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government offensive sweeps through several major cities including Damascus, the Syrian capital, the Arab League has withdrawn their observers due to worsening conditions.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.
Sunday, January 29, 2012
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)