The Tragedy Of Iraq (...or "Iraq Is Burning!")

First, I would like to thank those who continually read Beyond The Political Spectrum in attempting to keep up with important events in the news. At the same time, I would like to apologize to those same regular readers for not routinely posting in the last several months on a regular basis. Some of you might know that I have been working to publish a series of crisis-themed books meant to serve as a comprehensive source for disaster planning for both individuals as well as organizations. With that having been said, with so much news and so many associated issues regarding this news, it would simply make sense to just touch on the most relevant item in the news currently.

Sunni insurgents linked with a more radical offshoot of al-Queda driving through Mosul, the second largest city in the country.

Iraq 
If one were attempting to sum up the lowest point in the American involvement in Iraq—2006 and 07—in terms of the political, military, and religious upheavals, the best word would be “quagmire.” Currently, the best word that could most accurately describe the current situation in terms of the military gains of the radical Sunni Muslim insurgency on the march toward the Iraqi capital of Baghdad—as Iraqi government military forces deserted the field of battle en masse—is “tragedy.” Tragedy was in fact the best description from the start of the ill-advised decision of the U.S. to invade the country in the first place in 2003…under the erroneous assumption that its former leadership harbored “weapons of mass destruction” (WMD’s).
Tragedy is the way proponents within the American government attempted to social engineer post-Saddam Hussein by imposing regime change. Granted, Hussein was not the most stable of individuals, his presence did create level of stability that kept any indication of sectarianism from manifesting as anything but occasional unpleasantries between individuals from opposing religious sects. Maybe the late dictator actually knew something about the intra-religious dynamics of his own country that American “experts” didn’t (and still don’t). Maybe a brutal strongman or a heavy hand in governance is all that stands between order and the chaos of ethnic and religious divisions played out in the realm of violent confrontations. We saw this play out in the former Yugoslavia in the early 1990s, when the artificial political boundaries created after WWI ignored these human divisions in favor of creating recognized nation-states. Like in Iraq, pre-2003 oppressive rule managed to lightly smother the true inter-ethnic feelings and differences under the surface. That is, until the current Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki’s Shia-dominated central government all-but disenfranchised the Sunni population in the country…the same Sunni who some have taken up with the insurgents. Before the current crisis, ethnic and religious fighting was unheard of as a result of tough rulership. Tragedy too, is the result of not heeding the lessons of history.
Tragic still is the fact that we Americans are so ethnocentric, so self-assured that our way of form of governance and viewing the world that we couldn’t—and still can’t—stop to think for a single moment that Western-style democracy doesn’t work for everyone. This is especially true when tribal identities are more potent than national identities. This is why the Al-Qaeda-linked insurgency seeks to impose strict Islamic law in Sunni state carved out of parts of both Syria and central Iraq—a stated that ignores national political borders.
Currently, the only bright spot in Iraq—a region of relative calm and political stability—is the Kurdish Regional Government in the country’s northern border region. The ethnic Kurdish government, taking advantage of the instability in other parts of the country, has seized nearby lands abandoned by Iraqi government forces in what seems to be a move reflective of an intent to become more autonomous from Baghdad (these lands contain some of the country’s oil production resources). Kurdish stability seems to be the only non-tragic aspect of this chaos.
Finally, tragedy is the best way to describe accusations and finger-pointing toward President Obama being the “reason” for the devolving situation in Iraq…the same Obamawho voted against the invasion of Iraq as Senator Obama back in 2003. Tragedy is the denial by supporters of that action to accept complicity in the creation of this monster. Ultimately, Iraq is a Frankenstein that could have been avoided being created in the first place if we Americans were not so arrogant to believe that everyone in the world will great us with flowers, so ignorant of other (the divisions among) peoples in the world, and blinded of our own sometimes insanely-held ideologies and political alliances that we cannot accept responsibility for the problems we create.

Correction (06/16/14):

I stand corrected on the president’s voting record, but his opposition to the war has been documented on record before becoming either a Senator or the president (see, some of us can admit being wrong).

http://www.tnj.com/archives/2004/september2004/final_word.php

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=99591469

Read More

Will The Real Ed Snowden Stand Up?

I am as concerned about the potential for federal government overreach as any rational citizen—when such concern is warranted. I add that last qualification because I know that we share the country with those who seem to represent the paranoid fringe—that see every government action as an infringement on personal liberties. Yes, I am very much concerned about the issue of the federal government potentially snooping through my e-mails, listening in on my cell phone calls, or watching where I surf online. To that point, I thank former government National Security Agency (NSA) contracted employee Edward Snowden for bringing such concerns to the American public.
However, I also realize that maintaining the national security is a lot like making sausage; its best to know how not it’s done if you want to continue to enjoy what comes with living in a free society. Before Snowden opted to turn the issue of electronic domestic spying by our government into the “The Edward Snowden Reality Show,” it was easier to view him favorably as a “whistleblower” on questionable government activities. But since his initial revelations about the government’s electronic eavesdropping policy, Snowden has decided to reveal himself (i.e., his identity) to the world as the source of these revelations. In addition, he—in the mistaken, self-centered belief that he would be greeted with flowers and hailed as an information liberator—has been found to have collected other sensitive information materials related to the American government’s clandestine activities with regard electronic surveillance on the nation’s allies and adversaries alike. Some of this information has been subsequently leaked to the international press.

                                                       Edward Snowden

And instead of remaining anonymous as a source of issue concern to the American people, Snowden has seemingly gone out of his way to cultivate a cult of self-importance around himself and his actions. What’s more, Snowden is feeding his narcissism by seeking approval from and asylum in countries whose record of human rights and civil liberties abuses make electronic eavesdropping by the feds seem harmless by comparison. These countries—Russia, China, and Ecuador among them—have wasted little time in using Snowden’s high-profile status and revelations as a cause célèbre to bludgeon America over the head in the realm of geopolitical public relations. These countries can now assert that America is in no position to lecture others about apparent civil liberties violations as they point to the country’s domestic spying…thus giving them a free hand to act without the strength of international condemnation for questionable actions.
And with all of the trouble Snowden has caused for the government both domestically and internationally, the authorities would like to talk with Snowden and “discuss” the legalities of collecting classified information, abusing his security clearance, and (potentially) sharing information with countries the government considers less-than-friendly to the interests of America.  Ironically, these countries don't seem to want the headaches that come accepting Snowden's request for political asylum, as he travels the world seeking refuge from an infuriated U.S. government. In addition, the country’s adversaries now know that, with confirmation, how the U.S. uses electronic surveillance to keep tabs on any moves which might conflict with the nation’s security and global interests.

At first, I’d wondered how this relatively young man had become so self-absorbed with his obsessive sense of self-righteousness …that is, until his father began giving interviews about his son’s decisions. Last month on NBC’s “The Today Show,” Leo Snowden indicated that his wayward son would return to the U.S. if “certain conditions are met,” including “not detaining Snowden before trial.” The older Snowden had planned to outline these and other conditions in a letter to Attorney General Eric Holden, presumably with input from the younger Snowden (See: "Edward Snowden's Father Says Son May Return If Conditions Met") . Would that the rest of us mere mortals could dictate our conditions and desires to the government seeking our arrest for violating the law and jeopardizing national security…. If we were living in the era of the Cold War, no one in their right minds would make such demands. At first, I’d wondered how this relatively young man had become so self-absorbed with his obsessive sense of self-righteousness …that is, until his father began giving interviews about his son’s decisions. Last month on NBC’s “The Today Show,” Leo Snowden indicated that his wayward son would return to the U.S. if “certain conditions are met,” including “not detaining Snowden before trial.” The older Snowden had planned to outline these and other conditions in a letter to Attorney General Eric Holden, presumably with input from the younger Snowden. Would that the rest of us mere mortals could dictate our conditions and desires to the government seeking our arrest for violating the law and jeopardizing national security…. If we were living in the era of the Cold War, no one in their right minds would make such demands. It might be easy to dismiss the senior Snowden’s galling gesture as a father’s protecting his son were it not for also for an open letter he’d subsequently written to the Obama Administration. In the letter, Leo Snowden compared his son’s raising the alarm over domestic electronic spying to Paul Revere’s midnight ride warning Americans of the impending arrival of the invading British Redcoats. In the letter, authored with his lawyer’s help, Snowden presumes to be warning “the American people to confront the growing danger of tyranny and one branch government” (See:  "Edward Snowden’s Father, In Letter, Compares Son To Paul Revere, Assails Administration").  The grandiose comparison was all I needed to know in order to understand that the apple indeed doesn’t fall too far from the tree.
Now, ignoring the fact that if Snowden had engaged in such actions in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 or during the Cold War, there would have been a unanimous call for his head on a silver platter—including from his own family—Snowden’s “well-intentioned” (?) actions were lost as he interjected too much of his own self-importance into the mix. Some might agree with such a hyperbolic comparison, but what separates Snowden’s actions from the grandiose delusions both he and his father harbor is that, unlike Paul Revere, very few are listening to Edward Snowden. Ideally, I would like to attribute such silence to the realization by most Americans that fear of a “tyrannical federal government” is a fringe paranoia of those who place too much emphasis on “states rights” as a gateway to imposing laws at that particular level of government which more than would (ironically) infringe on the rights of others (those seeking open access to abortions, those of the same gender seeking marriage recognition, etc.). However, I know better. The lack of a vocal wholehearted support for Snowden is probably a silent acknowledgement of such unfounded fears.
Granted, the prospect of the government listening in on our phone conversations, gathering information on our text messages, or reading our e-mails is a potentially troubling blow to our individual and collective civil liberties, it pales to the lack of foresight that Snowden’s actions have done to one aspect of the government’s attempt to maintain national security and to prevent future threats.
Granted, the prospect of the government listening in on our phone conversations, gathering information on our text messages, or reading our e-mails is a potentially troubling blow to our individual and collective civil liberties, it pales to the lack of foresight that Snowden’s actions have done to one aspect of the government’s attempt to maintain national security and to prevent future threats. Warning Americans of egregious violations of civil liberties and illegal activities by our government is laudable, but Snowden’s actions not only obscured his intentions, but his narcissism blinded him to the very real world ramifications of his actions to our government’s ability to function in order to maintain national security. Subsequent explanations by the government of its actions revealed that detailed information is not being accumulated in ways such as those depicted in the 1990’s espionage thriller “Enemy of the State.” If revelations of true and real threats by our government are to be considered, they should be done so by someone with more altruistic intentions, and less self-centeredness than an Edward Snowden.

Read More

How To Fake A Political Issue (And Act "Outraged")...

One of the things that makes me so annoyed with both the political left and right in this country is how they so regularly and transparently try to manipulate our perceptions by either manufacturing outrage over non-issues, or exhibit thin-skinned sensitivity to imagined slights. In the past couple of weeks, issues near-and-dear to both conservatives and liberals—and their political and/or ideologically-based “reactions” to them—illustrate my point.
Last Tuesday the Associated Press (AP), the largest news-gathering outlet in the world, issued a directive amongst all of its journalists that they no longer use the terms “illegal-” or “undocumented-immigrant” when writing a story about the current discourse related to immigration debate. The AP joins many of the major news-related programs on the major networks (ABC, CBS, CNN), as well as many of the nation’s top college newspapers from using those terms, which many defend as “avoiding negative labels.” To this effect, other “non-negative” terms have been likewise designated to avoid labeling other groups and/or individuals; the AP no longer uses the term “schizophrenic” to describe someone with the affliction. They instead now use the term “diagnosed with schizophrenia" ("Associated Press Drops 'Illegal Immigrant' From Stylebook").
Such an uncalled-for move is what fuels the antagonism the political right has in this country toward the idea of political correctness. Now I’m not one to embrace the notion of a vast liberal news media, but such a weak move on the issue of immigration does make it hard to persuade even moderate Republicans that there isn’t some plan afoot to define the political argument of immigration. To be logical about the issue, most of these “undocumented immigrants” (or fill-in-the-blank with your own euphemism since the AP hasn’t provided us with an acceptable term to use to describe these individuals) are illegal; they are in the country illegally, they don’t have legal papers proving they are here legally, and they did immigrate here…”negative labeling” notwithstanding. Trying to avoid hurting someone’s feelings with recognition of one’s status is just overkill on the PC bandwagon. That’s like saying we’re going to no longer call someone convicted of a crime—especially repeat offenders—“criminals.” We’re instead going to refer to them as “those having experienced freedom impairment by virtue of negative choices.” Labels, as long as they aren’t a lame and transparent attempt to obscure the language of a particular political and/or social issue, are as necessary to communication as words themselves. The Left often gets so bogged down in maintaining the notion of political correctness that doing so distorts reality.  Calling an automobile anything else (but a car) doesn’t change what it is or what its function is. People who come to this country without going through the proper and established procedures are illegal immigrants. Furthermore, I have witnessed firsthand the impact their presence has on the employment prospects of Americans who have jobs—unskilled though they are—if not for their being in the country illegally. 
Additionally, we cannot ignore that with the ongoing and nearly unchecked drug-related violence on America's doorstep in Mexico, the issues crime, drug smuggling, and border security are also in the shadow of the conversation.  But these peripheral issues--related to security--on the whole are being ignored as both Democrats and Republicans try gain a foothold within the Latino voting bloc.

And no, I am not slamming foreign-born illegal immigrants. I actually have a great deal of respect for them (especially after having grown up working side-by-side with them in the fruit and vegetable fields in Michigan). Most unskilled immigrants have a work ethic that most Americans should have. But their propensity to work physically-labor-intensive jobs for only a portion of the amount that native-born Americans (not to be confused with Native-Americans) could work creates an incentive for employers not to consider American workers (at the risk of sounding anecdotal, I have witnessed this firsthand more times than I care to relate).

But the political Left aren’t alone in manufacturing discontent for political theater. Earlier this week, entertainers Beyonce and Jay-Z made a controversial trip to the island of Cuba, one of the few remaining communist countries in the world. For the last half century, Cuba has been has been-almost unilaterally—on the U.S.’s crap-list based on an outdated policy of isolation. This isolation encompasses a total economic, commercial, and financial embargo by the U.S. on the Caribbean island nation. That means no trading, no vacationing by American citizens, no diplomatic relations (or recognition), and no business with any Cuban entity by American companies and their subsidiaries “so long as the Cuban government continues to refuse to move toward democratization and greater respect for human rights.’” This policy of U.S. isolation of Cuba was enacted after the government, headed by then revolutionary leader Fidel Castro, nationalized properties of American citizens and corporations who had holdings or were doing business on the island nation prior to Castro’s seizure of power. However, this policy of continually to isolate the communist country when 99% of other nations do not is a stubborn holdover of U.S. government policy based on the now non-existent Cold War. This perception was, in turn, based on the now irrelevant reality that Cuba was an ally of America’s Cold War enemy, the non-existent Soviet Union. America’s foreign policy toward Cuba has been rejected by the rest of the world. This is demonstrated every year when the vote on the U.S. embargo comes up in the UN General Assembly. With the exception of Israel and maybe 1 or 2 other countries symbolically, the UN votes to rejects our nation’s policy. We are alone. And when officials on our government are called to justify this outdated adherence to an outdated tradition of isolation, they respond with the ambiguous call for “human rights reforms.” But Cuba is no longer an ally of the Soviet Union. And America has routinely and regularly tolerated human rights violations in some of its own allies and trading partners while conveniently turning a blind eye to this reality of fact. However, when entertainers Beyonce and Jay-Z traveled to the island nation over the weekend in celebration of their 5th wedding anniversary, there were calls from multiple quarters on the political Right for an investigation (“Beyond And Jay-Z’s Trip To Cuba”).

The reality is that  Republicans calling for an "investigation" of Bey and Jay's trip to Cuba are just placating their reactionary (and gullible) constituents.  The fact of the matter is that criticism wouldn't be as vocal if most knew that the Obama Administration had already loosened American travel restrictions to the island nation via it's "people-to-people" initiative.  Under this federal rule--created to open relations with the Cuban people--"Each traveler must have a full-time schedule of educational exchange activities that will result in meaningful interaction between the travelers and individuals in Cuba." Guidelines dictated by the Treasury Department limits any potential leisure activities by requiring that "tours" (which such trips to Cuba are recognized as) operate under a planned itinerary, with every every moment of the trip, and it's "people-to-people" travel, documented. Sure, those given this request are bound to take vacation-like liberties with such a trip, but who wouldn't given that Cuba is comparatively exotic? And no one called such "investigations when other high-profile celebrities traveled to Cuba.  It's only the connection of support that these two celebrities have with Obama that critics ignore the fact that Sean Penn, Steven Spielberg, Oliver Stone, Jack Nicholson and a host of other high-profile Americans have visited Cuba--some even given an audience with 'ol Fidel himself.
Given the realistic and logical weaknesses inherent in blindly adhering to (and supporting) such an equally blind and outdated policy toward Cuba—just because “it’s always been that way”—is nothing more than a way to manufacture outrage over a policy that has very little bearing on the country’s political and/or economic interests. Fidel Castro is no longer the president of Cuba (yes, his brother is now the de facto head-of-state, but still…). The country is no longer the ally of Soviet Russia. It is no longer exporting revolution and/or communist ideology in the name of overthrowing other governments across the globe. It has diplomatic relations with most other countries in the world, including many of our own allies. And Cuba has been swept up in the tide of globalization within a (more) market-based economy. The world has changed since our government began isolating Cuba. The only two things that remain frozen in time are our government’s policy toward Cuba, and our elected leaders’ propensity to manipulate public policy for personal and political gain. The bottom line is that everything our leaders claim to be an “issue” is not always so.

See also: "Here We Go Again - Ozzie Guillen, Free Speech, & American Foreign Policy"

Read More

North Korea - The Cure For Our Complex World…A Cold War Imagination!

Two weeks ago, North Korea engaged in a military attack on South Korea, a long-time American protectorate…of sorts.
Now close you eyes for a moment and imagine that we were still living in Cold War America, a time when the world was more or less divided into three major political/ideological bloc: the greedy capitalism-driven, but free West; the evil state-controlled economies of the various communist East nations, and the self-interested states—often run by dictators—who often played both blocs against the middle in an effort to carve out their corner of that geopolitically bi-polar regime. In this world, very few of those smaller self-interested states are willing or even capable of challenging neither the resolve nor the policies of the leaders of these blocs, the United States and the Soviet Union, for fear of some kind of substantive response. In this world, military commitments are limited, military spending and constant nuclear weapons testing telegraphing to the world the resolve of both blocs is evident, and lesser adversaries know their place; major acts of terrorism were limited to areas of the Middle East, Africa, and parts of Europe.
Now imagine that a country, firmly entrenched within either bloc decided to attack another within the opposing bloc…say North Korea, under the leadership of Kim Il-sung, opting to stage an attack on U.S.-allied South Korea. Understand that in this world, political leaders within each country have to appear to be either “tough on Communism” or “stand up to the Capitalists” so as not to appear “weak.” And since these two countries have a history as a military flashpoint for the ideological clash between the two opposing blocs, the resolve to defend either by other members within each opposing bloc emphasizes how easily such an attack by one country on another can easily lead to a regional, if not global conflagration.

But that time is gone

No longer do we live in an America governed by a myopic, if not marginally accurate view of the world in terms of a democracy vs. dictatorship ethos, powered by resolve—both actual and that perceived by its adversaries.
Now come open your eyes to the world we live in today, a generation or so after the waning days of the Cold War.
Today’s world is one where America’s reign as the lone superpower is under an almost relentless series of challenges by small nations aligned with larger more powerful nations, as well as individual nations seeking to increase their influence in the post-Cold War multi-polar world. This is because these challenger countries have been shrewd enough to take advantage of America’s recent foreign policy blunders, some of which have resulted in a weakening of resolve to secure the nation’s interests. Faulty intelligence, arrogance of leadership, questionable single-mindedness, and a lack of intimate knowledge of whom were dealing with have all combined to squander America’s readiness on irrelevant “threats” which America’s enemies have used as a window of opportunity embolden themselves to do what North Korea did 2 weeks hence…attack American interests without fear of significant reprisal(s).

A photo of the North Korean leadership, with a doctored image of ailing leader Kim Jong Il superimposed on the image

The open defiance and belligerence out of the Middle- and Far East could have been avoided if America had maintained some of the more useful, more static policies from our Cold War experience with the Soviet Union and the Eastern bloc.
Primarily, America should have kept its nuclear option open in dealing with Afghanistan after 9/11. A tactical nuclear strike (or two) on Taliban strongholds in the more remote regions of the then-lawless country could have gone a lone way to signaling to would-be pretenders to the throne how far America is willing to go to protect its interests in this new world.
Imagine being in Tehran, Kabul, Baghdad, Pyongyang or any number of regions around the world and knowing where you were and what you were doing when you heard from state-run television/radio about the first—actually second, Japan was the first—nuclear attack on a country harboring an organization responsible for an attack on the financial and political centers of the lone global superpower…that’s the impact such a policy would have had on those who would threaten American interests. Imagine how many American service personnel lives could have been saved by not having to invade countries who realized that a mushroom cloud umbrella could be their fate if they do not, say, allow United Nations weapons inspectors unfettered access to suspected facilities…or who unilaterally accede from nuclear non-proliferation treaties and then proceed to create nuclear weapons in violation of international law.
In a world where America’s enemies are growing by the numbers daily, and where countries are openly challenging America and it interests to the point of acting with impunity, maybe American leaders should go back to the old policy of Mutually Assured Destruction…a policy that projects the resolve that we give as good as we get.

Read More