Bigotery in Election 11-6-20

Republican Debate - Stealth Agenda of Gingrich and Cain

Mirza A. Beg

Saturday, June 20, 2011

Counter Currents June 23, 2011

http://www.countercurrents.org/beg230611.htm

Media Monitor Network, June 23, 2011

http://usa.mediamonitors.net/content/view/full/87349

Tuscaloosa News, Sunday, June 26, 2011

http://www.tuscaloosanews.com/article/20110626/NEWS/110719975

OEN OpEdNews.com, June 28, 2011

http://www.opednews.com/articles/Republican-Debate--Stealt-by-Mirza-Beg-110624-554.html

The Republican debate of June 13^th moderated by John King of CNN was generally a collegial affair. It was essentially a “Knock Obama” rally, with understated minor differences among the candidates.

Except, when CNN moderator John King asked former Godfather Pizza magnate, Harman Cain, “You recently said you would not appoint a Muslim to your cabinet and you kind of backed off a little bit and said you would first want to know if they’re committed to the Constitution. You expressed concern that, quote, “a lot of Muslims are not totally dedicated to this country.” Are American-Muslims as a group less committed to the Constitution than, say, Christians or Jews?”

Cain backpedaled a bit and said,” I would not be comfortable because you have peaceful Muslims and then you have militant Muslims, those that are trying to kill us. And so, when I said I wouldn’t be comfortable, I was thinking about the ones that are trying to kill us, number one. Secondly, yes, I do not believe in Sharia law in American courts. I believe in American laws in American courts, period. There have been instances –“

John King turned to other candidates and asked their views on the subject. Some candidates were uncomfortable, but not former speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich.

Trying to resuscitate his dying campaign, stridently he said, “Now, I just want to go out on a limb here. I’m in favor of saying to people, if you’re not prepared to be loyal to the United States, you will not serve in my administration, period.” He added “We did this—we did this in dealing with the Nazis and we did this in dealing with the communists. And it was controversial both times, and both times we discovered after a while, you know, there are some genuinely bad people who would like to infiltrate our country. And we have got to have the guts to stand up and say no.”

For those who do not know, Gingrich was approvingly referring to the Red baiting campaign of early 1950s by the Republican senator Joseph McCarthy of Wisconsin and his cohorts. It has been widely condemned as the most shameful period in modern US history. It lives in infamy as McCarthyism. As Gingrich says, there were “some genuinely bad people”- but it is opposite of the way he construes. The bad people were, Senator McCarthy and his minions, who maligned and tried to destroy decent Americans by innuendos, as Gingrich does.

Yes, a few Muslim citizens have engaged in terrorism against the US, but an overwhelming majority of Muslims are productive and loyal citizens. It is no secret that Muslim bashing is popular among some in the Republican Party. They conveniently forget that some of the plots were thwarted by Muslims contacting the police.

Sadly not one candidate on the podium admonished Cain and Gingrich, as they would have, if such a sweeping statement was made to malign other minorities such as Jews or Blacks. Even sadder yet, it did not elicit much comment in the popular media either.

Not too long ago some Republicans did stand up to challenge such remarks, but the party has changed.

In 2007 Republican debates, while others remained quiet, John McCain condemned Mitt Romney’s remark that he will not appoint any Muslim to his cabinet. McCain said, “I’m proud of the Muslims who are currently serving in the United States armed forces and my sense is that if they can serve in that manner, they can serve in any position of responsibility in America.”

In December 2002, an intemperate remark by Senator Trent Lott cost him the leadership of the Republican Party in the Senate. Celebrating the 100^th birthday of South Carolina Senator Strom Thurmond, Senator Trent Lott, the Republican leader in the Senate said, “When Strom Thurmond ran for president, we voted for him. We’re proud of it. And if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn’t have had all these problems over the years, either.”

Those remarks were construed as racist, because in 1948 Strom Thurmond broke with the Democratic Party on the issue of enforcement of civil rights legislation and ran for the Presidency as a State’s Rights Party candidate.

The US Constitution is secular. Thankfully our laws are not based on religious preference. Although when not in conflict with the civil laws, in some jurisdictions it has accommodated people, who by mutual agreement wanted their personal disputes settled by arbitration by religious tribunal. Courts have enforced the result of such arbitration in case of Jewish, Mormon and other religions as in contract law.

The spurious injection of Sharia in the debate is a “Red Herring” to divert attention and garner cheap popularity from the considerable weight of the xenophobic wing of the Republican Party. There is no monolithic Sharia law. These laws were developed by different schools of thoughts in the 9^th century to check the creeping autocracy of the rulers. They are open to debate, and have evolved on diverse lines through the ages.

The irony is that most rightwing Republicans are opposed to the idea of separation of “Church and State” notwithstanding the first amendment. That is why Rev. Pat Robertson found so much traction in the Republican primaries in the 1980s. Rev. Charles Kimball writes in his book, “When Religion Becomes Lethal “ that Ralph Reed, the head of the Christian Coalition, famously referred to the practice of running “stealth candidates” where the radical agenda would be hidden from voters by focusing on hot button issues such as abortion or homosexuality. By the time the voters knew what victorious candidate really advocated, they would not know what hit them.

Some of the 2012 Republican aspirants are not much different. Some want the United States to be under the Biblical laws, while others in an effort to dupe them are stealthily raising a bogus threat from the Sharia laws. To protect all, multi-religious as well as irreligious citizens, would it not be better to, honestly adhere to the principle of “Separation of Church and State”, no lying, no ifs and no buts?

Instead of the loyalty test for ordinary law abiding citizens of any faith or no faith, the electorate should reject stealth candidates whose support for the US Constitution is dubious. If elected they would have to take the oath of office with fingers crossed.

Mirza A. Beg can be contacted at mab64@yahoo.com or at http://mirzasmusings.blogspot.com/

Egypt Uprising 11-2-2

Uprising in Egypt – Country at the Cross Roads

Mirza A. Beg

Tuesday, February 1, 2011

The Tuscaloosa News Wednesday, February 2, 2011

http://www.tuscaloosanews.com/article/20110202/NEWS/110209918

The American Muslim, Wednesday, February 2, 2011

http://www.theamericanmuslim.org/tam.php/features/articles/uprising_in_egypt_country_at_a_cross_roads/0018368

Media Monitors Net, Wednesday, February 2, 2011

http://world.mediamonitors.net/Headlines/Uprising-in-Egypt-Country-at-the-Crossroads

Cross Currents, Wednesday, February 2, 2011

http://www.countercurrents.org/beg010211.htm

Inspired by the spontaneous revolution in Tunisia, thousands of young Egyptians took to the streets in Cairo on January 25^th 2011, congregating in Tehrir (Liberation) Square. A 20^th century dictatorship was overwhelmed by 21^st century technology. Facebook and Twitter facilitated instant communication to overcome the government censors. Their protest against poverty, unemployment and government corruption erupted as a peaceful revolt against the thirty years of autocratic rule of President Hosni Mubarak. In unison they demanded Mubarak to leave.

Eighty-two year old Mubarak, caught by surprise sent his family to England, shut off the Internet and imposed a curfew. He employed his usual means to suppress the peaceful protesters by sending the feared police and Special Forces. Police used water cannons, tear gas and rubber bullets, but to their surprise they could not intimidate as in the past. It was reported that about a dozen protesters were killed. This simply made the protesters even more determined and the crowd grew even larger and at places the police were overwhelmed and even beaten.

Out of fear, or as a matter of policy, the hated police were withdrawn on the third day and the army was called out. Some damage to the government buildings was reported, including the world famous Museum of Antiquities. Looting of richer neighborhoods by nefarious miscreants is widely believed to be the act of agent provocateurs and the police, to discredit the peaceful revolution.

The military is one of the most respected and egalitarian institutions in Egypt. People welcomed the soldiers in their tanks and armored carriers as protectors. They did not interfere with the peaceful protest. It was amazing to see protesters joyously riding on the tanks along with the soldiers.

Three days later Mubarak reconstituted his government, appointing a Vice President for the first time. Omar Sulaiman, the new Vice President is respected in some US circles, but the Egyptians know him as the former intelligence chief known for his role in torture of prisoners, particularly in the US extraordinary rendition-for-torture program. Mubarak also replaced the Prime Minister. and the police chief.

Though the spontaneous revolution started with the young, gradually men and women of all ages and people of all political leanings have joined in. On Tuesday the 1^st of February, millions of Egyptians marched throughout Egypt, demanding Mubarak’s resignation with sporadic anti US slogans for the long US support for Mubarak. The newly appointed Vice President Sulaiman has offered to meet the leaders of the revolution to discuss ways to proceed with the reforms.

The army has announced that it would patrol to protect people and property, but would not fire on peaceful protest, confirming that Mubarak’s weakening power.

Though the revolution was spontaneous and leaderless, gradually Egyptians from all shades of the political spectrum, including the Muslim Brotherhood and the Communists have coalesced behind an internationally respected figure, El Baradei, a 2005 Nobel Laureate and former Director General of International Atomic Energy Agency.

Western governments, especially the United States were also caught flatfooted. Secretary of State Clinton’s first statement was insipid, but by the second day the US administration could read the writing on the wall. Obama strongly urged Mubarak to respect people’s right to peaceful protest and asked for the restoration of the internet connections. He also diplomatically threatened Mubark to behave or jeopardize the annual largess of one and a half billion dollars.

The US has traditionally considered Egypt as one of the most important allies in the Middle East for four reasons. First - Egypt is by far the most populous Arab country. Second - The US considers it a bulwark of peace with Israel. It provides enormous leverage to Israel’s occupation and activities in the occupied Gaza and West Bank. Third - After 9/11, Egypt has toed the US line in the war on terrorism, to the extent that it was one of the most important destinations for torture of “extraordinary rendition prisoners” in the Bush administration. And fourth – Suez Canal is a strategic passage for oil and commerce for Europe.

The nervousness in the US is understandable. The Obama administration is very carefully playing its cards. The US realizes that the era of preaching democracy and supporting dictators in Latin America, Middle East and Asia is over. The much-maligned Wikileaks expose, though embarrassing, shows that the US did urge dictators like Mubarak to ease up on the draconian laws and move towards democracy. It has not gone un-noticed among the intelligentsia in the Middle East and it bodes well for the future of US standing among the people in the region and puts potentates on notice. But the average Egyptian does not consider the US to be a friend. Obama administration needs to be more proactive and on the right side of the unfolding history.

Israel is naturally terribly concerned and considers Mubarak to be a close ally. NPR has reported that it is strongly encouraging the US and others to fully support Mubarak.

Leaders of most of the important parties, especially El Baradei have emphasized that they would honor all treaty obligations, including the peace treaty with Israel. In a democratic Egypt the government would be answerable to its people and would not be pliant to the US policy towards the Palestinians, and would not support Israel’s strangulating blockade of Gaza as Mubarak has. This would bring greater urgency to the peaceful solution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and give impetus to the US efforts.

Obviously a major change in the power equation cannot be fully predicted. It poses new challenges and new opportunities. No one doubts that democracy with all its problems and flaws has proven to be a better form of government. It takes time to take root and find its stride.

Some in the West are afraid that Egypt would follow the example of Iran. It is based on ignorance of history as well as geography. The Iranian revolution sprang against a tyrant that suppressed Islam. As it unfolded, instead of looking to the future, the US and Iranian policy makers became prisoners of their past, rooted in the1953 US interference in suppressing the budding democracy in Iran.

Egyptians have no such history. In 1956 Eisenhower forced the withdrawal of the tripartite invasion of Egypt by Britain, France and Israel. To its credit Obama administration has carefully supported the right to peaceful revolution. Though the death toll has reached more than hundred, a whole-sale suppression has not occurred because of a blunt US warning to Mubarak use of force on peaceful demonstrators will not be tolerated.

If handled with care democracy in Egypt is more likely to follow the Turkish model. The Muslim Brotherhood since 1960s has abjured force and has followed political means under an oppressive dictatorship. It is more akin to the Christian right in the US than the theocratic clergy in Iran. Though in a new democracy respect for constitution needs time to take root.

Democratic Egypt would be a positive force in bringing democracy to countries that have educated populations with large-scale unemployment and poverty, such as Syria, Algeria, Jordan, Yemen, and Sudan. The Gulf Countries and Saudi Arabia have small populations rich because of petro-dollars and would not follow the current wave of revolutions.

Egyptians are a proud people with a five thousand year of great history, and one of the best-educated young generations in the Middle East. Two years ago when I was in Cairo, I talked to Egyptians from a broad cross section of generational, educational and economic and religious background. They were friendly talkative and inquisitive. They talked about everything under the sun, but could not voice opinions on their government. Liberation is in the air and Egyptians have found their voice.

Mirza A. Beg can be contacted at mab64@yahoo.com and comments may be posted on mirzasmusings.blogspot.com

Islamic Center NY 10-9-10

Dear Friends,

Some of you have asked for my opinion on the contrived Islamic Center controversy. Thanks for asking, I dedicate it to your valuable friendship. If you find it worth reading please forward it to your friends, if you find flaws in it please educate me.

This essay reflects my deeply held views of the baser instincts in us that are prone to political exploitation of religions. An ignoble Florida pastor made to the front pages by his holding the US and all decent people, Christians and Muslims, hostage to the fear of repercussions of his action. I decided not to include him in the essay, because I do not want to add even a modicum to the publicity he seeks. Thanks and warm regards,

Mirza

_____________________________

Contrived Controversy - Islamic Center in New York

Mirza A. Beg

September 9, 2010

The Tuscaloosa News - Sunday, September 12, 2010

http://www.tuscaloosanews.com/article/20100912/NEWS/100919917

Media Monitor Network- Saturday, September 11, 2010

http://usa.mediamonitors.net/content/view/full/78158

Two Circles Network – Saturday, September 11, 2010

http://twocircles.net/2010sep11/contrived_controversy_islamic_center_new_york.html

Indian Muslims – Monday, September 14, 2010

http://indianmuslims.in/contrived-controversy-islamic-center-in-new-york/

Almost everyone except a minuscule minority is born to their religion and adheres to the social traditions of their culture. Religions may preach unity to their flock but give-in to sectarianism. The sects roughly fall into two cerebral groups.

At the upper end a thoughtful and introspective minority that considers humility and service to humanity as the essence of their being and the calling of their religion. At the other end the narrow-minded who consider their creed to have been chosen by God for domination and use selected passages from their scripture in zealous pursuit of political power.

In the middle lives a large majority of usually kind and decent people too busy in the chores of living to think critically the morality of their social setting. They follow religious rituals and usually admire the first group, but succumb to the propaganda of the second in traumatic times.

In dictatorial or feudal regimes the first group is persecuted and the second latches on to power and thrives. In democracies, the first group may draw people to a higher vision, but suffers the onslaught of unethical propaganda by the second, especially during elections in stressful times.

After eight long years of mismanagement, two wars of hubris and a complete economic collapse, the US electorate in the elections of 2006 and 08 threw the Republicans out of power. In the last year and a half the economy has been stabilized, but the jobless rate is still very high, the electorate is not happy. With this backdrop and the trauma of 9/11, the drummed up controversy and misinformation about the Islamic community center two blocks from ground zero in New York follows this pattern.

In the last two months opposition politicians with the help of pundits on the anything, but “fair and balanced” FOX news and talk radio have kept up the drum beat of misinformation and half truths about the Islamic Center. Unsurprisingly, there has been a gradual rise in anti Islamic Center opinion along with anti Muslim feeling in the ephemeral public opinion polls. Many local right wing groups have latched on in opposing Islamic centers in many smaller communities as well.

The fear mongers have found a more potent propaganda, better than the perennial illegal immigration that simmers on the back burner to be resurrected in elections. Even better than the invented new twist of a few months ago, “the Anchor Babies”, implying that people come to US to deliver babies to cash in years later, the eventual right of citizenship under the US constitution.

Muslims should not be disheartened at this turn of events. Immigrants in the past have been subjected to much worse. It is part of the endemic struggle between the idea of the great democracy that the founding fathers envisioned and the drag of the baser human tendencies.

The United States of America came into being as a democracy drawing on the high ideals of enlightenment. Yet the full implementation of the ideals in the constitution took another two centuries to unfold. The genius of the US constitution is that it guides and allows progress, evolving with the needs of times.

The drag of the baser part of our history is well known, the massacre of Natives, the horrible legacy of slavery, the ethno-religious persecution of Jewish, Catholic - Irish and Italian immigrants, and the indigenous Mormon. The exploitation and persecution of imported Chinese and Japanese laborers in the 19^th century is also a part of the same exploitative fabric.

The nation gradually evolved to reject these, once accepted practices. In hard economic times and in times of war it often regresses, but eventually it re-discovers its moorings. It takes time, often a long time. Blacks were forced to immigrate in chains and were kept in political chains up to the 1960s, until the passage of the Civil Rights legislations. During the hysterical fear of the “new age religions” of 1970s and 80s, charlatan “deprogrammers” made a lot of money preying on the fears of the parents whose children opted to experiment with new trends in thoughts. The current anti Muslim propaganda too shall pass.

So the present anti Muslim propaganda is not surprising. What should be celebrated is that in the wake of 9/11 the administration arrested about 1,200 innocent Muslims; justice prevailed and none of them were found guilty. However in the last three years some Muslims have indulged in reprehensible acts and are legitimately being brought to justice. There have been many attacks on Islamic centers and Mosques by the cowardly religious miscreants, but the law is actively pursuing justice.

Though right wing propagandists have succeeded in corrupting the public mind to gain about sixty percent support, it is a great tribute to the US democracy that about thirty to forty percent have not succumbed to the knee jerk reaction. Many Pastors, Rabbis and most editorials in the newspapers and commentary sections have decried this assault on the first amendment. It is a very high index of sanity in difficult times in any country. The founding fathers took special care to check the tyranny of the insidious emotional gullible majority by requiring two thirds majority in the Senate and ratification by three-fourths of the states to change the constitution.

It is important to realize that bigots on all sides are equally reprehensible. Each side considers the nameless, faceless bigots on the other side to be despicable propaganda figures. While the bigots on their side to be human beings who love their children and are good neighbors, therefore are more easily swayed by their rhetoric. In wars of supremacy each side succumbs to those who misuse religion and yields leadership to the most despicable charlatans among them.

The soul of the US resides in its strong and just constitution. Those with baser attitudes are a blight that infects all societies. Unlike many other countries, the US democracy has weathered them for more than two centuries, and has consistently been on an upward humane trajectory, respecting and celebrating the diversity and aspirations of all its citizens. Muslims in the United States know it and they have a lot to learn and contribute to this great nation of immigrants. When things are going well it is easy to be good, the real test of character is to be just and balanced when one’s own ox is being gored.

Mirza A. Beg can be contacted at mab64@yahoo.com, or at his blog http://mirzasmusings.blogspot.com/

Comments:

___________________________________________________

Mirza,

The ground zero mosque debate can be boiled down to a single issue - compassion. If there are so many families affected by the 9-11 attacks and so many of them opposed to the location of the mosque, then isn't it simply the compassionate thing to do to move the mosque?Even if there are but a few families that had love ones die on 9-11 that wish for the site to be moved, isn't that alone reason enough? Regards,

Casey Sears

-----------------

Casey,

Thanks for your thoughtful note. It is easy to be for your sentiments, and I join you. If people, particularly those with power and resources, are really serious it can and should be achieved. I have heard different opinions from the loudest voices such as Bill Oreily to Newt Gingrich that it should be moved to at least 4 blocks to 10 blocks from ground zero.
As you would realize, it can be achieved if a similar property could be found as an almost even swap. I have not heard from any one a plausible proposal. If they really are honest in their expression, they should try to facilitate what they propose; this will put their criticism on solid ground and worth serious consideration. Thanks again,
Mirza

-----------------------------------------------------------

Hope for 2010, 09-12-31

A Hope for the Year 2010

Mirza A. Beg
December 29, 2009

Counter Currents January 1, 2010
http://www.countercurrents.org/beg010110.htm

The American Muslim (TAM) December 31, 2009
http://www.theamericanmuslim.org/tam.php/features/articles/a_hope_for_the_year_2010/0017824

Media Monitors network, December 31, 2009
http://usa.mediamonitors.net/content/view/full/70023

Indian Muslims, January 1, 2010
http://indianmuslims.in/a-hope-for-the-year-2010/

Al-Jazeerah: Cross-Cultural Understanding January 4, 2010
http://ccun.org/Opinion%20Editorials/2010/January/4%20o/A%20Hope%20for%20the%20Year%202010%20By%20Mirza%20A.htm

South Asian Outlook, January 2010

http://www.southasianoutlook.com/issues/2010/january/a_hope_for_the_year_2010.html

The year 2010 completes the first decade of the 21st Century. For the last nine years we have been in the new century, but the hoped for new millennium eludes us. The mindset of hubris still plagues. We hope that we are seeing the last dying flare-up of ethnic and religious wars from the overhang of the 20th Century.

The demise of the Soviet Union in the early 1990’s brought forth the hope of a new era of cooperation and international understanding. Unfortunately the new leaders of the US, the sole super power in the year 2000 interpreted it as unhindered hegemony.

The countries that had grievously suffered destruction as the battlefield of cold war were forgotten. Many new ethnic regional wars were allowed to flare up; such as in the balkanized former Yugoslavia, Sri Lanka and the sub Saharan Africa. These wars were initially ignored by the world until they became wholesale genocides. The old conflicts were allowed to fester; particularly the Israel-Palestinian conflict; even though the conflict has well known obvious solutions, but the Palestinians had none or a very weak constituency in the West, and thus ignored.

The people chafing under the dictatorial Middle-Eastern potentates supported by the West for mutual economic and geopolitical interests had looked up to Soviet Union as a balancing force. Disillusioned by the Soviets and corrupt dictatorships, some took refuge in the supremacist interpretation of Islam.

The rise of the supremacist religious doctrine found a symbiotic resonance in almost all religions. The Islamists in the Islamic countries, particularly in the Middle-East, the Christian right in the West, the Hindu supremacists (Hindutva) in India, The Likud in Israel and even the Buddhist in Sri Lanka and Thailand found sustenance in suppressing others.

The Islamists ideology rooted in the pre-modern world, took shape in Osama Bin Ladin’s attack on the United States on 9/11, for some real, but mostly transferred grievances of inadequacy of their own societies.

Those were confusing times, but with the distance of nine years, in retrospect, it is clear that in this struggle, the 17th Century ideology was able to drag the late 20th Century nation, to their level of thinking, albeit with the power of modern weapons. The religious right in the US took pride in the ignorance by painting the whole Islamic world in the same extreme colors as the Islamists painted the west.

The thoughtless wars aggression, torture and mindless bombings have left millions of innocent people dead and many millions homeless. It not only sustains the virus of hatred, but spreads it through the victims.

A calamitous corollary of unhindered wars, hubris and greed was the near collapse of the US and Western economies. By the end of 2008 the US and the Western economies were in free-fall with the specter of the 1929 great depression. 2009 has been totally devoted to digging out of a deep hole with a terribly imperfect understanding. Though, not very successful, it was successful enough to avoid the looming depression, with a hope of an anemic recovery.

There is a lesson in it. The countries not completely integrated in the western economies have done much better. China has done very well and has emerged as an economic colossus. India’s economy has flourished. The economies of Brazil, Turkey and some other Latin American countries have markedly improved.

Many prone to reflection know that the array of political forces in the world has changed. Others cling to the hackneyed myopic frame of mind of religious wars of supremacy. The fog has significantly cleared to reveal that the real enemy is our willingly cultivated ignorance, lost in trivia and half-truths on the airwaves feeding on our gullibility.

The world is not as different as is painted by the propagandists in delusional colors. Contrived collision of “us and them” has happened many times before. To fodder the flames of hatred our designated enemies are presented as caricatures. It is time to erase that fake line between them and us; it is an opportunity to face the outside world with strength, yes; but more importantly with understanding. Strength without introspective understanding is always misdirected. The realignment of powers and the fall of empires should have taught us that lesson.

All sides have legitimate grievances that have solutions. The United Nations was created to provide such a forum. But it has been sidelined by strong nations claiming exclusivity. In the mean-time the extremist ideologies flourish. Ideologies couched in religions shout down the voices of those who practice religion with humility and grace.

Though the first nine years of this century have been a continuation of the conflicts rooted in the mind set of the bloody 20th century, but the voices of reason and peace appear to be resurgent in all countries, especially in the United Sates. The internet has become an arena of struggle, where the progressive vices of peace are competing with the retrogressive voices of hate. For those who choose a better tomorrow, not only for themselves, but for all, this is the time for a momentous change. It is a time to raise our voice against the voices of hate within our own countries, societies and religions to usher the hoped for new millennium.

Mirza A. Beg may be contacted at mab64@yahoo.com.
His essays are available at http://mirzasmusings.blogspot.com/

Iran at Cossroads 09-06-22

Iran at the Cross Roads – What should the US Do

By
Mirza A. Beg
Written Monday, June 22, 2009

Part I -The Tuscaloosa News, Thursday, June 25, 2009
http://www.tuscaloosanews.com/article/20090625/NEWS/906249887
Part II -The Tuscaloosa News, Friday, June 26, 2009
http://www.tuscaloosanews.com/article/20090626/NEWS/906259938

Media Monitors. Network, Thursday, June 25, 2009
http://world.mediamonitors.net/content/view/full/63766

Part – I, The American Muslim, June 25, 2009
http://www.theamericanmuslim.org/tam.php/features/articles/iran_at_the_cross_roads_what_should_the_us_do_part_1/0017427
Part – II, The American Muslim , June 25, 2009 http://www.theamericanmuslim.org/tam.php/features/articles/iran_at_the_cross_roads_what_should_the_us_do_part_2/0017428

Part I – Iran at the Cross Roads

The tenth presidential election in Iran was on the 12th of June. A few months ago, it was widely thought to be an easy win for President Ahmadinijad. Though his popularity had some what declined, because of the economic pressures on an average Iranian, but his very simple unostentatious life style and his strong stand against the tirade of the Bush administration were very popular. It was a matter of national pride. The very fact that Iran was able to withstand the massive American pressure, made Iran look strong and the US appear weak.

The most popular person to challenge President Ahmadinijad was the former two-term President Khatami, who was very popular when first-elected in 1997. Considered a reformer, but by the end of his second term his followers were disappointed. On the domestic front he failed to loosen the grip of the clergy on the levers of power. On the international front his friendly overtures to United States, including his offer of support against the Talibans in Afghanistan were rebuffed by the Bush administration. Instead of taking the hand of friendship, the Bush administration inanely branded Iran to be a part of the Axis of Evil. Mr. Ahmadinejad won the presidential elections of 2005, by painting the reformers as ineffective appeasers of the United States.

The dynamics of the presidential election changed when in March 2009 the former President Khatami, having problems even getting the approval of the Guardian Council to run, withdrew and threw his support to Mr Moussavi.

The other important factor was the end of the Bush era and the election of President Obama, along with the change in the US foreign policy from belligerency to diplomacy. Mr. Obama’s overtures for a civil dialogue with Iran left President Ahmadinejad without an easy mark to rail against. Mr. Moussavi, a loyal supporter of the 1979 Islamic Revolution, was approved by the clerical establishment. He started gathering the support of all who were dissatisfied with the status-quo. It included the intellectuals, liberals, young people asking for the easing of what they considered onerous regulations, but most of all, many average Iranians suffering the economic hardship because of the western embargo on Iran and fall in oil prices since last November.

In this contentious election, almost 40 million Iranians, eighty percent of the electorate voted. The pre-election polls indicated a very close race, with a chance of Mr. Moussavi winning. The election results started trickling in even before the polls closed. Surprisingly, President Ahmadinejad won by a thumping majority of 62% to Mr. Moussavi 33%. To the shock of many, Mr. Moussavi, as well as the other candidates lost by big margins even in their hometowns.

Those who had voted for Mr Moussavi, felt strongly that the election had been rigged. In Iran the system did not allow observers from the campaigns to monitor the voting and tabulation. It fed the dissatisfaction. The authorities refused to entertain any doubts. Within a week the dissatisfaction burgeoned to wide scale protests and civil demonstrations. Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenie first rejected the demand for recount, then accepted a partial recount, again without the monitors.

In the mean time, the government arrested an untold number of people. Many well known names from the 1979 revolution, such as the daughter and some family members of Ayatollah Rafsanjani, and many others former ministers have been detained.

The strong arm suppression of hundreds of thousands of peaceful protesters was beamed the world over, including the beating and killing of silent marchers. According to the Iranian government 17 people have been killed, the opposition and other sources claim hundreds killed.

In this budding revolution, many supporters of the Iranian regime see the hand of the CIA, as it had overthrown Prime Minister Mosaaddeq in 1953 to restore the Shah to the throne. There concerns are legitimate, as the Bush administration had left no doubt that it would use any means to change the regime in Iran. It is quite possible that the Bush policies and spies in place in Iran may have a hand in stirring up the pot.

It is also possible that the election was very close and President Ahmadinejad may have won the election by a small margin, but it is becoming clearer by the day that there was wide scale rigging to ensure the results. On the 22nd of June, the 12 member Guardian Council, that oversees the election, accepted that three million votes may have been miscounted and there were 50 places, where the number of votes cast exceeded the eligible voters. Yet it declared the elections to be fair, allowing only a limited recount. Once people loose faith in the honesty of the process, they can not be satisfied by the promises of unsupervised rectification by the same people.

From the fast changing scene in the past twelve days, it is evident that the CIA may have had its designs, but this wide spread movement was neither planned, nor controlled by anyone including its reluctant leader Mr. Moussavi. The wide spread pent up frustration of a large populace has found an avenue to express itself. Mr. Moussavi finds himself at the head of a budding revolution that he did not plan. He is in no position to contain it without loosing face and his leadership.

Ayatollah Khamenie is in a precarious position. By taking a strong stand against a total and open recount, he missed a great opportunity to control the events peacefully and to co-opt the opposition. One great advantage of democracy is that it allows change to take place without tearing up the fabric of the society. It tolerates a certain level of corruption, nepotism, even small irregularities in vote counting. By taking a strong stand Ayatollah Khamenie is in danger of loosing control or suppressing and closing the country, harming Iran and the people of Iran, to retain power by the force of arms. Iran may lurch from a theocratic democracy to a dictatorship.

Iran is finding it difficult to run a system as part democracy. Half free responding to the will of the people, such as popularly elected president and the Assembly (Majlis) albeit allowing only the candidates approved by the Guardian Council, and half controlled by the Supreme leader, indirectly elected for life, by an elected Assembly of Experts.

When the fog of the fast moving events clears, Iran would have changed, no matter who wins. If the present structure of the government survives by closing the doors shut to the outside world, it would be detrimental to the Iranian people. If it incorporates the opposition, it will be a desirable change; otherwise it may turn out to be a bloody revolution that no Iranian wants.

The Iranian regime is trying to shut the news of demonstrations and repression, but inter-connective technology of the 21st century is proving to be an impediment. The cell phones are ubiquitous, more than 80 percent of the people, especially the young have it and can twitter the information and pictures world wide. The government cannot shut the technology portal to the rest of the world without severely wounding its own economy and communications.

One hopes that the rulers in Iran will remember that violent repression of the voice of the people exposes the bankruptcy of the government. The US may dislike and may have been helping elements opposed to the government within Iran, but the enormous uprising and peaceful demonstrations in support of the opposition is the voice of Iran and its future.

Mirza A. Beg can be contacted at mab64@yahoo.com and at mirzasmusings@blogspot.com


Iran at the Cross Roads – What Should the US Do

By
Mirza A. Beg
Written Monday, June 22, 2009

Part II - What should the United States do

Iran has been in turmoil since the election on June 12th. For the rest of the world, especially for the US, it is important to understand, it is about Iran and not about the United States. It is the 21st Century, not the 20th, when the super powers manipulated the events in the world with impunity.

Events in Iran are moving fast. Most of the popular punditry in the United States was initially flummoxed, interpreting events with the US-centric biases; particularly the Neo-Con infected Republican Party. In spite of all the horrible mistakes of the eight Bush years, miring the country in un-necessary and terribly mismanaged wars and driving the country to near bankruptcy, they have learned no lessons, certainly not humility. They are taking pot shots at President Obama to be more belligerent towards the Iranian government.

They do not understand that the history of US orchestration of the overthrow of the first democratically elected Iranian regime in 1953 is as fresh in the Iranian psyche as the hostage taking of Americans by Iran in 1979 is for the American mind. The US supported brutal war waged on Iran by Saddam Hussain during the Reagan administration in the1980s has not faded from Iranian memory. Iran lost about a million of its youth affecting most families in Iran. The countries that the Iranians mistrust the most are Great Britain and the United States.

The Neo-Con mindset argues, “The Mullahs in Iran accuse the US anyway, so why not support the opposition”. They do not understand an important distinction. It matters less what the government propaganda machine puts out, it matters enormously what the people believe. So far it appears that because of the election of President Obama and the change in course of the US foreign policy, the Iranian public opinion towards the US has changed from completely negative to largely favorable or ambivalent.

Obviously the killing of peaceful protestors and bystanders in Iran is of concern to all decent human beings. But it is in the interest of the Iranians, the US and the world, that the events in Iran should be handled by Iranians peacefully. If the situation deteriorates in chaos, it is the Iranians who will suffer the brunt. The Iranian opposition has asked for moral support not belligerency towards the Iranian regime.

The United States is, and has been a super power for the last seventy years with world wide interests. It has often supported corrupt dictatorships over democracy in Asia, Africa and Latin America, while paying lip service to the idea of democracy. Mr. Reagan’s opposition of the Soviets is often highlighted by the Neo-Cons, but they never acknowledge his support of the South African apartheid regime while branding Nelson Mandela a terrorist, the support of the murderous Contras in Nicaragua and a deafening silence after the rape and murder of five US nuns and the murder of the Archbishop by the government death squads in El Salvador.

It is important to understand the present crisis in Iran and the role of major players in historical context. The Islamic Republic of Iran was born thirty years ago in a people’s revolution against the corrupt and brutal regime of the Shah wedded solely to aggrandizement of his personal power helped by the western interests. Iran is not a dictatorship as some exaggerate, but a theocratic democracy, not to our liking.

Since the revolution in 1979, Iran has had ten presidential elections, and six presidents. Three of the presidents were elected for two terms each. All the previous elections were largely considered to be fair. The office of the President in Iran is not the highest office. It is more like the office of the chief executive officer, under the ultimate authority of the Supreme Leader (literally, the leader of the revolution).

The Supreme Leader is elected for a life time by the 86 members, Assembly of Experts. The Assembly of Experts is elected from a list of screened candidates by a direct election for an eight year term. That is how the theocracy controls the democracy. The former president Ayatollah Rafsanjani is the current chairman. He along with many in the religious establishment are supporting Mr. Moussavi.

Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini who led the1979 revolution was unanimously elected as the first Supreme Leader. He held the office until his death in June 1989. The Assembly of Experts filled the vacancy by electing Seyyed Ali Khamenei (the president at the time) as the Supreme Leader by a two thirds majority. After twenty years he is still in power. He can only be replaced by impeachment. The reformers have unsucessfully tried to limit the term of the Supreme Leader.

The candidates for presidential election in contention are the children of the revolution and were strong supporters of Ayatollah Khomeini. Mr. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the current president was seeking a second term. The challenger Mr. Mir Hossein Moussavi is a former foreign minister who became the prime minister, during the presidency of, no other than the present Supreme Leader Seyyed Ali Khameini from 1981 to 1989.

Many in the US, particularly in the Neo-Con circles are making the mistake of grouping the Moussavi followers to be an anti Islamic revolution. One of the most potent symbols used by the Moussavi supporters is the green color, popularly considered to be the color of Islam. This is an internal Iranian struggle for power in the Iranian context of freedom; the limit on the power of the state and for the bread and butter issues. Both the candidates are Iranian patriots who support the 1979 revolution and do not disagree with the ideas of constitution of the Islamic Republic of Iran; though gradually it is evolving as a struggle for the check on the near absolute power of the Supreme Leader.

Their foreign policy is not likely to be substantially different. While Mr. Ahmadinijad was reactive to the belligerency of President Bush and finds it difficult to change, Mr. Moussavi will perhaps be more nuanced and soft spoken in the Obama mode, but will not yield Iranian interests to the Western pressure. President Obama is appropriately using the soft power words, rather than the bluster and empty threats of the Bush era.

Mirza A. Beg can be contacted at mab64@yahoo.com and at mirzasmusings@blogspot.com

Obama to Muslims 09-06-04

A Critique of President Obama’s Speech in Cairo

Mirza A. Beg

Friday, June 5, 2009

Media Monitor Network, Friday June 5, 2009
http://usa.mediamonitors.net/content/view/full/62997

Counter Currents, Saturday June 6, 2009
http://www.countercurrents.org/beg060609.htm

The American Muslim, Saturday, June 6, 2009
http://www.theamericanmuslim.org/tam.php/features/articles/a_critique_of_president_obamas_speech_in_cairo/0017369

Pine Magazine, Atlanta, Saturday, June 6, 2009
http://www.pinemagazine.com/site/article/2036

The Tuscaloosa News, Tuesday, June 9, 2009
http://www.tuscaloosanews.com/article/20090609/NEWS/906099997/1004/SPORTS?Title=Give-Obama-time-to-prove-himself

Al Jazeerah, Tuesday, June 9, 2009
http://ccun.org/Opinion%20Editorials/2009/June/9%20o/A%20Critique%20of%20President%20Obama's%20Speech%20in%20Cairo%20By%20Mirza%20A.htm

The speech by President Obama in Cairo, Egypt, on the 4th of June billed as, “An Address to the Muslim World” is indeed historic. It appears that the speech has been largely well received by his intended audience.

There are many critics of the speech. As usual the right wing critics in the US lament that he should not have accepted any mistakes in the past US policies. Most of the thoughtful criticism from the Muslims, his intended audience is about some of the things he said, but mostly what he did not say or did not say with more emphasis.

That includes me as well. While talking of violence by Palestinians, I wish he would have also commented on much worse violence inflicted on the Palestinians by Israelis, as is obvious by the death toll in many of the Israeli military operations. The toll of violence in Gaza last January was approximately1300 Palestinian killed, mostly civilians, to about 6 Israeli soldiers. How can one ignore it? Since it was billed as an address to the Muslim world and not only to the Arabs, I wish he would have also covered the conflicts in other parts of the world where Muslims are being persecuted.

Having said that, critics should keep in mind that President Obama has been in office for barely five months; he has inherited from his predecessor two wars, and an economy that was teetering on the precipice of depression. Deregulation by the successive US governments starting in 1980, become completely irresponsible in the last administration. It encouraged and lauded unbridled greed on Wall Street that left the American economy in shambles with the fear of possible depression, rippling through the world markets.

One should keep in mind that President Obama is a president of a Democratic Republic and not a dictator with unlimited powers. The American President is perceived to be the most powerful man in the world, but his power in the US is circumscribed and checked by the other two branches of the government. He can be powerful domestically only if he can convince the American electorate that his policies are in their self interest.

There is a difference in being an idealistic critic and an idealistic politician or even a statesman. As President Lincoln once equated the navigation of the ship of State to navigation through the Mississippi River; by necessity one has to follow the path of the river. Even though one may be traveling south, but when the river meanders to the north, one has to go along that short distance. It takes time and sustained effort by a visionary leader to gradually institute new policies while educating and carrying the people along. It is not easy to challenge wrong policies and the propaganda of decades. Those idealistic politicians who get too far ahead and do not take appropriate time to educate the people are overwhelmed by the entrenched opposition and court failure. The good policies and noble intents find a place on the dust heap of history.

It is unrealistic to expect that in a fifty-five minute speech President Obama could have covered all the nuances and details of the accumulated problems of many decades. As he acknowledged, “I do so recognizing that change cannot happen overnight. No single speech can eradicate years of mistrust, nor can I answer in the time that I have all the complex questions that brought us to this point.” He added, “Of course, recognizing our common humanity is only the beginning of our task. Words alone cannot meet the needs of our people. These needs will be met only if we act boldly in the years ahead; and if we understand that the challenges we face are shared, and our failure to meet them will hurt us all. “

Of course if he does not follow up with concrete policies, these lofty words and ideas, the critics would have been proven right, but one needs to give him some time.

Generally speaking, it appears from the myriad polls over the years that about 25 to 30 percent of Americans, (as voters in most other countries) belong to “my country right or wrong” group. They abhor the idea of acknowledging any mistakes. Mr. Bush’s intransigence was mistaken for strength. Their idea of patriotism is rooted in the supremacy of their religion and blind nationalism. They are adept at ignoring reality and confuse their interest with the universal morality.

Another 20 to 30 percent understand universal morality and do think of right and wrong in terms of “Do unto others, what one wants for himself”. The struggle is to convince the 40 percent or so apathetic voters who do not follow the news of international events closely. They are essentially concerned with the pocket book issues. They tend to follow the leader who can convincingly promise a better economy and hopefully deliver it.

One should keep these political realities in mind and that President Obama has inherited the most ominous problems from his predecessor, an economy that was in a free fall from October 2008 to March 2009, two wars spiraling towards endless quagmires and rotting infrastructure. He has not only made bold efforts to tackle them, it is remarkable that against the conventional wisdom that the president should not tackle more than one or two problems at a time, he considered the dialogue with the Muslim world and tackling the Palestine-Israel problem of such paramount importance that he made such a bold speech and has raised expectations.

Critics who find no difference between President George W. Bush’s rhetoric and President Obama’s speech have a very short memory. President Bush appointed right wing ideologues and known enemies of Islam, such as Elliot Abrams, Daniel Pipes and General Boykin to name just a few, to important positions and their rhetoric were incendiary. President Obama has shown by his action and many speeches that he does not skirt contentious issues, but speaks clearly and cogently to make people understand his thoughts and actions.

Thoughtful criticism of leaders is very important. That is how the leaders learn and try to meet the legitimate needs and aspirations of the people, but one should temper it with an understanding of the leader’s character and consideration of the facts on the ground.

Mirza A. Beg can be contacted at mab64@yahoo.comOr read this at http://mirzasmusings.blogspot.com/

Greetings for 2009 08-12-18

A Wish for the Year 2009

Mirza A. Beg
December 18th, 2008

On December 31, the year 2008 will fade into history. Though January 1, 2009 will not be materially different, but the year 2009 can be, and I hope will be a harbinger of better tomorrows. Many will take stock of their hopes and desires for the future, but some will find refuge in this season of festivities and let desires negate hope and trump reality. The poor and dispossessed of the world will go on toiling towards dashed hopes and early deaths. The challenge is to bring changes to these lives and usher in a new millennium of peace and cooperation that is still waiting for the last eight years of the chronological millennium.

The year 2008 has been one of the most miserable years in more than half a century. Not only do the wars still rage in Iraq and Afghanistan, but no less devastating regional civil wars in Sri Lanka, Darfur, Congo and many other places go on unabated; Mr. Mugabe, in resource-rich Zimbabwe has led its citizens to unbelievable destitution, while the world can awkwardly condemns as a bystander. The terrorism of state and non-state actors in many regions is on the rise.

Dictators and oppressors persist and terrorist attacks come with the regularity of tides. We have only limited attention span, and are overwhelmed by so many crises. The crisis of the past month fades, replaced by a new crisis of the month or even the week. The Junta in Burma (Myanmar) perseveres in its horrible record of oppression. The world focused on it for a few weeks, then moved on.

All the crises have been dwarfed by the economic meltdown of 2008, which started with the subprime mortgage crisis in the United States. This was only the proverbial straw. If not this, some other unraveling of the economic pyramid scheme would have burst the bubble of unregulated greed of unscrupulous funds managers on Wall Street, who ran amok under a blind eye of a government that willfully dismantled the instruments of governmental regulatory responsibilities.

To dispel all doubts that we are living in a global economy, the US economic crisis has reverberated through the world economies, including the very poor countries that are dependent on the aid and charity of the wealthier nations. The governments of all major economies, including the United States, have come to realize that they can not manage it alone and have been forced to coordinate their efforts to dig themselves out of this self-made morass.

But the year 2008 has also been a watershed year. The situation became so bad that it may have woken us from a long slumber of complacent inattention.

In America, in the wake of the shock of 9/11 in 2001, fear took hold. Loud voices of the prophets of fear and greed found a fertile ground. Americans opted for erosion of their constitutional freedoms in exchange for a feeling of safety.

After eight years of utter mismanagement, Americans realized that their pocket-books are dwindling and even the substandard employment of eight years is about to turn in to unemployment and their future as a great nation has been jeopardized.

Against all odds, in contradiction of the conventional wisdom, Americans rose above their prejudices and voted Barack Obama as the president-elect of the United States. No one could have even ventured to predict that a black American could win the election in 2008.

This is of even greater significance because Mr. Obama avoided the mean and negative campaigning that has been the hall-mark of the past successful elections. A majority of Americans rejected the petty politics of fear and rose to vote for a future of hope and equity. Americans voted for Mr. Obama even though he did not take the bait of demonizing those who disagreed with American policies and offered dialogue to reach a better and equitable understanding instead of hubris.

The American Revolution was one of the most important engines for the flowering of democracies in the world. This change in American attitudes and government is a harbinger of a better tomorrow of dialogue and understanding among the peoples of the world. In this interconnected world of fast communications and global economy, no place is too far, or too insulated to escape the consequences of oppression of supposedly distant people. It is time to think of others empathetically to develop common platforms and aspirations.

Industrial revolution has conclusively proven that prosperity is not a zero-sum proposition. For some to be rich, many do not have to be poor. Human ingenuity can help produce more with less effort and invent new techniques and materials of comfort, for the betterment of all.

This is not a new idea; European prosperity rose from the ashes of the conflagration of two world wars on this concept. Leaders reflect our collective will and hopes. No leader, including Mr. Obama by himself can bring about the millennium of peace and cooperation, but with the help of all those who choose a better tomorrow, not only for themselves, but for all, this may be a time for that momentous change. Let us make the year 2009 the start. With best wishes,

Mirza A. Beg may be contacted at mab64@yahoo.com.
His essays are available at http://mirzasmusings.blogspot.com/

Congrats Pres Obama 08-11-4

Congratulation President-Elect Obama

Mirza A. Beg
Tuesday, November 04, 2008

Dear President-elect Obama,

Congratulations on a very well deserved victory. More importantly, it is a very convincing affirmation of the lofty ideal of the founding of the United States of America.

The ideals that led to the declaration of independence, later enshrined in the American constitution have often suffered on the shoals of populism constricted by deeply ingrained prejudices. It has been a protracted struggle for the United States as well as other democracies. It has taken America a long time to overcome many deep-rooted prejudices to elect you as the next president.

It is indeed a new dawn for our country. The world has looked up to the idea of America and the ideals of the American creed, but has been disappointed and rebuffed many times. Particularly the last eight years have been an antithesis of American Ideals.

This is a bitter sweet moment for you. The passing of your grandmother, a day before your well earned victory is indeed very sad. A modicum of satisfaction for you is that she knew you are what she had dreamed and hoped for you to be.

You are about to assume the leadership of a great country that suffered the indignity of being lead by a coterie of narrow-minded thugs who violated every principle this great country stood for. They were able to do it by fear mongering to exploit the tragedy of 9/11. The foreign policy is in shambles. In the name of fighting terrorism they abandoned all moral principles to the extant that the world sees us as a nation led by a rogue President. They handed the economy to the Kleptocrats on the Wall-street in the name of deregulation. These are very tough times for our country and the world.

The good news is that the world still is waiting for a sane and principled leadership. The greatest gift of our democracy is that every four years we get a chance to chart a new course. About four years ago in the last election Americans stirred from a nightmare but were frightened into closing their eyes to fall into a deeper nightmare. Finally we have been shaken up from our worst nightmare to reject the purveyors of fear.

This is our opportunity to pull back from the precipice of the misguided Bush doctrine of leading by brawn in the manner of a small-minded street fighter. A great leader leads by thoughtful principled analysis of problems. You have proven your capabilities in the last two years of grueling campaign.

You are starting with a national mandate and universal goodwill. The challenges are enormous and our resources are stretched very thin. You have no time to relax in the glow of this historic victory.

You have to devise an economic program that gives people hope, provides job, rewards hard work, curbs greed and punishes those who exploit our freedoms and the economic system.

You have to reassure the world that America values principles and respects all nations and peoples who want to live in peace and justice. You need to take strong steps to resolve the festering Israeli-Palestinian problem equitably. It is the key. It has not only hampered the American ability to solve many other problems, but has helped create many of the festering problems of the last few decades.

The wars are not always avoidable, but they should be the last resort, only when all else fails and the nation is in mortal danger. Unprincipled wars of supremacy are feudalistic and can not succeed in the age of instant communications. The Iraq war needs to end as you promised. The war in Afghanistan needs a very strong component of diplomacy and mercy towards those who can be drawn back from Taliban’s cruelty, so that we do not create more enemy as we have been doing by indiscriminate bombing of civilians almost on a monthly basis. It only weakens our cause and makes the enemy stronger. As you said we need to negotiate with our enemies on the basis of equity and not supremacist ultimatums.

We have supported you in the hope that you will govern with courage, thoughtfulness and justice. We will offer our constructive criticism as citizens of a great and free nation. We stood up against the intimidation of the last eight years to elect you. We intend to protect that precious right and will show dissent in the best and most valuable American tradition when warranted. With best wishes to you and our country, Mirza

Mirza A. Beg can be contacted at mab64@yahoo.com or through the blog http://mirzasmusings.blogspot.com/

McCain V/S McCain 08-10-27

McCain Fighting Against Two Opponents

Mirza A. Beg
October 27, 2008

Tuscaloosa news, Friday, October 31, 2008
http://www.tuscaloosanews.com/article/20081031/NEWS/810312952

Birmingham News, Sunday, November2, 2008
http://www.al.com/opinion/birminghamnews/letters.ssf?/base/opinion/1225617405132400.xml&coll=2

One can not, but feel sad for McCain. He is fighting against two men with compelling biographies. Every one knows about Senator Barack Obama, who has run a principled and stoic campaign.

But the more formidable opponent is the maverick John McCain of the 2000. He has at least an equally compelling biography. He withstood torture in North Vietnamese prison. He suffered the subterranean slander by the Bush- Karl Rove machine in the primaries in 2000. He honorably castigated the agents of rightwing intolerance especially Pat Robertson and late Jerry Falwell. He opposed Bush tax cuts for the rich in 2002, and strongly opposed torture of detainees in Guantanamo bay Gulag. And he lost the Republican Primaries in 2000.

Then in 2007 he decided to run for the Presidency. To win the Republican nomination, he made a Faustian bargain with the rightwing of the Republican Party. He hired Bush-Rove protégés, who had slandered him in South Carolina Primary to slander Obama. He praised the right wing agents of intolerance, kissed and made up. He advocates making the Bush tax cuts permanent, and he even voted for the CIA’s ability to torture.

It is the Maverick McCain of the year 2000 that is defeating the McCain of 2008.

Surge, a Façade 08-07-23

Surge, a Façade for Changing Disgraced Policy

Mirza A. Beg
Wednesday, July 23, 2008

Media Monitor Network Friday, July 25, 2008
http://usa.mediamonitors.net/content/view/full/53190

The American Muslim Friday, July 25, 2008
http://www.theamericanmuslim.org/tam.php/features/articles/surge_a_facade_for_changing_disgraced_policy/0016446

Cross-Cultural Understanding, Tuesday, July 29, 2008
http://www.ccun.org/Opinion%20Editorials/2008/July/29%20o/Surge,%20a%20Facade%20for%20Changing%20Failing%20Bush%20Policy%20in%20Iraq%20By%20Mirza%20A.%20Beg.htm


After four years of obstinate refusal to increase troops, Bush takes credit for the surge. McCain, with some justification thumps his chest claiming fatherhood of the surge. Unfortunately most pundits in the media also parrot the bumper sticker chorus,” The surge is working.”

Yes, American casualties are down; even the Iraqi casualties are down, but there is more to it than the surge. Let us not follow the propaganda mill blindly again. Consider the reasons that are more important and relevant than the surge itself.

Bush policy from the start of the Iraq invasion in March 2003, up to the Republican defeat in the Congressional elections in November, 2006 was essentially as follows:

1- The level of troops in Iraq, about 130,000, is adequate. If the generals ask, more troops will be provided. The generals towed the line and did not question it publicly.

2. Insistence that the dismantling of the Iraqi military, as well as the civilian infrastructure, was the correct policy, after the fall of Saddam. New civilian infrastructure, police and military are being trained with selected loyal Iraqis.

3 - All the resistance in Iraq is by Al Qaida supporters on the Sunni side, and Iran is fomenting trouble on the Shia side. No recognition of nationalist sentiments.

4 - Never negotiate with the insurgents who have American blood on their hands.

Bush, Chaney and Rumsfeld stubbornly adhered to the above mantras while Iraq descended into chaos. American deaths rose to more that 100 per month, reaching 160 in some months. In the meantime, bombing of Iraqi government targets rose dramatically, claiming more than 1,000 Iraqi lives per month. This increased internal religious strife, sinking into civil war. Consequently, about 15% of Iraqi population is displaced. Two million Iraqis fled to neighboring countries and another two million are internally displaced - “ethnically-cleansed” to safer sectarian neighborhoods.

Sunnis and Shias who lived in mixed neighborhoods fled to the ghetto-like safety of walled segregated neighborhoods. The safety walls between the cleansed-sectarian neighborhoods were erected by the American occupation authority.

The American electorate stirred from slumber and defeated Bush cronies in the Congressional elections of November 2006. Bush was forced to fire Rumsfeld, “face of the Iraq war” as the Secretary of Defense. Robert Gates, the new secretary, took the job reluctantly, but found greater freedom with the backing of the new Congress. The long awaited bipartisan Baker–Hamilton report of December 2006, urbanely castigated the administration for doing everything wrong. Some of the important recommendations were that the administration should open a dialogue with the Iraqi resistance as well as the regional opposition and stop the torture and mistreatment of Iraqis.

Bush pretended to ignore the report, but quietly replaced the generals running the war in Iraq. Then with fanfare, he appointed General Petraeus, widely hailed for his humane and cooperative treatment of Kurds at the beginning of the war.

Reversing the largely discredited first three policies, the new policy, up front was to raise the troop strength from 130,000 to 165,000, popularly called the surge. But the violence remained unabated for the first few months of 2007, until General Petraeus, quietly reversed even the 4th bed-rock Bush policy of no quarter to those who killed Americans.

Petraeus recognized the obvious; the insurgency was not pro Al Qaida but nationalistic. He instituted a program, employing former insurgents fighting the Americans in the Sunni areas into provincial militia, particularly in the most dangerous Al Anbar province, west of Baghdad. The program pays $10 per day to about 100,000 of the militia, controlled by local sheiks, not the Shia-dominated Iraqi government. In the shattered economy of Iraq, $10 goes a long way. A total of $30 million per month is pittance compared to hemorrhaging of $12 billion per month.

Finally a sane use of 30 million dollars, in complete reversal of the Bush policy, because almost all the people in the militia supported the resistance against the US forces and undoubtedly quite a few have American blood on their hands. Some may say it is bribery; a surrender to the enemy by the unyielding Bush. But it is the main factor that brought down the violence drastically.

The second reason for the decline in violence is that cleansed sectarian neighborhoods separated by barriers are easy to patrol. It dampened the sectarian violence.

The third reason is patience. With Bush limping towards the end of his term, Iraqi Sunnis and Shias are waiting him out for the new government in the US. They feel that with his diminished power for misadventures it is better to wait than fight.

It is not the surge by itself that is working. The addition of 30,000 troops has marginally helped, but the real reason is the changed Sunni attitude, because of the reversal of the US policy from suppression to paying the Sunnis and supporting them in local autonomy against the central government of Prime Minister Maliki, whom Bush gave unquestioning support. No wonder Maliki now insists on a time-table for American withdrawal.

Bush and McCain keep repeating the simplistic deceit about the surge, and the media keeps reporting it. Occasionally voices are raised challenging it, but they do not make the front pages or the lead story on the network news.

The claim that the surge is working is akin to saying that sun rises because the rooster crows. Eight years ago, I would not have believed that a significant number of voters can be so duped, but after the two Bush terms I know they can be. We as a people were willingly duped at the start of the war. The question is, have we and the media learned the lesson of the duplicity of this administration or will we continue to be duped.

Mirza A. Beg can be contacted at mab64@yahoo.com and at http://mirzasmusings.blogspot.com/

Soldiers & Generals 08-3-12

When Brave Soldiers were led by Timid Generals

Mirza A. Beg
Wednesday, March 12, 2008

Counter Currents, Tuesday, March 18, 2008
http://www.countercurrents.org/beg180308.htm

Cross Cultural Understanding march 17, 2008
http://www.ccun.org/Opinion%20Editorials/2008/March/17%20o/When%20Brave%20Soldiers%20Were%20Led%20by%20Timid%20Generals%20By%20Mirza%20A.%20Beg.htm

The American Muslim March 14, 2008
http://www.theamericanmuslim.org/tam.php/features/articles/when_brave_soldiers_were_led_by _timid_generals/0015929

Pine Magazine March 24, 2008
http://pine-magazine.com/content.php?id=1234

Defense Secretary Robert Gates announced on March 11th that Admiral William J. Fallon's request for early retirement had been granted regretfully. The 63-year-old admiral was appointed with great fanfare as the head of the U S Central Command only about a year ago, after serving as head of US Pacific Command. He became the commander of the US forces in the Middle East, responsible for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq (as General Petraeus’ boss). And if Bush had his way in engineering a war with Iran, Admiral Fallon would have been saddled with this third war as well, while still being mired in Iraq and Afghanistan.

A fall out of the Republicans losing control of the Congress in the November 2006 elections was the resignation of Defense Secretary Rumsfeld. Bush was forced to appoint people like Secretary Gates, Admiral Fallon and General Petraeus, because the traditional yes-men could not be confirmed by a Democratic Congress.

Admiral Fallon’s frank testimony before the Congress and occasional pronouncements emphasizing diplomacy over war in dealing with Iran, were regular irritants to Bush and his cohorts. His backing of further troop withdrawals from Iraq to boost the forces in Afghanistan reversing the long trend of neglect of Afghanistan brought to focus the open secret that Afghanistan was spiraling out of control.

An article in Esquire magazine describing Admiral Fallon standing between the Bush administration and the war with Iran was the final straw. It became too obvious that unlike many of his predecessors, Admiral Fallon would not be a toady to the brazen, ill-conceived Bush follies. The public spat of Secretary Gates with the Europeans about more forces for Afghanistan, while the US is mired in Iraq and Bush is craving for a war with Iran, did not help either.

So the Admiral had to be fired, and he was.

Young soldiers in their teens and early twenties follow orders and serve on nebulous front lines in Iraq and Afghanistan as a patriotic duty. They bravely put their lives on the line in the mistaken belief that they are being led by a sane and caring policy executed by their officers who care for them as surrogate parents.

Generals seldom die in wars. How many generals have died or been maimed in Iraq? What bravery, courage and sacrifice are expected from the generals?

The bravery expected from the generals is that they speak “truth to power”. The courage expected is to be ready to resign, if they consider the policies of the administration to be injurious to the country they love and the constitution they have sworn to defend. The sacrifice expected is to give up lucrative careers for the sake of the soldiers under their command; the soldiers whose sacrifice and bravery they swear by; the soldiers who put their lives on the line for the generals.

General Shinseki was fired in 2003 before the Iraq war. His sin was, an honest testimony before the congress contradicting the contrived rosy and gross underestimates of troops required for the Iraq war by Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz. It drove the point home to many generals that expression of honest opinion was inimical to their careers. The Staff officers bold enough to express their opinions with courage and tenacity were shunted to obscure positions or were cashiered. The message was loud and clear, generals who fell in line were rewarded with promotions. Rumsfeld and Bush chose only those generals who lived by the “lofty ideals” of spineless subservience.

Dozens of retired generals have been very critical of the Bush policies and the contrived war in Iraq from the beginning. Some of the well known names are General Wesley Clark, former commander of NATO and General Anthony Zinni, the former commander of the Central Command, one of the predecessors of Admiral Fallon. Lately even some of the generals, who danced to the Bush-Rumsfeld tune, have discovered spine after retirement and have become critics of the policies and the conduct of the Iraq war.

It is customary to say that we oppose the war, but support the brave troops. It is an inherently thoughtless and contradictory position. Politicians afraid of the backlash from a misinformed public take this position to hedge their bets. Most soldiers indeed are brave, but to support them is to bring them home away from this misbegotten war. It is craven lip service to keep the soldiers in harms way, to use a hackneyed phrase. To keep funding the war means that soldiers will keep dieing and killing, in an immoral war based on proven lies and deceit.

By resigning, Admiral Fallon has really served the country and has risen to the moral high ground of supporting the constitutional supremacy of the civilian authority of the elected officials over the military. He has come to the conclusion that the President’s policies are indefensible and are doing tremendous harm to the constitution and the country he loves. It is time for him to speak bravely and clearly to tell the nation and his peers in the services about his struggle to serve his country above and beyond the lure of promotions.

Mirza A. Beg can be contacted at mab64@yahoo.com and http://mirzasmusings.blogspot.com/