Saturday, December 31, 2005

He's still pretentious

In a previous post to this blog, I poked some mild fun at the singer Bono, gently chiding him for his attempts to coerce the American federal government to raise taxes and donate the money for aid to Africa's poorest regions. I pointed out in that rant that while I applauded his efforts to alleviate suffering, I also believed (and still do) that he could accomplish much more by appealing directly to the American people, the most generous in the world.

Part of the reason for my sarcastic tone in the previous rant, is I've seen celebrities turn their star power to charitable works for decades, with little or no lasting effects. And they soon lose interests once the cameras are turned off. Bob Geldof and Live Aid back in 1985 leap to mind, as does Sean Penn taking a personal photographer with him to New Orleans to document his goodness for posterity. Count me firmly in the 'teach the poor to fish so they may eat for life' camp. Buying tons of food and turning it over to dictators to use as a political tool, to me, is nothing but a waste of time, resources and hope.

This year, Time magazine named Bono one of three "Persons of the Year" (more on that in just a bit). Reluctantly I read the article, assuming it would be nothing more than a fluff piece dedicated to what a magnificent, bleeding heart he has. And while it was, there was also more. Bono and his lobbying group DATA have done much more than let their liberal hearts bleed before press conferences. They are getting results.

"'You know what my least favorite John Lennon song is?' he says. 'Imagine'. At the root of it is some rigorous thinking about the way things could be, but people have stolen the idea and made it an anthem for wishful thinking. I'm against wishful thinking. I hate it.'"

Besides arm-twisting politicians and philanthropic institutions, they also are searching for real solutions to real problems, and demanding real results. They are involved with medical and health researchers, they work with economic development experts, they are actually accomplishing more than polishing their own liberal credentials. For that, I not only apologize for my previous post making light of his work, I also offer a hardy congratulations, and wish him the best in his efforts.

Time also named two other 'Persons of the Year.' Bill and Melinda Gates. I've had a rough appraisal in the past of Bill Gates. I entered the computer industry at about the same time he was taking it apart, rearranging it to suit his own wallet. I saw the devastation, the good solid computer companies go under, one by one, at his call. On top of that, I've suffered greatly, as most computer users have, under the curse of Microsoft's Windows operating system. Does anyone remember Windows 95? How about Windows 98? I still shudder when I think of those products.

But if Time magazine is to be believed (and that's a big 'if' considering it's part of the mainstream media) Bill and Melinda Gates deserve a hardy congratulations for the efforts to help the poorest of the poor in this world. When I reached the line about how donations from their foundation for vaccinations have saved more than 700,000 lives, I was sold. That's concrete action. Those are results.

Interviews with employees of his foundation speak of it more as a business than a charitable foundation. They routinely visit the very poor, to learn first hand of the situation. They ask tough questions and expect honest answers. Money from their foundation is not given away, it's invested, and if the return on investment isn't sufficient, they pull the plug. One person interviewed said that the foundation has terminated several grants because of poor performance and the recipients were stunned. They'd never been required to actually produce in the past. You have to love that!

Bill and Melinda Gates, through their foundation, have been working extensively with Bono and his people to fund, invest, develop and produce real results that benefit the poor around the world. If this business model for charitable foundations works out, I may have to rethink my charitable donations.

To all three, Bono, Bill and Melinda Gates, I applaud. Humanity is better for their work. Thank you!

Sunday, December 25, 2005

Merry Christmas

Editor's note: I know it seems like I am trying to share the spotlight by prefacing every article with some remarks of my own, but this time there is a purpose. I am going on vacation and so wanted to post this Christmas entry by the Author today in case I do not have time later on. Enjoy!

The Gospel According to Luke 2:1-7
"And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that all the world should be taxed. (And this taxing was first made when Cyre'ni-us was governor of Syria.). And all went to be taxed, every one into his own city. And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judea, unto the city of David, which is called Bethlehem, (because he was of the house and lineage of David,) to be taxed with Mary his espoused wife, being great with child. And so it was, that, while they were there, the days were accomplished that she should be delivered. And she brought forth her firstborn son, and wrapped him in swaddling clothes, and laid him in a manger; because there was no room for them in the inn."

Luke 2:8-20
And there were in the same country shepherds abiding in the field, keeping watch over their flock by night. And, lo, the angel of the Lord came upon them, and the glory of the Lord shone round about them; and they were sore afraid. And the angel said unto them, Fear not: for, behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people. For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord. And this shall be a sign unto you; Ye shall find the babe wrapped in swaddling clothes, lying in a manger. And suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host praising God, and saying, Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men. And it came to pass, as the angels were gone away from them into heaven, the shepherds said one to another, Let us now go even unto Bethlehem, and see this thing which is come to pass, which the Lord hath made known unto us. And they came with haste, and found Mary and Joseph, and the babe lying in a manger. And when they had seen it, they made known abroad the saying which was told them concerning this child. And all they that heard it wondered at those things which were told them by the shepherds. But Mary kept all these things, and pondered them in her heart. And the shepherds returned, glorifying and praising God for all the things that they had heard and seen, as it was told unto them.

"Fear not..."

In the older King James Version (KJV) the line reads "Be not afraid...." Its one of my favorite lines from the entire Bible. Imagine being a simple shepherd boy, out in the fields, tending your flock, when "whammo" an angel appears. A real, honest to goodness angel. Wings, harp, flying around, voice sweeter than any chorus. My first instinct would probably be to run like hell while trying not to soil myself. I think that's what I like about it, because I would be terrified. The angel does not command them, does not order them, casts no spell on them, but instead simply says "Be not afraid." There is much strength in those words.

There is indeed much to fear in today's world. Violence, war, bombings, protests, death and disease. Even though I'm now a father, and its my job to ensure my wife and child are not afraid, there is much that scares me. Some times the sheer enormity of the world's problems, let alone my own, can be overwhelming. "Be not afraid." Reassuring words. There's even a hymn we used to sing at a church I once attended called "Be not afraid." Its a beautiful song. I wish my new church would put it in the rotation. Oh well. I can still remember the tune and, though I don't remember 95% of the words, it still brings me a smile.

The story of a man called Jesus, who was born some 2,001 years ago, is fascinating read. The troubled times, the Roman occupation, the Pharisees, colluding with the Romans to oppress the Jewish people. Death, disease, war everywhere. Into that world was born a simple child. He's been called King of Peace, the Son of God, God Himself. The affects of his teaching, his work, his ministry can not be denied. He may be the most influential person in the history of humanity. I don't care what your religion is, if any, the waves created by that simple carpenter resonate to this day. But at that moment in time, he was just a simple newborn child. I've held a newborn in my arms, my own child. Its an experience every person should have. There's no feeling quite like it in the world. So small, so helpless, totally dependent upon you for every thing. Quite the responsibility. "Be not afraid."

I love the fact that he was born in a manger. His crib was no doubt, a quickly cleaned up feed trough. Hardly the trappings you'd expect for the King of Heaven. Talk about humble. In those days, as they are still today, the rulers of the world are rich beyond belief. They have everything they could possibly want. And God chooses to make his entrance in the most humble of ways. I think that's the point. God is not the God of the rich alone, He is also the God of the poor and down trodden. There is no God but God.

Lord knows he caused a big stir. Preaching to the poor, the disaffected, outcasts of society. He ate dinner with tax collectors, considered the lowest of the low in those days [Editor's note: Still considered so, by some.]. He saved a prostitute from being stoned to death by saying "Let he is without sin cast the first stone." For a carpenter, he certainly had a way with words. There are more words of wisdom in his parables than I could digest in a life time. Using the parable of the Good Samaritan, he asked his disciples "Who was that man's neighbor?" Indeed, who is my neighbor?

He finally crossed the line, made too many waves, and found himself nailed to a cross - the Roman version of today's public service announcement - "Commit this act, and this is what you get." Its been said that before the Romans conquered Judea, the land was filled with trees, but most of them were cut down to build crosses. I guess the Romans had a lot of public service announcements to make.

The agony of his last days on earth were terrible. He came to earth to save mankind, to teach redemption, to show us there is a better way, and for all his efforts, he was beaten, whipped, and crucified. And when he didn't die fast enough, he was stabbed with a spear. I'm sure there was plenty of fear in Jesus. After all, he cried from the cross "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" "Be not afraid."

But for the very first Christmas, there was none of that. There was only a family, with a newborn child, and no bed to lay Him in. I'm sure Joseph had plenty of worries. But for one night, all was calm, all was quiet.

Silent night, holy night
All is calm, all is bright
Round yon Virgin Mother and Child
Holy Infant so tender and mild
Sleep in heavenly peace
Sleep in heavenly peace

Silent night, holy night!
Shepherds quake at the sight
Glories stream from heaven afar
Heavenly hosts sing Alleluia!
Christ, the Saviour is born
Christ, the Saviour is born

Silent night, holy night
Son of God, love's pure light
Radiant beams from Thy holy face
With the dawn of redeeming grace
Jesus, Lord, at Thy birth
Jesus, Lord, at Thy birth.

Merry Christmas, Happy New Year. I hope every one has the ability to give all the gifts they want this year, because that's the true spirit of Christmas, to give. As God gave of himself, so that sins may be forgiven, give to others, even if its just a smile, or holding open a door.

Hark! The herald angels sing,
“Glory to the newborn King;
Peace on earth, and mercy mild,
God and sinners reconciled!”
Joyful, all ye nations rise,
Join the triumph of the skies;
With th’angelic host proclaim,
“Christ is born in Bethlehem!”

Wednesday, December 21, 2005

Waking up in a new world: Conclusion!!!

Editor's note: This is it, the capstone to the author's history lesson and justification in his mind for the US invasion and occupation of Iraq. I will not distract readers with many links. Enjoy!
P.S. Check this article for the initial laying of the foundation. And forgive my lame building analogies.

A couple of weeks ago, my editor and myself were having a heated debate on what lead America to its showdown with Saddam Hussein. He suggested that I take up the issue for a blog entry. I originally assumed it would be at most, perhaps, three parts. As I began writing, it quickly became apparent three essays would not be sufficient for all the aspects I thought important in order to fully present my point of view. I then estimated eight parts. Here today is the conclusion, part ten.

What I've attempted to do is to put down the facts as best I remember them. From the first Gulf War in 1991 to the invasion in 2003, to the continued occupation. Little did I realize my meanderings would take me back as far as 570 AD. Since 9/11, I have learned much about Islam, the Middle East and America's uneasy relationship with the region. I've included much of it here.

What I've also tried to accomplish is to present as many facts as possible. Facts that were once common knowledge and today are in question. I firmly believe that academically honest people, of differing political persuasions, can have an honest debate in the arena of free ideas on the history and the future of America and Iraq. But that debate can only take place when the facts are clearly presented. There is no academic honesty in a debate if one side insists facts are fiction.

I hope readers have felt their time well spent reading these essays. And I would like to thank my editor for both prodding me to write, as well as for his efforts at editing and posting. I must admit, some of his links (I email the editor flat text, he formats, links, and adds smart ass remarks) have irked me more than I care to admit. But that is what honest debate is all about. Facts, whether you like them or not, are facts. And we should never forget that.

The Second Iraq War

In the previous nine essays, I've covered a myriad of points. Saddam himself, his brutality, his WMDs - and proven willingness to use them. I've also covered some of the history of Islam, as I've learned about it, and Wabahism in particular. I spent a particularly uncomfortable afternoon spilling my thoughts on terrorism and war. But what does all that mean with respect to the American invasion and occupation of Iraq?

What it has to do with the Iraq war, is to point out the complete and utter lack of stability in not only the Middle East, but of the entire Muslim world. The world of Islam is huge. It stretches from Morocco to Malaysia, from Kosovo to Mozambique. Its a vast civilization of people from many differing back grounds, and many different ethnicities. They do have one thing in common, they are Muslim and the rest of the world is not.

Islam has been at war with itself, and western society for over a thousand years. In 1803 the Muslim pirates of Tripoli began seizing the ships of the newly minted United States of America, and selling the sailors into slavery. President Thomas Jefferson wrote a letter demanding they cease and desist, and recognize America's right to the use high seas. The pirates replied that not only was it their right, it was their duty under Islamic law to fight the infidel where ever encountered. Thomas Jefferson responded by creating the US Marines. "From the halls of Montezuma to the shores of Tripoli."

We have been at war with these people, just as most of the western world has, for all that time. In the year 711 AD, Muslims conquered a large part of Spain. As a matter of fact, that's one of bin Looser's demands, that western society return it to the Muslims. Muslims nearly reached the gates of Vienna in 1683. You can thank Polish King Jan Sobieski for saving Europe back then. For most of the west, it was not even worth noticing. The only people concerned should the ones stupid enough to enter their part of the world, for that was their decision. The Muslims, with their limited resources, and ancient weapons, had no chance of dragging us into anything. That has changed.

For most of history, large scale invasions were not that difficult to notice. Massing of troops and ships. You could see them coming. You had time to prepare, at least to some extent. With the marriage of Islamic fundamentalism, terrorism and weapons of mass destruction, there is no notice. There is no prevention, only reaction. It is a war on their terms, fought when they decide, where they decide, and the type of battle is entirely of their choosing. I recently read an article, analyzing the effects of a relatively small nuclear device detonating in down town Manhattan. The results aren't pretty. 1,600,000 Dead and dying Americans, and arguably America's most important city, a radioactive waste land. The study suggests so many wounded, there would be not be enough emergency service members alive to help them. They would lie in the streets by the hundreds of thousands, praying in agony for death to take them. This is no science fiction movie or novel.

When I was a kid, we used to perform air raid drills at school. We'd grab our coats, file into the hall way, lean towards the wall, cover our heads with our arms, and wait out nuclear Armageddon. That was just pure foolishness. I watched the World Trade Centers fall on TV. This is real. Its as real as New York City, Washington DC, Madrid, London, Moscow, Bali, Paris, Baghdad, Amman and thousands of other cities around the world were this war rages in the streets.

Islamic fundamentalism plus weapons of mass destruction, plus the ease of world travel thanks to globalism, equal the very real possibility of the destruction of America. New York City is the financial capitol of the world. Its mind boggling to even try to conceive the effects on the global world economy should it suddenly cease to exist. The world would be thrown into an economic recession from which it might never recover.

But then again, that's the terrorist agenda. They don't want to see a thriving western society. They want to see death and destruction. That way its easier for them to plunge those left alive into slavish nightmare of what they call paradise. They make the rules, we obey or die. And they get to watch, all snug and comfortable in their piety, that they are the hand of God.

What once would have required the largest armed forces in the world, can now be accomplished by a relatively small group of dedicated men. And make no mistake they are dedicated. One would have to be in order to think it an act worthy of God, to kill children gathering to receive candy.

But again, what does that have to do with Saddam, Iraq and America?

As I've noted in previous essays, I believe there are as many reasons for terrorists, as there are terrorists. But I believe the primary reason is lack of hope. Total despair. The inability to even dream of a better life. And one sure way to create that despair is the relentless and never ending oppression of the people of the Muslim world. And that's what the world of Islam is. Crushed under repression, beaten down, driven into the mud and the blood, from which they see no exit. Stir in some religion, promising a better world in the afterlife, arm them with a vial so small it could fit in a pen, and turn them loose on a society which they despise. I hope that scares you, because it scares the hell out of me. It's not fiction. Its fact. That is the reality of today's world.

In 1991 Bush the Coward went into Iraq, for what I now consider dubious reasons. Dubious because of what he claimed he wanted to accomplish, as opposed to the reality of Iraq on the eve of the second Gulf War, are worlds apart. Bush the Coward used the US military to drive Saddam out of Kuwait. But he did not plan, did not foresee, did not worry about the results of his actions. And those results were catastrophic. Bush the Coward and his allies broke Iraq, wrapped it in duct tape, and left it for the pathetic United Nations to worry about.

Consider that for a moment. As if life in Iraq under Saddam, wasn't bad enough, the United States and the UN made it even worse. First the Coward's attempts to encourage the Iraqi's to rebel in 1991, where he promptly fed them to the dogs. Estimates of 300,000 dead Shiites and Kurds. Is it any wonder the US is having such a hard time during the current occupation? Would you trust a nation that suggested you rise up, only to find your entire family and town wiped off the face of the earth? I would find the opportunity for payback very tempting.

The Vatican estimated 50,000 dead Iraqis every year from the UN sanctions alone. Think about that number. Not only did America turn its back on the Iraqi people in their hour of greatest need, now the entire world was set to crush them in the vice of sanctions. Not that Saddam would be all that inconvenienced. He still had his WMDs, his army and his billions. But to the common Iraqi citizen, nothing but despair. Complete and total despair. And at our hands, no less.

Following 9/11, many Americans finally realized we are, in fact, at war with Islamic fundamentalists We realized just how vulnerable we truly are. We realized just how easy it is for them to murder thousands with out even using WMDs, just simple box cutters. We also realized just how truly dangerous Saddam was, with his WMDs. Its not outrageous to believe Saddam would be more than willing to deal with anyone necessary in order to exact his revenge on America, after all the United States humiliated him before the entire world. That was the main cause for the invasion. Americans, in 2002 and early 2003 agreed not to wait for him to link up with bin Looser or any terrorist groups for that matter. The threat needed to be dealt with before the attack occurred.

Many words have been spoken detailing the case for pre-emptive war. The second Iraq war was not for pre-emption, it was a preventive war, waged to prevent an even larger war. Some time in the 1930's, Adolf Hitler decided to break the treaty of Versailles and remilitarize the Rhineland, Germany's industrial heart land. At the time, France had an army 60 miles away that out numbered the Germans some 30 to one. Had France acted in a timely manor, perhaps the entire European theater of World War II might have been avoided. Millions of lives saved, many millions more, left unscarred by the horrors of war. What if? What might have been? What could have been? Who knows.

I believe the second Gulf War is justified because we need to fix what Bush the Coward and America did in 1991. We broke Iraq, and refused to fix it. The world is far too dangerous today to have a nation of 25 million people languishing as Iraq was. And if we do not, now, finish what we started in 1991, then America will be back in Iraq in the future, assuming America is still around.

A nation should never enter into war lightly. People's lives are at stake. But, if a nation decides that war is necessary, then it must be fought to its conclusion. Half efforts are only leaving the nightmare to another generation. And that's what America did in 1991. We left the open wounds to fester and boil. We should never have done that. Today, American soldiers are paying the price for that short sighted endeavor.

I pray to God that we have the courage to see it through, to rebuild what we have destroyed. I fear its the only chance the Muslim world and western society have left. Ignore the problem, and we will all suffer greatly. Do what we must to solve our own misdeeds, and maybe, just maybe, both the Muslim world and America have a chance for a future.

Editor's note: This was a labour of love for the author, and I certainly didn't pay him for this work. If you enjoyed - or hated - the series, please leave a comment.

Tuesday, December 20, 2005

Waking up in a new world: Part IX

Editor's note: Is that a light I see at the end of the tunnel? We are almost done, but if this is all new to you, your long - but worthwhile - journey starts here. Also, the Author wanted me to make it clear that all links were my idea. Sometimes I can be a dolore nell'asino.

Terrorism

I don't need no stinkin' Wikipedia.com to tell me what terrorism is. And, unlike the US Supreme Court's opinion on pornography, I don't need to see it in order to know it.

Terrorism, simply put, is the practice to inflict as much horror, death and destruction on a people, so that they will give the perpetrator whatever they want, in order to halt future acts.

Its very similar to war, but not quite. War attempts to destroy the opposing nation's will to fight by destroying their means of defense (or retaliation), thereby rendering the opposition government impotent. Wars are usually fought hot and fast, as in World War II, or Iraq. Sometimes they are fought excruciatingly slow, as in the Cold War. Terrorism is neither. It's like war in slow motion, like a simmering pot. Instead of a fleet of bombers dispensing death en'mass, the bombs go off, one at a time, over weeks, months, years, decades.

Despite claims to the contrary, terror is not the tool of the powerful, but rather the tool of the weak. Its used by groups and organizations who know they can't stand up to a real army, so they don't. Instead, they hide in the shadows, they blend in with the citizens, they look for vulnerability among the populations, then they strike with great ferociousness and they strike everyday people, just living their lives. Their goal is horrific headlines of blood and body parts everywhere, people screaming in terror. Dead children. Don't like it? Then give them what they want.

I know the first question leaping to a liberal's mind at the above statements: what's the difference between the US' actions in Iraq and al Qeada's actions? After all, the actions of both sides result in the deaths of innocent civilians. But there is a difference. When the US accidentally kills innocent civilians, its not because they are the target, but rather because that's where the targets hide, among the innocent. When terrorists kill, its because innocent civilians are the targets. There is a difference, and I will not budge on this point. There is a difference.

While the overall odds are in favor of powerful nations defeating terrorists, in reality, they have the upper hand. They choose the targets, the timing, the weapons. There is no warning, just gunfire, explosions, and the body count. And let us not forget the headlines. Any terrorist worth his weight knows the modern terrorist battle is fought in the media. They know that very well. And the modern media is only too willing to help them out for the sake of ratings.

The reasons for employing terror tactics are, in my opinion, as varied as the number of terrorists. That is, each terrorist has his or her own reasons for deciding to kill civilians. Perhaps vengeance, hatred, insanity, love of carnage, or maybe its just some sick bastard's method for achieving fame. Politicians will tell you we need to learn the "root causes" of terrorism, so we can help stop them. In my opinion, the biggest root cause is an utter lack of hope for the future, complete despair. But in reality, it's what ever an individual feels is appropriate to strap on a bomb and kill.

I would be academically dishonest if I did not address the issue of 'one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter' but that's a deceptively difficult question to answer, as it means looking at each case individually. What are the terrorists attempting to achieve as opposed to their opponents? For example, let us look at the bloody struggle in North Ireland. Back when I was in highschool, I had a friend who's family was a host for a foreign exchange student. She was a Protestant from Northern Ireland, quite cute, and I'm a sucker for a sexy accent. I cornered her in a bar one time (drinking age was 18 back then) and I asked her, I wanted to know the real story from some one who really knows. I asked her, what was going on and why. First off she assured me it wasn't nearly as bad as the American Press made it out. She worked in a government office (she was an exchange student several years earlier, and by this point she was on vacation in America and made sure to stop by and visit her friends) and had one or two bomb scares, but that was the extent of it. She explained that while she was Irish, she considered herself a British citizen. That one sentence summed it up pretty good. Both sides were fighting for the same thing, their right to their own country. See what I mean about a difficult question to answer? The northern Irish who were Protestants considered Northern Ireland to be their country, and they wanted to remain part of Great Britain. The Catholic Irish considered the British to be invaders, they wanted their country back.

See what I mean?

Since the thrust of this series of writings is America and Iraq, I will not even attempt to cover all terrorist organizations, and will instead concentrate on the ones in the Middle East.

What Al Qeada claims it wants is easy to discern, they've posted their demands many times. Among them are demands that the US sign the Kyoto Accords and the return of Spain to the Muslims. (I wonder if they'd negotiate over France instead?). The whole thing reminds me of the movie Air Heads, or maybe Die Hard. Make outrageous demands to create a diversion for your enemy.

What bin Looser and al Qeada really want, is fairly obvious. World domination, but for now, they'll settle for rulership of the entire Muslim world. They want to use terror to scare western civilization out of the Middle East, thereby stripping Muslim dictators of their powerful supporters and weapon suppliers. Then they can begin knocking off moderate Islamic nations, via revolution, one by one. The eventual, short term goal, is to overthrow the Saudi family and conquer Arabia. Once in control of Islam's holiest sites, they become the standard bearers for Islam. What Islam is, is what they say it is. Knocking off the Pope does not make the killer the Pope. Controlling Mecca and Medina does - more or less - control the voice of Islam.

From the throne of Islam, they can continue to foster terrorism and revolution throughout the Muslim world, until bin Looser can be crowned as the Caliphate, or true successor of Mohammed. Remember previously when I mentioned the reasons for a terrorist to kill? Remember the part about some sick bastard wanting fame?

As the Caliphate of a reborn Muslim empire, bin Looser not only controls the message of Islam, he controls the world's oil supply, as well as the trillions of dollars the Saudis, the Kuwaitis and the Iraqis already have from the past sale of oil. A significant portion of the world's economy.

I believe bin Looser was also counting on Saddam's weapons of mass destruction, as a bargaining chip with the rest of the world, but it appears Saddam out foxed him on that one.

But their long term goal is also obvious, world domination. That may sound a bit far fetched, until you dig a little deeper in Wahhabism. It's a very strict form of Islam, in that, any one who doesn't believe in what they do - completely, without question - are infidels, beneath a dog, and worthy only of death. They believe Islam is the only true religion (in particular, their flavor of it), and therefore is destined to control the entire world. Look it up, its in your Quran. That means Shiites, as well as any Muslim who won't tow their line on conformity. Every one in the entire world who differs from them on any issue or point, deservers death. Think about that. A terrorist organization who's declared if you don't accept them as the ultimate authority in the world, you are their enemy.

And to achieve their goal, everyone and anyone must die. Preferably, horribly.

What does that mean for the innocent civilians of the Middle East caught in the middle, as well as the rest of us, should they achieve any manor of success? Take a look at the Taliban in Afghanistan, you'll get a very good idea of their paradise on earth. And it ain't pretty.

Monday, December 19, 2005

Waking up in a new world: Part VIII

Editor's note: Yes, this is part 8. I'm told the ending is on the horizon. All we can do is pray...

If this is your first time here, start at the beginning. Which is usually good advice.

The Middle East

Some eighteen months ago I was reading an opinion piece by Charles Krauthammer in Time magazine about the US coming ashore in the Middle East. He opined that for years, the US was more than willing to sit on their great navy vessels in the Persian Gulf and watch the various countries bash away with each other. His argument was that America could no longer afford to watch, but must become involved with boots on the ground.
[Editor's note: It is quite the claim to state that the US has not been involved in the region.]
[Author's note: Seeing as Europe has been meddling in the Middle East for hundreds, if not thousands of years, I find it rather refreshing that America has managed to keep its hands to itself for so long.]
[Editor's note: If the author is saying that the US looks standoffish in comparison to the worst meddling of the British empire (among others), that is perhaps true - although one could say that the US is trying to make up for that, and that emulating an empire is not becoming a free democracy. But for the sake of continuing on, let's pretend that Mr. Krauthammer's point has some validity, and that the US had turned a blind eye to and tread lightly on the Middle East until now.]

The reason I mention this writing is because he made one outstanding point (among many outstanding points) and that is the Arab League consists of 22 nation members, not one of them freely elected. Monarchs, military dictators, theocrats, thugs and other assorted oppressors. Can you imagine that? An entire region of the world, and not one single government is freely elected by their citizens.

That was back in February of 2003. Today the Arab League looks like this:


• The Hashemite Kingdom Of Jordan
United Arab Emirates
• Kingdom Of Bahrain
• Republic Of Tunisia
• Democratic And Popular Republic Of Algeria
• Republic Of Djibouti
• Kingdom Of Saudi Arabia
• Rebuplic Of Sudan*
• Arab Rebuplic Of Syria
• Republic Of Somalia
• Republic Of Iraq
• Sultanate Of Oman
• State Of Palestine
• State Of Qatar
• Federal Islamic Republic Of Comoros
• State Of Kuwait
• Republic Of Lebanon
• Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya
• Arab Republic Of Egypt
• Kingdom Of Morocco
• Islamic Republic Of Mauritania
• Republic Of Yemen

*That's actually the way it's spelled on the website. Sounds like a real republic to me.

First off I must admit, I find the humor in non-democratic countries naming themselves in a way that would make George Orwell shake his head. "Democratic And Popular Republic Of Algeria." That's a good one! Not only are they "democratic", but they are also "popular". Just read the name. Still don't believe it? Just ask any citizen, I'm sure they'll be more than happy to gush about what a wonderful democracy they have. Please ignore that guy with the AK-47 standing just off camera. He's a representative from the democratic and popular government.

Today, that list no longer contains 22 undemocratic governments, it contains only 21. The Republic of Iraq, will become, on Thursday, a true Republic. It's a start.

(Please note, I sincerely hope that in a relatively short and peaceful amount of time, Lebanon can be considered free and democratic, which moves the tally to 20 - 2.)

Many who openly oppose and protest the war in Iraq would read the above statements and shrug, saying something like, why should we care? What does it mean to us how those people choose to live their lives? It's no sweat off our brow. Wrong, it is sweat off our brow, we desperately and earnestly need to be concerned.

A while back I saw an interview on the Daily Show with Jon Stewart. I don't remember the gentleman's name, but he was hawking a new book called "No God but God". His take on 9/11 was Islam has been in the midst of a civil war for hundreds of years, and its still going on. Seeing as he's from the Middle East (Iran) I assumed he knew what he was talking about. There are many different forms of Islam, but there are two main factions. One side wants to get along with the rest of the world, become part of the international community, live their lives they way they want, to be religious or not, their own choice. The other is a darker form of Islam.

The darker form of Islam takes a much more literal view of the Quran. That is to say, when God created man, God put certain restrictions on man, such as the need to eat, the need to sleep, etc. Those actions are beyond anyone's control, so they must be anointed from God. Everything else is covered by Islam. When to eat, what to eat, how to eat, which foot to enter a room with first. It's a pretty crushing theology. But even more than that, it's the cleric who translates and interprets the Quran for the commoners. Because they supposedly have studied the Quran sufficiently, they have been granted obscene powers over civilization, by God no less. There is no rigid hierarchy of Islam, there's no Pope or Cardinals or Bishops to openly state a cleric is in violation of Islam by his teachings, and he must be corrected. No, when an Iman, a Mullah, or whatever they call themselves makes a declaration, it is not open to interpretation. Its Sharia, the law.

Bin Looser found a cleric, one Dr. Ayman al-Zawahiri, to issue a religious decree, in a cave in Afghanistan, that declared Islam at war with the United States and the west. The result was September 11, 2001.

But if this is a civil war inside Islam, how did the US and the West get pulled in? The author's opinion was simply because bin Looser could do it. Western civilization, in general, is an open society. Sure there are laws, some travel hassles, commitments to be met, but for the most part, we're an easy going group of people who just want to live our lives. In other words, we're sitting ducks. September 11, 2001 happened because we weren't paying enough attention to the Middle East. We made it too easy for them to resist.

I've been told by many people that democracy will never flourish in the Middle East because the people aren't civilized enough to make it work. The only way to keep the peace is by the iron fist rule of blood-thirsty dictators. But for me, therein lies the problem. Seeing 21 members of the Arab league are not democratically elected, they are the blood-thirsty strongmen crushing the people of the Middle East. All media outlets are controlled by the state. Just because their news organizations do not show footage of people being dragged from their beds in the middle of the night, never to be heard from again, does not mean it does not happen. The absence of violence does not equal peace.

Remember the post about Saddam? That river blood flowed not only in Iraq, but it flows throughout the entire region. The citizens are crushed beneath the boots of vicious dictators. There is little to no hope that the people can rise up and over throw their leaders, the modern police state has seen to that. Remember the Shiite and Kurd uprising in 1991 against Saddam? 21 Out of 23 provinces rebelled? The vast majority of the country? How'd that work out? Not very well.

When one lives under a vicious dictator, one owns nothing. The government does. Want to build an addition on your house? Take care not to make it to nice, or you just may loose the entire home. I remember watching an interview in post-Saddam Baghdad. The reporter was talking to an entrepreneur who was doubling the size of his restaurant, hiring, buying new equipment. He said that he could never have done that with Saddam in power. If business looked too good, one of Saddam's sons was sure to learn about it and then demand the entire business at the end of a gun.

That's a tremendous amount of power to hold over a person, over a people, over a nation. You can take their homes, their business' and their families on a whim. I read another article in Time after the invasion. It covered just a small example of the brutality. A father was celebrating the marriage of his oldest daughter. One of Saddam's sons showed up uninvited. He demanded to see the father. He said he found the father's younger daughter (14 years old) quite attractive and wanted her delivered to his home. The father pleaded no, after all she was just a child. The baathist said either deliver the girl or else they would kill his entire family, and take the child anyway. The father relented and sent his child to be raped, in order to save the rest of his family. Later the father committed suicide, unable to live with his actions.

And pretty much the entire Middle East is run that way. On the one hand, it keeps a lid on the real crazies, on the other hand it crushes the very life out of the population of an entire region.

My opinion is that this is the major, root cause of Middle East terrorism. The lack of hope, the lack of a future, the lack of any other way. Do nothing, and it will continue. Desperate men do desperate things.

Now this is nothing new. The Middle East has been ruled this way for hundreds, if not thousands of years. There is a difference now, though. That difference is called Weapons of Mass Destruction.

Thursday, December 15, 2005

Waking up in a new world: Part VII

Editor's note: There is no editor's note this time. Except to say, if you don't understand why there is a 'VII' in the title, you should probably start here.

Islamic Fundamentalism

In the movie Scarface, Al Pacino says the line "First you get the money. Then you get the power. Then you get the women." While the last part may or may not have relevance to this topic, without a doubt, the first two do. Power and money. Money is power, and therefore, power is money. Don't believe me? Ask OJ.

In the name of full disclosure, I am a practicing Roman Catholic. And as an inquisitive practitioner I've researched the early Catholic Church, warts and all. And let me tell you, there are plenty of warts. Crusades leap to mind. The Spanish Inquisition. The countless wars to enlarge the greater glory of the Church. How about the concept of "original sin"? Personally, from what I've learned about history, the Church, and human nature, I tend to believe it's a lot more about people in pursuit of power, wrapping themselves in religion, than the religion leading the way to war. When Constantine made Christianity (more specifically "Catholic" "Orthodox" - Greek for "universal" "right-thinking") the official religion of the Roman Empire, I believe he repeated another line from another famous Al Pacino film: "Keep your friends close, but keep your enemies closer."

As I mentioned earlier, I've studied the history of the Roman Catholic Church. The Crusades? Sure, they were on a mission from God to protect the Holy Land from the evil infidels. They also occurred as Europe was emerging from the Dark Ages and becoming a much more stable region. This brought to the forefront a serious flaw in European tradition. Daughters were married off for political reasons and to solidify relationships. The eldest son inherited everything, all other sons either joined the Church, joined the army, became a mercenary, or a peasant. Not a very promising future for a large number of well equipped, well trained soldiers, that was rapidly accumulating as the incessant invasions from the Norsemen declined. Coincidence?

The Spanish Inquisition? Sure that was a way to purify Spain of infidels who were polluting the Church. It was also a handy way for the Spanish crown to ethnically cleanse the population of political enemies and undesirables. Declare Roman Catholicism the national religion, keep sending those taxes to Rome, and the Pope will bless just about anything you want.

Its not about religion, its about power. It's always about power. Who has it, who wants it, and what they're willing to do to get it.

Religion in the hands of good people, tends to produce good. Religion in the hands of evil people, tends to produce evil. When it comes to judging those claiming to be religious, I hold the same advice I use for politicians: don't waste your time listening to what's coming out of their mouths, watch what they do. Pat Robertson can recite the Lord's Prayer till he's blue in the face, but when he starts advocating the US whack undesirable leaders of foreign countries, you know where his heart is.

That's why when it comes to the idea of Islamic fundamentalism, I believe religion is only a cover for much more sinister deeds. bin Looser and company can claim to high heaven they are the most devout followers of the one and only true way, but in reality, they are nothing but murderous scum. They can pretend they are the way to salvation, the protectors of God's people, the savior of humanity, but in reality, they kill people. Men, women, children. They blow up people going to work, people taking their parents to the hospital, little kids going to school. [Annoying Editor's note: These women and children were on their way to work and school too...] They claim, that in the end, it doesn't matter. If they were infidels, they deserved death. If they were devout Muslims, they're going to paradise anyways. Nice dogma. And I get laughed at for eating fish on Fridays during Lent.

My research has also lead me to conclude that Islam is more than just a religion to Muslims, it's a very significant portion of the culture that binds the Muslim world together. Whereas we in the west great each other with handshakes, and hellos, in the Muslim world they end just about every sentence with "God willing." It's tradition. For Christians, God manifested Himself in the resurrection of Jesus. There is no Muslim equivalent. Which is why the Quran is so important to them. The words of the Prophet are the manifestation of God. So whereas the Bible is a book to be read, the Quran for Muslims is proof of God, and therefore to be worshipped. Common themes, different traditions.

So I don't hold much weight in the grandiose religious claims of Islamic fundamentalists. They can claim what ever they want, but in the end, they are still killing people all over the world.

Bill Whittle is one of the best authors I've read to emerge from the blogsphere. His book "Silent America: Essays From A Democracy At War" would do far more good if it were required reading in public schools, rather than "Heather has Two Mommies". In one essay, Whittle relates a lesson his father taught him. I don't remember the exact words, but it went something like this: if three or more people in your life think you're a complete, total bastard, it just might be you. Advice worth noting.

Islamic fundamentalists are currently at war in Iraq, India, Kashmir, The Philippines, Indonesia, Malaysia, America, Great Britain, France, Spain, the Netherlands, Israel, Chechnya, Russia, Australia and Jews everywhere.

Its not about religion, its about power. It's always about power. Who's got it, who wants it, and what they're willing to do to get it.

[Author's note: By the time this gets posted, I fully expect to see a rebuttal from my editor asserting that religion has far too much blood on its hands to be declared innocent. And he does have a valid point. I accept that religion can be used to make good people do evil things. The wave of suicide bombings around the world are more than proof enough. Uneducated, under-educated, and people of low intelligence can be brainwashed to believe they are doing good by driving a car bomb into a crowd of civilians, that they are doing God's work and that they will achieve a place in paradise for their efforts. But also notice, the ones doing the teaching never seem to go along for the ride?]

[Editor's note: What does 'by the time this gets posted' mean? I'm on vacation! (sort of)]

Next: The Middle East

Waking up in a new world: Part VI

Editor's note: No, I will not do a table of contents. If you don't know how to scroll down to find the relevant section that you haven't read yet, you don't deserve to read this blog. Elitism? Maybe.

This post can either be considered a sign of laziness (Editor's view) or a sign of Wikipedia's usefulness (Author's view). It also provides a condundrum to the Editor, as the action of basically copy/pasting from another source brings up issues of copyright and fair use. Although Wikipedia is covered by a very generous license, they do provide a bit of disclaimer when it comes to a verbatim copy. Reading through the lawyerspeak, it does seem kosher to show the article as the Author intended, but I have my hand over the delete key just in case. I was going to suggest just providing the link to the source article, and nothing else, but the Author isn't one to pass up on a chance to bloviate, even with someone else's material. Without further ado....

[Author's note: I can empathize with the editor's reservations on this one. I, for one, do not enjoy posting other people's work in what I claim to be my own thoughts. But while researching Wahhabism, I came across the post at Wikipedia.com. The material was exactly what I wanted to write, I thought it summed up every point I wanted to make. Had I attempted to write my own version, I know I would simply be plagiarizing it, which I refused to do. I also know that Wikipedia.com is an evolving database. While simply linking to the text would have conveyed my message, that doesn't mean a month from now the entire entry won't be completely rewritten. I wanted it in the same form as when I read it.

Final Author's note: I spell checked this email before sending it to the editor for posting. While doing so I fixed his spelling error on the word condundrum. Good help can be hard to find.]

Final Editor's note: As someone becoming increasingly interested in the principles of economics, I believe this truism holds: You get what you pay for. And now, without ANY OTHER ado...

I was doing some research on the web for part six of my rant and came across this from Wikipedia.com. It explains it better than I ever could. See you in part seven.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wahhabi

Beliefs

Wahhabism accepts the Qur'an and hadith as basic texts. It also accepts various commentaries including Ibn Abd al-Wahhab's Kitab
al-Tawhid ("Book of Monotheism"), and the works of the earlier scholar Ibn Taymiyya (1263–1328).

Wahhabis do not follow any specific maddhab (method or school of jurisprudence), but claim to interpret the words of the prophet
Muhammad directly, using the four maddhab for reference. However, they are often associated with the Hanbali maddhab. Wahhabis
hold that some Muslim groups such as Sufism and Shia Islam follow novel (and thus non-Islamic) practices.

Wahhabi theology advocates a puritanical and legalistic stance in matters of faith and religious practice.

Wahhabists see their role as a movement to restore Islam from what they perceive to be innovations, superstitions, deviances, heresies
and idolatries. There are many practices that they believe are contrary to Islam, such as:

The invoking of any prophet, saint or angel in prayer, other than God alone (Wahhabists believe these practices are polytheistic in
nature)
Supplications at graves, whether saints' graves, or the prophet's grave
Celebrating annual feasts for dead saints
Wearing of charms, and believing in their healing power
Practicing magic, or going to sorcerers or witches seeking healing
Innovation in matters of religion (e.g. new methods of worship)
Erecting elaborate monuments over any grave

Wahhabis ban pictures, some ban photographs (others do not), and celebrating Muhammad's birthday, among many other things, based
on their interpretation of the hadith. Many Wahhabi men grow their beards and wear their traditional dresses above their ankles.
Wahhabis in South Asia are called "Ahl ul Hadith".

Early history of Wahhabism

Wahhabism in Saudi Arabia began with Muhammad ibn Abd al Wahhab, an Arabian cleric who had come to believe that Sunni Islam
had been corrupted by innovations (bidah) such as Sufism. He discovered the works of the early Muslim thinker Ibn Taymiyya and
started preaching a reformation of Islam based on Ibn Taymiyya's ideas. He was repudiated by his father and brother, who were both
clerics, and expelled from his home village in Najd, in central Arabia.

He then moved to the Najdi town of Diriya and formed an alliance with the Saudi chieftain Muhammad bin Saud. Bin Saud made
Wahhabism the official religion in the First Saudi State. Al Wahhab gave religious legitimacy to Ibn Saud's career of conquest. Ibn
Taymiyya had been controversial in his time because he held that some self-declared Muslims (such as the Mongol conquerors of the
Abbasid caliphate) were in fact unbelievers and that orthodox Muslims could conduct violent jihad against them. Bin Saud believed that
his campaign to restore a pristine Islam justified the conquest of the rest of Arabia.

In 1801, the Saudis attacked the Iraqi city of Kerbala and sacked the Shi'a shrine there. In 1803, Saudis conquered Mecca and Medina
and sacked or demolished various shrines and mosques. The Saudis held the two cities until 1817, until they were retaken by
Mohammed Ali Pasha, acting on behalf of the Ottomans. In 1818, the Ottoman forces invaded Najd, captured the Saudi capital of
Diriya and the Saudi emir Abdullah bin Saud. He and his chief lieutenants were taken to Istanbul and beheaded. However, this did not
destroy Wahhabism in Najd.

The House of Saud returned to power in the Second Saudi State in 1824. The state lasted until 1899, when it was overthrown by the
Emir of Hayel, Mohammed Ibn Rasheed. However, Abdul Aziz Ibn Saud reconquered Riyadh in 1902 and after a number of other
conquests, founded the modern Saudi state, Saudi Arabia in 1932.

Modern spread of Wahhabism

In 1924 the Wahhabi al-Saud dynasty, conquered Mecca and Medina, the Muslim holy cities. This gave them control of the Hajj, the
annual pilgrimage, and the opportunity to preach their version of Islam to the assembled pilgrims. However, Wahhabism was a minor
current within Islam until the discovery of oil in Arabia, in 1938. Vast oil revenues gave an immense impetus to the spread of
Wahhabism. Saudi laypeople, government officials and clerics have donated many tens of millions of dollars to create Wahhabi-oriented
religious schools, newspapers and outreach organizations.

Some Muslims believe that Saudi funding and Wahhabi proselytization have had a strong effect on world-wide Sunni Islam (they may
differ as to whether this is a good thing, or a bad one). Other Muslims say that while the Wahhabis have bought publicity and visibility, it
is not clear that they have convinced even a sizable minority of Muslims outside Saudi Arabia to adopt Wahhabi norms.

Monday, December 12, 2005

Waking up in a new world: Part V

Editor's note: I think we may run out of Roman numerals. Anyway, as another worker drone once said, I'm not even supposed to be here today. But here I am, and here is another post in the possibly never-ending series that could have been called: Why I (the writer) think the invasion of Iraq was a necessary and justifiable action. I have another title for it, but decorum prevents me from typing it out. And if you think this expanding table of contents is fun, I've got a few choice words for you too:

Part I, Part II, Part III, Part IV

Back to your regularly scheduled programming....

[Author's note: Perhaps this will help the editor]

Islamic Fundamentalism.

I know I promised Islamic Fundamentalism, but in order to cover the most extreme whacko parts, we need to learn something about Islam first.

Back in my younger days, I never thought much about Islam. not sure when exactly I first even heard of it. I do remember studying it somewhat in ninth grade social studies class. In the golden days of educational reform (the 1970's) the subjects of history, geography and civics were all jumbled together into one class called social studies. My teacher, Mr. Case, said we were going to spend a few weeks studying religion. Since we students were mostly Christian - if any religion - he said we'd skip over that and concentrate on Islam, Hindu and Buddhists. Made sense at the time. Since I don't remember anything I learned on the subject in that class, I assume it was pretty bland and uninformative.

Islam continued to bore me for years afterwards, and it wasn't until September 12, 2001 that I took a real hard look at it. To begin with, from newspaper and magazines articles. I bought a National Geographic book in the winter of 2002, "The World of Islam" which was a collection of articles published by the magazine over the last 100 years. I learned a good deal more about western civilization's bias' towards Islam than I learned about Islam itself. And I don't mean that sarcastically, the West had some pretty big stereotypes about Arabs. I've continued to read about it since. Sun Tzu, who wrote a masterpiece called "The Art Of War", which is still required reading at some military academies, once opined "know your enemy". I was determined to do just that.

Islam comes down from the Prophet Mohammed, who is said to be a direct descendent of the father of monotheism. Abraham is considered the father of three modern religions, Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Now I must say, there is interesting reading on Abraham in the book of Genesis. It's almost too funny. Can you imagine being a stable hand in Abe's house, when this crazed, old, 99 year old guy comes rushing into your room - brandishing a knife - and screaming God himself declared that Abe must circumcise every male in his house before dawn? I don't know about you, but I would be both skeptical and scared as all hell.

Abraham had a wife, Sarah, and a concubine,named Hagar. They both gave him sons. Sarah was the mother of Isaac, Hagar the mother of Ishmael. The Old Testament tells us that God told Abraham to take his son, climb a mountain, build an alter, and sacrifice his son as proof of his devotion to God. The Old Testament states that Abraham did just that, and at the moment he was about to slice his son's throat (an awful lot of that over in the Middle East, isn't there?), an angel stayed his hand. The son went down the mountain, never to return home, Abraham went back to Sarah. The story has an underlying parable about how when kids grow up, they really need to get the hell out of the house at some point. But on the subject at hand, what's important is which son was chosen to be sacrificed. Jews and Christians believe it was Sarah's son Isaac. Muslims believe it was the Hagar's son Ishmael.

Isaac descended the mountain and went on to father the twelve tribes of Israel (which is in fact, the name of one of the twelve tribes, the largest). Later, Joseph would lead them into Egypt, for what he thought was at the time, gainful employment, only to turn into slavery. Ishmael went on to father the tribes of Arabia. There's the kicker. Both Christianity/Jewish and Islam claim to be the rightful heirs of Abraham, and thereby the one true God. On a side note, the Hebrews languished in slavery till Moses came along and helped convince the Pharaoh that it wasn't such a cool idea. After parting the Red Sea, and hiking off to Mount Sinai where he received the 10 Commandments, Moses came down and found the tribes of Israel really partying it up - and not in a good way. Moses broke the stone tablets, condemning the non-believers to hell. I mention this because some Muslim scholars believe that even if Isaac was the chosen son, Hebrews gave up any claim to be the chosen people of God when they sinned in shadow of the mountain, in front of God.

After wondering around the desert for 40 years (geeze, can't anyone ask directions?) the Hebrews entered the "land of milk and honey", the chosen land, the land promised by God, the River Jordan valley. They promptly made war against the inhabitants, the tribes of Ishmael, and the two groups have been at each other's throats ever since. Some people think all this trouble with Israel and Palestinians can be solved with a few treaties and swapping some land around. History, good people, look to history!

This story has always made me wonder. It's apparent that all three religions have the same roots, they believe many of the same things, so why can't we all just get along? Islam venerates the Virgin Mary and believes Jesus was a prophet who just got carried away. Some times it's almost surreal. So close, yet so far apart.

Being a Roman Catholic, I know about the Latin Rite (Roman Catholic), and the Eastern Rite. I also know of the Greek Orthodox, Russian Orthodox, and Ukrainian Orthodox Churches, orthodox being the Greek word for "right-thinking." I couldn't even begin to list all the various flavors of Protestant religions. Lutheran, Methodist, Seventh Day Adventists, Pentecostals, Baptists, Evangelical, Church of Latter-Day Saints, those people who dance with rattlesnakes, and let's not forget every one's favorite, Jehovah Witnesses. (On a side note, I do enjoy when they come knocking on the door questioning if I go to church, and if so what scriptures were read, because I go to Church and I remember what I read. It leaves them speechless. And there's nothing like the sight of a Jehovah Witness, slack-jawed, stunned into silence. Not that there's anything wrong with being a Jehovah Witness.)

Since Christians can't seem to agree on the correct method of worship, it shouldn't come as a surprise that Islam also comes in various flavors. I believe the largest sect is Sunni, followed by Shiite.

When Mohammed finally expired, not surprisingly, there was a power struggle. One group of Muslims thought the companions of Mohammed knew him best, and therefore were most capable of continuing his teaching and work. Another group believed the position of leader of the religion should be hereditary, so there was a split. Imagine that, humans not agreeing on religion? The group that held the companions best capable eventually evolved into the Sunnas, which means "way" or "custom" as in the way of the prophet. Their chosen leader was referred to as the Caliphate (remember this word, we will come back to it), or "successor", as in successor to the prophet. The other sect evolved into the Shiite, which means Shia of Ali, or followers of Ali, the original, closest living relative of Mohammed at the time of his death.

So there was this uneasy state between the two groups, riled up by different interpretations of the Quran. Well it finally hit the rotating oscillator when the third Caliphate decided that Shiites were not true Muslims, but rather "kafirs" (nonbelievers, that category would include everyone on the planet who is not a Sunni) and needed to be dispatched (remember that too). A war erupted (I thought Islam was a religion of peace?) which climaxed with the death of the leaders of Shiites in Najaf. In modern Iraq, there is a huge Mosque in Najaf to memorialize the death of the leaders of Shiites, it's currently the Mosque of Grand Ayatollah Ali Hussein al-Sistani, considered the religious leader of the Iraqi Shiites. It was also the Mosque that Muqtada as-Sadar's army hid in when attacked by the US Marines a year or two ago. They hid behind their holy walls and dared the Marines to attack, hoping to ignite a civil war. Hiding in the sanctuary of a holy Mosque while taking pot shots at American soldiers. I'll save the righteous indignation for when we get to modern Iraq.

In case you might have missed it, Shiites show up at least once a year on the news, in a large procession, beating themselves with chains, whips, cutting themselves to draw blood. This is done during the festival to memorialize the Shiite deaths at the hands of the Sunnis. One of the few recorded incidents I've come across where Muslims did, in fact, fight to the death. Its considered one of, if not the, holiest aspect of Shiites. It may seem strange to me, but I can only imagine what Shiites think when my Church proclaims every Sunday that the Eucharist, is in fact, the "body and blood" of the Christ.

Under Saddam, the march was outlawed. Can't say as I blame him much. If I was the head of 20% of a nation oppressing 60% of the population, I wouldn't want to see them all armed and working themselves into a bloody hysteria.

Next, Wahhabism.

Saturday, December 10, 2005

Waking up in a new world: Part IV

Editor's note: Don't be one of those people who reads the last page of a book first:
Part I then Part II then Part III then this one, in that order, thank you very much.
Once again, I must apologize for the lack of links and the unedited post. I'm on vacation, dammit!

Weapons of Mass Destruction.

Kind of strange term if you think about it. As compared to what, weapons of minimum destruction? I don't remember exactly when it entered the popular lexicon, but it basically covers weapons that can kill vast numbers of people, with a minimal amount of effort or cost. Probably the first WMD's were the atom bombs dropped by the US on Japan. I still have debates about whether or not that was a necessary evil, or war crime. I'm of the persuasion that it saved the lives of some 3,000,000 American soldiers. Judging by Japan's history of refusing to surrender, and refusal to surrender in battles leading up to the bombings, I see no indication they would not fight to the death for their homeland.

Since that time, weapons that have been called WMDs tend to be of the flavor of nuclear, chemical or biological warheads, easily dispersed with the push of a button. Nukes blow up, big time, and cause the rubble to be radioactive. Chemical weapons usually kill you by searing any number of different parts of the human body, lungs, central nervous system, burn the skin off your body, etc. Biological weapons are usually diseases, viruses, or another type of agent found in nature that can be easily controlled by the attacker but not those on the receiving end. For example, one side has a vaccination for a disease the other side lacks.

Saddam had these weapons. I know it for a fact. I have seen the pictures on the news of the Iranian veterans with their broken and burned bodies. I've seen footage of the dead Kurds and Shiites from the 1991 uprising. They existed, guaranteed 100% true. I watched Dan Rather on the CBS Evening News, reporting from a WMD warehouse in Iraq, interviewing Scott Ridder, then head of the UN inspection team. He was explaining to Rather why it was taking so long to dispose of all those weapons. Its because there were so many of them. The warehouse was huge, packed to the rafters. The weapons were found, stored, cataloged, and the destruction process was taking place. See, with WMDs, you can't just throw them into the garbage, or burry them in a land fill. They need to be handled very carefully, and the process was taking place.

But it wasn't over. As the memory of the first Gulf War faded from American pop culture, so did news on the progress of the destruction. Scott Ridder was constantly arguing to the American press that President Clinton was not giving the inspectors the backing they needed to complete the mission. The fewer people paid attention, the bolder Saddam got. Finally, the team had had enough and they pulled out, leaving behind some 20,000+ tons of the stuff that had not yet been destroyed. That's not even counting any that hadn't been found yet, or any news ones that might have been produced in clandestine operations.

By the time the UN pulled inspectors out of Iraq for good on December 16, 1998 the inspectors had discovered and destroyed some 38,000 chemical weapons, 480,000 liters of live chemical weapons, 48 missiles and 817 of 819 Russian supplied long range missiles. Also tons and tons of gear used in making, weponizing and launching them. The secret chemical weapon plant at al-Hakim had produced 500,000 liters of biological agents alone, which means there was at a minimum 20,000 liters floating around Iraq.

(gift to editor: http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200401/pollack )

In the run up to the second Gulf War, Scott Ridder campaigned relentlessly to halt the invasion. Being one of the UN inspectors, he knew what was found and still floating around. He knew the capabilities of Iraq. He knew the efforts to which Iraq went to keep their WMD operation active. He knew there were weapons, because he saw them.

There is no doubt that no conclusive WMD evidence has been found since the fall of Saddam. Now one person might be able to deduce that there were no WMDs. From there its only a small stretch to say there never were. But its a lie, Saddam had them, Saddam used them, the UN had found many of them. The weapons existed. The question to me, is not did they exist, but where are they now?

Let's play a little game I like to use as a debating tool. Its called "what is more likely", shall we? When the US began occupying Iraq, the push was on to find the weapons and neutralize them as soon as possible. Our ever lovable CBS Evening News was back on the scene. They were interviewing one of the top scientists from Saddam's WMD program. The Dr., a woman, stated all those weapons left over by the UN had been destroyed years ago. Perish the thought, they were destroyed so long ago, she couldn't even remember when.

What makes more sense:
A) Saddam, out of the goodness of his own heart, and his compassion for humanity, destroyed all those evil weapons, but didn't want to bother the UN, so he kept the destruction quiet, and continued to suffer under the crippling restrictions of UN sanctions.

or:
B) Saddam kept his weapons, moved them underground, continued to make them as best he could under UN sanctions. When it became obvious that the US was preparing for war a second time (it took about 14 months just to get the US Army in position for the invasion), he either hid them in Iraq, sent them to allies abroad, or both.

Ted Kennedy, John Kerry and Howard Dean tend to agree with option A. My money is on option B.

Now about Islamic Fundamentalism.

Wednesday, December 07, 2005

Waking up in a new world: Part III

Editor's note: Notice that 'Part III' above? Good. Make sure you read parts I and II first. The writer is in a frenzy, churning out this magnum opus at a breathtaking pace. I'd like to take some credit for that as I frequently challenge his defense of the Iraq invasion, thus leading him to formalize his understanding of Middle East history and how he came to form his beliefs with regard to Iraq. Unfortunately I feel hoisted by my own petard, as I can no longer keep up with his Faulknerian output. Specifically, it takes some time, dear reader, to come up with relevant/interesting/funny/smart links to enhance these blog entries. Add to that the fact that I have a real job and can only work on this when I get a break, and you can see how three long posts in as many days (with another one at least on its way) can break the camel's back. I will leave unasked the question of how the writer finds the time to write all these posts. In any case, this excuse is meant to explain the lack of links and the more 'raw' look to this post. I realize now I could have probably found more than a few good links to use in the post below in the time it has taken to write this disclaimer. Oh well. If the writer promises to slow down after this extended essay, I promise to add in links later on.

Saddam after the First Gulf War.

When America finished winning one of the most incredible victories in history, forcing Saddam and Iraq to flee Kuwait in hours, everything was coming up roses for the US. Most of the troops were coming home alive and in one piece. The world-wide coalition held. President Bush was seen as a leader for a new world and a new age. Accolades were every where. Troops were marching in parades around the country. In Washington DC, injured troops were fighting the top brass for the right to march in uniform, rather than the traditional pajamas. America was on top, living large and in charge. The New World Order was in place and working. The rest of the world, led by America - always the reluctant hero - would see that no dictator could ever wage unjust war against a smaller nation again. Flowers, candy, fireworks, happy days were indeed here again.

But not in Iraq.

Iraq had accepted the terms for surrender. They included UN Resolution 687 which stated Saddam would prove to the world that all his weapons of mass destruction would be destroyed. The UN formed a group of inspectors, lead by the United States, to verify compliance. President George H. W. Bush encouraged the people of Iraq to rise up against Saddam, throw him out, and become a member of the international community. And they tried. 21 out of 23 Iraqi provinces took up arms and started open rebellion. Saddam's army was beaten, humiliated, depleted, but not finished. Saddam may have professed that he expected to win the war against the US, but his actions say otherwise. His most fearsome forces, the Republican Guard, had never participated in the battle. I guess he figured it the war actually did come, he would loose, and he would need those troops to maintain control of his state. They were ready for battle. And battle they did. Estimates range up to 300,000 dead Shiites and Kurds, who heeded the great President Bush's encouragement to rebel. Bush - henceforth known by me as 'Bush the coward' - did nothing.

Saddam unleashed his Guards, and they slaughtered the ill-equipped, under-trained, out-matched and out-numbered rebels. And his fury was great. His Air Force strafed villages, his troops slaughtered civilians, and once again, he used chemical and biological weapons that are now said to never have existed. Ask the few lucky Iraqis who managed to get far enough away to only be scared for life by their use. It happened. Pictures of the massacres flooded the air waves. Tales of torture, slaughter, death and destruction were every where. The world was out raged. And with good reason too. Apparently, what ever terms the 'world-wide coalition' offered Saddam, failed to include that he could not slaughter a significant portion of his countries population.

The world wide outrage was so great that Bush the Coward decreed that Saddam's air force could not fly. The Iraqis countered that government officials needed air travel to get around the country and see where all these outrageous lies were coming from. Bush backed off and said no flying in the northern part of Iraq (Kurds) or the southern part (Shiites), but helicopters could fly in those regions. Now granted, Bush the Coward is from the WWII era, pre-helicopter, but you would think being head of the CIA, he would have known about helicopter gunships. Apparently not. The carnage continued.

After a while, the wild fire of war died down a bit, but it did not go out. The world moved on to other stories, other issues, other parties, things to occupy our attention. But the killing never stopped. How many people reading this know that the United States has controlled the northern and southern no fly zones since the first Gulf War? We've had troops fighting in Iraq, every day, since 1991. And to their credit, they've never lost a single flight. Every one of those soldiers came home alive. Though I doubt Iraq could make the same claim.

With the official end of the first Gulf War came other messy situations for Iraq. I don't know much about Arab culture, having never experienced it. But from what I have read, the second most humiliating thing you can do to an Arab is to defeat him. The most embarrassing thing you can do is to rub his face in it. One of the terms of surrender Saddam agreed to was to prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, before the entire world, that he would destroy all his weapons of mass destruction, he would destroy all means of producing them, and the United Nations would have inspectors verifying it. If that wasn't enough, Saddam would be forced to put into place a system proving that nothing anyone in Iraq did could possibly be confused with the planning, creation, storage or use of WMDs. Them's some tough pills to swallow. Seen on world wide media, Saddam and Iraq would have to take orders from a relatively small UN team of weapons inspectors (I don't know, 15 maybe 20). It's really tough to march at the head of the Annual Gulf War Victory Parade in Baghdad when Scott Ridder's on the phone saying "Yo, we want to see your dairy plant in Najaf, and we want to see it now."

Suffice to say, there was no love lost between Saddam and the UN weapons inspectors. On the day they arrived for their first inspection, they were greeted by Iraqi soldiers shooting weapons over their heads. In order to maintain his illusion of superiority, Saddam had to both scoff at the UN, and abide by them. Let's just say cooperation between the two parties was questionable at best. As I remember they reached a couple of points where inspectors were pulled because of lack of cooperation. There were threats to pull the inspectors. There was much wailing and gnashing of teeth. And there was also the real destruction of real weapons of mass destruction that Saddam actually had, and had used.

Another part of the terms of surrender stated that until Saddam bent over and took it up the butt from the UN, on world wide TV, Iraq was restricted by severe import/export restrictions, more affectionately known as "sanctions." Not really much of a problem if you're a dictator leading 20% of the population that is brutally repressing the other 80%, but it did put a crimp in his style. Fortunately, the majority of the nations that are members of the United Nations, think and act like he does. Grease a few palms here, slide some oil credits there, things get done.

Now about those weapons.

Tuesday, December 06, 2005

Waking up in a new world: Part II

Editor's note: If you haven't already, please check part one.

Saddam Hussein.

The sight of Saddam, bellowing, yelling and screaming on trial in Iraq, is quite different than it was on September 12, 2001. Now, all vestiges of his power are gone. Guns that would have been pointed at his enemies, are now pointed at him. How the mighty have fallen.

Back during World War I (or what was ironically referred to at the time as the 'War To End All Wars'), a huge chunk of the modern Middle East was ruled by what was called the Ottoman Empire, or more specifically, the ancestors of modern Turkey. The Ottoman Turks sided with Germany in WWI, which turned out to be not such a great idea. The ancient, grand, Ottoman Empire - the "sick man of Europe", the Muslim world, which in the past had nearly conquered Vienna and Spain, surrendered to the victors. Their punishment for this umbrage was to have their nation cut up and ruled by foreign powers, namely France and Britain. The national boundaries of these new nations were obviously set in order to prevent the citizens from gathering enough power to challenge their new rulers. Hence why you see Kurds in both Turkey and northern Iraq, neither population large enough to gain independence. Shiites spread between Iraq and Iran. Arabs in the Persian Gulf and Baghdad. These new countries were called "protectorates." As if, they needed the French and the English to protect them from danger. Its been said that you can tell which countries were under French control and which ones were under English control. The French, being a republic, set up presidencies, the English, being a constitutional monarchy, installed royal families. Revolutions, military coups and what have you have muddied this practice, but its still interesting. Saudi royal family? English. President of Syria? France.

America's first foray into Middle Eastern politics, as near as I can tell, was the CIA engineering the overthrow of a democratically elected* president in Iran and installing the Shah, some time in the 1950's, I believe. So Iran has never had any love lost for America. When their blood finally boiled and the Shah was overthrown, it was no surprise to see anti-Americanism flowing forth like a river. It culminated in the raiding and occupation of the US Embassy in Teheran.

I mention this because this is where Saddam enters the picture. Saddam, the bloodthirsty strongman who'd murdered his way to the top of the Baathist party, and then to the top of Iraq itself, had visions of greatness. He intended to preside over the greatest country in the Middle East. His vision was for a 'Greater Iraq' consisting of Iraq proper, Jordan, Kuwait, and a large chunk of western Iran. One of the things I like best about American foreign policy is our leaders always have such a long range view, and thereby minimize any problems occurring from their policy. I'm kidding of course [Editor's note: He had me worried for a moment]. American politicians never look further than the next election or the next poll. Saddam wanted part of Iran, and he was willing to kill millions to get it. Americans didn't appreciate Iran, and who can really blame them after the Embassy episode? The enemy of my enemy is my friend. Yeah right. Saddam and America had become allies.

That war raged for eight years. When the killing was done, I believe 1,500,000 humans died. Some 10,000 from Saddam's use of chemical weapons. They existed. He had them. He used them. While there is no readily available evidence, I find it hard to believe Saddam acquired these weapons without the US' blessing. The important point here is, Saddam had WMDs, and he used them. I don't care what anyone says, he had them, he used them.

Following the Iran - Iraq war, Saddam's army was badly beaten, greatly reduced, and his treasure vaults depleted. He needed cash, and he needed it quick. And there's poor little Kuwait, sitting on all those gold bars from oil revenue. Now, to be fair, Saddam and Iraq have always considered Kuwait to be part of Iraq proper. And with good reason; it was, until the British decided they didn't want Iraq to have that much access to the gulf and cut it off, establishing a new royal family.

Here's where it gets tricky. Saddam's government made general overtures to the staff at the US Embassy as to whether or not Washington would have any problems with an invasion into Kuwait. The US Embassy staff* was either drunk or not paying attention, because they did not reply that it would be unacceptable, which Saddam took to mean 'go get 'em boys!' And Saddam plunged the Middle East and Iraq into his second war. There was one small problem though. The Iron Lady.

(* I would like to point out that one of the Sr. staff members at the US' Iraq Embassy, during this time, was none other than the left's current favorite playboy Joe Wilson. Its been said that George H. W. Bush referred to Wilson as "truly inspiring" and "courageous." From what I see, its nothing more than both trying to cover their respective asses for dropping the ball on Saddam's overture before the invasion. Neither of them look particularly respectable on this point.)

Margaret Thatcher, the Prime Minister of Great Britain, took notice of the invasion, and was not pleased. She believed it was the foreshadowing of dark times, one country, ruled by an insane despot, controlling not only the world's oil supply, but also the trillions in wealth accumulated from that sale. She moved into action. She immediately denounced the invasion, demanded the Saddam retreat, and then set off on a world tour to promote her calls. Many people mistakenly believe George H. W. Bush was the force behind the first Gulf War, but no, it was Thatcher.

Maggie even traveled to the US to bend Bush the elder's ear. During a conference in Colorado, Bush met Thatcher and she urged him "not to go wobbly" with regard to consideration of using force to repel Saddam. Before his meeting with her, Bush's position was the invasion was terrible, Iraq should restore the Kuwaiti royal family, but other than that, there were a few rounds of golf to be played. Afterwards, they held a joint press conference, demanding the complete and immediate withdrawal of all forces from Iraq, and pledging to take this cause to every nation in the world.

And Bush the Elder did lead that charge, side by side with Maggie. They went to the UN, they got their world wide coalition. They got money, troops, logistics support, France even sent an air craft carrier - which broke down half way there and had to head back to port. Feel free to insert favorite French joke here. And so it would appear the world was united against Saddam. But things aren't always as they seem.

True there were many nations in the world-wide coalition. But its also true most did nothing. There's an old saying that nothing attracts followers like success. And with America and Britain on the move, every country wanted in on the deal. The various countries of the Middle East (Saudi Arabia, Jordan) were rightly scared shitless of Saddam and his army. They paid through the nose for the US to come and slap him down. Most other countries either coughed up cash, or sent token troops, a dozen here, a dozen there. Czechoslovakia sent a team of highly trained chemical weapon specialists. But, by and large, it was American soldiers and American muscle that bore the brunt of the war. One important thing to note at this point, Bush got his UN resolution backing his use of force. But that resolution only extended to the removal of Iraqi troops from Kuwait. It said nothing about the US moving into Iraq itself.

With all the bravado of despot, Saddam brazenly declared he would destroy America's army, he would destroy America, and he would rule the Middle East. Anyone remember the "Mother of All Battles"? Then the battles started, and almost before it began, it was over. Kuwait was burning from oil well fires, the nation in ruins. And Saddam's army in tatters, on the highway of death.

There's one main highway running between Kuwait City and Baghdad. A nice, straight line. That was the road the Iraqi army chose to use as it ran back towards Baghdad. A video game couldn't have set up the targets any better. The US Air Force spent a day or two on strafing runs. I believe the casualties numbered well over 100,000. Then-General Colin Powell, a lifelong military man, couldn't even stomach the carnage and called it off.

Before the war had ended though, Saddam had launched his Scud missiles at Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Israel. Every one of them feared to contained the chemical and biological weapons that Saddam possessed, and had used during the Iraq - Iran war. Fortunately, the fears were not realized. Editor's note: Perhaps...

And I remember seeing the Iraqi General bowing as low as he could while remaining on his feet, as he offered an unconditional surrender to General Stormin' Norman Schwartzkopf.

It appeared the US had finally finished their bloody relationship with Saddam. But it was not so.

* - Editor's note: The author later felt it important to note that although democratically elected, the government was Soviet-friendly. He said this was important to add to make clear that the CIA was following Cold War policy. I personally don't see why that matters. A free society should not be engaging in such action. However, he is the writer, so I am presenting the addendum as requested.
Author's note: What the editor must not be able to see, is that by pointing out the CIA toppled a Soviet-leaning, democratically elected Iranian president, it re-enforces the author's earlier point about the myopic view of US foreign policy. The CIA apparently wasn't overly concerned about the long term effects of the operation in the middle east, and instead concentrated only on the short term gains in the Cold War.
Editor's note: Fine.