Hamas, Taliban, Aryan Nations Bound by
One Thread: An Obsession with Causes at the Expense of People
by Dan Ehrlich
Extremist zealots of all persuasions from Hamas, to the Taliban and even the white supremacist Aryan Nation in America have one thing in common...a devotion to selfish causes that have nothing to do human betterment or freedom.
Given the scale of the current Israeli response to rockets fired from Gaza any reasonably intelligent person has to ask: Knowing in advance what Israel's response will be why does the democratically elected Hamas government continue bombarding Israel with bigger and better rockets?
The same person might also ask: Knowing the carnage that results in Gaza from Hamas attacks on Israel, why don't the Gazans demand and end to such attacks?
The answer to the first question is rather easy to give. Ideological extremist groups such Hamas, the Taliban or even America's white supremacist cults have no feeling for people other than what use they may be in publicizing their causes. All they care about are their causes.
Why then would Hamas go so far as to fire a rocket at Jerusalem, one of Islam's holiest cities and filled with Palestinians...But, they're West Bank Palestinians.
Or why would it brag about bigger and better rockets fired at Tel Aviv when they know what the Israeli response will be; yet they still do them at the expense of their own people. To them the media based publicity, political gains and Israeli deaths are all that matter. The same is true of the Taliban in Afghanistan. Their ideology is all that matters and those who reject it will be punished or killed.
Leaders and groups that have genuine humanitarian concerns for their people are sensitive to their needs and would act to protect not harms them. To Hamas Gaza is merely a staging area for its jihad. It can be argued that groups such as Hamas would see the entire world destroyed for the sake of their ideology and goals.
As for the second question, one first must realize that the Gaza Strip is different from the West Bank in both topography and its people. West Bank Arabs are either long time residents or indigenous to the area.
Most Palestinians in Gaza are war refugees. And the Strip was the only area of Israeli captured Egyptian land that Egypt didn't want returned. This left it under Israeli occupation until Israel couldn't handle it any longer and gave it to the PLO and then Hamas took charge by election. The fact that Hamas won the election against the PLO on a manifesto that included continuing the war of destruction against Israel is a main reason why rockets regularly are launched from Gaza.
Oddly, the Gaza Strip is the only area that has a genuine historic lock on the place name of Palestine.
As you probably know, Palestine was the name the Romans placed on Judea after the final bloody Jewish revolt against Rome was crushed in 136 AD. The Romans took such heavy loses, the Emperor Hadrian renamed the region Palestine, meaning Land of the Philistines, to erase the Jewish identity with it, renaming it after the ancient enemies of Israel.
Yet the long dead Philistine civilization was actually located on the Gaza Strip, yet it wasn't a Semitic culture, having roots in Europe. It's interesting note with all the current Arab pretensions of being indigenous to Palestine, they never have dropped the Roman name for an Arabic one. That's probably because the pre Roman name was Jewish.
There seems to be two strains of thought about why the Gaza population endures so much violence. First, there are those who are willing to tough it out until they retake Israel and they see Hamas as their deliverers. After all, a terrorist group dedicated to Israel's destruction won a popular election to carry out its mandate.
Second, there are those people who would like the violence to stop, but are afraid to speak up against Hamas, the only law in town and a law unto itself. The fact remains Hamas is waging a jihad against Israel and it won't end, in the long-term, until Hamas is broken or Israel is destroyed.
It was rather cynical of the Egyptian prime minister visiting Gaza Friday, expressing his outrage over the violence and support for Hamas. This is because much of the enclave's current situation is due to Egypt not taking up Israel's offer to hand it back, allowing it to remain a free flowing near anarchy. Then again, Egypt has enough poverty of its own to take on still more.
The problem facing Israel's military in Gaza is similar to that which faces NATO in Afghanistan...But more extreme given the density of population in Gaza. How do you fight a guerrilla army that uses civilians as human shields?
The obvious answer would be having your army go in and root out the terrorists. But such action will cost the lives of your own troops as well as civilian lives.
Yet, as we have seen here, in Afghanistan and even in Pakistan, modern technology is moving us closer and closer to wars by remote controlled non-human fighters. This may be joy for the generals, but as we seen it can be hell for civilians in the remote controlled cross fire.
This will only stop when provocations stop...which means the people of Gaza must demand and end to rocket attacks against Israel.
But the tit for tat nature of this conflict has remained the same since the 1920s when Arab nationalism spurred on the first deadly attacks against Jewish settlers. This transformed pacifist left-wing Jews, hounded out of racist Europe, into fighters. No more turning the other cheek. Wit, that's a Christian trait, isn't it?
What makes the Israel-Palestinian conflict so unique is that an enemy sworn to destroy you yet, in the end, depends upon you for its very existence on several levels. Yet, until that level of existence increases by virtue of peace, proper education, jobs and lifestyle, the plight of the Gaza Strip remains grim.
Right now there is considerable popular British anger at the latest Israeli onslaught. But British and American liberals, in particular, have short memories. Just recall the reaction of the UK in WW2 to missiles being fired at it from Germany. The war being almost over didn't stop the RAF from needlessly destroying Dresden along with thousands of civilians. There's that double standard again.
US Election
Too Close to Call? A Lot Depends On How Individual Americans Think of Themselves
by Dan Ehrlich
The US presidential campaign is nearing an end with a record amount of money being spent mainly to get people to come out and vote.
In a way the American election is similar to the UK's in that no political party had really explained how an economic rebirth will take place when western fortunes are still tied hand and foot to the East, with no end to this in the distant future.
Upward of $2 billion will have been spent to build up interest among a growing disaffected mass of people who see little difference in candidates. Unheralded the big loser in this campaign is democracy.
On one hand there's a somewhat weak and beatable US presidential incumbent who hasn't made good on much of what he promised. Yet, the most popular opposition candidate to face him is an unemployed yet super rich gaff prone former governor who has no magic formula to lift the country to its former self, especially since some companies he owns have done their bit by sending American jobs overseas.
There's no real choice to excite the electorate...with the exception of Mormon voters who see one of their own, Mitt Romney, with a real chance to lead the nation.
In the end, the people have to decide which side they are on, who will benefit them the most. I suppose it comes down to whom the parties really represent. As Romney has said over and over: "Are you better off now than you were four years ago." This can be answered with another question: How will Romney make things better than they were four years ago? This comes back to a present day reality: No politician has the answer. Or at least they won't talk about the hard reality of declining economic power.
Since the post Civil War period the Republican Party has represented big business, industry and most importantly Wall Street. This hasn't changed, the party's packaging has.
After the Watergate scandal destroyed GOP credibility a re-branding campaign under Ronald Regan took place ...on one hand he stressed the religious and family values that had been the bedrock of American culture. This came after the wild and morally ambiguous 60's and 70s. And while a large section of the country could readily understand these concepts, less well understood was Reagan economic policy.
In a few years his pension for deregulation and love of supply-side economics began the rapid destruction of the US industrial and economic base (a similar scenario on a smaller scale was happening in Britain under Margaret Thatcher). Yet, every president since Reagan, Democrats and Republicans, have never meddled or changed this policy. And that's why nothing Romney or Obama say or promise will encroach on the US position in the global market.
On the other side of the coin, the Democrats have long been champions of the people. They tend to put the ordinary citizens first...except, as I said, when it comes to meddling with the global market. Most progressive laws enacted since 1900 have been created by Democrat politicians for the benefit of the people.
So, stripping away all the family value packaging, dislike of gays and abortion, if you are a lover of Wall Street and big business, Romney is your man. If you aren't, than Obama will be for you.
Even though Romney is ahead in some polls, I feel Obama will squeeze by on his base of minorities and ordinary people who have no faith in wealthy politician with minimal experience. Also, Romney's appeal to the extreme right is a turn-off to many more rational voters. As much as I see Obama as a disappointment, I still feel he would be the lesser of two evils. And, many voters will see it the same way.
Too Close to Call? A Lot Depends On How Individual Americans Think of Themselves
by Dan Ehrlich
The US presidential campaign is nearing an end with a record amount of money being spent mainly to get people to come out and vote.
In a way the American election is similar to the UK's in that no political party had really explained how an economic rebirth will take place when western fortunes are still tied hand and foot to the East, with no end to this in the distant future.
Upward of $2 billion will have been spent to build up interest among a growing disaffected mass of people who see little difference in candidates. Unheralded the big loser in this campaign is democracy.
On one hand there's a somewhat weak and beatable US presidential incumbent who hasn't made good on much of what he promised. Yet, the most popular opposition candidate to face him is an unemployed yet super rich gaff prone former governor who has no magic formula to lift the country to its former self, especially since some companies he owns have done their bit by sending American jobs overseas.
There's no real choice to excite the electorate...with the exception of Mormon voters who see one of their own, Mitt Romney, with a real chance to lead the nation.
In the end, the people have to decide which side they are on, who will benefit them the most. I suppose it comes down to whom the parties really represent. As Romney has said over and over: "Are you better off now than you were four years ago." This can be answered with another question: How will Romney make things better than they were four years ago? This comes back to a present day reality: No politician has the answer. Or at least they won't talk about the hard reality of declining economic power.
Since the post Civil War period the Republican Party has represented big business, industry and most importantly Wall Street. This hasn't changed, the party's packaging has.
After the Watergate scandal destroyed GOP credibility a re-branding campaign under Ronald Regan took place ...on one hand he stressed the religious and family values that had been the bedrock of American culture. This came after the wild and morally ambiguous 60's and 70s. And while a large section of the country could readily understand these concepts, less well understood was Reagan economic policy.
In a few years his pension for deregulation and love of supply-side economics began the rapid destruction of the US industrial and economic base (a similar scenario on a smaller scale was happening in Britain under Margaret Thatcher). Yet, every president since Reagan, Democrats and Republicans, have never meddled or changed this policy. And that's why nothing Romney or Obama say or promise will encroach on the US position in the global market.
On the other side of the coin, the Democrats have long been champions of the people. They tend to put the ordinary citizens first...except, as I said, when it comes to meddling with the global market. Most progressive laws enacted since 1900 have been created by Democrat politicians for the benefit of the people.
So, stripping away all the family value packaging, dislike of gays and abortion, if you are a lover of Wall Street and big business, Romney is your man. If you aren't, than Obama will be for you.
Even though Romney is ahead in some polls, I feel Obama will squeeze by on his base of minorities and ordinary people who have no faith in wealthy politician with minimal experience. Also, Romney's appeal to the extreme right is a turn-off to many more rational voters. As much as I see Obama as a disappointment, I still feel he would be the lesser of two evils. And, many voters will see it the same way.
Off the Fence
US, UK Pledge Support for Syrian Rebels
Amidst Increased Sectarian Warfare
by Dan Ehrlich
So, the fence sitting is over. The special relationship twins (UK and USA) are making their move in backing Syrian rebels with dollars, pounds and weapons. Yes, weapons...It's naive to think that weapons won't be bought or bartered for with western aid.
UK Foreign Secretary William Hague makes an intelligent case for such action: To insure a successor to the Assad regime is democratic and civilized.
This is the standard political cure-all for western sponsored military involvements, a nice soundbite friendly rationale that may eventually come back to haunt the West.
A main reason Bashar al-Assad will hang on to power as long as possible is knowing what will be in store for his minority Alawite clan when he and his military lose power.
In this, Syria is similar to other Arab dictatorships such as Iraq under Saddam Hussein and Libya under Gaddafi, where minorities held power by integrating their own clansmen into the government and military.
His Alawites will fight on to preserve the regime because they are fighting for their lives, and in this respect can be compared to the regime's main scapegoat Israel for whom there is no second place in any war with its Arab neighbours.
But, Assad doesn't have to look any further than Lebanon to see the possible shape of his country without him. Lebanon was once a wealthy Christian Arab dominated nation that the Assad family had long coveted as part of a greater historical Syria.
The regime then supported masses of Palestinian refugees fleeing to Lebanon after the 1970 Black September defeat in Jordan. This wave of immigration set in motion forces that resulted in a long civil war and the effective cantonization of Lebanon between rival Muslim and Christian clans.
A similar fate awaits Syria if and when Assad falls. The resulting chaos will be replaced by tribal conflict and more bloodshed. The civilized democratic voices in Syria that Hague wants to embolden, will more than likely be drowned out by the Islamist shouts and gunfire.
But this is nothing new to the West. From the Russian revolution to Afghanistan and the current Arab uprisings, attempts at installing democratic regimes have initially failed. It's up to the populations of such nations to eventually go democratic if they so choose.
The Islamist parties winning power in some of the Arab Spring nations will have to produce better lives for their people or they may find they're subjects of further pro democracy revolts.
In the past the Assad family has maintained power by first preserving the secular nature of largely Sunni Syria and second, by gradually limiting civil liberties in the name of national security, using the presence of Israel as its version of the Cold War.
It's this heavy-handed and often violent approach to civil rights that was the flashpoint for civil war here. Using Israel and America as scapegoats was no longer valid among the country's diverse population. They realized the real problem was the Assad Regime.
And it is this diversity, which is so highly prized in the West, that may become Syria's worst nightmare since the only unifying force has been the Assad Regime. Without unity there may be endless hostilities. But now the US and UK will later be able to say: "We did all we could."
US, UK Pledge Support for Syrian Rebels
Amidst Increased Sectarian Warfare
by Dan Ehrlich
So, the fence sitting is over. The special relationship twins (UK and USA) are making their move in backing Syrian rebels with dollars, pounds and weapons. Yes, weapons...It's naive to think that weapons won't be bought or bartered for with western aid.
UK Foreign Secretary William Hague makes an intelligent case for such action: To insure a successor to the Assad regime is democratic and civilized.
This is the standard political cure-all for western sponsored military involvements, a nice soundbite friendly rationale that may eventually come back to haunt the West.
A main reason Bashar al-Assad will hang on to power as long as possible is knowing what will be in store for his minority Alawite clan when he and his military lose power.
In this, Syria is similar to other Arab dictatorships such as Iraq under Saddam Hussein and Libya under Gaddafi, where minorities held power by integrating their own clansmen into the government and military.
His Alawites will fight on to preserve the regime because they are fighting for their lives, and in this respect can be compared to the regime's main scapegoat Israel for whom there is no second place in any war with its Arab neighbours.
But, Assad doesn't have to look any further than Lebanon to see the possible shape of his country without him. Lebanon was once a wealthy Christian Arab dominated nation that the Assad family had long coveted as part of a greater historical Syria.
The regime then supported masses of Palestinian refugees fleeing to Lebanon after the 1970 Black September defeat in Jordan. This wave of immigration set in motion forces that resulted in a long civil war and the effective cantonization of Lebanon between rival Muslim and Christian clans.
A similar fate awaits Syria if and when Assad falls. The resulting chaos will be replaced by tribal conflict and more bloodshed. The civilized democratic voices in Syria that Hague wants to embolden, will more than likely be drowned out by the Islamist shouts and gunfire.
But this is nothing new to the West. From the Russian revolution to Afghanistan and the current Arab uprisings, attempts at installing democratic regimes have initially failed. It's up to the populations of such nations to eventually go democratic if they so choose.
The Islamist parties winning power in some of the Arab Spring nations will have to produce better lives for their people or they may find they're subjects of further pro democracy revolts.
In the past the Assad family has maintained power by first preserving the secular nature of largely Sunni Syria and second, by gradually limiting civil liberties in the name of national security, using the presence of Israel as its version of the Cold War.
It's this heavy-handed and often violent approach to civil rights that was the flashpoint for civil war here. Using Israel and America as scapegoats was no longer valid among the country's diverse population. They realized the real problem was the Assad Regime.
And it is this diversity, which is so highly prized in the West, that may become Syria's worst nightmare since the only unifying force has been the Assad Regime. Without unity there may be endless hostilities. But now the US and UK will later be able to say: "We did all we could."
Off the Fence
US, UK Pledge Support for Syrian Rebels
Amidst Increased Fighting, Conflicting Claims
by Dan Ehrlich
So, the fence sitting is over. The special relationship twins (UK and USA) are making their move in backing Syrian rebels with dollars, pounds and weapons. Yes, weapons...It's naive to think that guns won't be bought or bartered for with western aid.
UK Foreign Secretary William Hague makes an intelligent case for such action: To insure a successor to the Assad regime is democratic and civilized.
This is the standard political cure-all for western sponsored military involvements, a nice soundbite friendly rationale that may eventually come back to haunt the West.
A main reason Bashar al-Assad will hang on to power as long as possible is knowing what will be in store for his minority Alawite clan when he and his military lose power.
In this, Syria is similar to other Arab dictatorships such as Iraq under Saddam Hussein and Libya under Gaddafi, where minorities held power by integrating their own clansmen into the government and military.
His Alawites will fight on to preserve the regime because they are fighting for their lives, and in this respect can be compared to the regime's main scapegoat Israel for whom there is no second place in any war with its Arab neighbours.
But, Assad doesn't have to look any further than Lebanon to see the possible shape of his country without him. Lebanon was once a wealthy Christian Arab dominated nation that the Assad family had long coveted as part of a greater historical Syria.
The regime then supported masses of Palestinian refugees fleeing to Lebanon after the 1970 Black September defeat in Jordan. This wave of immigration set in motion forces that resulted in a long civil war and the effective cantonization of Lebanon between rival Muslim and Christian clans.
A similar fate awaits Syria if and when Assad falls. The resulting chaos will be replaced by tribal conflict and more bloodshed. The civilized democratic voices in Syria that Hague wants to embolden, will more than likely be drowned out by the Islamist shouts and gunfire.
But this is nothing new to the West. From the Russian revolution to Afghanistan and the current Arab uprisings, attempts at installing democratic regimes have initially failed. It's up to the populations of such nations to eventually go democratic if they so choose.
The Islamist parties winning power in some of the Arab Spring nations will have to produce better lives for their people or they may find they're subjects of further pro democracy revolts.
In the past the Assad family has maintained power by first preserving the secular nature of largely Sunni Syria and second, by gradually limiting civil liberties in the name of national security, using the presence of Israel as its version of the Cold War.
It's this heavy-handed and often violent approach to civil rights that was the flashpoint for civil war here. Using Israel and America as scapegoats was no longer valid among the country's diverse population. They realized the real problem was the Assad Regime.
And it is this diversity, which is so highly prized in the West, that may become Syria's worst nightmare since the only unifying force has been the Assad Regime. Without unity there may be endless hostilities. But now the US and UK will later be able to say: "We did all we could."
US, UK Pledge Support for Syrian Rebels
Amidst Increased Fighting, Conflicting Claims
by Dan Ehrlich
So, the fence sitting is over. The special relationship twins (UK and USA) are making their move in backing Syrian rebels with dollars, pounds and weapons. Yes, weapons...It's naive to think that guns won't be bought or bartered for with western aid.
UK Foreign Secretary William Hague makes an intelligent case for such action: To insure a successor to the Assad regime is democratic and civilized.
This is the standard political cure-all for western sponsored military involvements, a nice soundbite friendly rationale that may eventually come back to haunt the West.
A main reason Bashar al-Assad will hang on to power as long as possible is knowing what will be in store for his minority Alawite clan when he and his military lose power.
In this, Syria is similar to other Arab dictatorships such as Iraq under Saddam Hussein and Libya under Gaddafi, where minorities held power by integrating their own clansmen into the government and military.
His Alawites will fight on to preserve the regime because they are fighting for their lives, and in this respect can be compared to the regime's main scapegoat Israel for whom there is no second place in any war with its Arab neighbours.
But, Assad doesn't have to look any further than Lebanon to see the possible shape of his country without him. Lebanon was once a wealthy Christian Arab dominated nation that the Assad family had long coveted as part of a greater historical Syria.
The regime then supported masses of Palestinian refugees fleeing to Lebanon after the 1970 Black September defeat in Jordan. This wave of immigration set in motion forces that resulted in a long civil war and the effective cantonization of Lebanon between rival Muslim and Christian clans.
A similar fate awaits Syria if and when Assad falls. The resulting chaos will be replaced by tribal conflict and more bloodshed. The civilized democratic voices in Syria that Hague wants to embolden, will more than likely be drowned out by the Islamist shouts and gunfire.
But this is nothing new to the West. From the Russian revolution to Afghanistan and the current Arab uprisings, attempts at installing democratic regimes have initially failed. It's up to the populations of such nations to eventually go democratic if they so choose.
The Islamist parties winning power in some of the Arab Spring nations will have to produce better lives for their people or they may find they're subjects of further pro democracy revolts.
In the past the Assad family has maintained power by first preserving the secular nature of largely Sunni Syria and second, by gradually limiting civil liberties in the name of national security, using the presence of Israel as its version of the Cold War.
It's this heavy-handed and often violent approach to civil rights that was the flashpoint for civil war here. Using Israel and America as scapegoats was no longer valid among the country's diverse population. They realized the real problem was the Assad Regime.
And it is this diversity, which is so highly prized in the West, that may become Syria's worst nightmare since the only unifying force has been the Assad Regime. Without unity there may be endless hostilities. But now the US and UK will later be able to say: "We did all we could."
Israel, USA
Options Limited with Iran Over
Alleged Nuke Weapons Program
by Dan Ehrlich
An attack by Israel against Iran is not a certainty, by a long shot, which such an action would be. Yet, doing nothing might have serious regional effects, too.
Saudi Arabia is just as worried about a nuclear-armed Iran as Israel, with some high-ranking Saudi officials saying it will seek nuclear weapons if Iran has them. One of the Wiki Leaks revelations was a desire by Saudis for Israel to bomb Iran: The enemy of my enemy is my friend scenario.
It was one thing with Israel having such weapons and another a nation such as Iran. The Saudis know Israel, joined to the hip with the US, would not nuke its Arab neighbours. Israel is not a fanatical dictatorship, has no imperial outlook, is not trying to impress its faith on Arabs and such an attack would be disastrous for everyone.
But, Iran is another story. Most things in the Middle East are connected or controlled by tribal and religious affiliations. And most Arabs are Sunni Muslims, while Iran is a Shiite nation. Iraq is the only Arab nation with a majority Shiite population. The hatred between both of these groups, the endless suicide bombings, are examples of the hatred that exists between Shiite and Sunnis in nations such as Syria and Lebanon.
The big goal of Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the Ayatollahs has been to replace Saudi Arabia as the centre of Islam...pushing Shiitism to the front of the Muslim world.
To this end little Israel is the big roadblock in his way. There is literally no reason for the hatred Iran has for Israel. Under the Shah's regime relations were warm and Iran once had a thriving Jewish community.
However, when Iran went fundamentalist in the late 1970s, the country quickly adopted an anti Israel stance. Today that stance, bolstered by the Palestinian issue, helps secure Iran to the Arab world's traditional anti Israel posture.
Iran also knows it can never rise to a preeminent position in the region as long as Israel and the USA hover over the same territory.
For its part, Saudi Arabia may feel very vulnerable to religious and economic blackmail if Iran gets the bomb. Where Iran my be hesitant to Attack Israel, fearing it would also take out Lebanon, Jordan and Syria. Saudi Arabia is a vast desert nation; one they feel could be hit without destroying nearby countries.
Yet all this is only speculation, the stuff that fuels a nuclear arms race. Remember the main purpose of America's MAD (mutual assured destruction) nuclear policy, was to convince enemies not to use nuclear weapons because no one would win such a war.
Iran claims an attack upon it would engulf the entire Middle East. Given what's currently happening in the region, this is a wild overstatement. Some Arab nations, such as Saudi Arabia, would be pleased. Others undergoing internal turmoil, will be preoccupied with their own problems to jump to the defense of non Arabic Shiite Iran.
These may be plus factors for Israel in launching an attack. On the negative side is the counter attack by Iran and its proxies in Lebanon and Gaza. Does Israel want another war that would probably drag NATO in, based on a possibility, not a certainty, of Iran developing nuclear weapons? It may be the only realistic option.
Even if the broad range of economic sanctions crippling Iran work, how can anyone prove to a suspicious Arab world, that Iran doesn't have some bombs hidden away?
Remember, Iran's main goal is increasing its stature within the Islamic world. Unless Israel or the US destroys its nuclear installations, this is now assured. Iran doesn't even have to develop a bomb. Just the belief among nations that it has one will be enough to create fear and tension...and also a possible nuclear arms race in the region.
Options Limited with Iran Over
Alleged Nuke Weapons Program
by Dan Ehrlich
An attack by Israel against Iran is not a certainty, by a long shot, which such an action would be. Yet, doing nothing might have serious regional effects, too.
Saudi Arabia is just as worried about a nuclear-armed Iran as Israel, with some high-ranking Saudi officials saying it will seek nuclear weapons if Iran has them. One of the Wiki Leaks revelations was a desire by Saudis for Israel to bomb Iran: The enemy of my enemy is my friend scenario.
It was one thing with Israel having such weapons and another a nation such as Iran. The Saudis know Israel, joined to the hip with the US, would not nuke its Arab neighbours. Israel is not a fanatical dictatorship, has no imperial outlook, is not trying to impress its faith on Arabs and such an attack would be disastrous for everyone.
But, Iran is another story. Most things in the Middle East are connected or controlled by tribal and religious affiliations. And most Arabs are Sunni Muslims, while Iran is a Shiite nation. Iraq is the only Arab nation with a majority Shiite population. The hatred between both of these groups, the endless suicide bombings, are examples of the hatred that exists between Shiite and Sunnis in nations such as Syria and Lebanon.
The big goal of Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the Ayatollahs has been to replace Saudi Arabia as the centre of Islam...pushing Shiitism to the front of the Muslim world.
To this end little Israel is the big roadblock in his way. There is literally no reason for the hatred Iran has for Israel. Under the Shah's regime relations were warm and Iran once had a thriving Jewish community.
However, when Iran went fundamentalist in the late 1970s, the country quickly adopted an anti Israel stance. Today that stance, bolstered by the Palestinian issue, helps secure Iran to the Arab world's traditional anti Israel posture.
Iran also knows it can never rise to a preeminent position in the region as long as Israel and the USA hover over the same territory.
For its part, Saudi Arabia may feel very vulnerable to religious and economic blackmail if Iran gets the bomb. Where Iran my be hesitant to Attack Israel, fearing it would also take out Lebanon, Jordan and Syria. Saudi Arabia is a vast desert nation; one they feel could be hit without destroying nearby countries.
Yet all this is only speculation, the stuff that fuels a nuclear arms race. Remember the main purpose of America's MAD (mutual assured destruction) nuclear policy, was to convince enemies not to use nuclear weapons because no one would win such a war.
Iran claims an attack upon it would engulf the entire Middle East. Given what's currently happening in the region, this is a wild overstatement. Some Arab nations, such as Saudi Arabia, would be pleased. Others undergoing internal turmoil, will be preoccupied with their own problems to jump to the defense of non Arabic Shiite Iran.
These may be plus factors for Israel in launching an attack. On the negative side is the counter attack by Iran and its proxies in Lebanon and Gaza. Does Israel want another war that would probably drag NATO in, based on a possibility, not a certainty, of Iran developing nuclear weapons? It may be the only realistic option.
Even if the broad range of economic sanctions crippling Iran work, how can anyone prove to a suspicious Arab world, that Iran doesn't have some bombs hidden away?
Remember, Iran's main goal is increasing its stature within the Islamic world. Unless Israel or the US destroys its nuclear installations, this is now assured. Iran doesn't even have to develop a bomb. Just the belief among nations that it has one will be enough to create fear and tension...and also a possible nuclear arms race in the region.
Dedicated to the Journalism Students at the University of West London
Hacks Gone, Fleet Street Buttons Up For Business
Talk about irony, 24-years-ago when I first set my Los Angeles eyes on Fleet Street, its most amazing aspect, other than being home to a phenomenally dynamic and competitive press system, was the amount of time its members spent getting pissed at lunch.
Well, with the national journals long since gone, the only paper left in the immediate area being the "Jewish Chronicle," boozing has become of such a low priority, this once sacred lunchtime practice can now get you sacked.
The Street of Shame, formerly the western world's greatest watering hole, where news was spread and dreams made into news over liquid petite' dejeuner has been transformed into an avenue of trendy coffee bars and sandwich shops designed for the enforced tastes its new 9 to 5 "no drinking while on duty" City worker army. Just another example of American cultural imperialism? If so, I'm sure it won't be the last one. That's because Americans seem to be taking over the street.
I somehow find it hard to fathom people like the then "Daily Mirror's" Paul Callan or the "Sun's" Roy Greenslade nipping down to the Cafe Rouge or Coffee Republic for the standard two to three hour hack libation. "I believe its your round old man. Yes, quite...the same? Oh, garcon, cinq cappuccino, si'l vous plais. And can we have another round of those yummy croissants. Merci."
From a quick outward glance, today's Fleet Street looks just as dull and gloomy as its did when I first saw it. Of course bleak rainy winter days will do that to most places in London. Upon closer examination, however, evidence of the post media rot is everywhere, lowlighted by that universal symbol of America's international reach, a Macdonalds hamburger bar. It's true, Big Mac on the Street of Shame, an unbeatable combo available for an unlimited time. Too bad it came too late for the press crowd.
Sandwiched between the law courts and and the City, as the retreating Roman legions of hacks vacated the street, other more respectable people moved in...you know those whose only paper is the FT. But worse was yet to come---"Wall Street Journal" readers. That's right, Americans.
They took over and rebuilt the "Daily Telegraph" building into a sparkling and shining art deco edifice that Superman could mistake for the "Daily Planet," but whose real name is Goldman-Sachs. And, now this mega investment bank is set to, at long last rescue "The Black Lubijanka." Looking more gray than its former glistening black appearance, the old Express Newspapers building will get the complete American treatment, the finishing touches being no booze during working hours. Again, too bad it came too late for the press crowd.
Across the way, the old Bouverie Street headquarters of News International has been beautifully redeveloped by the Freshman legal firm into a British version of "L.A. Law." How appropriate that the former home of so much business to the legal community in the form of libel suits should wind up an office building for lawyers.
But these developments are still few and far between. The trendy snack bars can't conceal the widespread graveyard atmosphere, exhibited only a short distance down Whitefriars Street. Deserted and boarded up, the former home of the Associated Newspapers, Northcliffe House, looks more like the haunted house ride at Disneyland. But come to think of it, it didn't look much different when it was in use. The corner of Tudor and Whitefriars always seemed to have a dirty and seedy atmosphere. Maybe for me that was its romantic charm.
A dark brown Harris Tweed sports coat, matching hat, a cheap pair of dark green trousers, black boots, a traditional, but cheap Oxford Street, gents umbrella and a brief case full of showbiz and travel stories....in the mid 1970s this was my idea of a Fleet Street reporter. I didn't know I looked more like a bookie's runner. Yet, amazingly it opened doors for me to most of the national newspapers and several magazines. Or maybe it wasn't so amazing given the fast moving betting shop predilection of journos then.
First, its important to point out, to those not in the know, when I hit the scene, Fleet Street was already in decline. And, as is the case with Hollywood, it was more a state of mind and name-tag for an industry than the actual home to all the national publications. For example, the "Guardian" was about a mile away on Farringdon Street and the "Times"
and "Sunday Times" were about to move to their new home over on Gray's Inn Road, now the location of ITN.
But generally speaking, the area bordered by Blackfriars on the south, Holborn Circus on the north, Fetter Lane on the West and Ludgate Circus on the East was considered the heart and soul of British journalism. It's also an area in which I wore out several pairs of high street shoes as a literary Fuller Brush man.
It was a time when London had two daily newspapers, each selling more than the surviving one does today. The "Daily Mirror" was in the midst of a losing battle to hold onto its top selling position against an onslaught from the Murdoch transformed "Sun," then seen as an extreme right wing, often racist rag. Curiously it attracted loads of Black and Asian readers...the power of the Page Three Girl exposed I suppose.
As for the "quality" press, the "Times" was running third behind the "Guardian" and its Canadian owner Lord Thompson was dying to unload it on some sucker.
But more than anything it was a time when an outsider like me, not even working through an agent, could gain entrance to as many national publications as humanly possible in a single day. Without appointments I could manage see any number of editors and personally pitch stories, some already written others about to be written. Try doing that now.
I was an American journalist in London writing the kind of crap the British always maintained Americans couldn't write...pedantic tabloid human interest stories...highlighted, for example, by two simultaneous yet completely different Richard Gere pieces, one pop version in the "Sunday Mirror" and a full page straight splash over in Paris at the "International Herald Tribune." Or there was my interview with ballet star Rudolph Nureyev....one version running in the "Sunday Times" and another in the "Sunday People" showbiz diary.
What can I say other than I was hooked on it all. I used to think Los Angeles was the centre of the universe and that I probaby would find my ultimate destination to be the editor some little suburban weekly newspaper. And, to tell you the truth I wouldn't mind doing that today. But then, I couldn't adequately take in the size of the British national press . It was mind boggling, mainly because its was so huge, yet so centralized and, as far as the tabloids went, so accessible and personable.
Of course, the key element was gaining entrance to the publications. And that was largely a matter of making the commissionaires, who I initially thought were part of some sort of paramilitary police force, believe I belonged there, which itself was mainly knowing where I wanted to go and simply going for it.
Very few guards would try to stop me. And if they did, my accent and some vintage bullshit would see me through every time. For example, I recall once being challenged in the Express Building. My response: "Oh! I wonder if you could help me. I was seeing Mr. Smith in features. I stepped out to look for a loo and got lost. I can't remember if I was on the first or second floor. The floors are different here than in America." The helpful commissionaire would not only let me pass, he would tell me where I wanted to go.
But the real beauty of the system was after I came and departed a couple of times, they thought I worked there and never gave me a second glance. In fact, my presence became so normal at the old Mirror Group Holborn Circus Building, I used to chit chat to the guards.
However, I soon learned most papers had more than one entrance, some which were easier to navigate than others. For example, with the Mirror Group papers, the trades entrance on New Fetter Lane was always awash with people and guards who could care less. Across the street, it wasn't much different for the "Sunday People" entrance.
For the the "Daily Mail" and "Evening News" the Northcliffe House often unguarded staff entrance on Tudor Street was preferable to the main entrance whose commissionaires seemed as serious the the newspapers being produced there.
Over at the Black Lubijanka not only were there two separate entrances on Fleet Street, but in an unlikely fit of desperation I could slip in unchallenged through the wide-open news print bay. News International was also a cinch as was gaining entrance to the old "Evening Standard" building on St. Andrews Place.
I could have never contemplated doing at the "Los Angeles Times" what I had been doing in London. Even then, the editorial offices of American newspapers were inaccessible to the increasingly troublesome and violent public.
However, today, I can say with a degree of certainty, what I did then couldn't be done now. The de centralisation and sterilization of the newspaper industry coupled with "information technology" makes multiple ad hoc business meetings impossible and, in fact, unnecessary. Now, trying to swan into the new ivory tower encased publications is about as difficult as a rag and bone man getting into Number 10.
But even more depressing is the effect the death of Fleet Street has had on the national press. The creativity and cross fertilisation brought on by a close knit journalistic community, its members mingling with each other and with the adjoining legal establishment, was unique.
Now it's lost, with the fax replacing personal contact, E-Mail replacing the fax and televised internet conversations about to replace the lot. Britain, once again, appears to be going American, with the quality of stories declining, giving more and more power to sub editors. And what's the hot industry debate today? Are women better editors than men?
The favourite hang-out for gossip and debate between the journalistic and legal professions was the "El Vino" wine bar, a place that was hit hard when the hacks left. According to manager Daniel Thorold, "The legal people really mourned the loss of the journalists. The combination of reporters and lawyers created the lively, conversational and amusing situation you get when good minds are at work."
He pointed out that old habits die hard. "We still get some of the older crowd dropping by here for dinner. But its not like it used to be." It sure isn't. For one one thing, women are now common in this spa where once they were barred.
How was it? It was busy, dynamic, competitive, exciting, frustrating and a system that was grossly over manned and inefficient. For one thing, I could never understand why papers with such big staffs needed so many freelance writers and casual shift workers. It wouldn't have happened it America, something the media bosses would learn a few years down the line.
Now, I just didn't get off a boat and start writing for the national press. Considering I was a traditional American "who, what, where, why, when and how" broadsheet reporter, writing for the tabs was something that had to be learned. And my school was Fleet Street News Agency, a legendary hack-paparazzi hang-out mainly for those on the way up or those on the way down, its honour graduate being the BBC's Anne Robinson.
Sadly, it too, recently closed. There I learned the one great tabloid rule: No matter how big a story, it only has one hook, based on one thing, human interest...something to be milked dry.
Most weeks I would make from two to four visits to the street. I normally had standard route that would allow me to hit as many publications as needed....the Chancery Lane tube to Holborn Circus, Fetter Lane to Fleet Street, Bouverie Street to Whitefriars, Blackfriars to Kings Reach Tower (home of IPC womens magazines) and returning to my tiny Finsbury Park flat via the Blackfriars tube station. Or I could reverse this route if I first had business with say, the "Daily Mail."
Retracing that route today, seeing the lifeless and weatherworn shells that used to be home to the national press, I can't say its sad. It's like something out of "The Twighlight Zone," as if no publications ever existed there, with all traces of past identification removed. Only the Telegraph's old building, with its listed clock, is there there to readilly inform a tourist of what this area once meant to the nation. Of course, Reuters corporate Hq. is still on the street, but all news services are keeping company with ITN over on Gray's Inn Road.
Thinking back, my first recollection was of gray rain soaked days, wet shoes and cold feet, punctuated by endless traffic jams on Whitefriars and Bouverie Streets. As usual the cause was an infinite numbers of newsprint trucks blocking roads originally laid for horse drawn beer wagons.
Once on my own, it didn't take long to realise which news rooms were more receptive to a loud and aggressive American with cold, wet feet. And of equal importance was which publications had large and anonymous gents rooms I could use.
On aggregate, the Mirror Group won hands down. Big secluded loos, you know the type you could camp-out in for a whole day if needed, and lots of friendly people...not neccesarily in the loos however. I'm sure this had a lot to do with the socialist bent of the papers, meaning the staffs were unprententious, less up-tight and less hostile to foreigners than some of the other sheets. Or, it could have been they were just trying to appear that way because that's the way they were supposed to appear.
My personal favourite was the "Sunday People." The staff members, besides being the most relaxed and earthy on Fleet Street, were basically Sunday people, having two or three days during the week when they could take time to bullshit with me.
I owe a debt of gratitude to people such as David Farrar and the late Bill Doran, Tony Purnell, Mervyn Pamment, Frank Jeffries and Graham Ball, just for letting me hang-out. And over at the "Sunday Mirror" deputy editor Chris Ward, womens editor Eve Pollard and a sub editor named David Montgomery bore witness to my frequent presence in their midst.
After all, it was just across the the street from the "Sunday People."
And the reason they and other editors wanted to do that was because they were hungry journalists in a tightly competitive arena. They were gamblers working for me, betting on me. They were waging every so often I would come in with a good story that no one else would have. And, thankfully I didn't disappoint them. Hell, I'm still here. Fleet Street is gone.
A Calculated Action?
Israel Attacking Iran Nuke Plants
Would Draw West into Conflict
by Dan Ehrlich
Forget the Arab Spring, we now seem to be in a serious winter of discontent with Israel warning of possible Iranian attacks on Jewish facilities worldwide. This comes as speculation continues to mount that Israel will go it alone in attacking Iran's nuclear plants. However, such speculation has been surfacing for five years.
Meanwhile, Egypt is locked in chaotic violence with its military; Libya is still without a united government and a virtual blood drenched civil war is going on in Syria.
But if this isn't too much to handle, Israel says if and when the Assad Alawite regime falls, it will offer sanctuary on the Golan Heights to the sect's Syrian refugees. These are people who have been surrogates of Iran, which has long backed the Assad family, also the sworn enemies of Israel. Ironically, this may be the only way Assad will regain the Golan.
For quite some time Israel, Iran and the West have been playing a poker game whose stakes have been growing daily.
Now, however, we seem to be approaching the "call hand" or end game. As I have said before, I don't think a nuclear-armed Iran will attack Israel. Aside from also destroying three countries surrounding Israel, it would certainly receive all destroying retaliation.
But Israel usually operates from a worst-case scenario; this being that the crazies in Tehran will rationalise collateral annihilation as being the price for the greater good. After all, Iran, a Shiite nation, has little love for Sunni Islam, which form the majority populations in all Arab states except Iraq and Bahrain.
World War 2 interrupted the growth of Arab nationalism that sprang forth when the Ottoman Empire fell after WW1. The Muslim nations in the region had been fighting for the preeminence of their tribes.
The nationalism struggle was again interrupted by the creation of Israel in 1948. Instead of fighting each other they had Israel as a new Crusader surrogate to fight.
Iran sees itself in the forefront of the new Crusader war. The fact it's not an Arab country makes little difference since being a Shiite nation is a far greater hurdle to jump.
By destroying or neutralising Israel it will see itself as the new kingpin in the region, one that will be able to give Shiism greater prominence.
Yet the last thing America wants, or more precisely President Obama wants in a run-up to an election is another Muslim war. On the other hand his potential Republican challenger Mitt Romney is far more hawkish on Iran, something Israel could use to its advantage. Supporting Israel after its bombs Iran would certainly become a hot election issue.
Several opinion polls on the subject show sharp divide in American support for Israeli action against Iran...with a narrow majority in favour.
But an even bigger question is what a small country such as Israel could do to potentially scores of hardened underground nuclear sites all over a large nation such as Iran?
The answer, according to experts, is not very much. But, enough to anger the Iranians, who will figure the attack was with US complicity and launch counter attacks against western interests as well as closing the Strait of Hormuz.
This would drag the west into another conflict with its ultimate regime change goal; the only way peace and security will be re established in the region... something upon which Israel PM Benjamin Netanyahu would be depending.
The view of some that such an attack would set the Mid East on fire is a stretch. Most Arab states fear Shiite Iran and its nuclear ambitions more than they hate Israel. The last thing the nationalist Arabs want us another Empire. Little noticed is the growing Turkish involvement in Arab affairs. The Arabs still respect their former Ottoman rulers, but at a distance.
Yet, this is where the big bluff comes into this poker hand. It's based on the belief that Iran doesn't yet have nuclear weapons. But what if it does? Unprovoked Iran, as with Israel, probably wouldn't admit to having atomic weapons even if it had them.
But, how would the religious fanatics in Tehran react to a major attack by Israel and/or the US? That's the big gamble that could lead to Armageddon. And it's a big reason why an Israeli solo attack on Iran isn't a done deal. The longer Israel waits the less likely they
Israel Attacking Iran Nuke Plants
Would Draw West into Conflict
by Dan Ehrlich
Forget the Arab Spring, we now seem to be in a serious winter of discontent with Israel warning of possible Iranian attacks on Jewish facilities worldwide. This comes as speculation continues to mount that Israel will go it alone in attacking Iran's nuclear plants. However, such speculation has been surfacing for five years.
Meanwhile, Egypt is locked in chaotic violence with its military; Libya is still without a united government and a virtual blood drenched civil war is going on in Syria.
But if this isn't too much to handle, Israel says if and when the Assad Alawite regime falls, it will offer sanctuary on the Golan Heights to the sect's Syrian refugees. These are people who have been surrogates of Iran, which has long backed the Assad family, also the sworn enemies of Israel. Ironically, this may be the only way Assad will regain the Golan.
For quite some time Israel, Iran and the West have been playing a poker game whose stakes have been growing daily.
Now, however, we seem to be approaching the "call hand" or end game. As I have said before, I don't think a nuclear-armed Iran will attack Israel. Aside from also destroying three countries surrounding Israel, it would certainly receive all destroying retaliation.
But Israel usually operates from a worst-case scenario; this being that the crazies in Tehran will rationalise collateral annihilation as being the price for the greater good. After all, Iran, a Shiite nation, has little love for Sunni Islam, which form the majority populations in all Arab states except Iraq and Bahrain.
World War 2 interrupted the growth of Arab nationalism that sprang forth when the Ottoman Empire fell after WW1. The Muslim nations in the region had been fighting for the preeminence of their tribes.
The nationalism struggle was again interrupted by the creation of Israel in 1948. Instead of fighting each other they had Israel as a new Crusader surrogate to fight.
Iran sees itself in the forefront of the new Crusader war. The fact it's not an Arab country makes little difference since being a Shiite nation is a far greater hurdle to jump.
By destroying or neutralising Israel it will see itself as the new kingpin in the region, one that will be able to give Shiism greater prominence.
Yet the last thing America wants, or more precisely President Obama wants in a run-up to an election is another Muslim war. On the other hand his potential Republican challenger Mitt Romney is far more hawkish on Iran, something Israel could use to its advantage. Supporting Israel after its bombs Iran would certainly become a hot election issue.
Several opinion polls on the subject show sharp divide in American support for Israeli action against Iran...with a narrow majority in favour.
But an even bigger question is what a small country such as Israel could do to potentially scores of hardened underground nuclear sites all over a large nation such as Iran?
The answer, according to experts, is not very much. But, enough to anger the Iranians, who will figure the attack was with US complicity and launch counter attacks against western interests as well as closing the Strait of Hormuz.
This would drag the west into another conflict with its ultimate regime change goal; the only way peace and security will be re established in the region... something upon which Israel PM Benjamin Netanyahu would be depending.
The view of some that such an attack would set the Mid East on fire is a stretch. Most Arab states fear Shiite Iran and its nuclear ambitions more than they hate Israel. The last thing the nationalist Arabs want us another Empire. Little noticed is the growing Turkish involvement in Arab affairs. The Arabs still respect their former Ottoman rulers, but at a distance.
Yet, this is where the big bluff comes into this poker hand. It's based on the belief that Iran doesn't yet have nuclear weapons. But what if it does? Unprovoked Iran, as with Israel, probably wouldn't admit to having atomic weapons even if it had them.
But, how would the religious fanatics in Tehran react to a major attack by Israel and/or the US? That's the big gamble that could lead to Armageddon. And it's a big reason why an Israeli solo attack on Iran isn't a done deal. The longer Israel waits the less likely they
Should We Stay or Should We Go?
Afghanistan: A Case for Remaining
Where We Never Should Have Gone
by Dan Ehrlich
News reports claiming the Taliban will attempt to retake control of Afghanistan once NATO troops leave in two years restates the questions: Why did we get involved there in the first place and why are we leaving given this threat?
From an American, and even a Euro perspective, Afghanistan could be another example of the pick and choose hypocrisy the West plays at when dealing with armed conflicts. It comes down to what's their worth to NATO? Afghanistan is no longer worth it. Of course, if the Iraqi oil fields were there?
NATO endured a bloodbath in Bosnia for years before taking any action, yet jumped right into Kuwait once Iraq invaded. We have declined to get involved in Syria, yet NATO immediately became involved in Libya and Iraq the Sequel.
But for Afghanistan, Korea makes a good comparison. As I previously wrote, the Korean War was the first major UN action, lead by the USA. It ended in a stalemate, with around 36,000 American killed and an uneasy truce that has kept the country divided with a large American troop presence still there 62 years later.
On the plus side it enabled South Korea to become an industrial powerhouse. On the negative side is has forged North Korea into a nuclear powerhouse, one that threatens the West.
Today the US has 28,500 troops stationed in Korea still under the UN flag. So, if we maintained a garrison in Korea for 62 years, why wouldn't we do the same in Afghanistan? For one thing, the Korean War ended in a cease-fire and truce. Afghanistan is a totally different situation coming at a radically different era for NATO and the US.
The fact is Afghanistan doesn't mean as much to the West than industrial and friendly South Korea. And, we want to remain in striking distance of nuclear-armed Stone Age North Korea.
Yes, but wouldn't maintaining a strong presence in Afghanistan help NATO keep in touch with another nuclear wild card Pakistan, a near failed state that is becoming more and more unstable and less friendly to America? Yes, but popular opinion is against this and politics often trumps what may seem obvious.
President Obama, with reelection and a never-ending recession on his mind, has put in play operation wind-down until 2014 when the only NATO troops remaining in Afghanistan will be those so-called military advisers. As with Vietnam, they will be there to train Afghan troops on how to keep the Taliban out and America's proxy Afghan President Karzai in... hopefully with more success than we had in Vietnam.
As I said the past, the only concrete reason why we, and other NATO nations, are there is to keep the extreme male chauvinist Muslim Taliban from power and Afghan women out of burkas. The idea of a synonymous linkage between the Taliban and Osama bin Laden's Al Qaeda group has never been proven.
Yes, I'm sure they cooperated. While they're different people they had different goals. Bin Laden was a Saudi. He didn't care about Afghanistan. He just hid there and in Pakistan. His main goal, other than converting the world to Islam, was to overthrow the Saudi royal family and kick the US out of his country. The Taliban want to overthrow the Karzai Government and kick the US out of their country. It seems they may be accomplishing part of that goal.
But using Korea as an example, given the lives lost and money spent there, wouldn't it seem sensible to maintain a NATO combat unit in Afghanistan as a way of protecting NATO interests? There's little doubt the Taliban will be back. Yet there is considerable doubt Karzai and Company will be able to handle them... He will need NATO... for a long time.
Next year the US will declare its wartime control of South Korea at an end and begin transferring power to South Korea, while possibly cutting back its troop strength there.
South Korea isn't happy at this prospect and wants a clarification of US intentions. Yet, such an action, in light of the planned Afghan pullout, would be one of the few genuine actions taken by the US... even though the motivation is reducing the national debt.
Afghanistan: A Case for Remaining
Where We Never Should Have Gone
by Dan Ehrlich
News reports claiming the Taliban will attempt to retake control of Afghanistan once NATO troops leave in two years restates the questions: Why did we get involved there in the first place and why are we leaving given this threat?
From an American, and even a Euro perspective, Afghanistan could be another example of the pick and choose hypocrisy the West plays at when dealing with armed conflicts. It comes down to what's their worth to NATO? Afghanistan is no longer worth it. Of course, if the Iraqi oil fields were there?
NATO endured a bloodbath in Bosnia for years before taking any action, yet jumped right into Kuwait once Iraq invaded. We have declined to get involved in Syria, yet NATO immediately became involved in Libya and Iraq the Sequel.
But for Afghanistan, Korea makes a good comparison. As I previously wrote, the Korean War was the first major UN action, lead by the USA. It ended in a stalemate, with around 36,000 American killed and an uneasy truce that has kept the country divided with a large American troop presence still there 62 years later.
On the plus side it enabled South Korea to become an industrial powerhouse. On the negative side is has forged North Korea into a nuclear powerhouse, one that threatens the West.
Today the US has 28,500 troops stationed in Korea still under the UN flag. So, if we maintained a garrison in Korea for 62 years, why wouldn't we do the same in Afghanistan? For one thing, the Korean War ended in a cease-fire and truce. Afghanistan is a totally different situation coming at a radically different era for NATO and the US.
The fact is Afghanistan doesn't mean as much to the West than industrial and friendly South Korea. And, we want to remain in striking distance of nuclear-armed Stone Age North Korea.
Yes, but wouldn't maintaining a strong presence in Afghanistan help NATO keep in touch with another nuclear wild card Pakistan, a near failed state that is becoming more and more unstable and less friendly to America? Yes, but popular opinion is against this and politics often trumps what may seem obvious.
President Obama, with reelection and a never-ending recession on his mind, has put in play operation wind-down until 2014 when the only NATO troops remaining in Afghanistan will be those so-called military advisers. As with Vietnam, they will be there to train Afghan troops on how to keep the Taliban out and America's proxy Afghan President Karzai in... hopefully with more success than we had in Vietnam.
As I said the past, the only concrete reason why we, and other NATO nations, are there is to keep the extreme male chauvinist Muslim Taliban from power and Afghan women out of burkas. The idea of a synonymous linkage between the Taliban and Osama bin Laden's Al Qaeda group has never been proven.
Yes, I'm sure they cooperated. While they're different people they had different goals. Bin Laden was a Saudi. He didn't care about Afghanistan. He just hid there and in Pakistan. His main goal, other than converting the world to Islam, was to overthrow the Saudi royal family and kick the US out of his country. The Taliban want to overthrow the Karzai Government and kick the US out of their country. It seems they may be accomplishing part of that goal.
But using Korea as an example, given the lives lost and money spent there, wouldn't it seem sensible to maintain a NATO combat unit in Afghanistan as a way of protecting NATO interests? There's little doubt the Taliban will be back. Yet there is considerable doubt Karzai and Company will be able to handle them... He will need NATO... for a long time.
Next year the US will declare its wartime control of South Korea at an end and begin transferring power to South Korea, while possibly cutting back its troop strength there.
South Korea isn't happy at this prospect and wants a clarification of US intentions. Yet, such an action, in light of the planned Afghan pullout, would be one of the few genuine actions taken by the US... even though the motivation is reducing the national debt.
As Automation Replaces Manual Labor
China May be a Model for Dystopian World
by Dan Ehrlich
China is providing two ultimate ironies, the first debunking America's victory over communism and second, the possibility that China's current domestic economic and social model may be a blueprint for a future western world with mass unemployment.
For 45 years America and Western Europe fought a Cold War against communism in which George Bush Sr. declared victory in 1990. The Bush's seem to have a compulsion for premature declarations. China, the biggest communist nation of all, wasn't figured into the victory equation, or was it's growing economic power.
Indeed, China emerged from the Cold War stronger than it had been during its height. And today it has reached a socio-economic compromise allowing it to get rich from western capitalism while maintaining its communist political structure. This may be a master plan for a possible western world to come.
What PM David Cameron and President Obama won't tell their populations is that things probably aren't going to get too much better economically (there's a good chance they will eventually get worse) at least until western nations can make goods as cheaply as eastern nations. But even that may be short-term to what could happen way down the road.
History teaches that decadent nations don't make comebacks. The real world isn't Hollywood. For example, the main strength of the Arab world was its stagnant permanence. Arguably the biggest social change there in 1,000 years has been the formation of Al Jazeera Television, something that ironically may be disrupting this stagnation.
So, while the West has flourished, its own greed, avarice and gluttony is destroying it. Yet, if we disappeared tomorrow the Arabs would probably survive as they have for thousands of years... if their societies don't give-in to change.
But what about the distant future? Providing America and Britain are still here and united, what will life be like, first as low wage nations and beyond.
Capitalism has no master or political ideology. It goes where money is to be made and profits are maximised. The only hard and fast use for people is as consumers. As we see, labor forces can be minimized and moved elsewhere in the world to increase production and profits.
You don't have to look further than your local supermarket to see the next step...automation. Thousands of cashier jobs are being lost to automated shopping...shopping that is now being offered online, too.
And these are service sector jobs that were supposed to be immune to global market competition. Yet this is only a visible aspect of the automation boom that may eventually be a greater challenge to the West than cheap Chinese products.
America emerged from WW2 the richest nation with the largest middle class ever recorded. Yet the only reason most Americans had enjoyed such an affluent lifestyle was because they had good jobs... jobs needed to make and service things...jobs so they could afford to buy dinner out at least once a week, a new car every two years and a new home every few years.
But more than this, people have to earn wages to pay taxes that keep a country running. If there are no wages there will be no taxes, just a population existing on welfare, as many people already in the US and UK serve as evidence.
For the US and UK to get back some lost ground means re developing domestic industry and commerce. More than likely this will come from Asians building factories here to keep their goods affordable to local populations.
But, if machines and computers can eventually do most of manual labor more efficiently and cheaply, what will the future be like for the former middle class and the new non working class? What will they do? For capitalism to thrive, they must have money to spend...otherwise they will be surplus to the requirements of the global market and the corporations will have to scale back production.
A lot will depend on the evolution to an automated society and who will control societies and how they are organized. If America and the UK sink into a morass, individual states and former kingdoms, i.e. Scotland, may push for more self-determination, doing deals with other countries for the exclusive benefit of the states in question.
Yet another cure for cheap Chinese imports will be to rebuild national industries as wage free, union free and totally automated. After massive initial investments, this "I Robot" society will produce all people need and then some. Still, no matter which country controls industry, the big question will still be: What will our people do for work?
As for the distant future, a few lucky people will retrain for still available service sector and industrial jobs. The medical sector will be a main employer. But the bulk of the unemployed may find a home in the military. Many people will go back to the land as subsistence farmers.
One of the reasons Rome gained such a large empire was the fact that slavery meant it had no labor problems. But it did have plenty of unemployed young men...they furnished its army and navy with an unlimited number of recruits to conquer and subdue most of the known world at the time.
In America's case, the military will be more defensive in nature, protecting it from foreign invasion on one hand and domestic insurrection on the other...as is the case with so many so called banana republics, US cities will become breweries of dissent and militancy and the military will be needed to maintain order.
Yet, for those not suitable for the military, the voluntary sector will offer a chance to do something meaningful. You see, while political leaders trumpet the need for new industries to create jobs, there simply won't be the economic viability for such investment in the face of high labor costs vs. dollar-a-day Asian economies.
And any new homegrown industries developed in an open world market would soon leave for cheaper production elsewhere or be automated, using at most a skeleton workforce.
America's only long-term prospect would be the creation of a UK style social welfare state and enriching the country via taxation from cash rich corporations and trade while maintaining former workers on state benefits.
And this is where the Chinese model enters the picture. China maintains free enterprise zones such as Hong Kong and Shanghai where capitalism thrives to service the world. These areas house the nation's economic power, Yet, most of the country remains a communist social welfare state, where the needs of the masses are met by the wealth it makes off the non-communist world. While I'm a firm believer in benevolent capitalism, I can't help deducing something such as this may be a serious option for a future world short of labour.
Of course the simplest thing would be to ban automation, from General Motors to Tesco. But in a free capitalist nation that's about as likely as enacting blanket trade barriers against cheap Asian goods in a global economy that all parties and political leaders support..
On the upside, one of the benefits for millions of people would be a lot of free time for budget holidays.
Okay, you can wake up now, it was only a nightmare.
China May be a Model for Dystopian World
by Dan Ehrlich
China is providing two ultimate ironies, the first debunking America's victory over communism and second, the possibility that China's current domestic economic and social model may be a blueprint for a future western world with mass unemployment.
For 45 years America and Western Europe fought a Cold War against communism in which George Bush Sr. declared victory in 1990. The Bush's seem to have a compulsion for premature declarations. China, the biggest communist nation of all, wasn't figured into the victory equation, or was it's growing economic power.
Indeed, China emerged from the Cold War stronger than it had been during its height. And today it has reached a socio-economic compromise allowing it to get rich from western capitalism while maintaining its communist political structure. This may be a master plan for a possible western world to come.
What PM David Cameron and President Obama won't tell their populations is that things probably aren't going to get too much better economically (there's a good chance they will eventually get worse) at least until western nations can make goods as cheaply as eastern nations. But even that may be short-term to what could happen way down the road.
History teaches that decadent nations don't make comebacks. The real world isn't Hollywood. For example, the main strength of the Arab world was its stagnant permanence. Arguably the biggest social change there in 1,000 years has been the formation of Al Jazeera Television, something that ironically may be disrupting this stagnation.
So, while the West has flourished, its own greed, avarice and gluttony is destroying it. Yet, if we disappeared tomorrow the Arabs would probably survive as they have for thousands of years... if their societies don't give-in to change.
But what about the distant future? Providing America and Britain are still here and united, what will life be like, first as low wage nations and beyond.
Capitalism has no master or political ideology. It goes where money is to be made and profits are maximised. The only hard and fast use for people is as consumers. As we see, labor forces can be minimized and moved elsewhere in the world to increase production and profits.
You don't have to look further than your local supermarket to see the next step...automation. Thousands of cashier jobs are being lost to automated shopping...shopping that is now being offered online, too.
And these are service sector jobs that were supposed to be immune to global market competition. Yet this is only a visible aspect of the automation boom that may eventually be a greater challenge to the West than cheap Chinese products.
America emerged from WW2 the richest nation with the largest middle class ever recorded. Yet the only reason most Americans had enjoyed such an affluent lifestyle was because they had good jobs... jobs needed to make and service things...jobs so they could afford to buy dinner out at least once a week, a new car every two years and a new home every few years.
But more than this, people have to earn wages to pay taxes that keep a country running. If there are no wages there will be no taxes, just a population existing on welfare, as many people already in the US and UK serve as evidence.
For the US and UK to get back some lost ground means re developing domestic industry and commerce. More than likely this will come from Asians building factories here to keep their goods affordable to local populations.
But, if machines and computers can eventually do most of manual labor more efficiently and cheaply, what will the future be like for the former middle class and the new non working class? What will they do? For capitalism to thrive, they must have money to spend...otherwise they will be surplus to the requirements of the global market and the corporations will have to scale back production.
A lot will depend on the evolution to an automated society and who will control societies and how they are organized. If America and the UK sink into a morass, individual states and former kingdoms, i.e. Scotland, may push for more self-determination, doing deals with other countries for the exclusive benefit of the states in question.
Yet another cure for cheap Chinese imports will be to rebuild national industries as wage free, union free and totally automated. After massive initial investments, this "I Robot" society will produce all people need and then some. Still, no matter which country controls industry, the big question will still be: What will our people do for work?
As for the distant future, a few lucky people will retrain for still available service sector and industrial jobs. The medical sector will be a main employer. But the bulk of the unemployed may find a home in the military. Many people will go back to the land as subsistence farmers.
One of the reasons Rome gained such a large empire was the fact that slavery meant it had no labor problems. But it did have plenty of unemployed young men...they furnished its army and navy with an unlimited number of recruits to conquer and subdue most of the known world at the time.
In America's case, the military will be more defensive in nature, protecting it from foreign invasion on one hand and domestic insurrection on the other...as is the case with so many so called banana republics, US cities will become breweries of dissent and militancy and the military will be needed to maintain order.
Yet, for those not suitable for the military, the voluntary sector will offer a chance to do something meaningful. You see, while political leaders trumpet the need for new industries to create jobs, there simply won't be the economic viability for such investment in the face of high labor costs vs. dollar-a-day Asian economies.
And any new homegrown industries developed in an open world market would soon leave for cheaper production elsewhere or be automated, using at most a skeleton workforce.
America's only long-term prospect would be the creation of a UK style social welfare state and enriching the country via taxation from cash rich corporations and trade while maintaining former workers on state benefits.
And this is where the Chinese model enters the picture. China maintains free enterprise zones such as Hong Kong and Shanghai where capitalism thrives to service the world. These areas house the nation's economic power, Yet, most of the country remains a communist social welfare state, where the needs of the masses are met by the wealth it makes off the non-communist world. While I'm a firm believer in benevolent capitalism, I can't help deducing something such as this may be a serious option for a future world short of labour.
Of course the simplest thing would be to ban automation, from General Motors to Tesco. But in a free capitalist nation that's about as likely as enacting blanket trade barriers against cheap Asian goods in a global economy that all parties and political leaders support..
On the upside, one of the benefits for millions of people would be a lot of free time for budget holidays.
Okay, you can wake up now, it was only a nightmare.
Now that the US has Left Iraq:
We Have to Ask: What has America Gained
From almost Endless Conflict Since 1950?
by Dan Ehrlich
Goodbye 2011. Once again America has closed a military adventure, one which eight years ago President GW Bush proudly declared to be a "mission accomplished." But it was a campaign whose purpose was vague and success in doubt since there were no weapons of mass destruction and socio-political breakdown is a distinct possibility in such a polarized tribal nation.
The democracy we have installed in Iraq, predictably, is gradually disintegrating, with the Shiite Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki, issuing an arrest warrant for the Sunni deputy PM and threatening other Sunni leaders as he tries to consolidate his power as possibly Iraq's next dictator. He hasn't been wasting any time, has he? And as with the country's previous dictator, the West was his benefactor and enabler.
Meanwhile, in the oil rich north, the Kurdish majority there has been creating its own autonomous region and has even concluded deals with western oil companies... positive steps for the repressed Kurds. Al-Maliki is content to allow this, at least for now. The Kurds are more useful out of the way in a happy and trouble free zone, keeping the oil flowing and helping the PM maintain his power.
As these events unfold and a New Year is here, we can look back and ask ourselves what have major American military adventures accomplished since 1950?
The Korean War was the first major UN action, lead by the USA. It ended in a stalemate, with around 36,000 American killed and an uneasy truce that has kept the country divided with a large American troop presence still there 62 years later. On the plus side it enabled South Korea to become an industrial powerhouse. On the negative side is has forged North Korea into a nuclear powerhouse, one that threatens the West.
Vietnam was America's second geo-political war fought mainly to preserve US hegemony in Southeast Asia, but sold to the public as part of the Cold War against the spread of communism. Again stalemate and growing popular discontent forced America out and the North Vietnamese in after nearly 60,000 US troops died there. Today, a united communist Vietnam has mended fences with the US to the point of now depending on America to protect it from former best buddy China.
The 1990 Gulf War, Operation Desert Storm, was a US-led, UN sanctioned NATO action in response to the Iraq's invasion of Kuwait. Again it was sold on the idea of freeing Kuwait from an invading tyrant, but it really was about safeguarding the Gulf and Saudi oil region.
This eventually lead to the just-concluded Iraq War and the Afghanistan War, if you can call it that, still in progress, both fought as part of the War on Terrorism... a war that may never end since there may always be terrorists somewhere. To date, more than 6,500 US troops have been killed in these. And, in Afghanistan, there's no end in sight.
Since its creation, the USA has been involved in 13 major conflicts and dozens of minor ones resulting in 1.35 million military deaths. Yet most have one thing in common, they didn't occur because of perceived threats to national security or survival. They were economic or political in nature, but sold to the public, as most wars are, on the grounds of national security and patriotism. In fact, there's probably only one country today that fights wars of national survival, Israel.
In the end what has America gained from its human sacrifice? We trumpeted our victory in the Cold War, yet now are in debt and at the economic mercy of the biggest communist nation of all.
While communist Vietnam is now our friend, atomic armed North Korea, with little to lose, remains a gateway to Armageddon.
America has a national debt of more than $15 trillion due largely to unnecessary wars we have fought partly on the false jingoistic view that our way should be everyone's way. So, in the end the main beneficiary of American conflict has been the Military-Industrial Complex. You won't find this mentioned in the Constitution, but it exists as much as Congress.
Proof of it existence has again been revealed in a new $50billion arms deal with our favorite extreme autocratic oil-producing nation, Saudi Arabia. It's designed to counter a perceived regional threat from Iran and will generate 50,000 jobs back in the USA.
And you can bet board members of the complex are milling over plans for America's next possible military adventure, what's in it for them and how they will sell it to a public frustrated by our lagging economy and costly foreign involvements. Yet as long as terrorism exists, there will always be a cause to rationalize conflict.
We Have to Ask: What has America Gained
From almost Endless Conflict Since 1950?
by Dan Ehrlich
Goodbye 2011. Once again America has closed a military adventure, one which eight years ago President GW Bush proudly declared to be a "mission accomplished." But it was a campaign whose purpose was vague and success in doubt since there were no weapons of mass destruction and socio-political breakdown is a distinct possibility in such a polarized tribal nation.
The democracy we have installed in Iraq, predictably, is gradually disintegrating, with the Shiite Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki, issuing an arrest warrant for the Sunni deputy PM and threatening other Sunni leaders as he tries to consolidate his power as possibly Iraq's next dictator. He hasn't been wasting any time, has he? And as with the country's previous dictator, the West was his benefactor and enabler.
Meanwhile, in the oil rich north, the Kurdish majority there has been creating its own autonomous region and has even concluded deals with western oil companies... positive steps for the repressed Kurds. Al-Maliki is content to allow this, at least for now. The Kurds are more useful out of the way in a happy and trouble free zone, keeping the oil flowing and helping the PM maintain his power.
As these events unfold and a New Year is here, we can look back and ask ourselves what have major American military adventures accomplished since 1950?
The Korean War was the first major UN action, lead by the USA. It ended in a stalemate, with around 36,000 American killed and an uneasy truce that has kept the country divided with a large American troop presence still there 62 years later. On the plus side it enabled South Korea to become an industrial powerhouse. On the negative side is has forged North Korea into a nuclear powerhouse, one that threatens the West.
Vietnam was America's second geo-political war fought mainly to preserve US hegemony in Southeast Asia, but sold to the public as part of the Cold War against the spread of communism. Again stalemate and growing popular discontent forced America out and the North Vietnamese in after nearly 60,000 US troops died there. Today, a united communist Vietnam has mended fences with the US to the point of now depending on America to protect it from former best buddy China.
The 1990 Gulf War, Operation Desert Storm, was a US-led, UN sanctioned NATO action in response to the Iraq's invasion of Kuwait. Again it was sold on the idea of freeing Kuwait from an invading tyrant, but it really was about safeguarding the Gulf and Saudi oil region.
This eventually lead to the just-concluded Iraq War and the Afghanistan War, if you can call it that, still in progress, both fought as part of the War on Terrorism... a war that may never end since there may always be terrorists somewhere. To date, more than 6,500 US troops have been killed in these. And, in Afghanistan, there's no end in sight.
Since its creation, the USA has been involved in 13 major conflicts and dozens of minor ones resulting in 1.35 million military deaths. Yet most have one thing in common, they didn't occur because of perceived threats to national security or survival. They were economic or political in nature, but sold to the public, as most wars are, on the grounds of national security and patriotism. In fact, there's probably only one country today that fights wars of national survival, Israel.
In the end what has America gained from its human sacrifice? We trumpeted our victory in the Cold War, yet now are in debt and at the economic mercy of the biggest communist nation of all.
While communist Vietnam is now our friend, atomic armed North Korea, with little to lose, remains a gateway to Armageddon.
America has a national debt of more than $15 trillion due largely to unnecessary wars we have fought partly on the false jingoistic view that our way should be everyone's way. So, in the end the main beneficiary of American conflict has been the Military-Industrial Complex. You won't find this mentioned in the Constitution, but it exists as much as Congress.
Proof of it existence has again been revealed in a new $50billion arms deal with our favorite extreme autocratic oil-producing nation, Saudi Arabia. It's designed to counter a perceived regional threat from Iran and will generate 50,000 jobs back in the USA.
And you can bet board members of the complex are milling over plans for America's next possible military adventure, what's in it for them and how they will sell it to a public frustrated by our lagging economy and costly foreign involvements. Yet as long as terrorism exists, there will always be a cause to rationalize conflict.
As Deaths and Ultimatums Multiply
Is Syria on Verge of Civil War?
And Will the West Intervene?
by Dan Ehrlich
Ultimatums from the Arab League, Turkey, the EU and US have yet to stop the bloodshed in Syria which is nearing 4,000 dead and heading for a civil war. This isn't what the Arab Spring was supposed to bring. But it does illustrate a need for continued Big Power involvement in this powder keg region. And events may mean just that as pressure builds for outside intervention.
For quite some time western leaders have maintained an end to the Israel-Palestine issue is the key to Middle East peace. However, the so-called Arab Spring has destroyed that idea. Indeed, the only connection Israel may have had with the upheavals sweeping the Arab world is through TV and the Internet, where the multitudes could see the affluent lifestyle along Tel Aviv's beaches.
For people, such as the Syrians, kept under theocratic dictatorships since 1918, and repressive Ottoman rule since the 15th Century, the idea of a better, freer life is what has fueled the uprisings. Yet, there will always be tension and danger with the prospect of chaos in a feudal world interacting with wealthy and free western nations...nations dependent on that world's black gold.
Several surveys of living standards reveal Arab nations woefully behind all developed nations and even below most Latin American nations. The United Nation's Human Development Survey shows Norway Number 1, the USA 4, Israel 17, the UK is back at 27 and the closest Arab country, the UAE at 32. Syria is way down at 118. Libya, which is also in utter chaos, was rated 64, Tunisia is 94, Jordan 95 and Turkey, a non Arabic Muslim nation that wants to join the European Union is 83. Way down the list is Egypt at 113 and Yemen at 154.
The Arab world is similar to the USA in one key geopolitical area. It needs an enemy or scapegoat for its shortcomings and the excesses of its potentates. For decades America had Communism as an all-purpose enemy. With that gone, and the fact we are an economic hostage to the world's biggest nation, one that's Communist, we had to find another adversary...terrorism... a never-ending war of terror. Yet America's economic and employment problems are causing our masses to rethink foreign wars and foreign aid.
But, for the Arabs that enemy has been Israel...the simple fact is, if Israel never existed it would have to be invented to keep the Arab masses in line. They and the West would most probably face the same problems. The West would still be fighting to control Middle East oil until it runs out and the Arabs would be blaming each other and the West for their problems.
Given the NATO action in Libya and Iraq, it seems the only way the bring stability to the Arab World is to force the issue with an overpowering dose of neo colonialism, i.e., Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya.
NATO became involved in Libya on the grounds that Gadaffi was killing civilians. With this reasoning Syria, whose leader is killing thousands of his own people, is ripe for western intervention. And the West has to stop being timid and do what it has to do to maintain respect for its preeminence and support for civilized government.
The alternative is to accept an unknown outcome of various uprisings, with a worse case scenario being Islamic extremist governments. Indeed the only stable country in the region is Israel, and even it has to contend with the prospect of more violence from the Palestinians, who find it easier to take on the Israelis than their own corrupt leadership.
Yet, the Israel-Palestine issue has been relegated to a sideshow. Israel could recognize a Palestinian state tomorrow and it would have no effect on the so-called Arab Spring. The uprisings would continue and governments would remain or fall.
Little by little the Arab masses, while still hating Israel out of conditioning, are realizing an end to their repressive governments and not an end to Israel will help them obtain better lives.
But it seems realistic to conclude that for some time to come this region will be unsettled, chaotic and begging for some benevolent yet strong leadership. The main problem with the Arab world has been a nationalism based on a mass of uneducated people held in check by authoritarian, often repressive regimes, using religion as a tool of state control.
And part of this control has been maintaining feudal tribal fiefdoms where outsiders are often rejected on religious grounds and in the case of Israel, massive propaganda orchestrated by the state aimed at scapegoating that country for all the world's problems. Sound familiar?
The key to neo imperialism is to benevolently bring these people into the modern world through order, civility, living standards and proper contemporary education. This doesn't have to be nation building.
It's more like time travel. The nations of the Arab world are close enough in proximity to the West to have graduated away from ancient tribal lifestyles. But, for the most part they haven't and this modern day medievalism is the main difference that separates them from being modern progressive societies.
Some UN officials hoped back in 1948 that the creation of Israel would establish a climate of cooperation where the technically proficient Israelis could teach the Arabs how to make the desert bloom. For the most part this hasn't happened.
Since the West's prime interest in the Middle East isn't date and fig exporting, the only way to secure oil exports for the long term is by the West doing it until proper democratic governments can take root.
So far Tunisia, Morocco Libya, Egypt, Syria, Bahrain and Yemen are in varying states of revolution or civil war. There have also been rumblings from Jordan and Lebanon.
This instability and upheaval could eventually impact oil production and the real possibility of a nuclear-armed Iran will only make things worse.
The Arabs, long the witnesses and victims of big power conflict know how to play one side against the other. They did it during the Cold War and sensing the West is in decline are warming a bit towards Iran, who some may feel will be a new power broker in the region.
In the long run this will prove a mistaken assumption. The forces of international capitalism will not be held in check by Iran. We acted quickly during Operation Desert storm when Iraq occupied Kuwait and the West will act again, if need be.
Part of the neo imperial doctrine would be to make the Middle East a nuclear free zone. This would eventually include Israel. Besides, once peace and tranquility encompasses the region, there will be no need for atomic weapons.
The key for the West would not to be perceived as an occupation power, but one of helping hands...the way Somalia was supposed to be...but ended so disastrously.
A fact of life is people is desperation will accept whatever help is given. This holds true even in a normally rejectionist Arab world. Libya is an example, as was Kuwait. A major test will be what happens after the US leaves Iraq. With one of the world's largest oil reserves, the West won't be happy to see Iran making a move of any sort of influence.
The importance of bringing stability to this region goes beyond Arab countries...Turkey, Iran, Afghanistan and Pakistan form a continuous belt of non Arabic Muslim nations linked to Europe yet influenced by what happens in Arab nations.
If the West allows chaos to continue and radical regimes to form, it could eventually face an expanded terror war and a growing disenchantment with the West.
Is Syria on Verge of Civil War?
And Will the West Intervene?
by Dan Ehrlich
Ultimatums from the Arab League, Turkey, the EU and US have yet to stop the bloodshed in Syria which is nearing 4,000 dead and heading for a civil war. This isn't what the Arab Spring was supposed to bring. But it does illustrate a need for continued Big Power involvement in this powder keg region. And events may mean just that as pressure builds for outside intervention.
For quite some time western leaders have maintained an end to the Israel-Palestine issue is the key to Middle East peace. However, the so-called Arab Spring has destroyed that idea. Indeed, the only connection Israel may have had with the upheavals sweeping the Arab world is through TV and the Internet, where the multitudes could see the affluent lifestyle along Tel Aviv's beaches.
For people, such as the Syrians, kept under theocratic dictatorships since 1918, and repressive Ottoman rule since the 15th Century, the idea of a better, freer life is what has fueled the uprisings. Yet, there will always be tension and danger with the prospect of chaos in a feudal world interacting with wealthy and free western nations...nations dependent on that world's black gold.
Several surveys of living standards reveal Arab nations woefully behind all developed nations and even below most Latin American nations. The United Nation's Human Development Survey shows Norway Number 1, the USA 4, Israel 17, the UK is back at 27 and the closest Arab country, the UAE at 32. Syria is way down at 118. Libya, which is also in utter chaos, was rated 64, Tunisia is 94, Jordan 95 and Turkey, a non Arabic Muslim nation that wants to join the European Union is 83. Way down the list is Egypt at 113 and Yemen at 154.
The Arab world is similar to the USA in one key geopolitical area. It needs an enemy or scapegoat for its shortcomings and the excesses of its potentates. For decades America had Communism as an all-purpose enemy. With that gone, and the fact we are an economic hostage to the world's biggest nation, one that's Communist, we had to find another adversary...terrorism... a never-ending war of terror. Yet America's economic and employment problems are causing our masses to rethink foreign wars and foreign aid.
But, for the Arabs that enemy has been Israel...the simple fact is, if Israel never existed it would have to be invented to keep the Arab masses in line. They and the West would most probably face the same problems. The West would still be fighting to control Middle East oil until it runs out and the Arabs would be blaming each other and the West for their problems.
Given the NATO action in Libya and Iraq, it seems the only way the bring stability to the Arab World is to force the issue with an overpowering dose of neo colonialism, i.e., Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya.
NATO became involved in Libya on the grounds that Gadaffi was killing civilians. With this reasoning Syria, whose leader is killing thousands of his own people, is ripe for western intervention. And the West has to stop being timid and do what it has to do to maintain respect for its preeminence and support for civilized government.
The alternative is to accept an unknown outcome of various uprisings, with a worse case scenario being Islamic extremist governments. Indeed the only stable country in the region is Israel, and even it has to contend with the prospect of more violence from the Palestinians, who find it easier to take on the Israelis than their own corrupt leadership.
Yet, the Israel-Palestine issue has been relegated to a sideshow. Israel could recognize a Palestinian state tomorrow and it would have no effect on the so-called Arab Spring. The uprisings would continue and governments would remain or fall.
Little by little the Arab masses, while still hating Israel out of conditioning, are realizing an end to their repressive governments and not an end to Israel will help them obtain better lives.
But it seems realistic to conclude that for some time to come this region will be unsettled, chaotic and begging for some benevolent yet strong leadership. The main problem with the Arab world has been a nationalism based on a mass of uneducated people held in check by authoritarian, often repressive regimes, using religion as a tool of state control.
And part of this control has been maintaining feudal tribal fiefdoms where outsiders are often rejected on religious grounds and in the case of Israel, massive propaganda orchestrated by the state aimed at scapegoating that country for all the world's problems. Sound familiar?
The key to neo imperialism is to benevolently bring these people into the modern world through order, civility, living standards and proper contemporary education. This doesn't have to be nation building.
It's more like time travel. The nations of the Arab world are close enough in proximity to the West to have graduated away from ancient tribal lifestyles. But, for the most part they haven't and this modern day medievalism is the main difference that separates them from being modern progressive societies.
Some UN officials hoped back in 1948 that the creation of Israel would establish a climate of cooperation where the technically proficient Israelis could teach the Arabs how to make the desert bloom. For the most part this hasn't happened.
Since the West's prime interest in the Middle East isn't date and fig exporting, the only way to secure oil exports for the long term is by the West doing it until proper democratic governments can take root.
So far Tunisia, Morocco Libya, Egypt, Syria, Bahrain and Yemen are in varying states of revolution or civil war. There have also been rumblings from Jordan and Lebanon.
This instability and upheaval could eventually impact oil production and the real possibility of a nuclear-armed Iran will only make things worse.
The Arabs, long the witnesses and victims of big power conflict know how to play one side against the other. They did it during the Cold War and sensing the West is in decline are warming a bit towards Iran, who some may feel will be a new power broker in the region.
In the long run this will prove a mistaken assumption. The forces of international capitalism will not be held in check by Iran. We acted quickly during Operation Desert storm when Iraq occupied Kuwait and the West will act again, if need be.
Part of the neo imperial doctrine would be to make the Middle East a nuclear free zone. This would eventually include Israel. Besides, once peace and tranquility encompasses the region, there will be no need for atomic weapons.
The key for the West would not to be perceived as an occupation power, but one of helping hands...the way Somalia was supposed to be...but ended so disastrously.
A fact of life is people is desperation will accept whatever help is given. This holds true even in a normally rejectionist Arab world. Libya is an example, as was Kuwait. A major test will be what happens after the US leaves Iraq. With one of the world's largest oil reserves, the West won't be happy to see Iran making a move of any sort of influence.
The importance of bringing stability to this region goes beyond Arab countries...Turkey, Iran, Afghanistan and Pakistan form a continuous belt of non Arabic Muslim nations linked to Europe yet influenced by what happens in Arab nations.
If the West allows chaos to continue and radical regimes to form, it could eventually face an expanded terror war and a growing disenchantment with the West.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)