vote altogether. Reports of domestic violence shot upward as family members physically assaulted (or even killed) one another because of political differences.
Morsi already has an uphill political battle ahead of him. In an unexpected move, the Egyptian military issued a declaration that transferred significant powers from the office of president to the Supreme Council of Armed Forces just hours after the polls closed but before the results had been fully counted. Among these powers include control over the country's budget as well as sweeping legislative authority. Needless to say, that move has sparked a tremendous outcry among the populace of Cairo.
So we have serious tension building in the streets of Cairo. Again. Somewhat worryingly, Muslim Brotherhood member of Parliament Saad al-Katatni declared that the declaration was "null and void" and that it was time for the Egyptians to protect their revolution. Language like that smacks of the theocratic revolution of Iran in 1979, an event that had bad results for the American presence in the Middle East. And I'm not the only one noticing the similarities. Congressman Allen West called on President Obama to cut off all foreign aid to Egypt to protest the Muslim Brotherhood's near-total domination of Egypt's government. "A year ago there were those of us who warned the Obama administration of a Muslim Brotherhood takeover in Egypt," Congressman West wrote on his Facebook page. "Today our predictions have come to reality and the ominous specter reminding us of the Iranian revolution is evident." West also called President Obama "the second coming of President Jimmy Carter..."
Have I mentioned how much I like Congressman West?
Saturday, June 2, 2012
Judgment Day for Mubarak
Hello once again to all of my loyal readers. I apologize for being gone so long, but another project (and Star Wars Weekends at Walt Disney World) have taken up more of my time than I had anticipated. Anyway, back into the fray.
For those of you still following the situation in Egypt (which I hope would be the vast majority of you), you know that today is a significant event in modern Egyptian history. Ever since Egypt's former leader Hosni Mubarak was removed from power, his trial and its aftermath have been the topics of heated debate. Would Mubarak supporters in the government skew the result toward a light sentence, or would the revolutionary bloodlust of the populace scare the current leadership into executing the fallen dictator to appease the mob? Well, today we have our answer: Mubarak will serve a life sentence in prison for ordering his police and military to kill protesters.
Many people who suffered under Mubarak's regime, both before and during the uprisings, were glad to see what they considered a fair but properly harsh sentence. However, many more are furious that Mubarak was not executed for his crimes. The trial actually had to be halted at one point when a scuffle broke out between Mubarak supporters and relatives of Mubarak's victims (along with some of the prosecuting attorneys!). Mubarak himself listened to the verdict while on a hospital gurney that had been brought into the courtroom after receiving medical care while in prison awaiting the trial. After the verdict was read, more fighting began in the courtroom and spilled out into the streets. A wave of protests have begun, and by all indications they are just getting started.
So why does this matter? You can be sure that more than a few allies of the United States have been watching this situation with great interest. They are worried that, if similar protests erupt against their rule, the American government may abandon them just as quickly as it had Mubarak. These nations will try to make themselves more valuable allies to the United States in the short-term, but they will also begin to seriously cultivate relationships with other powers like China or Russia (both of whom have been skeptical of the charges against Syria's Assad) who would be willing to support them even if the United States will not. Also, these new protests are undoubtedly being organized with an eye toward influencing the upcoming Egyptian elections. The Muslim Brotherhood has much to gain and little to lose by stirring up resentment against former members of the Mubarak government.
And let us also not forget that Mubarak's life will be in danger until he finally succumbs to causes natural or otherwise. After all, Libya has already established a dangerous precedent in which a hated ex-leader is murdered in cold blood. Now that the people of Egypt feel they have been denied Allah's justice, they will seek to exact it themselves.
For those of you still following the situation in Egypt (which I hope would be the vast majority of you), you know that today is a significant event in modern Egyptian history. Ever since Egypt's former leader Hosni Mubarak was removed from power, his trial and its aftermath have been the topics of heated debate. Would Mubarak supporters in the government skew the result toward a light sentence, or would the revolutionary bloodlust of the populace scare the current leadership into executing the fallen dictator to appease the mob? Well, today we have our answer: Mubarak will serve a life sentence in prison for ordering his police and military to kill protesters.
Many people who suffered under Mubarak's regime, both before and during the uprisings, were glad to see what they considered a fair but properly harsh sentence. However, many more are furious that Mubarak was not executed for his crimes. The trial actually had to be halted at one point when a scuffle broke out between Mubarak supporters and relatives of Mubarak's victims (along with some of the prosecuting attorneys!). Mubarak himself listened to the verdict while on a hospital gurney that had been brought into the courtroom after receiving medical care while in prison awaiting the trial. After the verdict was read, more fighting began in the courtroom and spilled out into the streets. A wave of protests have begun, and by all indications they are just getting started.
So why does this matter? You can be sure that more than a few allies of the United States have been watching this situation with great interest. They are worried that, if similar protests erupt against their rule, the American government may abandon them just as quickly as it had Mubarak. These nations will try to make themselves more valuable allies to the United States in the short-term, but they will also begin to seriously cultivate relationships with other powers like China or Russia (both of whom have been skeptical of the charges against Syria's Assad) who would be willing to support them even if the United States will not. Also, these new protests are undoubtedly being organized with an eye toward influencing the upcoming Egyptian elections. The Muslim Brotherhood has much to gain and little to lose by stirring up resentment against former members of the Mubarak government.
And let us also not forget that Mubarak's life will be in danger until he finally succumbs to causes natural or otherwise. After all, Libya has already established a dangerous precedent in which a hated ex-leader is murdered in cold blood. Now that the people of Egypt feel they have been denied Allah's justice, they will seek to exact it themselves.
Friday, April 27, 2012
Amazing Documentary
Glenn Beck has just release a must-see documentary entitled "Rumors of War III: Target U.S." It goes into tremendous and terrifying detail about the threats presented by Islamists and how the United States government is actually encouraging the spread of groups like the Muslim Brotherhood. A series of experts from the media, law enforcement, politics, and the military discuss some of the deadliest threats to American security, many of which I have discussed previously on The New Knighthood, including Iran and Hezbollah's connections on the southern border.
Go to this link: http://www.glennbeck.com/rumorsofwar/. GBTV is a paid subscription site, but they are offering a two-week free trial so as many people as possible can get this information. If you have friends or loved ones who are not yet awake to these threats, this would be a great way to open their eyes. If you are disturbed by the current dangers Islamists present to America (and the rest of the Western world), this documentary will provide a great depth of information in a very reasonable amount of time.
Watch the video. Spread the message. Take a stand.
Better Dead than Dhimmi!
Go to this link: http://www.glennbeck.com/rumorsofwar/. GBTV is a paid subscription site, but they are offering a two-week free trial so as many people as possible can get this information. If you have friends or loved ones who are not yet awake to these threats, this would be a great way to open their eyes. If you are disturbed by the current dangers Islamists present to America (and the rest of the Western world), this documentary will provide a great depth of information in a very reasonable amount of time.
Watch the video. Spread the message. Take a stand.
Better Dead than Dhimmi!
Sunday, April 15, 2012
Gone Fishin'
Greetings to all of my faithful readers! For the next few weeks my schedule is going to be consumed with another project that I am working on. As a result, there will be no new posts during this time. Of course, in the event of some major event I will do my best to give you all my take on the situation. I will also do my best to put up a new poll every Monday during this short break, so keep coming back to check for that. Thanks for reading The New Knighthood. I will see you all (metaphorically speaking) in three weeks.
Sunday, April 8, 2012
Happy Easter
In a world filled with so much darkness and suffering, it can be easy to fall into pessimism. At particular risk are those of us who pay close attention to the forces of evil at work in the world. Vigilance carries a price tag, and too often people with good intentions end up bitter, angry, and vengeful because all they focus on is the injustices in the world. But we must remember that there is more to the world than death and despair. There is light in the world as well as darkness, and if we spend too much time looking into the darkness we may end up suffocating in it. If we simply labor against the darkness, then we labor in vain. Trying to stop moral darkness is as pointless as trying to push physical darkness out of your house with your bare hands. You do not remove darkness, but rather replace it with light. We must understand the light as well as the dark if we stand a chance of reflecting it into the shadows.
Those of us who are Christians serve the Light of the world. We stand not just against the forces of evil but for our Redeemer. The day we set aside to remember Christ's resurrection seems as good a time as any to discuss this topic. The real story of Easter is that the hardest part is already finished. Jesus sacrificed himself on a cross and rose three days later so that the power of sin and death could be broken forever. Any challenges we face, from personal demons to conflicts between entire civilizations, pale in comparison.
Persecution is to be expected. Christ told the Church as much in John 15:18. But to become bitter or seek revenge is to miss the entire point of Christ's sacrifice. He didn't give his life so that the sinless people could have eternal life but so that the sinful and corrupt could be redeemed and made new. Even for those of you who are not Christians, the point still stands: people are capable of change. That is the entire reason we promote free will and individual liberty. It is often the enemies of truth become its greatest champions. Examples range from the Apostle Paul to former Communists like David Horowitz. It is the ideology and the evil actions promoted by that ideology that we must hate, but we must be willing to forgive our enemies. After all, if we do not expect to convince anyone of the rightness of our cause, why do we expend so much effort trying?
So happy Easter everyone. And God bless.
Those of us who are Christians serve the Light of the world. We stand not just against the forces of evil but for our Redeemer. The day we set aside to remember Christ's resurrection seems as good a time as any to discuss this topic. The real story of Easter is that the hardest part is already finished. Jesus sacrificed himself on a cross and rose three days later so that the power of sin and death could be broken forever. Any challenges we face, from personal demons to conflicts between entire civilizations, pale in comparison.
Persecution is to be expected. Christ told the Church as much in John 15:18. But to become bitter or seek revenge is to miss the entire point of Christ's sacrifice. He didn't give his life so that the sinless people could have eternal life but so that the sinful and corrupt could be redeemed and made new. Even for those of you who are not Christians, the point still stands: people are capable of change. That is the entire reason we promote free will and individual liberty. It is often the enemies of truth become its greatest champions. Examples range from the Apostle Paul to former Communists like David Horowitz. It is the ideology and the evil actions promoted by that ideology that we must hate, but we must be willing to forgive our enemies. After all, if we do not expect to convince anyone of the rightness of our cause, why do we expend so much effort trying?
So happy Easter everyone. And God bless.
Monday, April 2, 2012
Tragedy in Toulouse
I intended to do this post last week, but I was plagued by technical issues. This may no longer be breaking news, but it still bears careful examination.
Once again, a tragic shooting has rocked Europe. On March 19th, a gunman started shooting at a Jewish school, resulting in the deaths of three children and one adult male, the father of two of the young victims. Investigators discovered that the same weapon was used in the murders of three French paratroopers in two previous attacks, both quick hits in which the attacker used a motorcycle to escape into traffic after the shooting. Authorities closed in on the man, Mohamed Merah, believed responsible for the murders. This led to a 32-hour standoff between Merah and the police which ended with a police assault on his apartment. Two police officers were wounded in the firefight and Merah was killed by police while trying to flee the scene. Attention has shifted to Merah's brother Abdelkader, who police accuse of assisting Mohamed's rampage.
This incident has brought attention to two related phenomenon in Western Europe: the increasing radicalization and self-imposed isolation of Muslim immigrant communities and the drastic rise in anti-Semitism. As the Muslim populations within countries like France and England have exploded (no pun intended) over the past few decades, they have grown increasingly bold in their interactions with their fellow countrymen. From Sharia courts in London to the so-called "Sensitive Urban Zones" of Paris and other major French cities, the idea of Islamic superiority is on the march. Islamic "civil rights" groups have been popping up like crazy in the West, primarily to distort the media message and label anyone seeking an honest examination of the facts as a hate-monger. One of these groups, the Forsane Alizza group, has faced intense examination from French law enforcement because of alleged connections to Merah's attacks. Nineteen members were taken into custody, and the interior minister reported that stockpiles of assault rifles were found while searching these suspects' houses. This suggests that further attacks, possibly coordinated strikes by multiple gunmen, were planned. Counterterrorism experts have also warned that more so-called "lone wolf" attacks are on the way.
As ethnic tensions increase, anti-Semitism has rocketed in popularity. A recent report by the Anti-Defamation League found what they called "disturbingly high" surges of anti-Semitism in Austria, France, Hungary, Italy, Norway, Poland, Spain, Germany, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom. The study shows that high percentages of the population, in many cases the majority, believe that Jews are not loyal enough and that they have too much power, particularly in business and finance. Please don't misunderstand, I am not saying that Muslims are the perpetrators of this. Far from it, many non-Muslim groups actually use Muslim militancy to call for crackdowns on Jewish populations. One French schoolteacher aroused controversy when she asked her class to pay respects to the murderer, saying his connection to al-Qaeda had been fabricated to frame him (I don't know what excuse she has for his armed standoff with police). As various evil factions, whether Communist, fascist, or Islamist, gain power and create chaos, we will see a sharp increase in assaults against European Jews. As popular novelist Andrew Klavan says, the nice thing about anti-Semitism is "it lets you know exactly who the dirtbags are." By observing such a rapid rise in anti-Semitism over the last few years, it shows a disturbing trend toward dirtbag-ism that cannot be ignored.
The loss of life in these attacks is tragic, but it would be even more tragic to simply observe such violence and then return to our lives believing that it is an anomaly that will not be repeated. Also, be on the lookout for a violent response of some kind like the Norway murders last year by one of the other major groups of bad guys trying to take power. The game is being rigged as we speak. Innocent, ignorant people will find themselves forced to take sides in a conflict between different sides of the same totalitarian coin. To quote the supercomputer from WarGames, "the only winning move is not to play." Look out for anyone trying to present you with a false choice, and ask the questions they don't want to answer.
Once again, a tragic shooting has rocked Europe. On March 19th, a gunman started shooting at a Jewish school, resulting in the deaths of three children and one adult male, the father of two of the young victims. Investigators discovered that the same weapon was used in the murders of three French paratroopers in two previous attacks, both quick hits in which the attacker used a motorcycle to escape into traffic after the shooting. Authorities closed in on the man, Mohamed Merah, believed responsible for the murders. This led to a 32-hour standoff between Merah and the police which ended with a police assault on his apartment. Two police officers were wounded in the firefight and Merah was killed by police while trying to flee the scene. Attention has shifted to Merah's brother Abdelkader, who police accuse of assisting Mohamed's rampage.
This incident has brought attention to two related phenomenon in Western Europe: the increasing radicalization and self-imposed isolation of Muslim immigrant communities and the drastic rise in anti-Semitism. As the Muslim populations within countries like France and England have exploded (no pun intended) over the past few decades, they have grown increasingly bold in their interactions with their fellow countrymen. From Sharia courts in London to the so-called "Sensitive Urban Zones" of Paris and other major French cities, the idea of Islamic superiority is on the march. Islamic "civil rights" groups have been popping up like crazy in the West, primarily to distort the media message and label anyone seeking an honest examination of the facts as a hate-monger. One of these groups, the Forsane Alizza group, has faced intense examination from French law enforcement because of alleged connections to Merah's attacks. Nineteen members were taken into custody, and the interior minister reported that stockpiles of assault rifles were found while searching these suspects' houses. This suggests that further attacks, possibly coordinated strikes by multiple gunmen, were planned. Counterterrorism experts have also warned that more so-called "lone wolf" attacks are on the way.
As ethnic tensions increase, anti-Semitism has rocketed in popularity. A recent report by the Anti-Defamation League found what they called "disturbingly high" surges of anti-Semitism in Austria, France, Hungary, Italy, Norway, Poland, Spain, Germany, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom. The study shows that high percentages of the population, in many cases the majority, believe that Jews are not loyal enough and that they have too much power, particularly in business and finance. Please don't misunderstand, I am not saying that Muslims are the perpetrators of this. Far from it, many non-Muslim groups actually use Muslim militancy to call for crackdowns on Jewish populations. One French schoolteacher aroused controversy when she asked her class to pay respects to the murderer, saying his connection to al-Qaeda had been fabricated to frame him (I don't know what excuse she has for his armed standoff with police). As various evil factions, whether Communist, fascist, or Islamist, gain power and create chaos, we will see a sharp increase in assaults against European Jews. As popular novelist Andrew Klavan says, the nice thing about anti-Semitism is "it lets you know exactly who the dirtbags are." By observing such a rapid rise in anti-Semitism over the last few years, it shows a disturbing trend toward dirtbag-ism that cannot be ignored.
The loss of life in these attacks is tragic, but it would be even more tragic to simply observe such violence and then return to our lives believing that it is an anomaly that will not be repeated. Also, be on the lookout for a violent response of some kind like the Norway murders last year by one of the other major groups of bad guys trying to take power. The game is being rigged as we speak. Innocent, ignorant people will find themselves forced to take sides in a conflict between different sides of the same totalitarian coin. To quote the supercomputer from WarGames, "the only winning move is not to play." Look out for anyone trying to present you with a false choice, and ask the questions they don't want to answer.
Sunday, March 18, 2012
The Dangers of Intervention in Syria
Sorry I missed last week's post. I'll be back on normal schedule as soon as possible, I promise.
It's hard to believe that the Arab Spring movement has only been active for a little more than a year. Yet in that relatively short amount of time we've seen perhaps the greatest upheavals and revolutions since the fall of the Soviet Union. Three dictators who likely never imagined a day that they would be deposed have toppled from power. Meanwhile, the people of Syria have tried to add a fourth name to that list: Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. However, Assad has no plans to step down like Mubarak did in Egypt, and it appears that his government was much more prepared for a potential civil war than Ghaddafi's Libya.
From the beginning, people in the media and in politics, as well as a number of Syrian-American organizations, have been calling for more active steps by the US government to help depose Assad. Those voices are louder than ever now, and include such notables as 2008 Republican Presidential candidate John McCain. And certainly, no one in the administration wants to be seen as either weak when dealing with foreign dictators or uncaring about the plight of the oppressed citizens of Syria. Not in an election year, anyway. But on the other hand, jumping into an unpopular military action has a way of bringing about unintended consequences, and if that action is taken too early those consequences may hurt re-election chances. It all comes down to the ruthless calculus of politics.
There are some who are bringing up Libya as an example of NATO intervention that helped bring down a totalitarian regime, but that is a dangerous game for several reasons. First of all, the Libya intervention never had the kind of support among the American people that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan had. Second, Ghaddafi had a history of taking violent action against citizens of the United States and our interests, especially during the Cold War (something used by great effect by propagandists for the military action, who could bring up President Ronald Reagan's own military actions against Libya to block protests from the political right). Assad's regime, on the other hand, has engaged in no active campaigns against the United States (although they have been very supportive of groups that have committed acts against our allies, particularly Israel). Going to "kinetic military action" with a country that has never had an official beef against us could establish (or, rather, strengthen) a nasty precedent. Third, Libya has seen a dramatic collapse in social cohesion since the death of Ghaddafi, with a major portion of the country declaring semi-autonomy. We could actually see a civil war brought about because of the fall of Ghaddafi mere months after bringing the previous conflict to a close. Syria lies at the heart of perhaps the most volatile region on the planet, and such destabilization could cascade into other countries or lead to aggressive expansion on the part of Syria's neighbors willing to take advantage of the situation to gain territory and resources. It also must be considered that Syria is a much more powerful foe than Ghaddafi. Whereas the Libyan government stood largely on its own during the civil war, Syria has the explicit backing of Iran and Russia. This extra diplomatic weight has also translated to better technology for the Syrian military, particularly with the Russian-supplied air defense network.
The American military is not excited about the possibility of entering the conflict for several reasons. The first, as stated above, is Syria's air defense grid that would make a bombing campaign like the one that happened in Libya exponentially more complicated, in large part because the key structures for this network are located in or near large population centers and collateral damage would be unavoidable. Also, the Pentagon recognizes that military action in Syria could very easily escalate into a much larger proxy war against Iran or even Russia. Even the option of supplying and training the Syrian opposition is unpopular because of the deep divisions (not to mention divided loyalties and questionable motives) within the opposition movement. Military officials also expressed their disdain for the heated emotional rhetoric about potential intervention that ignores the basic reality on the ground.
Yes, it sucks that Assad is killing so many of his own people, but trying to give him the boot may lead to greater casualties and destruction. For a good analysis of the situation and the possibilities, watch the following segment of GBTV's "Real News": http://www.theblaze.com/stories/house-of-assad-real-news-panel-on-how-going-into-syria-could-exacerbate-the-ongoing-internal-conflict/
It's hard to believe that the Arab Spring movement has only been active for a little more than a year. Yet in that relatively short amount of time we've seen perhaps the greatest upheavals and revolutions since the fall of the Soviet Union. Three dictators who likely never imagined a day that they would be deposed have toppled from power. Meanwhile, the people of Syria have tried to add a fourth name to that list: Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. However, Assad has no plans to step down like Mubarak did in Egypt, and it appears that his government was much more prepared for a potential civil war than Ghaddafi's Libya.
From the beginning, people in the media and in politics, as well as a number of Syrian-American organizations, have been calling for more active steps by the US government to help depose Assad. Those voices are louder than ever now, and include such notables as 2008 Republican Presidential candidate John McCain. And certainly, no one in the administration wants to be seen as either weak when dealing with foreign dictators or uncaring about the plight of the oppressed citizens of Syria. Not in an election year, anyway. But on the other hand, jumping into an unpopular military action has a way of bringing about unintended consequences, and if that action is taken too early those consequences may hurt re-election chances. It all comes down to the ruthless calculus of politics.
There are some who are bringing up Libya as an example of NATO intervention that helped bring down a totalitarian regime, but that is a dangerous game for several reasons. First of all, the Libya intervention never had the kind of support among the American people that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan had. Second, Ghaddafi had a history of taking violent action against citizens of the United States and our interests, especially during the Cold War (something used by great effect by propagandists for the military action, who could bring up President Ronald Reagan's own military actions against Libya to block protests from the political right). Assad's regime, on the other hand, has engaged in no active campaigns against the United States (although they have been very supportive of groups that have committed acts against our allies, particularly Israel). Going to "kinetic military action" with a country that has never had an official beef against us could establish (or, rather, strengthen) a nasty precedent. Third, Libya has seen a dramatic collapse in social cohesion since the death of Ghaddafi, with a major portion of the country declaring semi-autonomy. We could actually see a civil war brought about because of the fall of Ghaddafi mere months after bringing the previous conflict to a close. Syria lies at the heart of perhaps the most volatile region on the planet, and such destabilization could cascade into other countries or lead to aggressive expansion on the part of Syria's neighbors willing to take advantage of the situation to gain territory and resources. It also must be considered that Syria is a much more powerful foe than Ghaddafi. Whereas the Libyan government stood largely on its own during the civil war, Syria has the explicit backing of Iran and Russia. This extra diplomatic weight has also translated to better technology for the Syrian military, particularly with the Russian-supplied air defense network.
The American military is not excited about the possibility of entering the conflict for several reasons. The first, as stated above, is Syria's air defense grid that would make a bombing campaign like the one that happened in Libya exponentially more complicated, in large part because the key structures for this network are located in or near large population centers and collateral damage would be unavoidable. Also, the Pentagon recognizes that military action in Syria could very easily escalate into a much larger proxy war against Iran or even Russia. Even the option of supplying and training the Syrian opposition is unpopular because of the deep divisions (not to mention divided loyalties and questionable motives) within the opposition movement. Military officials also expressed their disdain for the heated emotional rhetoric about potential intervention that ignores the basic reality on the ground.
Yes, it sucks that Assad is killing so many of his own people, but trying to give him the boot may lead to greater casualties and destruction. For a good analysis of the situation and the possibilities, watch the following segment of GBTV's "Real News": http://www.theblaze.com/stories/house-of-assad-real-news-panel-on-how-going-into-syria-could-exacerbate-the-ongoing-internal-conflict/
Monday, March 5, 2012
Death Before Dishonor Redux
Before I begin, I must apologize for my lengthy absence. My computer decided to take a little vacation without me, but everything should be fixed now and we can continue.
Last April, I wrote about the fundamental disconnect between the traditional Western ideal of personal honor and the Islamic ideal of collective honor. At the time, the conversation was relevant because of the reaction of militant Islamists to "Pastor" Terry Jones' burning of a Koran. Well, the past is seeming to repeat itself with a renewed series of terrorist attacks and violent riots sparked by the burning of a Koran at a NATO base in Afghanistan. But there are some new elements to this story that bear a closer look.
First, while Jones' act was an intentional insult, the incident at the NATO base was an accident. A collection of books, including Korans, from a prison lending library were being used by prisoners to pass messages to one another by writing in the margins. When this was discovered, the books were discarded and the soldiers responsible for disposing of the trash were told to get rid of them. Of course, these men are soldiers, not Koranic scholars, and they threw the whole collection of books into a fire pit. It was Afghanis working at the site that spotted the Korans in the flames and rushed to spread word of the Americans' "insult," which led to a series of attacks and riots that have left six Americans and thirty others dead. Gee, what great allies we have. Why didn't the Afghanis tell the soldiers not to put the Korans in the fire in the first place? Because that would deny them an excuse to kill and maim, and that's just how a lot of Afghanis like to get down. What is interesting is that disposal of desecrated Korans by fire is the accepted practice by Islamic scholars. So, in essence, the militants are rioting and murdering because we followed the crazy rules they put in place.
Now, it should go without saying that the traditional ideals of honor are not monolithic even within the same society. While the American military and its allies have shown tremendous courage and honor on the ground, the political classes have practically fallen over themselves trying to apologize for an accident rather than demand that murderous scumbags are held accountable for their actions. Our enemies have noticed this weakness and are pressing it with all of their strength. The Taliban launched an assault at Bagram Airfield, claiming of course to be doing it in simple retaliation for the insult to their Koran. Oh, okay. So what was their excuse before the Koran burning? Pastor Jones, Geert Wilders, Pope Benedict XVI, or Danish cartoons? It's not like the Taliban were just sitting around doing nothing until they heard about some guys at a NATO base having a Koran barbecue (I hear the pork's delicious). So why did President Obama apologize? I mean, it's getting to the point where President Obama is reflexively apologizing whenever he sees a Muslim on the street (or, more likely, on a golf course).
To add insult to injury, the Afghani government is demanding prosecution for the NATO personnel involved. And, in a stunningly gutless move, NATO is seriously considering throwing these poor men to the wolves in order to preserve the all-important goal of "Peace," whatever that means. Islamic clerics have demanded a public trial to condemn the soldiers in accordance with Afghani law, threatening a "storm of fury" if their demands are not met. What I would like to know is what these soldiers could possibly be charged with? NATO forces do not officially operate under Sharia law (yet), so "insulting the Holy Koran" is probably out. And it's hard to see how someone could charge these soldiers with "dereliction of duty" for following orders?
Now, just try to imagine the utter chaos that would take place if Christians discovered that Bibles were being burned by NATO troops. Why, we might even write letters of disapproval or call our representatives. Horrifying, to be sure. Except, the military has been burning any unsolicited Bibles or similar religious materials printed in Pashto and Dari, the two most common languages in Afghanistan. That decision was made because "it could be perceived by Afghans that the U.S. government or the U.S. military was trying to convert Muslims," according to Lt. Col. Mark Wright of the Department of Defense. So we have to walk on eggshells to avoid making radical Islamists angry. I thought the point of this war was to kill these guys. Making them angry would be a great way to get them to come out of their hidey holes. Otherwise we're just waiting around for the next attack with whatever excuse the militants find convenient.
If Afghanistan is ever to become something more than a backwards hellhole, its people and leadership need to take responsibility. I find it interesting that the same people in the Afghan government who are screaming for blood about this matter are also the ones interested in peace talks with the Taliban. You know, the people who videotaped decapitations so they could put it on YouTube. Curiously, that never seems to come up in all of the condemnation over the Koran incident. Our diplomats, meanwhile, need to stop trying to make the United States and its allies the scapegoats for everything that goes wrong in Afghanistan. It takes two sides to fight a war, but right now only one side seems interested in fighting. Maybe it's time that we started focusing on the real enemies, for a change.
Last April, I wrote about the fundamental disconnect between the traditional Western ideal of personal honor and the Islamic ideal of collective honor. At the time, the conversation was relevant because of the reaction of militant Islamists to "Pastor" Terry Jones' burning of a Koran. Well, the past is seeming to repeat itself with a renewed series of terrorist attacks and violent riots sparked by the burning of a Koran at a NATO base in Afghanistan. But there are some new elements to this story that bear a closer look.
First, while Jones' act was an intentional insult, the incident at the NATO base was an accident. A collection of books, including Korans, from a prison lending library were being used by prisoners to pass messages to one another by writing in the margins. When this was discovered, the books were discarded and the soldiers responsible for disposing of the trash were told to get rid of them. Of course, these men are soldiers, not Koranic scholars, and they threw the whole collection of books into a fire pit. It was Afghanis working at the site that spotted the Korans in the flames and rushed to spread word of the Americans' "insult," which led to a series of attacks and riots that have left six Americans and thirty others dead. Gee, what great allies we have. Why didn't the Afghanis tell the soldiers not to put the Korans in the fire in the first place? Because that would deny them an excuse to kill and maim, and that's just how a lot of Afghanis like to get down. What is interesting is that disposal of desecrated Korans by fire is the accepted practice by Islamic scholars. So, in essence, the militants are rioting and murdering because we followed the crazy rules they put in place.
Now, it should go without saying that the traditional ideals of honor are not monolithic even within the same society. While the American military and its allies have shown tremendous courage and honor on the ground, the political classes have practically fallen over themselves trying to apologize for an accident rather than demand that murderous scumbags are held accountable for their actions. Our enemies have noticed this weakness and are pressing it with all of their strength. The Taliban launched an assault at Bagram Airfield, claiming of course to be doing it in simple retaliation for the insult to their Koran. Oh, okay. So what was their excuse before the Koran burning? Pastor Jones, Geert Wilders, Pope Benedict XVI, or Danish cartoons? It's not like the Taliban were just sitting around doing nothing until they heard about some guys at a NATO base having a Koran barbecue (I hear the pork's delicious). So why did President Obama apologize? I mean, it's getting to the point where President Obama is reflexively apologizing whenever he sees a Muslim on the street (or, more likely, on a golf course).
To add insult to injury, the Afghani government is demanding prosecution for the NATO personnel involved. And, in a stunningly gutless move, NATO is seriously considering throwing these poor men to the wolves in order to preserve the all-important goal of "Peace," whatever that means. Islamic clerics have demanded a public trial to condemn the soldiers in accordance with Afghani law, threatening a "storm of fury" if their demands are not met. What I would like to know is what these soldiers could possibly be charged with? NATO forces do not officially operate under Sharia law (yet), so "insulting the Holy Koran" is probably out. And it's hard to see how someone could charge these soldiers with "dereliction of duty" for following orders?
Now, just try to imagine the utter chaos that would take place if Christians discovered that Bibles were being burned by NATO troops. Why, we might even write letters of disapproval or call our representatives. Horrifying, to be sure. Except, the military has been burning any unsolicited Bibles or similar religious materials printed in Pashto and Dari, the two most common languages in Afghanistan. That decision was made because "it could be perceived by Afghans that the U.S. government or the U.S. military was trying to convert Muslims," according to Lt. Col. Mark Wright of the Department of Defense. So we have to walk on eggshells to avoid making radical Islamists angry. I thought the point of this war was to kill these guys. Making them angry would be a great way to get them to come out of their hidey holes. Otherwise we're just waiting around for the next attack with whatever excuse the militants find convenient.
If Afghanistan is ever to become something more than a backwards hellhole, its people and leadership need to take responsibility. I find it interesting that the same people in the Afghan government who are screaming for blood about this matter are also the ones interested in peace talks with the Taliban. You know, the people who videotaped decapitations so they could put it on YouTube. Curiously, that never seems to come up in all of the condemnation over the Koran incident. Our diplomats, meanwhile, need to stop trying to make the United States and its allies the scapegoats for everything that goes wrong in Afghanistan. It takes two sides to fight a war, but right now only one side seems interested in fighting. Maybe it's time that we started focusing on the real enemies, for a change.
Tuesday, February 14, 2012
Happy Anniversary!
It's hard to believe it was one year ago today that I started this blog with a post entitled "Thoughts on the New Knighthood." I began this blog with a simple purpose: look at world events, particularly those involving Islamism, through the lens of history. It turns out I picked a great time to start writing about world events.
What a year it's been! The Arab Spring has turned from "peaceful" protests to open war in Libya and Syria. While many of us who were paying attention saw that coming a mile away, other events were hard to imagine twelve months ago. The death of Osama bin Laden, and to a lesser extent Anwar al-Awlaki, was surprising and certainly great news. Most events that I covered, however, were not as positive. Two stand out as frightening visions of possible things to come: the Norway murders by supposed radical nationalist Anders Breivik in July and the socialist-sparked London riots in August. Both of these events point to something I have feared for a couple of years now, namely that the economic and social stresses in Europe will split the continent between fascists, communists, and Islamists. The normal, freedom-loving (or at least not freedom-hating) Europeans will be squeezed into supporting one of these groups. In America, we have seen the idea of isolationism surge in popularity, represented in particular by Republican Presidential candidate Ron Paul. Meanwhile, the Obama administration abandons allies like Israel while supporting groups like the Muslim Brotherhood.
This has been a great experience for me, and I hope it will continue for a long time. "May you live in interesting times," is an old Chinese curse (supposedly) and it is an apt description of current events. Make no mistake, 2012 will be "interesting times" and I will be here to cover it all. Stay tuned. We're not finished yet.
What a year it's been! The Arab Spring has turned from "peaceful" protests to open war in Libya and Syria. While many of us who were paying attention saw that coming a mile away, other events were hard to imagine twelve months ago. The death of Osama bin Laden, and to a lesser extent Anwar al-Awlaki, was surprising and certainly great news. Most events that I covered, however, were not as positive. Two stand out as frightening visions of possible things to come: the Norway murders by supposed radical nationalist Anders Breivik in July and the socialist-sparked London riots in August. Both of these events point to something I have feared for a couple of years now, namely that the economic and social stresses in Europe will split the continent between fascists, communists, and Islamists. The normal, freedom-loving (or at least not freedom-hating) Europeans will be squeezed into supporting one of these groups. In America, we have seen the idea of isolationism surge in popularity, represented in particular by Republican Presidential candidate Ron Paul. Meanwhile, the Obama administration abandons allies like Israel while supporting groups like the Muslim Brotherhood.
This has been a great experience for me, and I hope it will continue for a long time. "May you live in interesting times," is an old Chinese curse (supposedly) and it is an apt description of current events. Make no mistake, 2012 will be "interesting times" and I will be here to cover it all. Stay tuned. We're not finished yet.
Sunday, February 12, 2012
Israel's Unconventional War
As a nation faced with extermination since its founding, Israel knows the value of unconventional warfare. With the threat of war against Iran looming larger than ever, the Israelis have put what they have been learning to good use. Iran's nuclear program is a clear and present danger to the continued existence of the state of Israel, yet any sort of military strike will have devastating repercussions both for Israel and the United States. Hezbollah forces in Lebanon and Hamas forces in Gaza have been building up an extensive stockpile of missiles that would rain down on Israeli cities should Israel or the United States launch an air strike against Iran's nuclear facilities. So Israel has been forced to seek a more creative method of slowing, if not halting, Iran's march toward a nuclear bomb. According to officials in the United States government, Mossad agents helped train the Iranian resistance group known as the People's Mujahedin of Iran, or MEK. The MEK used this training and some strategic guidance by the Mossad to assassinate prominent Iranian nuclear scientists (a conclusion I predicted as soon as news of the assassinations broke). If any American or European officials feel like climbing onto their high horse to condemn this tactic, remember how NATO support for the Libyan rebels led to the deaths of several high ranking members of Ghaddafi's government and indirectly led to the former Libyan ruler's murder "accidental" shooting.
But Israel has not limited itself to physical assaults against the Iranian nuclear program as these can be costly, difficult, and dangerous. Increasingly, the Israelis have taken to the Internet to release crippling viruses and denial-of-service attacks. The most famous case of this electronic warfare was the virus called Stuxnet which infiltrated and disrupted the computer systems at the uranium enrichment facility at Natanz in the summer of 2010. A more recent follow-up virus known as Duqu has wormed its way into the Iranian network, this time establishing "back doors" in the systems for hackers to exploit at any time rather than engage in the pure data destruction that Stuxnet did. It is believed that these combined attacks (along with the possibility of other such viruses that have not been discovered) have set the Iranian program back for years. If so, these relatively simple and cheap techniques were able to achieve something that sanctions and negotiations have not: delaying the advancement of the Iranian bomb. The Iranian nuclear program is not the only target for Israeli hackers. In response to cyber-attacks by Arab states (more on that below), a group of hackers calling themselves the "IDF Team" brought down the websites for the Saudi Arabian Monetary Agency and the Abu Dhabi Stock Exchange. The "IDF Team" has stated that they will only continue their efforts if Israeli websites are attacked again.
Israel's enemies have not taken these electronic assaults lying down. Hackers in Saudi Arabia have engaged in a form of "cyber jihad" against Israeli web sites and financial institutions. A Saudi group
known as Group-XP also released the personal information of what they claim to be 400,000 Israeli citizens, although credit card companies analyzing the data said the number of compromised identities is much lower. And it's not just Arab or Muslim groups that are engaged in cyber-attacks against Israel. Anti-capitalist, anti-American, anti-Semitic (let's just shorten it to "evil") hacker group "Anonymous" has also gotten into the game, threatening a "reign of terror" against Israeli networks. The group blamed Israel for "crimes against humanity... media deception and political bribery" and warned of a three step program against Israel, starting by wiping the Jewish state off the Internet (the electronic equivalent of "drive the Jews into the sea," I guess). The anarchist hacker group may regret threatening Israel, especially when a Mossad team is knocking on their front door.
The Israeli model of unconventional warfare should be examined by the United States, particularly as debates rage about budget cuts for the Department of Defense. The Chinese and North Koreans have substantial cyber-warfare divisions, and it would be foolish to assume that other nations have not followed suit. If the United States were to aggressively pursue this tactic, potential enemies would be forced to turn their cyber-warfare teams toward defending their own systems rather than maintaining a focus mainly on offensive capabilities. No matter what happens, the Israelis have proven that they are willing and capable of performing amazing feats in defense of their people, and this latest round of unconventional warfare is no different. Let's hope it gives the world enough time to come up with a more permanent solution to the threat of a nuclear Iran.
But Israel has not limited itself to physical assaults against the Iranian nuclear program as these can be costly, difficult, and dangerous. Increasingly, the Israelis have taken to the Internet to release crippling viruses and denial-of-service attacks. The most famous case of this electronic warfare was the virus called Stuxnet which infiltrated and disrupted the computer systems at the uranium enrichment facility at Natanz in the summer of 2010. A more recent follow-up virus known as Duqu has wormed its way into the Iranian network, this time establishing "back doors" in the systems for hackers to exploit at any time rather than engage in the pure data destruction that Stuxnet did. It is believed that these combined attacks (along with the possibility of other such viruses that have not been discovered) have set the Iranian program back for years. If so, these relatively simple and cheap techniques were able to achieve something that sanctions and negotiations have not: delaying the advancement of the Iranian bomb. The Iranian nuclear program is not the only target for Israeli hackers. In response to cyber-attacks by Arab states (more on that below), a group of hackers calling themselves the "IDF Team" brought down the websites for the Saudi Arabian Monetary Agency and the Abu Dhabi Stock Exchange. The "IDF Team" has stated that they will only continue their efforts if Israeli websites are attacked again.
Israel's enemies have not taken these electronic assaults lying down. Hackers in Saudi Arabia have engaged in a form of "cyber jihad" against Israeli web sites and financial institutions. A Saudi group
known as Group-XP also released the personal information of what they claim to be 400,000 Israeli citizens, although credit card companies analyzing the data said the number of compromised identities is much lower. And it's not just Arab or Muslim groups that are engaged in cyber-attacks against Israel. Anti-capitalist, anti-American, anti-Semitic (let's just shorten it to "evil") hacker group "Anonymous" has also gotten into the game, threatening a "reign of terror" against Israeli networks. The group blamed Israel for "crimes against humanity... media deception and political bribery" and warned of a three step program against Israel, starting by wiping the Jewish state off the Internet (the electronic equivalent of "drive the Jews into the sea," I guess). The anarchist hacker group may regret threatening Israel, especially when a Mossad team is knocking on their front door.
The Israeli model of unconventional warfare should be examined by the United States, particularly as debates rage about budget cuts for the Department of Defense. The Chinese and North Koreans have substantial cyber-warfare divisions, and it would be foolish to assume that other nations have not followed suit. If the United States were to aggressively pursue this tactic, potential enemies would be forced to turn their cyber-warfare teams toward defending their own systems rather than maintaining a focus mainly on offensive capabilities. No matter what happens, the Israelis have proven that they are willing and capable of performing amazing feats in defense of their people, and this latest round of unconventional warfare is no different. Let's hope it gives the world enough time to come up with a more permanent solution to the threat of a nuclear Iran.
Sunday, January 29, 2012
A Syria-ous Situation
It has been a little over a year since the so-called "Arab Spring" movement began toppling long-standing governments. Tunisia fell first, and Mubarak's regime in Egypt quickly followed. Then revolution came to Libya, and a relatively easy path of "protest" suddenly evolved into a brutal civil war. After bitter struggle (and intervention by NATO) Qaddafi was forced to run and was killed shortly thereafter. While the wave of revolution is still embroiling many Middle Eastern nations in conflict, Syria is without a doubt the current epicenter of dissent and violence.
President Bashar al-Assad has never been the most popular leader in the Arab world, and once neighboring regimes began to topple his government began a severe crackdown on any opposition to his rule in order to stop a revolution before it could begin. Unfortunately for him, the tide was too strong to stop and the actions of his government only worsened his reputation among his people. Furthermore, the crackdowns put international support largely behind the efforts of the protesters. The Arab League sent observers to the country to report on the increasing violence. Now, as a new government offensive sweeps through several major cities including Damascus, the Syrian capital, the Arab League has withdrawn their observers due to worsening conditions. If that does not tell you enough about how violent and unstable things have become, the United States is seriously considering closing its embassy in Damascus and evacuating its personnel.
Not every country has spoken out against Assad's regime. Syrian opposition leaders have accused Iran of providing assistance to the Syrian government. That should not come as any great surprise. After all, those despotic Islamists facing potential revolution have to stick together. Some groups have even gone as far as to say that Iranian Revolutionary Guard units have participated in the violent strikes against protesters, something the leadership in Tehran will not admit to. Besides the Iranians, perhaps the most outspoken supporters of Assad's regime are within the Russian government. Putin's government has experienced a wave of dissent recently, and as a result they are slow to call for the removal of any other government. If international support helps the opposition topple Assad, who's to say Putin won't be the next dictator (yes, I said it) out the door?
The situation in Syria is certainly worthy of our consideration. On the one hand, the protesters are calling for the removal of a dangerous regime that is no friend to the United States, Israel, or Europe. Just looking at the people who are coming out in Assad's defense should be enough to condemn him. But in our haste to see the despot overthrown, things could get much worse if highly organized Islamists were to gain control in Syria like they have in Libya and Egypt. Were a Muslim Brotherhood-esque group to seize power, it would put further pressure on Israel. Indeed, with Hezbollah running Lebanon to the north, Hamas in Gaza to the west, and the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt to the south, the tiny island of democracy would be virtually surrounded by nations led by radical groups bent on the extermination of the Jewish people. Furthermore, pressure on the more moderate Jordan may result in an increased hostility toward Israel by the Jordanians if only to stem the potential outbreak of revolution in that country.
Regardless of whether the Syrian government weathers the storm or falters in the face of opposition, regional stability has been shattered. As we have seen in the recent past, Islamists and other totalitarians are quick to take advantage of chaos to, in the words of the Fabian Socialists, "remold the world closer to their heart's desire." Things are heating up quickly, and only time will tell exactly what the world will look like when it's all said and done.
President Bashar al-Assad has never been the most popular leader in the Arab world, and once neighboring regimes began to topple his government began a severe crackdown on any opposition to his rule in order to stop a revolution before it could begin. Unfortunately for him, the tide was too strong to stop and the actions of his government only worsened his reputation among his people. Furthermore, the crackdowns put international support largely behind the efforts of the protesters. The Arab League sent observers to the country to report on the increasing violence. Now, as a new government offensive sweeps through several major cities including Damascus, the Syrian capital, the Arab League has withdrawn their observers due to worsening conditions. If that does not tell you enough about how violent and unstable things have become, the United States is seriously considering closing its embassy in Damascus and evacuating its personnel.
Not every country has spoken out against Assad's regime. Syrian opposition leaders have accused Iran of providing assistance to the Syrian government. That should not come as any great surprise. After all, those despotic Islamists facing potential revolution have to stick together. Some groups have even gone as far as to say that Iranian Revolutionary Guard units have participated in the violent strikes against protesters, something the leadership in Tehran will not admit to. Besides the Iranians, perhaps the most outspoken supporters of Assad's regime are within the Russian government. Putin's government has experienced a wave of dissent recently, and as a result they are slow to call for the removal of any other government. If international support helps the opposition topple Assad, who's to say Putin won't be the next dictator (yes, I said it) out the door?
The situation in Syria is certainly worthy of our consideration. On the one hand, the protesters are calling for the removal of a dangerous regime that is no friend to the United States, Israel, or Europe. Just looking at the people who are coming out in Assad's defense should be enough to condemn him. But in our haste to see the despot overthrown, things could get much worse if highly organized Islamists were to gain control in Syria like they have in Libya and Egypt. Were a Muslim Brotherhood-esque group to seize power, it would put further pressure on Israel. Indeed, with Hezbollah running Lebanon to the north, Hamas in Gaza to the west, and the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt to the south, the tiny island of democracy would be virtually surrounded by nations led by radical groups bent on the extermination of the Jewish people. Furthermore, pressure on the more moderate Jordan may result in an increased hostility toward Israel by the Jordanians if only to stem the potential outbreak of revolution in that country.
Regardless of whether the Syrian government weathers the storm or falters in the face of opposition, regional stability has been shattered. As we have seen in the recent past, Islamists and other totalitarians are quick to take advantage of chaos to, in the words of the Fabian Socialists, "remold the world closer to their heart's desire." Things are heating up quickly, and only time will tell exactly what the world will look like when it's all said and done.
Saturday, January 21, 2012
Much Ado About Nigeria
While the events in the Strait of Hormuz captured the world's attention (and rightly so), significant incidents have occurred lately in the oil-rich nation of Nigeria that seem to be below the radar of the mainstream media. Nigeria is a member of OPEC and a major exporter of oil to the United States. But there are dangerous signs of a civil war brewing between the Christians and, you guessed it, radical Islamists. Like Sudan, Nigeria has a religious fault line, of sorts, with the Islamists in the northern regions of the country living under sharia law. However, many of the richest oil deposits (not to mention the majority of the shoreline) is under control of the Christians. This presents us with a recipe for conflict before we even consider the expansionist nature of Islam.
A new wave of violent terrorist attacks against Christians in Nigeria has left scores dead and the survivors fearful of ethnic and religious cleansing. Most of these assaults are the work of the terrorist group Boko Haram, a powerful force dedicated to overthrowing the government of Nigeria and imposing strict Taliban-like "reforms" that include a complete ban on Western or secular education. Their attacks have grown increasingly audacious and deadly. In 2009, Boko Haram struck at government buildings in the city of Maiduguri. The Nigerian government's response was severe, and by year's end founder Mohammed Yusuf was captured and killed by security forces. But Boko Haram was not finished. After breaking hundreds of members out of prison, the group went on a bombing spree across Nigeria. 2011 saw an increase in the level of coordination of their attacks, with a devastating series of bombings and shootings on Christmas Day that resulted in dozens of deaths. To make matters worse, the suspected mastermind of the coordinated assaults escaped police custody under suspicious circumstances, leading many in Nigeria to wonder who inside the security forces may be sympathetic to Boko Haram's cause. The Muslim-majority northern region has not been free from attacks by Boko Haram, and last week saw a string of bombings in the city of Kano that left around 150 dead.
So why don't we hear more about this? I see three primary reasons. First, Nigeria's position as an oil exporter makes instability there a potential problem for the world economy. Politicians do not want to draw attention to a situation that could spook the markets and see oil prices jump, especially in an election year. The city of Lagos, Nigeria's economic capital, has been spared most of the violence, but that could change rapidly and have a cascading effect on both neighbors and client nations The second reason for the silence is the fact that, by and large, African conflicts do not generate a lot of interest in Washington or at the UN. Oh, they make for great speeches, but no one has seriously considered taking any sort of action to stop or prevent such bloodbaths since the Battle of Mogadishu in 1993, and even then support was half-hearted at best. Rwanda, Darfur; the list of genocides in Africa goes on and on and the rest of the world hardly has time to notice. Finally, the persecution in Nigeria has been targeted against Christians by Muslims, and most of the world media would rather not talk about such a sore subject. It might remind them that those cuddly Arab Spring folks they supported so enthusiastically may in fact have darker motivations than they let on. From Kabul to Cairo and beyond, non-Muslims (and Christians in particular) are facing persecution on a scale never before seen in our lifetimes. The so-called champions of human rights sit in silence as atrocities occur almost daily in places they'd rather not think about. Not when they have to focus so much attention on calling the people of the United States racist and homophobic (after all, in Iran they "don't have homosexuals"). The gatekeepers of human rights have not only fallen asleep at their posts, in many cases they actively agree with some of the greatest violators of human rights in a generation.
So the next time you see some blurb on the news about terrorists in Nigeria or Kenya, remember that Islamism is a global phenomenon. What happens in some faraway country that you barely remember from geography class could very well have an impact on the rest of the world. That is why you must educate yourself on the real issues that we face. If you don't know what is going on and why, you will be powerless to do anything about it. The reason the self-appointed guardians of human rights have forgotten their duty is that we have not held them accountable. That stops now.
A new wave of violent terrorist attacks against Christians in Nigeria has left scores dead and the survivors fearful of ethnic and religious cleansing. Most of these assaults are the work of the terrorist group Boko Haram, a powerful force dedicated to overthrowing the government of Nigeria and imposing strict Taliban-like "reforms" that include a complete ban on Western or secular education. Their attacks have grown increasingly audacious and deadly. In 2009, Boko Haram struck at government buildings in the city of Maiduguri. The Nigerian government's response was severe, and by year's end founder Mohammed Yusuf was captured and killed by security forces. But Boko Haram was not finished. After breaking hundreds of members out of prison, the group went on a bombing spree across Nigeria. 2011 saw an increase in the level of coordination of their attacks, with a devastating series of bombings and shootings on Christmas Day that resulted in dozens of deaths. To make matters worse, the suspected mastermind of the coordinated assaults escaped police custody under suspicious circumstances, leading many in Nigeria to wonder who inside the security forces may be sympathetic to Boko Haram's cause. The Muslim-majority northern region has not been free from attacks by Boko Haram, and last week saw a string of bombings in the city of Kano that left around 150 dead.
So why don't we hear more about this? I see three primary reasons. First, Nigeria's position as an oil exporter makes instability there a potential problem for the world economy. Politicians do not want to draw attention to a situation that could spook the markets and see oil prices jump, especially in an election year. The city of Lagos, Nigeria's economic capital, has been spared most of the violence, but that could change rapidly and have a cascading effect on both neighbors and client nations The second reason for the silence is the fact that, by and large, African conflicts do not generate a lot of interest in Washington or at the UN. Oh, they make for great speeches, but no one has seriously considered taking any sort of action to stop or prevent such bloodbaths since the Battle of Mogadishu in 1993, and even then support was half-hearted at best. Rwanda, Darfur; the list of genocides in Africa goes on and on and the rest of the world hardly has time to notice. Finally, the persecution in Nigeria has been targeted against Christians by Muslims, and most of the world media would rather not talk about such a sore subject. It might remind them that those cuddly Arab Spring folks they supported so enthusiastically may in fact have darker motivations than they let on. From Kabul to Cairo and beyond, non-Muslims (and Christians in particular) are facing persecution on a scale never before seen in our lifetimes. The so-called champions of human rights sit in silence as atrocities occur almost daily in places they'd rather not think about. Not when they have to focus so much attention on calling the people of the United States racist and homophobic (after all, in Iran they "don't have homosexuals"). The gatekeepers of human rights have not only fallen asleep at their posts, in many cases they actively agree with some of the greatest violators of human rights in a generation.
So the next time you see some blurb on the news about terrorists in Nigeria or Kenya, remember that Islamism is a global phenomenon. What happens in some faraway country that you barely remember from geography class could very well have an impact on the rest of the world. That is why you must educate yourself on the real issues that we face. If you don't know what is going on and why, you will be powerless to do anything about it. The reason the self-appointed guardians of human rights have forgotten their duty is that we have not held them accountable. That stops now.
Friday, January 13, 2012
More Iran News
Man, I am getting tired of talking about Iran all the time. Every day I read the news and it's, "Iranian leadership says this," and "US officials concerned about Iran's Fill-In-The-Blank." I guess when you've got an almost-nuclear power led by a group of people dedicated to bringing global chaos, it tends to dominate the news cycle. Anyway, with information comes understanding, so let's hope our political leaders are paying attention to what this stuff means and not simply pandering to voters.
Iran's recent military exercises in the Strait of Hormuz are incredibly troubling. Tensions are incredibly high between the United States and Iran. American Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said in a recent interview that any move by Iran to close the strait would be a "red line for us and... we will respond to them." Many experts believe that these exercises are the Iranian regime's way of lashing out due to the tightening net of sanctions. Others argue that the show of strength was a result of a growing climate of fear within Iran. These fears have only intensified with the assassination of top Iranian nuclear scientists. Before that, a key military base in the heart of Iran was devastated by an explosion, and it is not the first high-security facility to experience such damage. The leaders in Tehran are pointing fingers at Israel and the United States. I however, believe such acts are the work of forces in Iran opposed to the current regime (although I would be surprised if Israel was not actively encouraging, training, and/or supporting opposition groups). After the attempt at a legitimate transfer of power through the Green Revolution in 2009 failed, opposition forces have been forced to take more drastic measures in order to achieve their goals. Daniel Serwer of Johns Hopkins University observed, "The incredible thing is that it continues. That suggests it is Iranians doing the deeds, no matter who is the sponsor. Foreigners are under pretty tight scrutiny in Iran these days." I believe that these acts are being downplayed by the leadership in Washington because they would force the Obama administration to face the consequences of their failure to support a real democratic revolution against an avowed enemy (which is especially damaging considering their enthusiastic support for the violent, chaotic, Islamist Arab Spring which deposed a long-time ally in Egypt).
While the Strait of Hormuz attracted the world's attention, the Iranians were also war-gaming near the border they share with Afghanistan. As the Obama administration continues to look for a path out of Afghanistan, they would be fools not to consider the repercussions of possible Iranian expansion into Afghan territory. Alternatively, depending on the timetable, the Iranians could threaten NATO forces within Afghanistan who are already overextended and weary of the conflict. Meanwhile, the United States has deployed an X-band radar and a small support garrison to Israel in order to be in a better position to react to any Iranian missile launches against Israel or Europe. While this is good news, it also puts US troops in range of rockets from Lebanon, Syria, or Gaza should Iran's proxies decide to strike. This could rapidly escalate the situation and the US troops could even be used as leverage by our enemies if they are not provided sufficient support (by the Pentagon. I do not mean to insult the IDF, or the Pentagon for that matter, but political realities are what they are.)
Meanwhile, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad went on a whirlwind tour of his Latin American allies to further strengthen those relationships. The possibility of a dangerous new front opening within the Western Hemisphere should not be underestimated by leaders in Washington. But there is also some surprising news coming from the Russians, who have expressed regret for allowing the Iranian uranium (trying saying that three times fast) program to get as advanced as it has. If this is anything more than posturing on the part of Russian leadership, it would represent a dramatic shift in policy. The Russians actually built the first nuclear power plant in Iran, and the loss of their support could have repercussions for the Iranian regime.
Iran will continue to dominate foreign policy discussions this year and will be a significant part of the American Presidential race. The situation seems destined for a showdown, but the consequences of that showdown could be more severe than we can imagine. That is why supporting opposition groups and delegitimizing the Iranian regime is so important. The best chance to defuse the situation would be a change of leadership in Iran.
Iran's recent military exercises in the Strait of Hormuz are incredibly troubling. Tensions are incredibly high between the United States and Iran. American Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said in a recent interview that any move by Iran to close the strait would be a "red line for us and... we will respond to them." Many experts believe that these exercises are the Iranian regime's way of lashing out due to the tightening net of sanctions. Others argue that the show of strength was a result of a growing climate of fear within Iran. These fears have only intensified with the assassination of top Iranian nuclear scientists. Before that, a key military base in the heart of Iran was devastated by an explosion, and it is not the first high-security facility to experience such damage. The leaders in Tehran are pointing fingers at Israel and the United States. I however, believe such acts are the work of forces in Iran opposed to the current regime (although I would be surprised if Israel was not actively encouraging, training, and/or supporting opposition groups). After the attempt at a legitimate transfer of power through the Green Revolution in 2009 failed, opposition forces have been forced to take more drastic measures in order to achieve their goals. Daniel Serwer of Johns Hopkins University observed, "The incredible thing is that it continues. That suggests it is Iranians doing the deeds, no matter who is the sponsor. Foreigners are under pretty tight scrutiny in Iran these days." I believe that these acts are being downplayed by the leadership in Washington because they would force the Obama administration to face the consequences of their failure to support a real democratic revolution against an avowed enemy (which is especially damaging considering their enthusiastic support for the violent, chaotic, Islamist Arab Spring which deposed a long-time ally in Egypt).
While the Strait of Hormuz attracted the world's attention, the Iranians were also war-gaming near the border they share with Afghanistan. As the Obama administration continues to look for a path out of Afghanistan, they would be fools not to consider the repercussions of possible Iranian expansion into Afghan territory. Alternatively, depending on the timetable, the Iranians could threaten NATO forces within Afghanistan who are already overextended and weary of the conflict. Meanwhile, the United States has deployed an X-band radar and a small support garrison to Israel in order to be in a better position to react to any Iranian missile launches against Israel or Europe. While this is good news, it also puts US troops in range of rockets from Lebanon, Syria, or Gaza should Iran's proxies decide to strike. This could rapidly escalate the situation and the US troops could even be used as leverage by our enemies if they are not provided sufficient support (by the Pentagon. I do not mean to insult the IDF, or the Pentagon for that matter, but political realities are what they are.)
Meanwhile, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad went on a whirlwind tour of his Latin American allies to further strengthen those relationships. The possibility of a dangerous new front opening within the Western Hemisphere should not be underestimated by leaders in Washington. But there is also some surprising news coming from the Russians, who have expressed regret for allowing the Iranian uranium (trying saying that three times fast) program to get as advanced as it has. If this is anything more than posturing on the part of Russian leadership, it would represent a dramatic shift in policy. The Russians actually built the first nuclear power plant in Iran, and the loss of their support could have repercussions for the Iranian regime.
Iran will continue to dominate foreign policy discussions this year and will be a significant part of the American Presidential race. The situation seems destined for a showdown, but the consequences of that showdown could be more severe than we can imagine. That is why supporting opposition groups and delegitimizing the Iranian regime is so important. The best chance to defuse the situation would be a change of leadership in Iran.
Thursday, January 12, 2012
Yo Ho, Yo Ho: Piracy and the Jihad
What comes to mind when you hear the word "pirates?" Buried treasure? Talking parrots? Barrels of rum? Johnny Depp? Over the past decade, swashbuckling fantasy has been challenged by brutal reality as a new generation of pirates take to the high seas. The Horn of Africa seems to play host to many of these brigands, who take advantage of the chaotic political situation and nearby sea lanes. The United States Navy SEALs' famous takedown of a crew of Somali pirates who had seized the Maersk Alabama in 2009 brought public attention to this phenomenon like never before. The more recent rescues of Iranian ships by the United States Navy and Coast Guard have reminded us that this threat has not gone away (but does, apparently, have a sense of irony). But there is a deeper story here than just desperate young men seeking fortune in a lawless region. Piracy has long been a popular means of engaging in the jihad as well as financing Islamic empires.
Raiding has been a central part of Islamic expansion since its inception. After fleeing to Medina, Mohammed built up his fortune and gave his followers military experience by raiding caravans belonging to the Meccans who had chased him out of his birthplace. These quick hit-and-run attacks were the perfect method of military engagement for several reasons. First, Mohammed never had to risk losing his entire army in a pitched battle. Second, every caravan that was ransacked meant that the wealth of his enemies would be transferred directly to him. Third, the constant harassment maintained a state of fear among his enemies so that when he entered Mecca in conquest he experienced little resistance.
As Islam spread, so did the raids. The trade routes of the Byzantine and Persian Empires were terrorized by this new force from the desert. When Islamic forces first reached the Mediterranean Sea, the caliphs were initially hesitant to take to the water in significant numbers. That soon changed, however, and Islamic raids spread rapidly to North Africa, Southern Europe, and even to the gates of Rome itself. Every strike was lightning fast, with the ships of the Caliphate avoiding pitched battles whenever possible. While the Norsemen have gained mythic status for their assaults in Northern Europe, most of what was then the civilized world lived more in fear of ships bearing the warriors of Allah, not Odin.
Islamic domination of the Mediterranean lasted for the better part of a thousand years, but it did not go unchallenged. This issue was so important to Christendom that it became the primary focus of the Knights Hospitaller following the loss of the Holy Land. The fabled military order established bases on several of the larger Mediterranean islands and patrolled the seas in search of Islamic pirates, or corsairs, as they were called. As I referenced in my three-part series "Slavery and Islam," these corsairs would target Christian ships not only to steal cargo but also to kidnap experienced sailors to man the ships of the Caliphate, which at the time was centered in the Ottoman Empire. As time went on, the efforts of groups like the Knights Hospitaller combined with advancing technology and tactics began to shift the balance of power. After the Battle of Lepanto in 1571, Ottoman control of the Mediterranean was all but shattered, although they maintained a strong presence.
But that did not end the threat of Islamic piracy. Corsairs made their home along the Barbary Coast with the blessing of the local rulers (in exchange for a sizable portion of the loot). As the European powers began to create worldwide empires, they were constantly harassed by these corsairs. Things became so bad that any nation that wanted to operate near the African coast had to pay a significant tribute to convince the corsairs to search for other targets. Finally, the fledgling United States said, "Screw this," and engaged in the first war Americans ever fought on foreign soil to end the threat once and for all. For a more in-depth look on that subject, see my previous article, "What Would Jefferson Do?"
Fast-forward to today. Islamic countries like Somalia and Yemen produce many of the most notorious pirate gangs that patrol the seas. The waters of the Gulf of Aden are among the most dangerous in the world. And, just like the corsairs of old, the new generation of pirates provide plenty of revenue for the population of these countries. The money from Somali pirates has been hard at work paying for new mosques, expanding villages, and even radio stations. Modern "experts" are dumbfounded that the Somali pirates have not built luxury palaces for themselves, but an honest look at the history of the Barbary corsairs would have predicted this exact scenario. It goes beyond the fact that these pirates happen to be Muslims and links directly to the raids of Mohammed hundreds of years ago.
This "new" piracy has no buried treasure, no talking parrots, no Johnny Depp (and certainly no rum!). This is jihad on the high seas, pure and simple, a forgotten part of our past rising from Davy Jones' locker to haunt us once more. We would do well to remember that.
Raiding has been a central part of Islamic expansion since its inception. After fleeing to Medina, Mohammed built up his fortune and gave his followers military experience by raiding caravans belonging to the Meccans who had chased him out of his birthplace. These quick hit-and-run attacks were the perfect method of military engagement for several reasons. First, Mohammed never had to risk losing his entire army in a pitched battle. Second, every caravan that was ransacked meant that the wealth of his enemies would be transferred directly to him. Third, the constant harassment maintained a state of fear among his enemies so that when he entered Mecca in conquest he experienced little resistance.
As Islam spread, so did the raids. The trade routes of the Byzantine and Persian Empires were terrorized by this new force from the desert. When Islamic forces first reached the Mediterranean Sea, the caliphs were initially hesitant to take to the water in significant numbers. That soon changed, however, and Islamic raids spread rapidly to North Africa, Southern Europe, and even to the gates of Rome itself. Every strike was lightning fast, with the ships of the Caliphate avoiding pitched battles whenever possible. While the Norsemen have gained mythic status for their assaults in Northern Europe, most of what was then the civilized world lived more in fear of ships bearing the warriors of Allah, not Odin.
Islamic domination of the Mediterranean lasted for the better part of a thousand years, but it did not go unchallenged. This issue was so important to Christendom that it became the primary focus of the Knights Hospitaller following the loss of the Holy Land. The fabled military order established bases on several of the larger Mediterranean islands and patrolled the seas in search of Islamic pirates, or corsairs, as they were called. As I referenced in my three-part series "Slavery and Islam," these corsairs would target Christian ships not only to steal cargo but also to kidnap experienced sailors to man the ships of the Caliphate, which at the time was centered in the Ottoman Empire. As time went on, the efforts of groups like the Knights Hospitaller combined with advancing technology and tactics began to shift the balance of power. After the Battle of Lepanto in 1571, Ottoman control of the Mediterranean was all but shattered, although they maintained a strong presence.
But that did not end the threat of Islamic piracy. Corsairs made their home along the Barbary Coast with the blessing of the local rulers (in exchange for a sizable portion of the loot). As the European powers began to create worldwide empires, they were constantly harassed by these corsairs. Things became so bad that any nation that wanted to operate near the African coast had to pay a significant tribute to convince the corsairs to search for other targets. Finally, the fledgling United States said, "Screw this," and engaged in the first war Americans ever fought on foreign soil to end the threat once and for all. For a more in-depth look on that subject, see my previous article, "What Would Jefferson Do?"
Fast-forward to today. Islamic countries like Somalia and Yemen produce many of the most notorious pirate gangs that patrol the seas. The waters of the Gulf of Aden are among the most dangerous in the world. And, just like the corsairs of old, the new generation of pirates provide plenty of revenue for the population of these countries. The money from Somali pirates has been hard at work paying for new mosques, expanding villages, and even radio stations. Modern "experts" are dumbfounded that the Somali pirates have not built luxury palaces for themselves, but an honest look at the history of the Barbary corsairs would have predicted this exact scenario. It goes beyond the fact that these pirates happen to be Muslims and links directly to the raids of Mohammed hundreds of years ago.
This "new" piracy has no buried treasure, no talking parrots, no Johnny Depp (and certainly no rum!). This is jihad on the high seas, pure and simple, a forgotten part of our past rising from Davy Jones' locker to haunt us once more. We would do well to remember that.
Wednesday, January 11, 2012
Post-poned
I apologize for being a few days behind schedule. My work schedule has been more crowded than I had anticipated and as a result this blog has suffered. Rest assured that a new post will be out tomorrow. Also, I will definitely have another post up on Friday afternoon to avoid a repeat of this week's mishap. Thank you for your continued support of this blog, and be sure to spread the word.
Sunday, January 1, 2012
Happy New Year!
I apologize for the delay, but I have been on vacation. As we ring in the new year, I wanted to bring up some issues that I think will be of major importance in 2012.
Iran
Iran is just a smorgasbord of craziness. Tehran just announced that they have produced their first nuclear fuel rod. If this is accurate, the Iranian nuclear program is farther along than most experts believed. As politicians in America, Europe, and Israel debate exactly what they plan to do to prevent Iran from obtaining a stockpile of nuclear weapons, such developments certainly indicate that the last chance to act may be quickly approaching.
Aside from Iran's nuclear ambitions, recent activity in the Strait of Hormuz has many analysts concerned. The strait is a vital choke point for a large portion of the world's oil supply and is an easy pressure point for the Iranians to target. Iran's recent war games may be preparation to retailate against American aligned shipping in the event of a strike against Iran's nuclear facilities. Of course, that has the potential to spark a wider conflict between Iran and the Arab Gulf countries who would be most severely impacted by such a move.
Syria
The brewing civil war is spinning out of control. Bashar Assad's regime is cracking down on protesters with alarming violence, but Ghaddafi proved how ineffective that tactic can be. Monitors from a number of international organizations have come back with horror stories about the brutality. I anticipate that things will continue to detiriorate in Syria until the international community will step in to try to contain the mess. Now, that may be NATO or it may be a neighboring country like Turkey trying to prove their capabilities to the rest of the world. The Arab League has already taken a major role in monitoring the situation and could take a more active role in the near future.
Isolationism
This aspect can be found a little closer to home (to us in America, at least). As the rest of the world faces severe problems ranging from civil unrest to open war, there will be an increasing number of voices in the more stable areas of the world ("stable" being a relative term) who want to withdraw into a protective shell. Republican Presidential candidate Ron Paul has experienced a boon lately in the polls, largely due to Paul's position on economics and opposition to expanding government. With the Presidential election taking up such a major portion of media attention this year, you can bet that the idea of isolationism will be brought further into the eye of the public. As the American military tries to catch its breath after prolonged conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq, the idea of abandoning the position of "world's policeman" will become increasingly popular. In a sense, too many people in America are growing tired of the responsibilities that come with being the world's only true superpower. What that means in terms of policy and election results is still anyone's guess.
These are only a few of the big issues that I think will dominate the headlines in the coming year. Of course, the future is unpredictable, and this year may be crazier than usual. Stay tuned here at The New Knighthood as the year unfolds. As usual, if you have any suggestions or concerns you can let me know in the Comments section below (click on the article if you are reading this on the main page).
Iran
Iran is just a smorgasbord of craziness. Tehran just announced that they have produced their first nuclear fuel rod. If this is accurate, the Iranian nuclear program is farther along than most experts believed. As politicians in America, Europe, and Israel debate exactly what they plan to do to prevent Iran from obtaining a stockpile of nuclear weapons, such developments certainly indicate that the last chance to act may be quickly approaching.
Aside from Iran's nuclear ambitions, recent activity in the Strait of Hormuz has many analysts concerned. The strait is a vital choke point for a large portion of the world's oil supply and is an easy pressure point for the Iranians to target. Iran's recent war games may be preparation to retailate against American aligned shipping in the event of a strike against Iran's nuclear facilities. Of course, that has the potential to spark a wider conflict between Iran and the Arab Gulf countries who would be most severely impacted by such a move.
Syria
The brewing civil war is spinning out of control. Bashar Assad's regime is cracking down on protesters with alarming violence, but Ghaddafi proved how ineffective that tactic can be. Monitors from a number of international organizations have come back with horror stories about the brutality. I anticipate that things will continue to detiriorate in Syria until the international community will step in to try to contain the mess. Now, that may be NATO or it may be a neighboring country like Turkey trying to prove their capabilities to the rest of the world. The Arab League has already taken a major role in monitoring the situation and could take a more active role in the near future.
Isolationism
This aspect can be found a little closer to home (to us in America, at least). As the rest of the world faces severe problems ranging from civil unrest to open war, there will be an increasing number of voices in the more stable areas of the world ("stable" being a relative term) who want to withdraw into a protective shell. Republican Presidential candidate Ron Paul has experienced a boon lately in the polls, largely due to Paul's position on economics and opposition to expanding government. With the Presidential election taking up such a major portion of media attention this year, you can bet that the idea of isolationism will be brought further into the eye of the public. As the American military tries to catch its breath after prolonged conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq, the idea of abandoning the position of "world's policeman" will become increasingly popular. In a sense, too many people in America are growing tired of the responsibilities that come with being the world's only true superpower. What that means in terms of policy and election results is still anyone's guess.
These are only a few of the big issues that I think will dominate the headlines in the coming year. Of course, the future is unpredictable, and this year may be crazier than usual. Stay tuned here at The New Knighthood as the year unfolds. As usual, if you have any suggestions or concerns you can let me know in the Comments section below (click on the article if you are reading this on the main page).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)