An American Muslim Journal

Tension High in Abidjan as Rebels Advance | West Africa | English

Tension is rising in Ivory Coast's main city of Abidjan, as forces opposed to incumbent president Laurent Gbagbo advance on the city.

Fighters supporting the country's internationally-recognized president, Alassane Ouattara, have captured around a dozen cities and towns since launching a general offensive Monday.

via www.voanews.com

I hear from some folks that we (the U.S.) are inconsistent in our foreign policies.  I'd agree with that, and still not accept the latest reasons for the charge.

In listservs of American Muslim community leaders and from the tweets of some other American Muslim leaders there is chatter about how we've intervened in Libya even as we ignore the conflict in Ivory Coast.

Admittedly, I don't know a lot about either country, but in reading this news piece from VOA News, I found several notable differences.

Firstly, the two warring factions in Ivory Coast seem to be well armed.  Second, there are 10,000 U.N. peacekeepers in country already.  Third, the death toll and the level of fighting in Ivory Coast is not as high or is the crisis as acute as it is in Libya.

Additionally, the political situation in Ivory Coast seems to be a lot more messy and it would be hard to determine on whose behalf we would intervene.  And lastly, I'm not sure how airpower would help in Ivory Coast.

These are my initial observations.  I'm open to being educated further on the comparison between Libya and Ivory Coast.  I suspect that the tensions I see building within American Muslim leaders over our decision to intervene in Libya are occurring along the very old fault lines of race (but that's for another blog post).

Chicago Tribune columnist John Kass on Libya and President Obama

John Kass, a Chicago Tribune columnist who usually writes about domestic issues (usually local ones), waded into foreign policy in his March 13, 2011 essay.  I guess his contract with the ChiTrib requires that he find some connection in whatever he writes to local politics.  

Mr. Kass believes that America should not interfere militarily in Libya's domestic upheaval.  In his column he wrote:

The bloody Libyan civil war between rebels and forces loyal to dictator Moammar Gadhafi is not worth the life of a single American soldier. Nor is all that oil underneath all that sand.

Reasonable people may disagree, but Mr. Kass' opinion makes sense.  But just because his conclusion makes sense doesn't mean his reasons behind it need to be equally as reasonable.  

There may be quite a few good arguments to be marshaled in support of a non-interventionist position in Libya.  Mr. Kass didn't spend much (any) time on them, and instead used up all of the space allotted for his column deriding President Obama, knocking down straw man arguments, throwing down largely irrelevant statistics and adding some of his own foreign policy insights.

Mr. Kass used his column to take a shot at President Obama (surprise surprise).

President Obama has not committed our military to Libya, nor has he foreclosed on such an option. Instead Mr. Obama is keeping an open mind and watching very carefully the developments in Libya. That's a good thing!  It's called thinking.  Don't we want our Commander-in-Chief to be thoughtful and reflective and heed the counsel of his military and civilian advisers?  Yes, we do.

Mr. Kass doesn't see it that way.  He says the president is "tap-dancing on whether to use American power in Libya."  He writes:

Obama said he didn't want what happened to civilians in Rwanda and the Balkans to happen to the Libyans. But, he said, "when it comes to U.S. military actions, you've got to balance costs versus benefits. And I don't take those decisions lightly."

Why would anyone want a repeat of Rwanda or the Balkans?  And since when is it bad to balance costs versus benefits?  And why is it bad to consider these issues very seriously?  Mr. Kass calls it "dithering" but I call it leadership.

Mr. Kass claims that those advocating a no-fly zone claim that this would be enough to stop the strafing of rebel positions.  The commentary I've heard on the issue of no-fly zones suggests that imposing a no-fly zone would have minimal impact on helicopters and those types of aircraft could still be used to attack civilians.  To say that those in the know are arguing that this would be enough is just Mr. Kass creating straw-man opposition arguments that he then bats down to seem like he's making a point.

Next, Mr. Kass asked why America would want to intervene.  He rhetorically asked if the U.S. would get involved in order to kill Gadhafi, and then Mr. Kass explained that Gadhafi is not a threat to U.S. interests.  Mr. Kass argued that the killing of civilians is not a reason for military intervention, because if it were, there were 270 civilians on the Pan Am Flight 103 who were killed by Gadhafi in 1988 and that we should have gone in then to kill him.  Since we didn't respond militarily in 1988, we shouldn't do so now either argued Mr. Kass.

I'm not sure if we can or should intervene militarily every time a despot decides to kill his own people, but the fact that the U.S. didn't retaliate for the 1988 Lockerbie bombing is not a reason to forego military intervention now.

Then Mr. Kass went on to say that if protecting defenseless citizens is the standard, then the U.S. should have invaded Mexico.  Yes, he did indeed put those words down on paper.  I don't have anything more to say about this argument.

It may be hard to believe, but Mr. Kass' essay got better still (and by better I mean worse).  Although no one I've heard speaking to the crisis in Libya suggested that the U.S. has an oil interest in Libya, Mr. Kass once again put up another straw-man argument - this time a "war for oil" argument - so that he could rip it apart in the remaining paragraphs of his column.  

And rip it apart he did.  He wrote:

If oil is the standard, then somebody had better remember that Europe receives 85 percent of Libya's oil exports. If Europe wants a war for oil, then Europe can go fight it. And Europe doesn't want to fight.

I think I understand the point Mr. Kass tried to make: we (the U.S.) don't get most of Libya's oil but Europe does so if anyone should get involved militarily it should be the Europeans.  Right.  When was the last time the Europeans got involved with anyone militarily without the U.S. taking the lead?  The Falkland Islands?  I don't know.  

Not that it matters but here's something to note: although Libya exports 85% of its oil to Europe, Libyan oil makes up only 10% of Europe's oil imports.  But I digress.

As the word count grew closer to its limit Mr. Kass squeezed in a few lines about how Gadhafi would be dead sooner or later, probably at the hands of a mob or a "usurper" and that the "usurper" would "rattle a sword and condemn the U.S. to get the mob on his side".  I'm not sure that's all that likely to happen.

Another possibility is that Gadhafi will remain in power with his strength in western Libya with Tripoli and the eastern portion of Libya some 600 miles away will starve to death because it rose up against Gadhafi but then was cut off from the imported food (which make up 90% of Libya's food supply) purchased by Gadhafi using oil money.  Not that I would know this on my own - it's something I read (that's right - there's a bunch of information out there for those who care to anchor their opinions on something more substantial that hot air).

And the end is just awesome!  Mr. Kass ends the column with a flourish!  I'm not going to tell you, however, how it ends.  You've got to go and read it yourself.  Trust me, it's good (and by good I mean really bad)!

Over 40 people attend ISPU/Robert Pape Dinner in suburban Chicago

 

Hard, verified and substantiated data makes for good evidence.  Good evidence helps to develop better policy.  Dr. Robert Pape compiles and maintains the most comprehensive database on suicide terrorism dating back to the early 1980s.  Dr. Pape and his Chicago Project on Security and Terrorism (CPOST) at the University of Chicago are making compelling policy prescriptions to combat suicide terrorism based on the data. 

The Institute for Social Policy and Understanding (ISPU) hosted a dinner in suburban Chicago on Saturday, March 12, 2011 to discuss Dr. Pape's research and his latest book, "Cutting the Fuse".  Dr. Pape was on hand and presented a riveting (it really was "riveting" as everyone listened intently throughout the presentation) summary of his research, some of his conclusions and several policy recommendations on how to stop suicide terrorism.

Dr. Pape explained that his research focuses on suicide terrorism because it is the "lung cancer" of terrorism (which is to say it is the most lethal type of terrorism).  In a room full of physicians that analogy hit home as heads slightly nodded in acknowledgment.  

Then he threw out another question - what is the leading cause of lung cancer?  The answer - known even to laypersons - is cigarette smoking, but Dr. Pape shared the numbers.  He said there is an 85% correlation between cigarette smoking and lung cancer.  Next question: so then, what is the "cigarette smoking" of suicide bombings?  According to Dr. Pape it is the occupation of one nation by another democratic nation.  There is a 95% correlation between the occupation by a democratic country of another country and the use of suicide terrorism by the people of the occupied country.

Other interesting data and conclusions discussed from Dr. Pape's research included the fact that most of the suicide terrorism is not carried out by so-called "Islamic fundamentalists" as is commonly believed. He noted that from the early 1980s to about 2003 the majority of the world's suicide terrorism was carried out by a secular Marxist organization - the Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka.  Dr. Pape wrapped up the presentation by discussion the situation in Libya and the implications of his research and findings on possible strategies for dealing with the brutal military aggression by Libya's military against its own people.  The ideas discussed by Dr. Pape about Libya can be found in a March 2011 TIME magazine essay titled "A Plan for Libya".

Over 40 individuals attended the dinner.  After his presentation Dr. Pape took questions from the dinner guests and then continued the discussions over dinner.  Every guest received a copy of "Cutting the Fuse" and during dinner Dr. Pape noted that his hope was to get everyone in attendance to read the book and to share its findings with others.

"It was an excellent event," commented one of the dinner guests.  Asked what she took away from Dr. Pape's talk, this same guest added "I learned something about the causes of suicide bombings and that we need to educate others about the findings of Dr. Pape's research."

ISPU is an independent, nonpartisan, 501(c)(3) research and policy institution.  Founded in Michigan and now headquartered in Washington, DC, ISPU continues to strive to provide expert analysis, insight and context to critical issues facing the U.S., with an emphasis on those issues related to Muslim communities in the U.S. and abroad.  Dr. Muzammil Ahmed, a founding board member of ISPU, attended the dinner. Also in attendance were ISPU board members Mazen Asbahi and Azeem Ibrahim.  The event was coordinated by ISPU's associate development officer Abdullateef Muhiuddin.

Click here to watch a presentation by Dr. Robert Pape to the New America Foundation on October 12, 2010.

 

Saudi Arabia - Political Party Formed - NYTimes.com

Islamists and opposition activists have created a political party in a rare challenge to the absolute monarchy, asking King Abdullah for a voice in the gulf Arab state’s governance, its organizers said on Thursday. The move was more symbolic protest than a true opposition party because Saudi Arabia has no elected Parliament, and parties and public dissent are banned. Analysts said the group, Islamic Umma, included Islamists, human rights activists and lawyers.

via www.nytimes.com

I think its worth noting that Saudi Arabia was one of the nations urging Hosni Mubarak to remain in power. Obviously the revolutions of Tunisia and Egypt have dictators and monarchs spooked.

Good.

A democracy movement in Saudi Arabia would really force us - the United States - to either put up or shut up about freedom and democracy.  No one except a very tiny sliver of Muslims - Wahhabis - like the extreme religious ideas being cultivated and exported from Saudi Arabia.

A GOP split on Egypt | Cynthia Tucker

A few hours before a defiant Hosni Mubarak gave a rambling speech insisting that he’d stay on, Rick Santorum — former Pennsylvania Senator and possible GOP presidential contender — stood before a crowd of ultra-conservatives and blasted President Obama for refusing to stick by the dictator.

via blogs.ajc.com

Hey Rick - what's your stance on democracy? Do you believe in it? What about self-determination? How's that for a concept?

Thanks to Cynthia Tucker for bringing this hypocrite's words to a broad audience.

Hosni Mubarak Resigns - good. Military to oversee transition - okay. Real freedom - TBD.

TBD - To Be Determined.

This is a clip from the New York Times website:

I'm happy for the Egyptian people.  May God grant them the patience and the strength and the wisdom to see this struggle through to true freedom and democracy.

It was exciting to see the fall of a dictator in Tunisia through the peaceful protest of Tunisians.  But it is way beyond exciting to see something similar in the most populous Arab country follow suit.

I hope and pray that the rights of the minorities, of women, of non-Muslims and of Muslims of all different perspectives can find real and lasting freedom and economic prosperity in the new Egypt.  If Egypt can make this work - and God-Willing it will - then the rest of the Arab world will have not only hope but a real and working example of what can be.

And to my fellow Americans I want to remind us that the new, free Egypt may have some folks whom we don't like and who don't like us.  So be it.  If we can live with Sarah Palin and her tehadist minions, then we can suffer just about anything!

NYT: How Democracy Became Halal (was it ever Haram?)

Most (but clearly not all) of the regimes I've seen in Muslim-majority countries have been autocratic, but that is not a reason to believe that democracy was not or is not compatible with Islam.  At the very core of Islam is free will.  Autocratic and despotic regimes thwart free will and that interferes with sincere faith.

Reuel Marc Gerecht ¹ of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies writes in the New York Times that:

One of the great under-reported stories of the end of the 20th century was the enormous penetration of the West’s better political ideas — democracy and individual liberty — into the Muslim consciousness.

If by this Mr. Gerecht means to say that the ideas of democracy and individual liberty as advanced and implemented in the West during the 20th century have also reached the people of Muslim majority countries, then I would agree.  I don't agree that these values are foreign to Islam, however.

I don't expect people to take my word for it.  I'm not an expert on Islam or democracy (I'm a strong advocate of both though).  But those who are agree.

Dr. Muqtedar Khan is one such expert.  Dr. Khan notes that there are two extreme groups of thinkers who agree that Islam and democracy are not compatible, but that these groups both are at odds with Islam and the majority of Muslims in living today.  He describes the two groups this way at Ijtihad.org:

[S]ome western scholars and ideologues have tried to present Islam as an anti-democratic and inherently authoritarian ethos that precludes democratization in the Muslims World.

Islamic activists, using extremely broad, simple and sometimes crude notions of secularism and sovereignty, reject democracy as rule of Man as opposed to Islam which is rule of God.

He goes on in this succinct article to expose the erroneous thinking of both of these groups.  He notes that the first groups looks to the behaviors and attitudes of those Muslims who support autocratic rule as authentic reflections of Islam when they are so far from it.  He furthers notes the utter idiocy of the latter group who cannot grasp the fact that in any system of government people must hold de facto sovereignty.

Columbia University's Professor Richard Bulliet argues that many of the anti-democracy sentiments espoused by Muslims are actually reactions to what they perceive as cultural imperialism that they wish to reject (at least outwardly and for now).  In an article on Islam and democracy in The National Geographic in 2003 Professor Bulliet said:

Some of the people who say that democracy has no place in Islam, what they really express is a sense that the word 'democracy' as presented in international discourse appears to be wholly owned by the West.  The word itself has, for some, a connotation of cultural imperialism. If you talk about representative government without the baggage of these institutions in the U.S., but on more idealistic grounds, then it makes perfectly good sense to a lot of Muslims. The idea of citizenry participating in government is, particularly within Sunni Islam, sort of a bedrock theory.

Professor Bulliet goes on to note, as does Dr. Khan, that there are some Muslims who reject democracy as incompatible with Islam.  This group, he notes, is in the minority.

Louay Safi, a member of the board of directors of the Washington, D.C.-based Center for the Study of Islam and Democracy (CSID) and an American Muslim, believes that Islamic values and democracy are quite compatible.  In the same National Geographic article Dr. Safi is quoted stating:

I think that Islam as a set of norms and ideals that emphasizes the equality of people, the accountability of leaders to community, and the respect of diversity and other faiths, is fully compatible with democracy. I don't see how it could be compatible with a government that would take away those values.

I would argue that Muslim society was a society where communities had some control of their own affairs. There was more decentralization of power. The central government was mainly focusing on issues of law and order or security. There was a lot of liberty for individuals to negotiate many of the norms and rules within their own communities.

This idea described by Dr. Safi certainly sounds familiar!

Mr. Gerecht seems to agree with Drs. Safi, Bulliet and Khan.  His New York Times op-ed argues in favor of the U.S. supporting a robust move to democracy in Egypt.  He argues that President Obama must send a clear message that America is not afraid of Muslims voting.  And he ends with a great line:

[President Obama] can put an end to the West’s deleterious habit of treating the Middle East’s potentates respectfully and the Muslim citizenry like children.

The idea, if not the person advancing it, certain is very agreeable to me.

_______________________________________________________

¹  I am aware of who Mr. Gerecht is and encourage readers to read his biography here to better understand the motivation behind what he is saying.  Mr. Gerecht is a neoconservative who supports active efforts at regime change in the Middle East.  Iran is Mr. Gerecht's specialty.

 

Mike Huckabee is stupid, stupid, stupid for shilling the Eretz Israel shtick

Mike Huckabee is stupid.  No, I did not come to this conclusion just now.  And no, I did not come to this conclusion suddenly.  It took a while.  I had to hear a lot of stupid comments over several years, but now, with his latest stupid comment I felt compelled to make it official.  Huckabee is stupid.

Have a look and listen for yourself.  This is Mike Huckabee in Israeli-occupied East Jerusalem, a part of Palestine, at some ground-breaking ceremony for another illegal Israeli settlement:

There is part of what Huckabee said in this clip (quoted from TMP):

I cannot imagine as an American being told that I could not live in certain places in America because I was Christian, or because I was white, or because I spoke English," Huckabee said. "I would be outraged if someone told me that in my country, I would be prohibited and forbidden to live in a part of that country, for any reason. 

Well Mike, since you put it that way, I'm guessing you'll understand why Palestinians are unhappy that their land is being taken by Israel and unlawfully annexed for the use of its citizens.  Right?! 

Israelis and Jews absolutely have the right to live in peace.  But so to do the Palestinians.  So why do American politicians go over to Israel and pander to the extremist Israelis who are aggressively pushing their way into the West Bank?  Don't even bother trying to explain it.  It's called shilling the Eretz Israel shtick for campaign dollars.

In the end this pandering to the extremist elements of Israel is counter-productive to bringing about a negotiated peace agreement between the Israelis and Palestinians.  We Americans care about this conflict and about bringing peace and stability to that part of the world because we need to diffuse one of the most potent and valid complaints harbored by the Arab street (American bias against Palestinians) which will, in turn, further dilute the recruiting power of violent extremists.

Oh, and please save the blather about Israel being the only democracy in the Middle East.  Recent events make it abundantly clear that Arabs want democracy but the despots who oppress them have a lot of nifty weapons to keep them down.  I heard that the tear gas used to quell peaceful Egyptian protesters over the past 8 days came from us (American).

 

All Americans Need to Speak Up for Egyptians' Peaceful Revolution

I'm disappointed with our (American general public) silence over the peaceful revolution unfolding in Egypt. I genuinely thought regular people like us would greet the struggles and sacrifices of the Egyptian people with praise, applause and our heartfelt prayers.  It may still happen - I hope.

Even the Obama administration changed its tune over the last 8 days.  What started out as a not-so-subtle defense of the dictator Hosni Mubarak has evolved into a growingly open call for Mubarak to step down. Our president's support of the freedom movement is late but that's better than never.

We - regular people in America - need to speak up in support of the freedom movement in Egypt.  The hundreds of thousands of peaceful protesters are now being attacked by Mubarak supporters (some say these people are being paid to attack the peaceful protesters).  This historic, overwhelmingly peaceful revolution sounds like its unraveling before our eyes.  And it's Mubarak who is responsible for causing it to do so.

CAIRO — The Egyptian government struck back at its opponents on Wednesday, unleashing waves of pro-government provocateurs armed with clubs, stones, rocks and knives in and around Tahrir Square in a concerted effort to rout the protesters who have called for an end to President Hosni Mubarak’s near-30-year rule.  via New York Times

We believe in government that governs with the consent of the governed.  When hundreds of thousands of people bring a nation's business to a halt and demand political freedom from 30 years of oppressive rule, we should interpret this as a revocation of the consent of the governed.  And in that case, we Americans should rally to the support of the Egyptian people.

The Egyptians' peaceful protesters organized peacefully.  But with Mubarak's thugs over-running the peaceful gatherings there it seems likely that wanton bloodshed will result if something isn't done very soon.

I don't know that there is anything beyond my prayers that I can offer.  I guess, the one other thing I can do is to ask you, my friends, to pray for peace and freedom in Egypt too.  If your church, or community group or family is speaking out or organizing prayers or simply remembering the brave Egyptian people in their time of need, then please share it with all of us by sharing it here!

 

Hosni Mubarak must be senile if he thinks Egyptians are going to let him stick around!

Hosni Mubarak must be senile if he thinks he can dupe the Egyptian people with empty promises of not running in the next election.  Mubarak - have you ever actually run in a real election?

I'm trying to imagine what this situation would be like in the United States.  What if George W. Bush just hunkered down in the West Wing after Barack Obama took the oath of office and refused to leave? That is what this is like.

The parallel is that after the election President Bush no longer has the authority to hold that office.  In Mubarak's case, I'd argue that he's never had the authority to hold the presidency.  He's a dictator.  The elections that he's held were never free, right?  Mubarak held on to power by oppressing the people's right to speak, assemble and petition the government, right?  How can anyone suggest that someone like Mubarak has a legitimate claim to the presidency?  I don't see it.

Is there some kind of "squatters right" in Egypt?  Or some kind of "adverse possession" rule on the presidency?  Is that what Mubarak is clinging to?  What, just because he's been hanging on to power for 30 years, he thinks he has a right to it?

I'm looking at this from a regular Joe's perspective in America and I just don't think Mubarak's got a leg to stand on.

Perhaps what needs to happen is for the country to go ahead and form a transitional government even as Mubarak sits around in his presidential boxers at his "presidential" home.  Then other nations (including the U.S.) can recognize the transitional government and all relationships and business of the country can be transacted through this transitional government.

Then, when things get moving towards an election the police can go into the Mubarak residence and arrest him.  He says he intends to stay in Egypt and be judged, right?  Okay then, that's what the Egyptians should do!

I know this is very simple-minded on my part, but Mubarak's stubbornness is so frustrating!  I can't begin to imagine how infuriating it must be for Egyptians to see this senile dictator clinging to power the way Mubarak is doing now!